I agree with most of Mr. Butler's article. The point is that religious ideas should be allowed to compete freely "in the market place". If anyone makes an outrageous or misleading statement, it can be challenged, and the speaker will have to "put up or shut up:. That's the Australian way, Not sending spies to take notebooks or concealed tape recorders, and then complaining to the State Government. The Christians [especially the Catholics] have been criticised, abused and generally hammered at every opportunity for the last several years. They don't run whining to the Government like a pack of wimps.

If people believe in their Faith, whatever it is, they should have the guts to defend and justify it in the public arena. This Law is un-Australian and makes hypocrites of the Labor Party who used to proclaim" I disagree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it." [Voltaire]

I agree with Amir Butler's sentiments. He is quite mistaken on one point, though. When he asserts that "Catch the Fire Ministries ... were able to state in public their view tha Muslims were planning to rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia" this was only even an imputation placed on what Catch the Fire had said by representatives of the Islamic Council of Victoria. I have read the offending materials, and this was not something they said.

In Daniel Scot's seminar there was a reference to rape but it was about Christians raping others (Scot didn't think this was a Good Thing).

How can we know the truth? Being able to debate freely would be a good start, as Butler says. Good on ya Amir.

Again I challege you to show us the law that gave us the right to free speech.
Big Al 30 brings up the Catholics and " Un-Australian acts get real Al.

Kenny, I can't show you the Law which guarantees "free speech" because it's an unwritten Law which makes Democracy so precious. It's an "understood thing" that people can speak their minds, and we should appreciate it and jealously guard it. We inherited it from English Common Law practice of 200 years ago.

So far as Christians [especially Catholics] being criticised and generally dumped on, I stand by what I said. We've taken a hell of a lot and survived. Other religions should be able to take criticism too without wimping.

How is your freedom of speech taken away - or, for that matter, given?

We are all free to say and do what we like. We are innately free. It is our intuitive sense that conformity is in some way important, that leads us to believe otherwise. Claiming that legislation (or anything similar) is stopping us, is rooted in a personal frustration that someone else (eg government) is looking to take advantage of our wish to belong to the collective.

The real issue for discussion is: what consequences should be imposed on the individual for doing, saying, or writing X, Y and Z? Such outcomes may include measures designed to restrain or deny freedom (eg locking you up in gaol), but this still does not take it away.

Kenny, you said many of the terror groups listed on the UN website are Christian. Really? Which ones? I couldn't actually find a list on the UN website but I did find various lists on the US, UK and Australian govt sites. Almost all of them were Islamic groups and none of them were Christian groups. BTW, the IRA is not a Christian group - they are political revolutionists.

In any case, you missed the point of what I was saying. What is hate speech? How does one define it? And why are we so preoccupied with hate speech instead of hate crimes - like the bunch of Islamic young men in Western Sydney who deliberately singled out white girls and raped them?

As far as freedom of speech goes, you claim that we do not have it and in fact never had it. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Given that laws are generally negative ie. they forbid particular conduct (eg. criminal and tort law etc) or regulate particular conduct (eg. contract law, IR law etc), you will need to show us how freedom of speech has been curtailed in our law (apart from the recently enacted RRT law, of course). Since you are the one making the claim you bear the burden of proof. Good luck. Free speech is a reasonable assumption and indeed, it is mentioned explicitly in the Preamble to the UN declaration of human rights, of which Australia is a signatory: "...the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people."

AK