Australia: Guilty of quoting the Bible
The scriptural quotation below is accurately summarized
Gun lobbyist Ron Owen has been told he is entitled to express his homophobic views, but that he went too far with the bumper sticker: "Gay Rights? Under God's law the only rights gays have is the right to die." Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Tribunal found Mr Owen guilty of inciting hatred against homosexuals with the bumper sticker when he parked his car outside the Cooloola Shire Council officers in Gympie, north of Brisbane.
Tribunal member Darryl Rangiah handed down a 77-page decision, which also ordered Mr Owen to publish a written apology for inciting hatred and causing offence to the homosexual community of Gympie. Mr Rangiah acknowledged Mr Owen's right to free speech, but said he had gone too far with the bumper sticker and in ensuing comments made during a television interview, in a report to a subsequent council meeting and in a letter on his website. "Ron Owen is entitled to be a homophobe and he is entitled to publicly express his homophobic views," he said. "That much is required in a society that values freedom of thought and expression. However there are limits." [So how can he "publicly express his homophobic views" if even a bumper sticker is illegal?]
The tribunal ruled that Mr Owen - while not the registered owner of the car - had use of it and that the sticker went "beyond a mere joke". "The ordinary member of the public would, in my opinion, understand that he or she was being urged to hate and to have serious contempt for homosexuals," Mr Rangiah said. [That's what the Bible does too]
Source
22 comments:
Oh, the hypocrisy! "You have the right to express your views, unless they are offensive or hateful, in which case you don't have that right."
I personally think his message is hateful by suggesting gays should die but this ruling is chilling. A society either believes in free speech or it doesn't. There is no middle ground.
This is completely understandable since the rate of Christian persecution is steadily growing. Had the bumper sticker referenced a verse from the Koran, this would simply not have been an issue.
I agree that the message is hateful, and from a Biblical point homosexuality is a sin and a mans sins are between him and God. It is Gods position to punish, not man.
While I think honosexuality is against the laws of God and nature, viewing such a display as this bumper sticker does NOT make me want to go out and kill homosexuals. Nor do I think it will push any rational person over the edge and turn them into killers.
Free speech is free speech, either you beleive in it and uphold it.... For EVERYONE or you suppress it and deny it from EVERYONE.
In this case it sounds like what they are saying is that he has the right to say what he wants in the privacy of his own home but not on the streets of Australlia. I wonder if it would have been a pro muslim bumper sticker stating "Death To Infidels" how far it would have gone?
So he was guilty of driving in a car with a bumper sticker that doesn't violate his right to free speech and fined for doing that despite the car (and thus the sticker and the speech) not even being his?
I agree that the message is hateful, and from a Biblical point homosexuality is a sin and a mans sins are between him and God. It is Gods position to punish, not man.
I agree with this but Lev 20:13 sets out the punishment that God has put forth.
Lev20:13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (emphasis added)
Is calling for the deaths of homosexual men inciteful?
Maybe. I would argue that calling for the death of anyone that has not been convicted of a crime can be seen as inciteful. I would argue that speech advocating violence against any group can be seen as inciteful.
Speech that incites violence is not protected.
So they call it "Anti-Discrimination Tribunal" down-under, but it's just what Canadians have been fighting as "Human Rights Commissions (Tribunals)". The speed with which this intolerance of dissent has spread is breath-taking.
"I agree that the message is hateful, and from a Biblical point homosexuality is a sin and a mans sins are between him and God. It is Gods position to punish, not man.
I agree with this but Lev 20:13 sets out the punishment that God has put forth.
Lev20:13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (emphasis added)
Is calling for the deaths of homosexual men inciteful?
Maybe. I would argue that calling for the death of anyone that has not been convicted of a crime can be seen as inciteful. I would argue that speech advocating violence against any group can be seen as inciteful.
Speech that incites violence is not protected."
So are you saying you think the guy was rightfully convicted and that the Bible itself incites violence? Why is it that no one is responsible for their own actions?
If you’re having a hard time paying bills and I kiddingly tell you to go rob a bank is that incitful? If you actually rob that bank should I go to prison for inciting you?
Charlie Manson claimed Beatles records told him to do what he did, should the Beatles be convicted of a crime? I picked Manson because he is obviously nuts and obviously the Beatles never told him to do it… but he thought they did!!
People can get any meaning out of whatever they want. My take on the verse in Leviticus (shall surely be put to death ) is that homosexuals will surely die by being cast in the lake of fire on judgment day. In my opinion it does not seem to infer that people should kill them. I base my interpretation on my understanding of the Bible as a whole. Others may cherry pick a verse and claim its meaning is X when really if it is left in context it means Y. Very easy to do.
My point is that speech is speech, does not matter if you agree with that speech or not…. Actions are actions and regardless of what “made” a person take a particular action is irrelevant, the person still made the choice of taking that action. If a person takes an action of their own free will, then what bumper sticker they read or video game they played or movie they watched does not make them any less responsible for that action. It is NOT the responsibility of others to watch what they say or do as to not "set you off".
Lastly “Speech that incites violence is not protected”… don’t know about Australia but the U.S. Constitution does NOT distinguish between types of speech so therefore it IS protected in the U.S.!!!
Uhh... Everyone has the right to die.
typical of the bleeding hearts to only take the message in a hateful manner.
I read it as gays have no extra rights under God's law.
That rule should apply to everyone in my opinion.
The book of Leviticus was God giving his law to the Jews. When Jesus came, he came to fulfill the laws of the Old Testement and by His dying he paid the price for all our sins, if we accept him as our Savior and repent of our sin. So I don't think anyone would be correct in taking gays out & stoning them to death. Jesus also said not to judge lest you be judged also. Do I thinks gays are living right? No. Is it my place to condemn them? Again, no. If everyone took the time to clean up their own house insted of trying to take care of someone else's, we all would probably be better off.
So are you saying you think the guy was rightfully convicted and that the Bible itself incites violence?
I have reread my post and cannot find where I made that assertion.
I will however, say that there is a chance that a "freedom of speech" argument is not applicable here.
Lastly “Speech that incites violence is not protected”… don’t know about Australia but the U.S. Constitution does NOT distinguish between types of speech so therefore it IS protected in the U.S.!!!
The SCOTUS has said otherwise. Speech that incites is not protected. There are additional tests that can be applied, but your assertion that speech that incites is protected in all cases is incorrect.
anonymous 3:49,
"I would argue that calling for the death of anyone that has not been convicted of a crime can be seen as inciteful."
This particular verse was just one in a long series of laws given to the Jews by God. These were not instructions for people to go out homo hunting, but part of the law to be enforced as any other civil law. A person accused of a crime was to be brought before a judge, evidence given, a judgement rendered, and, if found guilty, a punishment assigned. In this case, if a man was found guilty of engaging in relations with another man, the appropriate punishment was to be death.
In other words a homosexual could only be put to death if he actually committed the act (not merely claimed an "orientation") and he was found guilty at a trial.
FYI, if a witness intentionally told a lie (committed perjury) in an attempt to get someone convicted and punished, the false witness would receive the punishment he intended to have inflicted on the person he falsely accused. (Deut. 19:16-19) Also, anyone who had knowledge about a case was required to testify. (Lev. 5:1)
We no longer put people to death for homosexuality, and even if it were official government law, individuals who kill someone because they're "gay" are guilty of murder. On the other hand, when God calls for the death penalty for a certain sin, it's pretty clear that God considers such sins to be absolutely serious.
The bottom line is that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and all other sex outside of marriage in no uncertain terms in both the Old and New Testaments. While the bumper sticker is obnoxious and abrasive, it is also accurate.
The bigger threat here is not the bumper sticker, but the arrogant suppression of free speech and the search for the truth and the best possible moral code.
"Ron Owen is entitled to be a homophobe...."
liberals keep on using that term. i do not think it means what they think it means.
The SCOTUS has said otherwise. Speech that incites is not protected. There are additional tests that can be applied, but your assertion that speech that incites is protected in all cases is incorrect.
Actually, it is:
The court amended its "clear and present danger" test in determining when speech could become criminal in 1957, when it required proof that the speaker was advocating potentially violent activity, and again in 1969. In the later ruling, the court ruled that inciting violence is permissible unless the speech is linked to "imminent lawless action" and is likely to incite it.
CNN On Free Speech
Note: I used CNN since its liberal leanings are well established, and therefore most liberals only have to commit ONE degree of dissonance to dismiss it. It's easier on their psyches!
ed,
Thank you for your well reasoned response.
I understand the religious background of what the bumper sticker said. I am not sure that means that someone else would.
It seems to me that to the uninitiated, the bumper sticker is calling for the elimination of all rights for gays (right to vote, freedom of speech, etc) and replacing them with the "right" to be killed according to Leviticus.
The bigger threat here is not the bumper sticker, but the arrogant suppression of free speech and the search for the truth and the best possible moral code.
If you read the article, it seems that the guy in question was not "convicted" just for the bumper sticker. That is what is missing from this entire discussion.
Here are some of his other comments made during council meetings, tv interviews, and on his website:
When questioned in council about the sticker, Owen said, “if a person chooses to follow non-human acts, if they break the law, they lose their human rights.”
It was a sentiment Owen maintained during an interview with Channel Seven, during which he lamented the burden of the “Sodomites’ disease” placed on the public health system.
“I think that they know they are going to die very shortly. I mean AIDS is pretty prevalent,” Owen said.
The Tribunal also made note of a letter Owen published on the website www.lockstockandbarrel.org which further vilified the gay community.
“Any person who commits acts that no ignorant animal would commit, declares war on his community and therefore may be destroyed,” Owen wrote.
It is clear that the guy is at the very least a hatemonger. Whether that hate crossed the line into "speech that incites"(here in the US) is unclear as we don't have all the facts. I believe that he is at the very least dangerously close to that line.
And just so you know, I disagree with the penalty that was imposed on him. The monies to the two women (one who never saw the bumper sticker) is totally wrong. Him having to "apologize" and "admit that his actions were against the law" to me is a violation of his free speech as well. I am a long believer in that one of the rights contained in "free speech" is the right to shut up and remain silent. The government requiring speech is just as bad as the government limiting speech.
I went back and checked the linked articles. I only saw the first quote you listed. Were the articles edited?
All three articles focused on the bumper sticker and gave the impression that he would have been convicted solely on the fact that it offended some people.
Based on the articles, he apparently projected an attitude and said things which could be construed as incitement if he was just preaching on a street corner or something like that. In this case, his comments were apparently solicited in response to the hoopla over the bumper sticker.
Since he apparently was not going out and trying to convince people to go homo hunting, that attitude, as bad as it is, is his personal opinion, not incitement. Asking his opinion then slamming him for his answer smacks of thought police tactics more than responding to actual crimes committed.
Punishing opinions as "thought crimes" strikes me as one of the key elements of tyranny, because a tyrannical government can, and often does, use such legislation to shut down legitimate debates, and impose a position without regard for the validity of that position. Therefore, unless the accused is clearly guilty of actually committing a crime, I would tend to err on the side of opposing a thought crime conviction, even if the opinion is unpopular. "The level of support that the complainants received from the broader community suggests that Mr Owen's public actions were not only unlawful but also out of step with the views of Gympie residents."
Furthermore, even if someone is trying to convince someone else of his opinion—such as "homosexual behavior is wrong"—that doesn't rise to the level of incitement unless he is attempting to convince the listener to commit a crime. There is a huge difference between "Homosexuals deserve death, so let's get the law changed" and "Homosexuals deserve death, so go kill some." The first is an appeal to apply legitimate means, and the second is an appeal to break the law.
Stan B,
I am confused here. You disagree with my statement that speech that incites is not protected in all cases and then proceed to give a citation that says that speech that incites is not protected in all cases.
Ed,
I went back and checked the linked articles. I only saw the first quote you listed. Were the articles edited?
The article from which I obtained the quotes is here:
http://tinyurl.com/43qq2c
All three articles focused on the bumper sticker and gave the impression that he would have been convicted solely on the fact that it offended some people.
I disagree with your characterization of this.
From the article on the front page of this blog:
Mr Rangiah acknowledged Mr Owen's right to free speech, but said he had gone too far with the bumper sticker and in ensuing comments made during a television interview, in a report to a subsequent council meeting and in a letter on his website.
From:
http://tinyurl.com/4tul5g
The tribunal found he had displayed a bumper sticker on a vehicle, published a report to the Cooloola Shire Council where he was a former councillor, made a comment in a television interview and published a letter on a website - all of which incited hatred, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of homosexuals.
I did find one article that only mentioned the bumper sticker. It would be great to actually read the opinion to see what it says. I hate having to rely on the media to sift through things and then write what they feel is the important part.
Furthermore, even if someone is trying to convince someone else of his opinion—such as "homosexual behavior is wrong"—that doesn't rise to the level of incitement unless he is attempting to convince the listener to commit a crime.
I think we are going to disagree here on this. Encouraging others to kill someone, encouraging others to deprive people of their rights, etc, is incitment.
However, as I noted earlier, in the US there is another test to be applied and that is whether the incitement to commit the crime is "imminent." I believe that his statements were inciting, but not imminently inciting. It is that "imminent" line that was not crossed. Yet I am forced to acknowledge that the tests we are quoting on "inciting speech" are US tests, and the laws and Constitution of Australia may be and probably are different.
I'll repeat myself..... he was dangerously close to the edge with the typs of rhetoric he was using.
Whether that rhetoric crossed the line is more of a decision based in Australian law than we are versed in.
Ed,
I went back and checked the linked articles. I only saw the first quote you listed. Were the articles edited?
The article from which I obtained the quotes is here:
http://tinyurl.com/43qq2c
All three articles focused on the bumper sticker and gave the impression that he would have been convicted solely on the fact that it offended some people.
I disagree with your characterization of this.
From the article on the front page of this blog:
Mr Rangiah acknowledged Mr Owen's right to free speech, but said he had gone too far with the bumper sticker and in ensuing comments made during a television interview, in a report to a subsequent council meeting and in a letter on his website.
From:
http://tinyurl.com/4tul5g
The tribunal found he had displayed a bumper sticker on a vehicle, published a report to the Cooloola Shire Council where he was a former councillor, made a comment in a television interview and published a letter on a website - all of which incited hatred, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of homosexuals.
I did find one article that only mentioned the bumper sticker. It would be great to actually read the opinion to see what it says. I hate having to rely on the media to sift through things and then write what they feel is the important part.
Furthermore, even if someone is trying to convince someone else of his opinion—such as "homosexual behavior is wrong"—that doesn't rise to the level of incitement unless he is attempting to convince the listener to commit a crime.
I think we are going to disagree here on this. Encouraging others to kill someone, encouraging others to deprive people of their rights, etc, is incitment.
However, as I noted earlier, in the US there is another test to be applied and that is whether the incitement to commit the crime is "imminent." I believe that his statements were inciting, but not imminently inciting. It is that "imminent" line that was not crossed. Yet I am forced to acknowledge that the tests we are quoting on "inciting speech" are US tests, and the laws and Constitution of Australia may be and probably are different.
I'll repeat myself..... he was dangerously close to the edge with the typs of rhetoric he was using.
Whether that rhetoric crossed the line is more of a decision based in Australian law than we are versed in.
"Encouraging others to kill someone, encouraging others to deprive people of their rights, etc, is incitment."
Yes it is. It's incitement to commit a crime. It seems like we agree.
It seems that you may also be suggesting that denying someone a "right" through legitimate legal means is also a crime.
Whether same sex marriage is a "right" IS the central question of the whole debate. Assuming that the question has been settled when it clearly has not been, then punishing those who disagree is illegitimate at best.
Actually it was a settled question until the push began to legitimize homosexuality. It seems to me that those who attempt to change what has been proven to work should bear the greater burden, not the defenders.
"From:
http://tinyurl.com/4tul5g"
Even that article didn't include the quotes you cited.
Question: Was the interview, the statements in councel and on his web site in response to the excitement over the bumper sticker, or separate incidents of trying to spread his beliefs? According to the article jonjayray linked to, they were all responses, not him picking a fight:
"Mr Rangiah acknowledged Mr Owen's right to free speech, but said he had gone too far with the bumper sticker and in ensuing comments made during a television interview, in a report to a subsequent council meeting and in a letter on his website."
"Even that article didn't include the quotes you cited."
Oops. I just realized that I hadn't checked your first link, which is where the quotes appeared. I was wrong on that. However, that does not negate the point that he apparently made those statements in response to the mess surrounding the bumper sticker.
Now that I've looked at the quotes again, I can see his point, though made in inflammatory terms. (Isn't it interesting that these incendiary quotes were listed only in the article which seems to have a pro homosexual bias, as indicated by the use of the inaccurate term "homophobe.")
First of all, AIDS is a burden on the health care system, one which can be easily avoided. It's also most prevalent, and is spread most often by homosexuals. That problem is caused solely by behaviors which are freely chosen. (Sexual orientation is not the same thing as keeping it in your pants.) Because it's such a huge public health issue, there is a legitimate reason for government to act to limit the spread of AIDS, which necessarily means limiting behavior.
As for the statement which seems to be incitement, there are two problems. First, what was the context of the statement? Did he simply overstate his case in one sentence? Was he talking about government action or vigilante action? I can't tell. Second, that context appears to be gone. The Lock Stock and Barrel web site has apparently been disabled. There's no way to confirm the statement or its context.
ed,
Allow me to address the points in your last post and work my way up.
However, that does not negate the point that he apparently made those statements in response to the mess surrounding the bumper sticker.
I am not sure that I agree with that. Clearly this is one of those times where dates and context would be of great help. It seems to me that this is a case where the dam broke surrounding the question of the bumper sticker, but the water behind the dam caused damage as well. If the bumper sticker were the only issue, I do not think that he would have been convicted or at least been convicted to and not fined to the extent he was. Clearly his other statements added fuel to the fire.
By the way, the report from the Commission can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/4vu5v4
Whether same sex marriage is a "right" IS the central question of the whole debate.
It is funny that you mention that. I never took the bumper sticker to mean that. I took it to mean denying all rights.
It seems that you may also be suggesting that denying someone a "right" through legitimate legal means is also a crime.
No. People should not be "denied" rights. They can lose them as in the case of a convict or something similar. In that case they lose certain rights such as the right to vote, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, etc, even to the point of the "right to life" itself.
I disagree with the message on the bumper sticker because to me it is calling for the abolition of ALL rights of gays. It is saying that they do not have the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to move freely, the right to vote, etc. The only "right" they have is that to be put to death.
In other words, I view "only" in the statement of "the only rights gays..." is taken to mean "to the exclusion of all other rights."
Even if you want to say "under God's laws" as a qualifier, we both agree that in the Old Testament, God granted other laws, rights and responsibilities to the people.
Take a few minutes and read the Commission's report. Using the laws they cited, Owen's conviction seems pretty sound. However, that does not mean that I agree with the laws themselves and if I were an Aussie, I would be working to change those laws.
Post a Comment