Freedom of Speech?

The Australian Federal Policy (AFP) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), have successfully established a precedent that allows Islamofascists to advocate violent Jihad against Westerners as an expression of their religious convictions. This absurd judgment came after several suspect Sydney Islamic bookstores were investigated for selling material that "carried an endorsement from Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden on its back cover and promoted 'wiring up one's body' with explosives." Moreover, seized material also described non-Muslims as "pigs and dogs" and justified killing innocent people in the name of Jihad. Despite the insistence of the Islamic Lobby that these texts constitute a legitimate freedom of expression, there is a clear violation of Australia's Sedition Laws. I specifically draw the reader's attention to Subdivision 80.2 of the legislation that specifically criminalises urging violence within the community:

(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or violence against another group or other groups (as so distinguished)

Additionally, it is now specifically illegal to [urge] a person to assist the enemy:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph 80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.
Or to [urge] a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities:

(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force."
Presently, the Australian Defense Force is engaged in armed hostilities with Al Qaeda.

There is an alarming asymmetry within the Australian judiciary in its handling of free speech. Australian Muslims enjoy a virtually unlimited right of expression, unrestricted by existing incitement laws. Yet, groups critical of the potential Islamic insurrection are subject to judicial restraint. For example, two years ago, a Christian minister was ordered to retract an online statement that accused Muslims of ideologically supporting terrorism. Furthermore, those who do engage the Islamic Lobby often face intimidation and threats of violence.

The sole detraction of democracy is its susceptibility to subversion; the Nazis were elected on an unambiguously democratic platform. Australia needs to seriously review its freedom of expression laws, assert federal control of existing sedition laws and reconsider its immigration policy. Specifically, how compatible is Islam with Australian values?