The Jyllands-Posten also held the line, despite death threats from these religious thugs, saying that

We will not apologise, because we live in Denmark under Danish law, and we have freedom of speech in this country. If we apologised, we would betray the generations who have fought for this right, and the moderate Muslims who are democratically minded.

Nevertheless, Carsten Juste, the editor in chief of Jyllands-Posten, was despondent, concluding

... that no one will draw the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark in the next generation, and therefore I must say with deep shame that they have won.

I have a different take: so long as those who love freedom have access to the net these Islamo-fascists* will never win. Unfortunately they have, at least for the moment, already won one victory in Victoria. May Helou and Diane Sisely, two members of our Orwellian Equal Opportunities Commission, successfully conspired to use the state’s anti-free speech laws to persecute two Christian pastors for accurately quoting from the Koran.

In the full knowledge of what this pair of calculating conspirators did the EOC commissioners and the ominously sounding Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal forced a show trial presided over by Judge Michael ’Vyshinski’ Higgins. In the words of one observer:

There were many indications in His Honour’s [Higgins] judgement that he apparently did not follow certain key theological issues in the case, nor did he follow or understand much of the evidence. In the Notice of Appeal it is asserted there were 106 such errors.  In its editorial of Friday, June 24th 2005, the Herald Sun rightly said of the Act that it was bad law and was always going to be bad law and that "the law strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. (Charles Francis, AM, QC, RFD, Bracks’ religious tolerance laws)

Mr Francis also observed that the

Penalties imposed on the two pastors were entirely out of proportion to any alleged offence. Inter alia, they were required to place apologies in newspapers which would have cost them some $70,000. The case demonstrated what should be obvious, namely that judges and administrative tribunals are not qualified to determine religious or theological matters and that the State has no business encroaching into matters of religious belief. (Ibid.)

I think Mr Francis’ legal observations make it clear that Higgins’ conduct justifies his removal from the bench. It seems clear to me that while he remains there our right to free speech will be under constant threat. Perhaps that is why Premier Bracks is happy with his services?

(A couple of lawyers did confide to me that they thought Higgins’ behaviour was “disgraceful”, the proceedings a “travesty” and the verdict “shameful”).

The vindictive prosecution of these pastors raises the question of whether Bracks’ infamous Dhimmi laws can be used to ban the Koran on the grounds it is hate speech that promotes intolerance, misogyny, murder, rape, slavery and plundering.

What raised this tantalising prospect is Abu Hamza who is currently on trial in London. “Hookey”, as the tabloids call him, is being tried for soliciting the murder of infidels — meaning people like us. His lawyer made the novel argument that this fanatical imam should not be on trial at all because he “was actually preaching from the Koran itself”.

Now isn’t this interesting. A Muslim thug’s own Queens Counsel admits that the Koran not only countenances murder but encourages it. According to this line of argument religious goons like Hamz have a right to incite their congregation to commit murder and sedition so long as they cite the Koran in justify their barbarism.

Fortunately Bracks’ Dhimmis overlooked the possibility that their anti-free speech laws could be used against the Muslim Islamo-fascists that influence the EOC. This means that any citizen has the right to complain that the Koran counts as hate speech and should be banned. There would be only two avenues of escape for these lying hypocrites: they would either have to ignore such complaints, thus making the abominable vilification Act a dead letter law, or they would have to declare that Islamic hate speech is protected by law?

At the same time as Danish cartoonist have been driven into hiding by murderous Islamo-fascists two Australian Christian pastors are being relentlessly persecuted by Bracks’ Government at the behest of Muslim bigots. No wonder Victoria is now mockingly called Brackistan. Yet the swine who engineered this violation of our fundamental rights have themselves gone into hiding to avoid being held publicly accountable for their despicable behaviour. (These totalitarians can dish it out but they cannot take it).

Meanwhile Victoria’s Liberal Party lies morally comatosed thanks to the cowards that the Kroger gang foisted on the membership. Worst of all, the pusillanimous Robert Doyle, the Party’s so-called leader and Kroger sock-puppet, admits that in principle he approves of these oppressive laws. Fortunately it now looks like this fearless fighter for free speech will not be leader for much longer.

Once again it has been left to the little people to defend their rights. While disdainful multimillionaire Party members like Michael Kroger and Hugh Morgan hold soirees in their Toorak mansions to decide who gets what in the Party some ordinary members are taking action at their own expense. These are people who, unlike the Party’s nabobs, understand that ultimately liberty is the only currency that counts.

I am referring to Liberals for Free Speech, a group that is finally taking shape and intends to not only challenge Bracks’ Muslim blasphemy laws but insist that Liberal Party leaders stand up and be counted. (I can guarantee one thing: this group will get no support from the cynical Kroger and his rich ‘Liberal’ pals). My God, if the Prime Minister of Denmark has the guts to stand up and defend free speech then why can’t Liberal politicians imitate his courageous example?

Bracks’ religious tolerance laws

Bracks’ Star Chamber commission applies the law selectively against Christians in favour of Muslim bigots

Muslim bigots impose blasphemy laws on Victoria

*My use of the term Islamo-fascist has been criticised as either meaningless or even plain nonsense. The first thing to bear in mind is that the Islamic terrorist movement is totalitarian. In that respect it belongs to the same political genus or family as fascism, Nazism and Marxism, while still being a different species. This is because it has all of those characteristics that define what totalitarianism is.

Let me draw on nature for an example of what I mean. There are eight species of bears, two of which are the polar bear and the Malayan sun bear. Despite the huge physical differences between them they are still bears and they are still dangerous.

Now it is true that Islamic terrorists are not fascist in the sense that Mussolini imagined the term, in that respect critics are right. Nevertheless they are still missing the point. The term Islamo-fascist performs the valuable function of helping to define the enemy by drawing attention to his totalitarian nature.

I’ll admit that Islamo-Nazi is probably more appropriate, and it is a term I have favoured, but Islamo-fascist is what we are stuck with unless someone can conjure up a word that comes closer to capturing the nature of the enemy while garnering popular acceptance.

Gerard Jackson is Brookes’ economics editor