[BobL]

"Yes, I see the similarity. But what do you mean by 'It's very easy to see where the line has been drawn in the past...' Sorry for the delay in my response, due to time-difference. While you are 'up' I'm sleeping..."


Hi Fred,

All I meant is that we allow dialog if it is somewhat fact-based - no matter what the facts are. People in this country have said horrible things about the KKK and the German Nazis, but they don't get in trouble, since their statements are pretty much accurate.

To call Jews bloodsuckers has no truth in fact, so it is hate speech. But to say the Koran says "kill the infidels" is factual. To say all Muslims are bloodthirsty is hate speech, since that clearly is not true. To say the Koran incites violence and Mohamad was a pedeophile is accurate and should never be classified as hate speech.

Questioning the plan to exterminate the Jews was, in a way, considered hate speech in Nazi Germany (and could get you executed) - after all the Jews were subhuman - so of course they needed to be eliminated.

So the bottom line is: Once accurate criticism is termed "hate speech", then open debate is prohibited, and you start on a very nasty downward slope.

[Fred Nerks]

I understand. And I agree. "Once accurate criticism is classified as hate speech..." IMO we might as well be living under a dictatorship!
(And that is why I am so interested in the outcome of the trial of the lay-preachers who conducted the seminar in Victoria. I think this case has huge implications, and not just in this country.)
The submission made in their defence makes interesting reading I think, did you find it on the link?
Bottom of the page...
http://www.catchthefire.com.au/newsandinfo.html