In Australia... the Uk, France, Italy, new impiety laws (known by varying epithets) have been legislated into existence which, on the pretext of preventing racial and religious vilification, have become necessary to prevent Mohammedans from being "vilified" by having their religion exposed for the abomination it is. In the state of Victoria (Australia) the impiety laws are such that even if what is written is demonstrably true the author can still be prosecuted and jailed for "vilification". The truth is censored, and freedom to write the truth checked by the fear of state-sponsored persecution.

IMPIETY LAWS AND THEIR IMPACT

In 432 (BC) a law was passed in Athens that made it illegal to teach disbelief in the divine. One could believe in anything, in any god, by what ever name, but it was illegal to deny the existence of god by what ever name. The Athenian philosopher Protagoras was (according to the history that has come down to us) exiled from Athens because of what was considered a sceptical treatise on the gods; he questioned whether man is capable of knowing whether they exist. His books were officially burnt in the market place.

The consequence of "impiety" laws is the limitation imposed on intellect. The example that best serves as demonstration of intellectual strangulation is that of Aristarchus. Aristarchus of Samos, the astronomer (also known as the mathematician) was the first to posit a heliocentric model of the cosmos, to replace the geocentric model. However his ideas found disfavour with the impiety laws. His only treatise to come down to us is his On the sizes and distances of the sun and moon (T. L. Heath's translation and commentary written a century ago is still in print, and still the best authority Amazon Link ).  Although there is some debate as to whether Aristarchus did write such a treatise, Archimedes does refer to Aristarchus' treaty (so we must suppose that he wrote one). The problem Aristarchus encountered was his collision with Greek religion. Essentially, for the Greeks the idea of the divine was premised on the understanding that the earth had to be at the centre; it was the realm of imperfection and change, and to which everything was attracted (being the centre). The heavens however were perfect, eternal and unchanging. Earth was an imperfect facsimile of the cosmos. By positing a heliocentric system Aristarchus in essence gutted the entire fabric of Greek religion, and demolished the Greek understanding of the "phenomena", like why objects fall to the centre (the idea of gravity, as we understand it, was not arrived at by the Greeks). Greek impiety laws put a limit on human intellect and what human intellect might consider. They were was a constraint on seeking the truth. They were an imposition that sought to limit, and succeeded in limiting, the scope, breadth, and originality of thought.

CONTEMPORARY IMPIETY LAWS

Contemporary thought has been hijacked by a religious intelligentsia posing as secular commentators seeking to permit toleration of alternate religious theories and gods to their own Christian ones. Distinct from the past (Greek example), Christian religion has been one in which no toleration of faiths alternative to it has been permitted. The syncretism that distinguished the Greeks and which permitted them to worship any god (because it was understood it was the same god "known" differently) was forbidden - only god as expressed in the book of Judaism and its Christian addendum (the New Testament) was permissible. The heritage of the Judaeo-Christian religion has been a disaster for humanity - though one not nearly as great as the disaster of Islam. The Judaic religion demanded intolerance of other religions and of other gods. Intolerance was god-ordered on pain of divine punishment. The history of Christianity, based on the Judaic religion of intolerance has inspired humanity to commit atrocity after atrocity [ refer Hitler essay ]. It is on this understanding of the innate intolerance of the religion and the persecution of those who digressed from this religion's official dogma in the past, that contemporary European states have enacted laws to limit criticism of religion on an understanding based on their own ignorance. The religion that they are seeking to protect from criticism, Islam, is a religion considerably more intolerant, more militant, more violent, more misanthropic, more misogynistic, more anti-intellectual than their own religion had ever been [ refer Islam essay ]. And ignorance of the history of that religion (for instance how Persia came to be converted from Zoroastrianism to Islam) is unknown.  Motivated by the desire to feel remorse, in order to fulfil the Christian necessity to feel Christian guilt, the European Christian feigning empirical secularity would rather look at the Americas as the paradigm of their past actions - actions which being in the past they cannot change, but for which they feel they can atone. What is assumed to be known by the secular Christian is the tale of the conquest of the Americas by Christians and a concomitant assumption that Christianity alone has been responsible in perpetrating such actions. Christians, contrary to what they say, are betrayed by their acts of penance, however vociferously they insist that their actions instead result from their  "secular" concern of their ignoble past.

Thus, in true Christian spirit they use the past as something for which they have to pay Christian penance. For them, world events serve no purpose other than as something that they can use to whip themselves over and for which they can perform an act of penance. Instead of a secular concern, they are making their souls perfect in order to go straight to heaven. Then, they deny this.

What has resulted is a 'coalition' of sorts between Christians feigning a secular concern aligning themselves with high-profile Muslim leaders who assist them with campaigns of disinformation intended to reinforce 'western guilt' by claiming Islam to be a religion of peace. Here we have an alliance of the ignorant (Christians claiming secular motivation) and those who act with deliberate deceit (Mohammedans). A contemporary lie is being perpetuated in which it is claimed, with sincerity, that those who criticise Islam are Christians expressing the same intolerance that compelled the committing of past atrocities. And with bewildering sincerity they thus assert that those who criticise Islam are generally Christian fundamentalists or "racists"!

The problem for the world is that Fallaci is correct in her assessment of Islam.

What everyone should fear is the state's demand that religion be above criticism.

Australia is a nation which apes other nations, especially the UK. A month before Islam's "statement of intent", the 11 September atrocity against US civilians, the UK was proposing "anti vilification" laws: laws intended to prevent criticism of religion. This English idea found itself in Australia in the State of Victoria which in imitation of the English experience enacted its own version of the legislation.

Under this law a group of Mohammedans, unhappy about the truth of the violence of their religion being discussed by a Christian group, brought before the courts this Christian group, Catch the Fire. Under this law two Christian Pastors have been found guilty of vilifying Islam because they spoke the truth: they claimed that Islam is a religion of hate and violence.

The claims made by the Christians (Catch the Fire), against Muslims are mostly corroborated in the Koran [ refer Islam essay ]... The legislation
in place in the Australian state of Victoria however actually states, that anything said, even if true, which might be seen to vilify another's religion, makes anyone exposing it a criminal, whether true or not.... and the only group whom the truth seems to hurt is Mohammedans.
 

It is a rather strange principle that only initiates can quote from the Koran, use
those passages in a "prayer hall" and then deny these passages exist. And yet, a
non-initiate cannot read them out loud and say that they do exist for to do so means they will be prosecuted for exposing the lie.

I can't understand a law that makes it illegal to quote from something that
is available to everyone, a law which permits some group(s) of people to
make comment according to the state censor's criteria, but forbids others... This law deems it illegal for
those of other religions to quote passages from the Koran which call for violence because it is seen as intolerance of that religion by analysing it!
It begs the question of why only those of that faith, Muslims, can read these same passages which incite hate and not be called to answer charges that they are inciting hate against non-Muslims.

CONSEQUENCE OF IMPIETY LAWS

       ...I see the day coming when it becomes law in western societies that citizens are compelled to demonstrate respect for other faiths... ultimately even include laws that demand non-Muslim women, so as not to show disrespect to Islam, be compelled to wear some form of head dress...   ... and art, be abandoned, unless it is non-figurative decor, so it does not offend Muslim sensibilities.

                                                       This is indeed happening:
        "In Norway, where according to the newspaper Dagbladet, 65 percent of rapes last year were performed by "non-Western immigrants", a professor at Oslo University told women they must take their share of responsibility for the rapes because Muslim men found their dress provocative. "Norwegian women must realise that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it," he said. It is in such ways that long fought-for freedoms begin to erode." quoted by Pamela Bone The Age 3/9/2002

Joseph Gutnick, an Australian businessman, sued Dow Jones & Co. Inc. because it defamed him... The crux of the case
was that although Gutnick resides in Australia and the journal is in the US,  the online article could be read in Australia, and on these grounds the court ruled that it could be tried in Australia under the relevant Australian state's law because it affected his business reputation in the state he conducts business. ( http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/10/1039379819086.html?oneclick=true )

This established an international precedent. It applies globally.

What is frightening is that anyone in any part of the world might write something considered illegal in another part of the world which means that what they write can be brought before the courts of the land in which that law is broken; and the author can then be tried and convicted by that country whose laws they have transgressed. There is nothing in this precedent to limit its application to defamation alone. What I write here would probably be illegal in Saudi Arabia.  Think about it world!