David,
I agree, the vilification Act is a joke. It was just a PC stunt to grab a few votes before a tight election. So why do you bother appealling to it as if it was anything more than a joke?

Lev and Runner,
People who practice abortions should be jailed. This is not my opinion. It's what is written in the Crimes Act.

Hussain I agree wholeheartedly with your arguments. No-one should be denied a platform. Let the racists speak. What is really important today is to safeguard the rights of all to freedom of speech. Of particular concern is that today we have people arrested and charged on flimsy evidence suggesting that they may be likely to commit an offence, without having done anything. Thankfully some of these bogus charges have been thrown out of court.

Hi Dan.. I refer to the RRTA because it is 'orwellian' in nature and impact.

The Act was used perniciously and conspiratorially against the 2 Dannies. This is my biggest concern. When a member of the Islamic Council of ViC is ALSO on the EOC..and then, pre-programmed spies are sent to report badly (no matter what they actually heard) of a seminar to give the Act some real world teeth at our expense... welllllll... I see the same thing Jews might see when they read Mein Kampf.

TRTL.. I saw myself in your post :)

I condemn ANY religion which permits child sexual abuse and if you cannot.. then I find that strange. If you look up Surah 65:4 and then track down some academic commentaries on it, you will find it permits the
-marriage to
-sexual use of
-divorce of

....Pre-pubescent female children.

see THIS http://www.danielpipes.org/ about poor 8 yr old Najoud.
BUT WAIT...thats just 'anti muslim propoganda from Daniel Pipes...right?

Ok.. see it here in the Yemen Times
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1145&p=front&a=2

If you feel that this is not grounds for making religious comparisons and claiming the a religion which teaches a pure and caring attitude to children is not 'better' for society, then I'd have worries about your own moral credentials. I'd even accept someone making comparisons between secular attitudes and this awful travesty of human relations.

The point about raising such issues, is not to play "Mine is better than yours" as much as it is about demonstrating that the RRTA can be used to STIFLE such criticism on the grounds that it 'vilifies' a particular faith. Worse..that ones motive, which is in reality the public interest....can be deemed 'irrelevant'. Of course, the rider is that as long as one argues in good faith and reasonably, it's supposed to be 'ok'...but you can waste a hell of a lot of time and money trying to show that you did act in good faith.

So.. lets RID ourselves of this abominable and oppressive Act.

I believe in an artist being able to express themselves. This includes
the using of so-called religions such as Islam for artistic expression. However I also believe that Christianity should be off limits to this "expression."

Mr. R..,

Apologies, my misktake - the response should have been to Healthwatcher.

Runner,

Please do not lie, especially in a public forum where it makes you look even more foolish.

In the post where you said that abortionists, teaches of evolution and climatologists should be jailed you were responding directly to me (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7210#110581). Nobody in that thread said that "bible believing Christians should be jailed".

As for the left supposedly being silent on the issue, I can assure you there was significant debate with the Socialist Left of the ALP, the legislation was strongly opposed by Liberty Victoria, the largest civil liberties group in the state, with Brian Walters SC, taking a leading role at protest rallies on the steps of parliament (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/speaking-freely-is-risky-business-rally-told/2006/08/08/1154802889839.html). The socialist newspaper, Green Left Weekly, has long opposed censorship even on matters it despises (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2000/425/22538).

Once again, I have shown you to be in complete error on the basis of facts. I wish you would learn from this.

Dan,

You are incorrect. In Victoria following the Supreme Court decision of 1969 ('the Menhennitt ruling') an abortion can be lawful (c.f., http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm)

beaumonde,

I hope for your sake you can see the contradiction in claiming that artists are entitled to free expression but the subject of Christianity is off-limits.

Lev

You know as well as I do that I was responding to your post where you wrote 'Those who, as a matter of religious beliefs, claim that their "holy text" is the result of perfect divine revelation, are ridiculous (and possibly dangerous) individuals and deserve to be considered as such.' I added to it by writing ' 'You should also include in your list that people who murder the unborn, teach that we came from apes and scare the heck out of kids with global warming crap should be jailed.' My point was obvious. The fundamentalist humanist is more dangerous and violent than your bible believing Christian. Your half truths and mis representations continue. If bible believing Christians who are generally peace loving people are dangerous then how much more the teachers of lies and murderers of the unborn.

It is your intent to misrepresent that is the lie in this case.