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.