| |
G4EBT > THAI 22.01.09 10:41l 164 Lines 6330 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : A10089G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Aussie Gaoled in Bangkok
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE6XPE<DB0RES<DB0GOS<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 090121/2102Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:23279 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:A10089G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : THAI@WW
Barry, VK2AAB, wrote:-
> An Australian author who I believed published a book in the UK which
> made a reference to a Thai royal family member that has been considered
> to be les Majesty and he has been convicted and sentenced to three
> years gaol.
> Now as the book was published in the UK does this mean that anyone who
> says anything derogative about the Thai royal family can be charged if
> they happen to visit Thailand ?
> That should get David going, eh !
It won't get me going to Thailand, that's for sure:-)
Don't get me started!
It's the extradition treaties that should worry us, especially where
internet's concerned. And it isn't just countries such as Thailand
which should concern us.
> Should be quite something to remember if visiting Thailand.
Or even Australia!
But I don't see the prospect of extradition to Oz as a deterrent, given
that we're told on packet that the prisons there are "holiday camps":-)
I'm up for it - I'm always on the lookout for a "freebie".
Seriously, consider the well-intentioned but poorly worded and as it's
transpired, ludicrous religious "tolerance" laws in Victoria and
elsewhere. These laws are based on the flawed belief that somehow the
state can impose tolerance, respect and harmony by force of law.
(There are no federal laws on religious vilification or "tolerance" in Oz.
During the public debate over the federal Racial Hatred Act, and prior to
that, religious vilification laws had been proposed but were defeated).
Racial/religious vilification laws were proposed in Victoria
simultaneously, making it difficult for people (and politicians)
to separate the two concepts, yet race and religion are very
different and it's muddled thinking to conflate the two.
Race or ethnic origin is an inherent, unchangeable quality, whereas
religion can be changed. During the debate these two areas - race and
religion, were treated as equally valid in passing vilification laws.
Opposing the laws was seen as endorsing racist attitudes and speech.
Thus, dissenting voices were silenced. The Victorian Racial and Religious
Tolerance Act was passed in June 2001 and became law on 1 Jan 2002.
Steve Bracks, Premier of the Labor State government,
in a message printed in the Discussion Paper had said:
"Victoria's most multicultural state and the diversity of its people is a
great asset. Respect for this cultural diversity is vitally important to
our community".
"Expressions of racial and religious vilification not only undermine
people living in our community, they also threaten the fairness and
tolerance of our society."
End quote.
Most may agree with those sentiments, but many did ask whether
vilification or "tolerance" laws were needed to preserve harmony, and
whether such laws would limit freedom of speech and actually cause
disharmony.
Soon after enactment, the law did just that, which was quite the opposite
of what was intended. The harmony that the new law was meant to promote
didn't last long.
It was used by Muslims to get two Christian pastors convicted for
criticising Islam. This succeeded due to how the law was framed. If it
took a learned judge the best part of a year to conclude that the two
pastors broke the law, how is any member of the public who is not well
versed in law to understands the narrow parameters?
what amazes me is how it ever found its way onto the statute book.
S8, part 2 of the Act deals with the conduct relating to vilification. S7
deals with racial vilification but the terms are identical to S8, which is
about religious vilification.
Quote:
Part 2: Section 8. Religious vilification unlawful:
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity
of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites
hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of,
that other person or class of persons.
This does of course include not vilifying Atheists, Satanists, Wiccans or
whoever, which rather cramps the style of followers of some religions.
There's no further indication of what sorts of activities or speech might
constitute religious vilification. The "class of persons" could include
general comments about *a religion* (eg. About Buddhism, Islam etc.)
rather
than about *a person* following that religion.
The conduct could be on a single or multiple occasions.
Although "conduct" isn't defined, the Act says that "engage in conduct"
includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements
or other material".
The conduct "may occur in or outside Victoria" raising questions of the
power of the tribunal over the question of Victorians speaking interstate.
It also raises questions of the power of the tribunal over people who
live interstate or overseas. This is particularly relevant concerning
websites that may be read in Victoria but are written or hosted by
interstate/overseas people.
It could, for example, theoretically include this bulletin.
When any monotheisitic religion gets the upper hand, it become oppressive.
Whatever we do or don't believe in, respect isn't a one-way street.
It's futile to demand respect for religions which don't treat all human
beings as equals, in which for example, a woman's evidence counts only
half that of a man's and unless she can bring four male witnesses to a
rape, she'll be stoned to death for "adultery".
Respect? Dream on.
The law in Victoria requires that we do indeed tolerate and not criticise
religions which support such events, while other laws in Oz require that
human rights and equal opportunities are also respected and that women
are of equal value to men, as indeed they are.
As I'm often reminded, I don't live there, but I doubt that many who
do live there think this law makes sense or is conducive to harmony.
Maybe the difference is that a few years ago, they'd have said so in
forthright terms, but now, they might whisper it to close friends only.
Quote of the day:
"He that complies against his will
is of his own opinion still."
(Samuel Butler (1612-1680), in Hudibras. Part iii. Canto iii. Line 547).
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 21:01 on 2009-Jan-21
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
