Once there were two frogs. One suddenly found himself in a pot of hot water and promptly jumped out; the other found himself in a pot of cold water, slowly heating, and grew used to the increasing warmth until it was too late.
You’ve heard the story. George Barna even made a book title out of it. But it articulates a very real danger. Sudden change for the worse is often easily identified and we are able to take appropriate action. But incremental change for the worse has a nasty habit of creeping up on us, and by the time we realise the peril we are in it is too late.
The verdict at a recent hearing in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) may sound a warning that the water is getting a little too warm for evangelical Christians who value religious freedom of speech in Australia.
We might take our democratic, civil and religious liberties for granted, but laws that protect these rights are subject to change and reinterpretation. In addition, concerted efforts to stifle open religious debate by enthusiastic secular humanists, non-Christian religious groups with imperialist agendas, liberal Christians with humanist agendas, and politicians in thrall to pluralism all work against the interests of Christians committed to gospel-inspired mission, evangelism and apologetics.
On 17 December VCAT upheld a complaint by the Islamic Council of Victoria that Catch the Fire Ministries and Christian pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah had vilified Muslims, Judge Michael Higgins finding that the defendants had breached Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.
Section 8 of the Act states that “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.” Significantly, section 9 states that “the person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.”
Of course, the defendants may have acted unwisely in the manner in which they expressed their views. But it is the Victorian legislation that is the real ass. Responses to the verdict—largely from the religious media—have been varied.
The Islamic Council of Victoria claimed the verdict was a win for religious debate. A spokesperson said Australian Muslims would be pleased, adding that “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 the ruling, saying it sent a warning to groups who sought to use religion to promote hatred and hostility of those with different religious beliefs.
But Gordon Moyes, member of the NSW Upper House and Superintendent of Wesley Mission, said he believed VCAT had made the wrong decision and that, as a result, religious freedom of speech had been outlawed in Victoria.
Jim Wallace, Executive Chairman of Australian Christian Lobby, said people had always been free to publicly debate the Bible, but the verdict seemed to indicate that such freedom did not extend to other religious texts.
I believe that this decision has enormous significance for Christian people, churches and church-based agencies across Australia. It strikes a deliberate blow at religious liberty, freedom of expression and democracy. Who will be next to be charged with religious vilification? Pastors preaching from their pulpits? Academics writing textbooks on religion? John Safran? Mr Bean? The Vicar of Dibley?
I would like to think the Act was fashioned with good intentions, but as it stands it is deplorable and un-Australian, and must be repealed. We evangelicals do need to express our religious views in a spirit of respect and love. But we should also actively defend our democratic rights and religious liberty by opposing the introduction of similar legislation in other states and territories.
Salman Rushdie was correct in saying that there is no such thing as the right not to be offended—at least, in a free society.
Black day for free speech and religious liberty - second article by Rod Benson 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.”
|
