Religious vilification laws are an infringement on free speech. Ideas are powerful and wrong ideas have terrible consequences. The only way to deal with wrong and harmful ideas, is for them to be discussed and critiqued. The religious vilification laws in Victoria should be repealed.

BILL..

The second difficulty with vilification laws is that they are usually broad, vague, nebulous and filled with ambiguous and unclear terminology. Consider the Victorian Act. It speaks of “severe contempt”, “revulsion” and “severe ridicule”.

and then there is the worst enemy of freedom 'SELECTIVE APPLICATION'.

It has become quite clear through my own interaction and observation of the UNequal Opportunity Commission and the various connections, that the act is nothing more than a convenient political tool, useful to those who have specific interests (constituencies?) to protect.

Fortunately, there is a STATE ELECTION in 2006, where I trust all of us will do our utmost to oust "Adolph" Bracks and company.

Then one of the first tasks by the new government would be to replace the Gestapo of the EOC with people who are fair minded, balanced and not subject to political string pulling.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think there will never be string pulling or influence on sensitive matters, but I'd prefer the strings were pulled for the protection of the MAJORITY rather than obscure minorities who happen to support particular Labor candidates.

I further rejoice that I live in a MARGINAL seat which is still fuming over the 'yes children, we will give you a freeeeeeway" but then where Adolph renegged and diverted funds to 'other' projects.

My smile becomes even wider when I think that I'm plugged into around 300 people in just my immediate area. (not to mention the casual campaigning that one can do at the gym, mall, on walks, or wherever.
(All of which I do)

"We reap what we sow"

Vilification laws clearly demonstrate that the tail wags the dog in Australia – the tail being minorities. As Bill Muehlenberg points out, minorities wanted laws against real or imagined slights, so they got them. The laws are to protect them from us nasty, mainstreamers who have nothing better to do than go around vilifying minorities.

We all noted that the vilification laws didn’t apply to the nutter Islamic cleric who recently proclaimed that women who dress in particular ways are asking for a jolly good raping from the brethren.

Bill Muehlenberg questions the ‘democracy’ of introducing these oppressive laws. But who expects democracy from the same folks who gave us multiculturalism without consultation?

So the crux of the arguement for these opposers of laws against religous vilification, is that they reluctantly agree that it is not right to vilify people on the basis of their race but it is fine to vilify their religion. These are the kinds of spurious arguements that makes Australia an international disgrace, a fertile growth area for the American religious right and makes me ashamed to be an Australian.

Actually dd, this is precisely what Justice Morris said in the recently concluded Alpha case.

I quote clause 7 of Justice Morris' reasons for decision in dismissing the complaint against Alpha – a course of Christian instruction, brought on by a self declared witch.

"7. The Act is not concerned with the vilification of a religious belief or activity as such. Rather it is concerned with the vilification of a person, or a class of persons, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of the person or class. As the Chief Executive of the Equal Opportunity Commission recently explained:

"[The Act] protects religious freedom by ensuring that people are not subjected to vilification because of their beliefs. This does not mean that people cannot evangelise and proselytise, just that they must do so without inciting hatred of those who follow differing religious beliefs.""

If you want to see the full decision go here: http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/decisions/$file/fletcher_v_salvation_army_and_cmc_australasia.pdf

The reason for the different treatment of race and religion is not hard to understand – race for anyone of us is a given whereas religion is a choice and nowhere more clearly seen than with the progress of Islam and Christianity continuing to freely convert people from all races and regions of the world to their particular beliefs.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court of Victoria will make of the Catch the Fire case now that Justice Higgins appears to have cut much of the ground from under Judge Higgins’ earlier decision in the CTF case, but we will have to wait and see.

Once again Bill has argued a reasonable, calm and compelling case.

Apologies - my second last para should have read:

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court of Victoria will make of the Catch the Fire case now that Justice Morris appears to have cut much of the ground from under Judge Higgins’ earlier decision in the CTF case, but we will have to wait and see..

I am deeply concerned with Victoria's vilification laws and the politicians responsible for driving their instigation. It is incomprehensible that thinking leaders could put in motion the beginnings of an oppressive regime. New South Wales I am told is the most litigious state in the world second only to California. This is disturbing seeing that Victoria is not just close behind but up there in the top ten. We seem to have an insatiable desire to drag each other into court. Not only has the Bracks government not done anything to curb the state of our attitude to blame everybody but ourselves but he has compounded the problem by adding vague and subjective vilification laws while other states use us as living proof of what not to do.

undermine the fabric of our free and democratic society. There are only two possibilities for the motivation behind such laws from Mr Bracks. He either has an agenda to oppress the majority of citizens into some kind of lukewarm, non offensive beings with no personalities that are happy to just work and pay taxes, or he is impotent in his own party to stand up for the wellbeing of the majority. Since my confidence in his leadership and intelligence have long since dissipated I suspect it is the latter. My message to Mr Bracks "Stop using our fine state for your selfish social experiments".

Bill, your ten points are the clearest summary of argumentation against an Act, Premier Carr called 'bad law.' It indicts the Victorian Government with holding a mendacious attitude towards the electors of Victoria. It holds them in contempt. Both the Bracks Government and the Act itself merit total rejection, if public discussion is to have any merit. The ambiguity of the Act is of course typical of the type of humanistic 'doublespeak' of numerous UN covenants &c. Thank you for stating so clearly the dangers inherent in this type of legislation. Hopefully the Liberals will support the independents wo wish to see it dead and buried.
Methuselah

I would have thought the apparently learned Bill Muehlenberg knew that in this country its the media that decides which speech will be heard and which one will not. When there is a clear imbalance in media coverage of opinion then its left to the laws of this country to provide balance. 70% of Australia's media is controlled by Murdoch and if anything, those of the conservative side of politics have had more than their share of freedom and speech.

"So the crux of the arguement for these opposers of laws against religous vilification, is that they reluctantly agree that it is not right to vilify people on the basis of their race but it is fine to vilify their religion."

Notice the distinction: vilifying SOMEONE is wrong; vilifying SOMETHING (which is not inherent, genetic, etc.) is a free part of democracy (and NOT wrong).

That hardly makes us an "international disgrace", a "fertile growth area for the American religious right" or anything to make anyone "ashamed to be an Australia".

One of my best friends is a committed Christian, another is a devout Muslim. Both love each other sincerely (and I love them both sincerely too). Both disagree with each other's faiths. Both think the other believes a bunch of lies and is going to hell (and pray for each other’s souls). Both are “offended” ("vilified" according to VCAT) by the beliefs of the other. Yet both welcome a discussion of the differences of their beliefs when it comes up. And probably, both look to it as a chance of converting the other.

If I critically analyse your religion/lack thereof I am not critically analysing you. I am merely drawing attention to your frame of thoughts. If I beat you up because of them (or for any other reason) I deserve the full brunt of the already-existing laws. But if all I am doing is analysing and making judgments, I do not deserve a Big Brother judiciary system to vilify my freedom of speech.

I have recently graduated from a very multicultural school. Ethnic and racial diversity was celebrated, and religions/philosophical beliefs were the subject of much debate within our halls. We loved and respected each other, even if we occasionally offended each other’s opinions. If we could do it (a bunch of 13-17 year olds) without R&R laws, the Australian public can too.

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid."

-- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard

"Hate crime laws punish people for their thoughts". Actually they DON'T seek to punish thoughts - they punish expression ... expression that incites violence and discrimination. "who determines what a hate crime is?" The courts. "Christians are vilified everyday, but I do not hear those screaming for tolerance and acceptance rushing to their defence." Perhaps you aren't listening. Proponents of vilification legislation have been emphatic that it's not directed at Christians and that protection will be available to ANY religious belief. "if a Christian dare stand up for what he or she believes in, they are dragged off to the tribunals by those same advocates of tolerance". Christians should be exempt? Or only fundamentalists who espouse hate? I'll be much more sympathetic when I see pastors being beaten to a pulp merely because their Christian or driven to suicide because their faith is vilified ... they can join the gay men who've been killed or the gay youth who've suicided after Pell, Nile & Co condemn them "on behalf of the community"

Bill Muehlenberg and Helen Pringle both with the same article - just different words.

Which to post to?

This is an important topic - (unlike economics - which are simply unproven opinions dressed up as fact) so I will post to both !

Freedom of speech and expression is a "fundamental" right.

Challenging it is like breaching the levy which used to surround New Orleans - once breached the barriers are eroded and the forces of oppression flood down upon us (darn it I am getting too lyrical for my own good). Antivilification legislation is the attempt by the manipulative and powerful to suppress the individual and impose the prescribed view by intimidation.

I note the political party which enacted this legislation in Victoria were the Scoialists!

They forever fiddle with individual rights of property, achievement and now expression.

When the smart outnumber the dross and the Spring St returns to liberal government we will, hopefully, have this cheap and manipulative legislation (the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001) rescinded and assigned to the garbage truck of ignominy where it rightly deserves to reside.

So, what laws should exist to protect the rights of powerless minority ethnic or racial groups? I belong to a "powerless" minority group in this country and we certainly don't have the power to impose or suppress anyone’s views about us and perhaps never will.

I find it ironic that those who think there freedom of speech is under attack are by far the first, loudest (and many times only) voices you hear in public debate about vilification laws.

I too deplore totalitarian impositions, but I also look at how balance is made possible in public debates. Hence my previous post questioning those against vilification laws to critically examine how public debate is rolled out in the national media.

From my perspective it’s far from balanced and this is much more a problem that what anyone is saying about this group or that.

The other reality is that vilification is also played out in violent attacks, abuse and other anti-democratic, anti liberal behavior.

Yes, freedom of speech should be protected but when its linked to a freedom to be violent; freedom to vilify anyone on the basis of their racial, ethic or religious backgrounds, its not freedom anymore, its hate. I’m sure many professing to protect freedom of speech here would not support violence, but they don’t seem to understand the differences between balanced and good public debate and when its becomes vilification that incites violence. History tells us that they are intimately related to each other.

From my personal experience of being publicly vilified, racially taunted and violently attacked I’d like to think there are laws that would protect me. Apparently lots of people here don’t think these laws should exist at all. And they call this freedom of speech?

Whose freedom and whose speech is being protected here?

Naybe a naive comment but can't even see the need for vilification laws in a modern society.

Should we be able to state our opinions maturally with putting down others?

Should we be, in a first world country and the year 2005, still legislating for how adult australians interact with people of different race, religions, hobbies, interests? Isn't that a basic education on living in a multiculture society?

I think it is much simpler if everyone uses a decent format like: in my belief is.., or my truth is... Isn't it taught at schools that you should express yourself without humiliating others?

Food for thought.

Bill - thank you for your article.

Rainier, your comments are very interesting.

Fellow_Human - your last paragraph is spot on.

Cheers
Kay

Ah, so let me get this straight?

If someone has a biological status such as being female or black - then vilification on those grounds is bad. But if someone has a status brought about by "choice", such as religious belief or sexuality - then vilification on these grounds is kinda ok?

Whoa! For starters, no-one "chooses" to be gay/lesbian, it is innate. (I've known I was gay since I was 12). Only right wing Christians argue that sexuality is a "choice", as this is the only way they can justify their ongoing predjudice. "If only they'd stop being gay then they wouldn't suffer our disdain and intolerance," seems to be the perculiar and self-serving argument from them.

Seems to me that the AFA as a right-wing group with its fair share of vehement anti-gay hatred flung about the place, is nervous about being shown up for this. Particulary after it's WA divison was found guilty of vilification by the Advertising Standards Board in 2001, when it errected fear-mongering billboards and distributed hateful leaflets around Perth claiming a link between gay males and child molesters. (This was all in the name of opposing gay and lesbian anti-discrimination and equality laws in the WA parliament at that time).

So, according to Muehlenberg's own argument, hate-speech which declares that Jews or Blacks are more inclined to undermine society, spread disease and molest childen is a genuine reason for anti-vilification laws. But claiming (as the AFA has done repeatedly), that homosexuals are more inclined to undermine society, spread disease and molest children is not.

And why not? Oh, because gay people "choose" their sexuality.

Try again Bill.

Elidor
PERTH

David Palmer writes... "The reason for the different treatment of race and religion is not hard to understand – race for anyone of us is a given whereas religion is a choice"

Race is not a given. It is a social construct, just like religion. In terms of race and "choice", you are only limited by the socially conceived label affixed to you by wider society. Your choice is limited in the sense that the society chooses your race for you, whereas religion is widely conceived as being about individual choice.

Bill, well said.

Rainier, you wrote "I’m sure many professing to protect freedom of speech here would not support violence, but they don’t seem to understand the differences between balanced and good public debate and when its becomes vilification that incites violence. History tells us that they are intimately related to each other."

Yes, it's a question of volition, and the strength of that volition. In all aspects of life, people may think something, but not express it; they may express their volition verbally; or they may take action. Generally, there are laws to deal with anti-social actions, and (I think) incitement to such actions. Personally, I try to avoid harmful speech, but in many cases being able to voice one's concerns, even when they might be hurtful to some others and may not have a solid basis, can release rather than exacerbate tensions, and can prompt a verbal response, a dialogue. I know that in my family life, I from childhood tended to internalise hurt, not express it, not get over it, and have after several decades found it better to bring things in to the open, generally leading to clarification and resolution. Laws which don't allow this in the non-domestic domain would not be helpful.

Following Mark Twain, I would like to have freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.

Many of us would do well to exercise more prudence, and less freedom of speech and/or conscience.

dd's comment made me think about what it means to be Australian. In the community that I come from, there is a minority group who we loved to vilify because of their reputation for whinging and for playing lousy cricket. We don’t bag them for being whingers so much anymore and that’s probably because we have become a bunch of whingers ourselves!

People who hate other people for any reason have a serious problem, but don’t most of us already know that? So what is the purpose of anti hate laws? They won’t stop people hating or protect us from the expression of their hatred. You could almost apply the same argument to the oulawing of hatred as the argument for the legalisation of illicit drugs and prostitution: “if it (hatred) is criminalised, it’ll only go underground. At least if it’s out in the open we can monitor and control it.” I guess a high profile example of that is extreme islamism (those guys aren’t racist – they hate everybody! Oops – was that a vilifying comment!?)

If someone is systematically harassing you or if they are publicly defaming you it’s a different matter, and there is already (rightly) common law protection for us against that (AVOs; slander and libel laws). Do we really have to hate someone to think that they are stupid or depraved or misguided? I know that I have been guilty of all three and I don’t hate myself. Why do we care so much about the opinions of people who we don’t even know?

There has not been an “active campaign of misinformation” about the Victorian “Racial and Religious Tolerance Act at all. What has transpired is that enlightened social critics like Bill have seen through this transparent attempt to shut up opponents of Multiculturalism. They have attacked the Victorian Legislation as yet another unwanted restriction of civil liberties caused by Multiculturalism.

The Victorian legislation is so nebulously worded that it can mean whatever some PC official Grand Inquisitor wants it to mean. Any reader can perceive that legislation that makes it an indictable offence to “ridicule” or “cause offence” to any religion means that movies such as “The Life of Brian” or even TV shows like Rowan Atkinson’s “Black Adder” would fit that bill nicely. It is therefore hardly surprising that actor/ producer Rowan Atkinson is leading the campaign in Britain against similar misbegotten PC legislation in that country.

If the aim of this legislation is to prevent any instances of violence towards minorities, surely there are better ways to avoid this. The best would be to stop importing unassimilatable, crime prone and welfare dependent minorities in the first place. Especially, those who seen to have a predilection for blowing up the citizens of the country with whom they aspire to be citizens of. Multiculturalism has been an utter disaster on every country cursed with it. And why this country wishes to emulate dismal failure in a Quixotic crusade for an unobtainable ideal is something that the sponsors of this oppressive Victorian legislation have yet to explain.

With countries as noted for tolerance as Holland now giving Multiculturalism the hairy eyeball, one wonders how much more legislation will need to be enacted to delay this country from treading the same dismal, bloody path of every other culturally divided society. Once any country enacts legislation to prevent criticism of belief systems, why should they stop at religious beliefs? Perhaps political beliefs will be next? And don’t forget, Islam is not just a religious belief system, it is a complete political, legal, religious and dietary belief system all rolled into one.

Rainier

"I belong to a "powerless" minority group in this country and we certainly don't have the power to impose or suppress anyone’s views about us and perhaps never will."

The question is then (1) why don't Muslims speakout for equality and tolerance where they are a 'majority' and not "powerless"? The fact is that Islam is intolerant and oppressive by nature. Wherever Muslims dominate, they persecute and oppress other religions, women, gays, etc.. and even other Muslims groups!

You know, we would not have to speak out if Muslims would stand up for all people - themselves and others. But no. They want to protect their ideology from criticism, using laws to silence others.

Perhaps you should not object to this criticism without a little reflexion on the issues. The real question is not "should criticism be allowed" but "are the criticisms true'. Look at what things are being criticized and ask if they are important. I think they are! Hurt feelings are nothing next to oppression, rape, torture and murder.

Rainier, (2) what do you think about that case where British Muslims (I mean Muslims that just happen to live and benefit from UK society) push for "hate speech" legislation then ask for the Koran to be exempted?
(http://www.themuslimweekly.com/fullstoryview.aspx?NewsID=F57CA56EE76D4431733025FC&MENUID=MCBNEWS&DESCRIPTION=Archives - Issue 87, June 2005)

Another question: (3) Do you think that I am wrong to call a person's attention to the life and actions of their leader, and to ask that a person to condemn him for those actions that are vile and repugnant?

There are three questions here. Please enlighten me as to your thoughts of these. Thanks....

Kactuz

Rainier "From my personal experience of being publicly vilified, racially taunted and violently attacked I’d like to think there are laws that would protect me. Apparently lots of people here don’t think these laws should exist at all. And they call this freedom of speech?

Whose freedom and whose speech is being protected here? "

Rainier - an old Enghlish Saying - "Sticks and Stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me!"

It needs no Translation.

That you have been "violently attacked" is not a freedom of speech - unless you mean verbally - and then my old English Rhyme applies.

That someone abuses "freedom of Speech" is no reason to deny such right of expression to every one, anymore than because one person gets drunk there be reason to impose a society wide alcohol prohibition.

But the real point you ask is

"Whose freedom and whose speech is being protected here? "

Answer - Your right to freedom of Speech is being protected - as well as mine!

The problem is - when politicians enact legislation to curb freedom of speech - it is the same politicians who direct the Department of Public Prosecutions to enforce it - and that is a horror which starts with censorship, ends with gulags (or worse) and a path which we need to vehemently resist under all and every circumstance.

“Indonesian judges today sentenced three women to three years in prison for allowing Muslim children to attend a Christian Sunday school program." Compass, 1 September 2005.
http://www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=3949
This is not a fringe group but law of the land for our emerging 'democractic' neighbour. In my view this is where vilification legislation like that in Victoria is leading. Religious ideas need to be open for free discussion. Of course discussion needs courteous and respectful, as the two Dannys were doing in their seminar on Islam. But to be accused of villifying Islam by simply reading the Koran, as they were in court, is absurd. Some people want all cricticism of their beliefs shut down, and that is not on in a democratic society. It is in everyone's interest to know when they are holding wrong beliefs.

Its amazing, all this chatter about racial and religious vilification. Even the non believers have fallen into the trap of trying to justify the religious position.

Look at the Facts, not the illusions. Multiculturalism, is a benefit to all societies, multi religious culturalism is a death wish. If you follow an unsubstantiated illusion, then you become deluded, a psychological fact. Just look at the world at the moment, for that reality.

There is nothing of substance within any religion, other than throughout history they express themselves in violence, destruction and constant psychological conflict and suppression.

Is it that we have not understood the consequences of following such ludicrous illusional stupidities. Or is humanity so lacking in understanding that it continues to repeat its mistakes over and over until there will be nothing left on this planet that can sustain us.

Tell me all you great believers, how is your mighty god going to fix the rapid decline of his creation, perpetuated by it's followers. There is no perceivable love in this world from any religion, just conflict within and without

You all want to hope that your god has a good fuel supply, and can sustain you all during the collapse of our environment and the extinction of the natural life forms on this planet. How could anyone support a god that just sits there and watches as it's privileged follows go about killing themselves and destroying everything around them.

In every thread on every forum that involves the religious (blank), they repeat themselves over and over, nothing new, no answers, no evidence, just loopy repeat after repeat.

The facts, they can't answer reality questions, because they have no reality. They can't give any evidence to support the contention that they are good, because all the historical and current evidence is the opposite.

Conclusion from the facts, as long as we have religion, then we have chaos.

Then again, I have deluded myself in thinking that following these forums may shed some positive light on religion. How wrong can you be

Luckily I am a dimensionalist, an understandable reality.

DD

It's difficult to see how you can bear to continue living in Australia if it's 'an international disgrace' and 'breeding ground for the American religious right. Why the American religious right? All this makes you ashamed to be Australian.

Why not renounce your citizenship if Austalia is such a horrible place and find somewhere more to you liking? You could try some of the countries people are leaving to come to the Australia you are so ashamed of.

Alchemist,

Multiculturalism needs to be managed. Probably that explains it is not working in Australia while successful in other parts of the world such as the US for example.

The US approach defined the guidelines for the model American citizen in terms of behaviour, attitude towards the country and fellow citizens but left enough autonomy for cultures to define its touch points in terms of more tactical details. It enabled a melting pot where different cultures from all over the world can maintain certain privacy, identity while still are all Americans.

In Australia while we are in a much better position, we are not managing multiculturalism.

To manage multiculturalism mean to define a program where:
1. Clear definition of the Australian identity and guidelines.
2. Allow cultures to influence and be influenced by the mother land.
3. Manage and delegate enough autonomy for these sub cultures to:
a. Interact/ influence each other
b. Compete in a healthy manner on adding more value to the mother land.

Now, look at what is happening in Australia today. The following spectrum has many people on the 2 extremes:

1. On one extreme: New comers understanding of MC is they import their own land, habits, traditions, religions, problems.
2. On another extreme: local aussies whom their understanding of successful MC is when new comers turn into zombies and leave everything related to their identities, names, beliefs, etc.

A person’s perception of how successful MC is in Australia depends on where you are on the above spectrum. What is missing is a program to ensure that most Australians (by birth or choice) will be in the middle of the spectrum rather the current polarised position.

I think we talk MC but we try to implement universalism which never worked on humans to date.

Is MC working for Australia? Yes in my views.
Is it managed properly? It could be managed a lot better.

Food for thoughts,

strayan writes, "race is not a given. It is a social construct, just like religion. In terms of race and "choice", you are only limited by the socially conceived label affixed to you by wider society. Your choice is limited in the sense that the society chooses your race for you, whereas religion is widely conceived as being about individual choice."

So it doesn't matter that I have a white skin, am proud of my Anglo Scots ancestry, share my parents genes? Nonsense! Society didn't choose my race, I was born into a particular race with particular charcteristics, had no choice really. Religion different matter, went right against my parents, made a choice they didn't actually approve off.

Most people never read statutes. Their understanding of the law comes from reading commentaries such as Bill's, seeing expose style items on the commercial TV networks, and indeed what their mates tell them in bars.

The unfortunate result is that people end up thinking that they are constrained by the law much more than they really are.

The legislation cited by Bill proscribes certain conduct in these words:

"A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons."

Note that as regards contempt and ridicule, merely inciting them is not sufficient. It has to be serious contempt, or serious ridicule.

Even then, there are broad exemptions for conduct carried out in good faith.

In the widely reported Victorian case, it's clear from the judgement that the defendants went far beyond that. It wasn't a simple matter of their voicing their considered views. They really were trying to incite hatred, serious ridicule and serious contempt.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html

The media would serve the public better if they explained the effect of these laws properly.

As an aside, I cannot see how sexual preference can be considered to be a matter of choice. It is no more realistic to think that a homosexual man can choose to be attracted to women, then it would be to think that a heterosexual man could choose to be attracted to men.

Sylvia.

Steady on Sylvia ("In the widely reported Victorian case, it's clear from the judgement that the defendants went far beyond that. It wasn't a simple matter of their voicing their considered views. They really were trying to incite hatred, serious ridicule and serious contempt.")

The Court of Appeal has allowed this decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court and as I postred earlier, Justice Morris' decision in another case seems to have undercut Judge Higgins' decision.

So, we shouldn't be jumping to too many decisions as yet. Many of us believe a grave injustice has been done to the two Pastors through the clumsy application of a very subjective, imprecise and unfortunate Act.

So, lets wait and see how matters unfold.

Good article, Bill. I like the way you distinguish physical violence and incitement to physical violence (which I understand are rightly already covered by existing legislation) from debate about religious and philosophical beliefs. The latter should be open to rigourous public debate.

Alchemist, the most a-religious societies I can think of are/were Nazi Germany, Soviet USSR, North Korea and some era's of Chinese history. Yet there is a strong argument that these anti-religious or a-religious societies have caused more human deaths than all the so-called religious conflicts in the rest of history put together. To these a-religious conflicts might be added the first world war.

I guess dreams and hopes for the future fall into your category of "unsubstantiated illusion". How depressing to think of a world without these! I dream of a world based on the golden rules of Jesus: Love God with all your being, and love others as yourself - including your enemies. Each half going hand in hand, neither half complete without the other.

Multiculturalism has many benefits. However some people use the term to refer to a philosophy that denies that aspects of MC should be critiqued. Any behaviour or belief system should be open to critique.

The laws are only there because of the potentially violent nature of particular group.We admitted defeat in Victoria when they were instigated.The social engineers are in denial and don't know what to do next.There have been no reprisals over Bali or the London bombings.Aussies are very tolerant to a point.Many of us don't agree with the US invasion of Iraq without UN or international approval.We don't take kindly to remarks made by some in the Islamic community but will just patient with our silent resolve.

SYLVIA
yes.. as David advised, chill a bit on that. You are correct on one sense.. "It is clear from the JUDGEMENT" .. the problem is, the judgement is flawed, and this has clearly been shown by Jenny Stokes contributions showing how the judge misconstrued some statements.

Further, the idea that they incited 'serious contempt for' is ludicrous. Any assessment of statements made by the pastors has to be taken in CONTEXT.. u know..that thing which enables us to actually understand what's going on.

You also appear to be completely neglecting that little issue of EVIDENCE,and it's cousin FACTS.

Nothing that I've seen in the transcript indicates that they are inciting 'serious or even normal ridicule'. But further, I cannot find anything which does not relate to well established fact.

Room must be given in any public airing of views, for unintentional mistakes, I do feel they could have put some things better, but that is a world away from 'deliberately inciting contempt' etc

But let it be known Sylvia, to you and the world, that when the Quran which is called 'noble' by those who made this attack on freedom of speech says as follows:

surah 4.24 (on sexual limits and women)

Also (prohibited are) women already married, EXCEPT THOSE YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESSES" (i.e. married captive women)

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other,.............
As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them, but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means For Allah is Most High, great.

Now, I've done some heavy duty research over the past couple of days on the meaning and use in other contexts of the word in arabic for 'beat' (daraba) and it is abundantly clear that the only legitimate translation is BEAT. and there is no 'lightly' included in the construction of the word

(continued) ...Question is, how do Muslims understand the Quran ?

Is it 'the eternal abiding word of Allah for all time, not subject to contextualization and re-interpretation' ? a resounding YES is the answer you will receive from the vast majority of Muslims who are serious about their faith. IF .... that is the case, then the verses cited are ETERNAL and given that they are couched in a '10 commandments' type discourse "This.. is how u must live"..... then full weight must be given to the actual literal plain and clear meaning.

Do you as a woman not find these assertions worthy of contempt ?

SYLVIA

what you (and Judge Higgins) further do not understand, is the mentality of Christians. Sorry, but u just don't get it. The act is so unbelievably flawed, as to be plain rediculous "Motivation not a defense" Funny, in law, the difference between CULPABLE MURDER and MANSLAUGHTER is... wait for it... 'motivation'..... but suddenly here, it doesn't matter ? give me a break.

I wonder Sylvia, if you would defend Neo Nazis who speak about the 'Jewish problem' ? Would you seek to apply this legislation to them ? to shut them up as they refer to Jewish Vermin ?

Or.. how about the Islamic Sydney Web site which some time ago referred to the Jews as "Jewish Thugs" ? hmmmmm

Or..what about the book "da gospel according to Ali G" which describes God as 'Da biggest pimp of the day"... which reverses the 10 commandments to suggest adultery is a no no, Unless she is fit"...err.. is this not holding Jews and Christians up to 'serious public ridicule" ? I rang a number of Jewish institutions quoting those lines and they were horrified !

I complained to the EOC and was told "Your complaint is without substance or merit"

Lets all just realize that the RRT is NOTHING about creating social harmony, and EVERYTHING about selective political control, as personal experience has shown.

David,

If the Supreme Court overturns the VCAT decision, then that would further show how limited is the effect of the legislation on people's right to express opinions, which was my point.

Bill's article refers to "thought police" being needed: "Hate crime laws punish people for their thoughts. In turn, thought police are needed to make sure everyone is thinking politically allowable thoughts."

His final paragraph states "In sum, vilification laws are a genuine threat to freedom of speech. They effectively clamp down on the discussion of important religious, theological, social and ethical issues."

Yet they do nothing of the sort, and if they are having these effects, it's because people like Bill seriously misrepresent the law.

Sylvia.

Fellow human. When reality begins to surface within religious illusions, don't respond, call up irrelevance.

JJH, there are arguments for your A-religious theory, but Nazi's emblems and symbols, are deeply religious. They were also supported by the christian churches throughout Europe. Many non religious regimes act disgustingly. But don't forget the millions of indigenous peoples of the world that were destroyed by bringing god to them.

There is little difference between any religion throughout history, they take it in turns to bring their violent wrath to the world.

In my youth, there were many times when I sat through sermons meant to demonise and vilify those of other faiths and christian factions. It still goes on today. Laws that uphold religious fallacies are the problem, as can be seen throughout the world.

Bd, everyone understands the mentality of christians, it is just the same as muslims, the only difference between all religion, is the timing of their constant attacks on reality. Plus the pathetic attempts to enforce by whatever means they can find, their religious delusions.

Whats gods answer for the historical and continuing reality of what religion really is.

I for one will enjoy watching, as the religious look with futile hope to their god, to rescue them from the destruction they have bestowed upon this planet in the name of their god. It is not a pretty picture that confronts us for the future.

So you had all better get on your knees, and pray to futility, as you always do. The results will be the same as they always have been, no reply, or offer of help. No, I am coming to sort you all out. No, stop the destruction you are causing. No help to change things for the better.

Come on, where is this god when it is needed to save what you all say, is its divine creation.

Answer, there is no god, just a reflection of the emptiness within the heads of the religious. So you can't vilify religion, it vilifies itself by its history, present methodologies and actions around the world.

BD,

Women in Islam: (part 4) legislates women rights in keeping maiden name, financial entity, right for inheritance, to be supported by the husband. It even defines her right not be dated in secret if a man asks her.They are equally mentioned in every verse as equal believers, which I have not seen in NT or OT.

The verse you chose deals with the obligation and punishment of the wrongdoers to their families (the word “Nashez” could mean anything such as abusive, beating children, etc.). It is not a ‘command’ for a man to beat his wife.

The Quran is contextual and cannot be taken literally and the meaning must be interpreted in today’s format. Today, there are legal systems that deals with abusive wives or husbands.

Islam is not a blind faith religion though some people think of it that way. Every few verse in the Quran, Muslims are asked to think.

How do muslims sees it:

1. Those who believe in it without having to interpret it.
2. Thos like me who interpret the context for modern days.

Questions BD,

a. Why do you always need to compare to Islam: Don’t you have confidence in your religion by itself?

b. If you only satisfy your needs by comparing it to what other have, don’t you at least feel a moral obligation to compare quote to quote and context to context? It sounds like you have little or no faith in the logic of your beliefs the way you pick 2 words or half a verse…

c. I contribute to forums to help promote harmony and fight extremism. Why don’t you comment on the Christian Taliban movement (Neo-Cons) in the US and its expanding arms in Australia and the UK? Your comments on “Katrina happened because Israel evacuated Gazza” and the denial of global warming cause “God will come down and resolve everything" is much appreciated!

Alchemist,

As long as everyone have his own truth and sees it that way life is good. The problem starts when someone have a version of the absolute truth for everyone else

Kactus asked me: Do you think that I am wrong to call a person's attention to the life and actions of their leader and to ask that a person to condemn him for those actions that are vile and repugnant?

Of course not! I support open and passionate debate but I draw the line at this questioning /calling attention to translating into a broad brush condemnation of minority groups, religions that leads to violence and exclusion.

I call into account John Howard and Kim Beazley for their lack of moral and political courage all the time - this does not mean I am calling attention to some kind of immediate responsibility that all Australians have for this inadequacy. The same could be said of Catholics and the Pope, Americans and George W Bush.

But it seems to me that those who are ethnically and culturally different from the 'majoirty' require a completely different approach. Why?

Read some of the other posts here position themselves as "spokespersons" for all Australians and you'll see my point in reverse.

And specifically if you have the patience and intellectual stamina to engage with a cultural and philosophical Luddite - ask Arjay for his opinion on anything. He’ll always good for it.

• Col Rouge, Yes it was a physical and unprovoked violent attack.

Dear Fellow Human from another human being,

At first sight, your statement, “The problem starts when someone have a version of the absolute truth for everyone else” has a certain attractiveness to it.

The problem is when you stop and think about it.

Most of us, at some time or other, really do think we are on to “absolute truth” (even those who fashionably deny the existence of such a concept) and that everyone else should sign up to our version of absolute truth as well. The classic is the teaching of evolution. Most of the scientific fraternity and all who find the theory a necessary buttress against the claims of religion are adamant that the theory is fact and under no circumstances may any form of theistic creationism raise its head above the top of the bunker otherwise off go their heads, loss of preferment in academia, etc.

Christians (and I would suspect Muslims as well in their own way, though I can’t speak for them) do believe in absolute truth – the truth of God revealed through Scripture and supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. However, I don’t know of any Christian, certainly not for a very long time, who would seek impose their vision of absolute truth on anyone else. After all, religion is a matter of the heart. I would be interested to know how a Muslim would respond to the same issue.

Dear David,

That is a very good contribution.
I am a Muslim and would agree with a lot of above.
I guess I was trying to point a fine line of balance: I do believe in my faith strongly but guess I learnt to accept people for who they are and what they are.
The point is even if I believe in universal absolute truth, there is practically no way to prove it to anyone else because people are simply different. Being a Muslim growing up in Catholic education, I was in atheism land for few years before going back to Islam. But the truth is, we believe because we believe. We process events, thoughts, logic, emotions and impressions differently like fingerprints.

I had similar discussion in 1983 with a French monk in my school on the same topic, a Muslim should have a lot less reason to impose his/her beliefs since according to our faith:
- Christians and Jews (Named as people of the book) should be left alone as God judges our differences and our intent at the end of days.
- Everyone‘s deeds are his own saviour. We should only explain when asked or correct when mis-interpreted.
Again I am only stating how most Muslims view it or modern days Muslims view it

Dear Fellow human

Great to make music with you.

Just a small point, but actually to us a big point:

We say, and we believe with experience on our side, we are never good enough to merit God’s favour, but God in His mercy and great love was gracious in sending his Son, perfect man to secure acceptance with God for all who put their trust in Him. We say we can never be our own saviour, but rather need a Saviour and Jesus is that Saviour. Whatever good deeds a Christian might ever succeed in producing are simply an expression of his or her gratitude to God, and indeed are His work in us. Glory be to God.

Good to dialogue with you. God bless you brother

Dear Sylvia,

I do hope you are right regarding the Supreme Court throwing out Judge Higgins’ decision, but again, I do think you are jumping the gun.

We just do not know what will happen in the Catch the Fire Appeal which

What is clear is that two judges both sitting in VCA, in two separate cases, have given the Act two very different interpretations. If Justice Morris’ is found to be the correct interpretation (but this is NOT being tested by an appeal as far as I know), I for one would be feeling a deal more relaxed about the Victorian legislation.

But, hey, why have the legislation in the first place?

No one has demonstrated, including Waleed Aly and his mates at the Islamic Council of Victoria, nor for that matter were called upon to demonstrate, that the two Pastors actually did in actually fact stir up a hornet’s nest of hairy chested Christian to go and sack Melbourne’s mosques. The Seminar occurred over three yeas ago, and still no such action!

But in the meantime on the account of a perceived threat of Islamic suicide bombers/terrorists, we have news of new draconian measures being proposed by the Federal Government, measures that show up the Victorian legislation as a rather farcical sideshow of an affair.

"Increasingly however vilification laws are being passed which include sexual orientation. This is a very bad application of what may have been a good starting principle: that of preventing discrimination and hatred based on genuine unalterable characteristics." (Bill Meuhlenberg)

Though it may be possible to hide ones sexuality it can cause severe problems and real hardship for those who attempt to do so.

There is not a shred of reliable evidence to show that it is possible to change ones sexuality either at will or under duress, despite the confused claims of anti-gay fundamentalist Christian groups.

Unlike most of us Bill, I presume it would be nothing for you to wake up tomorrow and decide you'll be gay for a while then revert back when you fancy being straight again, but then that would make you a promiscuous bisexual and there is no reason to assume that bisexuals are any more promiscuous than any other persons.

I think your information and the conclusion you have reach on this particular point is plain wrong.

A couple of small problems Bill. You assert that people of the Jewish faith can be described as both a race and religion but that people of an Islamic persuasion cannot but you fail to offer any argument for this assertion. Not including your evidence rather undermines your credibility.

Secondly you refer to the judicial system requiring the “wisdom of Solomon”. This is just facile as it is plainly obvious in our system of laws that judges do require a great deal of wisdom, they are the final arbiter in disputes and although bound by precedent and statute if none is available they must call on their own powers of reason and experience to decide what can be very difficult matters. You do yourself a disservice with this contemptuous statement.

RANIER

Your intent is clearly noble. But to be honest, you jussssst don't understand the Christian mindset mate.. The 2 pastors who did a seminiar on 'The Muslim mindset' tackled that subject so Christians can understand what they are dealing with in evangelism and personal contact.

We are not not not on about using such events, talks to stir up violent hatred against anyone. You are using a 'human' understanding of a spiritual issue. Paul says "The 'weapons' of our warfare are NOT carnal" (i.e. of this world)

You could not read the New Testament (on which our faith rests) and come way with the idea that you can stirr up hate and arrange attacks on other people. You CAN gain the view that we speak about CHRIST...crucified and resurrected, and that this can be offensive, but for goodness sake, "Christ in us" is going to have the opposite effect from the one you are suggesting we are guilty of.

When we goto fellowship/worship on a Sunday or bible study on another day, we are always concious of our need of Grace and there is nothing 'self righteous' about it. I fail to see how a born again person can come away from an experience of 'koinonia' (true fellowship) with hateful attitudes.

We have our share of wierdo's, bad apples, social parasites, and even geeeeks....but that's the nature of an open door policy. We don't give the 'thought police' routine to all and sundry who walk through our doors. But we also have some very saintly people who would (and do) give you the shirt off their back to help you in your hour of need.

You need to move more in Christian circles (the good the bad and the ugly) and compare to the New Testament.

* P.S. I was with a group of Christians at the El Alemain fountain in the Cross one night, sharing about Jesus, a guy walked up to one of our group and just king hit him. Its not just you who gets attacked.

Fellow human, “The problem starts when someone have a version of the absolute truth for everyone else”. David Palmer, Christians (and I would suspect Muslims as well in their own way, though I can’t speak for them) do believe in absolute truth”.

So the religious agree that absolute truth is paramount to understanding.

Absolute truth, historical and present fact. Destructive illusional fallacy, religion

Science is both evolutionary and creative. By something evolving, it creates, that leads to further evolution and creation. God, an illusionary concept, has no basis in fact, can't be seen, understood, nor does it live up to the image the religious (blanks) give it. Just the opposite. Note the self righteous venom that emanates when they spew forth their meaningless scripture in an attempt to establish meaning.

Those that live within this singular illusionary concept (god), must be frustrated in being unable to answer anything, other than with repetitive programming, ((blank) scripture). Science as a limited concept, can't explain our existence. But science does use creative theories, which allows it to evolve. Religion uses repetitive illusion, which can't create, only rotate.

David Palmer, you may have trouble understanding this, but there are many people on this planet that don't adhere to those two concepts that you determine as being the major ones. Some believe that our universe consists of many livable dimensions that are within and outside our own. Our universe is determined by, evolving creative, chaos. You can see this as nature does her best to rid itself of the disease that is killing it, (religious humanity). Its defence is to cause chaos, which will create stability so that the earth may continue to evolve.

Sadly you can't evolve an illusion, (religion), time has already shown us where religion is at and continues to do so with ever increasing fervor
When the religious (blanks) can provide evidence of the positive gains the world and its inhabitants have attained through religion, they may have a relevant debate. I wouldn't hold my breath though, blue is the facial colour used by the religious when confronted by absolute truth

The Alchemist asserts, “God, an illusionary concept, has no basis in fact, can't be seen, understood, nor does it live up to the image the religious (blanks) give it”, and again, “Our universe is determined by, evolving creative, chaos”. – so you too, Alchemist have your own version of absolute truth which you are aggressively trying to thrust down our throats. Well, you can keep it!

Contrary The Alchemist’s assertion, I don’t have a problem with science – why would I when it simply traces out the contours of God’s beautiful handiwork?

However I do have a problem when people load their anti God presuppositions into their science for ideological, non scientific reasons and that applies whether you are The Alchemist or dare I say it, Richard Dawkins.

Alchemist, why should I have a problem acknowledging persons might adhere to something other than Judeo Christianity or Islam? The last 100 years have been dominated by the anti God demigods, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the cultural anarchists of the mid 20th century and a fine mess they made of it.

Alchemist, do you really have to be so angry and ungracious? You give a whole new twist to the word, “bigot”. I’m happy to debate, but let’s forget the vitriol. Surely you can do better than that!

Rainier " Col Rouge, Yes it was a physical and unprovoked violent attack. "

Then it had nothing to do with "freedom of speech" and is, thus, completely and utterly irrelevent to this debate.

David Palmer, anger is a symptom of those that are filled with fear and doubt, as their illusions are shattered. Confusion and panic sets in, causing irrationality.

Putting forward historical fact, is not ungracious, just the truth.

Bigot, One who holds irrespective of reason, and attaches disproportionate weight to some creed or view. Historical fact, equates to reason. Religious illusion and fallacy, equates to bigots. Bigotry, mental state, ring a bell for you.

Anti god, demigods, conflict in terms, you express well your confusion.

Vitriol, throwing in a persons face as an act of vengeance, ding dong (religious reaction to reality).

David, I am not anti god, nor anti religious. I just find it ludicrous in the extreme. I hope that you poor souls are right in your beliefs, if you aren't, then your pain and anguish will know no bounds.

I expect that I will never be right, just continue to learn. So everything that doesn't fit into my understanding is an enlightenment, whilst for you it appears a burden.

David you can't run down science in one sentence then state that you have no trouble with it. This is the symptom of a troubled insecure mind, which is typical of the mental affliction that permeates throughout religion.

The difference between you and I, is that I have the freedom to explore all avenues of life and not just be stuck on a merry go round of unsubstantiated illusional fantasy.

Sadly all those of your ilk fail constantly, to answer the basic questions relating to the past history and present reality of how religion expresses itself on this planet. Until you can do that, religion will continue to be judged by that history, by those who use intelligence and not just misguided hope.

Please quote, where I have stated my version of absolute truth.
I have never disclosed my beleifs to anyone, they are personal. But I do enjoy placing fact in front of the god fearing (blanks). Fishing with the right bait, is always fruitfull.

Col, My freedom to be in a public place and practice my freedom of speech (I was at protest for a death in custody).
Or is this still irrelevant in your books?

The constant overuse of negative expressions identifies a build up of hateful emotions in the mind of a hostile opponent. Note the following vilification could incite some of similar ilk to believe this is absolute truth and result in them being violent on religious grounds. Does Alchemist live in Victoria? Or do we prefer to know what he really feels?

1. Quote, "Is it that we have not understood the consequences of following such ludicrous illusional stupidities."
2. Quote, "There is no god, just a reflection of the emptiness within the heads of the religious."
3. Quote, "Note the self righteous venom that emanates when they spew forth their meaningless scripture in an attempt to establish meaning."
4. Quote, "You can see this as nature does her best to rid itself of the disease that is killing it, (religious humanity). Its defence is to cause chaos, which will create stability so that the earth may continue to evolve."
5. Quote, "Vitriol, throwing in a persons face as an act of vengeance, ding dong (religious reaction to reality)."
6. Quote, "Please quote, where I have stated my version of absolute truth."
7. Quote, "I have never disclosed my beleifs to anyone, they are personal."

Can we draw a conclusion that Alchemist has no beliefs? If so; What has he been doing posting this continuous vitriol on the Forum for so long. Do we know his personal beliefs? I have no doubt as to what he believes and he has not kept it personal [to himself]. Wake up you are still in a bad dream Alchemist - Your daddy is now dead - dead - and the world has moved on since you went to sleep. Let him RIP.

Philo, your support in presenting my quotes, is commendable

“The constant overuse of negative expressions identifies a build up of hateful emotions in the mind of a hostile opponent.” Emotive fantasy typical of the relgious

Your first paragraph show how paranoid you are about historical fact being placed before the people. Those that understand what I say, would never result in “them being violent on religious grounds”. Because they wouldn't be religious, like me, we leave the violence to those that provide the best historical evidence of violence, the religious.

Hate, anger, these are symptoms of those that have no substance in their beliefs, so I leave those to the religious. They are very adept at expressing those emotions

I am sure that many others have been waiting for one of your ilk to reveal their true self with a personal attack. It doesn't take long, as can be seen in your final paragraph. An excellent example of your quote No3.

Quote No4. Was a little tongue in cheek, but you provide no evidence to the contrary, as with all your quotes.

“Can we draw a conclusion that Alchemist has no beliefs?”. Of course you can, if your understanding goes no further than the blank wall that sits just beyond the illusional religious programming that is within your mind.

“Do we know his personal beliefs?” Is that not a contradiction of your previous statement. It must be so frustrating to be so confused and irrational. Should you see someone about this affliction?

“I have no doubt as to what he believes and he has not kept it personal [to himself] “ I thought that the occult (mind reading) was deemed the work of the devil by your religion. Shame on you Philo, your fear and panic is getting the best of you.

Philo, I could not be so unkind as to burden you with knowledge that is incomprehensible and frightening for you. That would be ungracious of me.

However, I graciously ask, that you put forward historical and factual evidence to refute my view of reality

Rainier "Col, My freedom to be in a public place and practice my freedom of speech (I was at protest for a death in custody).
Or is this still irrelevant in your books? "

You are obviously allowed to protest peacefully about anything which takes your fancy

I was referring to the perpetrator of the "violent act" against you - who was, if a private individual, "getting physical" beyond their right of response.

However if you are talking about a police officer - I would suggest that, despite your protests, you were possibly in the wrong and exercising MORE than just "a right of free speech" - so without greater detail, analysis is meaningless.

But being in a confrontation often means
"objectivity" and "reason" are the first victims sacrificed.

I recall the dirty hordes of scum who protested against the WTO conference attendees st Melbourne Casino - they might claim "freedom of Speech" as they assaulted passersby and damaged cars and hindered police in the execution of their duty.
Such rabble deserve "reading of the riot act" and all the consequences which might befall them (suggest you read 18th century English history if you want to know exactly what that means).

Today I'm doing my final posts relative to research I have been doing. For 2 months I have been trying to find a Muslim who will condemn Mohammed for acts of torture described in Islamic histories. I have tried Islamic Q&A sites, blogs, forums and even emails to Imams. I have individually challenged Waleed Aly, Irfan Yusuf , Bashir Goth, Xena, Unconquered, Rancitas, Rossco, Shoshana, Trinity and Fellow Human here at OLO (FH at least said the Hadiths were wrong - but don't say that at your local mosque!).

I suspected that it would be difficult (denial!) but I had no idea. This is actually a project I started about Muslims deleting "inconvenient" postings (even if true) on Islamic sites. It then evolved into a "lets see if they can be honest" research on non-Muslim sites. I have saved the posts, replies and entire threads and I'll put them on the Internet.

This is not good. We are dealing with people who will not only not condemn (some) torture, but consider a torturer to be a good man and great example. “Indeed in the Messenger of Allaah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah…” (al-Ahzaab33:21). Yet the guy was a slaver, murderer and torturer. Not to mention all the special rules for himself, and the 9 year old girl thing.

This is why you cannot believe anything a Muslims says. I think this is a very reasonable position and I will not give an inch. Cute words, promises or condemnations of terror by Muslims are worthless. I am very pessimistic about our longterm ability to get along with people who cannot be honest about the most fundamental issues. To be nice and pretend all is well will only delay an eventual confrontation. People who care must speak up and tell Muslims the things they don't want to hear. It is the only way. Maybe they will see they have a serious problem - or maybe not!

This is not vilification; this is truth and honesty - and necessary!

Kactuz

Alchemist,
I suggest you be more punctilious and learn to read punctuation. There is a difference between "?" and "!", then you will not confuse a question as being a statement.

You have not told us if you live in Victoria, as I thought I might test the verasity of your true feelings before the VIC vilification tribunal. Do your words excite hatred that someone could interpret as reason to commit acts of violence toward a religious person? You see the violence does not have to be done by you but by someone whom you influence. Obviously your whole life has been brainwashed, controlled and influenced by your Daddy. When will the true Alchemist come out of the dark?

"you cannot believe anything a Muslims (sic.) says"

Perhaps it is because some people make hateful comments like these that the vilification laws were enacted? One is not too surprised when people who make statements like this jump up and down when it appears they might be called to account for them.

Bill Meuhlenberg says this is an example of secular gov'ts getting in the way of freedom of religious expression. The reality is that pressure groups from various religions, each having a political agenda and ambition of their own, all lobby gov't to obtain privileges for their particular group and with a view to imposing their religious beliefs and views on everybody else through gov't legislation.

Secular gov't should give no special value to Imams or Clergy, they should not be afforded special access to the ear of those in an elected gov't.

Secular gov't gives the best possible chance for equality of religious expression as well as for those whose naturalistic world view does not include the supernatural or mystical.

Until religious groups are willing to eschew state funding for their exclusive faith schools and show willing to integrate into society by attending schools providing reason-based education instead of faith-biased indoctrination, and until religious folk attend to their own private morality at home and in their places of worship instead of inapropriately attempting to impose their religious morality on all of us through gov't lobbying, it seems a bit rich to expect gov't to have no input into religious matters. We all benefit by keeping Gov't and religion totally separate... but it works both ways.

Kactuz >>I have individually challenged Waleed Aly, Irfan Yusuf , Bashir Goth, Xena, Unconquered, Rancitas, Rossco, Shoshana, Trinity and Fellow Human here at OLO (FH at least said the Hadiths were wrong - but don't say that at your local mosque!).<<

I am not a muslim. I have only spoken out because I loath seeing people condemned because of the actions of a few nutbags.

Even if I was a muslim I could not speak of behalf of them all anymore than I could speak on behalf of all women because I am a woman. Muslims are a large and diverse group - they are not a homogenous blob. Besides it appears you are trying to get muslims to condemn a man they regard as a prophet - this is the same as asking christians to condemn Jesus.

I would also posit that not all others you have mentioned above are muslims either - you seem to think that anyone who asks for tolerance and a reasoned approach to debate - instead of a constant stream of criticism - are muslim. How ironic.

I don't like religion at all. I am glad that I'm not muslim and I rejected christianity years ago. I loath the restrictions that ALL religions place on women. I also loath intolerance.

I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they choose as long as they leave me free to my beliefs.

LIVE AND LET LIVE.

Philo, Your first paragraph is typically senseless.

I accept the depths that the religious stoop to, in their futile efforts to support their unsupportable delusions, by demeaning families they have no knowledge off. However unlike you I am quite happy to answer your questions. I don't live in Victoria or Australia, my work takes me else where. I only get back once a year, if lucky.

Vilification laws are there for the inadequate to try and silence, by whatever means, the factual truth. This method has been used by religion throughout the ages to suppress truth, but has never been successful, just killed and jailed lots of good intelligent people.

Your statement, “Do your words excite hatred that someone could interpret as reason to commit acts of violence toward a religious person?”

Only if they were religious, those that have intelligence would have a good laugh at how you all fluster, babble and squirm when confronted by fact. In this century, except for the religious, most people understand the demonics of ideology, that is why ideologies are collapsing.

As to your insults regarding my late father. True he was a devout christian, until he returned from WW2 as a POW in Asia. He never entered a church or spoke of religion again. I never got the opportunity to discuss any of this with my father, as he was ostracised by his church and family, dying from his injuries. A typically religious approach

I doubt Philo that you have any understanding of what violent conflict does to a persons perceived realities. Like other religious (blanks), you refuse to see the realties that make up this world, just concentrating on your own selfcentred delusions.

Philo, study religious and theological history, rather than quote and rely on writings that have been so plagiarised and distorted, that their original meanings, as letters is lost in stupidity. But that would mean accepting the real truth, wouldn't it.

Alchemist,
If you had been aware and following my established position on vilification, you would know I uphold and defend your right to speak as you feel is right. I was joshing you. Obviously your sarcasm is too inbred so I must be more sensitive so you can realise reality.

I know you don't like scriptual quotes but I should follow these principles:

"In [our life and attitudes] commending ourselves as servants of God, by much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses, in beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in sleeplessness, in hunger, in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love, in the Word of Truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left, by glory and dishonour, by evil report and good report; regarded as deceivers and yet true; as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, as sorrowful
yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things." II Corinthians 6:3-10

The People who were constantly persecuting Paul were religious zealots, who were formerly his tutors and coleagues in Judaism. They felt he was betraying his faith by preaching Jesus was Christ. They wanted him dead, as they had authorised him to so do before his conversion. But it was his perseverence in the face of death that won him a crown of life

Dear Xena,

You say, "I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they choose as long as they leave me free to my beliefs. LIVE AND LET LIVE"

Agree 100%, but by engaging with one another on this forum, aren't we all trying to promote/defend our core beliefs/point of view, and wouldn't we be chuffed if someone said, "Oh, I like that argument", or, "Oh, I've changed my mind, you have shown me a better way"?

Dear Alchemist,

It is rather religious literalism than religion itself that cause wars and here is my theory:

Most long wars (ie within Christian religion or crusades/ muslims) was between religions that have a lot in common. Take the catholics (Crusades) versus Muslims for example. Both agree on Jesus’ existence, teachings,..the disagreement was on his nature (ie prophet or God). Literalism in any religion (or non-religion) narrows the mind, tightens the blinkers and justifies the zero tolerance with those who are different.

Hi Xena

I was explaining to you my beliefs to the best of ,my knowledge and ability and specially the position on women rights and obligations. I usually stick to the Quoran and rely only on hadith if does not conflict with the peaceful spirit of the holy book.
Religion are like soccer games, each have its rules.

Cheers warrior princess,

Fellow Human, That is very true, literalism is a big problem within religion. But that problem, should be solved within religion, not used as an excuse or at the expense of those outside religion.

If religion, irrelevant as to it's translation, can't solve by the means that its god espouses and gives it followers, within the interpretation of its scriptures, and resorts to conflict, either verbal, social, or physical. Then any rational interpretation would deem it as inadequate and evil.

Excusing the violent implementation and expression of doctrines throughout the ages, for whatever reason, is what you would expect from those whose understanding is not sufficient, to know what they do and have done. Like a child or mentally challenged person. You would not expect it from those who present themselves to the world, as knowing truth and expressing that truth in a positive way, as their god wishes.

This is the reality that religion faces, and it is very apparent that religion has a big problem with accepting reality. After all, you have all had more than 2000 years, muslims more than 1000, and you are still approaching life in the same way. Nothing has changed except the planet we all live on. In many areas of the world, you are either still trying to convert, or kill each other and anyone else that gets in your way. This is with all religions, just in varying degrees.

Religion is past its use by date. It has failed every test, nothing going for it but fear, doubt and violence. It is losing the war that it is fighting against reality, yet fails to realise that the methods it continues to use, can only have one outcome, its own destruction and or, the planet we live on

Beliefs are essential for everyone, without them we would have no reason to exist. But beliefs that express, then create the situations that religion does, something very wrong there.

Alchemist,
I must congratulate on a well thought out post here without all the vitriol.

On this I will agree that many persons flying a flag of a religion have not contributed intelligently to the betterment of humanity, and many still do.

But be aware that the core values of being human are best summed up in: "love your neighbour as you love yourself". "Feed and clothe your enemy". "Show concern for the betterment of those who would persecute or kill you".

This is a violent world, as can be seen in all of nature. As the supposed intelligent, enlightened children of god, “the core values of being human” should be towards the protection, and good management of all his creation. Anything less, would be unworthy of one who loved the creator. Do you love the artist, but destroy their work. Not very rational or intelligent.

Core values must pertain to what is at the centre, the deepest part, wherein lies the heart of things. If I were to believe in god, then my core value would be to love and protect what he has created. To do otherwise would be to go against the word of god and worship false idols, images and doctrine.

Philo, your core values say, me, me, me, humans first. No mention of anything else, must be of no value.

But then maybe that is not what religion is about. It appears to me, that the religious approach is all about the ego, humans come first, believers come first, power and glory,(money, material possessions, evangelism) comes on top of that. His creation and those that dwell within it, comes last. Even those that are created in his image, come after the ego.

Gods words seem fruitless, other than to be totally misused and turned into a crutch to lean on and hide behind.

I believe, that any religion that is not whole in its approach, expression and care, is a false one and goes against the direct word of god. How can you worship in truth if you only care in self.

If religion was fighting the good fight, it would be out therr leading the way in providing an example of how our technology can not only enhance our lives, but all of his creation, rather than support its destruction. Where is the ethic and morals in that approach. There is no excuse, you've had your go, failed, won't change, time to go. Enjoy the ride down, all your friends are waiting.

Signed, _ _ _ (oops, ego nearly got me there)

Alchemist,

Again we are talking about different things.
My point was literalism is the root of problems whether you worship God, yourself or your pet. Mongols were atheists when they toured central Asia killing and burining everything.

Your theory is to relate all problems to the concept of God and those who believe in it. Mother Theresa was a believer in God and she gave her life to helping hundreds and thousands of people.

Alchemist,
The Bible gives due respect to the natural world as the first chapter relates all life and creatures to God, and makes man responsible to nurture the environment for his and all creatures sustainance. The praise of the Psalmist observes the events of the natural world and thanks God for it. The accountability at the judgment of man, holds each man accountable for his deeds on how he has treated the Earth. God will destroy those that damage the Earth [Revelation 11: 18].

So you are more religious than you imagined.

I personally have been a political activist to retain our natural heritage in the Western Suburbs of Sydney.

Fellow human, you started out by referring to religious literalism, then included non religion. Therefore I must agree.

Mother Teresa, was purely religious propaganda. You will always find many thousands of people from all backgrounds helping those in need.

Philo, one feather does not a doona make. “I personally have been a political activist to retain our natural heritage in the Western Suburbs of Sydney.”

"God will destroy those that damage the Earth [Revelation 11: 18]".

If I was the resurrected christ, my posts have been to test you in regard to the creation given to you by my father. Your reaction would be exactly the same as it was, 2000 years ago. I have abused your religion, demeaned the writings you worship. Threw fact in your face, ridiculed all religions. Said, your wrong, so look beyond how you see your beliefs. You show no care, no understanding, no willingness to listen and learn. Telling you that your approach to life is wrong, falls on deaf ears. Your ridicule my beleifs, yet don't know them. All religious people would ridicule, and destroy me.

You all wait for your christ to come, yet you didn't' recognise him in the past, because he came in the image of god, (human). So for all muslims, and christians you have failed in your faith for 2000 years . You will never recognise the resurrected one, because you won't change.

That makes you wrong, inadequate, lacking knowledge, understanding or acceptance. So you are irrelevant to gods work, of no use to his son, because if he revealed himself and questioned your faith, you would deny, then destroy him.

I can't recall any evidence where either the christ, or god directed anyone to follow books of words. But as to being a responsible part of his creation, you fail. You fail as true believers, as you do the opposite of what your god asks. Gods doctrine is within his works, not within the writings of others. You all fail. Conclusion, revelation 11: 18.

Senor Duck....

I can’t type and often cannot spell. Regarding "you cannot believe anything a Muslims (sic.) says" I was referring specifically to matters of faith and religion.

If asking about torture is your idea of hate, then you have a real problem. If I am ever “called into account” for my statements (sharia?), I will not back down or give an inch. I am very, very sure of my beliefs, and, unlike so many people here, I do not have to avoid simple questions and apply different standards to different people.

Xena,

I do condemn people because of the actions of “nutbags.” The nutbags are a consequence of the basic ideology of Islam and modern circumstances. I condemn people because they love and respect a man that was a slaver, murderer, torturer, and who made a lot of ‘exception’ rules for himself. I condemn them because they cannot be honest and answer my questions. I condemn them because they love and praise a man that did so many evil deeds. If Joe Anybody had done what Islam’s great prophet did, all of us would say Joe was not just a “dirty old man”, but scum. Except we are not talking Joe, are we?

And why not judge everybody by the same standards? Name a person that tortured and I will condemn him or her. Xena, I don’t play games with serious issues. If Jesus or Buddha had done what Mohammed did, why would I not condemn them?

Do you think that because Mohammed was “a man they (Muslims) regard as a prophet” that he should not be held accountable for his actions? Actually it can be argued that prophets, messiahs, presidents, teachers and clergy should be held to higher standards, but I do not accept this either. Yet, Muslims believe that no standards should apply to Mohammed. He cannot be criticized. This actually makes sense, because the minute a Muslim admits that his dear prophet was a murderer, slaver and torturer, not even the most fervent one can honestly stay in Islam. So the only recourse is denial.

Kactuz

My oh my, what happened to the religious (blanks), can't they stand truth. We now know the problem with religious vilification laws, there is nothing to vilify except fantasy.

So once again we have been conned by the brain dead meaningless politicians and religious (blanks), none of whom can sustain nor support their deluded fallacies.

Maybe people should seriously start looking for alternative approaches to life and bypass these fools that continue to dump havoc, mayhem and confusion upon the world and its life forms.

An idea would be to make politicians and the religious, prove and be responsible for what they say as well as their collusion in the detrimental outcomes they impose. If they won't, we can send them to their religious or political country of choice, so they can all live in fantasy land together.

Let's ask them all to shut up or leave, and govern by consensus. With the technology we have, it wouldn't be hard to determine how people feel about ideas and policies and then implement them properly.

By taking the direction, implementation and policies of our societies out of the hands of the minorities, (political parties, elite, religions, and beaurucrats) we have the chance to go forward and stop this country from becoming involved in a repeat of the religious and political destruction, that has been a major part of the history of this world.

After all, without a godhead or ideological force controlling us, we can use our science to improve and save the people and the planet.

Alchemist,
Thought you might be interested in this article of an atheist promoting faith in Jesus.
Click here to see the story on-line: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16654819%255E28737,00.html

ALCHEMIST
most of what needed to be said has been.

Your posts are becoming rather repetitious and devoid of significance points to debate on. You are long on 'woffle' and short on serious debating points :)

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but quantity does not equal quality in debate.

In the beginning..... you just railed at everyone in joined sentences, but then we trained you to separate them a bit and be more legible, now we have to train you to actually 'say' something in your separated sentences.

Why not pick an aspect of the issue, and support or negate it with some obvious research.. there's a good boy :)

Spot on Boaz David, but shouldn't that be "waffle" and not "woffle" - I note spelling is not your strong point.

Dangle the right bait and you catch what you seek, up bobs the 3 stooges. Definition of a stooge, butt, foil, puppet, good description of the religious.

Philo I read that article, its very apt in describing how desperate religion is in its attempt to prop up its fallacies when faced with reality.

Philo,. "Jesus went beyond warm and fuzzy maxims. He basically said ... 'whoever believes in me won't die'. Could you introduce us to all those that have believed, that haven't died, Or are you hiding them for a special occasion.

Bd says, “Why not pick an aspect of the issue,” I and other posters, have picked many aspects of religious issues. Could you be saying Bd, that you can't handle more than one aspect of an issue. Or that you are only prepared to debate aspects that you understand, but have yet to find any. The way you all avoid answering the myriad of questions about religion put to you, can only bring us to one conclusion, you don't understand your own fallacies.

Sadly like all those that lack the intelligence to understand the world around you, you then attack any aspect of a person you can. This is understandable by most of us, as it points out to what depths the superstitious and unevolved will stoop to in their futile attempts to defend their unexplainable fallacies.

But I won't waste my time any more, I have had my fun and established that things haven't changed in the religious world, merry go rounds are not my preferred option in life. As to training BD, you certainly have lacked that in your life, I have yet to see you establish truth regarding anything you say. Your god has trained you all very well, pity it has nothing to do with reason or fact.

Psychological fact, how to tell a liar. When faced with truth, they change the subject and try to attack. When unable to sustain their lie, they turn on all in an attempt to justify the illogical position they hold.

Religious vilification laws are not an infringement on free speech and I agree that the only way to deal with wrong and harmful ideas, is for them to be discussed and critiqued.

I say we needn’t vilify anything nor one, to maintain a free standard of open speech, in Australia. As a nation, we must find a way beyond this.

I see a number of spurious arguments that makes Australia an International disgrace, and it makes me ashamed to live in Australia.

Methuselah you argue on the "ambiguity of the Act ... the type of humanistic 'doublespeak' of numerous UN covenants”, this view is not dead, but essential to open futher relevance. I believe the idea is to clean up the pretentious moral standards, so as to remain viable under the protection of universal law.

And to identify with Rainier's arguments, his pointed issues outlining protection against hate and violence, "So, what laws should exist to protect the rights of powerless minority ethnic or racial groups? I belong to a "powerless" minority group in this country and we certainly don't have the power to impose or suppress anyone's views about us and perhaps never will". I advocate Rainier, it is not the law we need to question here as much as our access to it, through the dilemma of "how" to meet legal costs.

Faustino, I feel you outline the purpose of "free speech" when you say "Personally, I try to avoid harmful speech, but in many cases being able to voice one's concerns, even when they might be hurtful to some others and may not have a solid basis, can release rather than exacerbate tensions, and can prompt a verbal response, a dialogue".

I think cultures that make practice to "internalise hurt, .... after several decades found it better to bring things in to the open, generally leading to clarification and resolution" are dealing with their denial. That the Vilification Act has nothing to do with creating laws which oppress so don’t get sucked into superfical arguments presented by a euphoriant part of Australia.

On vilification, while I may agree "You could almost apply the same argument to the outlawing of hatred as the argument for the legalisation of illicit drugs and Prostitution: “if it (hatred) is criminalised, it’ll only go underground." I don't believe it is because of a vilification law, I think it is because the cultural cringers themselves would be hiding from the fact that they are ugly and duly exposed.

And in Rainier's second argument which says; "There has not been an “active campaign of misinformation” that "The Victorian legislation is so nebulously worded that it can mean whatever some PC official Grand Inquisitor wants it to mean." Then wording ought to be the nature of the debate, not the vilifying cultural distain so typical of people who advocate parallelepiped agitated distortion to something that aims to set a standard for all; including this legislation, which is to assist us to prevent any instances of violence towards anyone; including minorities.

This debate ought to question whether; "... criticism be allowed" and "are the criticisms true'. However where Kactuz gets caught out is as he understandably asks; "Do you think that I am wrong to call a person's attention to the life and actions of their leader, and to ask that a person to condemn him for those actions that are vile and repugnant?" I say NO, but what is at stake is another’s choice to change their values and belief at their discretion, not the influence of you having decided to inform them of who-did-what-to-who? This information is important and must be exposed, but it's not our place to control people, once they have that information.

While I aspire to the principals of Fellow_Human that; Multiculturalism isn't working in Australia, I say let's not get too carried away here. Your US comparative is an appalling example. However I agree, Australia would make a better position, if it engaged with a multiculturalism that required leading the way to a clearer Australian identity, whereby reciprocal interchange (cultural influence and be influenced) shared more tolerance and autonomy with the sub cultures.

miacat,
Your articles are so confusing it is hard to determine your position. Do you believe in controling people's attitudes by laws?

See: Quote 1, "Religious vilification laws are not an infringement on free speech and I agree that the only way to deal with wrong and harmful ideas, is for them to be discussed and critiqued".

Quote 2," I advocate Rainier, it is not the law we need to question here as much as our access to it, through the dilemma of "how" to meet legal costs."

Is the real issue the gaining of money to persue litigation against an opponent? This is not the Australian way. Since you are so ashamed of Australia's egalitarian society I suggest you might find a more acceptable country to live in, with statements like this. Quote: "I see a number of spurious arguments that makes Australia an International disgrace, and it makes me ashamed to live in Australia".

The vilification laws deliberately endeavour to supress expression that others might take as offensive. So your statement; Quote, "I think cultures that make practice to "internalise hurt, .... after several decades found it better to bring things in to the open, generally leading to clarification and resolution" are dealing with their denial. That the Vilification Act has nothing to do with creating laws which oppress so don’t get sucked into superfical arguments presented by a euphoriant part of Australia."

Stop the double speak and you might clarify your position

miacat,
Your attitude expresses a morally superior tone and vilifies ordinary Australians. Isn't it better that you are able to express this; so we Australians get to know what you are thinking rather than biting your tongue for fear of causing offense. You see what you said about Australia, I found very offensive. Sounds like racial vilification too me. What we need is to educated people's conscience to act responsibly; not more laws in an endeavour to control people. Learn self control by good conscience.

Hi kactus
quote "Name a person that tortured and I will condemn him or her. Xena, I don’t play games with serious issues. If Jesus or Buddha had done what Mohammed did, why would I not condemn them?"

I think that's very fair myself so here you go. In 2 Sam 12: 29,31 we read "And David gathered all the people together, & went to Rabbah, & fought against it & took it.

And he brought forth the people that were therein, & put them under saws, & under harrows of iron, & under axes of iron & made them pass through the brick-kiln: & thus he did unto all the cities of the children of Ammon." Sounds like torture to me! Let's hear your condemnation

Thank you, yes I know it may look like I am hiding behind other peoples words, but I did it try and sort through what I thought because it took me awhile to see my way through all the jargon. I thank anyone who has seen me do this and it's just me having a go. I personally found the whole article confusing.

I don't believe in controlling people attitudes I just want to see an end to the abuse and vilification in our Australian culture.

a) I meant vilification - not the word "religious" I am sorry it was an error.

Centrally I want to totally and utterly agree Philo .... "What we need is to educate people's conscience to act responsibly; not more laws in an endeavour to control people. Learn self control by good conscience. "

My thoughts are however, this is not the Australia I know just now. I feel the laws are of benefit to people (possibly like myself) - but say again, if you have access to legal costs?

miacat,
I find your post rather curious. You do not want laws to control people, but in the same sentence seem obsessed with funds for litigation .

Quote, "My thoughts are however, this is not the Australia I know just now. I feel the laws are of benefit to people (possibly like myself) -but say again, if you have access to legal costs?"

Why do you have a financial obsession about going to court. Why? How are you being vilified? Australia is an open culture where all can express what is offending them. It is more rewarding to participate in your local community rather than litigate and make an enemy because you have sought damages against him. Why are you seeking money to damage another? This not building bridges to the community it is only creating chasims. There is sufficient laws already to take out restraining orders against physical or emotional abuse. If such is happening to you see your local Chamber Magistrate. However it does not take two people to dig a ditch, try building a bridge. You never know it might work.

Bosk,

No probema (very bad Spanish, that!)

I totally and unequivocally condemn King David for that horrible act. Torture (and many other equally cruel acts) should always be condemned, no matter who does it, or under what circumstances.

Happy? Why did you think I wouldn't condemn David? I understand he also did a bunch of other things that would not get him a "blue ribbon" award for meritorious conduct (such as matters of adultery and murder).

Kactuz

PS: I was thinking about this answer, and maybe if one of my children were being held hostage or something, and I had a man in my power and I knew that he was a thug and was certain that he had information that could save the child, well the man would be in big trouble. But this is not the case of any of the discussions here. Just trying to be honest...

We cannot say the Bible is only the story of acceptable acts performed by good people. David was especially noted for his dispicable behaviour on several issues. It was because of this that he was forbidden from establishing the Temple.

The Bible reports the facts and the consequences of those facts so we can learn, supposedly so we do not repeat the mistakes of history. The history of human behaviour is not good, but it did happen and from it we ought to learn.

Quote, "In 2 Sam 12: 29,31 we read "And David gathered all the people together, & went to Rabbah, & fought against it & took it.

And he brought forth the people that were therein, & put them under saws, & under harrows of iron, & under axes of iron & made them pass through the brick-kiln: & thus he did unto all the cities of the children of Ammon."

Phil, your view is correct if you are lucky and live in a region where the community has the right sevices, and a network that works in a democratic way.

As you may know small rural isolated communities can be rather insular, and a lot can happen to some people, who do not have the resources to defend themselves, that is extremely unfair.

I live in Cape York. To see how some of this works you might take a look at my web page on www.miacat.com ie: see - What I have said re: the BUSHBPRINT and in the UN-Brisbane "Engaging Communities" forum.

I do participate in community but am seen to be a trouble maker, a missionary, you name it.... IT IS INSULTING, almost impossible to ignore because it effects livilhood!

I find there is many of the right policies in place throughout Australia, but a lack of implementation at ground level.

People like myself who try to help stand-up for these policies (Local Agenda) are being seriously vilified - and others (within community hide) are too scared to stand up for what is right - because what has happened to people (like me) - may happen to them.... and if they work within the services... they often tell you (off the record) that they agree (this or that person is doing the wrong thing) but the more often refuse to (do the right thing) rock the boat in fear of loosing their own jobs.

Look at how Australia treats "whistleblowers".

This vilification law is not the answer alone - however - if it gives people an opportunity to fight bullies - then I support it.

Miacat,
There are laws already that give protection to persons harrassed in the workplace. As I suggested you may seek advice at the local Chamber Magistrate based at your local Court House. However be aware you may be too sensitive to the anger of some colleague. I suggest you seek a Magistrates advice, if he assesses you have a worthy case he will advise action.

I grew as a young child in a small Catholic village on the mid Coast of NSW and I was not a Catholic, so faced constant threats for not going to Scripture from the other children. My parents found it better to have us move than face the persecution. This experience taught me to tolerate difference not to seek revenge.

Philo, you assume to much, we live in a ever developing democracy based on growing forms of civic renewal, participation and the building knowledge.

If we are serious about any of this than "revenge" as you suggest, is not part of the equation.

What do you think about "bystander apathy"? Do you think there is no such thing....?

How do you overcome it, in the light of prohibiting verbal and psychological vilification and abuse?

Miacat,
Are you working on a civil engineering project?
Your language is so confusing, I doubt if anyone can intelligently understand what you are talking about. What is meant by: Quote, "we live in a ever developing democracy based on growing forms of civic renewal, participation and the building knowledge."

You say you are living in a developing democracy - Where? Iraq? The Victorian vilification legislation reduces democracy not develop it. Why is it for you that legal revenge is the only option?

Can you define what you mean by "bystander apathy"? Perhaps part of your problem is your poor skills in communication. I cannot understand what you mean by the following sentences. Please explain!

Quote, "What do you think about "bystander apathy"? Do you think there is no such thing....? How do you overcome it, in the light of prohibiting verbal and psychological vilification and abuse?

Philo

Miacat has a wesite, vis a vis: www.miacat.com
Says a lot mate.

Cheerio
Kay

Thanks Kalweb,
I had a look at the site, http://www.miacat.com/UN_MiaSpeak_2.htm but I cannot see how funds to take a case for vilification against another party can help the project. Such would not operate on the good will of local community but on some level of hostility. Not a good basis for its future prosperity.

"What we need is to educate people's conscience to act responsibly..."

Philo, you had said your family had to move because of a situation that was happening... I do not like to see this happen and work to promote a society that doesn't force people to feel they must move out of their choosen community like this. It does not make it right because it is easier - to do this.

I have no community project - connected to a specific vilification issue.

I live in a remote community whereby a selected few control a majority - by the ways they bully and vilify others in a resource scarce environment. The situation is socially very strained.

This is a known phenomena, in many small communities. Often it is only a problem of education awareness where there is a lack of good conscience, or understanding being exersised by the few. However until more is done to combat the problem, people are being seriously affected.

A vilification law allows people to attempt to stand-up if they can and have it out in a safe space - where the issues may be mediated and sorted. Sometimes a law - as a resource, can offer this opportunity - if a person (people are prepared to through with it) I understand what you are saying Philo, but I feel you are only considering one side of the coin.

A form of bystander apathy is the "I'm okay you're okay" mentally. Where people stand watching someone being targeted by bullies - and do nothing.

The is a very good article on this forum called "Not so innocent bystanders" - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=30 - I was hoping you had seen it.