Telling the truth can be an offence
(From Briefing reader, Roslyn Phillips, National Research Officer of Festival of Light Australia.)
The long-awaited decision on an appeal by two Christian pastors may have been handed down on 14 December last year but the full implications have yet to hit the nation's headlines. The pastors had appealed against a decision by Judge Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that they had vilified Muslims. The alleged vilification had occurred mainly in a 2002 seminar on Islam conducted by Pastor Daniel Scot, but also in a Catch the Fire Ministries newsletter and website article published by Pastor Danny Nalliah.
Three Victorian Supreme Court judges—Nettle, Ashley and Neave—upheld the pastors' appeal, saying that Judge Higgins had erred in interpreting the law. In 2004, Judge Higgins decided that the pastors' presentations about Islam were unbalanced. The Supreme Court ruled that secular courts cannot make theological judgements, and, in any case, truth and balance were irrelevant. Justice Nettle said, “[S]tatements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain to incite hatred of the group because of those beliefs” (source). Justice Neave said,
It is ... possible that a person may make true statements about the characteristics associated with a religion eg ‘Muslims have a duty to proselytize’ which may, in particular circumstances, incite hatred. Section 11 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act ... does not provide that the fact that words are true takes them outside s.8 of the Act. (Ibid.)
In effect, Justices Nettle and Neave said that laws against inciting hatred, contempt or ridicule can make it an offence to tell the truth where the truth would portray a religion or race in a negative light.
However, Justice Nettle drew a clear distinction between inciting hatred against Muslim beliefs about the Koran, and inciting hatred against Muslims. He said that Judge Higgins had not adequately acknowledged substantial parts of the seminar, newsletter and website article which encouraged listeners and readers to love and respect Muslims and their culture. It should be noted, though, that the other judges did not agree on all points.
The pastors' trauma may be far from over for the complaint against them has not been dismissed—it has been sent back to VCAT where a different judge will reconsider the evidence. But for other Australians, the trauma may only be just beginning.
Anti-vilification laws have been passed in one form or another in parliaments across the country during the past 10 years or so. Victoria enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act in January 2002. Section 8 makes it an offence to “engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons” on the ground of their race or religion. Other states have similar laws relating to the grounds of race or religion and/or sexuality. The South Australian government, for example, is now proposing a law covering over a dozen different grounds, including sex, sexuality, marital status, lawful occupation and area of residence.
However the Victorian Supreme Court has now told us that it could be an offence to tell an unpleasant truth about a person or group on the ground of their race, religion or sexuality. Defamation laws were made uniform throughout Australia only last year. All such laws now state that “truth or substantial truth” is a full defence. So why is truth irrelevant in laws against vilification? And why are church leaders largely silent on this important issue?
Was it not Jesus Christ who said, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32)?