Here we go again! The link you provide has his honor make 11 points of reference to his judgment why not address them all?
I also wonder why you have not mentioned that you were to be a "Expert Witness" for the defense?
In the end I see this as a stupid argument between two groups living in larlar land. There is no god(s).

kenny: You say the witnesses do not know what they spoke on, yet you without any qualifications call religion, especially Christianity a lot of rubbish. An expert on religion are you??? Regards, Robert

To assert that a Muslim cleric is better qualified than others to expound a passage within the Quran seems uncontroversial. But to prohibit a non-muslim quoting out-of-context from the Quran denies the fact that it is a public document.

Let's be consistent here. Why not haul up the translators and printers of the Quran before VCAT on the same grounds as the two Dannys?

We should haul up anyone who quotes out-of-context from the Bible: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". A bit of consistency!

Good point RaZ. This hearing was a travesty, and this matter must be appealed to the High Court if necessary.

Well Said Mark !!
but this is just one factor in the blessing the case has become to the Church.. New years eve, after the finding of 'guilty' was handed down and the full transcript of the judgement was released, I was at a meeting at Crossway, where Danny Naliah spoke. There were a couple of thousand passionate, victorious, beaming and glowing brothers and sisters, who I'm sure would each have been ready to give their lives for Christ ! Itw as ELECTRIFYING !! Danny was so filled and annointed, and the various other participants from different denominations were all 'as one' together in the Lord.

In our own fellowship, changes have been seen. Instead of having the 'faithful few' at the prayer meeting, we had over 20 people from geyser age to teens all gathering for training in evangelism !!

Mark, u may have seen the atrociously innacurate article posted here from Gary Bouma, the witness FOR the ICV and when I read that "Neither Jesus nor mohammed" engaged in mission in an aggressive, etc etc way"... I believe such naive and uninformed statements cast his qualification for lecturing at a major University in serious question.

The technical points you raised are pivotal, without question. And I'm sure that in Caligula's time, a lot of us were thrown to be 'lion meat' for public entertainment because of 'stories' going around about us. (Kenny.. was that YOU I saw cheering the lions which came up to rip me to pieces??? ).

Oh..kenny.. u will come, u will go, but the Lord.. He is forever :)

Kenny..
here is a link which would shed some light on the 'real' factors shaping the middle east.. have a browse mate.

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher041102.asp

This whole debate about freedom of speech and religious expression is frought with legal and social difficulties.

Ultimately, each case can only be tested on its merits, despite the want or need for a consistent overarching set of rules/measures.

Having said that, this case nonethless raises a number of serious concerns, which have been well canvassed in other fora.

Roberto

Kenny's comment about two groups with their idiotic views, living in larlar land is as good an example of incitement of serious contempt on the grounds of people's religious views as you will find. Shame upon you Kenny: such bevaviour is illegal in this state!

Kenny does ask one good question though - the judge raises 11 points: what about the others? In fact the whole list is problematic. They include several errors, and a number are quotes from the Qur'an or the hadiths, a fact which His Honour does not report to his readers.

I do not defend everything Scot and Nalliah said. My point is that the ruling has severe problems.

As for my testimony at the hearing, it is in the public domain, and can be accessed at:

http://www.acl.org.au/pdfs/load_pdf_public.pdf?pdf_id=227

Mark Durie

Spot on Mark!

I was there for most of the hearing. I think Judge Higgins was way over the top in his judgement and that the worst villification was Higgins villification of Daniel Scot. Can you sue a Judge for libel if a judgement is demonstrably wrong?

Higgins comments on perceiving a deceitful demeanour in Scot - and judged accordingly. I judged that Higgins often looked embarrassed as if he wished it would all go away! So should I judge that he just wanted to make a hard judgement to knock it all on the head? But that is not a fair judgement - is it? The reader is free to judge which judge's judgement is judged in whatever way their conscience judges.

Whatever the thinking behind the Higgins judgement, it's clear to me that an appeal is necessary and that the Bracks government should pay for it. But perhaps the cheapest and best solution for religious tolerance (ironic that!) is for the BRACKs Government to totally scrap this lousy law and refund expenses to the two Danniels and Co.

Dear Kenny,
you are the one in la-la land. Get a life mate! Jesus is the only way. Why bother to rant against gods if you have faith that they don't exist? Stick to facts and logic rather than trying to ridicule Christian and Muslims (that's religious villification mate!) Hopefully the proposed new site rules will cramp you style a bit. But then I like challenging you that it is more logical to believe in a god than it is to believe the la-la nonsense that nothing turned into everything for no reason - and became alive - against all the known laws of experimental science. You still haven't answered that.

But I digress. Anwering all of Higgins judgement-points is unnecessary once Higgins key finding, that exemption does not apply, is exposed as false.

And yes Kenny, Mark '(was) to be a "Expert Witness" for the defense' in the case. I guarantee that Mark would run rings around Prof. Baumer in knowledge of the Bible or of the Koran and the Hadiths.

The whole point of this judgement is it illustrates the horror which is produced by censorship legislation.

This case is about one parties objections to another parties subjective opinions.

The fault lies not with the judge for interpreting the law - I guess that is his job

The fault lies with the mindset of the control freaks who enacted this rubbish - (No cigars for guessing who I am talking about).

The line of "legal intervention" should never be the point of opinion or point of vilification but the point of incitement to action. Where mere expression turns to action we cross a line.
I do not share or care for the views of the religiously inspired of any creed or denomination.
I do not believe I should, because of my views, deny the religously motivated their own beliefs.
I do sincerely believe a fool is best promoted and revealed by his own expressions and stupidity rather than appear martyred by social repression.
The Victorian State anti-vilification legisation is a Law of Repression. I trust everyone will remember who enacted it and vote accordingly at the next state election (hint - the same fellows who brought us the Scoresby "freeway" with "tolls")

What I found most disturbing about the Judges decision was that at the beginning he clearly outlined that the relevant points in the legistlation were meant to be 'interpreted very broadly' yet by the end he is interpreting them in the narrowest and most pedantically possible way !

Col, the Jewish Lobby and Bracks along with the ICV were all linked to that most flawed legislation, but some background here.. the Jewish mob were mainly targeting the Citizens Electoral Council with this, because there is quite an on going feud between them.

MARK.. as for Kenny.. he is our resident pet bigot :) albeit secular one. Without Kenny none of us would look good :)

No offence Kenny....

and have u listened to "Would Jesus drive a BMW" yet mate ? I'd value your feedback. After all, I read your reference to super string theory.

This is history and writings from the koran: Quote:" The rights of non-moslems living in islamic countries are protected so long as they follow the rules and regulations" What are some of these'rules & regulations' "The subject peoples" according to a manual of islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University of Cairo must " pay the non-moslem poll tax (jizya)" and "are distinguished from moslems in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with 'as-salamu' [the traditional moslem greeting, peace with you]; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the moslems buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork... recite the Torah or evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; are forbidden to build new Churches" ('Umdat al-Salik, oll.3,5).
The moslem reign in islamic Spain has been called the golden age of islam. Yet; Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by arab tribes...Massive berber and arab immigration and colonisation of the Iberian Peninsula followed this conquest. Most Churches were converted to mosques... with massive pillages, enslavements, deportations and killings. Toledo was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. ...etc, etc. There is a lot more. Now some will see me as an anti-moslem bigot but I am not. Nor am I blind to what may happen if and WHEN the moslems are in charge.I am Christian and have faith in Christ who does win in the end, how do I know I have read the end of the book (Bible) Regards, numbat

NUMBAT
so true.. and only the half has been told.
Do u have a source for that information bro ? I'm always interested in reading up on such things.
They (Muslims) often say the Jizya was very small, less even thant their own obligatory zakat for the poor, but the Jews of Khaibar had to work just as hard as before they were conquered, but now had to give up ownership of their land, and pay FIFTY PERCENT of all they produced to the new Islamic state. So it appears that the Jizya is rather 'circumstantial' and flexible. Or perhaps that 50% was purely to punish them for not being Muslims. No matter which way you cut the cake it was no picnic.
The things u mentioned sounded very much like what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany having to wear distinctive clothing.

I agree with Col that the Victorian Anti-vilification law is a law of repression. We have digressed from Mark's comments about the judgment, but the purpose of the law needs to be examined. It has been used in this case (I suppose a deliberate test case) to impose a considerable financial burden on the defendants. As I understand the legislation, it has been drafted in such a way that a plaintiff can claim anonymously to be offended, and the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove that they have not caused offence. It seems clear that the law can be, and in fact is being, used to penalise the defendants financially to inhibit discussion. It is clear that the Islamic Council of Victoria don't want Australians to know the real motivations and intentions of the moslem community in Australia.

BOAZ_David: I am not a computer wizz but I'll try to give you what I can find.
1. "A Wahhabism Problem" by Andrew G. Bostom found in 'National Review Online' (http://www.nationalreview.com)December 6 2002
2. 'Getting to Know the Suffis' From the February 7 2005 issue:There is a tolerant, pluralist tradition in islam. We can't afford to ignore it. by Stephen Schwartz. 02/07/2005 Volume 010, Issue 20
3. 'Confused Islamic Apologetics' By Andrew G. Bostom. Front Page Magazine.com August 10, 2004
4. The Ayatollahs'Final Solution? By Andrew G. Bostom. Front Page Magazine.com
5. Arab News: "With Islam We Fight Terrorism"
Hope this helps, Regards, numbat

Numbat...
u don't need to be a computer wizz :) u did very well.
thanx

David "Col, the Jewish Lobby and Bracks along with the ICV were all linked to that most flawed legislation, but some background here.. the Jewish mob were mainly targeting the Citizens Electoral Council with this, because there is quite an on going feud between them. "

I know the Jewish lobby have been most active in the past - I recall demands to ban David Irving (the English idiot who denied the holocaust) and whilst I have no support for Irving's insane views I still defend his right to express them - and everyone elses right to challenge them with reason and argument.

As for the electoral council - I am not sure what the issue is there but it is better that issues are brought to the surface and debated openly rather than being repressed - the next thing that will happen is the state will start to censor books and enforce that decision by rounding up all the copies and have a book BBQ - maybe on the steps of the state library.
Small acts of repression invariably lead to bigger acts of repression.

Col,
do a searchon CEC... it would be most illuminating.
http://www.cecaust.com.au/

They are hooked up with some Lyndon Larouche bloke from USA who is a "prophet" of economic doom. They also claim the Royal Family is well into and behind the major drug trade of the world. Nothing outlandish mind u :) But from the AIJAC "Australia Israel Jewish Affiars Council" point of view, they are bunch of anti semitic ratbags, who never have anything good to say about zionism or Jews.
I rang one of the CEC people one time to get some background.

I'm quite happy to be verbally hung drawn and quartered by Muslims, Jews or Atheists, but I am rather partial to accuracy. The last time people spread inaccurate stories about the 'evil cult of Christians' was around the Roman era where we were fed to hungry animals for supper. (we were supposed to eat children and babies and drink their blood etc)

The only type of 'viewpoint' I object to being allowed to be proclaimed publically is any call to insurrection or armed rebellion.

Congratulations Mark. Well sed fellas in ur support for MARK. Lets all PRAY 4 Kenny, that he'll accept the LORD as his Saviour. I think Judge Higgins should be in that petition 2. Blessings. FAIRGO.

Amen Brudda :)

BOAZ_David "The only type of 'viewpoint' I object to being allowed to be proclaimed publically is any call to insurrection or armed rebellion. "

Exactly - the point at which a "crime" is committed should be at the moment of incitement to violence or criminal action - not "vilification".
For "civil" issues - the laws of libel and slander are available.

Seems that Justice Higgins has shown just how ignorant and prejudiced a judge can be. But then again these seem to be common criticisms of many of the judges. There are so many people (including legal professionals) who distrust our legal system that one wonders how much longer this can go on.

Perhaps it's time these judges got re-educated.

In a country such as the one we live in, it would be expected that a person would be able to say what they like to whomever they like, without the fear of imprisonment. But is this so anymore? Has our freedom of speech been withdrawn, by the very government that has sworn to uphold our constitutional rights? It appears so! how can the government pass a law that would let a judge who obviously has no religious background of any sort, decide what is the truth? more importantly how can we as citizens stand by and let this happen?

Thank you Mark for your article. It puts in words the sort of clarification we need. As a pastor of a local church in a small town, I am amazed at the way the different clergy react. I am one of a very few who see this one biased, ill informed and stupid act of Judge Higgins as the biggest blow to not only freedom of speech, but the beginnings of the limiting of the preaching of the Gospel. It remains to be seen if we all are prepared to go against the grain the political correct, vote seeking duplicious, oportunistic men like steve Bracks and face jail in the name of Christ.