14 August 2012

A stupid knee jerk in reaction to The Klan

| johnboy
Join the conversation
59

Simon Corbell has announced that he’s going to legislate in response to the crazy hooters in Gungahlin and their crappy anti-muslim leaflets.

“This Bill makes it illegal for a person to publicly incite hatred towards another person, or to publicly incite serious contempt for or ridicule of another person, based on their religion,” said Mr Corbell.

“The bill provides protection from vilification based on religion, and enables people to freely exercise their right to adopt and practise the religion of their choice, without fear of public acts of hatred.”

Now I dislike what those buggers are doing as much as anyone. But I’d rather humiliate the spiteful bigots than martyr them.

And I want to be able to talk about the issues without Simon’s thought police kicking my door down.

So how about you take this to the election Simon and bring it in with a mandate in November if you still think it’s a good idea?

Join the conversation

59
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Do we have to have a criminal law amendment program on every effing thing? Right now before this Bill is passed a man can go down to Garema Place stand upon soapbox and announce the absolutely undeniable historical fact that the Anglican religion was established by a person who was a thug, a serial killer, a bigamist, and a pillager namely Henry VIII and state that it is therefore immoral to follow the religion. An Anglican Minister can also stand in Garema Place or in his pulpit and deny this fact or argue that who established the religion is irrelevant and that his religion is based on other factors or whatever arguments he wants to make. At the moment there is free expression for the man and the Anglican Minister. That is the position that has been in place for centuries in free and democratic societies. But If the man makes his statements after the Bill is passed the Anglican Minister can report the man to the police or even commence a private criminal prosecution against him for making the statements. There is a very real chance that the prosecution will succeed. If it succeeds the penalty is five thousand five hundred dollars and the person is saddled with a criminal record. That’s right Canberrans not 50 dollars, not five hundred dollars but five thousand five hundred dollars. This is extreme stuff for making statements about people’s religious opinions. It is not as if the person has robbed a bank or committed a serious criminal assault. What criminal law expansion is this tinpot legislative assembly going to make next? Is the Discrimination Act going to be amended to prohibit vilification of professions so people will no longer be able to vilify used car dealers bankers and policitians?
A law prohibiting religious vilification may seem to be a good idea on the surface but as soon as you scratch the surface you realise it is populist vote getting extremism.

beejay76 said :

I do, however, understand the difference between public humiliation and small talk. Ask Andrew Bolt about where that line lies.

Bolt didn’t get done for calling out a bunch of fakers for trading on a manufactured ethnicity, he got done for getting almost all his facts completely and utterly wrong.

Bess Price has recently done a Bolt about these albino coconuts, but not being a complete idiot like Bolt, she hit the nail on the head:
http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2012/08/08/keep-your-nose-out-of-our-business-candidate-tells-amnesty-international/

beejay76 said :

breda said :

Bizarre. It’s OK to pass laws because they are not going to be enforced anyway? So,why pass them? I am intrigued by your suggestion that selective law enforcement is acceptable, and furthermore that passing laws which you claim will not change anything is a good idea.

No doubt you would be in favour of passing a law that says that everyone should always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.

It just goes to show that symbolism trumps substance in your mindset, and logic is entirely absent. You sound like a typical Greens supporter.

I am not generally a greens supporter. I don’t advocate laws about common courtesy. I don’t advocate the passing of laws only to avoid using them.

I do, however, understand the difference between public humiliation and small talk. Ask Andrew Bolt about where that line lies.

Hah. Bolt would have been fine if he’d bothered to get his basic facts straight.

Regardless, this still seems to be superfluous to me. There’s local legislation that can do the same job (in extreme circumstances), and I’m sure that there’s Commonwealth legislation as well (again, for extreme cases of people acting like fecktards).

This is just crap (and as many have pointed out, sometimes this sort of stuff is sometimes the thin-end of the wedge. Realistically that’s probably not the case here; for all the hooting, no-one seriously believes that “we won’t be able to ridicule x anymore’ because the thought police will get us” … except maybe Mr G or HenryBG, who are both functionally retarded anyway).

It’s the attitude on display that sh1ts me. You can’t simply legislate away any perceived problem that might arise – it ain’t that simple. And even if it were, it’s a very blunt, paternalistic approach to a complex issue that’s likely to do as much harm as good (if not more).

breda said :

Bizarre. It’s OK to pass laws because they are not going to be enforced anyway? So,why pass them? I am intrigued by your suggestion that selective law enforcement is acceptable, and furthermore that passing laws which you claim will not change anything is a good idea.

No doubt you would be in favour of passing a law that says that everyone should always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.

It just goes to show that symbolism trumps substance in your mindset, and logic is entirely absent. You sound like a typical Greens supporter.

I am not generally a greens supporter. I don’t advocate laws about common courtesy. I don’t advocate the passing of laws only to avoid using them.

I do, however, understand the difference between public humiliation and small talk. Ask Andrew Bolt about where that line lies.

colourful sydney racing identity10:26 am 15 Aug 12

Jethro said :

What is it with some on the left side of politics to jump so quickly to ban speech they disagree with?

The racists in society piss me off but anti-speech laws are essentially enshrining the concept of thought crime as a part of the legal fabric in our society.

I reserve my right to mock all people who worship invisible people who make them follow arcane laws. I also believe those same people have every right to build temples for their invisible friends to live in and that people who oppose the construction of those buildings are nasty pieces of work. Nonetheless, those who try to suppress the thoughts of these same nasty pieces of work are little more than budding fascists.

+1

Beejay76 said:

There is still a large amount of racism in the community, however no-one has been prosecuted under the various hate-speech laws in most jurisdictions IIRC. This would indicate that prosecutors aren’t interested in pursuing small-time racists mouthing off in a pub after getting a few pints in.

Extending these laws to include religious vilifcation will not mean that prosecutors will suddenly be coming after all you people who wish to enjoy abusing and ridiculing others at your leisure.

—————————————————————–
Bizarre. It’s OK to pass laws because they are not going to be enforced anyway? So,why pass them? I am intrigued by your suggestion that selective law enforcement is acceptable, and furthermore that passing laws which you claim will not change anything is a good idea.

No doubt you would be in favour of passing a law that says that everyone should always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.

It just goes to show that symbolism trumps substance in your mindset, and logic is entirely absent. You sound like a typical Greens supporter.

beejay76 said :

Extending these laws to include religious vilifcation will not mean that prosecutors will suddenly be coming after all you people who wish to enjoy abusing and ridiculing others at your leisure.

So it’s not a law that will be applied objectively, it’s a tool for the oppression of selected targets.

I think we knew that.

If Pastor Nalliah and his nutjob mate have done anything useful in life. it is to get themselves prosecuted under Victoria’s vilification law on account of reading out some exceprts of the Koran for their congregation to laugh about.

So we know it *does* happen, and it *will* happen again – all it takes is a motivated complainant.

Goodness me. I know knee-jerk mouth-foaming is the standard response for most people on RA, but sometimes it really makes me eyeroll.

All you people declaring that you will be muzzled just need to take a brief moment to consider the reality of the situation. We have existing hate-speech laws wrt race. When have these laws impeded your right to express yourself? Or anyone?

There is still a large amount of racism in the community, however no-one has been prosecuted under the various hate-speech laws in most jurisdictions IIRC. This would indicate that prosecutors aren’t interested in pursuing small-time racists mouthing off in a pub after getting a few pints in.

Extending these laws to include religious vilifcation will not mean that prosecutors will suddenly be coming after all you people who wish to enjoy abusing and ridiculing others at your leisure.

Clown Killer10:46 pm 14 Aug 12

“The ALP will die in a ditch over this one.”

Oh please, I so want to be there standing over the ditch, holding the long handled shovel and wondering … should I whack the pricks again … or just start shovelling dirt on to them?

The right intentions are there but this is a very dangerous line of thought. If I criticise a Christian for taking their views of Deuteronomy or Leviticus too far will I be in trouble?

What if I want to make a complaint against Scientology and their treatment of people within their organisation?

What if I take up a religion that requires me to attack all those who are not part of that religion?

Well intentioned move but not practicle

Holden Caulfield9:33 pm 14 Aug 12

Skidbladnir said :

Cearly you have neither read the Act, nor know when it applies.

Happy to plead guilty as charged simply because I cbf reading the Act. Happy for you to share your knowledge.

🙂

You have the right to freedom of speech, that is as long as your speech doesn’t infringe on race, religion, sexual alignment, political views, boat people, bikies, sex offenders, those considered less fortunate, rich peoples charity donations, wtf can i talk about then?

Jethro said :

What is it with some on the left side of politics to jump so quickly to ban speech they disagree with?

The racists in society piss me off but anti-speech laws are essentially enshrining the concept of thought crime as a part of the legal fabric in our society.

I reserve my right to mock all people who worship invisible people who make them follow arcane laws. I also believe those same people have every right to build temples for their invisible friends to live in and that people who oppose the construction of those buildings are nasty pieces of work. Nonetheless, those who try to suppress the thoughts of these same nasty pieces of work are little more than budding fascists.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I’m a lifelong Labor voter, but this is one step too far. People can do as they please if they don’t harm me, but if I feel that they’re idiots then I reserve the right to give them a good mocking. Trying to legislate away my right to mock what I see as silliness deserves more than mockery. It deserves removal from any position of legislative authority.

Skidbladnir said :

Holden Caulfield said :

A quick google revealed this:

Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)
Isn’t that enough?

Cearly you have neither read the Act, nor know when it applies.

Exactly – they want this act’s effect to extend far beyond its current scope in order to include anybody passing comment in any public place or meeting which any other person, whether present or not, might decide, at that time or at any later time, has hurt their feelings, such “hurt”, and “feelings”, not being subject to any objective test whatsoever.

The ALP will die in a ditch over this one.

Holden Caulfield said :

A quick google revealed this:

Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)
Isn’t that enough?

Cearly you have neither read the Act, nor know when it applies.

What is it with some on the left side of politics to jump so quickly to ban speech they disagree with?

The racists in society piss me off but anti-speech laws are essentially enshrining the concept of thought crime as a part of the legal fabric in our society.

I reserve my right to mock all people who worship invisible people who make them follow arcane laws. I also believe those same people have every right to build temples for their invisible friends to live in and that people who oppose the construction of those buildings are nasty pieces of work. Nonetheless, those who try to suppress the thoughts of these same nasty pieces of work are little more than budding fascists.

Postalgeek said :

What about those who support Collingwood and Holden? Can we still incite serious contempt for or ridicule them?

Just wait ’til they catch you trying to heap scorn and ridicule on the ALP…..there’ll be a law against that soon, too….

So how do we ridicule Creationists once this new law comes in?

We know Young Earth Creationism is utterly ridiculous and we know Young Earth Creationists are therefore soft-headed idiots.
And under the proposed new law, I would now be a criminal for saying so.

You *really* think this is a good idea?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back4:17 pm 14 Aug 12

Jim Jones said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Jim Jones said :

OMG THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

Here’s a factoid I heard on the news the other day: apparently more people die in the UK each year from bee stings than terrorism.

OMG THE BEES HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

Well I for one welcome our new bee overlords.

Holden Caulfield4:16 pm 14 Aug 12

A quick google revealed this:

Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)

Grounds of unlawful discrimination

Sex, sexual harassment, sexuality, transsexuality, age, profession, trade, occupation or calling, relationship status, status as a parent or carer, pregnancy, race, racial vilification, religious or political conviction, impairment, membership or non-membership of association of employers or employees, breastfeeding, spent convictions, disability, religious practice in employment, having had one of the enumerated attributes in the past, or association with person with an above attribute.

Isn’t that enough?

Holden Caulfield4:11 pm 14 Aug 12

Postalgeek said :

What about those who support Collingwood and Holden? Can we still incite serious contempt for or ridicule them?

You can support me all you like, but I must protest at being associated with The Filth.

Jim Jones said :

Strikes me as a pretty typical Australian governmental response to a (perceived) problem: legislate.

Often insufficient and lacking in vision, sometimes annoying, and on rare occasion quite stupid (at which point all the ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD’ shenanigans kick off).

I can understand the intent of preventing *serious* religious vilification (people being attacked or sacked or whatever because of their religion, etc.)

But why are they bothering at a local level? Forgive me for my ignorance, but surely there’s already Commonwealth Legislation that covers this ground?

And really, ridicule needs to be left out of it (particularly in the case of satire) – this is the sort of stuff where the United State’s Bill of Rights is so useful.

Including ridicule in the bill and effectively linking it to hate speech is beyond comprehension and draconian .You’re quite right whatever one might think of the US at least they have the first amendment.Farking do-gooders at it again!

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Jim Jones said :

OMG THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

Here’s a factoid I heard on the news the other day: apparently more people die in the UK each year from bee stings than terrorism.

OMG THE BEES HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

What about those who support Collingwood and Holden? Can we still incite serious contempt for or ridicule them?

And what do I do with my book of Jedi jokes? Is that like kiddie porn now?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back3:15 pm 14 Aug 12

Jim Jones said :

OMG THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

Here’s a factoid I heard on the news the other day: apparently more people die in the UK each year from bee stings than terrorism.

HenryBG said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Let’s be really clear: I am NOT supporting religious craziness. But I do think that if we’re going to consider ourselves progressive and tolerant and have meaningful debate we shouldn’t be engaging with bagging individuals on the basis of their beliefs.

Who’s talking about bagging individuals?
It’s the stupid beliefs themselves we want to bag.
And now we’re going to be muzzled.

OMG THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Let’s be really clear: I am NOT supporting religious craziness. But I do think that if we’re going to consider ourselves progressive and tolerant and have meaningful debate we shouldn’t be engaging with bagging individuals on the basis of their beliefs.

Who’s talking about bagging individuals?
It’s the stupid beliefs themselves we want to bag.
And now we’re going to be muzzled.

Strikes me as a pretty typical Australian governmental response to a (perceived) problem: legislate.

Often insufficient and lacking in vision, sometimes annoying, and on rare occasion quite stupid (at which point all the ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD’ shenanigans kick off).

I can understand the intent of preventing *serious* religious vilification (people being attacked or sacked or whatever because of their religion, etc.)

But why are they bothering at a local level? Forgive me for my ignorance, but surely there’s already Commonwealth Legislation that covers this ground?

And really, ridicule needs to be left out of it (particularly in the case of satire) – this is the sort of stuff where the United State’s Bill of Rights is so useful.

Holden Caulfield2:15 pm 14 Aug 12

CrocodileGandhi said :

The unfortunate thing is that in some cases it is not. Those who have been told from birth that there is an infinitely powerful entity that loves them and that not believing in it will lead to an eternity of torture are barely in the position of having chosen that belief. By the time they are of an age that they would be able to competently question such notions, they’re too far gone.

Though you are right in the sense that such people do have the capacity to listen to reason and throw away the nonsense. It’s just not particularly easy.

I managed to get out okay.

p1 said :

Woe betide the next person who implies that the FSM isn’t real and omnificently tasty.

Just let them try!

colourful sydney racing identity2:08 pm 14 Aug 12

p1 said :

johnboy said :

Religion is a choice.

Kinda, but then on the other hand, kinda not. Ever tried to tell someone raised their whole life to believe in [insert chosen delusion here] that their parents and everyone they trust and love is wrong?

particualrly when they are taugh that the penalty for apostacy is death. What a vile thing to teach a child.

CrocodileGandhi1:27 pm 14 Aug 12

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

johnboy said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Interesting that we can’t bag people because of race, gender, age or sexual orientation but when it comes to religious vilification it’s all hands to the pump.

Seems kinda like a double standard to me.

And yes, I know religion has a heap to answer for, but bagging religious people for fun just doesn’t sit right, especially when we have pages and pages of threads accusing each other of bigotry in respect to other such issues.

A crucial difference is that race, gender, age, and sexual orientation are things we have little to no choice in.

Religion is a choice.

Tell that to a 15 year old girl living in Saudi Arabia.

Let’s be really clear: I am NOT supporting religious craziness. But I do think that if we’re going to consider ourselves progressive and tolerant and have meaningful debate we shouldn’t be engaging with bagging individuals on the basis of their beliefs.

Once those beliefs turn into actions that impact others, though, game on.

The unfortunate thing is that in some cases it is not. Those who have been told from birth that there is an infinitely powerful entity that loves them and that not believing in it will lead to an eternity of torture are barely in the position of having chosen that belief. By the time they are of an age that they would be able to competently question such notions, they’re too far gone.

Though you are right in the sense that such people do have the capacity to listen to reason and throw away the nonsense. It’s just not particularly easy.

johnboy said :

Religion is a choice.

Kinda, but then on the other hand, kinda not. Ever tried to tell someone raised their whole life to believe in [insert chosen delusion here] that their parents and everyone they trust and love is wrong?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:20 pm 14 Aug 12

johnboy said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Interesting that we can’t bag people because of race, gender, age or sexual orientation but when it comes to religious vilification it’s all hands to the pump.

Seems kinda like a double standard to me.

And yes, I know religion has a heap to answer for, but bagging religious people for fun just doesn’t sit right, especially when we have pages and pages of threads accusing each other of bigotry in respect to other such issues.

A crucial difference is that race, gender, age, and sexual orientation are things we have little to no choice in.

Religion is a choice.

Tell that to a 15 year old girl living in Saudi Arabia.

Let’s be really clear: I am NOT supporting religious craziness. But I do think that if we’re going to consider ourselves progressive and tolerant and have meaningful debate we shouldn’t be engaging with bagging individuals on the basis of their beliefs.

Once those beliefs turn into actions that impact others, though, game on.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Interesting that we can’t bag people because of race, gender, age or sexual orientation but when it comes to religious vilification it’s all hands to the pump.

Seems kinda like a double standard to me.

And yes, I know religion has a heap to answer for, but bagging religious people for fun just doesn’t sit right, especially when we have pages and pages of threads accusing each other of bigotry in respect to other such issues.

A crucial difference is that race, gender, age, and sexual orientation are things we have little to no choice in.

Religion is a choice.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:14 pm 14 Aug 12

Interesting that we can’t bag people because of race, gender, age or sexual orientation but when it comes to religious vilification it’s all hands to the pump.

Seems kinda like a double standard to me.

And yes, I know religion has a heap to answer for, but bagging religious people for fun just doesn’t sit right, especially when we have pages and pages of threads accusing each other of bigotry in respect to other such issues.

Holden Caulfield12:39 pm 14 Aug 12

random said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Naive me thought racial vilification would have already been covered under existing discrimination laws.

Islam is not a “race”, so this is not racial vilification. Discrimination law more broadly only applies in specific circumstances, like applying for a job.

The ACT Human Rights Commissioner published a long response about the Gungahlin leaflets two weeks ago going into some detail.

My mistake, please replace ‘religious’ for ‘racial’ in my original reply.

I blame the error on my flu.

Federally, I wrote to Gai Brodtman to tell her my preference will never again go to Labor until they pull their fingers out and save Julian Assange from the right-wing machine that’s currently chewing him up.

Locally, this idiotic 1984-ish implementation of the Thought Police has just done the same. I cannot vote for idiots that treat the idea of Free Speech with so much contempt.

As a person who has consistently voted Greens/Labor as being the lesser of evils, I am now convinced the Libs will have to get my vote in future. If I can even bring myself to cast a valid vote in these choiceless circumstances.

What nonsense. It seems to me that the defamation laws cover personal vilification more than adequately – anything beyond that is just restricting freedom of speech so that politicians can be seen to be doing something.

I fail to see how it will protect anyone from discrimination, either. Nobody will change their views because of this law, they just might perhaps be a bit more circumspect about what they say.

Interestingly, it would gag a lot of the pro-gay marriage lobby’s virulent attacks on Christians – be careful what you wish for, all you ‘progressive’ social engineers!

Does that mean I won’t be able to make light of Danny Nalliah’s newly spawned ACT Branch of religious and potentially religiously-protected hate-speechy nutbags because they’ll be a protected minority?

PS: First one to file a complaint with the AEC\Elections ACT that his Church might just be an associated entity gets a free beer from me.

Well I think the Aztec religion was vile and their priests were scumbags. I’m glad that their religion is no longer practiced. Obviously their beliefs contained many lies and resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many people. I fail to see how their beliefs could have come into existence except as the result of deluded psychopaths.

Oh blast.

Have I just vilified Aztec religion? Will I be in trouble?

But how are we supposed to pay out and constantly abuse the Christians now????

/me grabs his copy of Richard Dawkins’ THE GOD DELUSION and runs for the border.

ToastFliesRED10:54 am 14 Aug 12

Definite political correctness knee-jerk reactionary BS.

housebound said :

It’s a stunt. Does anyone think the ALP and Greens would really want to extend any religious protection to all religions, even (or especially) Christianity?

Well the Greens are probably more likely to be ambivalent but Labor has a lot more vested in keeping the xtian clubs on side,

But my concern is that if the members of the Koncerned Kittyzens of Kanberra all happen to have the same religious beliefs as their leader do our comments constitute religious vilification under the proposed legislation?

CrocodileGandhi said :

This is the perfect example of a government doing somethin so as to be seen to be doing something. These laws are almost never invoked, and even when they are, almost never see anyone getting done for it. All it means is that the government has something to point to every now and then to say that they are tough on discrimination.

Look at Victoria.

CrocodileGandhi10:44 am 14 Aug 12

This is the perfect example of a government doing somethin so as to be seen to be doing something. These laws are almost never invoked, and even when they are, almost never see anyone getting done for it. All it means is that the government has something to point to every now and then to say that they are tough on discrimination.

We don’t need laws to stop people like the Koncerned Kitizens of Kanberra. We need only websites like RA to pour scorn upon their stupidity and transparent bigotry.

It’s a stunt. Does anyone think the ALP and Greens would really want to extend any religious protection to all religions, even (or especially) Christianity?

How do you objectively determine inciting hatred, serious contempt or ridicule? All this type of legislation does is shut down debate.

It’s going to be interesting.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Does that mean we wont be able to ridicule christians either?

You’d be rendered silent, my dear! (-:
(Which would not be a good thing.)

Holden Caulfield said :

Naive me thought racial vilification would have already been covered under existing discrimination laws.

Islam is not a “race”, so this is not racial vilification. Discrimination law more broadly only applies in specific circumstances, like applying for a job.

The ACT Human Rights Commissioner published a long response about the Gungahlin leaflets two weeks ago going into some detail.

Woe betide the next person who implies that the FSM isn’t real and omnificently tasty.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:59 am 14 Aug 12

shirty_bear said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Does that mean we wont be able to ridicule christians either?

I’ll only stop doing that when they stop being ridiculous.

Hey i agree, but its only fair if a new law does come in, that it applies to everyone.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Does that mean we wont be able to ridicule christians either?

I’ll only stop doing that when they stop being ridiculous.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:50 am 14 Aug 12

Does that mean we wont be able to ridicule christians either?

Other jurisdictions in Australia (I think Tasmania, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) include a whole raft of provisions in their hate-speech laws, not just race. For the ACT to extend their hate-speech laws isn’t really as extreme as you’re making out.

I think it’s makes a just symmetry that the hate-speech laws reflect the extent of the anti-discrimination laws: sex, race, religion, sexual orientation and so on. Why should some be publicly vilified for their beliefs when we have freedom of religion in this country. Let people get on with worshiping whomever they wish.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Better burn your copies of the Life of Brian.

This, on the other hand, is a “stupid, knee-jerk reaction.”

Holden Caulfield9:47 am 14 Aug 12

Naive me thought racial vilification would have already been covered under existing discrimination laws.

Is it really a knee jerk reaction?

I’m not so sure discussion and humiliation of spiteful bigots is to “publicly incite serious contempt for or ridicule of another person, based on their religion.”

But who knows how trigger happy and equitably the laws will be policed.

What a ridiculous bill. “Stupid knee jerk reaction” is an understatement.

This will probably mean that RA can no longer post anything related to religion, due to the idiotic comments that usually follow. However, as atheism isn’t a religion, he can bash that all we like.

colourful sydney racing identity9:36 am 14 Aug 12

“This Bill makes it illegal for a person to publicly incite … ridicule … another person, based on their religion,” said Mr Corbell.

Better burn your copies of the Life of Brian.

Stupid knee jerk reaction by Labor.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.