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?
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:49 pm
hehe
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Homer, I have read the judgement, and I don’t consider the Pastors’ remarks to be reasonable or in good faith.
Actually, it doesn’t matter what I think, at all. Or you. Or anyone. Judge ruled, end of debate. Abide by the law or get a whack with the big blue stick.
What part of THAT is so difficult?
June 23rd, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Homer, have you ever been to Ridley? Because if you had you would understand the _real_ reason that they aren’t buying into bagging Islamic people.
They have more important things to do. They are trying to train people to serve God and humanity in the real world, not pick stupid religious fights by vilifying a large number of peace loving people who would be tainted by the actions of the few, if people like Catch The Fire got their way.
There was an excellent West Wing episode where they made the following equation:
Islamic Extremist is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.
I notice that you have neither apologised nor even addressed the points I made. Have you nothing to say to that? No apology? No attempted defense? No personal integrity to actually admitting your mistakes?
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Ross,
fine if you want to believe that.
Try an organise a seminar on islam and get a speaker from ridley.
See if that believe in Dan’s opinion or not!
I happen to be in a position to know the legal opinion and it is contrary to what dan says.
you didn’t seem to understand that line I was running so I thought I would be explicit.
If Dan is correct then it shouldn’t be very hard to organise a seminar.
you have actually put yourself at odds with Dn on whether the wahabbist type of Islam can be talked about whether you realise it or not.
Guess what type of islam the 11/9 attackes believed in?
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Oh hang on…….my research on conservatives shows that they’ve changed the definition of ‘love’…to get around the commandment of loving your neighbour…
Homer, I bet you’ve changed the meaning of ‘forgive’…to get around having to forgive ’sinners’.
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Homer,
The Inuit people were hunting baleana mysticetus in 1977! Therefore such a conference doesn’t need to be organised in Melbourne - we don’t want one, because we aren’t as Xenophobic or bigoted as people in Sydney. Thus your statement is wrong.
Of course if you understood the reasons why Goodhew supported the Cursillo movement you would know why Dan is right and you are wrong wrong wrong.
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Sorry folks, I just had to try - just once - replying to a post without a) making sense, b) citing relevant information, or c) addressing a single point raised, just to find out if it is really satisfying or not. This is how Homer’s posts seem to me.
As it happens, I spent more time researching some nonsense to include than I normally do writing posts so not only is it counter productive to the whole conversation, it wastes more time as well. No news flash there I guess. I just can’t understand why anyone would persist in such an unhelpful manner. Oh well.
June 23rd, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Have you been taking the fiesty pills again Ross?
June 23rd, 2005 at 3:08 pm
made my coffee too weak, and so the brain clicks into a very strange gear…
June 23rd, 2005 at 3:21 pm
But in all seriousness, I think that we do need to talk about and think about this legislation. The Catch The Fire case I think is a bad case study to use though. I am more interested in the case brought against the Salvation Army for using Alpha in Victoria prisons. (Though it should be a crime to use the Alpha videos, they are so boring!) But in that case, the complaint has been brought because they specifically quoted and worked from the Bible which talks about witchcraft being evil.
Now I personally don’t think that just because the bible says it that automatically means that Christians should be able to espouse it freely without thought to the consequences. After all there are parts of the Old Testament which smack of genocide - I don’t think that just because it is in the bible we ought to be allowed to undertake ethnic cleansing because we are “taking a country for the Lord” or such. But there are myriad other passages which could be problematic. Paul, for example, tends to generalise to talk about “the Jews” from time to time - his perogative, since he was one. But where would we stand if we quote Romans and declare that Jews are our enemies on account of the gospel?
I have no legal expertise and so cannot comment on the nuances of the legislation, but it does concern me. Our religious heritage is one of a confrontative - and at times combative - religious minority; both our Jewish roots and our Christian ancestry have come up against the other religions of their day and declared them to be inadequate, invalid, or false. I don’t want to condone religious imperialism - it doesn’t strike me as the way a humble, crucified carpenter would expand his kingdom - but who determines what vilification means? In the Alpha case, they stated that witchcraft is evil. Is that vilification? Does that mean that if I denounce our invasion of Iraq as being evil, I am vilifying the Howard government?
June 23rd, 2005 at 3:33 pm
As I understand it, it relies a lot on contextualisation. If the person is speaking with intent to incite hatred and vilification, then they’re out. If they’re speaking in an appropriate context, without dastardly intent, they’re fine. I think that was what the judgement rested on - that the “2 Dannys” did not act “in good faith”.
I think this legislation is important. As JFK said, (sort of) if we allow ourselves to reject something just becuase we may perceive ourselves to be inconvenienced by it, then when we want it’s protection we will find it sorely lacking.
June 23rd, 2005 at 3:42 pm
“If Dan is correct then it shouldn’t be very hard to organise a seminar.”
You know we have actually run a seminar on Islam at Northern. And so far we are not before a court. I wonder what the difference was? It was widely advertised in our community that we were doing this as well, and at one time we released a joint statement with the Islamic council of Victoria regarding S11.
You say homer that you know what the legal advice is on the issue…. Mmmm, so what happens when a lawyer disagrees with this “advice”. Does this mean that you no longer know all the legal opinion on the issue? See how I cleverly put down the advice by the use of quotes?
June 23rd, 2005 at 6:06 pm
This has got to be one of the most entertaining threads I have read! Succint, forthright and very cutting. I wonder which of you is villifying another because of the way you are speaking. I wonder if we will regard all “Homer’s”, or “Dan’s”, or “Ross’s”, or “Lance’s” in the same way - therefore, because we (assume) that Homer is arrogant or that Dan is right, will all Homer’s therefore be arrogant and all Dan’s be right? Confused, I know I am
June 24th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Phil,
any theoloical college that has a speccialist in Islam and that doesn’t believe all paths lead to god would have recieved advice on the legislation and then the implications of the case.
The directors would have needed it as part of their duties.
I only know of the advice to twwo but I have been told it is similar to others. It is not the same as Dan has said which is why their lecturers will not be talking on the subject at any public arena in Victoria.
As ross unwiitingly has shown any attempt to portray Wahabbism ( and that is what Al Quaeda,the Taliban and parts of Sudan believe) is very hard.
moreover we need to understand that the three ‘witnesses’ were actually plants.
Imagine a person asks whether you believe Jesus died in the cross or he didn’t.
you answer you believe he died.
Question. you believe the Koraan is not true.
Answer. Yes
Question. This must mean it is based on a lie
Answer Yes
…….
Can you see where this is leading.
Luke have a lok at the early chapters of John.
The pharisees and scribes say they are sons of Abraham. What does Jesus say?
Could he say it under this law.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Homer, I’m curious as to whether you’ve read the Act or the case?
June 28th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Oh, and Homer - have you spoken to the people at Ridley that tried to organise the seminar? I have - and the reasons people refused to speak are not what you’re making them out to be (in fact, it was Muslims who didn’t want to attend to speak on Islam!!)
June 28th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Yes but I take more notice of peole who give legal advice in this area.
Quite simply if this judgement is not changed then it will be impossible to talk about Jihad when talking about Islam in a public place.
I didn’t say ridley organised a seminar I said they have neen advised that none of their staff talk at any proposed seminar.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I’m a lawyer, and I’ve read everything I can get my hands on with respect to the Act and this decision. You’re wrong that Jihad cannot be talked about - it CAN, provided it is not vilifying (ie incite hatred), OR provided it is done “in good faith” (honestly). You could talk about Jihad provided you made it clear that there is a diversity of views within Islam ( just as there is within Christianity) and that the issue of Jihad is subject to debate and a range of views. If you fail to do that, you might be vilifying Muslims, but you’d still have an exemption at your disposal - and would be “let off” provided you had spoken about Jihad in good faith.
I know plenty of lawyers who can’t work out what all the fuss is about. I also know lawyers who are concerned about the Act. I have my views - that doesn’t mean that I can’t acknowledge that there’s a debate to be had.
As for Ridley, I guess we must be talking to different people who’ve received different advice - because that’s not at all what I heard.
June 28th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Rebecca, are you the Bec that posted about this at FridaySixpm? If so, I liked your post. Welcome to the fray here, and good luck!!
June 28th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
yep, same bec, n have posted here before. ;P interesting conversation here…
i was hoping to get in touch w/ you, but the ‘contacts’ isn’t working for me - can you email me??
June 28th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Rebecca, that is essentially what it is all about, the case that is.
June 28th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
I’m not sure what you’re saying, but I think you’re saying that the case is about jihad??
The case isn’t really about jihad. There are ways in which Jihad could be talked about without VCAT finding that it was vilification. It’s more about the fear that can be induced by presenting one extreme view of one particular doctrine.
Let’s say, for instance, that a Queer lobby group gave a seminar on Christianity that focused solely on passages in the OT that commanded Christians to execute homosexuals, and they said that all Christians believed that, and if they didn’t believe it and act upon it, then they weren’t real Christians. That might be vilification, particularly if it was said in a climate in which Christians were a minority that were frequently verbally and/or physically assaulted by homosexuals.
If it went to VCAT, it wouldn’t be a case about homosexuality. It would be a case about the fear that can be induced by presenting one extreme view of one particular doctrine.
Also, the case concerned a seminar and two publications - and they talked about a lot of things other than jihad.
June 28th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
“I wonder which of you is villifying another because of the way you are speaking.”
I’m villifying Homer. I would have hoped that was clear by now.
If not….
Homer, you’re a dickhead.
June 29th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Rebecca,
All the two dannies did actually one of the Dannies, was explain the term jihad using both the koran and the various hadiths if you follow the complaints from the original time the planters made their complaints.
Their explanation is little different from the many I have heard.
June 29th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Homer, that is not so at all.
And even if it were, it’s kinda irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter WHAT is being talked about, it’s HOW.
June 30th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
If Homer finds it “impossible to talk about Jihad when talking about Islam in a public place” without being in breach of anti-vilification legislation, then I think it says more about Homer’s ability to be civil than it does about the legislation.
June 30th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
No I didn’t say me at all Nigel.
Try finding a person from any reutable theological college who will talk about it or justb Islam at a public meeting in Victoria.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Maybe we need to consider the question, why do we need to talk about and seek out people who will talk about Islam and Jihad in a public place? And I am certain there are well integrated and thoughtful Inter-Faith dialogue groups that exist without fear of villifying anyone or being villified themselves. There is such a group in Springvale. If there is such fear about ‘Islam and Jihad’ how is it this group seems to exist and live in such peace and harmony?
June 30th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
A number of you have commented about hearing/reading about this in the media. Depending on where you pick it up from, your judgement is going to be influenced. I was at the conference and I listened to every detail that was presented. And I read Judge Higgins’ judgement and I think it does not represent the tone, the content & intent of the conference accurately.
Daniel Scot did not villify or incite hatred about Muslims or the Koran. He did make it clear that the majority of the muslims are peace loving people and there are few that are of the jihadi-type (al-qaeda etc). When referring to various passages in the koran, he said some extremist variety of Islamists believe in certain passages. He even highlighted the contradictions in interpretation of the koran by various muslim groups, peace-loving versus extremist views, the different versions of koran, the doctrine of abrogation etc.. The entire conference was to educate christians about how to effectively witness and show love to muslims of various views. And how not to inadvertently tread on cultural issues, eg. speak/do things that may be perceived incorrectly.
In terms of all this, for me, the findings in the judgement are quite baffling. If you start with such findings, then quite rightly the rule has been applied in terms of judgement. So my issue is not, not yet, with the law itself. Its with the findings of Judge Higgins.
In summary, speaking openly about Islam is not a done deal. Try it if you haven’t. If you know what the Koran says and what the muslims believe, I think you are either going to contravene the shut-your-opinion legistation or you’re going to be an intellectual coward for fear of being labelled. This case is about the matter of expressing opinion, not of creating an utopian state of robots nor is it about spreading slander/hatred and distrust.
July 1st, 2005 at 9:47 am
Homer, I know of plenty of people from your “reputable theological colleges” who will speak about Islam because they know that there are ways to do it that doesn’t contravene the Act. I’m involved in several organisations that run seminars and publish papers with people from theological institutes across Australia - including institutions like Ridley and Moore, which I’m sure you will agree are “reputable theological colleges”. People from these institutions are happy to speak about and write about Islam (in part because they’ve had good legal advice), and have done so this year.