It would be nice to see a blank Australia on this map:

Australia

Local and anomalous restrictions on blasphemy

Laws aimed at curbing “racial vilification” have been extended in three states to include “religious vilification”.
There are concerns that while these laws legitimately forbid incitement to hatred, they also ban “severe ridicule”
and “serious contempt” of persons based on religion, and have been used in practice to prosecute people for
criticisms of religion as such.

The Australian constitution bars the federal government from making any law that imposes a state religion or religious observance,
prohibits the free exercise of religion or sets a religious test for a federal public office.

There are no national, constitutional protections for freedoms of speech and the press,
but in practice various statute laws protect these rights, there is a free press and citizens have significant freedom of expression.

However, the federal government and several states have passed laws outlawing “racial vilification” and the states of Tasmania,
Queensland and Victoria have extended those laws to also outlaw any “religious vilification”.

Section 8 (1) of the law states: “A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity 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.”

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act passed by Victoria in 2001 has been used several times to prosecute people for religious criticism.

http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/oceania/australia/

Bubblecar said:

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act passed by Victoria in 2001 has been used several times to prosecute people for religious criticism.

who would have thought a progressive western government, like ours, could act this way… imagine what they could do if they open assess to the information relating to our online presence and/or mobile phone…

diddly-squat said:

who would have thought a progressive western government, like ours, could act this way… imagine what they could do if they open assess to the information relating to our online presence and/or mobile phone…

Off topic and missing the point. The correct response to bad laws is not to hide from the authorities, but to publicly challenge the bad laws.

Bubblecar said:

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act passed by Victoria in 2001 has been used several times to prosecute people for religious criticism.

That’s what they got Bolt on, and a vast majority of the ‘left’ were cheering that on with gay abandon.

• The correct response to bad laws is not to hide from the authorities, but to publicly challenge the bad laws.

Or ignore them because if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about…

furious said:

• The correct response to bad laws is not to hide from the authorities, but to publicly challenge the bad laws.

Or ignore them because if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about…

trollolol

If they blaspheme just kill them. Simples.

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act passed by Victoria in 2001 has been used several times to prosecute people for religious criticism.

who would have thought a progressive western government, like ours, could act this way… imagine what they could do if they open assess to the information relating to our online presence and/or mobile phone…

Well we shall have to vote them out before they recall.

its ok to kill people for their race, religious affiliation, beliefs

but its not ok to vilify them for it

we are not allowed to question the laws and “histories” of religious groups either

I mean if I were to mention that there are tracts that describe the wholesale slaughter of people where the young girls are kept alive to presumably be fucked/ turned into slaves, well that would be quite problematic

could we ask these tracts to be removed from the old testament and various parchments as they violate women’s rights?

then you have the whole female genital mutilation thing and women being forced to wear a rag on their head

unfortunately the great religions of the world are a bit fucked in the head when it comes to decency, respect etc

the main thing is that we say nothing and let them grow stronger and stronger until they wipe of civilisation and then we can be proud that we have reached the conclusion of “diversity”

wookiemeister said:

we are not allowed to question the laws and “histories” of religious groups either

Sure we are. People do it all the time. The editorials are full of that kind of stuff.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

we are not allowed to question the laws and “histories” of religious groups either

Sure we are. People do it all the time. The editorials are full of that kind of stuff.

yeah

theres no way out of it im afraid

from a genetic perspective the crazies have always proliferated by wiping out the less crazy

religion turns men into locusts

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

we are not allowed to question the laws and “histories” of religious groups either

Sure we are. People do it all the time. The editorials are full of that kind of stuff.

yeah

theres no way out of it im afraid

from a genetic perspective the crazies have always proliferated by wiping out the less crazy

religion turns men into locusts

All religions are mental Diseases, most of which are, or have been fatal!

Perhaps blasphemy wordwide could also include anyone ridiculing religions such a Jedi, its a valid as any other made up crap.

Bubblecar said:

Section 8 (1) of the law states: “A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity 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.”

So the law says absolutely nothing about blasphemy. Everyone is perfectly free to blaspheme to their hearts content, provide that blasphemy does not incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, any other person or class of persons.

That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, even when applied to radio “journalists”.

Of course there will be cases where it is not clear whether the contempt, revulsion or ridicule is sufficiently serious or severe as to warrant a charge against the person making the statement, but that should be dealt with in the same way as any other restriction on free speech that does not have clearly defined boundaries.

Does the law also include religion minding it own fucking business when it comes to state education, science, medical procedures, and any other thing that is based on actual reality. If people are asked (told) to respect religion then the reverse is just as valid otherwise no deal. We shouldn’t have to respect anything that uses fear,coercion, threats, exclusion and so on to achieve its aims.

Cymek said:

Perhaps blasphemy wordwide could also include anyone ridiculing religions such a Jedi, its a valid as any other made up crap.

“I remember back when it all started. It was all rather benign at first – a little bit of a flamewar on the chatsites, some public jeering and heckling – and before anybody really understood what was going on it became a riot then a full-scale war. Civil damage that had not been seen since the second world war all but wiped out the world’s greatest buildings and artwork. In the end, it was the Star Wars fans that were wiped out to a person, but peace was shortlived as the ragtag remnants of the Star Trek victors splintered into the ST:original faction and the violent ST:TNG….”

Cymek said:

Perhaps blasphemy wordwide could also include anyone ridiculing religions such a Jedi, its a valid as any other made up crap.

If the blasphemy “incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of” the followers of the religion of the Jedi, of course the same laws should apply. Why wouldn’t they?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps blasphemy wordwide could also include anyone ridiculing religions such a Jedi, its a valid as any other made up crap.

“I remember back when it all started. It was all rather benign at first – a little bit of a flamewar on the chatsites, some public jeering and heckling – and before anybody really understood what was going on it became a riot then a full-scale war. Civil damage that had not been seen since the second world war all but wiped out the world’s greatest buildings and artwork. In the end, it was the Star Wars fans that were wiped out to a person, but peace was shortlived as the ragtag remnants of the Star Trek victors splintered into the ST:original faction and the violent ST:TNG….”

LOL, Futurama had something similar with the Star Trek wars

These same laws presumably prohibit people from making any statement that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of atheists. Have the laws yet been applied in such a case? I’m sure there are many potential cases where they might apply.

The Rev Dodgson said:

These same laws presumably prohibit people from making any statement that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of atheists. Have the laws yet been applied in such a case? I’m sure there are many potential cases where they might apply.

I don’t really care if someone is religious and will leave them alone BUT if they have a go at me for being a non-believer then its game on

>So the law says absolutely nothing about blasphemy.

I agree with the IHEU & EHF that laws against ridiculing or showing contempt for religious beliefs or activities are essentially “blasphemy laws”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

These same laws presumably prohibit people from making any statement that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of atheists. Have the laws yet been applied in such a case? I’m sure there are many potential cases where they might apply.

All the more reason to call for the abolition of these laws.

People should have the right to be bigoted against religion.

Religious beliefs are ideas. People should be free to criticise any ideas in any way they see fit, including subjecting them to ridicule and contempt if they believe this is warranted.

Bubblecar said:

>So the law says absolutely nothing about blasphemy.

I agree with the IHEU & EHF that laws against ridiculing or showing contempt for religious beliefs or activities are essentially “blasphemy laws”.

But blasphemy is a specific activity, and incitement of ridicule etc is a quite different activity. The fact that they have some overlap is irrelevant. There are many examples where legal and illegal activities have some overlap.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

These same laws presumably prohibit people from making any statement that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of atheists. Have the laws yet been applied in such a case? I’m sure there are many potential cases where they might apply.

All the more reason to call for the abolition of these laws.

So you think that people should be entirely free to “incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule” any other group of people to any extent whatsoever?

Bubblecar said:

Religious beliefs are ideas. People should be free to criticise any ideas in any way they see fit, including subjecting them to ridicule and contempt if they believe this is warranted.

Then you just get labelled a denier.

Peak Warming Man said:

People should have the right to be bigoted against religion.

And they do, at least in Australia, even in Tasmania and Queensland.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>So the law says absolutely nothing about blasphemy.

I agree with the IHEU & EHF that laws against ridiculing or showing contempt for religious beliefs or activities are essentially “blasphemy laws”.

But blasphemy is a specific activity, and incitement of ridicule etc is a quite different activity. The fact that they have some overlap is irrelevant. There are many examples where legal and illegal activities have some overlap.

On what grounds do you believe “ridicule of religious beliefs” should be classified as a criminal activity?

Bubblecar said:

>So the law says absolutely nothing about blasphemy.

I agree with the IHEU & EHF that laws against ridiculing or showing contempt for religious beliefs or activities are essentially “blasphemy laws”.

The recent Charlie Hebdo magazine is a good example – could it legally be sold in Australia with our laws?

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson says No but Race Discrimination commissioner Tim Soutphommasane says “the Racial Discrimination Act did not cover offence on the grounds of religion and contained protections for artistic work and fair comment”.

Bubblecar said:

Religious beliefs are ideas. People should be free to criticise any ideas in any way they see fit, including subjecting them to ridicule and contempt if they believe this is warranted.

The law doesn’t say anything about such activity.

It is specifically about ridicule, hatred etc of groups of people, not ideas.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

These same laws presumably prohibit people from making any statement that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of atheists. Have the laws yet been applied in such a case? I’m sure there are many potential cases where they might apply.

All the more reason to call for the abolition of these laws.

So you think that people should be entirely free to “incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule” any other group of people to any extent whatsoever?

No, but it should be applied to religious groups as well, so you wouldn’t allow some religion to have a sign says Gods Hates Fags

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you think that people should be entirely free to “incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule” any other group of people to any extent whatsoever?

You’re drawing attention to the serious problem with these laws – subjecting religious beliefs to ridicule and contempt is listed within a clause which also refers to expressing hatred against and revulsion for people who hold those beliefs, in fact within the same sentence. Those who value free and open expression of critical ideas would not defend such an unjustified inclusion.

furious said:

• The correct response to bad laws is not to hide from the authorities, but to publicly challenge the bad laws.

Or ignore them because if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about…

Indeed. The brain numbing response often seen by people who should know better

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>So the law says absolutely nothing about blasphemy.

I agree with the IHEU & EHF that laws against ridiculing or showing contempt for religious beliefs or activities are essentially “blasphemy laws”.

But blasphemy is a specific activity, and incitement of ridicule etc is a quite different activity. The fact that they have some overlap is irrelevant. There are many examples where legal and illegal activities have some overlap.

On what grounds do you believe “ridicule of religious beliefs” should be classified as a criminal activity?

In fact I have clearly stated that I do not believe that, so it’s a rather odd question.

It’s almost like you are trying to distract from a valid argument by pretending that it is a different, obviously invalid argument.

Correct me if I am wrong but blasphemy is not a crime in Australia..

The Rev Dodgson said:

It is specifically about ridicule, hatred etc of groups of people, not ideas.

…“on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons”

…which means that any people whose religious beliefs have been help up to contempt or ridicule by a critic of religion can pursue the prosecution of the critic under these laws, whether or not there was any mention of any specific believer.

Dropbear said:

furious said:

• The correct response to bad laws is not to hide from the authorities, but to publicly challenge the bad laws.

Or ignore them because if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about…

Indeed. The brain numbing response often seen by people who should know better

I’ll point out, hopefully for the last time, that the best response to illiberal laws that stifle free speech is not to say “never mind, I can express my views in secret, as long as the ability of the police to collect evidence is restricted”. The best response is to publicly challenge those laws and call for their abolition.

The data retention debate is a different debate (and I’m now willing to join the anti side anyway :))

Bubblecar said:

The data retention debate is a different debate (and I’m now willing to join the anti side anyway :))

Hold on, are you stating that you are changing your position on this?

This site is hosted on the internet and I’m fairly certain there are laws against changing ones mind after considered debate.

This is the internet.. There will be no changing of sides ever ;)

Dropbear said:

This is the internet.. There will be no changing of sides ever ;)

Firefly is crap

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

This is the internet.. There will be no changing of sides ever ;)

Firefly is crap

It’s only a minor religion, you’re allowed to say that.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

The data retention debate is a different debate (and I’m now willing to join the anti side anyway :))

Hold on, are you stating that you are changing your position on this?

This site is hosted on the internet and I’m fairly certain there are laws against changing ones mind after considered debate.

:)

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

This is the internet.. There will be no changing of sides ever ;)

Firefly is crap

Amazing. Finally some sense is seen ;)