FRANK... no, I'm not lying... I am reporting "according to Fox news" I should have mentioned that.

See my reply to Pericles regarding your quote of the Bill which outlaws 'violent' acts. (which are already outlawed under assault laws)

PERICLES... you asked a simple question.. and here is my answer.

In terms of the 'literal' form of the legislation, I have no quarrel, other than that I see no reason to have 'hate' crime legislation unless it is EQUALLY applied to minorities or deviants who committ the same against what it usually termed the 'majority'.

My main concern, is how close it comes to 'verbal' hate crimes. Canada is already there... (but they don't have a 1st amendment do they?)
Australia is ALready there.. with the RRT2001.(Vic)

There must be something more than the HR1592 that Fox are alluding to, and it probably relates to things heard or said in the congressional context, though not neccessarily the wording of the bill.

I'm trying to sus that out futher.

Speaking of misrepresentation.. CJ and FRANK are right up there on this.... again.. a-gain..claiming I'm inciting violence against people.... now what's the lesson in those statements? It is this:

Mentally, you are already "there" by regarding the attacking of radical ideas of Religous violence, child abuse, domestic violence as 'inciting violence'.. so.. my point is VERY well made by such irrational responses.

STEP ONE. I am saying 'hate crime legistlation is dangerous' because the next step is to criminalize the criticism of ideas.

STEP TWO.. you blokes are condemning me for criticizing ideas already, and saying it incites violence.

Do you know that the RRT reached out to NSW a while back and 2 people are now in a Victorian JAIL for 9 months for exposing a particular cult!

Here is the story.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/couple-jailed-for-contempt-in-vilification-case/2008/02/20/1203467183354.html

Is it possible some OLO contributors are in fact members of this group? (the cult)of course it is.

Yes: - do make a point of reading the article that is linked to above. Instead of promoting worthwhile discussion about civil liberties or any other of the myriad ways in which we all seek to make sense of our world
this article highlights clearly the depth of this thread.

Having read the article, go back and read again DBs comments with fuller knowledge of where he's coming from.

Yet we continue to get sucked in to these infantile and time-wasting diversions! Joke's on us, I guess.

I agree, we don't need laws that may incriminate hysterical, rabid, Christians for their acts of persecution and crucifixion against others. It’s not what Jesus would want and he should know.

Thanks for the heads-up, Romany.

Er, Boazy - I'm no fan of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, but frankly this case looks like a good argument for it. These idiots clearly wanted to be jailed, probably in some kind of narcissistic ego trip.

I'm interested that you've lambasted the the alleged Muslim terrorists on trial in Melbourne for disrespecting the Court, but that is precisely why these dingbats were penalised so heavily.

Are you saying that there are different standards of respect for authority required of Muslims than for other Australians?

G'day Boazy,

I researched the article and the links provided and can't justify your concerns. The legislation draws a clear 'thick' line between freedom of speech and supporting (or inciting) hate crimes.

Reality is few groups focus on promoting fear of the other as the key attraction to keep the masses under control.
The religious right in the US today is heading in the same direction as German religious right in 1922. I think this legislation should be globalised, prevention is less painful than cure.

peace,

I'm very sympathetic to BOAZ_David's position here. I believe in free speech without much if any reservations.

However, it gives me some amusement to hear a christian outraged at these suggestions, in light of their constant and often successful attempts over the decades to impose their religious views on others.

For example, GAY MARRIAGE.

BOAZ, if you can teach your religious people to mind their own business (in a very short time), you may earn the right to tell the government to go to hell. This of course means cease all religious lobbying in exchange.

That's some irony. If religious people had advocated for more freedom and less government interference in society, rather than repression (eg, gay people, pornography), then they may have been in a situation where they can do what they please. However I don't think this proposed US law would pass