Uthman Badar is entitled to be a bigot

The line separating lawful advocacy or approval of what Australian courts have called "extremist or fundamentalist" or "medieval" ideas, from unlawful action in the nature of violent jihad may well be drawn at a very early preparatory stage of conduct which may result in violence.

Theocracy and democracy

With the Biblical story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, at the forefront of Dr Longstaff's considerations, he concluded that, because some honour killings arose from a theocratic motivation, namely, obedience to Islamic law in the politico-religious context of an Islamic Caliphate, FODI should invite Mr Badar http://jacobinism.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/defending-indefensible.html#comment-form, to propound his idea.

Rejection of "Western" secularism and freedom

Just as the CPA rejected capitalism with quasi-religious doctrinal zeal, so also does Hizb ut-Tahrir reject Western secular society and its values with Islamic politico-religious zeal.

For Hizb ut-Tahrir, " … the secular law ... cannot permit what Allah prohibits or prohibit what Allah permits. Sovereignty is for Allah, not the law of any land".

For Hizb ut-Tahrir, the separation of state and church, given partial effect in s 116 of the Australian Constitution and which includes the freedom to denounce all religious ideas is, in a word, intolerable.

An appeal to Islamic justice, however "nuanced", is beside the point. As the late Ronald Dworkin observed in 2006, in the context of the violence which accompanied the Danish cartoons controversy, "religion must observe the principles of democracy, not the other way around".

Sophistry

After FODI reneged on its deal with him, Mr Badar stated that he was not advocating honour killings. Let that be accepted. What Mr Badar was doing by his chosen title was approving his idea. That was at the heart of Dr Longstaff's theocracy-related rationale for inviting Mr Badar to speak at FODI.

What "dangerous" idea?

A dangerous idea connotes one the mere public expression of which carries with it a real risk, as distinct from a far-fetched or fanciful one, of producing some imminent serious adverse social consequence(s).