"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A695DA03843fstone69@207.69.189.191...

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA7AB.htm

Divided before the law
A barrister tells a cautionary tale from Australia, on the dangers of
creating a crime of incitement to religious hatred.
by Neil Addison

'Do you believe that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God?'
would normally be regarded as a theological rather than a legal
question. Yet it is one of the questions put to a witness in a recent
trial in Australia - and which demonstrates the inherent dangers of
UK home secretary David Blunkett's proposals to create a crime of
incitement to religious hatred.

The Australian case involves an allegation of religious vilification
brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) against the
Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries (CTFM) and two of its
pastors, Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah, and relates to a seminar
that they presented in March 2002. The daylong seminar dealt with the
Muslim concept of jihad, the history of Islam, the future of Islam in
Australia and whether the practice of Islam was compatible with
Western concepts of democracy. It involved quotations from the Koran
and references to the life of Mohammed and the Hadith (traditions) of
the prophet, which together form the basis of Islamic Sharia law.

Various parts of the seminar were attended by three Australian
converts to Islam, who reported back to the ICV, which subsequently
brought the case against CTFM under section eight of the Victoria
'Racial and Religious Toleration Act 2001' that had come into effect
in 2002. That section says:

(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.

The claim asked for damages and also that the defendants be ordered
to acknowledge that remarks at the seminar were inaccurate, retract
the statements, sincerely apologise for the offence caused and be
prohibited from 'further publication or distribution, directly or
indirectly of any material containing statements, suggestions and
implications to the same or similar effect'. If such an order was
made any breach would be a contempt of court punishable with
imprisonment.

CTFM not surprisingly argued that the seminar accurately reflected
Islamic teaching and history, and that it was an exercise in free
speech, and reflected their personal religious beliefs. During the
trial it became apparent that the Muslim converts had been
deliberately sent to the seminar by ICV with a view to bringing a
case.

Both pastors were known to have strong views about Islam and Sharia.
Scot is a Christian from Pakistan who had gone to Australia to escape
persecution, while Nalliah had worked in Saudi Arabia where the
practice of Christianity is a criminal offence. Much of the case
revolved around interpretations of the Koran and incidents in the
life of Mohammed. At one point Scot was asked whether he believed
that Muslims and Christians prayed to the same God, a question that
was allowed by the judge.

The trial took place in the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal and was originally scheduled to last for three days. It
actually extended over seven months and the judgement is still
awaited. Meanwhile, another case has been launched by a witch who
claims that her religious beliefs have been vilified by the Christian
mayor of her town. Relationships between Muslim and Christian groups
in Australia have been damaged. If the two pastors are cleared,
Muslim groups will claim that the law is not protecting them; if they
are convicted they will be regarded as martyrs on the altar of
political correctness...

Damn, that's a tough question. I think I could argue both sides of
that one.

I think it should be clear that incitement to an *actual act* of
religious hatred would be stepping across the line. But how close one
can get to that line without stepping beyond First Amendment
boundaries (which I prefer to interpret generously) I'm unsure. As
with political speech, I would rather allow free speech even for the
most heinous groups, KKK, Nazis, etc., but we can't allow anyone to
actually incite lynchings.

But then again, one can incite hatred and intolerance all day without
actually inciting for specific actions. The spewers on talk radio and
in a lot of churches do that all the time. . .and I somehow think that
clamping down on that speech would only 'confirm' their persecution
complex and help to 'justify' their hatred all the more.

Interesting topic, and I'm not at all hardcore on my position on this
as it's just way too nuanced for pat answers.

Raptor514