I’m sure Kim and I agree more than we disagree. But I am not her sock-puppet, nor is she my tag-teamer.

I’m also against the Victorian legislation, BTW.

Apologies, Kim! I thought you were Kate. Will it wash if I just say that your views seem so closely aligned that I should be forgiven for mistaking you for her? Do I also need to apologise to Kate? On whom does this error most poorly reflect?

No biggie! And I can recall at least one issue where Kate and I disagreed, though it would be fair to assume (I think - I can’t talk for Kate) that our views would be close on a lot of stuff.

As to the Victorian legislation, on balance I’m against.

But, Steve, I agree with Fyodor that this thread is off the rails (and don’t particularly care who first derailed it) and I’d also observe that if you want to do inquisitions, you should take a trick off Rafe. How many commenters here condemn the Vietcong? How many have studied Popper and Hayek on political economy? How many admit their responsibility for Stalin’s crimes?

But then you write, “You‚Äôre just his sock-puppet in this stoushette”. Funny kind of “sock puppet” that disagrees with 50% of what the hand is doing.

http://libertarian.org.au/blog/readArticle.jsp?articleID=6091206

This is a thread about legislation - that you oppose - which infringes civil liberties, and you’ve derailed it onto your favourite whipping boy of dodgy religious vilification laws down Mexico-way.

You could have said something meaningful about this GWOT farce, but no, you had to whinge about the terrible times suffered by Muslim-bashers. Well done, matey!

But what of the other commentators here? I think Kim and AB sound like “anti-vilification” shills. I’m sure I’ve read their police state apologia somewhere before, but I’ll need verification. Is this true, guys? Do you support the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act?

That’s nice to hear! At the very least you have retained the right to oppose the federal government’s tyrannical power grab. Unlike Peter, of course, who is an objective supporter of the federal government.

Great. Wonderful. Just frickin’ fantastic. Thanks Peter! Thanks a lot buddy! Well done matey!! You must be cock-a-hoop!

Pharoz - all expressions of gratitude are to be forwarded to one Peter Kemp, in case you were wondering.

Talk is talk.
There is a difference between informal organisations discussing criminal activities and planning for them; and innocent banter. These anti-terrorism laws against talk about terrorism [and with the secrecy provisions which conceal public debate about the content of any supposedly pro-terrorism talk - absolutely anything could be used by the authorities if Ruddock wants it to] seem similar to the Right’s silly fear of heavy-metal music.

I just hear that the COAG meeting gave Howard what he wanted…

a) the Act does not criminalise the incitement of a crime

b) the Act does criminalise the incitement of “hate”

That necessarily leads me to conclude that, unless “hate” itself is a crime, the Victorian RARTA cannot possibly have anything to do with “direct incitement”. (Of course, if you really want to make “hate” a crime, which I suspect the Left does, then be my guest - but don’t pretend to care about civil liberties in future)

In conclusion, there is little practical difference between the RARTA and John Howard’s draconian power grab, except to the extent that Howard’s latest outrage is probably more defensible than Bracks’ abominable legislation. Those commmentators who maintain otherwise do so dishonestly.

John H, my expression was clumsy, I should have said ‘ human emotions can lead to the illegality of incitement’.