HREOC is currently taking public submissions (closing 31/01/09) for a report which has the potential to lead to severe restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia on forums such as this and elsewhere.
“Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st century” ostensibly seeks to ensure freedom of religion for all Australians, to promote “social cohesion, harmony and security” in accordance with NAP.
The likely outcome will be to recommend enacting a federal law equivalent to Victoria’s controversial Racial and Religious Tolerance Act under which people have been prosecuted not because their statements were proven inaccurate but because they “were inciting Australians to be fearful of other Australians, often their neighbours, thereby tearing the social fabric and reducing social cohesion”.
There are three strong indicators to support the belief that this report presages the introduction of a federal version of the Victorian law:
(1) This was promised by Labor shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon on 4/08/04.
(2) The report’s commissioner Tom Calma warns in his introduction that “people must not be vilified or alienated because of (their) beliefs”.
(3) Gary Bouma, a researcher for the report, clearly indicated his support for Victoria’s draconian law in this forum on 21/01/05 (quoted above).
For these reasons I believe that the outcome of the report is pre-ordained.
Criticism of religion, whether accurate or not, will be criminalised.
This is consistent with the UNHRC resolution banning criticism of Islam on 18/12/08.
I urge all concerned contributors to this forum to make their own submission, however brief, to HREOC strongly indicating that our right to freedom of expression is non-negotiable.
All Australians should be free to engage in robust debate on all matters, including religion.
These freedoms WILL be taken away from us unless we stand up and fight.
The good news is that you probably won’t face criminal charges for posting any comments deemed offensive on this or other forums.
But this will only be because your comment will not be passed by the moderator who would also likely be prosecuted if your comments were allowed to be posted.

Hi KMB.... yes this kind of thing is more Orwellian than most of us imagine.

"Annan also defended an attempt by Islamic nations to insert anti-defamation language into an already controversial founding document for a new UN human rights council to replace the discredited Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission."

The problem with this kind of thing..is that it's just a small step from this to 'defamation' of Islam being defined as ANY criticism.

Fortunately, in Victoria we can still criticize Islam or anything else as long as it is in good faith, reasonable and/or in the public interest.

What that means is, we have to be careful about how we say things..and where we say them. This legislation does not prevent truth being told.... but it does prevent it being told in a way which is deliberately designed to mock, and hold people in contempt.

It is still lawful to hold ideas in contempt which is all we could ask.
These laws do not prevent robust criticism of Mohammad's teaching or behavior. Even if people are offended.... there are some fairly tight rules on what vilification really is..and whether the complaint is vexatious or not.

A careful study of the trial of the 2 Dannies is just about 'required reading' for today's adventurous activist :)

The other side of this Law coin, is that it can work for others as well as it can work for Muslims or Jews. It's just that we don't usually reach for this 'weapon' in our warfare.

I'm still trying to get time to put together a 'hate speech' complaint about the Quran and hadith, which clearly and unmistakably vilify Christians and Jews. The same applies to the commentary by Ibn Kathir, and others. All publications are subject to these laws and it's about time we USED it to protect ourselves, and/or to rid ourselves of these silly laws.

KMB,
This is indeed something to keep watch on.
Although I do need to point out there is a difference between objectively discussing a religion and the hysterical attempts at rabble rousing by some.

Likewise there is a clear distinction between discussing an issue without resorting to abuse and ad hominem insults.

I wonder if you are confusing the two as a couple of posters on this site tend to do.
If I understand the articles I’ve read the emphasis will be on vilification.
One needs to be careful not to over interpret in effect throw the baby out with the bath water i.e. Just because someone is a Christian and that there are extremist Christians who interpret the Bible as justification for homicide/genocide (and there is ample quotations to that end) that all Christians and Christianity are psychopathic in nature. The same applies to all religions.
I suspect the intention of the law is to minimize the outburst from the obsessed and ill informed e.g. that woman in a hat’s ignorant/hysterical bile about the Muslim school in her area.

In the final analysis freedom of speech has always come with responsibilities and if those responsibilities are enforced I doubt that I personally will have problems expressing my questioning comments.

Having said that I am prepared to add a cautionary comment to the committee.

It seems to me that the major issue here will be the distinction between bona fide criticism and vilification. While I think that the Victorian act is a heavy-handed legislative band-aid that seeks to attenuate a deeper societal malaise, as Porky says it doesn't actually prevent legitimate debate:

<< What that means is, we have to be careful about how we say things..and where we say them. This legislation does not prevent truth being told.... but it does prevent it being told in a way which is deliberately designed to mock, and hold people in contempt. >>

If that is the outcome of any proposed Federal legislation, then I don't have any real problem with it. However, as Porky and his cohorts in this forum also frequently demonstrate, those whose aim is to arouse intolerance and hatred of others often cross the line between fair criticism and vilification.

It also seems somewhat hypocritical that Porky wants to mount a "hate-speech" case against an ancient religious text, while railing on and on about the deficiencies of the Victorian legislation.

Examinator and CJ,

I know that I am going to come off sounding decidedly old-fashioned here, but in one way I not only have no problem with this - I would actively welcome it.

Knee-jerk reaction of course is to bristle at any curtailment of one's so-called liberties. In the abstract I would be bristling away with the best of them. But then it's also a knee jerk reaction to react with animosity towards abuse of those liberties. And this is not abstract, but has developed into something that permeates everyone's daily life.

Despite reminders that rights and responsibilites are indivisible, there are members of the community who ignore their responsibilities:- who do, in fact, abuse our liberties. This has gone unchecked for so long such people now consider that this, too, is their right.

It actually shames me that, like naughty children who constantly ignore parental injunctions until punishment is necessary, the actions of the irresponsible have led to the necessity for legislation of what is, undoubtably, going to be cited as yet another instance of nannying.

Yes,the right to express an opinion is one of our most valued, but so is the right to personal dignity. It is enshrined in the belief that all people are created equal.

If the right to express a dissenting opinion also carries with it the "punishment" of being robbed of ones dignity, credibility and esteem, and contains the possibility of personal harm inherent in incitement to disgust, hatred,and the certaintly that all who are not with us are against us then, regrettably, someone has to step into the nursery to make sure we play nicely.

Romany, CJ
I agree and envy your clarity of thought on the topic.
Can I join your fan clubs?

CJ
As stated I envy your clarity of expression but I would ask isn’t baiting some individuals (the prime criticism against those posters) merely doing the same thing.
I believe they are entitled to express their views but I reject their methods.

Individual that tend to adopt this line aren’t really interested in discussion but are looking for confirmation of their behaviour. They would see opposition as proof that they are victims of left wing lunacy and in a perverse way proving that they need to be more extreme to make their point. For that reason I choose not to respond to posts that are clearly rabble rousing based on obsession, ad hominem or mind numbing dogma etc. Perhaps they might take the hint and modify their absolutist styles.

I think personalities are pretty well understood by the majority of posters on OLO.

I do note that as a general rule those who most often cross the boundary between discussion and vilification are those that tend to scream loudest about curtailing freedom of speech. When in reality they mean their ‘right’ (sic) to impose their emotionally, selective factually based views on others