Stuff in the news:
Apr. 23rd, 2009 11:00 amThis is a Thing Worth Saying: Race hate is more than sticks and stones - with interesting meditation on the way 'free speech' is used to ensure the freedom of the majority to speak against the minority, and rarely the other way around.
On the other hand, there's this, in which a bunch of religious leaders from assorted faiths get together to speak out against anti-vilification laws. Apparently hate speech is only a problem if it directly incites violence. Because, y'know, having people treat you like a terrorist on the street is only a problem if they decide to beat you up for it. And obviously it's not a problem if, say, your application to build a school is repeatedly knocked back because people think you're obviously trying to train terrorists. It's not VIOLENCE, so it's clearly not dangerous.
... The strange thing about it is that several non-Judeao Christian religious leaders are also represented on the anti-villification panel. I suppose they're weighing up the grudging protection anti-vilification laws might provide against the knowledge that what *they* say is far more closely scrutinised than the words of any Christian leader. The number of people wanting Sheik Hilaly forcibly shut up far exceeds the numbers of people defending his right to free, if distasteful speech. Would there be the same outcry if the it were a protestant minister denouncing muslim women? I doubt it.
Speaking of which, exerpt from a submission by christian ministers to the council hearing at Camden [from the SMH]:
I don't have my RaceFail tabs with me, or I'd quote someone's eloquent analysis and draw comparisons, instead of just pointing and going BAD. But instead: *points and says "BAD"* It's a freaking school, people. Churches build them all the time!
Looks to me like one part of the community sure is seeking to dominate [keep dominating] public space, and it's not the Quranic Society...
ETA: And this is why I love the Uniting Church...
On the other hand, there's this, in which a bunch of religious leaders from assorted faiths get together to speak out against anti-vilification laws. Apparently hate speech is only a problem if it directly incites violence. Because, y'know, having people treat you like a terrorist on the street is only a problem if they decide to beat you up for it. And obviously it's not a problem if, say, your application to build a school is repeatedly knocked back because people think you're obviously trying to train terrorists. It's not VIOLENCE, so it's clearly not dangerous.
... The strange thing about it is that several non-Judeao Christian religious leaders are also represented on the anti-villification panel. I suppose they're weighing up the grudging protection anti-vilification laws might provide against the knowledge that what *they* say is far more closely scrutinised than the words of any Christian leader. The number of people wanting Sheik Hilaly forcibly shut up far exceeds the numbers of people defending his right to free, if distasteful speech. Would there be the same outcry if the it were a protestant minister denouncing muslim women? I doubt it.
Speaking of which, exerpt from a submission by christian ministers to the council hearing at Camden [from the SMH]:
"Camden is increasingly becoming a multicultural community, but when one part of the community seeks to dominate the public space, as we have seen in Auburn, Bankstown, Lakemba and more recently Liverpool, the social impact is unacceptable," says the letter, which was read at the Quranic Society's appeal to the Land and Environment Court yesterday.
I don't have my RaceFail tabs with me, or I'd quote someone's eloquent analysis and draw comparisons, instead of just pointing and going BAD. But instead: *points and says "BAD"* It's a freaking school, people. Churches build them all the time!
Looks to me like one part of the community sure is seeking to dominate [keep dominating] public space, and it's not the Quranic Society...
ETA: And this is why I love the Uniting Church...