MEDIA RELEASE 17 December 2004

Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney

Black day for free speech and religious liberty

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) today upheld the complaint by the Islamic Council of Victoria that Catch the Fire Ministries (CFM) and Christian pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah had vilified Muslims. Judge Michael Higgins found that the defendents had breached Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.

“This decision has enormous significance for Christian people, churches and church-based agencies across Australia” Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Rod Benson, said. “It strikes a deliberate blow at religious liberty, freedom of expression and democracy.

“Salman Rushdie was correct in saying that there is no such thing as the right not to be offended. We live in a free society, and until today I believed people in Australia were free to express opinions about religious matters, even when those opinions were strongly contested. Now that freedom is under threat from the state.

“This isn’t about Christians versus Muslims, or vice versa,” Mr Benson said. “This is about curtailing freedom of speech with respect to religion.

“I would like to think the Act was fashioned with good intentions, but as it stands, the Victorian law is deplorable and un-Australian, and must be repealed. Australians everywhere should oppose this law and the introduction of similar legislation in other states and territories.

“Christians do need to express their religious views in a spirit of respect and love. But the Christian faith is by nature an exclusivist faith. The Bible claims that Jesus Christ is the only path to God. The hope of the world lies in following his way. Jesus commanded his followers to pass on the biblical message of salvation through him alone.

“The surprising response from some mainline churches in favour of this verdict demonstrates an apparent failure to fully comprehend the radical claims of Christ, and a misunderstanding of the evangelistic and apologetic imperatives that lie at the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Mr Benson said.

“If nothing else, today’s verdict will politicize evangelical Christians around Australia, who will now stand up and defend their democratic rights and religious liberty in the face of strident secularist and anti-Christian opposition,” he said.

The verdict

Comments made by Scot and Nalliah at a seminar in March 2002, the content of a newsletter on the CFM website, and a website article written by a third person all breached section 8 of the Act, Judge Higgins said.

“It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims’ religious beliefs,” Judge Higgins said. “It was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their God, Allah, the prophet Mohammed and in general Muslim religious beliefs and practices.”

Judge Higgins said that during the seminar, Pastor Scot had claimed that the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons. Pastor Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun western democracy by violence and terror and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation, and he exaggerated Muslim population numbers in Australia.

Section 8 of the Act states that in Victoria “A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.” The Act defines “engage in conduct” as including use of the internet or email to publish or transmit statements or other material. Significantly, section 9 of the Act states that “the person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.”

CFM now faces a maximum penalty of $30,000, while Scot and Nalliah each face fines of up to $6000 or six months jail. A full reason for the judge’s decision is expected to be handed down within the next fortnight, including any penalties he chooses to impose. The defendants may appeal the VCAT decision in the High Court.

This is the first such case to be heard by VCAT since the Act took effect on 1 January 2002, and constitutes a major test of the Victorian law.

The law appears to contravene both Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching …”

The responses

Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot spoke to the media following the decision hearing and stated that they will continue to stand up for religious freedom and freedom of speech in Australia. They said the decision would have major implications for the critique of the religious texts of other religions.

“The decision is very significant,” Victorian Equal Opportunity chief executive Dr Helen Szoke said. “It demonstrates where the line is drawn between legitimate public debate and behaviour that incites hatred.”

The Islamic Council of Victoria issued a press release claiming the verdict was “a win for religious debate.” Waleed Aly, a spokesperson for the Islamic Council, said that Australian Muslims would be pleased with the result. “Muslims have followed the case very closely. When your places of worship are described as ‘Satan’s strongholds’, you sit up and take notice.”

The Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania welcomed today’s ruling, saying it sends a warning to groups who seek to use religion to promote hatred and hostility of those with different religious beliefs. “We are concerned about small Christian extremist groups in the Victorian community that are damaging the reputation and good name of the broader Christian community,” Dr Mark Zimzak said.

“In our view, the beliefs and actions of groups like Catch the Fire Ministries do not represent the broad view of Christian belief [in Victoria], where respect, tolerance and acceptance are the hallmarks of daily religious life,” he said.

“It is my strong opinion that the decision given by the Tribunal was not the correct one,” Dr Gordon Moyes, member of the NSW Upper House and Superintendent of Wesley Mission, said. “As of today in Victoria, religious freedom of speech has been outlawed. It is my firm belief that religious freedom of speech is a basic tenet of a democratic nation. It is a basic human right to have the ability to decide whether and what religious faith one may adhere to. This also involves the critical examination and assessment of belief systems in general,” Dr Moyes said.

“People have always been free to publicly debate the Bible,” Jim Wallace, Executive Chairman of Australian Christian Lobby, said. “But this decision seems to indicate that this same freedom does not extend to other religious texts. 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,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Chairman of Australian Christian Lobby.

“This decision is likely to cause a massive outcry, not just from the Christian community but from Australians everywhere who value their free speech. It will be interesting to see whether this decision and the Victorian law prove to be unconstitutional,” Mr Wallace said.

Speaking in 2003 on religious discrimination in general, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney Robert Forsyth said that “People of good will, of religious commitment or none, need to be committed to a society which allows genuine freedom even if at times this has tensions with the good of cultural harmony.”

Contact:

Rev Rod Benson Director, Centre for Christian Ethics Morling College, Sydney http://www.morling.nsw.edu.au

Further information:

* Religious and Racial Tolerance Act 2001 <http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/dd2ad9f9b9e4f93eca256e5b00037e8d/$FILE/01-47a001.doc>

* -VCAT hearing Oct 2003 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2003/1753.html?query=%22catch+the+fire%22>

* -Islamic Council of Victoria press release following the verdict <http://www.icv.org.au/vilificationdecision.htm>

* -The Age, 17 Dec 2004 reporting the verdict <http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Church-found-to-have-vilified-Muslims/2004/12/17/1102787256016.html?oneclick=true>

* -The Herald Sun, 14 Nov 2003 background to the charges <http://www.catchthefire.com.au/courtupdate14.html>

* Anglican Bishop Robert Forsyth on the right not to be offended <http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/index.php/article/articleview/656/1/43/>

* Catch the Fire Ministries <http://www.catchthefire.com.au/>

Related Articles:

• Greece: can you believe this/them?
• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.