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.