Uthman Badar is entitled to be a bigot

What was the worst imaginable consequence which might have been brought about if Mr Badar had not been censored by FODI – keeping in mind that he had already advertised his unambiguous idea with some particulars (and, indeed, continues to refer to it, albeit, choosing without explanation not to expose his reasoning, nuanced or otherwise).

Mr Badar had a right to be heard if invited. If there had been a real risk that imminent violence might be used to prevent Mr Badar providing his explication at FODI, that was a matter that the law enforcement authorities were duty bound to prevent in the ordinary course of protecting Mr Badar's lawful right, and preventing civil strife. Dr Longstaff was sure there was no such risk.

Another consequence was the possibility that Mr Badar would persuade someone that murder is acceptable if it accords with the dictates of Islamic justice. But, so what? Common sense suggests that the overwhelming majority of persons living in Australia would be repelled by Mr Badar's idea – regardless of his rationale.

As for the prospect of Mr Badar's line of thinking being such that, at some future time, Australia would choose to bring itself within (or within the jurisdictional reach of) an Islamic Caliphate, the words far-fetched and fanciful fall far short of characterising the prospect of such a change.

Let truth and falsity grapple

So, let Mr Badar, who is an accomplished public contrarian, do his utmost to persuade the nation that his idea is true.

And, let the enduring wisdom of John Milton (1644), John Stuart Mill (1859), and US Supreme Court Justices Holmes and Brandeis (1925) - take your pick - have its say.

"No compelled respect"

FODI also has a right to free speech. If Mr Badar had approached FODI and insisted upon being given space and time to advance his idea in a one-sided presentation, would not FODI have been entitled to show Mr Badar the door?

Hizb ut-Tahrir and Mr Badar might be expected to agree with the general principle that a person or organization should not be compelled to express or approve or to give the appearance of approval to an idea considered to be obnoxious, for Mr Badar, say, that blasphemy has no place in a contemporary civilized society – "a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say".

Free speech misunderstood

Dr Longstaff explained that, in considering Mr Badar's idea, he was influenced by his view that "Free speech is a basic human right which is founded on the principle of 'respect for persons' - a recognition of an inalienable intrinsic dignity of all human beings . . ." That appeal to the abstractions "respect" and "dignity" exposes a major misunderstanding of the concrete reality of the legal right to express offensive ideas.