You'd be a fool to trust Victoria state on this one. It smells foul, it's a trojan horse. Catholics all over the country should completely disavow the bill in its entirety, regardless of the "protections" Victoria is placating Christians with.
The snags at Bunnings have a better track record than the Victoria parliament.
They'd need to have a clause specifically stating that people can say homosexual and/or transgender acts are immoral, and why they think it is, without it being hate speech. Otherwise someone is guaranteed to interpret it as hate speech, chuck people in prison for 5 years, and say that they could've kept their mouths shut without giving up their religion.
People tend to be offended when you tell them what they do is evil.
Ah yes, the same Victoria state which decided to legally persecute Cardinal Pell and then went fishing for anything they could twist into something to charge him for, even if the claims were clearly false. I think that tells you what you need to know about how trustworthy these people are on religious issues.
Sidebar: anyone else notice how, after decades of effectively saying "people who value social cohesion are fascists" and using tolerance as a cover for ideas and behaviors (i.e. the cultural programme of the Left) that destroy social cohesion, these same people now think social cohesion is so important that it warrants having repressive laws to punish anyone who challenges the majority culture. Just imagine: if similar laws had been in place to protect social cohesion 50 years ago these left-wing social movements wouldn't have even had the chance to form. As a certain Aussie might have said, "gentlemen, this is hypocrrisy manifest..."
If the Australian politicians are minded to clamp down on hate speech, they had better remember the hilarious and unholy uproar created by a Muslim lady in St Mary's Cathedral in Glasgow in Scotland at Epiphany 2017. Sadly she quoted the Quran text which declares that God has no son.
Obviously this was blasphemy in Christian terms. But every Catholic at Mass proclaims "I believe in God the Father....and in Jesus Christ His only Son...". That is plainly blasphemy in Islamic terms, as the Quran is the direct Word of God.
The only way of avoiding Hate Speech All Round is to ban the public celebrations of all religions. Which may incite even more hate speech. We could be arguing for the rest of eternity about the "exceptions" for academic, genuinely religious purposes, etc for the rest of eternity.
I recall some years ago a conservative Catholic publication stridently attacking a Canadian province for a hate speech prosecution but refusing to dirty its own pages with actually printing the words of the accused. Something is either an appropriate public expression or it is not. It's not a 'Curate's Egg.'
If they intend to exempt proselyzation and the expression of one's religious faith from the designation of hate speech they need to include the exemption in the bill
Australia is a common law legal system and so a lot of stock is placed in Judges interpreting the law and the freedom to develop and change over time. Judges generally are pretty conservative in legal terms and stick close to the letter of the law and what would be considered common sense.
I suspect that the thing that will tip most Judges with the new bill into drawing a discernment between ‘hate speech’ and ‘religious expression’ will be the nature of the power dynamics with the individuals involved. No one is going to go to jail for passive aggressive Bible passage posting on social media. Bishop’s public addresses on a matter of church teaching are not going to be an issue. But an overly-enthusiastic teacher with a vulnerable teen who’s grappling with same sex attraction might be in trouble. A troll on social media harassing a public figure in predjucial terms will probably be.
You'd be a fool to trust Victoria state on this one. It smells foul, it's a trojan horse. Catholics all over the country should completely disavow the bill in its entirety, regardless of the "protections" Victoria is placating Christians with.
The snags at Bunnings have a better track record than the Victoria parliament.
They'd need to have a clause specifically stating that people can say homosexual and/or transgender acts are immoral, and why they think it is, without it being hate speech. Otherwise someone is guaranteed to interpret it as hate speech, chuck people in prison for 5 years, and say that they could've kept their mouths shut without giving up their religion.
People tend to be offended when you tell them what they do is evil.
Ah yes, the same Victoria state which decided to legally persecute Cardinal Pell and then went fishing for anything they could twist into something to charge him for, even if the claims were clearly false. I think that tells you what you need to know about how trustworthy these people are on religious issues.
Sidebar: anyone else notice how, after decades of effectively saying "people who value social cohesion are fascists" and using tolerance as a cover for ideas and behaviors (i.e. the cultural programme of the Left) that destroy social cohesion, these same people now think social cohesion is so important that it warrants having repressive laws to punish anyone who challenges the majority culture. Just imagine: if similar laws had been in place to protect social cohesion 50 years ago these left-wing social movements wouldn't have even had the chance to form. As a certain Aussie might have said, "gentlemen, this is hypocrrisy manifest..."
Australia sucks. End of comment.
If the Australian politicians are minded to clamp down on hate speech, they had better remember the hilarious and unholy uproar created by a Muslim lady in St Mary's Cathedral in Glasgow in Scotland at Epiphany 2017. Sadly she quoted the Quran text which declares that God has no son.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/why.the.cathedral.quran.reading.deserved.its.rebuke/103902.htm
Obviously this was blasphemy in Christian terms. But every Catholic at Mass proclaims "I believe in God the Father....and in Jesus Christ His only Son...". That is plainly blasphemy in Islamic terms, as the Quran is the direct Word of God.
The only way of avoiding Hate Speech All Round is to ban the public celebrations of all religions. Which may incite even more hate speech. We could be arguing for the rest of eternity about the "exceptions" for academic, genuinely religious purposes, etc for the rest of eternity.
Just one step closer to Orwellian-style thought police. It's disturbing how many Western countries are going down this route.
I recall some years ago a conservative Catholic publication stridently attacking a Canadian province for a hate speech prosecution but refusing to dirty its own pages with actually printing the words of the accused. Something is either an appropriate public expression or it is not. It's not a 'Curate's Egg.'
If they intend to exempt proselyzation and the expression of one's religious faith from the designation of hate speech they need to include the exemption in the bill
Australia is a common law legal system and so a lot of stock is placed in Judges interpreting the law and the freedom to develop and change over time. Judges generally are pretty conservative in legal terms and stick close to the letter of the law and what would be considered common sense.
I suspect that the thing that will tip most Judges with the new bill into drawing a discernment between ‘hate speech’ and ‘religious expression’ will be the nature of the power dynamics with the individuals involved. No one is going to go to jail for passive aggressive Bible passage posting on social media. Bishop’s public addresses on a matter of church teaching are not going to be an issue. But an overly-enthusiastic teacher with a vulnerable teen who’s grappling with same sex attraction might be in trouble. A troll on social media harassing a public figure in predjucial terms will probably be.