| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,939,153
|
Article: 11802
[Civil]
Date Posted:
12/17/2004
9:22:43 am EST
Wvox Stats
Views: 14,700
RSS: 3,253
Comments: 20
|
Christian Pair Guilty Of Racial Hatred
Author: Kate Jones Source: The Advertiser (AU)
Title: CHRISTIAN PAIR GUILTY OF RACIAL HATRED
  An evangelical Christian group incited hatred and severe ridicule of Muslims when it called them demons, liars and terrorists, a tribunal ruled yesterday.
In the landmark ruling, Catch the Fire Ministries pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found guilty of religious vilification, making them the first under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws.
Pastor Scot told a congregation in a 2002 seminar that Muslims were training to take over Australia and encouraged domestic violence, and that Islam was an inherently violent religion.
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 20 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Good Result | Dec 18th. at 1:35:08 am EST |
by Helio (Melbourne, Australia) - wc_xemail
This was a good result. This law is used not to stop free speech, but to stop deliberate spread of hatred. It works. It is not aimed specifically at so-called 'white christian republicans'. Firstly, the guy in the article was not white. Second, this group of 'christians' is not your standard Aussie Christian, but a fundie group member, based on an American model of religion. Thirdly, we don't have 'republicans' in the US sense of the word. We have a right wing party, more akin to your 'Democrats'. Our whole social and political view is different to the US. Comparing the two countries does not always work, even if things look similar on the surface. Finally, to re-iterate a previous point, this was the same law used to help the wiccan who was persecuted by a fundie mayor of a very similar persuasion to this lot.
|
| Left-inspired Double Standard | Dec 17th. at 8:00:10 pm EST |
by Suz (Oly) - wc_xemail
For those who think that only white Christian Republicans have to watch what they say, I will refer you to another article posted this day on Witchvox titled, "Poll: Nearly Half of All Americans Support Restricting Rights of Muslim-Americans." That should provide you with a certain sense of satisfaction.
I will further refer you to the line in the article that states "The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious."
This is definitely another right-inspired double standard, and of that I have no doubt.
|
| I Wonder That As Well, ... | Dec 17th. at 6:46:24 pm EST |
by Ivy (OK) - wc_xemail
Will hate-filled Muslim extremists ever have their free speech limited, or is it only white Christian Republicans who have to watch what they say? That's sure what it seems like to me.
It seems like the only people who are ever disciplined or lookes down upon for "talking trash" are white Christian Republicans. Anyone else is free to say whatever they please about anyone, and it seems that it's even encouraged to smear & verbally rip the WCRs to shreds.
Yet another left-inspired double standard I guess.
|
| Oz Is Not The US | Dec 17th. at 4:14:02 pm EST |
by Rai (Australia) - wc_xemail
Just a few comments
The closest thing in Oz to your ACLU is the Civil Liberties groups (note plural) . We don't have any constitutional right to free speech or freedom of religion or arm bears (or visa versa) . These are _assumed_ under the laws of natural justice but are not a protected right as in the US
Also this is the same _STATE_ law that was used to gain that Wiccan Council candidate's apology. So to answer a previous comment "Yes" te law _IS_ being equally enforced - to the best of any legal system that is...
|
| I Really Hate To Do This... | Dec 17th. at 4:08:29 pm EST |
by D. (USA) - wc_xemail
Seriously. I hate it.
Limiting free speech so it doesn't cover anything that incites mass hatred.
During some anti-war protests I've seen, the justified and heated speeches could easily classify under "anything that incites mass hatred"... against Bush Junior.
A lot of the rants on these boards, the same rants many of those reading this have written stating how sick we are of Christians doing this and that and how they think and judge and how we should round them all up and expatriate them before the dire predictions of a theocratic government under which we'll all be lynched and burned come true and blah blah blah... could fall under "anything that incites mass hatred".
Limit free speech to exclude what you find offensive and you may not be offended, but you lose the right to offend. And yes, we all offend someone somewhere. There's no way around it.
Is this a matter of free speech? Well, yes. They didn't take action against Muslims. They spoke about them. They spoke horrid hateful speech that was ignorant and biased and thoroughly disgusting, but all they did was talk TO EACH OTHER. They're entitled to their filth, just as we're sometimes entitled to our Xian bashing.
It's a sad thing, that it will be a true crime only happens when a Muslim is actually injured. That's when they will have crossed the line between free speech and a hate crime. When a window is broken, a child is mocked and beaten, a job is lost, a home is burned, a woman is raped, a man is killed. When the filth spills over from being kept among themselves and actually taints and hurts the ones they hate.
Yep. That's when it'll be a hate crime.
|
| Know Your Rights... | Dec 17th. at 3:49:39 pm EST |
by Rowan Snapdragon (Memphis, TN) - wc_xemail
In the immortal words from The Clash,
Combat Rock, Know Your Rights, 1982:
"Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it."
(I think free speech means it is either worthless or perhaps just not worth the hassle...)
By the way, this is more of a hate crime than free speech covers... Perhaps there needs to be less ambiguity in the law as to what "free speech" covers (which I'm sure legal precidence covers well) . I don't think that anything hateful should be covered. Much less anything that incites mass hatred. I'm sure it doesn't cover anything that is a boldface lie, that falls under libel...
I'll call Shareef and his jet fighters while the Xtians "Rock the Casbah!" News at 11, then, they will be known as the "Catch ON fire Mini-series"
|
| Is There An Oz ACLU? | Dec 17th. at 3:00:43 pm EST |
by Tamo (A Stone's Throw Away) - wc_xemail
Is there any group analogous to the ACLU over there?
I'm no fan of hate speech from any source, but I don't like criminalizing it. Governments should not be prosecuting this.
Better to use civil remedies when haters overreach and cross the line into libel, slander, etc.
|
| Just Curious . . . | Dec 17th. at 2:41:24 pm EST |
by Brian (Oregon) - wc_xemail
Will this law be equally enforced against Muslim extremists who preach hatred and violence toward Christians, Jews, Americans, secularists, and Western civilization in general?
Because there ARE many such Muslims in the world and some of them live in Australia. According to a friend in Sydney, a bunch of them took to the streets to cheer and celebrate after the 9-11attacks.
Or is this going to be a politically correct law, selectively enforced against only straight white males, like many American "hate crime" statutes?
|
| Dangerous... And Unnecessary | Dec 17th. at 2:24:45 pm EST |
by Stormsinger (Milwaukee, WI) - wc_xemail
Free speech is just that. FREE. Free to be repulsive or inspiring. Free to agree and free to disagree. Free to back me up or make me look like the cartoon villain of your choice, embracing Eeevil for Evil's sake. Free to say I'm part of a secret plot to take over the world, or free to say that anyone who believes such drivel is a bigoted idiot.
The knife has an edge on both sides. "Unpopular speech" is as variable as the weather and about as easily captured and controlled.
Surely the Australians have laws in place to deal with the instances when free speech crosses into defamation of character, slander or libel. These are all LEGAL terms, there are certainly laws here in the U.S. on the books to define and deal with them.
If you advocate violence against a certain segment of the population on, say, a website, and someone commits violence and cites your website as their inspiration, you may be an accessory to that act. Certainly, both sides of the argument are going to pick your website apart word by word to establish if you crossed the line from free speech to incitement and accessory. BUT, until someone links you to an actual crime against the person or property of a non-consenting other, all you've done is be vicious and obnoxious. You may be a horrible person -- but you are not a criminal.
This law is an unreasonable attempt to force political correctness on people who aren't. It wants them to maybe THINK things, but not talk about them. Personally, I'd rather know the bastard beside me is a bastard, rather than being caught unawares.
If such a law works, and the vicious underground stays underground until it springs forth as actual violence, wouldn't the government bear some MAJOR responsibility for having shut off the main safety valve? Some people who feel they can't talk -- or can't be heard -- resort to violence to make their point.
Sure, without such a law, they may whip a crowd into a mob with their words -- but there are laws against that, too.
We don't need new laws just because we appear to have forgotten the ones we have. We need to learn the laws we have, and have the brains and guts to make them work.
|
| I Will | Dec 17th. at 12:58:21 pm EST |
by Eric L. Perkins (Memphis, Tennessee) - wc_xemail
Yes, Nazis and Klansman have a right to free speech as well. They can insist Jews control the government and black people are subhumans any time they like. If they cross the line between speech and violence, we deal with that normally. Welcome to freedom, not "freedom as long as you conform."
Limiting speech because you're intolerant of others' beliefs is a bad, bad precedent. It can just as easily be turned on you when someone else gets in power.
Frankly, I'm not surprised by the near-fascist level of thought-policing many neopagans support, but it's still sad.
|
| And People... | Dec 17th. at 12:35:24 pm EST |
by Davian L. RavenStone (Ft. Meade, MD) - wc_xemail - Web
There are limitations to every freedom. You have the Freedom to Bear Arms. You do not reserve the right to just shoot anyone you want. You have the Freedom of Speach... You do not have the freedom to just go aimlessly slandering individuals. COMMON SENSE.
This man had his Freedom of Speach [Freedom to Bear Arms] until he slandered Islamics [until he shot an unarmed person who meant him no physical hard].
Get real. All of us have a Freedom of Speach. If we choose to use it in negative, intentionally volatile ways - This is what will and SHOULD happen.
Just imagine if someone had the Freedom of Speach to slander your family directly - Saying you'd done things you'd never done that could get you killed. You wouldn't stand for it either, and why should you?
Freedom of Speach, like every other Freedoms only goes so far.
Or are we about to defend the Nazis and KKK's free speach all of the sudden to?
|
| In Defense Of Everyone Else | Dec 17th. at 12:26:37 pm EST |
by Davian L. RavenStone (Ft. Meade, MD) - wc_xemail - Web
I think it's horrifying that people continue to seperate Christianity from those Christians who follow the less savory instructions of the Bible. This kind of behavior is at the very heart of Judeo-Christian thinking, and regardless of the cotton-candy picture some choose to paint - The Bible is a very predjudice and hateful book throughout it's majority, teaching anything but equality for those other than who the book was intended for - Jews and Christians. Their holy book itself is a constant incitement of murder and supremacy when cut through to it's base.
To say these aren't Christians, you'd have to delete nearly half of their beliefs. These are Christians, let there be no doubt. Just as Hitler murdering the masses of Jews made it no less true that he probably 'believed' in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Just like Bush's war doesn't make him any less a believer himself.
Stop covering for these people. It's a Hate Based Organization. Plain and simple, and confesses to the fact itself in so many of it's 'books.''
...no matter what wool we choose to pull over our eyes to make it seem 'not so bad.'
|
| Good Law. | Dec 17th. at 12:22:24 pm EST |
by Ghostwolf (ohio) - wc_xemail
Free speech for and individual is important, however, when placed in a position of power, (I.E Pastorhood) then the individual has a responsibility to speak fairly and justly. If this had been said in another setting then from the pulpit, and as individuals, these pastors likely would have been dismissed as annoying, but to broadcast your hatred to people who look to you to define right from wrong, is inexcusable.
This actually is kinda like the US law that prohibits church leaders from campaigning for one candidate or another while in a leadership role.
|
| In Defense Of Christians | Dec 17th. at 11:38:20 am EST |
by Will;iam (NS, Canada) - wc_xemail
The group that did these things are NOT Christians.... period.
I often see certain groups of pagans misrepresented and it raises the ire of other pagans.... so I feel it is only fair to point out that 'real' Christians would not do the things this group did. There are @$$holes everywhere, and claim all religions as their own... yet I have yet to see many of them actually FOLLOW their religion of choice. Instead they only drag these religious paths through the dirt and give them a bad name.
|
| I Wonder | Dec 17th. at 11:03:30 am EST |
by Rowan Foxfyre (Indianapolis, In) - wc_xemail
If the Speech had been Directed against Pagans if the results would have been the same.
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
