| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| Verdict in 'Vilifying Islam' Case Exposes Christian Fault Lines |
| 2004-12-20 |
| An Australian state tribunal's finding that two pastors had vilified Muslims looks set to widen the divide in the country's Christian community between liberal mainstream church representatives who lauded the ruling and evangelicals who argued that it constituted a dangerous threat to free speech and freedom to evangelize. Critics of the tribunal decision in the state of Victoria called for the repeal of the controversial legislation that made it possible. In the first case of its kind under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act -- introduced three years ago by the state's Labor Party government -- pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found Friday to have incited "hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of" Muslims. The complaints arose from a 2002 seminar addressed by Scot, a newsletter article by Nalliah and an article posted on the website of Nalliah's organization, Catch the Fire Ministries. The case was brought against them by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV). The two defended their actions, saying they had merely informed Christians about Islamic teachings, based on the Koran and other Islamic texts. ... Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace also slammed Higgins' finding, saying it presumably meant that Australians would be unable to quote from another religion's texts and discuss them without legal repercussions. People have always been free to publicly debate the Bible, but this decision seems to indicate that this same freedom does not extend to other religious texts," Wallace said. "This decision means that a person can not hold a view of the Koran that is contrary to the 'official view' -- however one determines that." ... The religious ideas and interpretations raised during the hearing had been in the public domain for years, he said. "They have been documented in books, on the Internet, discussed in the academic world, and in churches and mosques since time immemorial. Since religions make claims to truth and morality, they should be subject to scrutiny and challenge." ... Critics pointed to what they saw as several ironies in the case. One was the fact that the Pakistan-born Scot was one of the early victims of his homeland's notorious blasphemy laws in the mid-1980s. He fled Pakistan under threat of prosecution for allegedly insulting the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, and made a new home in Australia, a Western democracy with a strong Christian heritage. Another irony was seen when Scot during the tribunal hearing quoted references from the Koran and other texts about the inferior status of women in Islam, he was asked by the female lawyer acting for the ICV to give only the references, because reading the verses out aloud in the courtroom constituted vilification. "How can it be vilifying to Muslims in the [court]room when I am just reading from the Koran?" Scot asked the tribunal -- a question observers said basically could have applied to the entire case. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #4 Does anyone know the flowpath of judicial appeals in Australia? I typically don't get too concerned about local court rulings because there's always some moonbat judge hitting the hooch too hard. It's once the appeals and supreme courts weigh in that you get the true flavor of what direction a society is drifting. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2004-12-20 4:39:04 PM |
| #3 And this wasn't speech that was out in the public square. Muslims deliberately attended the meetings at the church in order to "catch" these guys breaking the law. How is this fact not at all a point of law in the case? How can there be a case when the muslims went out of their way to attend the meeting with the intention of bringing a case against the group? If they had not attended they would not have been offended. Who made them go? How are these people victims? Has the world just gone completely mad? |
| Posted by: peggy 2004-12-20 4:35:50 PM |
| #2 The "thoughtcrime" and one-sidedness of these "laws" in OZ land are so stupid as to almsot defy speaking about them. First they trump up charges, then they refuse to let the person fully defend thier position by limiting his speech in revealing the bigoty built into fundamentalis "literal" Islam. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-12-20 3:45:47 PM |
| #1 Another irony was seen when Scot during the tribunal hearing quoted references from the Koran and other texts about the inferior status of women in Islam, he was asked by the female lawyer acting for the ICV to give only the references, because reading the verses out aloud in the courtroom constituted vilification. "How can it be vilifying to Muslims in the [court]room when I am just reading from the Koran?" Scot asked the tribunal -- a question observers said basically could have applied to the entire case. This is exactly how the P.C./Thought police are going to sell us ALL out to the Islamofascists! I can't believe that Australia's heading down this path first and so quickly though. Get ready for dhimmi status! I know who I'm more pissed at in this case, but it's hard to know who to be angrier at: the Islamofascists for crying "I'm offended," or the P.C. politicos for caving in and passing such a law in the first place. |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-20 3:36:24 PM |