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.