Uthman Badar is entitled to be a bigot

The law of defamation not only protects but actively encourages speech that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule and contempt provided that a comment (a) is on a matter of public interest, (b) is honestly held, and (c) is based on facts truly stated or indicated, or which are notorious.

In the FODI 2014 context, Mr Badar's idea – approving murder – might be, and in substance has been, condemned as being odious, medieval, shocking, loathsome, and barbaric. Some responses have involved a less caustic reaction, the use of vernacular ridicule to the effect that the idea is just too silly for words, and/or that anyone who believed in such an idea should have her or his head read.

And, not surprisingly, other responses have, in substance, contended that, by expressing his idea, Mr Badar was showing himself to be a bigot – which, despite the torrents of abuse directed at the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth for saying so, is a right which Mr Badar shares with everyone else.

To his credit, Dr Longstaff was seeking to enable an audience to understand why a particular type of murder occurs. There is a clear public interest in having light cast on that subject, including by Mr Badar fully explaining why he approves his idea.

But, in deciding to provide what Dr Longstaff perceived as a theocratic-based "insight" - in a one-sided presentation - FODI exposed itself to the risk that it was giving the appearance of approving murder. Even if that was not a concern to FODI, there was an inherent prospect that its decision might blow-up in FODI's face. That need not have occurred.

Public discussion

Posing the question, "Are honour killings morally justified?", which Dr Longstaff did consider, would not necessarily get over the problem of not wanting to be associated in express or implied approval of the affirmative case.

As others have suggested, the title, "What explains why honour killings occur?" would have served the public interest in furthering understanding of Islamic justice. It is difficult to imagine why, if he were to be asked, Mr Badar would not agree to that.

Ironically, he had suggested a far better title, "The West Needs Saving by Islam", better because it was wider and because it would have enabled him to use his approval of honour killings to exemplify the compelling moral basis of Islamic justice.

Reality

Australians tolerate actual advocacy of murder not amounting to criminal incitement. This is clearly demonstrated, for example, by recent angry public exhortations that politicians, climate change deniers and certain non-believers be put to death simply for expressing their beliefs.

Self-inflicted woe