When will Porky learn? When he used to be Boazy he also made the claim that the homophobic pastor was jailed - and he still persists in omitting the fact that the pastor's conviction was quashed on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Still not smelling too good, and still telling porkies.

And I bet he still hasn't bothered to read Grayling's article.

>>I attack the ABUSE of the concept by both the gay community and the Islamic mob<<

Only them? You're sure about that? You don't suspect there's anyone else concerned about your version of hate speech/free speech/civility? You don't think there are other groups concerned about extremist Christian religious groups?

It's taken a while, but people who've been easily scared about other/foreign/funny coloured religous groups are waking up to the destructive tendencies of other religions as well, including Christian fundamentalists. Maybe all that news coverage of American fundamentalists during the election coverage set off the alarms. Whatever. It's about time.

Like the post says, "when you are a danger to the lives and liberties of others, which alas is too frequently the wont of your ilk, we will speak out against you as loudly, persistently, and uncompromisingly as we can."

You've organised lobby groups, funded and colonised political parties and distributed misleading information, but it's been one step forward, two steps back since the enlightenment for you. Democracy can be really inconvenient at times, don't you find?

Polycarp,

I agree that Ake Green should not have been prosecuted. Neither should Scott and Nalliah have been hauled before VCAT under Victoria's so-called "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act."

However in Green's case justice was eventually done. If anything the case strengthened free speech in Europe since the Swedish court which quashed the conviction specifically mentioned that, had the conviction been allowed to stand, it would have been overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. That should inhibit future prosecutions along these lines.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green

More worrying is developments at the UN. The UN General Assembly again passed a resolution calling on countries to ban "Defamation of Religion." This is a blatant attempt by Islamic countries to re-introduce blasphemy laws.

See:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm

Bugsy,
Perhaps I shouldn't be pedantic. But in your earlier post, you listed a few Human Rights. Some of which are logical fallacies. Such as:
"It’s about the rights to freedom from torture."
"It’s about the rights to freedom from slavery."
"It’s about the rights to freedom from persecution."

Yes to "The rights to freedom". But "The rights to freedom from torture" is an erroreous statement in logical terms.

Another example. Yes to "The rights to safety". But no such thing as "The rights to not run over by a bus when crossing the road".

It Christmas Boazy, so lets talk about Christianity first.
Is it true all we who do not believe are condemned until we do?
That Christians one day all go to heaven?
Be a bit crowded wouldn't it?
What age will we be?
Will my mum look like my sister?
If you wanted to produce a cult you would include the threats and promises of Christianity in your first draft.
We without question except men and women wrote every great book in history,
yet question if he could produce a book such as your Bible.
A book with yes and no answers to every question, full of story's of murder and suffering in the name of a God.
A God it appears in your view who made some so they can suffer forever, or bend to his ways
A life of slavery on our knees? not for me David.

Understand there is a difference between total respect for the dignity of every human being and those humans that have no respect for others. Defined rights are somthing that must not be restricted by written codes but defined by motive, attitude and action. That is the reason we attempt to appoint impartial Judges. Every criminal believes he / she has been denied justice and their rights. Every case must be evaluated by a standard. Then we enter the court of WHOSE STANDARD?