Religion is mindset, a personal choice and if people do not want to tolerate it fair enough. Whatever religion. Same as One Nation Political Party. The whole nation has worn the most racist country on the planet tag since 10% of the population voted for her and debates have been skewed ever since. Academic types have been running around saying I am ashamed to be Australian, despite very little racism here they slander the whole country.

Obviously what one group does may offend another so does everything needs to be kept indoors? The christian grandmother expressing her religous beliefs in England in opposition to homosexuality was almost arrested for a hate crime. Yet whose right is greater, homosexuals who want to take to the sreets with their feather boa or a christian lady who does not want "sin" paraded around town? At the end of the day any public showing of your group becomes impossible. Everything becomes offensive. Broad based censorship.

The support for terrorism itself on this thread is the most disturbing, that is not a mindset..that is a crime. Tamils do not use terrorism against us so they are our allies? I do not follow. The guy in Fort Hood is a martyr? Sorry. Those thoughts should be offensive to any human. Not wanting a religous or political mindset to flourish should not be censored. If all the bible belt anti-abortionist creationists from the US started to arrive en masse I would hope I could speak out against that tide.

Belly in the world i inhabit the problem is patriarchy not religion.
the more men dominate with whatever instruments of power the more violence.
true of religion, law and governance of all persuasions with all races and ethnicities.
the solution is to empower women, preferably with a legislature rather than a bullet.
you may find equal rights a strange concept but its eminently achievable.

Stephen, in response to your questions/comments (Saturday, 7 November 2009 3:52:06 PM)

I was hoping some ‘legal type’ would offer their qualified opinion on some of the questions I had asked (haven't some of the comments "incited hatred"? Can some legal-eagle explain in layman's terms what the criminal code means by inciting hatred? If there has been a breach, who is responsible, what are the consequences?)

It appears my hopes were in vain. Sure, Graham said he doesn’t “think” anyone has breached any law, but neither he nor anyone else has been able to answer.

Since I maxed out my post limits, I took the opportunity to cyber visit the Anti-Discrimination Board and the relevant legislation.

From what I understand, to be covered by the Act’s vilification provisions, “there must be a public act which incites hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or persons because of their race, colour, descent, nationality, ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin, homosexuality, or HIV/AIDS or transgender status.”

Therefore, remarks made on a site like OLO can be brought before a Tribunal.

However, to make a complaint of vilification under the Act, a person must be a member of the group that they think has been vilified. The Anti-Discrimination Board also accepts vilification complaints on an individual’s behalf from representative organisations that have a genuine interest in the matters in the complaint.

Now, this is the crux; the Act requires vilification to be relatively serious before it is unlawful. Merely conveying hatred or expressing serious contempt or severe ridicule (as we have seen here) is not necessarily unlawful unless there is also incitement involved (I don't think it has).

If an act involves both an expression of hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule and a threat of physical harm to persons or their property, or incitement to others to threaten physical harm, it may constitute “serious vilification” under the Act.

If the Tribunal refers such matters to the Attorney General, they will then be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and may be prosecuted as an offence.

I tend to agree with StevenMeyer on this one, this seems to be more
a case of a one off, a troubled individual. That does not negate
from the fact that Islam itself is a violent religion, for too many
interpretations suggest that it is. The reality is that wherever
Islam seems to go, violence commonly follows in most cases.

The good news to me, is that perhaps with the greatly improved
communication and information of the internet, people are starting
to question the benefits of religion in general, as they become
more informed.

BBC TV this weekend is running another of its global debates, which
are always interesting. They are repeated a few times, for those
interested. This weekend the Question is "Is the Catholic Church
a force for good?" Christopher Hitchins and Stephan Fry argue
for the negative. At the end of the debate, only roughly 10% of
the 2000 audience think that it is. That is quite astounding and
certainly shows to me, that the world is changing for the better.

All religions will have alot more explaining to do in the future,
people won't just accept their nonsense at face value anymore,
as they did in the past, when they were less informed.

Religion must be the worst offender of all times. How can you say variants of muslim aren't bad. I say all religions should be banned.
I don't know how the world can possably live with radical religion.
The day of reconing must come, before these extremists get atomic weapons.
Some religions can not bring themselves to integrate, it's not in their colture.
If we need to immigrate people from radical countries, it should be the importation of the young not the elders.

Saw every word yabby some of it twice.
A good debate and one I think we need to have about every religion.
The results in my view would be about the same too