tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post5404414868140992271..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: Crickey.com on the Catch the Fire Supreme Court JudgementSchützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-62066049565543523772007-02-17T10:17:00.000+11:002007-02-17T10:17:00.000+11:00Hi, Louise. Yes, I read your blog on the SA law, a...Hi, Louise. Yes, I read your blog on the SA law, and had written a long response to it, but lost it when I went to publish the comment. I hate it when that happens... <BR/><BR/>I find really alarming that the SA Goverment justifies its proposal on the grounds that it wants to increase a sense of victimisation! You have to wonder what is going on in some people's heads.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I found it interesting that about the only thing that the SA proposal doesn't outlaw is religious vilification--precisely the point on which the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (RRTA) has been so controversial.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, the RRTA is not causing a huge problem here, which is to say that--besides the ICV vs CTF case--there have so far been no successful applications even to have a case of religious vilification heard by VCAT. In the working out of the law, there have been so many "exceptions" listed that one really wonders what one would have to do to get convicted of Religious Vilification in Victoria. Certainly you would have to step far beyond the boundaries of what any Christian (even CTF Ministries) would consider ethical.<BR/><BR/>The SA law looks quite different, and frankly, it looks even more poorly considered than the Victorian RRTA.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com