Some good books you can get into about the ANTICHRIST are...

THE COSMIC CONSPIRACY BY STAN DEYO

NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY BY GARRY ALLEN

WARNING, SECOND WARNING, FINAL NOTICE BY BARRY SMITH (NZ)...three books.

THE BIBLE see REVELATION CHAPTER 13, CHAPTER 14, 1 THESSALONIANS CHAPTER 4 and 2 THESSALONIANS CHAPTER 2.

Christian bookshops also have much on the subject.

Your right Gibo,

It's already happening. Remember Danny Nalliah? Even if I don't agree with everything he say's I uphold his right to say it.

KMB

"Thank you Bronwyn for making my point."

Thank you KMB for disingenuously twisting my words. I most certainly was NOT making YOUR point.

As I said before, I see your fears as needlessly and hysterically overstated. And my opinion on that doesn't in any way threaten your freedom of speech either, if that's what you're driving at. Again, as I've stated before, I welcome the HREOC initiative and find your Henny Penny rantings completely uncalled for.

As pointed out by others here, freedom of speech comes with the clear responsibility to avoid vilification. The fact that new legislation is even being considered attests to the unfortunate reality that many people, yourself included, still don't understand this.

For the same reason that I support racial vilification laws, I also support, in principle, legislation to criminalise vilification on religious grounds. And I'm not talking about fair and reasoned criticism of religion. There is a distinct and encodable difference between the two, and the HREOC discussion is the ideal way to thresh out the inherent nuances and differences in positions and the wording needed.

I'm an atheist and actually detest all religion, but hold strongly to the view that people should not be victimised or marginalised because of their religious beliefs. Any laws intended to formally encode this will always be clunky to some extent. They'll be open to misinterpretation and will possibly add to the clogging of our courts as a result. They'll cause a backlash and stir up resentment from some, as is already being witnessed. In an ideal world we wouldn't need them, but in the divided fear-driven society we now inhabit, we unfortunately do.

You make your own case in future, KMB, IF you have one.

Leave me well out of it.

Hi Folks.

Well...I find myself in agreement pretty much with KMB but also Bronwyn's point about over "hysterical overstatement" regarding "criticism of religion whether accurate or not will be criminalized" is also quite valid if this assertion is based on the RRT2001(VIC) alone.

Such is not the case in Victoria even with this pernicious piece of law.
The problem comes in how it is INTERPRETED... and 'that' is where KMB's concerns lay I feel.

It was clearly interpreted by Higgins in that way, and only overturned on appeal.

If we take the law at face value, Section 9 (motive not a defense) then we have a seriously flawed law which is tantamount to confusing manslaughter with willful murder. The only difference might be one of 'motive'.

BUT..KMB is very right to be wary of that academic monster from Monash... personally my opinion of this man is so low that I dare not articulate it further.

It sounds sooooo enticing..does it not? "Making Australians fearful of other Australians"... good GRIEF.. this actually is the kind of lunatic mindset that some people hold. Whether we fear another Australian depends on WHAT those other Australians believe about life etc. IF...they happen to believe that opponents of Islam should be assasinated by any able bodied Muslim..then exposing such beliefs is a national duty not a crime.

Bouma's statement (if he said it) is tantamount to that of an empty headed village idiot who watched an old movie..heard a cool sound bite and thought he would simply repeat it. It has no substance, no meaning, no responsibility and no maturity about it.

KMB do you have a link for that quote of Bouma.. did he actually 'say' it or is that your understanding of his position?

The unconscious wit and flexible wisdom of Polycarp:

On Thursday:

"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."

Polycarp on Friday:

"...this pernicious piece of law."

Polycarp on Thursday:

"What you should do is base your view on fact rather than self indulgent emotion and shallow sentimentality."

Polycarp on Friday:

"... very right to be wary of that academic monster from Monash... personally my opinion of this man is so low that I dare not articulate it further.

"Bouma's statement (if he said it) is tantamount to that of an empty headed village idiot who watched an old movie..heard a cool sound bite and thought he would simply repeat it. It has no substance, no meaning, no responsibility and no maturity about it.

"KMB do you have a link for that quote of Bouma.. did he actually 'say' it or is that your understanding of his position?"

I've scrawled through several websites on
the HREOC discussion paper, "Freedom of Religion
and Belief in the 21st century."

I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
From what I've read - it sounds like a very
worthwhile and even handed project. One for
which the Human Rights Commission should be
congratulated. Their researchers are a
qualified team, they are asking for submissions
from a very diverse group of community representatives,
to cater for all religious beliefs and secular
points of view.

To me at least, the project does not appear to
be at all objectionable, or an impingement on anyone's
rights or liberties.

On the contrary - it appears to be a very intelligent
and fair project.