Have scouted around, and wanted to point you to some reactions to the penalty phase in the racial and religious vilification case in VCAT. Two of the big supporters of Catch the Fire ministries have started the ball rolling with statements that the penalties are in effect religious censorship. Saltshakers has a blow by blow description of the penalty hearing which makes for interesting reading. On its home page, it states that the penalty is akin to religious censorship, but has clear summaries of what was actually decided including links to the judgment itself. A particularly useful resource for those that are interested is the transcript of the seminar itself. I am about half way through it, because it is fairly plodding and repetitive, but it does give a better sense of the totality of the seminar than the excerpts quoted in the judgments.

The Australian Christian Lobby goes one step further. Its media release includes a number of unsupportable assertions, but also includes some very curious statements such as this one

“Today’s Catch The Fire Ministries Penalty Hearing ruling surely puts another nail in
the coffin of religious free speech in Victoria”, said David Barton, the Australian
Christian Lobby’s Victorian State Director.
“Whether or not the two Pastors concerned in this matter really are guilty is almost
becoming irrelevant. That matter is still the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court
and remains to be seen”, added Mr Barton. (emphasis added)

Again, it makes reference to the jail and potential martyrdom of the respondents

“Indeed, if the Pastor’s now decide not to apologize, and not to carry out Judge Higgins’
proscriptive requirements, what then?” Mr Barton said that “A jail sentence and
Christian martyrdom is starting to look like a very real outcome to this absurd
situation.”

Wisely, Catch the Fire hasn’t thrown a statement up on its site yet, but stay tuned for updates. The Islamic Council of Victoria doesn’t have a statement up yet either. In the media, the pundits have jumped onto the bandwagon in a big way. Andrew Bolt has come out against the laws, not being scared to work fast and loose with the facts of the decision:

Last December, Judge Higgins finally ruled that Scot in particular had offended by quoting the Koran in a way that got “a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter”. Is laughter now a crime?

Stranger still, he gave 13 examples of how Scot had “made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct”, at least eight of which involved him quoting the Koran, and, I believe, accurately. Yes, the Koran indeed authorises men to beat their wives. Yes, it indeed calls for thieving hands to be chopped off.

What did Scot say that was false? The judge listed just two trivial examples, but also said Scot hadn’t made clear enough he was giving a literalist reading of the Koran that wasn’t mainstream.

Did he? Isn’t it? On such points, so deserving of debate, Scot was convicted of stating the wrong opinion.

This is the revisionist version of the decision which seems to be popular amongst some at the moment. In fact, Higgins felt that the laughter heard at numerous points on the tapes was an indication that the statements about Islam had been made in such a way so as to make the religion an object of fun. Similarly, the relevant test is whether the statements are calculated to incite hatred, serious ridicule against a person or group, not whether the person has told lies. As I have said below, if someone incites hatred against Indian people by calling them “darkies”, then it is no defence to say that their skin is in fact dark. If someone were to pull out Old Testament references to genocide, slavery and abuse and say that those verses represented true Christianity, it would be no defence to say that the verses were accurately quoted.

The chief executive of Equal Opportunity Victoria gives her defence of the laws and knocks down some of the straw man arguments that we have been seeing

It is clear, however, from the reaction of some to the Catch the Fire case that there is misunderstanding about the nature of unlawful religious vilification.

The type of behaviour covered by the act includes statements at meetings, in publications and on the internet. It is important to stress that the act deals with public behaviour not beliefs, nor what is said in private. Incitement is more than just merely holding a view or expressing an opinion, it is the encouragement or promotion of hatred towards others.

Racially stereotyping comments, offhand remarks or racist jokes are unlikely to be considered vilifying. For example, calling someone a “whingeing Pom”, a “happy clapper” or a “towel head” may be offensive but would not on its own be considered vilifying.

There are exceptions under the act that cover the work of artists, performers, journalists, academics and scientists, as long as that work is engaged in reasonably and in good faith. Discussing and debating issues such as immigration, multiculturalism and Aboriginal land rights is unlikely to be considered vilifying - nor is the publication or performance of artistic works that include cultural or ethnic stereotypes.

I can walk into a public library and find books offering a strong critique of various religions. Programs are regularly aired on television debating the cultural beliefs of specific racial groups or the beliefs of certain religions. These are not the subject of complaints to the commission, testimony to the fact that reasonable discussion about race, religion or traditions is not under threat.

There is a relatively small amount of babble on the blogs about the decision, although Rebecca, who has commented here has posted a good summary of her position in a guest post over at fridaysixpm (unfortunately can’t link to the post directly as the link seems to be broken, but posted on 27 June 2005. See also another Melbourne opinion by someone who may or may not have a job which qualifies him to give legal advice.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 29th, 2005 at 10:08 am by dan and is filed under religious vilification laws. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.