Page Created 13th September 2006, in progress. Last updated 2nd February, 2007. A Victorian government intent on media manipulation assisted by some public servants whose ancestors fought for our rights and liberties at the Eureka Stockade. The Victorian and national federal government are intent on preventing any criticism of their policies. justice.vic.gov.au server log. Please comply with the access conditions.
The new labor Rudd government has no idea what internet filtering will do to slow down internet connection speeds. They are blindly following the former liberal government proposals.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said everything possible had to be done to shield children from violent and pornographic online material.
Senator Conroy said the Australian Communications and Media Authority would prepare a blacklist of unsuitable sites.
While the Australian Prime Minister Howard spends public money to have his staff edit Wicki entries on the internet, his communications minister, Helen Coonan overnight, with no debate is imposing censorship on the rest of us. Helen Coonan is introducing new Censorship laws when the government should be going in a caretaker mode before an imminent election is called. Coonan at the 12th hour of the Howard government's term is acting with no consultation to stop Australians seeing content not in line with Howard's spin doctors.
Federal Police will inform the ACMA of websites to be blocked. Can we trust Federal Police to make judgments about what we can all see. How about comments on the Bali nine who federal police had arrested in Bali who are on death row? ISPs will be required to "take reasonable steps" to block such sites. It goes to show how little Howard and Coonan understand the internet. For less than the cost of a parliamentary lunch I could have made Howard's website conform with the 1992 Disability Discrimination Act to allow blind Australians keyboard access. Howard's site fails to comply with discrimination laws, is that sort of information due to be censored.
Thanks be to Prime Minister Rudd that Commissioner Keelty will not be able to impose his narrow minded media censorship on us.
In Victoria, we already have the Racial and Religious Vilification laws from the Bracks/Brumby labor party to contend with, it prevents free speech on race or religion despite the false comfort and assertions of VEOHRC in an email to me annotated below. VEOHRC case bulletins. This hereticpress.com site could become angelpress.com overnight with exactly the same content. All pages will be cached in search engine archives.
People can avoid such censorship by using proxy servers, what hope will ISP's have of filtering content and what a genius the Federal Police Commissioner will have to be to decide what is good for us to see and what will be blocked?
If we are to have any sort of democracy we must be able to be informed of what the government is doing. The media is often referred to as the Fourth Estate in a democracy.
The Federal Police Commissioner who will be responsible for deciding which websites to block is Mick Keelty. Mick Keelty has a very difficult job combatting terrorism, he should not be burdened with responsibility well outside his experience. He is not know to be a supporter or civil liberties, democratic rights or freedom of the press. He mis-used a tip-off from the father of one of nine drug smugglers to allow Bali police to arrest nine drug smuggling Australians at a Bali airport bound for Australia. Instead of arresting them in Australia where we do not have the death penalty, the "Bali nine" were arrested in Bali at the airport when they were bound for Australia and some of them are facing a death sentence. Keelty could have arrested them in Australia, but he showed no interest in protecting Australians from a possible death penalty in Bali. Keelty has also repeatedly denied there is any Federal police corruption.
Mr Keelty or anyone else should not be telling anyone what they cannot see, nor should anyone else like Senator Coonan.
Do we have to quote Voltaire yet again in this compromised democracy. "I disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it" A Human Rights Act also has legal force in Victoria, see Page 15 on Freedom of Expression which conflicts with the Federal and the Victorian vilification laws.
15. Freedom of expression
(1) Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference.
(2) Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether
(a) orally; or (b) in writing; or (c) in print; or (d) by way of art; or (e) in another medium chosen by him or her.
Police have a difficult job already, but no matter how hard they may be trying to combat terrorism, we do not want Mick Keelty telling us what I can and cannot read or what I cannot publish. He has dismissed critics of his Bali nine mistake as "armchair critics", now he will have the power to stop all criticism. We already have anti-terrorism and sedition laws making it illegal to incite a rebellion or to praise terrorist acts.
One man's terrorist may later be someone else's Nobel peace prize winner, like Nelson Mandella.
In the UK legal adversary system of law Australia inherited common law rights from British common laws and citizens have taken such rights for granted, basic rights such as; liberty unless you are tried by a court, owning personal property and freedom of speech.
These rights are not codified neatly, all in one place like they are in America under the American Bill of Rights. The Separation of Powers does not exist in Victoria, the Bracks/Brumby government has no respect for common law rights. They make new rules overnight almost every night abolishing common law rights which have existed for good reason for 800 years before their time.
You would expect that an Australian democratically elected government should preserve common law democratic rights. But Bracks and Brumby has stolen the most fundamental of ancient common law rights against the might of Kings.
They supported the Anti-terrorism Bill allowing two weeks detention with no charge, the former Premier Bracks said the public should not be involved in discussion of the new laws, he criticized the Chief minister for the ACT Jon Stanhope who leaked the Bill so the public could debate it, saying he should preserve the sovereignty of cabinet. And what of the sovereignty of the people and those who died for us to have basic rights like the writ of habeus corpus?
One democratic tradition of the Westminster system is the Separation of Powers. Common law rights like and freedoms, like the writ of habeus corpus have been granted by courts to citizens since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215.
The Magna Carta was signed in order to end the rule of kings. In Victoria we have so many problems caused by a weak capitulating and dishonest Labor government with a socialist agenda against private property ownership which also supports dishonest corrupt police who bash internal affairs police and murder witnesses against them like Terrance Hodson.
Related Heretic Press Editorials on corruption in Victoria
The people have suffered enough abuses of their democratic and legal rights under the Bracks/Brumby government, but it does not end with the above democratic and legal abuses above. Free speech is also under attack with the Bracks/Brumby Racial and Religious "Tolerance", (Vilification) Laws. A new state sponsored form of the wicked old Spanish Inquisition. We could not even legally ridicule Christian authorities ready to burn a witch or heretic at the stake.
The same restriction applies to Muslim extremists, under these laws, Danish Cartoonists could have been jailed for making prohibited images of Allah. The Muhammad cartoons row. Salman Rushdie could also be jailed for his book The Satanic Verses and Richard Dawkins for The God Delusion. How close is calling someone "deluded" to ridiculing them?
One unfortunate English teacher was jailed for 15 days for naming a Teddy bear Mohammad. Such Muslim extremists would prevent all free speech on religion, they ignore all scientific evidence and their repressive view are supported by the Victorian Religious Vilifications Laws!
Richard Dawkins has been admonished by believers in God for the title of his latest book. Should he also be jailed? Lord Robert Winston talking at the University of Sydney said"
Salman Rushdie has survived a 20 year long fatwa against him by Muslim extremists who will not allow any debate ridicule or criticism. A government minister in Pakistan said that Rushdie's recent knighthood justified suicide bombing. Authors like Rushdie can be jailed under this Victorian act. You can be jailed for speaking about religion while others are free to advocate the most extreme crimes without being criticised because you can't criticise my faith, because faith is faith. All praise be to the Great Almighty Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.
These vilification laws could be misused to seize private property! Traditionally in the old common law escheatment was required to seize private property, a murder ot treason conviction. Now property is being taken for minor offences such as speeding.
A conviction under this act could in conjunction with other Victorian legislation such as, The Proceeds of Crime Bill, or hoon and deeming laws, result in the forfeiture of property rights as happened during the reign of the last religious police force, the Inquisition.
Defamation actions allow a defence of truth in the public interest, but in Victoria an action launched against someone under religious vilification laws does not allow such a defence of truth. These laws can be misused to seize personal property.
The Victorian labor Premier Bracks and now his successor Brumby have effectively banned Catholics speaking about Islam, The Bracks' Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. Even the Act's name is an oxymoron. It prevents tolerance and free speech. Section 8. Showing a contempt, revolution or ridicule for a religion (a class of persons) is now an illegal religious vilification.
8. 2.b states the unlawful act may be in or outside Victoria. In section 9(1) a person¹s motive for engaging in any such conduct is deemed "irrelevant".
A local Muslim in Victoria could try and prosecute the Pope in Rome for being critical of Islamic history.
Premiers Bracks and Brumby have not stopped at confiscating private property or standing indolently by doing nothing when witness against corrupt police have been murdered, they are also preventing people speaking about race or religion. The road to hell is paved with Equal Opportunitie's good intentions, they may have been aiming to prevent religious friction with this set of new laws, but it is having a nasty effect on the right to freedom of speech. The Act stifles free speech and could be used to protect a religion from fair criticism. It re-introduces out-dated abandoned blasphemy laws and allowed the Islamic Council of Victoria to use the Act against Catch The Fire Ministry, who were found to have vilified Muslims.
One very repressive American born associate priest now at St Dunstan's Anglican Church in Camberwell left the Bill of Rights at home when he moved to Australia, Gary Bouma appeared as a witness for the Islamic Council in this case against the Catch the Fire Ministry.
Each religious group will now have spies in each other's Churches, Synagogues or Mosques to report on any breaches of this ridiculous law that they can take action against.
To have their revenge against the action brought by Muslims under the Act, small groups of evangelical Christians are now attending Islamic lectures for the purpose of "jotting down any comment that might later be used as evidence" in court.
This whole farce has been promoted by a body supposedly interested in Human Rights, the Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission, what an irony!
The Act allows militant religious people to take obstructive action against others for frivolous obstructive and vexatious purposes. Under this law truth is not a defence. This is an impediment to scientific endeavour, to accept faith beliefs and superstition over scientific research and reason.
As well as the 27,000 Christians protesting about the laws, judges have also criticised the Act saying that people's right to launch a lawsuit should be limited. In one case a self-described witch and convicted sex offender is taking action under the Act claiming that a course on the fundamentals of Christianity being held at the prison where he is incarcerated, poses a danger to his safety because of it's derogatory references to witchcraft.
I wrote to the Victorian Equal Opportunity &Human Rights Commission who advocated these laws and they also have a policing obligation under the Act. They were polite enough to reply to my email, though it is too late for them to have any impact on the role they have played promoting and advocating these laws which must lie at their feet as a foul smelling abomination on their role and professional duty to protect Human Rights. The VEOHRC email is annotated below with my comments under each paragraph in reply. My argument that evolution is supported by scientific evidence is no defence to any claim, by any group who believe in any form of GOD, that I have vilified them.
The vilification laws are so vague that I could claim I have been vilified by religions who do not accept the theory of evolution, that believers in God have vilified and ridiculed my rights to pursue a scientific education in evolution and natural causes. I am a passionate and devoted Heretic, does that also qualify as a religion? In my case it is a set of beliefs in following scientific method? Those who accept faith and belief in God are destroying my right to exist and even to gain employment.
One religious zealot who did not like my web reviews on Australian University webpages said I should get in touch with my spiritual side and Peter Firminger of the Web Standards Group, a WANAU supporter said "the group did not need people like me" and I was summarily suspended from membership of a group I have contributed many articles to on web accessibility, just because of my lack of religious beliefs and because I am devoted to scientific method and rational argument.
The Catholic University wrote to me ignoring all my research, inaccurately and aggressively trying to find fault with my pages and said, "Please do not bother contacting us again" The Catholic University site is illegally in breach of the Australian 1992 Disability Discrimination Laws, I was trying to help them! Standards at Australian Universities are in a steep decline. The Bullies and the Bullied.
Thousands of members of the WSG were told I was suspended, yet all I did was to defend scientific method against biased religious commercial interest in failing websites for accessibility tests. Some of the worst were members of the WSG who had me suspended for comments to WANAU supporters at Swinburne and RMIT. A devotion to science and lack of faith in religion is not a basis for discrimination. There was no reply to an email, to RMIT, however they continue on a daily basis to try and download my entire website (as Swinburne has also done), to take archive and index my entire work without permission. This website is mirrored on one site and that is the State Library of Victoria authorised copy. RMIT server logs 320 Kb file.
WANAU supporters at RMIT and Swinburne supported by the list moderator of the Web Standards Group, and some other Christians close to the Premier's office are actively obstructing my efforts to find work. Government ministers and employees have not liked or welcomed criticism and scrutiny. Brumby and former Premier Bracks are intent on removing many of our long held rights and liberties and they do not like being criticised for it, the religious "tolerance" (vilification) laws, Domestic Violence Laws as well as failing to tackle police corruption. The Prime Minister Mr Howard has his taxpayer funded Wicki editors. The Victorian government also has an interest in making it difficult to publish real stories and research. One particular public servant close to Bracks demanded that I remove content from my site which they do not agree with and they have assisted the Victorian government and Joe Hockey with $5,000 payments to solicitors for "Draft and send letter" threats by public servants to sue impoverished Centrelink clients.
Belief in God seems to often over-ride the fundamental requirements for a Scientific education in Victorian schools and Universities! non serviam, I will not serve a God, religious belief or faith. A national disgrace for the stupid country, primary school students spend more time learning about a fictional God than they do on science, a mere 3% of their time in primary education is devoted to science. I must endure the bias and prejudice of a stupid country devoted to sport which does not accept science in education as being of any importance.
My webpages and publishing skills are recognised as excellent in the UK, my xhtml and publishing skills are much better than the Australian and Victorian governments and better than most Australian Universities, so why do they not employ me? What they do not accept is my lack of deference to beliefs and what they dislike even more is my ability to get search engine page ranking above government pages for thousands of keywords. Now they can jail me for six months!
If anyone has a publishing employment opportunity for a hard working and honest heretic, that would be appreciated and great value given in return for publishing services which are negotiable for an honest employer.
1. Religious vilification is conduct that encourages others to feel hatred,
serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule towards a person or group of
people because of their religious beliefs.
This could apply to Galileo or Copernicus who both feared criticising the Pope's earth centred crystal spheres Christian view of the Universe. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 for ridicule of the Christian Church.
In 1616 the Roman Curia defiantly declared that the earth was immobile.
2. Articles that seek to explore differences in religions or engage in
critique of religions in a constructive and reasonable manner are unlikely
to be considered vilifying. Indeed, debates promoting the merits of one
religion over another can and do occur. It is not unlawful to critique and
discuss religions, providing this does not incite hatred, revulsion,
serious contempt or severe ridicule towards a person or group of people
because of their beliefs.
What is defined as a constructive and reasonable manner may vary depending on who is interpreting that manner.
Darwin feared publishing his Origin of the Species through fear of reprisals from Christians. In American in 1925 in the Scopes trial, the teaching of evolution was outlawed for 60 years. Under that law it would be very easy to be convicted of inciting hatred, revulsion and serious contempt just by proposing on psychological and archeological grounds that religion is based on an egocentric and misguided belief that humans were created in God's image. But humans are related to other monkeys. A newly discovered human cousin Homo floresiensis.
What I write on Heretic Press may not be ridicule designed to deliberately incite hatred to many sane minds, but what if someone else is in power who holds fervent religious beliefs?
There was a debate on evolutionary theory Between Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce where Huxley said he would "rather be related to a monkey than to introduce ridicule into a debate". Now six months jail is being brought into the debate, or what is left of it that it is still legal to articulate.
To many religious people calling them relatives of monkeys might be to ridicule them, there is no objective standard on what constitutes ridicule, it will vary from time to time, place to place and person to person.
For the Hindu religion it might be McDonalds treating a cow unkindly or cooking chips in animal fat, for a Muslim it might be showing contempt for the Koran which is exactly what has already happened in a Melbournce case.
A Christian pastor ordered to apologise for vilifying Muslims. Danny Nalliah, described his group as martyrs and said he would go to jail before apologising. He will NOT be saying sorry for his comments.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) deputy president Michael Higgins ordered the evangelical order, Catch the Fire, to apologise over statements made in a speech, comments on a website and in a newsletter.
Judge Higgins stated that making fun of Islam is a major reason for finding against the church which is in effect reintroducing an ancient and disgarded law against blasphemy.
For a Christian scientist it might be the Steve project which deliberately sets out to ridicule the Christian intelligent design creationist theory.
What if I set out to ridicule a really patently stupid belief like a flat earth theory or that man is created in God's image which is a cause of many religious conflicts, my legal advice is that I could be jailed for six months, under this stupid Victorian government law, but that international appeals against a conviction could possibly succeed. Premier Brumby could be judged in international courts to be violating human rights, on freedom of expression, Part 15 which conflicts with these vilification laws. International courts will decide in the end. This is a bigger issue than the Victorian government has any rights over. In America these Vilification laws could not be enacted as they violate the American Bill of Rights.
Human Rights Part 15. Freedom of expression
(1) Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference.
(2) Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether
(a) orally; or (b) in writing; or (c) in print; or (d) by way of art; or (e) in another medium chosen by him or her.
3. It is also important to note that the Act also provides an exception for
conduct that was engaged in reasonably and in good faith and is either in
the public interest or for a genuine academic, artistic, religious or
scientific purpose.
How will you decide what is in good faith or the public interest? "Pressure for the legislation appears to have come from the Equal Opportunity Commission itself". What if we had a Muslim government in power at some time in the future in Victoria. Will strategic positions always be filled by someone with integrity to make such judgments fairly. What if someone else from a religious biased view were to make that judgement?
Salmon Rushdie comes to mind and the propensity for some religions to put a death warrant on those they do not like. I actually try and promote the best of Sufi Islamic religion such as the psychologically beneficial STOP exercise which is somewhat akin to a psychological self study. I do not try and vilify anyone, but I have no patience at all for false beliefs or religion intruding into secular education.
This law is not just for now, it will apply in the distant future and we cannot even guess what abuses it may be put to in the future if a religious party were to win political power or even one seat in a hung parliament.
I have no faith that Premier Brumby will not try and use this law to silence a critic of his capitulation with ubiquitous police corruption.
4. The Commission's role
Primarily, the Commission assists people to resolve complaints of
vilification by providing a complaints resolution service. The Commission
is not a Court or Tribunal. The Commission's role is to investigate the
complaint, and if it has substance and it appears that a resolution is
possible, the Commission refers the people involved to conciliation. The
outcome at conciliation is negotiated and agreed by the people involved.
The Commission does not prosecute, make judgements for or against, nor can
the Commission award compensation.
And if I have offended a Christian Scientist or Muslin by trying to teach science, I would refuse to apologise, then what do you do with me in a conciliation process?
5. Serious religious vilification
There is a criminal offence of serious religious vilification in the Act.
Police may prosecute someone if they intentionally engage in conduct that
they know is likely to incite hatred against others and they threaten, or
incite others to threaten, physical harm towards that other person or group
or people or their property because of their religious beliefs.
This is such a subjective judgement, what is serious to one person may be trivial to another. I am always aware that some religious groups may want to kill me for advocating evolutionary theory above beliefs faith and superstition. They certainly try and hack into this site frequently enough.
I intentionally engage in educational advocacy and that will always conflict with beliefs faith and superstition. I intentionally engage in education against religious beliefs, I cannot see why a more repressive view on what is serious could not be used to jail me for six months under this Act merely for trying to educate people on natural causes and the evolution of many diverse life forms on earth.
On this page on evolutionary timelines, I state that the discovery of Homo floresiensis is another nail in the coffin, for the made in God's image Christian theory. To some religious people that might be inciting hated of them, they have burnt Heretics at the stake in the past. What if we had a devout Muslim or Christian as the Chief Police Prosecutor?
6. I hope the above information is useful to you. You can find out more about the Act or the Commission by visiting our web site at humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au or calling our enquiry line on (03) 9281 7100.
Thanks or your reply, however it did not really clarify anything for me at all, except that we are lucky at the moment that we have some reasonable people in a position to make reasonable assessments and valuable responses, but that may not always be the case, VEOHRC have no control over what might be done with these laws in the near or distant future. This Act is a sleeping time bomb, just waiting for anyone crazy enough to use it to suppress free speech and jail critics.
I shall be more relaxed with the archiving of server logs from justice.vic.gov.au, but then again Victoria Police are another matter and then again Brumby supporting police corruption is another huge worry for a critic of corrupt police. Ask after me if I disappear. VEOHRC should also be interested in the theft of private land by the Victorian government in 1859 land rights denied to pre-emptive title owners and aboriginal rights to land illegally seized by the Victorian government.
Thank you.
This repressive law against freedom of speech could also result in scientists being convicted of racial vilification of intelligent design theory by Christian groups. Most progressive Christians opposing the repressive laws have been ignored. The laws are the views of former Premiers Bracks and now Brumby.
"Pressure for the legislation appears to have come from the Equal Opportunity Commission itself"
They do seem to be assertively promoting propaganda to support defending the road to hell they have paved with good intentions, supporting web documents from Helen Szoke Chief Executive of the Equal Opportunity Commission, who does not seem to support Human rights at all Helen stated in her support for these laws that:
The quality of teaching and academic research in Victoria is in a steep decline, even at the highest level Phd. research papers can be of a really low standard and still pass. There are some moves to force candidates to face an oral examination to try and improve the quality, but when governments get involved in funding research to produce outcomes they want, there is no hope of any standards being improved. Drug driving research by Swinburne University was fundamentally flawed, corrupted by the undisclosed Police and VicRoads funding interest and completely lacked any scientific merit as research. Victoria is a laughing stock academically and the Victorian government is being revealed as being one of the worst oppressive governments ever seen in a compromised Westminster democracy.
Removing rights to cross examine witnesses and making secret deals with corrupt police as well as taking private property with hoon and deeming laws.
Even when if comes to objective information technology standards like disability discrimination from government websites, the Brumby government ignores all standards. A website audit of the Brumby webpage which fails to comply with all accessibility laws. Premier Brumby does not care about democratic traditions, the ancient legal rights of citizens, academic research standards or technology.
The Steve project could be guilty of ridicule of intelligent design theory. Speaking the truth is no longer an acceptable defence. Religion is what adds meaning to many people's life, they are passionate and religions are ego centric, mine is the only GOD. What of a religion that states that it is the chosen race and walks all over others. Can we criticize the religion of the soldier wearing the jackboots who kicks us in the face. Religion is not neutral.
The Bracks/Brumby government proclaims what the state religion is, complete ignorance with everyone afraid to say anything. It is unlawful in Victoria to ridicule or show contempt for the ideology of any race or religion, no matter how worthy they are of condemnation. Imagine this rule in WW11 Australia, being critical of Hitler and German aggression would be illegal.
Bracks and Brumby seems to be a pragmatic determinists, from all the blood testing Victorian Police do to determine fitness to drive and criminality.
State Labour Premier Mr Brumby rallied for marijuana to be decriminalised while he was in opposition 11 years ago but has since changed his mind and with Bracks introduced zero tolerance flawed saliva drug testing.
When he was the Victorian opposition leader, Mr Brumby introduced a private member's bill in 1996 to decriminalise marijuana and his views were later adopted as Labor Party policy.
The Victorian Premier Mr Brumby, admitted smoking marijuana while at university, but he has now reversed his decriminalising views even to the extent of corrupting the academic process of scientific research methodology. He now prefers to set up random road blocks stopping all traffic to randomly test drivers for illicit drugs which are not proven to affect driving skills at all. Brumby now has zero tolerance for any illicit drug use, the hypocrite cannot face this injustice he has created with any moral fibre or courage.
Former Victorian Premier Bracks has long been referred to in the labour party as "Hymie the robot" from the Get Smart 1960s television series. Hymie was excessively neat and tidy, devoid of feelings or empathy and takes everything very literally. A pragmatic robot from a different tradition other than a Westminster democracy. One democratic tradition of the Westminster system that Hymie ignored is the Doctrine of the Separation of powers between Parliament, the courts and law enforcement. He abolished many other common law rights like freedom of movement, ownership of private property and ancient rights like, the writ of habeus corpus a protection to citizens since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215.
The Magna Carta was signed in order to end the rule of tyrants like the current Victorian government.
Bracks was re-elected in 2007 but resigned in mid 2008 after only eight months of a four year term and Brumby took over as Premier why?
Our democracy has a almost 1,000 years of history since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215 which prevented the King jailing anyone at his discretion, the writ of habeus corpus. Hymie has obliterating such ancient rights and Brumby is carrying on the tradition of labour corruption to remove ancients rights and liberties with his Domestic Violence Act abolishing the right to cross-examine witnesses.
"Lebanese, Christian or Islamic, Who cares" says Hymie the robot school master, "I will ban them all talking about each other's beliefs with my Racial and Religious Tolerance Act". Criticism of a religion can be racial vilification.
"What human activity will Hymie and his successor Brumby ban next, drug tests on every corner for pedestrians, more sniffer dogs on the streets."Just A quick DNA test driver to discover if you have an adventure seeking gene or are of a risk taking genetic predisposition?"
The Bracks/Brumby assault on civil liberties has been supported by some biased Monash University teachers. Gary Bouma supports the repressive laws against free speech. Gary argued against the National Treasurer Peter Costello who was against the introduction of these laws, Gary argued against critics of the vilification laws and in public argued for them "Why Costello is Wrong on Vilification Laws", The Age (1 June 2004).
Gary stated that "Costello simply does not seem to understand the need...". Australians need you to go back to America Gary and take you priestly robes and repressive ideals with you. Go home Yankee! and take your hands off our "social fabric". Gary Bouma appeared as a witness for the Islamic Council of Victoria in their case against Catch The Fire Ministries.
My email to Gary. Email the professor, of sociology at the Keeping the Faith University, Monash who is promoting religious views at Australian universities. Can an American Professor and former Associate Anglican Priest who studied at Princeton Theological Seminary know anything about scientific methodology and the teaching of evolution? Why is Gary creating an entry point for religious divisions and ignorance at Monash University? The education charter in Australia has always been for secular non-religious education in public schools. The teaching of science and evolution as a means to world peace seems beyond his religious comprehension.
Gary said, "The curriculum in all subject areas should be rewritten to incorporate an appreciation of the role of religions in Australian life."
One clever Islamic King is doing the opposite to what Gary Bouma recommends with his religious police mentality.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is trying to to help his country catch up in science by excluding religion from his new university. An Islamic state which must exclude the Islam religion to have any hope of providing an unbiased scientific education.
Updating Saudi education.
The country's notorious religious police will be barred and all religious and ethnic groups will be welcome in a push for academic freedom and international collaboration
This undertaking is directly at odds with the kingdom's religious establishment, which severely limits women's rights and rejects co-education and robust liberal inquiry.
It will be a tragedy for Australian education if views like that of Gary Bouma are accepted in Australian Universities. Gary also supports the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act he is acting as if he were part of a religious police-force, a modern Spanish inquisition. He makes a ridiculous analogy that "yelling fire" in a crowd is the same type of sensible restriction on limiting free speech as the vilification laws are on race or religion. Peter Breen drafted some similar legislation for NSW and he also misquotes the example of yelling fire, these men are both biased, supporting religion in a supposedly secular education system and are both in favour of the erosion of our civil liberties and free speech. When he came to Australian from America in 1979, Gary should have brought a copy of the Bill of Rights with him. Don't leave home without it Gary.
A Senior Victorian judge, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal president Stuart Morris called for the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act to be amended to "limit people's right to launch a lawsuit". It should be abolished. How long will some Muslim or Christian groups take to launch an action against Heretic Press for vilification for saying humans are related to monkeys? The Brumby labor government is responsible for this madness and many other injustices on the people of Victoria.
WE SWEAR BY THE SOUTHERN CROSS TO STAND TRULY BY EACH OTHER
and FIGHT TO DEFEND OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AMEN
At least we some Australians who know better, some responsible academics at the University of Western Sydney who have knocked back requests to build a mosque on campus. The former Liberal education minister, now defence minister, Brendan Nelson ( current minister Julie Bishop) said that he had no problem with the teaching of a biased and unscientific religious view of creation called "intelligent design" theory in Australian science classes. Given that Christians and others are all fighting over fundamental beliefs, indeed Muslims are even killing themselves trying to hurt others in a belief they will live in paradise with Allah. I was hoping that Federal Labor would promote or even mandate the teaching of science and evolution in Australian schools which would be of some benefit towards world peace? Will Labor allow the teaching of the religious view of creation in science classes? How will labor ensure that Australian children do not grow up in intellectual poverty knowing nothing about science and evolution? How will Labor ensure that religious schools also teach real science to students?
What ignorance for an education minister to pander to religious groups for votes and deny all responsibility for their portfolio.
Brendan Nelson was subsequently made Defence minister responsible for sending Australian to their death in a religious war against Islam.
The former Victorian Premier Bracks was a pragmatic determinist, allowing Victorian Police to set up random road blocks to blood test drivers to inaccurately determine fitness to drive and criminality.
What human activity will Hymie's successor Brumby ban next, he has already abolished an ancient right to cross examine witnesses. He supported decriminalisation of Marijuana in 1996 but now has zero tolerance for civil liberties, perhaps error prone drug tests on every corner for pedestrians, more sniffer dogs on the streets. "Just A quick DNA test driver to discover if you have an adventure seeking gene or are of a risk taking genetic predisposition?"
The Herald Sun recently reported that a "religious diversity handbook" advises police to treat Muslim domestic violence cases very differently "out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits" and that Muslim wife-beaters should be treated with kid gloves. Just what respect are we supposed to give to a religious belief that it is permissible for husbands to chastise wives? Could anything more perfectly capture the moral bankruptcy of the Victorian Act? The Koran may tolerate wife-beating (Sura 4:34: "As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to bed apart and beat them"), but why on earth should Australians refrain from criticising such religious beliefs?
This was legislation which most Victorians did not want. Pressure for the legislation appears to have come from the Equal Opportunity Commission itself, and from some, but certainly not all, Muslim and Jewish groups.
Why indeed? The new Victorian Domestic violence act also removes an ancient adversary legal system right to question your accuser which was supported by an incredibly biased Victorian Law Reform Commission who stated the act was "in line with our victim-centered approach".
All the ancient common law Rights of the accused have been thrown out the window along with "innocence until proven guilty".
While the Australian Prime Minister Howard spends public money to have his staff edit Wicki entries on the internet, his communications minister, Helen Coonan overnight, with no debate is imposing censorship on the rest of us. Helen Coonan is introducing new Censorship laws when the government should be going in a caretaker mode before an imminent election is called. Coonan at the 12th hour of the Howard government's term is acting with no consultation to stop Australians seeing content not in line with Howard's spin doctors.
