Dan S de Merengue,

To know a lot about this subject it is not necessary to be 'a lawyer or an ALP spokesperson'. A concern for factual evidence is the fundamental attribute required.

We agree that absolute free speech needs to be tempered by law. (It has been for yonks under defamation laws and the Crimes Act for example in regard to inciting violence.)

I can't help you get over your fixation with alleged ALP motives. That's a problem you have to resolve by reference to the evidence.

Laws that relate to complex social policy - treason, terrorism, defamation, human rights, vilification - are always by the very nature going to be controversial, pleasing some and disturbing others.

The fact that few cases have led to a conviction should not necessarily be interpreted as a 'failure'. To the contrary, it could indicate that the rabid zealots who previously preached hatred and incited violence have toned down their virulent malevolence and have taken a more reasonable approach to religous debate. The anti-vilification laws may have caused people to think more carefully about how they express their strongly-held beliefs and better appreciate what is 'over the top'.

Note: nothing in these laws prevents robust discussion of other religions. Nothing prevents a church member promoting their religion as the one true religion over all others. What is now unlawful is inciting hatred against another group because of their differing religious beliefs.

On the legal meaning of 'reasonable'. It's got nothing to do with the length of a piece of string. It's an age-old term - as in 'reasonable doubt' in criminal cases; 'taking reasonable care' in negligence cases; 'reasonable wear and tear' in tenancy law. It's a synonym for just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances.

In the particular context we are discussing the best way to look at it is to use the test of a 'reasonable person'. Let's be reasonable.

Dear Spikey
We don't have the same anti-vilification laws in Qld. that exist in Victoria. But could you enlighten me as to how anybody gets charged under these laws? Does the alleged offended party have to bring to the Board/Tribunal's attention the alleged vilification or can the Board/Tribunal initiate action themselves? Looking at some of the banners at a recent pro Hamas rally in Melbourne,I would think some of the participants indeed "incited hatred against another group because of their differing religious beliefs". I am of course assuming that Judaism is a religion.
Regards
Blair

Dear Blair

I am no expert on the Queensland law but a quick look at the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission's fact sheet suggests that the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, like laws in most other jurisdictions, is a complaints-based system.

The Queensland Act is also an omnibus law i.e. it covers many different forms of vilification and discrimination including religious (not a separate law). But the principles are much the same as in Victoria and elsewhere.

I notice in the Queensland site the same sort of statement of exception that is found in most other jurisdictions, namely:

"...free speech to be protected, so [the law] says that the following things are not vilification:
a fair report by TV, radio or newspaper of someone else's act of hatred (unless extra material has been added which is vilifying); discussions or debates about racial or religious issues, done "reasonably and in good faith"; material used in parliament, courts, tribunals or other government inquiries."

http://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/pubs/racialvil.html

I can't comment on the banners that you saw at a recent pro Hamas rally in Melbourne. I didn't see them. David BOAZ is sure to have an opinion (even if he didn't see the banners).

Regards
Elizabeth

Dear Otokonoko,

It sounds to me that you (in a not-so-direct way) are acknowledging that there is no objective evidence for the existence of a god. That was my main point. I don’t pretend to have any objective evidence that no god exists. It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

But the comparison between the belief in extraterrestrials and the supernatural is fundamentally flawed because they're two entirely different things.

Gods are of a supernatural realm, and extraterrestrials would be of our own natural, physical realm. We don’t know that anything supernatural exists. There is nothing of an objective nature to suggest that it does. But we do know that our own physical realm exists because we’re here.

When we consider how immensely large the universe is, the probability that we are the only ones here would be quite small. So small in fact, that one could argue that the complete rejection of the possibility of extraterrestrial life is also irrational.

You are correct when you say that it’s reasonable for others to reject the ‘God is beyond our comprehension’ argument. It’s too easy and could be applied to anything.

Although I have to wonder what the point is in believing in something so far beyond our comprehension. How could one possibly know they had the right god?

I also agree that the concept of god (if a con) is a very well constructed con. And why wouldn’t it be? The followers of the Abrahamic religions have had hundreds of years to refine it. This goes back to one of my points earlier. That being that when our knowledge increases, we simply re-define who/what god is. It's all too easy, as is the selling of an invisible product when it appeals to emotions.

On a final note though, I’d just like to point out that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re irrational. On the contrary, it is because I find you to be a rational person that I am actually taking the time to put these points across to you for your consideration.

I wouldn’t bother otherwise.

george, mostly i think we're disagreeing on matters of decorum.

i do also think there is a distinction between some atheists' cartoon definitions of god/christianity/faith and sellick's implied definition of atheism. but, not enough to warrant getting into here.

In 1900, Protestant Christianity was the dominant philosophy of the Commonwealth. S 116 Constitution was inserted after negotiations with the Roman Catholic Archbishops, and it was passed. In those days it was not compulsory to be a member of the State Religion.

S 116 says: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance. Since 1976 it has violated that trust and the atheist religion has been compulsory because atheists have become the Priests of the State. Atheism is a religion based upon opposition to Christianity. The Federal and High Court, and the Family Court are all temples erected by the State to atheism. In those temples, you must worship the Judge, bow to him, scrape to him, suck up to him, and pay a very expensive member of the atheist religion, to argue your case, because he is a god in Court

Atheism was made compulsory in 1986, when without referendum the Parliament of the Commonwealth enacted the Australia Act 1986. The High Court became useless in 1984, after restrictions on access. In 1983 they made the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) useless by giving the Atheist priest, the Director of Public Prosecutions power to prevent a private prosecution under s 13 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in the Magistrates Court. The law that says you can indict a Judge for failing to carry out his duties in a Constitutional manner are made useless because the Director of Public Prosecutions prevents them being accountable.

The Australia Act 1986 makes every Parliament a god you must worship. As gods, they are no longer accountable to the people represented by 12 electors, and have been doing some terrible things. As a god, they appoint pannican gods, to run State Courts. The first time one of these atheists ( they cannot be Christian) respects a wish to worship only Almighty God put to them by a Christian, the Australia Act 1986 will be gone. The Broad Church of the Liberal Party has made us be atheists whether we want to be or not