I’d like to raise the issue of political censorship in the guise of anti-vilification laws.
Specifically, in Victoria it is now effectively illegal to criticise a religion. Despite the assurances of politicians that the law allows reasonable comment, in practice it is selectively enforced and does not allow truth as a defence.
Free speech is one of the most fundamental human rights, and limiting it is a totalitarian act. The Victorian government must be forced to overturn this antidemocratic law.
EP, you’d bolster your case if you linked to Salman Rushdie’s article on some similar Blair legislation. Unfortunately, I am too tired to google for it right now.
…in practice it is selectively enforced and does not allow truth as a defence.
Much like defamation law in NSW as it stands. Not that I know much about the anti-vilification laws, but it seems to be hardly the only law of its kind in Australia,
Who else was deeply impressed by the intestinal fortitude of Lefty Tim and Hotness Kate hier soir? Iron Gut taken out convincingly by the resident Elf, and one more jewel in the crown for said Alpha Female.
However, Timmy put in the hard yards. Even though he’s still scrawnier than chicken legs the lad’s definitely got balls, albeit porcine ones.
Hey read this. Howard’s ’small-s Stalinist’ centralist jihad finally starts to split the Liberals. About time too, pussies. Grow some balls! Or ovaries!
I particularly enjoyed these lines from a young lib:
“I can’t understand why the Howard Government is dispensing with these liberal philosophies,” he said.
Socialist regimes, eh?
How long until this young Eggleston demands that the socialists in the Office of PM&C apologise for the historical crimes of Stalin and Pol Pot?
well, he’s clearly un-Australian, whoever he is. Imagine criticising our glorious leader!
But it does go to show: here come the inevitable splits in the all-conquering, complacent, meglomaniacal Howard Leviathan. Bring em on.
Our friends Eggleston is right of course. Howard seems to have stopped reading the history of political thought at Hobbes. Never quite made it to Locke.
It is a bit baffling. Centralise IR, establish a ‘fair wages commission’ with appointees of the Government.
Just what does Howard’s office expect to happen when Labor next wins a Federal Election?
Meanwhile, the Wallabies are eating Italian in Grim City this arvo. With the international season opener under the belt, the boys look set for a big one, and this could be very ugly. Can we still make Italian jokes Evil?
The point you don’t get EP is that the right to free speech is not and can never be absolute so your statement “Free speech is one of the most fundamental human rights, and limiting it is a totalitarian act” is crap.
How can the suppression of dissident speech be justified in a democracy?
Political censorship is always totalitarian in nature. When certain ideas are declared illegal, and people can be imprisoned for mentioning them, then the State is taking on a fascist role.
If you support this legislation, you are a fascist.
I am with you on this EP.
If this absurd judgement goes through the Appela mechanism then one can never talk about what Jihad means in terms of the koran and Hadiths in any public place in Victoria.
Free speech is not absolute in the sense that it is and should be illegal to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre when you know there is no fire. But freedom of political expression is, if not absolute (I’m trying to think of a circumstance where it might not be, but am failing), then pretty close to it.
An example of the hugely muddled (IMHO) thinking that’s behind the legislation is here in an article from some Equal Opportunity Commission person. Her statement that
…the Government has sent a powerful message to everyone about what is and isn’t acceptable. Laws can and do change behaviour.
is scary. In a democracy, governments are supposed to do what the people tell them, no the other way around. I agree with EP that this is fascism - ’soft’ facism, maybe, but fascism nonetheless.
”Specifically, in Victoria it is now effectively illegal to criticise a religion.”
Not criticise, EP the word is villify— akin to the RDA 1975 anti racist legislation.
Such laws are parallel to the defamation laws protecting individuals which do incidently need standardising between the states, but are subject to the over-riding constitutional implied rights of political communication when (per State cases Lange/Theophanous) defamatory laws or even theoretically State anti religious- villification law intersect with that political communication right.
I restate, villifying somebody on the basis of their race or religion is an abuse pure and simple, and going by recent history and ‘crusades’ whether from the pulpit [or cluster bombs on Iraqi civilians], it needs some restraints, and yes it is a balancing act as the law always should be.
RDA 1975 and defamation law, but Victorian law on religious villification is sui generis? No, its simply a logical variant of the first two.
”In a democracy, governments are supposed to do what the people tell them”
Does that mean Rob for example, that the moral panic type of law that irresponsible journalism stirs up (contrary to standard internationally recognised legal principles) is acceptable ? Are lynch mobs acceptable if the people demand it?
I’m confused about this. ‘Vilifying someone on the basis of their race or religion’ is one thing. Surely, though, vilifying (whatever that means - is there a legal definition? How do we know it’s not the same as criticising?) a religion on the basis of its perceived quailties, not an individual, is something quite different.
I had always thought that defamation laws seek to protect the individual, not an abstract concept like religion. So if I say, ‘Joe Bloggs is an evil vicious etc., etc., and this is because he’s Jewish’, my statement falls into one category. If I say, ‘Islam is a murderous faith that condones general murder through suicide attacks on civilians’, I seem to be saying something quite different. I am not singling out an individual, I am making a general statement, which may or may not be wrong. But because no specific individual has been materially damaged by my putative falsehood, any comparison with the principles of defamation must fail, it seems to me.
And on reflection, I can’t see why vilifying someone on the basis of their religion should be a crime, however morally abhorrent it might be. To say, ‘Joe Bloggs is a shitwit because he’s a fundamentalist Christian’ is offensive, but why should it be a criminal act? I think not.
Peter, I’m sorry, I had not read you second comment when I replied to your first.
Unlike many on both the left and the right, I have great faith in the common sense of ordinary people and their inherent sense of decency and fair play. All communities are host to extremists of one form or another, and also to theorists, proselytisers and practitioners of various cults. When you put the whole boiling together at election time, or get them to the ballot box for a referendum, common sense wins out. So, no, I don’t see a danger of lynch mobs and moral panics. Our system doesn’t allow it. It doesn’t allow local firebrands to command the power that would enable them to victimise others or bring about their deaths; if they did, or do, the law steps in, as it should. It does happen variously around the world, but not in liberal democracies, which - very rightly - punish such acts as criminal.
It’s the great virtue of our system that serious political parties know very well that the community is suspicious of radicals of whatever ilk, becuse what radicals always want and need is power. In terms of the power they seek to exercise over the community, responsible parties know they operate within a relatively narrow band. If they ask for too much, they lose the centre, and thus lose any chance of gaining office. It’s a great system.
To get back to your specific point: the people, i.e. the broad electorate, will not demand lynch mobs. Only local crazies will do that. Our system is very effective in keeping such people well away from the machinery of power. In many ways, that’s the whole point of the democratic exercise - that and curtailing the power of the state.
What I’m saying is that anti-villification laws regarding religion is analogous to a group version of defamation, and remember, truth in defamation in the common law is not a defence unless it’s in the public interest.
I don’t have a definition of villification, must check out the Vic legislation but it’s a helluva lot more than criticism. As for: ”But because no specific individual has been materially damaged by my putative falsehood, any comparison with the principles of defamation must fail” then make that statement in a company context of villification/defamation and see how you go. In arguing no material damage because it’s a group, that is a highly self serving statement if not a tautology for your argument.
In any case re groups, what do you say about the Racial Discrimination Act and the possibility of being guilty of racially abusing a group rather than one individual?
It does not make sense in logic to argue only one individual so named can suffer ‘damage’ and a group cannot, whether it’s economic damage or reputation or any other form of damage.
Hence my argument the Vic laws are a logical and not radical extension of both State defamation laws and the RDA 1975 (Cth) for which the Commonwealth has specifically amended the RDA so that state legislation in this general area of discrimination/villification does not ordinarily conflict. (Cover the field test of indirect conflict in constitutional law)
Peter, I just can’t see that. If I say ‘Christianity is shite’ I am putatively impugning the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people around the world. But I’m not actually hurting anybody. No-one has suffered anything as a result of what I have said. People might get upset or angry - to the extent they might if I said ‘wines friom the Bourgogne region of France are crap’. In both cases, the appropriate path for the ‘wounded’ parties is not to seek criminal sanctions from the state but to publicly demonstrate that I’m a moron. It’s just an opinion, not a sharp stone or a pointed stick. As such it has absolutely nothing to do with the state. For the state to use its power to curtail the expression of opinion is to plant its feet firmly on the path to tyranny.
I take your point about collective legal entities but it surely cannot extend to hundreds of millions of people across the world who subscribe to one religious faith or another and who might be offended by something said about their belief system.
I happen to be a passionate believer in liberal democracy. Should I launch a law suit against someone who says ‘liberal democracy is a rubbish system that engenders oceans of moral vice and contempt for God’? You see how ridiculous the whole thing becomes.
Rob ”If I say Christianity is shite‚Äô I am putatively impugning the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people around the world. But I‚Äôm not actually hurting anybody. No-one has suffered anything”
I agree, that’s not villification. If you said ”they are all murderers, rapists, wife beaters and worship satan” that might in a particular context be construed as villification. I haven’t read the Vic legislation but normally there would be an objective test that the words spoken inculcated hatred and revulsion in a reasonable listener.
CS—(Tah baiting thread) If you are out there, and saw Wendell’s try against Italy, I’m sure you’ll agree, Wendell can run in a straight line, (some would say only in a straight line) and WILL BE A CREDIT TO THE TAHS !
Peter, I’ve just looked at the Act and, if it’s the right version of the statute, it frightens the hell out of me. Do you realise (see the note to s. 8(1)) that I could be done for what I just posted on LP? And it’s extra-territorial, so living in Alice gives me no respite from the Victorian thought police? My motives are irrelevant, so is the correctness or otherwise of my assumption. But it’s OK if I say it in private, as long as I make sure I’m not overheard and get everyone’s permission to speak strictly entre nous. This is terrifying! What democratic state can possibly claim that something said in private cannot be said in public? My blood literally runs cold.
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. I’m hoping I found an outdated version. If not, we need people out on the streets manning the bloody barricades.
What democratic state can possibly claim that something said in private cannot be said in public?
The same one that says you can watch hard-core pornography in private, but can’t display it in public. Or that you can walk around naked in private, but can’t do the same thing in public. It’s not an unusual limitation.
I would also point you to section 11:
A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person’s conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith—
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for—
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.
No, Robert, that just doesn’t work. We’re talking about political opinions, articulation of.
Don’t know how to cut and paste from .pdf; but do you notice that my motives - satire, self-ridicule, sarcasm - are deemed by the act to be irrelevant to my criminality?
I resign myself to my new status as thought criminal and await my arrest.
What the Victorian government should be criticised for is the new proposal that taxi drivers get the sack if they talk politics/religion to the fares.
Behind this is pure racism. Drivers are far less likely to bug the customer than vice-versa. But the drivers are very often Muslim. I can imagine all sorts of arguments that the customer initiated (they are the ones in a happy chatty mood) and where the driver stood up for himself. The customer then complains to the association. The result is today’s crap news.
People think taxi drivers are fair game already without this sort of knee-jerk response.
Can you? I have v7 but just assumed you couldn’t as with previous versions.
Much as I’ve often wished not to discuss politics with cab drivers (in Brissie there are lots of 50 something Anglo Hanson/Joh style cabbies), that’s pure silliness and populism. Can’t Bracks turn his attention to some serious issues?
To sum up: my statement ‘Christianity is shite’ could reasonably be taken to be inciting severe ridicule or serious contempt of believing Christians. The fact that I advanced the statement as a rhetorical example of the stupidity of this statute is irrelevant, according to the Act, which discounts my motivation in making the statement. My statement, as far as I can see, fits none of the exemption categories cited by Robert.
Ergo, I am a criminal under Victorian law, because I made the statement over the internet and this Act has extra-territorial reach. I’ll walk down to the police station tomorrow morning and turn myself in.
I doubt it, Rob. It’s well known that in defamation law that “vulgar abuse” is not cause for action. For instance, if I said “Popper is shite”, he couldn’t sue me (if he was alive). I’d imagine the same would apply. I haven’t been following this discussion btw.
Sophisticated and witty abuse will be no defence under The Racial and and Religious [In]Tolerance Act, I can tell you. Evil was right: this is pure fascism.
I’d suggest if you and EP are so passionate about the freedom of speech, rather than manning barricades or commenting on blogs, you might like to start campaigning for a Bill of Rights. Australians enjoy very few constitutionally guarenteed civil rights - not even a robust right to vote (only a right to vote federally if you’re qualified to vote in state elections. State parliaments could in theory impose property qualifications or other hurdles or disqualifications). It would be a fitting use of your energies, as apostles of freedom dedicated to spreading democracy.
I don’t think so, Robert. How could I demonstrate that a casual comment for purely self-interested rhetorical purposes on a blog was ‘in the public interest’? Does the Act define ‘the public interest’? Is there case law on that? Besides, if my comment was OK under that rubric, why wasn’t that of the two Dannys? Read broadly, that phrase would ‘legalise’ (AAGH - how dare they legalise and not legalise….?) almost anything. It seems though that the courts will not be interpreting it ‘broadly’.
Mark, I think this is an issue of more import and moment for Australians than the nominal sexual rights of American adolescents. However, I don’t wish to be snarky so I’ll shut my face.
Section 4(1)b , the objects of the Victorian Act (Religious and Racial Tolerance Act) is (from the autliii site):
”to maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion
of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any
form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or
academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment
does not vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons;”
Exactly as I surmised. Now seriously Rob, EP, are you scared of the dark as well?
There is a lot of preposterous comment on this thread, not least Peter Kemp’s support of Wendell Sailor.
The main burden of the freedom of speech test rests on citizens capacity to criticise the government and the prevention of government censorship. Beyond that, there is no absolute freedom of speech, everything depending on the context, standards and so on. It is wrongheaded to describe a government that enacts a law to protect churches and races from vilification as fascist - implicit state support for a peaceful multi-racial and multi-religious society is scarcely fascist (particularly given that it is fascists who would be most likely frustrated by said anti-vilification laws).
As for Sailor, he had a good game against the Italians. OK, he earned a stupid penalty by giving a linesman lip, and made a couple of minor errors, but this was about as good as Sailor gets. With Bernie Larkham breaking the Italians up at will, big strong runners will always tend to look good against weak competition, and ‘dell’s try haul of one compared with Lote’s four is a pretty good measure of the difference between the players. Rathbone would have had a Lote picknick.
More interesting was the Lions test against the All Blacks. It was sickeningly tragic to see Lions captain and mercurial Irish centre Brian O’Driscoll felled in the first minute, but it is doubtful that he would have made much difference. The Lions were scrambling all match long. What’s interesting is that the Blacks basically look like a bigger, stronger, faster version of the Crusaders. The Lions did better than the Tahs did against this combo, but the difference between the Tahs and the Wallabies is much bigger than that between the Crusaders and the Blacks. What it means is that, if Australia beats the French next week, the Bledislow will shape up as the de-facto world championship. Provided Bernie stays on the park, the Wallabies are well in it, for my money.
cs–Tongue in cheek , I live in the land of the Tahs too ! Lote’s class act of 4 tries demonstrates the obvious difference. I only ‘Tah-Bait’ when the Storey bridge on this site imprints in my posts, Mark’s subliminal weapon for previous residents perhaps.
Homer; In the context of ‘jihad’ being a somewhat sensitive issue these days and Muslims in this country feeling somewhat under suspicion, (and arguably exposed to more vilification than other minorities) the legal advice you mention could be appropriate depending on what the statement was, but after the real war criminals are politically swept away and foreign policy re-recognises cause and effect principles in the Islamic world, it could then be regarded as definitely overcautious.
If, as you claim, the Act maintained the rights of Victorians to engage in robust discussion — then the two Pastors would not have been convicted for criticising Islam.
The fact is that the wording of the legislation is meaningless. Its interpretation is the important factor — and it is interpreted by left-wing officials who use it to suppress dissent.
As an example of this selective interpretation, I cite the following:
Literature filled with hatred of Christians, Jews and non-Muslims is being sold at a mosque near a Melbourne home raided by ASIO.
Books sold at the store attached to the Brunswick mosque tell Muslims they should “hate and take as enemies” non-Muslims, reject Jews and Christians, and learn to hate in order to properly love Allah.
The texts say Muslims should learn military tactics and suggest that if a person speaks ill of Islam it is acceptable to kill them.
They urge Muslims to strike back against “the barbaric onslaught from their enemies — the Jews, Christians, atheists, secularists and others”.
Pages are devoted to legitimising episodes of violence against Jews who insult Islam.
The fact that these inciters of religious hatred have not been prosecuted demonstrates that the law is selectively applied. It is a political law, designed to suppress political speech for political purposes.
It’s not the warm and fuzzy objects of the Act that are the problem, or the soothing preamble. It’s the hard provisions of ss. 7 and 8 which make people criminals for expressing an opinion that are obnoxious and anti-democratic.
EP, really, the officials are all ‘left wing’ and presumably the Supreme Court of Victoria and the High Court of Australia on appeal?. Which Chinese fortune cookie did you open for that gem and argument ”We’ll all be rooned”
Your link shows a blank, but if it is true why don’t you go down there and bring all this to the attention of the Victorian police instead of just whinging.
And of course, from the example of various “racial vilification” legislation, we know that only certain groups will ever be targeted by the enforcers. It’s a means of enforcing government ideology by penalising dissent, nothing more.
From the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) Section 9(1): ”It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
From the Victorian legislation: sections 7 and 8 are similiar re race or religious practice.
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of
persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for,
or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Now if you violently oppose the latter, under ”distinction” for equivilancy, you should oppose the former to be consistent, but as to the Cth legislation I have not seen many people squealing since 1975.
Storm over. In the teacup that is. Game, set and match.
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
I have always opposed this suppression of free speech. So have many others who are concerned about government censorship.
All “anti-vilification” laws should be overturned. The Australian Constitution should be amended to include an explicit provision for absolute freedom of political speech.
The Victorian legislation simply represents the next step towards fascism. We can start by campaigning against it it, and work towards stopping all political censorship eventually.
The provisions look quite different to me, Peter. The former targets acts, the latter targets opinions (expressed publicly). As a free citizen, I should be perfectly free to lampoon and severely ridicule Catholic concepts like immaculate conception and transubstantiation. Not that I would want to. But now it’s illegal for me to do so. I should also be able to say that the Book of Mormon is a patent forgery and that whole religion is based on a lie. But I just broke the law again, I think.
”The Australian Constitution should be amended to include an explicit provision for absolute freedom of political speech.”
Great EP, after you read the cases of Lange v ABC (1997) 189 CLR 520 and Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times (1994) 182 CLR 104, you may then tell us how you are going to reconcile the ”absolute” freedom with the defamation laws.
Rob, suggest you read some cases and the methods of court interpretation of legislation among other considerations of the Victorian legislation being complementary to the Commonwealth’s.
How you can imply that ‘an act’ and ‘engage in conduct’ are mutually exclusive is beyond me.
Peter, to ‘engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons’ can only mean the voicing of an opinion. This is confirmed by the excision of private ‘conduct’ from criminal sanction on the grounds that it is ’seen or heard’ only by people who consent to it. Clearly this is about the articulation of opinion or the display of visual material. It’s entirely different from not giving someone a job because they’re aboriginal.
EP, wilful ignorance of crucial constitutional cases does your argument no good at all for one hell bent on changing the constitution.
Rob, how about some ripping off an Islamic girl’s head covering and spitting in her face without a word spoken, that’s not ‘voicing an opinion’ is it now?
Come on now, please guys, read what you write before you hit send!
Besides, how would that be construed as ‘conduct that incites hatred….’ ? It may be an act of hatred, borne of hatred, expressing hatred, but how does it incite?
Rob, how about some ripping off an Islamic girl‚Äôs head covering and spitting in her face without a word spoken, that‚Äôs not ‘voicing an opinion‚Äô is it now?
No, it’s criminal assault — not expression.
You’d think that someone who makes such a fuss about legal distinctions would know that.
Rob, sorry but there seems to be a severe lack of imagination on your part. Now you are implying, again, an act of hatred can never incite hatred. It doesn’t occur to you that a minority’s incapacity to defend itself , its apparent defencelessness can and will incite others in persecution. You never saw how dingos kill 100 sheep for fun? Kristallnacht?
The very act of abuse/violence is an incitement to others who are like minded. Read what the Russian skinheads do in Moscow to ”dark coloured” outsiders. Look at the dark side of human nature, there’s your answer. And if it somehow didn’t incite, that makes it a little bit better.??? For fuck’s sake.
I still don’t see it, Peter. If someone bashes me up because he thinks I’m an obnoxious git, how does that incite other people who share that opinion to do likewise?
My point remains - unanswered, it seems to me - that your example would be an act of criminal assault and would be dealt with as such. There is no need for the RRTA to be invoked. If the attack was racially motivated, that would represent an aggravation of the act and would be taken into account during sentencing.
Rob, you need to distinguish between the principle behind the laws and the particular case, I think. If you want to comment on the case, then you have to make it clear whether you are defending what these 2 pastors were saying. It wasn’t some academic or abstract discussion of Jihad, as you continually imply. It was an evil rant designed to scare people, filled with obscene stereotyping and ludicrous claims that Muslims want to take over Australia.
You might like to consider this thoughtful post from saint, written at the time the first decision was handed down. He demonstrates that it’s possible to address the issues seriously without the ridiculous hyperbole about fascism and the constant invocation of silly reductio ad absurdum that you and EP appear to have made your specialty.
saint was opposing the laws, but doing so in a measured and thoughtful way, weighing up the principles involved and discussing the need to prevent hateful speech.
As to the latter, I think that Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury put it well:
In his maiden speech to parliament, the 35-year old British-born Muslim MP described being beaten up as a teenager because “we were all seen as Pakis and we were all fair game.”
“Now when I receive anonymous hate mail or the family car is firebombed in the middle of the night,” he told his fellow MPs, “it’s because I am a Muslim.”
In its commentary on this issue, the Economist, not a supporter of the similar British legislation, points out that:
The thugs themselves understand that religion is a safer weapon because it is more acceptable than racial abuse.
You do yourself no credit, in my opinion, by appearing to posture on this issue, and ludicrously equating these laws with fascism. It seems to me that like many former Marxists or extreme leftists, you now have the same black and white view of the world and the same tendency to overstatement and partisanship, but with the sole exception of a kneejerk attachment to rightist positions. Keith Windschuttle is another example of this phenomenon. You’re better than that, and I’m sure you could argue about this sensibly if you applied your mind to it.
I’m amazed at Peter’s patience in continuing this discussion.
EP, that’s not the point, Rob said, in trying to distinguish ”an act” and ”engaging in conduct” that only the ”voicing of opinion” applied. I said no, a physical act, could also qualify, hence my example. Criminal yes but also conduct and an act that would also qualify under both legislations should a victim so wish to use that evidence in part in proving a case.
I think it’s completely irrelevant what the pastors were saying — though your distortion of their speech does you no credit.
The point is that the government has no right to decide which expressions of opinion are permissible and which are not. Democracy is impossible when the government controls the content of public discourse.
Likewise, Peter Kemp’s discussion of the specifics of couyrt cases is irrelevant. If the outcomes are wrong, then the law needs to be reformed. And any outcome that tolerates the repression of political speech is wrong.
Thanks Mark, I think I will retire with honour at this point. ”One can lead a horse to water…” and for another ”Straining out gnats and swallowing camels” springs to mind.
Thanks for your studied condescension, Mark. I feel much better for it.
None of my comments even mentioned jihad, so I don’t know where your ‘as you continually imply’ comes from. Even if your characterisation of what the pastors said is true - EP says not - I wold still not regard it as requiring criminal sanctions. Argument, refutation, derision, yes, but not the application of the punitive power of the state.
And you are logically wrong in saying ‘you have to make it clear whether you are defending what these 2 pastors were saying’. Of course I don’t. If I defend someone’s right to be a holocaust denier, it doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. You seem to be implying that support for the principle of free speech means I have to agree with what is freely said. That’s nonsense.
I’d like to raise the issue of political censorship in the guise of anti-vilification laws.
Specifically, in Victoria it is now effectively illegal to criticise a religion. Despite the assurances of politicians that the law allows reasonable comment, in practice it is selectively enforced and does not allow truth as a defence.
Free speech is one of the most fundamental human rights, and limiting it is a totalitarian act. The Victorian government must be forced to overturn this antidemocratic law.
More details on my blog.
EP, you’d bolster your case if you linked to Salman Rushdie’s article on some similar Blair legislation. Unfortunately, I am too tired to google for it right now.
Much like defamation law in NSW as it stands. Not that I know much about the anti-vilification laws, but it seems to be hardly the only law of its kind in Australia,
Boring.
Who else was deeply impressed by the intestinal fortitude of Lefty Tim and Hotness Kate hier soir? Iron Gut taken out convincingly by the resident Elf, and one more jewel in the crown for said Alpha Female.
However, Timmy put in the hard yards. Even though he’s still scrawnier than chicken legs the lad’s definitely got balls, albeit porcine ones.
Since we’re on the subject of religion, I’d like to subsequently raise the issue of creepy relationships, Tom Cruise and Scientology. [shudder]
He sure is one weird monkey Liam. Anyone see him on Parky? What a freakin’ fruitbowl.
Hey read this. Howard’s ’small-s Stalinist’ centralist jihad finally starts to split the Liberals. About time too, pussies. Grow some balls! Or ovaries!
I particularly enjoyed these lines from a young lib:
“I can’t understand why the Howard Government is dispensing with these liberal philosophies,” he said.
“Centralism is more in line with the extremes of socialist regimes.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1400339.htm
Socialist regimes, eh?
How long until this young Eggleston demands that the socialists in the Office of PM&C apologise for the historical crimes of Stalin and Pol Pot?
I wonder if he’s related to the early Australian liberal philosopher of the same name.
If the ABC mistyped his name, he may be related to Tony Eggleton, the Liberal Party’s professional campaigner of the 1970s and 1980s.
well, he’s clearly un-Australian, whoever he is. Imagine criticising our glorious leader!
But it does go to show: here come the inevitable splits in the all-conquering, complacent, meglomaniacal Howard Leviathan. Bring em on.
Our friends Eggleston is right of course. Howard seems to have stopped reading the history of political thought at Hobbes. Never quite made it to Locke.
It is a bit baffling. Centralise IR, establish a ‘fair wages commission’ with appointees of the Government.
Just what does Howard’s office expect to happen when Labor next wins a Federal Election?
re: OTIII Tom — Creepiest.Bedtime.Story.Ever.
I hope you’re not thinking of criticising Scientology, Amanda.
Because that’s illegal in Victoria.
What religion do you wish to vilify Evil?
Meanwhile, the Wallabies are eating Italian in Grim City this arvo. With the international season opener under the belt, the boys look set for a big one, and this could be very ugly. Can we still make Italian jokes Evil?
What religion do you wish to vilify Evil?
I dunno. What do Swedes believe in?
P.S. No, you can’t make Italian jokes. That’s racial vilification.
There goes the Swedish sperm theft angle.
The point you don’t get EP is that the right to free speech is not and can never be absolute so your statement “Free speech is one of the most fundamental human rights, and limiting it is a totalitarian act” is crap.
How can the suppression of dissident speech be justified in a democracy?
Political censorship is always totalitarian in nature. When certain ideas are declared illegal, and people can be imprisoned for mentioning them, then the State is taking on a fascist role.
If you support this legislation, you are a fascist.
I am with you on this EP.
If this absurd judgement goes through the Appela mechanism then one can never talk about what Jihad means in terms of the koran and Hadiths in any public place in Victoria.
Free speech is not absolute in the sense that it is and should be illegal to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre when you know there is no fire. But freedom of political expression is, if not absolute (I’m trying to think of a circumstance where it might not be, but am failing), then pretty close to it.
An example of the hugely muddled (IMHO) thinking that’s behind the legislation is here in an article from some Equal Opportunity Commission person. Her statement that
is scary. In a democracy, governments are supposed to do what the people tell them, no the other way around. I agree with EP that this is fascism - ’soft’ facism, maybe, but fascism nonetheless.
Here is the link. Dunno what happened the first time.
”Specifically, in Victoria it is now effectively illegal to criticise a religion.”
Not criticise, EP the word is villify— akin to the RDA 1975 anti racist legislation.
Such laws are parallel to the defamation laws protecting individuals which do incidently need standardising between the states, but are subject to the over-riding constitutional implied rights of political communication when (per State cases Lange/Theophanous) defamatory laws or even theoretically State anti religious- villification law intersect with that political communication right.
I restate, villifying somebody on the basis of their race or religion is an abuse pure and simple, and going by recent history and ‘crusades’ whether from the pulpit [or cluster bombs on Iraqi civilians], it needs some restraints, and yes it is a balancing act as the law always should be.
RDA 1975 and defamation law, but Victorian law on religious villification is sui generis? No, its simply a logical variant of the first two.
”In a democracy, governments are supposed to do what the people tell them”
Does that mean Rob for example, that the moral panic type of law that irresponsible journalism stirs up (contrary to standard internationally recognised legal principles) is acceptable ? Are lynch mobs acceptable if the people demand it?
Tom Cruise and scientology: You can’t make it up
At least Scarlett/a> didn’t give a damn.
I’m confused about this. ‘Vilifying someone on the basis of their race or religion’ is one thing. Surely, though, vilifying (whatever that means - is there a legal definition? How do we know it’s not the same as criticising?) a religion on the basis of its perceived quailties, not an individual, is something quite different.
I had always thought that defamation laws seek to protect the individual, not an abstract concept like religion. So if I say, ‘Joe Bloggs is an evil vicious etc., etc., and this is because he’s Jewish’, my statement falls into one category. If I say, ‘Islam is a murderous faith that condones general murder through suicide attacks on civilians’, I seem to be saying something quite different. I am not singling out an individual, I am making a general statement, which may or may not be wrong. But because no specific individual has been materially damaged by my putative falsehood, any comparison with the principles of defamation must fail, it seems to me.
And on reflection, I can’t see why vilifying someone on the basis of their religion should be a crime, however morally abhorrent it might be. To say, ‘Joe Bloggs is a shitwit because he’s a fundamentalist Christian’ is offensive, but why should it be a criminal act? I think not.
Peter, I’m sorry, I had not read you second comment when I replied to your first.
Unlike many on both the left and the right, I have great faith in the common sense of ordinary people and their inherent sense of decency and fair play. All communities are host to extremists of one form or another, and also to theorists, proselytisers and practitioners of various cults. When you put the whole boiling together at election time, or get them to the ballot box for a referendum, common sense wins out. So, no, I don’t see a danger of lynch mobs and moral panics. Our system doesn’t allow it. It doesn’t allow local firebrands to command the power that would enable them to victimise others or bring about their deaths; if they did, or do, the law steps in, as it should. It does happen variously around the world, but not in liberal democracies, which - very rightly - punish such acts as criminal.
It’s the great virtue of our system that serious political parties know very well that the community is suspicious of radicals of whatever ilk, becuse what radicals always want and need is power. In terms of the power they seek to exercise over the community, responsible parties know they operate within a relatively narrow band. If they ask for too much, they lose the centre, and thus lose any chance of gaining office. It’s a great system.
To get back to your specific point: the people, i.e. the broad electorate, will not demand lynch mobs. Only local crazies will do that. Our system is very effective in keeping such people well away from the machinery of power. In many ways, that’s the whole point of the democratic exercise - that and curtailing the power of the state.
What I’m saying is that anti-villification laws regarding religion is analogous to a group version of defamation, and remember, truth in defamation in the common law is not a defence unless it’s in the public interest.
I don’t have a definition of villification, must check out the Vic legislation but it’s a helluva lot more than criticism. As for: ”But because no specific individual has been materially damaged by my putative falsehood, any comparison with the principles of defamation must fail” then make that statement in a company context of villification/defamation and see how you go. In arguing no material damage because it’s a group, that is a highly self serving statement if not a tautology for your argument.
In any case re groups, what do you say about the Racial Discrimination Act and the possibility of being guilty of racially abusing a group rather than one individual?
It does not make sense in logic to argue only one individual so named can suffer ‘damage’ and a group cannot, whether it’s economic damage or reputation or any other form of damage.
Hence my argument the Vic laws are a logical and not radical extension of both State defamation laws and the RDA 1975 (Cth) for which the Commonwealth has specifically amended the RDA so that state legislation in this general area of discrimination/villification does not ordinarily conflict. (Cover the field test of indirect conflict in constitutional law)
Rob, by company I mean an incorporated legal entity such as Gunns in Tasmania, not that I agree with their case .
Peter, I just can’t see that. If I say ‘Christianity is shite’ I am putatively impugning the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people around the world. But I’m not actually hurting anybody. No-one has suffered anything as a result of what I have said. People might get upset or angry - to the extent they might if I said ‘wines friom the Bourgogne region of France are crap’. In both cases, the appropriate path for the ‘wounded’ parties is not to seek criminal sanctions from the state but to publicly demonstrate that I’m a moron. It’s just an opinion, not a sharp stone or a pointed stick. As such it has absolutely nothing to do with the state. For the state to use its power to curtail the expression of opinion is to plant its feet firmly on the path to tyranny.
I take your point about collective legal entities but it surely cannot extend to hundreds of millions of people across the world who subscribe to one religious faith or another and who might be offended by something said about their belief system.
I happen to be a passionate believer in liberal democracy. Should I launch a law suit against someone who says ‘liberal democracy is a rubbish system that engenders oceans of moral vice and contempt for God’? You see how ridiculous the whole thing becomes.
Rob ”If I say Christianity is shite‚Äô I am putatively impugning the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of people around the world. But I‚Äôm not actually hurting anybody. No-one has suffered anything”
I agree, that’s not villification. If you said ”they are all murderers, rapists, wife beaters and worship satan” that might in a particular context be construed as villification. I haven’t read the Vic legislation but normally there would be an objective test that the words spoken inculcated hatred and revulsion in a reasonable listener.
CS—(Tah baiting thread) If you are out there, and saw Wendell’s try against Italy, I’m sure you’ll agree, Wendell can run in a straight line, (some would say only in a straight line) and WILL BE A CREDIT TO THE TAHS !
May I just say.
The Knights won!
Peter, I’ve just looked at the Act and, if it’s the right version of the statute, it frightens the hell out of me. Do you realise (see the note to s. 8(1)) that I could be done for what I just posted on LP? And it’s extra-territorial, so living in Alice gives me no respite from the Victorian thought police? My motives are irrelevant, so is the correctness or otherwise of my assumption. But it’s OK if I say it in private, as long as I make sure I’m not overheard and get everyone’s permission to speak strictly entre nous. This is terrifying! What democratic state can possibly claim that something said in private cannot be said in public? My blood literally runs cold.
Screwed up the link again.
Rob, can’t get your link to work, what’s the name of the legislation, will get back to this tomorrow. Cheers.
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. I’m hoping I found an outdated version. If not, we need people out on the streets manning the bloody barricades.
What democratic state can possibly claim that something said in private cannot be said in public?
The same one that says you can watch hard-core pornography in private, but can’t display it in public. Or that you can walk around naked in private, but can’t do the same thing in public. It’s not an unusual limitation.
I would also point you to section 11:
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.
No, Robert, that just doesn’t work. We’re talking about political opinions, articulation of.
Don’t know how to cut and paste from .pdf; but do you notice that my motives - satire, self-ridicule, sarcasm - are deemed by the act to be irrelevant to my criminality?
I resign myself to my new status as thought criminal and await my arrest.
I was briefed on the Katie captivity last night over drinks. I have a Free Winona t-shirt. I may now have to buy a Free Katie t-shirt.
Don’t know how to cut and paste from .pdf
You can’t unless you buy the full Acrobat suite or your workplace has a licence for it.
I’m hoping I found an outdated version.
You can download any current state or federal legislation here, as well as leading court and tribunal judgements.
What the Victorian government should be criticised for is the new proposal that taxi drivers get the sack if they talk politics/religion to the fares.
Behind this is pure racism. Drivers are far less likely to bug the customer than vice-versa. But the drivers are very often Muslim. I can imagine all sorts of arguments that the customer initiated (they are the ones in a happy chatty mood) and where the driver stood up for himself. The customer then complains to the association. The result is today’s crap news.
People think taxi drivers are fair game already without this sort of knee-jerk response.
you can cut and paste using the free Acrobat reader (v7)
Can you? I have v7 but just assumed you couldn’t as with previous versions.
Much as I’ve often wished not to discuss politics with cab drivers (in Brissie there are lots of 50 something Anglo Hanson/Joh style cabbies), that’s pure silliness and populism. Can’t Bracks turn his attention to some serious issues?
To sum up: my statement ‘Christianity is shite’ could reasonably be taken to be inciting severe ridicule or serious contempt of believing Christians. The fact that I advanced the statement as a rhetorical example of the stupidity of this statute is irrelevant, according to the Act, which discounts my motivation in making the statement. My statement, as far as I can see, fits none of the exemption categories cited by Robert.
Ergo, I am a criminal under Victorian law, because I made the statement over the internet and this Act has extra-territorial reach. I’ll walk down to the police station tomorrow morning and turn myself in.
I doubt it, Rob. It’s well known that in defamation law that “vulgar abuse” is not cause for action. For instance, if I said “Popper is shite”, he couldn’t sue me (if he was alive). I’d imagine the same would apply. I haven’t been following this discussion btw.
“It‚Äôs well known that in defamation law that vulgar abuse is not cause for action.”
Ahh, so that’s how we all get away with it.
Yep! I don’t know if you can sue on the basis of sophisticated and witty abuse. Perhaps you can.
Sophisticated and witty abuse will be no defence under The Racial and and Religious [In]Tolerance Act, I can tell you. Evil was right: this is pure fascism.
This is pure hyperbole!
Read the Act, Mark - and tremble.
Rob, I would have thought your hypothetical comment fit under ss 11(b)(ii).
Rob, I might go to sleep instead.
I’d suggest if you and EP are so passionate about the freedom of speech, rather than manning barricades or commenting on blogs, you might like to start campaigning for a Bill of Rights. Australians enjoy very few constitutionally guarenteed civil rights - not even a robust right to vote (only a right to vote federally if you’re qualified to vote in state elections. State parliaments could in theory impose property qualifications or other hurdles or disqualifications). It would be a fitting use of your energies, as apostles of freedom dedicated to spreading democracy.
I don’t think so, Robert. How could I demonstrate that a casual comment for purely self-interested rhetorical purposes on a blog was ‘in the public interest’? Does the Act define ‘the public interest’? Is there case law on that? Besides, if my comment was OK under that rubric, why wasn’t that of the two Dannys? Read broadly, that phrase would ‘legalise’ (AAGH - how dare they legalise and not legalise….?) almost anything. It seems though that the courts will not be interpreting it ‘broadly’.
Seriously, I’m quite worried about this.
Mark, I think this is an issue of more import and moment for Australians than the nominal sexual rights of American adolescents. However, I don’t wish to be snarky so I’ll shut my face.
Section 4(1)b , the objects of the Victorian Act (Religious and Racial Tolerance Act) is (from the autliii site):
”to maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion
of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any
form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or
academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment
does not vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons;”
Exactly as I surmised. Now seriously Rob, EP, are you scared of the dark as well?
austlii.edu.au site that is.
Peter, ant examnation of the court case would lead any reasonable person to summise they cannot talk about jihad in a public place in Victoria.
As it is that is the legal advice to several theological colleges.
There is a lot of preposterous comment on this thread, not least Peter Kemp’s support of Wendell Sailor.
The main burden of the freedom of speech test rests on citizens capacity to criticise the government and the prevention of government censorship. Beyond that, there is no absolute freedom of speech, everything depending on the context, standards and so on. It is wrongheaded to describe a government that enacts a law to protect churches and races from vilification as fascist - implicit state support for a peaceful multi-racial and multi-religious society is scarcely fascist (particularly given that it is fascists who would be most likely frustrated by said anti-vilification laws).
As for Sailor, he had a good game against the Italians. OK, he earned a stupid penalty by giving a linesman lip, and made a couple of minor errors, but this was about as good as Sailor gets. With Bernie Larkham breaking the Italians up at will, big strong runners will always tend to look good against weak competition, and ‘dell’s try haul of one compared with Lote’s four is a pretty good measure of the difference between the players. Rathbone would have had a Lote picknick.
More interesting was the Lions test against the All Blacks. It was sickeningly tragic to see Lions captain and mercurial Irish centre Brian O’Driscoll felled in the first minute, but it is doubtful that he would have made much difference. The Lions were scrambling all match long. What’s interesting is that the Blacks basically look like a bigger, stronger, faster version of the Crusaders. The Lions did better than the Tahs did against this combo, but the difference between the Tahs and the Wallabies is much bigger than that between the Crusaders and the Blacks. What it means is that, if Australia beats the French next week, the Bledislow will shape up as the de-facto world championship. Provided Bernie stays on the park, the Wallabies are well in it, for my money.
cs–Tongue in cheek , I live in the land of the Tahs too ! Lote’s class act of 4 tries demonstrates the obvious difference. I only ‘Tah-Bait’ when the Storey bridge on this site imprints in my posts, Mark’s subliminal weapon for previous residents perhaps.
Homer; In the context of ‘jihad’ being a somewhat sensitive issue these days and Muslims in this country feeling somewhat under suspicion, (and arguably exposed to more vilification than other minorities) the legal advice you mention could be appropriate depending on what the statement was, but after the real war criminals are politically swept away and foreign policy re-recognises cause and effect principles in the Islamic world, it could then be regarded as definitely overcautious.
If, as you claim, the Act maintained the rights of Victorians to engage in robust discussion — then the two Pastors would not have been convicted for criticising Islam.
The fact is that the wording of the legislation is meaningless. Its interpretation is the important factor — and it is interpreted by left-wing officials who use it to suppress dissent.
As an example of this selective interpretation, I cite the following:
The fact that these inciters of religious hatred have not been prosecuted demonstrates that the law is selectively applied. It is a political law, designed to suppress political speech for political purposes.
It’s not the warm and fuzzy objects of the Act that are the problem, or the soothing preamble. It’s the hard provisions of ss. 7 and 8 which make people criminals for expressing an opinion that are obnoxious and anti-democratic.
EP, really, the officials are all ‘left wing’ and presumably the Supreme Court of Victoria and the High Court of Australia on appeal?. Which Chinese fortune cookie did you open for that gem and argument ”We’ll all be rooned”
Your link shows a blank, but if it is true why don’t you go down there and bring all this to the attention of the Victorian police instead of just whinging.
And of course, from the example of various “racial vilification” legislation, we know that only certain groups will ever be targeted by the enforcers. It’s a means of enforcing government ideology by penalising dissent, nothing more.
So, with your concern for freedom and rights, Rob and EP, I imagine you’ll be worried about this.
I agree that a Bill of Rights could be a good thing — but people will argue endlessly over what is a right and what isn’t.
Tim Dunlop and SBS get upset over some smashed hard drives, and I get upset over political censorship of public speech. And so it goes on.
From the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) Section 9(1): ”It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
From the Victorian legislation: sections 7 and 8 are similiar re race or religious practice.
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of
persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for,
or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Now if you violently oppose the latter, under ”distinction” for equivilancy, you should oppose the former to be consistent, but as to the Cth legislation I have not seen many people squealing since 1975.
Storm over. In the teacup that is. Game, set and match.
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
I have always opposed this suppression of free speech. So have many others who are concerned about government censorship.
All “anti-vilification” laws should be overturned. The Australian Constitution should be amended to include an explicit provision for absolute freedom of political speech.
The Victorian legislation simply represents the next step towards fascism. We can start by campaigning against it it, and work towards stopping all political censorship eventually.
The provisions look quite different to me, Peter. The former targets acts, the latter targets opinions (expressed publicly). As a free citizen, I should be perfectly free to lampoon and severely ridicule Catholic concepts like immaculate conception and transubstantiation. Not that I would want to. But now it’s illegal for me to do so. I should also be able to say that the Book of Mormon is a patent forgery and that whole religion is based on a lie. But I just broke the law again, I think.
”The Australian Constitution should be amended to include an explicit provision for absolute freedom of political speech.”
Great EP, after you read the cases of Lange v ABC (1997) 189 CLR 520 and Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times (1994) 182 CLR 104, you may then tell us how you are going to reconcile the ”absolute” freedom with the defamation laws.
Rob, suggest you read some cases and the methods of court interpretation of legislation among other considerations of the Victorian legislation being complementary to the Commonwealth’s.
How you can imply that ‘an act’ and ‘engage in conduct’ are mutually exclusive is beyond me.
I couldn’t care less about the cases.
If the anti-vilification acts are upheld by the courts, then the Constitution needs to be changed to prevent this.
Simple as that. Human rights are more important than legal technicalities.
Peter, to ‘engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons’ can only mean the voicing of an opinion. This is confirmed by the excision of private ‘conduct’ from criminal sanction on the grounds that it is ’seen or heard’ only by people who consent to it. Clearly this is about the articulation of opinion or the display of visual material. It’s entirely different from not giving someone a job because they’re aboriginal.
EP, wilful ignorance of crucial constitutional cases does your argument no good at all for one hell bent on changing the constitution.
Rob, how about some ripping off an Islamic girl’s head covering and spitting in her face without a word spoken, that’s not ‘voicing an opinion’ is it now?
Come on now, please guys, read what you write before you hit send!
That’s criminal assault, Peter, for which the law already prescribes adequate sanctions.
Besides, how would that be construed as ‘conduct that incites hatred….’ ? It may be an act of hatred, borne of hatred, expressing hatred, but how does it incite?
Rob, how about some ripping off an Islamic girl‚Äôs head covering and spitting in her face without a word spoken, that‚Äôs not ‘voicing an opinion‚Äô is it now?
No, it’s criminal assault — not expression.
You’d think that someone who makes such a fuss about legal distinctions would know that.
Rob, sorry but there seems to be a severe lack of imagination on your part. Now you are implying, again, an act of hatred can never incite hatred. It doesn’t occur to you that a minority’s incapacity to defend itself , its apparent defencelessness can and will incite others in persecution. You never saw how dingos kill 100 sheep for fun? Kristallnacht?
The very act of abuse/violence is an incitement to others who are like minded. Read what the Russian skinheads do in Moscow to ”dark coloured” outsiders. Look at the dark side of human nature, there’s your answer. And if it somehow didn’t incite, that makes it a little bit better.??? For fuck’s sake.
So it’s a good thing that such acts of violence are illegal under common assualt laws.
No need for any fascist censorship of political expression at all.
I still don’t see it, Peter. If someone bashes me up because he thinks I’m an obnoxious git, how does that incite other people who share that opinion to do likewise?
My point remains - unanswered, it seems to me - that your example would be an act of criminal assault and would be dealt with as such. There is no need for the RRTA to be invoked. If the attack was racially motivated, that would represent an aggravation of the act and would be taken into account during sentencing.
Rob, you need to distinguish between the principle behind the laws and the particular case, I think. If you want to comment on the case, then you have to make it clear whether you are defending what these 2 pastors were saying. It wasn’t some academic or abstract discussion of Jihad, as you continually imply. It was an evil rant designed to scare people, filled with obscene stereotyping and ludicrous claims that Muslims want to take over Australia.
You might like to consider this thoughtful post from saint, written at the time the first decision was handed down. He demonstrates that it’s possible to address the issues seriously without the ridiculous hyperbole about fascism and the constant invocation of silly reductio ad absurdum that you and EP appear to have made your specialty.
saint was opposing the laws, but doing so in a measured and thoughtful way, weighing up the principles involved and discussing the need to prevent hateful speech.
As to the latter, I think that Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury put it well:
In its commentary on this issue, the Economist, not a supporter of the similar British legislation, points out that:
You do yourself no credit, in my opinion, by appearing to posture on this issue, and ludicrously equating these laws with fascism. It seems to me that like many former Marxists or extreme leftists, you now have the same black and white view of the world and the same tendency to overstatement and partisanship, but with the sole exception of a kneejerk attachment to rightist positions. Keith Windschuttle is another example of this phenomenon. You’re better than that, and I’m sure you could argue about this sensibly if you applied your mind to it.
I’m amazed at Peter’s patience in continuing this discussion.
EP, that’s not the point, Rob said, in trying to distinguish ”an act” and ”engaging in conduct” that only the ”voicing of opinion” applied. I said no, a physical act, could also qualify, hence my example. Criminal yes but also conduct and an act that would also qualify under both legislations should a victim so wish to use that evidence in part in proving a case.
I think it’s completely irrelevant what the pastors were saying — though your distortion of their speech does you no credit.
The point is that the government has no right to decide which expressions of opinion are permissible and which are not. Democracy is impossible when the government controls the content of public discourse.
Likewise, Peter Kemp’s discussion of the specifics of couyrt cases is irrelevant. If the outcomes are wrong, then the law needs to be reformed. And any outcome that tolerates the repression of political speech is wrong.
EP, have you read what they said?
Chris’ explanation to you of what is actually involved in freedom of speech should have answered your point already.
Thanks Mark, I think I will retire with honour at this point. ”One can lead a horse to water…” and for another ”Straining out gnats and swallowing camels” springs to mind.
I know what is actually involved in free speech — and it does not involve people like Chris deciding what is allowable and what is not.
Free speech is free, and that means even wrong and offensive speech is allowed. Yes, even the wrong and offensive things that lefties say.
Once some speech is declared illegal because some people don’t like it, speech is no longer free.
Banning speech that offends Muslims is no different in principle from banning speech that offends right-wingers.
How would you like it if any criticism of conservative people or ideas was punishable by forced apology or imprisonment?
Thanks for your studied condescension, Mark. I feel much better for it.
None of my comments even mentioned jihad, so I don’t know where your ‘as you continually imply’ comes from. Even if your characterisation of what the pastors said is true - EP says not - I wold still not regard it as requiring criminal sanctions. Argument, refutation, derision, yes, but not the application of the punitive power of the state.
And you are logically wrong in saying ‘you have to make it clear whether you are defending what these 2 pastors were saying’. Of course I don’t. If I defend someone’s right to be a holocaust denier, it doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. You seem to be implying that support for the principle of free speech means I have to agree with what is freely said. That’s nonsense.