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"