On the surface at least, this law doesn't seem to be too bad. It allows you to be critical of a religion, and it allows you to express your own. I don't really understand why so many people hate this law. Won't this law stop people from preaching terrorism? Under this law, supporting or condoning acts which are contrary to Australian law will become illegal, as it should.
I mean, under this law, we can be critical of everyone, and I think that's a good thing, and a mark of democracy.

Unconquered_Sun,
This law is espoused by those who wish to control people and thought. Thought will only surface out in the open when opponents hear or read what others are thinking that offend them and they take them before the tribunal. Real hate and terrorist planning is done in secret and behind closed doors. Why? - because of their fear of being caught planning before they can enact their evil plot. We have ASIO to rout out such. It is better to allow shallow emotive expression as it allows vent of feelings.

This law shuts these people down who express themselves with disgruntled emotion and it does not deal with people with real violent intent. This then drives the disgruntled underground to seethe until they will ignore the law and act with violence against one who offends their sensibility.

I believe in the absolute right of people to express an opinion no matter how misguided and untruthful. We already have defamation laws to deal with individual cases of deliberate misrepresentation. I want Ajay, The Alchemist, and Xena to have the absolute right to their convictions and the right to express them publicly. I have nothing to fear from their misrepresentations of what I know, practise and believe. They must have the absolute right to their conscience and convictions and their right to express vilification of a belief system. They stand or fall on their credibility, the same with myself. Discovery and productivity flourishes in an absolutely free mind: restriction of thought stifles ideas and breeds hate underground.

I say outlaw the CONTROL FREAKS!

“So whether the selective use of the “truth” is a defense against a complaint will depend on the context in which the selective use of the “truth” occurs and if it was done reasonably and in good faith. However, complaints can only be made about activities that are open to the public and only a person or body that was the target of the incitement is able to make a complaint.” Well that just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

This is not about hate speech or even about what is being said. This is about who is saying what and about whom. When an advocate starts saying that an issue depends on “context” and “selective use of truth” done according to some undefined concept of “reason” by a specific set of people under vague circumstances, then it is time to prepare for a storm. Be sure that it will only be used against those groups not considered “Politically Correct.” It would be better to rename the act, calling it the “Protect Islam from criticism law” making it illegal to saying anything negative, however factual, about the so-called the “Religion of Peace”.

Experience indicates that what this type of legislation does is confer a special status on a particular ideology that is both religious and political (by its own dogma). You will notice that these “anti-vilification” laws are always promoted hand in hand together with the parallel concept of “Community Laws” wherein certain groups seek to establish special justice systems (ie, Islamic sharia law) for themselves. Thus the laws of the nation in practice (if not in theory) become secondary to the laws of the community. This may seem to be a stretch, but it is actually what is happening in Canada and England.

This legislation is a step on the road to the loss of the right of free expression and the right of equality under the law. Free speech, while never absolute, becomes severely limited by vague notions of what may or may not offend another group, or what constitutes “truth” and what is “context.

Continued...

You must know that certain groups are easily offended, and will certainly make use of this type of law. “In Islam, contemptuous, irreverent speech or sacriligious acts, not only about God, but also about the Prophet Muhammad and all other prophets, and the members of these prophets’ households, as well as the holy scriptures, including the Qur’an, and other things that are of a similar religious nature (i.e., which are regarded as sacred) are all acts of blasphemy.”
This is from http://www.muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm (where you can also read about the how Muslims in Canada want the right to kill apostates and blasphemers).

Just to show you how hypocritical these groups are, in the case of a similar law being passed in England, a Muslim group went to the Home Office and ... “The delegation made suggestions to the minister to that it may be preferable to totally exempt the holy text, which will include the Qu’ran and the hadiths from the remit of the Act. ” This if from:
http://www.themuslimweekly.com/fullstoryview.aspx?NewsID=F57CA56EE76D4431733025FC&MENUID=MCBNEWS&DESCRIPTION=Archives (Issue 87, June 2005)

How cute, they want this type of law and at the same time they want themselves exempted. Of course, that “kill all the infidels wherever you find them...” quote in the Koran could be a problem to most people, but then again, the PC left-wing activists, politicians and judges can be counted upon to understand that Islamic culture cannot and should not be held to the same standards as Western societies.

The only “active campaign of misinformation” here is by those who support this legislation. If a law cannot be specific as to the nature of the offense, it is just an arbitrary imposition of one person’s opinion over that of another, resulting in a limitation of individual rights that are the foundation of Western Societies. Maybe that is what they want!

John AKA kactuz

MUSLIM AGENDA

It will take a while for the ‘ordinary fair go’ Aussie to find it, but if you look hard enough, you WILL.

And here it is, in a Canadian Islamic site, waxing extremely eloquent about ‘Multi culturalism’ and in the next breath, about how different communities should be allowed to follow their own legal system “the special needs of the Muslim community” I had to read a lot of woffle to get this little word bite, its in the conclusion to a long discussion on Apostasy. (and the Islamic punishments for it)

http://www.muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm

“In the context of the special cultural/religious needs of the Muslim community in respect of their beliefs about blasphemy, it indeed behoves a broad-minded people like Canadians to ACCOMODATE their (Muslim community's) needs by simply taking that EXTRA step discussed earlier - this will not diminish the rest of us”.

Only blind Nellies deaf dumb and blind son Neddie would be unable to extrapolate this kind of madness into the Australian context.

The first 2 points on the Islamic Council of Victoria “Goals and Objectives”

1. To vigilantly maintain and apply the true Islamic doctrines as, contained in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed (May Allah's Blessings and Mercy be Upon Him) at all times in the carrying out of the objects of this Constitution.

2. To vigorously and vigilantly combat and correct any misrepresentation of Islam.

It is not “misrepresenting” to state from Islamic (or Christian) history warts and all.

With regard to the Canadian example, the most DANGEROUS aspect is the underlying assumption of the “Islamic Legal State within a State” idea. The urging of allowing Sharia Law is exactly based on the assumption of a political/religious Islamic State.

Note Goal 1 of the ICV “as practiced by the Holy Prophet Mohamed”..... as PRACTICED ? !

Is it any wonder they tried to SILENCE any criticism ? Just ‘as mohamed practiced’ (by murdering an offensive poet)
I don’t think I need to repeat what has already been stated umpteen times about ‘his practice’ towards perceived enemies

"I want Ajay, The Alchemist, and Xena to have the absolute right to their convictions and the right to express them publicly. I have nothing to fear from their misrepresentations of what I know, practise and believe."

Philo - And I want you to be able to continue to feel that you are morally superior for being superstitious - I wouldn't have it any other way.

Cheers