BLASPHEMY LAW BY ANY OTHER NAME
REMAINS BLASPHEMY LAW NOTE: CONTENT REMOVED Australian states have blasphemy laws on the statutes. These laws are rarely, if ever, utilised. However, it is not a secret that the laws and the values on which the laws of the state are based are religious. In Australia blasphemy laws may rarely, if ever, be utilised, but blasphemy is still prosecuted by stealth. Australian states prosecute blasphemy cases by pretending that blasphemy actions undertaken are for the prosecution of something other, not blasphemy. And instead of prosecuting a criminal case on behalf of the state, the prosecuting is done as a civil matter on behalf of an individual. It is a deliberate political strategy, which seems to be a result of the state wishing to prosecute blasphemy cases, but without transgressing obligations to international protocols to which Australia is signatory; obligations that include the freedom to hold ideas and impart them. The state drafts and puts in place laws and statutes for protecting the right to freedom of religious belief, with laws designed to protect the religious ideas of Christians or Muslims - who object to their religious doctrines being analysed and criticsed. And, in protecting religions from being criticsed the state can enforce penalties for blasphemy while claiming it is protecting the rights of people to hold a religion. International obligations make it necessary for the state to employ creative measures to keep religion from being injured but without making it obvious that government (and the apparatus of state such as the Supreme Court of Victoria) are protecting religion. |
|
Successive governments and the apparatus of government (HREOC CONTENT REMOVED) have taken actions, supported actions, or have acted in, the prevention of blasphemy. These actions are claimed to be done in order to protect individuals from being hurt because the religious ideas that they hold are claimed to define their identity which means they are caused injury when their religion is criticised. A "MORAL" OBLIGATION TO NOT CRITICISE RELIGION - ATHEISM ASSISTS TERRORISM One of the means by which blasphemy can be enforced is the "moral obligation" to protect society. Criticism of Islam for instance, is claimed to incite Muslim reaction, causing Muslims to commit terrorist acts. Australian political leaders such as Malcolm Turnbull propound the claim that criticism of Islam incites terrorism. Thus an atheist criticising Islam is doing the work of the terrorist, according to Turnbull. Although Islamic doctrine calls for the very acts that are defined as "terrorist", political leaders such as Turnbull claim that it is not the doctrines calling for precisely the kind of actions that causes terrorism, but that these doctrines are criticised. (Turnbull is supported by the opposition.)
http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/malcolm-turnbull-says-everyday-muslims-are-australia-s-best-allies/xatui0m The objective of prohibiting criticism of religion is an ongoing one. It includes the attempt to introduce "defamation of religion" laws into Australia. Australia's own "Human Rights" body (the HREOC) attempted, on the behalf of Pakistan which was acting for the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the UN, to introduce legislation to limit Human Rights, with "Defamation of Religion" laws.
This application made to the UN was
rejected in 2011 by the "Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights", Geneva. Clause "48. Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith." (more info? Wikipedia:
It is not unusual then that an atheist, this author, was penalised because his criticism of religious doctrines, the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, and the religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism were criticised. CONTENT REMOVED
OBLIGATIONS OF THE APPARATUS OF THE STATE
In Australia the various apparatus of state, the government, judges, the courts and "statutory bodies" advocate for the enforcing of penalties for blasphemy. The state government of Victoria advocates for the suppression of criticism of religious ideas (below). Criticism is described as "hatred" and "animosity".
CONTENT REMOVED The Islamic Council of Victoria - that has
been seeking to prevent criticism of Islam - also propounds
the values of "tolerance", "positive understanding" and
"respect" that are promoted by Kyrou et al, and the ICV also
partakes in "interfaith dialogues" that promote the same. CONTENT REMOVED Despite having failed in the United Nations, the idea promoted by the OIC is still the desired-for objective of the state. This objective manifests itself in the objectives of interfaithers/multifaithers and in the decisions and outcomes of judges.
Blog by Lee-Anne Raymond in 2012 "Blasphemy Laws, Atheism and Offending Religion" The Australian state is seeking to impose blasphemy law by stealth http://leeanneart.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/blasphemy-laws-atheism-and-offending.html [Own ref: "HREOC religion = Race crime"]
|
