Dear Frank

I don't oppose the criminalization of violence. It's already criminalized. 'hate based' violence? No Frank..I absolutely support the criminalization of such violent crimes.

What I DO oppose, is the closeness of 'hate crime' legislation to 'hate speech' legislation.

I apologise if it seemed like a red herring.. I react rather passionately to anything even hinting of reduced freedom of expression.

FH.. I hope the above clarifies my position :)

Steel.. I don't think we can avoid any kind of lobbying mate.. democracy means the whacko Christians (and the normal ones) along with the secularists can do it. cheers.

CJ.. you have no idea how gratified I am to see your basic agreement about the RRT. "I'm no fan of it"

RRT2001.. lets go a step further and see exacly why I get so paranoid about this(and 'hate speech' laws or anything approaching them)

CASE STUDY. "Ordo Templi Orientis"

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

"Vivienne Legg and Dyson Devine posted on their website claims that an occult group, the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO), was really a pedophile ring in Victoria.."

KEY POINT. This couple were in NSW! They were arrested, and extradited to Vic and were sento JAIL!

They were originally sued by OTO for having an article by this anti Child abuse campaigner on their web site. She was also sued.

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/vic/content/2003/s1150668.htm

There remains a very important question. WHY.. was an investigation in to a child abuse case by a high profile TV executive suddenly 'squashed without explaination' by Vic police?

All of this, is because of 'hate crime' legislation which has leaked over into 'hate speech legislation'.

Then, when you consider that 'strings are pulled by powerful people' over cases...... hopefully you can see my point.

BOAZ

So you don't oppose the criminalisation of violence, just "the closeness of 'hate crime' legislation to 'hate speech' legislation". So when was murder, kidnapping or sexual abuse a curtailment of free speech? When was rape, blowing people up or shooting them close to taking away free speech? You could do with a course in ethics. And one on logic.

The case of the NSW couple may have been initially, in your view, about free speech - or false accusations, depending which side of truth you're on - but the action you detested was the consequence of the couple's contempt of court. Do you think it's OK for people to disobey court orders - if they are Christians? I wonder how you would depict the case had the couple been Muslims?

Next, what has all this got to do with an interview on Stateline in 2004 about allegations that powerful people may have been let off the hook when they were allegedly under investigation for alleged child abuse?

"All of this," you say, "is because of 'hate crime' legislation which has leaked over into 'hate speech legislation'. Then, when you consider that 'strings are pulled by powerful people' over cases...... hopefully you can see my point."

Frankly BOAZ, I don't see your point at all. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws because powerful people might pull strings to avoid prosecution? Let anarchy rule then.

“bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person” or “because of the actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person”

So I’m curious. Why extra legislation criminalizing people injuring other people (something that is already criminalized)? Why are those motives worse than injuring someone because eg. you hate left wing activists or right wing activists or prostitutes? If they are worse then why not just add them as aggravating circumstances in existing criminal legislation rather than introduce a hate crime bill?

I assume Boazy shares my view that it seems like a strange approach. Apparently to explain the strange approach Boazy has developed a theory that it is the thin edge of the wedge for future legislative prohibitions on speech. More particularly he is concerned that such legislation will prohibit criticizing same sex attracted behaviour pursuant to religious belief.

This concern is apparently based on hate speech legislation in other jurisdictions and his beliefs about its interpretation by courts and the parallels in the proposed legislation. What other theories are there for the proposed legislation or do you consider that introducing separate legislation for this has no significance and is just due eg. administrative clumsiness?

Obviously, states enact laws that prohibit criminal acts that are motivated by hatred of people because of their race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, because the legislatures of those states wish to curtail overt criminal acts based on hatred. It is also a clear statement that such hatred is not condoned by those states.

I don't have any problem with that, except when such laws provide the perpetrators of hateful acts with a platform to play the martyr - as in the case of the Catch the Fire Islamophobes and these other ratbags that Boazy seems to be defending.

CJ Morgan,

But injuring people is already prohibited... It seems to just add to the penalty.

My particular concern is that if you hate the right group and injure them you get a lesser penalty. Only 8 categories attract a higher penalty and a few are very similar (eg. race, colour and national origin) so many hated groups are left out. Further, does an increased penalty deter criminal behaviour?

In any case why not add those motives as an aggravating factor in existing legislation to make the clear statement it is extra bad or whatever? Wouldn't that achieve the purpose without a whole new bill that probably has a much higher risk of dying on the parliamentary vine than achieving the same thing with an amendment.

Vanilla,

Your first post on gays is Hilarious! I agree.

Though I must admit I hate, and cant understand camp accents. It seems so put-on to me. Why would a mans voice tone and accent change so much just because they are turned on by other men. I know many gay guys who don't talk like this, and I'm a bit of an introvert so I suppose I hate all this theatrical goings on of really camp guys.

BOAZ_David,

You should read 'Blind Faith' by Ben Elton. I think you'd like it:-)