apologise or else
So the “penalty” in the Catch the Fire religious vilification hearing has now been handed down. Judge Higgins has ordered that the pastors at the centre of the complaint aplogise and post a copy of the apology on their website. However, they have indicated that they don’t intend to comply with the terms of the order.
Danny Nalliah said
“Right from the inception, we have said that this law is a foul law, this law is not a law which brings unity,” Pastor Nalliah said.
“It causes disunity and as far as we are concerned right from the beginning we have stated we will not apologise. We will go to prison for standing for the truth and not sacrifice our freedom and freedom to speak.”
See also this discussion in the age of the possible remedies that would be ordered including some information on the operation of the Racial and Religious Vilification Act. It includes a comment along the lines that the Act makes matyrs and publicity hounds out of the very people that it is trying to reprimand, giving them a much larger voice in the community.
UPDATE - VCAT has put the text of the ruling up and it highlights what a circus this matyrdom is becoming. The judge declined to order that the Dannys shouldn’t engage in the conduct in future, instead ordering that they provide an undertaking in those terms. The full text of the ordered apology is
This statement is made pursuant to an order of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (”VCAT”). In November 2002 the Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoria referred a complaint by the Islamic Council of Victoria against Catch The Fire Ministers Inc, Pastor Daniel Nalliah and Pastor Daniel Scot to VCAT. On 17 December 2004, VCAT found the complaint was proven and that each of the respondents had breached s.8 of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, and further that none of the defences under the Act had been made out. The complaint concerned statements made by Pastor Daniel Scot in a seminar organised by Catch The Fire Ministries and held on 9 March 2002 in Surrey Hills, articles written by Pastor Daniel Nalliah in the Newsletters of Catch The Fire Ministries Inc and an article written by an American called Richard Braidich published on Catch The Fire’s website in 2001. VCAT found the seminar was not a balanced discussion, that Pastor Scot presented the seminar in a way that was essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their God, their prophet Mohammed and in general Muslim beliefs and practices, that Pastor Scot was not a credible witness and that he did not act reasonably and in good faith. VCAT found the statements by Pastor Nalliah in the newsletter were likely to incite hatred towards Muslims and sought to create fear against Muslims, that Pastor Nalliah was not a credible witness and did not act reasonably and in good faith. Finally, VCAT found that the statement by Mr Braidich made no attempt to distinguish between mainstream and extremist Muslims, and incited hatred and contempt towards people who are Muslims, that Pastor Nalliah performed an act inciting hatred and contempt against Muslims by placing this article on the website and that Pastor Nalliah did not act reasonably and in good faith in doing so. Each of the respondents acknowledges the findings of VCAT that the statements breached the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) and will in future refrain from making, publishing or distributing (including on the internet) any statements, suggestions or implications to the same or similar effect. This statement is issued by Catch The Fire Ministries Inc, Pastor Daniel Nalliah and Pastor Daniel Scot
As far as I can see, this doesn’t actually include an apology, but merely an acknowledgment of the findings of VCAT. So in refusing to do this, are they refusing to acknowledge what VCAT has ordered?
July 1st, 2005 at 11:55 am
Paul,
Thanks so much for your comment. Would love to post up your reflections on the seminar and your background/involvement in the case, if you would be willing.
If you are interested, send me an email at dan@signposts.org.au
July 1st, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Rebecca,
you will find it very hard to get anyone from ridley for a Semionar in victora and inpossible to get anyone from Moore or Morling for that matter.
I have said before the previous lecturer on Islam at moore ( Irony he is going to Melbourne openly stated in Sydney what he was going to talk about he couldn’t apeak on in victoria. He has again said as much Kategoria.
They will say little different from what was said in the transcript of the conference as Paul has just stated indeed to anyone who actually has read the transcript.
July 1st, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Homer old son, I reckon that says more about those colleges than it does about the law in question.
Ever considerd the possibility that the way your favourite “theologians” express themselves might be at fault here, not an Act of Parliament or an impartial judge or the rest of the Christian community?
July 1st, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Well Luke, you give me an example of what was said that was so wrong from the transcript.
you only need to go to around page 45 or so.
Just one will do.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Ok, no problems.
I’m not a lawyer, so I haven’t picked this out on the basis of a breach of the legal requirements for this sort of seminar. I’ve merely found one, just one of many, quote that I think is off-colour, unnecessary, erroneous, and that should not have been made.
“But because lying for sake of Islam is all right. So he [muslim priest]
know that. He had just to go four verses up and it’s there. But why he will
tell that this is what Allah says. They have to hide the truth.
Now Bible tells us you know the truth, the truth will set you free,
but Muslim people, when they come some teaching, which they don’t like people should know, they will tell the truth. They will not tell the truth.
They will hide the truth. They will tell lies. So that’s something.”
As you are so well versed in this case, Homer, you will know very well the passage I’ve quoted. It is in relation to the Qu’ran’s command to cut off the hands of thieves. What the “Pastor” has done here is -
1. Taken a verse of the Qu’ran and treated it in a very cavalier manner, attempting to use it to justify his calim that Allah is not merciful. This is identical to an attemot to say that God is not a God of grace because the OT contains requirements to stone homosexuals.
Now, why would he be so delberately inflammatory, not to mention intellectually dishonest. Two options here. Either he is simply genuinely unintelligent (and as he’s a AOG pastor, it’s possible), or he is deliberately being dishonest. Don’t like it, mate - not at all.
2. He is taking one (questionable) case of a mullah’s (supposed) dishonesty, and applied across the board, to all Muslim leaders. That’s like saying all Catholic priests are paedophiles. a first year logic student could tell him his logic’s flawed, and a 12 year old child could tell him he’s just plain wrong.
Once again, why do this, if not to deliberately misrepresent Muslims and the Islamic faith?
There you go, one example of, IMHO, what “Pastor” Scot did wrong.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pm
I haven’t found the transcript of the seminar itself (having a dumb google day apparently) but I have found a copy of their submission in their defense to VCAT at http://www.religionlaw.co.uk/interausac.pdf. In it I find this, starting with a quote from the seminar:
‘So we read in the Holy Qur’an Chapter 9, verse 123 the prophet said, “All you who
believe, fight those disbeliever(s) who are in your neighbour(hood).” So when it’s
needed, Muslim(s) will act on this first Chapter 9, verse 123 and people in their
neighbour(hood) perhaps where this trouble will start first. That is according to the
Holy Qur’an.’
This is indeed a logical interpretation of Sura 9:123:
Sura 9:123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to
you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who
keep their duty.
This caught my eye because what we have is Christians telling us what the Qur’an “really means”, which in turn is used to argue that this is a true teaching of Islam, irrespective of whether or not all muslims actually believe that. They back up this interpretation by selective quotes (selective probably due to space limitations rather than deceiptful intent). This concerns me because if the roles were reversed, I would have a lot to say about it. Imagine the following:
In the Christian’s holy book, in 1 Samuel chapter 15, we read this: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. 3Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation–men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.’”
What we see here is the clear teaching - from their own book - that the Christian God’s idea of justice and “settling accounts” involves genocide. Now, not all christians may believe this, but then most of them probably haven’t read 1 Samuel, but there it is for you in black and white. The teaching of the Bible is that God wants genocide against those of a different religion. So you see how there coule be religious motivations behind America’s invasion of Islamic Iraq, that according to the bible, God uses his people as military weapons of genocide to exercise his judgement upon the earth.
Many of us would argue with that, I imagine. But it seems reasonable to me that such a statement is a) entirely consistent with the manner of defense quoted above, and b) is also quite capable of painting the picture that all bible-believing Christians support genocide of some form or other, c) which in turn could quite foreseably incite hatred or ridicule of Christians.
Firstly, is my logic sound, or flawed?
Secondly, if my logic is sound, is this a problem? If the case were a couple of muslims standing up and teaching that all bible-believing Christians wanted to launch a campaign of genocide in the name of God, would that be ok?
Thirdly, would we be happy with these people (let’s not make it muslims, actually, that just clouds the issue) telling the world what bible-believing christians really believe? Even if they back it up with quotes from “learned Christians”? If I wanted to, I could easily hunt around and find a couple of bible verses and a “learned christian scholar” and put forward the idea that slavery is good, that women don’t have a soul (or shouldn’t be allowed to teach men), that homosexuals will all burn in the fires of hell, etc. My argument is that even with a bible quote and a learned scholar to quote I don’t think that someone is qualified to say that “this is what the bible teaches and all bible-believing Christians should believe this” which is, as I read it, exactly what these pastors did. With the bible it isn’t as simple as quoting a chunk and saying “therefore all bible-believing christians would believe X” - are we really surprised that muslims may feel misrepresented and yes, even vilified, when some christians do that to them?
July 1st, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Ross,
There is a link to the transcript of the seminar in the post above titled “catch the burn”.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:47 pm
None of the two Qur’an has exactly same verse numbers. Please keep that in
mind. So all of the references which I am giving you here, they are from this
Pickthall translation. Now Pickthall translation have five editions, which I
have got in my library. All the five editions, their verse numbers are
different. So please keep that in mind. Don’t accuse me, when you go home,
and you find that verse is not there. That verse may be five verses up or five
verses down.
I give you one illustration. I was… There was one man who was missionary
in Islamic country. And when he came back he became Muslim. And he was
7 The Life of Muhammad. Trans. Alfred Guillaume. OUP 1955. ‘Now the apostle was
anxious for the welfare of this people, wishing to attract them as far as he could. It has
been mentioned that he longed for a way to attract them… Satan, when he was
meditating upon it … put upon his tongue ‘these are the exalted Gharaniq whose
intercession is approved.’ When Quraysh heard that, they were delighted and greatly
pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him… Then the
people dispersed and Quraysh went out, delighted at what had been said about their
gods, saying ‘Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion.’ (pp.165-166)
REFERENCE ON SLIDE.
- 10 -
giving his testimony that he was a born again believer, he had done Bible
College and now he has found truth in Islam. So I rang him and I said, “Will
you please tell me some truth. I want to know the truth you have found in
Islam?” He said definitely, so he invited me for dinner. So after dinner we
had discussion for three hours, and I thank God his Islam was washed away
so he is no more Muslim, [RESP] by God’s grace. [Hallelujah.
APPLAUSE.]
So, now the same man, when he was giving testimony in mosques, one of
lady whe went and I told her… because the opening statement was
Bismillah Al-Rahman ul Rahim - “In the name of Allah, the most merciful
and beneficent”. So I told some of the people, “Ask him, when he is saying
Allah is merciful, but in the Qur’an, chapter 5 verse 38, it says - right hand
of a thief should be cut off.8 Now if Allah is merciful, why thief’s hand
should be chopped off? And according history of Islam, Mohammed did not
spare anybody. If anybody is found stealing, even stealing an egg, his right
hand is chopped off.
So they asked this question and Muslim Imam he pulled up the Qur’an, he
opened chapter 5 verse 38, it was different verse. It was not written there
that right hand of a thief, either be male or female, should be chopped off.
So that Muslim priest said look, “You are lying it is not in Qur’an.” and she
was very upset. So after her meeting she came to my home and said “Daniel
you have cheated me, you don’t know Islam and you are making up things,
and here I was in a g… big gathering and I told it was in Qur’an, but it was
not in Qur’an.” I said “Lady, calm down.” I pulled out two three Qur’an and
I opened all the chapters… I mean all the Qur’an, and in different Qur’an it
was different verse numbers. So I said, “That Muslim p[riest he knows it’s
in Qur’an.” But because lying for sake of Islam is all right. [RESP] So he
know that. He had just to go four verses up and it’s there. But why he will
tell that this is what Allah says. They have to hide the truth. [Yeah]
Now Bible tells us you know the truth, the truth will set you free, [Amen]
but Muslim people, when they come some teaching, which they don’t like
8 Sura 5:38: As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward
of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
- 11 -
people should know, they will tell the truth. They will not tell the truth.
They will hide the truth. [Yes] They will tell lies. [Yes] So that’s something.
TAPE 1 SIDE 2
DANIEL SCOT: You will see those references here. If you’ve try to find in
this Qur’an you will not find it there. OK? Please keep in mind. [Yes] So, so
that’s very important.
Now I cannot tell you when it was published. There is no date of publication
in this Qur’an. So that is another beauty, sometimes there is not date of
publication given. OK.
That is the context Luke.
I might say people wouldn’t have known from your assertion.
I leave everyone to see if they agree with you or not.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Luke:
Either he is simply genuinely unintelligent (and as he’s a AOG pastor, it’s possible)
now who’s been into the fiesty pills
July 1st, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Due to time constraints, I couldn’t go into the detail Ross has.
He has, however, said everything I was trying to.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:57 pm
thanks dan, I’ll have a dive through the seminar transcript and pretend that link was harder to find than it actually was :-$
July 1st, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Fair crack of the whip Ross.
Anyone who preaches prosperity gospel, biblical literalism and watches Benny Hinn is not exactly going to be taking a day job working for NASA.
I’m being charitable - if I was on the fiesties I’d point out that the other interpretation of that marketing scheme known as Hillsong and it’s ilk is that they’re a deliberately manipulative oraginsation, preying on the weak, the ill-educated and the fearful in our community. And they love bashing single moms, gays and anyone else wot doesn’t fit their agenda.
Pack of self-aggrandising arseholes.
How long, O Lord……?
(And that’s BEFORE I start in on Family First).
July 1st, 2005 at 3:05 pm
bugger me, I’m starting to sound like Lance.
July 1st, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Sorry Luke, my smileys didn’t convey my intended humour clearly enough. I would have described the fits of laughter I was in except that I felt guilty for laughing so hard at the AOGs - especially on a thread on vilification! But I was certainly not having a go at you.
(and you only sound a little like lance
)
July 1st, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Page 4: “Concerning prayer: there is a great Islamic scholar – Al-Tibri, he mention
there are 99 verses in Qur’an concerning prayer, but concerning jihad there
are more than 300 verses. So there’s more writing on jihad than any other
pillar of Islam in Qur’an.”
So the Qur’an explicitly talks about jihad more than prayer. Interesting. Let’s make a comparison. The bible uses the word “judgement” lots of times. I guess judgement is an important theme in the bible. OK, let’s pick another word and see which is a more important theme… I wonder, how many times does the bible use the word “trinity”?
July 1st, 2005 at 3:28 pm
I gotcha Ross, it’s ok.
Truth be told, I HAVE been on the Cop-This tablets….marched in the union rally yesterday, been singing the “Internationale” all last night with the comrades…..up the workers. Right up.
….and I just don’t like the AOGs. If I got fined for calling them a pack of arseholes it would be money well spent.
Back to the topic I go, however…..
I come back to this point; that the 2 Dannys, who rejoice in the title of “pastor” (when so does a bowl of ravioli, but it’s got about an equivalent understanding of the law by the sounds of it), seem to think they can blithely disregard a court ruling simply because they don;t agree with it. If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Islamic council was ordered to apologise for dragging Catch the Fire into court, and then refused to do any such thing, the 2 Dannies would probably go berko.
August 29th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Logging into this website should be a requirement for anyone knowledgeable on earth these days…
November 28th, 2005 at 7:45 am
I was wondering when you would discover this thread.
November 28th, 2005 at 8:14 am
Steve, that is a straw man. By that standard having a mono-cultural society couldn’t possibly be said to “strengthen” our society unless it led to complete harmony and removed all conflict between individuals which sought to exploit differences.
By this argument, men and women living alongside each other weakens society because sexism occurs occasionally. Or that private property rights are divisive because property related crime occurs.
I have said before that I oppose these laws because I believe that they are counter-productive, but I can’t agree that the above argument sets out the “central, defining contradiction of their existence.”
November 28th, 2005 at 8:21 am
This all makes me so glad I am an Amurichan - where the bill of rights guarantee’s the right to freedom of speech. Dan, I’m rolling up my sleves again. I might also add, yesterday was the first time I shot an AR-15. It’s great to shoot something just becasue you can.
November 28th, 2005 at 8:32 am
“It’s great to shoot something just becasue you can.”
here’s hoping that the something is not another person.
November 28th, 2005 at 9:47 am
It’s ALL about the communists!
They’re everywhere, everywhere!
November 28th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Phil - We can shoot anything, refers to the type of firearm - not a person or say a deer out of season.. I might add the desire to shoot someone has nothing to do with the availability or legality of a gun. No Bec - the communists are only in China these days, and I suppose North Korea and Vietnam. A few a still teaching economics in some American Universities though.