Religious Vilification Law Enacted in Australia to Protect Islam

[Rev.Cambeul]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBAeaViTQc

You can find him at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Computing-Forever/156483877740264

Well, two can play at that game. Remember, CREATIVITY is a RELIGION. That means all White people who do not worship the Jewish spook in the sky and wish to assume the religion of CREATIVITY for themselves or JOIN OUR CHURCH have the same rights, so use them.

According to both extremist and moderate Muslims, any criticism of Islam, Muslims, their culture or beliefs as Muslims or Arabs is Islamophobia. Very well, we can do the same: Any criticism of Creativity, Creators, our culture - the culture of ordinary everyday White folk - or our beliefs whether as Creators or White folk is Europhobia.

You may argue that is an example of Racial Vilification rather than Religious Vilification, you have to remember that White people are not protected under the same laws - Hate Laws - that exist in Britain, Europe and Australia. Those laws were designed on paper to appear to protect all people of every race, creed and colour, but that is not the case in practice. Where the various state and federal Attorney Generals have spoken up in the US and Australia, the pronouncement has always been the same: That Racial Vilification/Hate-Crime Laws were created to protect minorities only. According to our democratically elected leaders, one simply cannot be racist against a White person.

That and we Whites have the problem that we are constantly offended by the traitors amongst us that wish to exterminate the White Race one way or another.

For Creators, Church Members and Supporters - official or otherwise - alike, the government, in their attempts to brown-nose Islam, has given us White folk a tool that we can use, and with Creativity, you have the ability to make use of that tool against those very minorities and traitors that seek our extermination.

@Cailen.

Note: Victoria and Tasmania already have Religious Vilification Laws as part of their state laws. This ACT law may be for the ACT only ... but even if that is the case, you have been warned. Under any of the two state laws or the territory law, if you say it online, in mail or on the phone and it offends someone in one of those states, you will be extradited and gaoled as a flight risk.

ACT parliament passes religious vilification laws

Kirsten Lawson | Canberra Times | 4 August 2016

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-parliament-passes-religious-vilification-laws-20160804-gqlagu.html

Vilification on the grounds of religion is now illegal and in serious cases could result in a criminal conviction with a fine of up to $7500, under laws passed by the ACT parliament on Thursday.

Both Labor and Liberal supported the move put by the Greens Shane Rattenbury, who said the display of hatred, intolerance and offensive behaviour towards Muslims was one of the biggest intolerance issues in Australia today.

The University of South Australia had found about 10 per cent of Australians were highly Islamophobic, and while the ACT showed the lowest rates in the country, Islamophobia was still significant here.

"It is clear [Muslims] are frequently, almost constantly, exposed to discrimination, vilification and targeted offensive behaviour," he said.

Thursday's changes to the Discrimination Act also added disability to the list, so it is now illegal to vilify someone because of disability, religion, race, sexuality, gender identity, and HIV/AIDS status. Vilification can include social media posts, actions in a workplace and wearing clothes, signs or flags that would incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion.

Liberal leader Jeremy Hanson said the Liberals wanted a harmonious, multicultural society free from extremism. He had been shot at by Sunni and Shiite extremists and by the IRA, so he knew firsthand the consequences of extremism, but others in the community experienced the consequences daily. 

Christians and Jews were also vilified for their beliefs and would be protected by the new legislation, he said.

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the change was not designed to limit freedom of speech but to "ensure the political discourse does not descend into hatred".

Protections against discrimination (as opposed to vilification) were also extended on Thursday, with new bans on discrimination on the basis of accommodation status, employment status, genetic information, immigration status, intersex status, physical features, altered sex, and being a victim of domestic and family violence.

[Br.IanVonTurpie]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...9fe99e2e587bb6


ALMOST a dozen anti-Islamic protesters stormed a church service on Sunday morning wearing fake Muslim garb and shouting racial slurs.

About 10 members of the Party for Freedom group, big supporters of One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, interrupted the 9am sermon at the Gosford Anglican Church on NSW's Central Coast and vilified Muslims and linked them to terrorism and paedophilia.

The Gosford Anglican Church congregation is multicultural and Father Rod Bower believed the church was a target for the work it does "building bridges and not walls".

He said the protest in the church was a violation of their sacred space.

"It was very distressing," he told news.com.au.

"The congregation was traumatised."

The Party for Freedom group members loudly played recordings of the Koran and Father Bower said it was a form of extremism.

On the Party for Freedom's Facebook page, it says it opposes multiculturalism and open borders.

"The Party for Freedom is committed to traditional Australian family values, the protection of Australia's independence including property rights, true democracy and the rule of law," it says.

"The Party for Freedom acknowledges and respects people who hold these values, who identify with the Australian way of life and who identify as Australian.

"The Party for Freedom rejects multiculturalism, advocates an immigration policy based on cultural compatibility, rejects Islam as fundamentally incompatible with these values and is committed to regaining control of Australia's borders."

The party claims its mission is the "make Australia great again".
Father Bower said his church promoted a multicultural society and we could choose to live in a society that was either functional or dysfunctional.

"It was a violation of a sacred space in the most vile way," he said.

"Hate-filled people were in the midst of Christians.

"Christians gather together to break bread and reflect of the scriptures and for us that's an act of love and to have that hate come in was deeply distressing."

Some leaders from Pauline Hanson's One Nation party are against section 18C because they believe it's anti-free speech.

"I support their (Party for Freedom) right to prosecute their particular view but I support the right to do that by setting up and protesting in a part," Father Bower said.

"To invade a sacred space and traumatise people is utterly unacceptable and indicative of a form of extremism.

"Section 18C gives us a mechanism to at least manage and contain extremism and if we lose that than we lose one of the mechanisms we need to have safe and respectful dialogue."

The Party for Freedom and the One Nation party have not responded to requests for comment

[Br.IanVonTurpie]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/david-leyonhjelm-nsw-senator-lodges-complaint-over-journalists-claim-he-is-an-angry-white-male/news-story/7b647988a3c24751010275e1d273eb89


A FEDERAL politician has lodged a formal complaint before the Human Rights Commission under race hate laws for being publicly abused as an "angry white male".

In the first complaint of its kind for the HRC under the controversial section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, NSW Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm has taken action against a journalist for what he claimed were remarks insulting to white men.

Under Section 18C, it is unlawful to commit an act which would reasonably offend or insult someone because of their race, colour, national or ­ethnic origin.

The Daily Telegraph has learned the complaint was submitted last week following an article published by Fairfax media in which Mr Leyonhjelm was described as "boorish and gormless as a result of being an angry white male''.

The article was critical of the senator for his purist views on free speech and his campaign to repeal Section 18C.

Mr Leyonhjelm is using the provisions he wants to abolish to launch the action in a bid to prove what he said was the absurdity of the law.

He said the case would be a test for the HRC and comes as pressure begins to build again inside the government to re-examine repealing the law due to concerns it stifles free speech.

"My colour was one of the reasons the comments were made," his complaint to the HRC says.

"Other characteristics referred to in the article include being a boorish supercilious know-all with the empathy of a Besser-Block, hate speech apologist, wacky, a self-promoting misanthrope and a practitioner of infantile reasoning.

"The comments are reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend or insult some white males. My colour was one of the reasons the comments were made."

Mr Leyonhjelm said he wasn't personally offended by the article but said under Section 18C he didn't have to be because the law as it stood meant that the offence be given rather than taken.

"I choose not to be offended ... (but) these are insults based on my race so it is reasonably likely that someone of my race could find it insulting," he said.
So long as the people at the Human Rights Commission abide by their own laws and are not racists, then the complaint should succeed."

The West Australian branch of the Liberal Party passed a motion at the weekend supporting reform of the law to remove the words "insult" and "offend".

Attorney-General George Brandis has said the issue was now "off the table" for the government, despite a growing number of Liberal MPs pushing to reignite the debate.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott last week admitted that he regretted his decision to withdraw amendments to repeal 18C in 2014 in the face of Senate hostility and a botched attempt to make a public case for its abolition.

Mr Leyonhjelm will introduce a private members bill to repeal the section while a separate but watered-down version of the bill will be resubmitted by Family First senator Bob Day to remove the words insult and offend.