Who are we defending?
There has been much discussion about the famed Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The recent decision against Catch the Fire Ministries has brought out all sorts of “thin edge of the wedge arguements” - as this article suggests you only have to read some Australian daily newspapers to think the end of
democracy and freedom of speech as we know it as arrived.
As I have read the letters and comments in the newspapers, I find myself reading them out to Dan with the comment - but.. but…
This article articulates well the ludicrious statements that are being made about the decision. I am unsure whether I think this law is a good one. However, I do know that debating its merits by arguing the end of the world is probably not the way for healthy discussion on the subject. I think there are some concersns with the law, however I do think that the Christian groups that are heartily defending Catch the Fire Ministries should comment on whether they agree with the comments that were made. I for one, would want to distance myself from such unwise, inflammatory remarks about the Islamic faith in such times as this. Christian leaders should be helping people to move past the demonisation and simplistic rehoteric that is pushed by our political leaders.
Waleed Aly rightly reminds us about what the decision was about:
For example, we have heard little about the imputation that Muslims (without distinction) have a plot to use violence and terror to overthrow Western democracies and replace them with repressive regimes. The same is true of the imputation that Australian Muslims would rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia when the time is right.
These are not Koranic quotes. This is not religious debate. It is not even a critique of Islam. It is hate-inducing sociological assertion; a putrid smear made without even a scintilla of evidence in support. Judge Higgins quite rightly found this was not done reasonably and in good faith for any purpose in the public interest.
Do we (Christian leaders) wish to defend these types of statements? Because with the outcry over this decision - where is the condemenation for such statements? Is this now Christian thinking, dialogue and love in action?
January 12th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Homer, I realise that when people serve in different capacities then their focus is differently. When I sit on boards, my focus is different also.
I don’t really want to get into what unknown people advise or not - because it is like having a conversation with shadows. Those people are not here, we don’t know what they have advised or on the basis of what instructions. My view is that the types of statements you have (albeit briefly) described couldn’t be expected to fall foul of this law. Suffice it to say that neither of us can make an authoritative statement about the breadth of legal opinion on what would or wouldn’t constitute a breach of this law.
I am surprised that you think that my final statement is naive. If person A has a conviction that they are called by God to make certain statements or observations, that it is a part of their faith and practice, then they shouldn’t be deterred by prosecution - Jesus made that clear. However if I can live without making a particular statement, if I don’t believe it is something that I am called and compelled to do, or if I believe it is something I am willing to compromise on, then I might want to get some advice.
January 12th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
As far as I am aware, neither David Irving nor the Israeli goverment fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Victoria. (However, I do believe that Irving was denied a visa to visit Australia because of his public statements on the Nazi regime).
Basically, as far as I am aware, the Victorian law prohibits these things:
(1) 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.
I fail to see how in any circumstance anyone preaching the gospel of Christ can fall under that catergory.
January 12th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Dan,
I am signing off for the day after this I am telling you why well qualified people in NSW won’t go to victoria for any such conference to talk. They have been advised by some of the best legal brains in Sydney. (guess which college?)
January 12th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
While supportive of the Victorian law…..(and strongly supportive of Homer going and getting fucked)…….one interesting test case for the vilification law would be by AFL umpires.
I would have thought they would have a strong case against football fans and the media.
Let’s read that law again…..
“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.”
And watch out…..the AFL’s Football Operations Manager is my company’s former defamation lawyer.
January 12th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Yes…but umpires ARE bastards…
…just kidding. Ooops, here comes the lawsuit.
January 12th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Attention - Adrian Anderson - AFL football operations manager.
Dear Adrian,
I used to ring you from time to time…….getting advice on what we could broadcast……and generally you were pretty adventurous with your legal advice.
Remember when we had to work out whether we could breach Family Court law….by saying Rose Porteous had applied to get a divorce from Willie? Hah…that was a hoot wasn’t it…..
Anyhoo…
A matter has come up that may come to your attention…..about the status of AFL umpires.
There was a reference to them being ‘bastards’. Now…perhaps some explanation is necessary.
Generally it is regarded that the vast majority of AFL umpires are wonderful people who make great contributions to the community. But it also must be acknowledged…..that some umpires have mummies and daddies …who love each other very much….but…probably due to financial or other understandable constaints at the time…were not able to marry.
Therefore…..we are merely using the technical..though somewhat quaint and outdated meaning of the term ‘bastard’ here…and in no way intended to vilify AFL umpires …except possibly those who …quite understandably…..lose the sight of the football in the lights……and may not see obvious free-kicks to full forwards.
We look forward to our ongoing warm association between the AFL umpiring fraternity……and the football public.
And no…it hasn’t quite been the same dealing with Corrs, Chambers, Westgarth since you’ve been gone.
Also …you may be pleased to know Adrian….that many of the girls in the office took quite a fancy to you ..when you came over here to do defamation briefing seminars.
So……good luck for the future……and….don’t let that Rick Lewis thing get you down.
Tally Ho!
Lance White
AFL umpires goodwill ambassador
Perth.
January 12th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Dear Adrian
I would just like to say, on behalf of myself and my good friend James Hird, that umpires are really all quite nice chaps, decent fellows, who are generally very well liked by fans, players and te media alike.
However, Scott McLaren is a bloody disgrace.
Yours,
Luke
Anti-Vilification League
Pert, WA
January 12th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Hi again Adrian….
Me? ..yeah…fine…..and you? …….yup good.
Anyways…..a reference was made to Scott McLaren being a ‘bloody disgrace’.
Of course….that’s a reference to THIS Scott McLaren… http://www.strongtownship.com/files/23nov04.htm particularly for how he voted against the $250 Christmas bonus for all Strong township staff and council. What a scrooge. A total disgrace. We’re all bloody furious here…….especially James Hird… (a local Strong resident…not to be confused with the AFL footballer…..)
Regards again from the sunny west…hope the Toorak Tractor has still got enough grunt to climb up the Punt Road Hill…..
Lance White
AFL umpires arse-licking ambassador.
Perth.
January 13th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Lance,
I have to say, you’re very good….if you’re ever looking for a job, I hear a bloke called Nyallah in Melbourne’s looking for a good lawyer…
January 13th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Sorry..can’t defend the indefensible…lol
January 13th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Ah at last something on this thread that made me smile
January 13th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
We could go back to ranting and raving about homosexuality/freedom of speech/apartheid/the holocaust/sacramentalism et al if you like
Football’s far more important though, I’m sure you’ll agree.
January 17th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
There seems to be a naive attitude by those who would like to stifle any form of criticism of religion, on the grounds that it may offend someone. As recent history will show, the church at large has copped a canning from the press. Ministers and priests have all been tarred with the same brush along with church members,over the revelation of so much child abuse within the church. Ministers are now seen as suspect, and the church, both Catholic and Anglican are seen to be the protectors of those clegymen who did these crimes. Without a free press, there would have been no change in church policy.
Is that a good thing ? Yes. Was it painful, yes. Did we all suffer and feel humiliated and embarrassed ? Yes. Yet the vast majority of clegymen and church members are morally good people of the highest calibre. Yet those of the Islamic faith did not miss the oportunity to point the finger at Christians in general in an effort to discredit Christianity. You see, I took the trouble to read a few Australian Islamic websites. Especially those sites that are based in the universities, finaced by Australian tax payers, as part of the Islamic studies courses. Yet one would be hard pressed to find a Moslem who will stand up and condemn the genocide that is taking place in the Sudan at the present time. Anyone who wishes to investigate will find that those Govt. backed melitia, using govt. tanks, weapons, etc are indisciminantly killng the Christian tribes in the south. The reason is, they are being instructed that to kill an ifidel will purchase for them the highest honour in paradise. Because that is what the Koran teaches. Are all Moslems doing this ? No. Is any Moslem protesting publicly about this crime ? No. Further to that, the 34 million slaves in the world at this present time, of which the vast majority are to be found in Moslem countries, is a silent ongoing crime against humanity; which again, the mainline churches have not highlighted in the community.
Now with these villification laws, any from of criticism will be viewed as villification, because it offends the sensitivities of those of the Islamic faith.
If they expect those of the Christian Faith to quietly accept criticism where it is warranted,and we should. Then it follows that those of the Islamic faith should also accept responsibility for, and acknowledge crimes that are being perpetrated by Moslems in the name of Allah. They should not be able to hide behind villification laws.
January 17th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I also think you will find that if you say that whilst only a small number of muslims are terrorists but almost all international terrorists are not only muslims but proudly wish the world to know what they are doing is totally in line with the Koran and Hadiths then you may well be prosecuted.
This would be probably guaranteed if you were to show that indeed the 11/9 people not only were avid students of the koran but it does appear to support them.
January 17th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
OK guys….for all those wanting to bang on about so-called “free speech”, have a look at how that freedom is used by these lunatics to destroy people and hold a city to ransom. Legally.\
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=421
February 12th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
[…] Catch the Fire Ministries has won an appeal against a ruling that it vilified or seriously ridiculed Victoria’s Muslims (Who are we Defending, Vilified not Vindicated) and the case will return to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. […]