Pastors reject apology order over Koran comments (1 Viewer)

[MoonlightSonata]

No this country shouldn't have racial villification laws, as it castrates a certain element of realism from Australians. Australians, in a sense, need to be armed with such abilities to defend themselves.

Free speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There is a difference between expressing one's opinion and inciting violence against certain groups. They have the right to believe what they do, and that right means the state should protect them from the violence of others.

We are talking about violent cultures. In islamic cultures, people can get up and say "lets kill all westerners" and they can worship terrorist acts, and not only are there no laws to prevent this, but they in turn are encouraged by the people around them. So whilst they in the middle east and else where are standing around saying "lets kill every foreigner" we aren't even aloud to say a mild comment which is slightly 'mean'. This is not balanced, nor is it fair. I say, we should only enact laws after 'they' do

Strangely enough, not all religions are violent. I don't know what your problem is. If a religion practices violent acts, then our laws will deal with them. If it is propaganda you are concerned about, the spreading of some sort of violent system of beliefs, then to a certain extent, there are laws to inhibit behaviour like that. Further, your objection is specific only to Islam; it does not mean we should have no religious vilification laws whatsoever.

The point about only enacting laws after "they" do is quite immature. So we should degrade our society and fall to a low level of verbal retaliation simply because another culture does it?

(I also wonder who you mean by "they". You speak of them as an identifiable group of villains.)

There is several instances of this, were "we" have to do something when "they" don't, this applies accross a wide range of racial issues, from aboriginals, to the negroes in america, to this, to that.

I'm sorry, what? Is there some sort of problem with laws relating to aborigines and african Americans?

These governments are enacting legislation to try to keep the peace; that is, they enact it with the sole intention of keeping everything peaceful here in Australia. That is what it does in the short term. Meanwhile, our nation is going down the drain, because we cannot say how we feel. They clearly don't look in the long term when these weak clauses or acts are introduced.

You can say what you feel, don't be ridiculous. You just can't go around encouraging hate and violence, and that is perfectly reasonable. Furthermore, even if current laws are restrictive, this does not mean there should be no religious vilification laws at all. If the legislation is drafted to be liberal and lenient towards religious discourse, it will uphold free speech.

Anyone with half a brain, would know that at the time of the enacting of the australian constitution, there was no essense of "equalism" and in fact that was years before there was a hippy uprising and so forth, and that the meaning of "Religious freedom" had a different meaning then, as it does now.

Firstly, it depends on the approach taken to the interpretation of the Constitution. When you take a dynamic or evolutionary originalist approach to Constitutional interpretation, there is no problem.

Secondly, despite changes in society over the past hundred years, there is still a need to protect the right to practice religion in Australia today.

 

[soha]

No one is aloud to go killing other people, this is called Genocide, and I think the jews know what it is like to be the victim of a genocide, just look into the eyes of the guy in my avatar

You know its not like what you have said. The jews are not going to go and kill every palestinian, trust me, if they had a desire to do that, they would have already. It's plain and simple, the arabs are being greedy and don't want to share with the jews, and so are trying to kill the jews off. This isn't a question of fighting against the jews or americans with suicidie bombers, in the name of preserving ones race or religion, its just blatent hatred.

ok are you jewish?
take it from me
i am arab
and my grandmother grew up in palestine
we were living with the jews hapily and peacefully
then after the holacaust the jews that migrated to israel from germany etc etc..they came and didnt want to share
i think they called zionists?
neways...i really really dont wnat to get into an argument with you or discuss the situation in the middle east
coz im a muslim arab and i have a whole perspective on the situation
so its not gonna get anywhere..u obviously see it from a different angle

 

[MoonlightSonata]

@MoonlightSonate:
So you have just contradicted yourself.
You are saying that "Free speech" isn't that at all.. Even though the saying "Freedom of speech" means exactly that, 100% freedom of speach with out exception.. Freedom of speech means.. Partial freedom of speech..

Incorrect. Freedom of speech does not necessarily mean 100% freedom of speech. It does not imply that in its title, nor has it been interpreted or enacted in that way by most countries in the world. Defamation is one such example where freedom of speech is not absolute, and should not be.

ok then.. And Yet you say that the australian constitution should be interpreted word-for-word as religious freedom?

It provides the freedom to practice religion. Just what is the problem with interpreting it that way?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Oh ok, so freedom of speech is ok, so long as it doesn't infringe upon an airy-fairy belief or something?

Sorry it doesn't work like that. Freedom of speech means exactly that. Sticks n stones.. Sticks n stones.

I'm afraid it does work like that. Freedom of speech is not absolute. As I said, defamation is an example. These laws (in the UK, Australia, USA, etc) are a reflection of the idea that you can't just go around severely slandering people and their reputations. Another area where freedom of speech is limited is with regards to offensive language.

Do some research, historically and legally.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I know the legal and historical aspects of it, and i know thats the way it is, but its only like that, i believe, because people havent argued against it enough. America also breaches its citizens rights in the right to bear arms. Criminals cannot own firearms. That is not what the constitution says. If a law says something, it says it. Unless they have ammended their constitution to say "except for convicted felons" then i can't see how they can stop their citizens from owning them.

I don't have time right now to expound the basics of law or the history of Constitutional interpretation to you (my advice is to do some research) but on a common sense perspective take note of this fact: language is open to some interpretation. It is the role of judges to interpret legislation. Most of the time they do a damn good job of it too. "The right to bear arms" does not necessarily mean "no matter what". The same goes for free speech. The same goes for freedom of religion. Otherwise, by your logic (that the USA is breaching its Constitutional provisions by preventing criminals from owning guns), the right to freedom of religion would be absolute!

I don't agree with defamation or villification laws, as they, like rights, are only generally used by the suckers of society. The right to remain silent? who, besides a guilty person, would have to use that right? It sucks. Since when has the law ever had interests in protecting criminals. Who came along and made it that way?

You don't agree that people's reputations should not be slandered, and you don't agree that people should be protected from hateful, discriminatory treatment? You're a few steps away from being added to ignore.

 

[Monkey Butler]

Like it or not, anti-mathmite, we live in a society with an incredibly large number of different viewpoints, cultures and backgrounds. And, inevitably, they don't get along alot of the time. It's the responsibilty of the government to legislate to ensure that there are limits, in the interests of keeping the peace, to what those groups can and cannot do and say to each other. Yes, we should all be free to say and believe what we want, but propagating a dangerous, beligerent and anti-social point of view is never in the interests of society, and that's what limits to Freedom of Speech are all about - trying to make our society as a whole be as cohesive and inclusive as possible by ensuring that downright lies cannot be spread.