Here comes in C.J.Morgan's view another inane comment and in the view of that other champion of free speech StG an agenda driven bigot.
Be wonderful is this dribbling clown of a self-appointed sheik only had these lying incredibly insane views but what of his easily led gullible flock? Not to mention other islamic leaders who have spewed viols of hate and abuse to Australia, Australians and our democratic system of Government.
And note every other time this idiot sheik has made, usually in a "free and Democratic?" islamic dictatorial nation, totally lying inappropriate comments he has ALWAYS been incorrectly? quoted. This bloke is a raving lying nut case. regards, numbat

Numbat... I'm trying to suss out your view there, but I'm having a little trouble. Nobody here is suggesting that the Sheik is anything other than the nutbag you so eloquently describe.
What is it exactly that infuriated you about CJ Morgan and StG's commentary - which basically was concurring with the article, so I can only assume your diatribe is against the piece itself, which leads me to wonder what your issue with it is.

Are you suggesting the Sheikh should be constrained in what he may say? Were he actually inciting violence directly (by that I mean, go forth and kill or maim non-muslims) then perhaps I would be more inclined to agree, but as it is, he is merely making stupid ill-informed statements.
Heck. Pauline Hanson does it all the time. We didn't jail her for that (the jailing was overturned anyway, and it was for electoral improprieties not stupid remarks).

Numbat, if I might ask, what are you proposing in relation to the Sheikh, and where do we draw a line in the sand as to what you can and can't say?

Bagaric says “It is also wrong to say things that incite violence.” The sheikh’s comments could have incited violence amongst non-Muslims, but they didn’t. However, were comments of a similar intent made about Muslims, or the inhabitants of a Muslim country, there would likely have been a violent reaction, not just here but elsewhere, as information these days travels the world swiftly. We’ve already witnessed several examples over the past year.

Bagaric also says about free speech: “Like all rights it must yield to the weight of producing good outcomes. There are many legitimate exceptions to the right to say whatever you want.”

Yes I agree, but when it comes to intolerant religions, does this mean a good outcome is to bottle up our critical thoughts rather than speak out? This does not sound like advancing the social and moral health of our community at all. On the contrary, Islam is gradually subverting freedoms and values that we previously held dear: for example, the anti-terror laws, or certain suburbs in our major cities you can’t walk around in free from harassment.

When it comes down to it, every relatively educated individual is aware of the value of free speech and the importance of protecting it. However with certain positions of privileged authority come responsibilities, and one must have certain personal freedoms restrained when an ambassador for others.

The sheikh is entitled to have his personal views, and as a human being and resident of Australia, he has the privilege to express them. However as mufti, as spokesperson for the entire Islamic community of Australia, his responsibility is to conform his views (to at least a degree) to reflect his constituents.

THAT is where any action should be directed. Not anti-muslim rhetoric agaist the sheikh and his ilk but at the muslim community responsible for accepting him as their spiritual leader and spokesperson. If this community wish to show that they respect the values and the freedoms which our lucky country promotes, then they should feel obligated to elect a mufti which reflects that instead of making excuses for an "underlying anti-muslim sentiment in Australia."

In the end, I am confident the majority of Australians

... are anti-anti-Australians, not anti-muslim. It just seems more convenient to portray it as such when the majority of the former are indeed the latter.

Mirko has certainly raised some valid points in regards to free speech, especially the importance of allowing ridiculously inflammatory comments such as the sheikh's to be contradicted etc. There is little doubt also that the media traded in an opportunity to open a serious public debate over the issue for the more sensationalised approach of melodrama.

However this "anti-muslim sentiment" must not disguise us from what has actually inspired this and the need for more platforms to openly discuss these issues being made readily available.

Freedom of speech IS a privilege. It can also be abused by those who don't truly value it. For comments such as the sheikh's to in the end be "tolerated" is a much more dangerous precedent than the forcing of such views underground (which would always occur anyway). The answer as often is the case is unlikely to be black and white but a form of compromise. On this issue, certainly it rests with the muslim community: how they choose to take responsibility for their own actions and how they wish to be portrayed to others....

"Muslims are more entitled to be in Australia than Anglo-Saxons, who came here as convicts."

He said that...?

How is that connected to free speech?

Someone tell me.