Crowie: Freedom of speech should never be used as an excuse to humiliate and vilify.

Well that eliminates every Political Cartoon & Joke ever told. Or, is that OK, except if it's pointed at YOUR particular Party.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I have read the Satanic Verses by Rushdie, I'm sorry I did - reflecting on it I want to vomit, it's gross,
pornographic attempt by someone who doesn't even have the skill and subtlety to make good pornography.

If not for the Fatwa around it, I would have never picked that book.

Rushdie is neither responsible nor brave - he's just an ugly bully ape, at most a heartless businessman capitalising on the sensation to receive royalties from people like me. My mistake.

Dear Foxy,

Before the Sydney siege we had a discussion on OLO about free speech. I said then that I didn't believe in absolute free speech and asked other posters if the thought the so-called sheik should have been free to send the letters of recrimination to the families of our deceased service personnel. More than one defended his right to do so. My position was that I wanted laws to sanction such behaviour with the full understanding that this meant curtailing his free speech.

It would be interesting to hear how many on this thread would still go in to bat for him.

My position remains the same.

Dear SteeleRedux,

One should be allowed absolute free speech to those who are willing to listen to him/her.

However, those who do not want to receive communications from someone should have the same freedom to not be exposed to their communications.

Those uninvited letters to the families of the deceased was a form of harassment, not of free speech.

Foxy, "we have a secular government in this country and that religious laws have no legal status in Australia"

You deliberately miss the point. However taking you up on what you say, ritual slaughter was being performed for years with the full knowledge of authorities. Count the 'fact-checking' ABC and so-called animal welfare activists in on that because they must have known, or if they didn't it was equally reprehensible that they were ignorant.

There still is ritual slaughter without stunning. Where stunning is performed it is not to the death as was required before religious lobbyists leaned on politicians, threatening loss of voting margins.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote to Rhian :

« I think that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be allowed
in this country if the Editors were of course
willing to have them published. »
.

I hope you are right, but I have my doubts which I expressed to Yuyutsu on the other thread :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6699#203082

.

You wrote to onthebeach :

« We should all be grateful that we have a
secular government in this country and that
religious laws have no legal status in
Australia. »
.

I am a regular reader of the Queensland parliamentary committee reports and see that all committee meetings commence with prayers and reference to “God”. Protocol and courtroom rules stipulate:

« Before giving evidence, the magistrate will ask each witness to swear an oath on the Bible (or other holy book) or make an affirmation (promise) to tell the truth. It is important that the witness takes an oath according to their religious beliefs. »

Also, while we may have a secular government, we do not have a secular head of State.

Queen Elizabeth II, is our head of State, with full constitutional powers, and, at the same time, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Our current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott is a supporter of the constitutional monarchy in Australia. Prior to entering Parliament, he was Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy from 1993 to 1994.

After graduating from university, Abbott trained as a Roman Catholic seminarian to become a Catholic priest. However, following a change of diocesan boundaries, his new Bishop wrote :

« I admire several qualities which you obviously have shown. However, there are some radical attitudes about Church and priesthood … which will have to be worked through before you would be accepted for the diocese or profit from seminary formation. »

Abbott finally gave up the idea of becoming a priest and turned to politics.

Unfortunately, there is no clear distinction in the Australian constitution between church and state - cf., the commentary on Section 16 of the constitution in Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia&action=edit&section=7

.