People.. (all)..

on the issue of 'public funded' I am open to correction there. The precise details are actually of little relevance as the bigger issue is the "discrimination" one.

Now..according to the HRC Website for Victoria we find the following:

"Discrimination laws apply to public behaviour, not to private conduct.
Public areas covered by the law include accommodation, clubs and club members, disposal of land, education, employment, goods and services, sport and local government."

Now.. RMIT is a public institution, and not sectarian, while it welcomes people of any faith, it does not in itself represent one as a private religious school might where it would qualify for an excemption under the Act.

The next paragraph is mildly suggestive of a possible exception:

"A club that exists primarily to preserve a minority culture or a school that operates for students of a particular faith may restrict membership and enrolments based on religious belief."

My opinion, is that RMIT is not a 'club' in that sense, nor is the space offered/claimed of that mould.

It remains a fact that under the first part.."education, employment, goods and services" to restrict the opportunity of all but one group to a facility, is blatant discrimination.

So..publically or privately funded, discrimination is still discrimination unless the whole operation is run by a sectarian group FOR that sectarian groups stated puproses.

Clearly the problem exists in the alleged 'promises' made then allegedly broken and the position related to the law.

Now..RMIT does in fact have 'specifically Muslim prayer rooms'
http://www.rmit.com.au/browse;ID=rbhnlagxt42y

The RMIT Islamic society has information about prayer facilities here
http://rmitis.org.au/index.php?module=facilities
It includes the Spiritual Centre.

MORAL ISSUE. For me, the primary moral issue is that of promoting values which include blatant hate speech against most Australians.
It is immoral to facilitiate and advance any group which has in it's foundation documents (constitution) words which are soaked in hate toward specifically named other groups.
It should be remembered that the group concerned DO take their 'constitution' very very literally.
Thus, the promotion of hate speech is unlawful under the Terrrorism Act.

MORAL ISSUE....continued.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 13
Provision of goods and services

It is unlawful for a person who supplies goods or services to the public or to any section of the public:

(a)
to refuse or fail on demand to supply those goods or services to another person; or
(b)
to refuse or fail on demand to supply those goods or services to another person except on less favourable terms or conditions than those upon or subject to which he or she would otherwise supply those goods or services;

by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that other person or of any relative or associate of that other person.

COMMENT. Regarding this particular issue (the claim on the Spiritual Centre)
there might be a legitimate claim for compensation by any donor who provided funds to the project (if any were accepted from donors) under an advertised understanding that it was specifically for one faith group who they supported.

Even so, it does not change the other moral issue of the promotion of hate speech against both a race (Jews) and religions(Jews and Christians)
It cannot be argued that such a group does not 'promote' hate speech because insofaras they agree or state that their foundation documents are correct and relevant to this day and age, they therefore affirm that hate speech and in so doing identify themselves with it.

So, one might wish to examine IF there is "actual" hate speech in the foundation documents or not, or..if such an allegation is simply a misguided interpretation of the facts.

Surely the best people to comment on the 'interpretation' of such texts are the people of that faith. When they agree that it means such and such...then the case is reasonably and surely made.

The same applies to any seditious statement in the foundation documents.

It should also be realized that one reason this group may seem 'reckless' at times in agreeing that their texts mean this and that, is that they actually believe this material is "directly from God"

BOOM! And there it is, the classic Boazy topic switch. Now arguing that a whole religion can or should be outlawed on the basis of hate speech legislation. Legislation I might add that that I have seen you (Boazy) disagree with as being immoral when used against Christians, but can apparently now be used against your favourite target. Way to go genius. A+

Well hi there Bugsy

I'm against hate speech when MOTIVE is not taken into consideration.

For example, if Christians point out that someone elses holy book contains SPECIFIC and hateful words about 'CHRISTIANS' and Jews.. and they raise awareness about this.. clearly the motive is self preservation.
MOTIVE...MOTIVE..MOTIVE.. get it now ? You can add to that 'CONTEXT'.

For example when Paul says "Jews demand signs and Greeks demand wisdom" it is not hate speech but a statement of cultural fact.

There is no 'hate' speech in the New Testament against any specific race or religion. You might consider there is some against homosexual behavior, and indeed there are statements which utterly and totally condemn such practices.
But then..that was an ILLEGAL practice some years back, and considered a psychological disorder. The Bible and the Law were in harmony.
Changing the law cannot therefore hold the Bible or Christians liable because they cannot and must not change their Holy book.
The point to note about Romans 1 is that there is NO CALL to destroy or curse or harm anyone. All that is said is "They received the due penalty for their actions in their own bodies" (amazingly up to date wouldn't you say?)

If you condone such laws being used against Christians for this, then you are simply admitting the very things which I've been saying all along, which is that each community, ethnic or orientation, will always seek to advance their own agenda at the expense of others.
Good..now we are on the same page.

By the way, I did not argue that any religion be 'outlawed' kaching.. you failed 'basic clear thinking' there :) I said that is part of the Moral Issue.
10/10 for 'projection' of bias
0/10 for clear thinking :) cheers

"When the Left sees the Light (Right?)"

Universities and Discrimination.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0308vip-valdez0309.html

Amazing. It seems the American left is way ahead of ours. They actually recognize 'discrimination' when they see it. (even the Christians come in for a roasting here but we can handle that)

Hello Boazy,

Should the Bible be available in hotel rooms?

[Please rejoin interpretation thread. Questions unanswered.]

Cheers,

Oly.