Dear Ronnie....what do you make of this, in terms of starting fires?

Quran 9:30 (Christians) Allah's curse be on them, they are deluded, away from the truth.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:

On his death-bed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets."

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:
Narrated Ibn Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.

If you notice carefully, we can observe 3 things here.

1/ Mohammed Curses Christians and Jews
2/ The Quran Curses Christians and Jews
3/ Mohammed attacked people, withOUT warning! (who were simply doing their daily routine) killed many, took captives of women and children.

Basis for his attack (not found in the Hadith) was that their chief had made an alliance with another tribe who were Mohammeds enemies.

LESSON. Unless 'we' have a treaty of peace with the Muslims, WE ARE THE ENEMY and can justifiably be attacked ANY time. Remember, serious Muslim minds (like Hizb) are very much in this mould, and they regard Mohammeds life as their supreme example. London bombings, US embassy bombings, 9/11, Bali are all in complete harmony with Mohammed actions here.

Pastors Scott and Naliah were quite correct in their assessment of "Once the Muslims become strong, they (the likes of Hizb) will seek to take over, by force".. it will be justified by similar reasoning used by Mohammed.

Divergence,

I consider "truth is no defence" one of the most pernicious aspects of the legislation. That's why I think it needs to be repealed.

ronnie peters,

Are you implying that Nalliah and Scott have to pass some sort of "Good Christian pastor" test before they're allowed to have their say?

That is not free speech.

BOAZ_David,

You appreciate that your last post probably contravenes Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance (sic) Act 2001

God-botherers like CTF should be cared for in the mental health system, at least until their sky-god delusions wane enough to stop them sowing ignorance and hatred in public. What a joke these folk are, still rigidly stuck on stories invented thousand of years ago (that goes for fundamentalist Muslims and Jews too).

Liam wrote:

"God-botherers like CTF should be cared for in the mental health system,.... (that goes for fundamentalist Muslims and Jews too)."

In other words, you are in favour of censorship using the "metal health system." That, of course, is one of the ways they silenced people in the Soviet Union.

This isn't about what "God-botherers" say. It's about the right all of us should have to say what we want.

Freedom of speech does not mean only the right to say things you consider sensible. It includes the right of people you loathe to say things that disgust you.

The only reasonable limitation I can see on freedom of speech is outright incitement to commit a crime of violence. Note the use of the term "outright."

Saying Islam is a load of male bovine excrement and the so-called "prophet" a charlatan is not "outright incitement." Saying "kill Muslims" is.

Stephany, I'm not convinced that even incitement to violence should be outlawed if you want to truly uphold freedom of speech. As soon as you outlaw incitement to violence then you have to consider outlawing any speech or writing that can be deemed provocative or inflammatory, not simply outright instructions to kill. That would have to include banning those religious texts that incite violence, and you would have to have some way of policing it. I think it would be very messy and ultimately unworkable, nor would it serve in promoting religious or political dialogue.

There should never be any need to curb freedom of speech or expression even if it promotes violence. Wherever there is the freedom to incite violence there is the freedom to promote peace and harmony. Responding to incitement should not be with censorship laws, that hide the problem causing ignorance of it, but with words of understanding that promote the alternative that is peace and harmony.

I feel very comforted by the fact that I would incur serious legal sanctions if I were to whip a mob into a frenzy and then suggest to them that anyone with the online name Crusader deserves to be kicked to death.

Doubtless I don’t have sufficient charisma to do this, even if I were so inclined. However charismatic individuals all through history have been able to incite others to acts they wouldn’t otherwise commit. These charismatic individuals need to be held to account for their actions, just as if they were doing the kicking.