web analytics
≡ Menu

blasphemy in Australia

It’s blasphemy!

A man has been charged with ‘blasphemy’ in Denmark. He made a film of himself burning a copy of the Quran and put his film online.

He gave the video the title: “Consider your neighbour: it stinks when it burns.”

The public prosecutor’s office in Viborg, huffed: “It is the prosecution’s view that circumstances involving the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Quran can in some cases be a violation of the blasphemy clause, which covers public scorn or mockery of religion.

“It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case mean it should be prosecuted so the courts now have an opportunity to take a position on the matter.”

He could face prison.

So what?

It is Denmark – they are as crazy as the Swedes. A lost cause.

And our next door neighbour, Indonesia, has put a high political figure, a Christian Governor, on trial for blasphemy.

Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, or Ahok as he is commonly known, faces up to five years in prison if found guilty of insulting Islam over references he made to the Koran during a campaign speech.

Again, so what?

It’s Indonesia. Muslim country. What do you expect?

Here is the “so what?”

We have blasphemy laws in Australia.

Under the bullshit pretence of curbing “racial vilification” Queensland, Victoria, and Tasmania have laws that are indistinguishable from blasphemy.

They don’t call it “blasphemy” but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck – it’s a duck.

These trio of backward states bans “severe ridicule” and “serious contempt” of persons based on religion, and have been used in practice to prosecute people for criticisms of religion.

So? Can a law affect of a backward state affect the citizens of NSW, or WA, say?

Well, it was tried against Bernard Gaynor. He was dragged again to the execrable Human Rights Commission for saying something in Queensland that offended a gay in NSW. God only knows how, but it was thrown out. That was for saying something about gays, but the principle is the same.

If the case had not been dismissed anybody could pick and choose among the three states laws and prosecute a NSW resident for having offended him under, say, the Tasmanian legislation.

The fact remains, blaspheme against Islam and the dreaded Soupbone is after you if you live in one of the three Australian states that have blasphemy laws.

And the tide is turning – pressure is on nearly every day to include blasphemy as a federal offence. Thank heavens we have Prime Minister Turnbull to stem the tide.

Here is Pat Condell to bring you up to date with blasphemy. How the push to re-instate blasphemy is gaining strength every day.

Strange isn’t it? In Tatarstan the sayings of Mohammed are banned as extremist literature. MM had that story here.


Tatarstan is part of the Russian Federation. Lovely place. Good laws. Lovely girls.
Just thought I would throw something nice to look at as a reward for looking at Pat Condell’s mug.

{ 3 comments… add one }
  • Spinbuster 19/04/2017, 5:55 am

    Blasphemy laws are fine…. as long as everyone enjoys equal protection under the same law.

    Will my sensitivities be protected when someone says that the world was made in 6000 years in defiance of all geological data, that all mankind sprung from two people, that when you die, somehow “intact” memory cells in your brain are mysteriously transported to another dimension although the decayed cells can no longer send signals to the rest of the body, that you can somehow communicate with an “imagined being” by modulating sound waves which can only travel a few metres, that you are not allowed to wear condoms or use RU486 to avoid unwanted pregnancies, that you can establish a religion by telling people you received instruction from an angel and a bunch of gold plates dug up in upstate New York in 1823, that you cannot eat pork, that you cannot eat beef, that you must mutilate the penis of your child and hold the foreskin in your mouth while you are doing it, that you must kill food animals using archaic methods, that you must refuse blood donations on the basis of text in a 2000 y/o book, that you can claim back a whole country after thousands of years of diaspora on the basis of ancient text, …that you …to the power of …well, … Christ only knows.

    Will MY children be protected from institutionalised brainwashing encouraging acceptance of this infantile, unscientific, unsubstantiated Stone Age crap?
    Will the HRC correctly identify all religion as some form of psychosis, (Any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted.), and act accordingly?

    Oh yes, I do indeed claim protection under Soupspoons proposed amendments.

    The next time the god botherers come trekking up the garden path, showing me pictures of carnivores snuggling up to herbivores at some ethereal location they cannot define, I will be protecting my children and running straight to the HRC.
    When someone calls me by that filthy sanctimonious, marginalising, holier that though term,”atheist” I will be claiming protection from verbal abuse.

    Oh Lordy, real blasphemy laws at last …my saviour has arrived.

    • aadje 19/04/2017, 11:52 am

      Watch your language, buddy! ‘Christ only knows? Oh Lordy?’ Is that the kind of language an atheist (can we still call you that?) should be using? And another thing. Stick with ridiculing Christianity, that’s a good boy. The rest don’t really matter!

      • Spinbuster 19/04/2017, 1:10 pm

        Welcome to my world Aadje.
        With respect to all religions other than your own, and your remark, “The rest don’t really matter” you are an atheist.

        “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
        Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion.”

        As for christ and lordy in my words, they are ingrained speech mannerisms borne of years of having the words rammed down my throat.
        I reserve the right to use them at will.

Leave a Comment