|
June 23, 2005
Two evangelical pastors in Australia convicted of vilifying Muslims say
they will go to prison rather than obey a judge's order to apologize.
A tribunal judge in the state of Victoria on Wednesday instructed Danny
Nalliah and Daniel Scot to apologize for their comments by publishing a
prescribed statement in newspapers and on the website of Nalliah's
ministry, Catch the Fire.
They would also have to promise never to repeat them -- or any other
comments which would have the "same or similar effect" -- anywhere in
Australia or on the Internet.
Failure to do so would make it "necessary for further orders to be
made," said Judge Michael Higgins of the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), a body that operates like a normal
court of law.
In a landmark ruling last December, Higgins found that the two had
vilified Muslims at a seminar on Islam and in articles published in a
newsletter and on the Internet.
He said Scot, a Pakistan-born pastor who addressed the seminar, had
done so "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."
The offending statement included the view that the Koran promotes
violence and killing; that Muslims lie; and that Muslims intend to take
over Australia and declare it an Islamic state.
Higgins also found that an article by Nalliah in a Catch the Fire
newsletter contained statements "likely to incite a feeling of hatred
towards Muslims," including the claim that Muslim refugees were being
granted visas to Australia while Christians who suffer persecution in
Islamic nations were refused refugee visas.
Nalliah and Scot had argued that the intention was to help Christians
understand Islam, based on references to the Koran and other Islamic
texts.
The case against the pastors resulted from a complaint by the state's
Islamic Council. It was the first of its kind to be brought under
Victoria's controversial Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, which came
into effect in early 2002.
Shortly after the order was handed down at the VCAT chambers in
Melbourne Wednesday, Nalliah told Cybercast News Service that he and
Scot would go to prison rather than comply.
"We have from the beginning said this law is a foul law. And it's under
the law that the judge has brought the judgment," he said. "Complying
with the judge's judgment makes it clear that we respect the law - but
we don't respect the law."
Asked whether he really expected that such a stand could land them in
prison, Nalliah said they were taking the position because they wanted
to see the law abolished.
"But the repercussions, as I understand, could result in the judge
saying 'you'll have to go into jail for a season because you rejected
my judgment.' We are willing to face it if that's the case."
The two have appealed to the Supreme Court. 'Throttling free speech'
The case, which has taken more than 20 months to finalize, has drawn
international attention.
At one point in 2003 the Australian Embassy in Washington was flooded
with letters from concerned Americans, and was hard pressed to explain
that the case was being heard by a court-like tribunal operating under
a law passed by one state's Labor government, not Australia's federal
government.
In Britain, opponents of a religious hatred bill currently under
consideration have cited the Australian episode in their campaign
against the legislation.
Although churches in Australia have been divided over the Catch the
Fire case, an increasing number are backing a drive to have the Racial
and Religious Tolerance Act repealed.
Bill Muehlenberg of the Australian Family Association, a leading
campaigner against the law, called Wednesday's ruling a sinister turn
in a supposedly democratic nation.
"It may not be people bursting into our churches with guns loaded, but
the effect is the same," he said in reaction to Higgins' order.
"If a secular judge does not like what he hears, he can not only
throttle free speech, but can hinder the public proclamation of the
gospel as well."
Muehlenberg said Jesus had warned that his followers would be dragged
before courts -- "but here we see it being done in the name of
civilized virtues: tolerance and the like."
"To offer a Christian critique of other religious views and truth
claims can now result in jail sentences. This is a likely outcome as
the two pastors will not, on principle, make public apologies."
He predicted that the case would separate those who were serious about
their faith from those who were not.
"This is real wheat versus the chaff type-stuff: who will stand up and
be counted, and who will not?"
Jenny Stokes of Salt Shakers, a Christian ethical action group, said
from Victoria that the judge's order constituted "a form of
appeasement."
"The prohibition on speaking or conduct that would have the 'same or
similar effect' to the statements found by Judge Higgins to have
breached the act and vilified Muslims is very far-reaching --
especially since many of those statements are from the Koran itself,"
she said. 'Subjective'
The Nalliah-Scot case is not the only one to have highlighted
difficulties with the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.
A convicted pedophile and self-described "witch" recently brought a
case against prison authorities and the Salvation Army, complaining
that a Christian course being offered to inmates at his penitentiary
had vilified him by carrying derogatory references to witchcraft. The
complaint is pending.
Earlier, another "witch" accused a Christian city councilor of
vilifying her in a public statement he released voicing concern about
satanist activity. The case ended up before the VCAT, but ended with a
settlement that required the councilor to apologize publicly.
In a boost for those campaigning against the Victorian law, the premier
of the neighboring state of New South Wales (NSW) - which is also under
a Labor government - spoke out Monday against a lawmaker's attempt to
pass similar legislation in NSW.
"Religious vilification laws are difficult because ... determining what
is or is not a religious belief is difficult," Premier Bob Carr told
state parliament. "It is subjective."
"Religious vilification laws can undermine the very freedom they seek
to protect -- freedom of thought, conscience and belief," he said.
In a separate move, a federal lawmaker Monday introduced a private
member's bill in Canberra that seeks to have Australia's federal
parliament declare Victoria's religious hate law to be unnecessary.
Most opponents of the laws say that while they are well-intended, they
are also superfluous as existing defamation and racial discrimination
laws provide adequate protection.
Pointing to the Nalliah-Scot case outcome, Muehlenberg has also argued
that secular judges are not competent to rule in complex theological
disputes.
|
