mjpb,

One possible explanation: legislation can be educative. That is, legislators are keen to make overt the point that you can't commit a crime against another simply on the grounds that they are gay, black, female, disabled or follow a particular religion that you don't agree with.

mjpb, says: "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." As with all these types of law, the offence is committed if it is committed because of the attribute - whether negatively or positively. That is, for example, if you commit an act of violence against a person because he is black or not black, gay or not gay, disabled or not disabled, a member of the Muslim faith or not a member, and so on. So the penalties are not stronger if you assault or murder a black, for instance, than if the victim were white.

Incidentally the words, 'race, colour and national origin' are usually inserted together because of the difficulty of defining these terms absolutely at law (despite the certitude of racists when it suits them).

In any event, whatever the explanation for the proposed new law, what harm is done by reinforcing existing legislation against violence?

Believe it or not there are still people who believe that it's OK to bash up blacks or incinerate their house because they are black, and therefore don't deserve to live in your neighbourhood. Who remembers the torching of Asian restaurants in WA not so long ago?

And we've had instances of people 'of Middle Eastern appearance' being assaulted on the streets of Melbourne for no apparent reason other than their assailants didn't like the look of 'people like them'.

Dear Frank....

2 points.

1/ I don't know why you said the NSW couple were Christians? I have no idea about that, but from what I gather, they are not. I came across the case indirectly, and did not bring it to the forum to highlight specifically "Anti Christian" actions by the government or others.

2/ Legislation is "Educative" aaah.. now this is a hot potato and favorite of mine. Would it not be better mate.. to bring into our education system "values" education which counters the kind of crime we are discussing? I know I'm barking up a pretty tall tree here to ever think that what I'd like to see implmented would ever be, because it is faith based. So.. in the final analysis I do accept that the foundation for values taught in a secular education system will not include "Because God has ordained it".

That wouldn't be much of a problem IF... at a community and family level, our society was drenched and soaked in Gods love and values.
Then..education could simply be equipping young people for the practical tasks of life.. all good.

Whitty.. 'blind faith' ? :) mate.. say more of what you mean please..

<<Ben Elton's dark, savagely comic novel imagines a post-apocalyptic society where religious intolerance combines with a confessional sex obsessed, self-centric culture to create a world where nakedness is modesty, ignorance is wisdom and privacy is a dangerous perversion.>>

Whitty..sounds like poor Ben had an overbearing 'Brother' at his catholic boarding school :) See what happens when you build a religious structure based on falsehood? (celibacy).. it comes out in all manner of weirdness and distortion..

How about considering Jesus approach ? "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" Or.. "The truth will make you free, and if the truth makes you free, you will be free indeed"

Bens book, kind of underlines why Jesus said "My kingdom is not 'of' this world"

Religious 'rules' based society, without the 'relationship' side ...would become a nightmare worse than Elm Street.

BOAZ

The NSW couple have now been released from gaol following remission of the rest of their sentence for contempt of court. They were NOT imprisoned for violating Victoria's religious vilification law. They have made public statements that litigation (the Victorian case was not their only court case) has ruined them financially. They need to get on with their lives, so I will say no more about them.

As for values education, as ever you see things in stark oppositional terms. But it's not a choice between values education in school OR education through legislation. It can be both and more. There are many ways to educate people and schools are but one - and there is some evidence that the hidden curriculum (the way teachers teach and schools' organisational practices) is more powerful than the overt curriculum (what is on syllabuses).

And if we must rely on the schools, why must values education be faith-based? Why do you assume that religious people are the only ones interested or expert at values education? There are countless good people who act in an ethical and principled way who do so because of humanistic beliefs and who want their children to learn to do do so too.

Having had an education, as you put it "drenched and soaked in Gods love and value" and witnessed and experienced so-called Christian educators at work, I have no faith in that approach to values education - unless you want kids to learn hypocrisy, lust, viciousness, cruelty and suppression of individuality.

You can hand your kids over to that system BOAZ, but I prefer that they grew up with love, personal integrity and respect for the truth.

Dear frank

point taken about the basis for the imprisonment, but this a little bit like semantics.

The couple is from NSW, the court called them to VICTORIA and the reason it called them was based on alleged vilification under the RRT.
So... its a little splitting of straws to say it was just for contempt that they were imprisoned.

I totally agree about the values in both education and legislation, I don't see it any other way. I guess the challenge is to pick 'which' values.
The usual ones which divide 'progressives' from 'conservatives' (although I'd choose the adjectives rather differently) are:

-Gay 'rights'
-Abortion/Choice
-Censorship
-Gender issue.

Now.. I don't think we are going to resolve those differences any time soon, unless Christians apostatize themselves or atheistic socialists are suddenly born again.

I wish there was some pithy phrase which summed it up simply.

Well..there is in reality "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

How would this translate into the issues mentioned above ?

I suppose if we use just 'one' as an example (the first).. we might ask "Would gay people feel happy for conservatives to teach their adopted children at school that it is 'evil' and degenerate for men to have sex with men?"

I fear they would not. Ok.. next step. The same question applies for how conservatives might feel for homosexuals to be teaching their children that "men who have sex with men are quite normal and acceptable"

My suggestion here, is not to declare 'evil' something which is only defined so by religion, but to look more to 'normality'..and by any judgement 'heterosexual behavior' is clearly 'normal' and homosexual is not.
It should never be the case that we teach 'hate' of people who practice non normal lifestyles, but rather, emphasise the law and legality or not of something. This in turn brings us back to democratic influence....does it not?

Just for once, BD, put yourself in the other person's shoes.

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 BOAZ_David deserves to be kicked to death.

I feel further comforted by the fact that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act reaches beyond Victoria when such incitements are made online.

Doubtless I don’t have sufficient charisma to do this kind of incitement, even if I were so inclined. However charismatic individuals throughout history have been able to incite others to acts they wouldn’t otherwise commit. It's not sufficient to hold these individuals to account for their incitement after someone has been kicked to death.

Just as the kicking is a crime, so is the incitement of others to do it. Hate crime legislation is needed to stop people from doing the incitement, irrespective of whether or not others follow their message.

"It should never be the case that we teach 'hate' of people who practice non normal lifestyles, but rather, emphasise the law and legality or not of something. This in turn brings us back to democratic influence....does it not?"

It's not illegal for men to have sex with men. It is also normal, if we use the dictionary definition of "usual, typical and expected." Homosexual people have always existed, so they're hardly unexpected, are they? So I don't see why you use that as an example.

Meanwhile, reading over your posts lately, I have to say your values really sadden me, Boaz. Christianity, as you practice it, is a nasty little religion.