Dear Amir Butler, could you please explain to me what "hate speech" entails? Is it the sort of speech that attacks or is condescending toward another group? If so, then I suppose this is hate speech: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them" - Qur'an 4:34. Or perhaps this: "'You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.' The women asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?' He said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence." - Hadith Muhammad v8, Bk 82, No. 794?

Or perhaps it is simply disagreeing with some other group, or denying their truth claims? Is that what hate speech is Mr Butler? If so, then aren't all Muslims also guilty of hate speech since they deny Christianity's (and atheists!) truth claims?

But what I find the most puzzling, Mr Butler, is why Muslims think hate speech is so evil but don't have a problem with what I call "hate actions". Hate actions, Mr Butler, are those actions where a person so dispises another's point of view and beliefs that they decide to murder or cause grievous bodily harm to that person. For example, Muslim "hate actors" murdered Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn and film-maker Theo van Gogh because they criticised aspects of Islam. Muslim "hate actors" flew planes into buildings on 9/11 and other were cheering in the streets when they heard what happened. In fact, Muslim "hate actors" are running around in Iraq at the moment killing Iraqis. In this respect, I would suggest that the two "Catch the Fire Ministries" pastors got off lightly. They are probably lucky to be alive.

You see, Mr Butler, hate speech is a non-issue. The real problem is hate actions. Please tell us what should be done about "hate actions"? How do we stop all these hate actions which seem to be always committed in the name of Islam and never in the name of Christ.

BTW, the more I learn about Islam and its teachings the more I am puzzled. Knowing what Islam is and what it teaches doesn't make me hate Muslims or ridicule them. Rather, it makes me pity them. Why would anyone - especially women - want to voluntarily convert to Islam? I don't hate - I just don't understand.

AK

It would seem that the author of the article and some of those who posted comments (a) were not present at the seminar, most of us were not present, BUT (b) did not have the decrency to read the details of what was ACTUALLY said by the Catch the Fire speakers. They did not express hatred of Muslims, no mention was made of rape and the other things expressed by one contributor.

As Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald Sun noted, eight of the 13 reasons the judge listed in his summary of why he found the two pastors guilty of vilifying Muslims are actually quotes from the Qu'ran. In fact at one point in the hearing Daniel Scot was asked to justify his statement that the Qu'ran is harsh to women.As he did he was accused of further vilifying Islam with quotes from the Qu'ran!! He was ordered to refrain from quoting the Qu'ran in his response to avoid further vilification of Islam!!

Perhaps it is not the Law that is the ass,but the one who is supposed to represent it. Like many other things that we took for granted in this "land of the free", Freedom of Speech is another of the casualties of our politically correct society. Politically correct so far as the majority of citizens are concerned, but the minority groups, whether it be the gay lobby, the militant Islams or any one of a number of other groups are free to push their agendas, no matter how abhorrent they may be to the average citizen. Fairgo.

My apologies. It was not one of the contributors, but Amir Butler who wrote the nonsense about the Catch the Fire Ministries promoting rape, killing of Christians etc. Fairgo

"it is imperative to our pluralist society that all religions be able to compete freely in the marketplace of ideas"

Absolutely, and that's what anti-vilification laws enable.

It's a nice analogy - the marketplace - but any honest economist will tell you that there is no such thing as a 'free market', it's just a utopia. State intervention is needed to maintain a semblance of competition and to prevent monopolies, oligopolies and abuses of market power occurring.

"Advocates of such a view would have us believe that if people are simply not allowed to speak hatefully, the hatred that underpins their speech will somehow evaporate and we can all welcome a new era of tolerance and understanding."

This is really a misrepresentation - beneficial to your argument, but not the discussion. If people are not allowed to spread hatred (ideas of hatred) through hate speech in public places, then obviously less people will have been exposed to hatred and have it in their hearts. No one can stop hatred at its roots (actually we can, but that's another topic), but we can stop it from spreading. This is exactly the point of anti-vilification laws.

I suggest everyone read Gary Bouma's article on this same topic.

Mr Butler goes to on to make a number of misrepresentations of others' points of view on this topic and I won't deal with them all.

"social pressure is a far more effective mechanism for controlling such speech than law suits"

Is not possible that the law is the reflection of societal expectations of morality and indeed that it acts a form of social pressure?

I say yes, you seem to think it is remotely detached. If I wanted to run naked through city hall, I think the law would deter me - pressure me not to. Where do laws come from? Society. What is society? People and their interactions.

...... the whole article just has too many misrepresentations and strawman arguments for me to waste anymore time on. Ta ta.

Hate speech is so common and yet some like Amir and JoJo suggest that only their 'extremist' opponents are guilty of it. Fact is our politicians, academics, media and even within our social and family situations hate-speech enters debate.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation was a victim of excessive hate-speech. The loony-left in particular was leading the charge with it's lies, beating up elderly attendees at One Nation meetings and other attacks, including death threats etc. Personally I think fair debate could have avoided these 'hate actions'. Instead the one-sided hate-fest 'debate' seemed to spur the extremist Left to some violence.

One of the problems here is most of you are uninformed about theses issue, but it doesn't seem to stop you from ranting anyway. Aslan you said “How do we stop all these hate actions which seem to be always committed in the name of Islam and never in the name of Christ.” What a load of rubbish. Have a look at the UN web site for terror groups. They are many groups who are Christians and other religions our history is full of terror acts by Christians. I don’t remember the IRA being run by Muslims to name just one, was that timmy guy in the US a member of a right wing Christian militia.

I’ll say it again for all of you because you don’t seem to get it we have never had freedom of speech/expression in this country and nor should we. You guys can’t see pass your noses you quite happy with these laws when they protect you and they are evil when they protect someone you don’t like. The only western country anything close to free speech is the US, have a look at the number of hate crimes that happen over there do you want to emulate that? What not just move there! Fairgo I think that’s nothings further from your mind.

Good comment’s Paul82 but I think Gary’s piece would wash over most of these people.