A Netfriend responds:

I am wondering what the evidence is for the sweeping statement that “religious vilification legislation is a disaster”. The legislation varies from state to state. Some contributors to this list have already provided evidence that the CFM material was somewhat inflammatory. Some of the ways of avoiding being accused of vilification of a particular group is to write about that group (a) using one’s pastoral skills such as attending and empathy so that you give an account that they can recognise as stating what they have said (b) to write the material assuming that they will be in the audience (c) using the same rules that you would want that group to use in describing what YOU believe, and/or (d) following the basic canons of academic description and analysis, such as ensuring that you have adequate and appropriate evidence fro your claims and avoid appeals to the emotions. It seems to me, from the samples that have been supplied to the list, that CFM failed to use any of those methods.