Couldn't Help Noticing

A problematic law

(From Briefing reader, Roslyn Phillips, Research Officer of Festival of Light Australia.)

Many people share Ian's pleasure that the vilification case against the two pastors in Victoria has come to an end (CHN, 26 June). The Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) and two pastors associated with Catch the Fire Ministries (CTFM) have effectively “agreed to disagree”, while uniting to affirm various qualified rights.

However, Ian cannot understand why the case has taken over five years at such cost (possibly over $1 million to the two parties and the taxpayer). “Did we really need five years of legal proceedings and the Supreme Court to help us get to this commonsense conclusion?” he asks.

But the conclusion is not as ideal as Ian suggests—and without the Supreme Court, no settlement could have happened. It is true that the prolonged hearing under Judge Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in 2003-2004, with its error-ridden findings, did not help matters. But Ian is wrong to blame VCAT for ‘prosecuting’ the pastors instead of “in the first place ... conducting a mediation which recognizes people's rights to free speech while at the same time asking everyone to be respectful when they speak out against or criticize someone else's religion”.

VCAT did indeed attempt to set up mediation in 2003, but while the pastors agreed, the ICV refused to take part. In 2002, when the ICV first lodged its religious vilification complaint against CTFM, the Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria conducted a mediation session but it was not successful.

The ICV wanted the pastors to apologize and promise not to repeat the seminar on Islam conducted by Pastor Daniel Scot. Pastors Nalliah and Scot said they were happy to apologize for any hurt caused by the seminar, and would also apologize for its content if the ICV would point out which parts of Scot's teaching on the meaning of Qur’an verses on jihad and women were incorrect. The ICV declined to do so, and chose to take the case to VCAT for arbitration. So if anyone could be said to ‘prosecute’ the pastors, it was the ICV, not VCAT.

It should be noted that Pastor Scot knows more about Islam than most Australians. Born in Pakistan, the son of Ahmed Siddiqi, he changed his name to ‘Scot’ as a young man because “Jesus paid the price for my sins and I got off scot-free”. He was a gifted mathematician, but as a Christian was able to obtain a lectureship at the University of Punjab only by passing an exam in Islamic studies—gaining 100%, ahead of all the Muslim applicants. He had to flee his country in 1987 when he was charged with the capital offence of blasphemy after politely explaining to his employers why he could not convert to Islam.

Scot lectured in mathematics at the University of Queensland before leaving in 1994 to conduct seminars on Islam throughout Australia, including many in Bible colleges. However he has not received any invitations from Victorian Bible colleges since early 2002 because of the chilling effect of the ICV litigation.

In December 2006 the Victorian Supreme Court, after reading the VCAT evidence on the dispute (including the transcript of the seminar which had been audiotaped by CTFM), upheld the pastors' appeal and listed many errors in Judge Higgins' 2004 decision. But the complaint was not dismissed. Instead, it was sent back to VCAT for rehearing by a different judge. Finally, as a result of the Supreme Court analysis, mediation was successful on 22 June 2007.

But questions still remain. The biggest problem is the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, under which the complaint was lodged. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of this law, and that truth is no defence to complaints of religious vilification. One judge said pointedly that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act restricts greatly the freedom to criticize other religions. Victorians can only do so if they ensure they are acting “reasonably in good faith for a genuine religious purpose”. Judge Higgins found that this exception did not apply to Pastor Scot—in part because, in Higgins' view, Scot's teaching on Islam was unreasonable.

Pastor Scot was only able to achieve settlement on 22 June because Supreme Court Justice Nettle recognized that he had, in significant sections of his seminar, urged his audience not to hate Muslims, but to respect and love them, to invite them into their homes and to win them for Christ. The ICV did not appreciate the last sentiment, but agreed to drop the complaint.

However the settling of the complaint does not change the fact that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act greatly restricts religious freedom in Victoria. We can only pray that Victorian Bible colleges will have the courage to invite Pastor Scot back to teach their students.

Forgiveness in the community

Following on from Fiona McDonald's CHN, our very own Gordon Cheng has also written this opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph in response to what is happening in the Northern Territory. (Warning: The link to the article caused my browser Firefox to crash. It is probably best viewed in Safari or Internet Explorer.)

Make a difference where you live

(From Fiona McDonald, one of our Briefing readers in Turner, ACT, Australia.)

Much has been said in recent days about Prime Minister John Howard's response to the Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse (also known as ‘Little Children are Sacred’ report), released on 15 June 2007. This report made 97 recommendations aimed at increasing the protection of these children in the Northern Territory—including overhauling the education system, stepping up support from government agencies, addressing the problem of alcohol abuse and tightening pornography laws. John Howard declared the situation “a national emergency” and has now put in place measures to fix the problem—including bans on alcohol on Aboriginal land for six months, a compulsory medical examination of every Aboriginal person under 16, a ban on X-rated pornography and new conditions on welfare payments.

Some are supportive of Howard's forthright measures. But some are wary of the racial overtones, his ignoring of the recommendations in the report to involve communities in the decision-making and implementation of change, and the grandstanding of a government in an election year in response to a problem that has been known about for some time. Peter Hartcher, political editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, wrote in a recent article:

The Howard plan is a beginning, a necessary condition for dealing with any problem. Howard's plan, while necessary, is insufficient. His plan is essentially authoritarian and punitive. It is a plan for establishing control and stabilising the problem. It is not yet a plan for rebuilding deeply traumatised and dysfunctional families and communities. That will need to be the second phase. (Source)

Some Aboriginal communities have not reacted well to news of a federal intervention, choosing instead to take their children and flee rather than face a repeat of the stolen generation (Source). The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mr Mal Brough, was also quoted in The Canberra Times as saying “[W]e think that the reason that a parent would not be interested in having their child's health evaluated and the appropriate medical interventions occurring anywhere throughout society is one reason and one reason only and that is that someone is putting the fear of God into them and that is unacceptable” (Source).

Reading some of these reports, I wondered what should be the Christian response. I was reminded strongly of Steve Etherington, a CMS missionary in the Northern Territory, and his urgent prayer requests for Christians to come and work in the churches in his state. His prayer stemmed from a recognition of the need of Aboriginal people to know God and the hope offered in the gospel. Ironically, Mal Brough is right: all of us—Aboriginal people and white people included—need the fear of God. Fear of God (i.e. reverence, awe, worship of God) is the beginning of wisdom, and this sort of wisdom can help stamp out abuse, alcoholism and dysfunctionality. I couldn't help but think that the result of Steve's intentions would make so much more of a difference than John Howard's initiatives.

So how should we as Christians respond to this issue? We should be challenged by the desire to do something to help. We should be challenged to apply the gospel of grace to this situation. We should be seeking to live as distinctive witnesses in the midst of these people. There are lots of jobs for trained Christian professionals in the Northern Territory church—youth workers, pastors, Bible teachers, and so on. But there are also lots of other positions in the Northern Territory that could be filled by Christians: teachers, medical staff, counsellors, social workers, administrators, lawyers, builders, civil engineers, police, youth workers, childcare workers, mums in playgroups, honest shopkeepers, art dealers, and so on. The state needs Christians who are willing to live in the towns and remote communities of the Northern Territory to act as ambassadors for God, spreading the message of God's great love, and his offer of forgiveness and reconciliation. It needs Christians willing to speak about the transforming power of the Holy Spirit in overcoming human weaknesses like alcoholism, drug addiction and pornography addiction. It needs Christians willing to read the Bible with other people, help people apply it to their lives, pray with them and hold them accountable. It needs people willing to share their lives the way Jesus did when he came to earth.

But perhaps you can't move to the Northern Territory or anywhere near the top end (Queensland and Western Australia included). What can you do? You can pray. You can look around you and think about how you can make a difference where you live and work. That's Steve Etherington's challenge. Look for the marginalized, the poor, the weak and the downtrodden in your community. I worked as a doctor in the Aboriginal Health service in the ACT in response to that challenge. What will be your response?

Let's be those who offer glasses of “living water” to those who need to hear (John 4). Let's be those who care for the sick, visit those in prison and invite people into our homes (Matt 25:34-40). But let us not be those who say “Go in peace, be warmed and filled” while at the same time doing nothing (Jas 2:14-17).

Cussin’ God

Here's a letter I wrote that they wouldn't publish in The Age:

Dear editor,

Tim Heughan, your question about why sports people don't curse God when they lose (Letters June 20) reminds me of Job's nasty wife who exhorted him to “Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9)

Apart from the fairly obvious stupidity of cursing our Maker, most of us believers are aware even in our worst moments that we deserve nothing from God except his just judgement for our sins. So why shouldn't we praise him loud and long when nice things happen? If it irritates people like you, that's just a bonus.

Yours etc.

Some sanity prevails in Victoria

It is very pleasing to read that the vilification case against two pastors in Victoria has come to an end. After the Tribunal's decision to find the pastors guilty of vilification was highly criticized by the Victorian Supreme Court and sent back for a re-hearing, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) seems to have cut its losses, deciding not to re-prosecute the pastors, and doing what should have been done in the first place: conducting a mediation which recognizes people's rights to free speech while at the same time asking everyone to be respectful when they speak out against or criticize someone else's religion.

The specific terms of the mediation are reproduced here from the VCAT web site:

The Islamic Council of Victoria (the ICV) has reached an agreement with Catch the Fire Ministries, Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Daniel Nalliah about the complaint the ICV brought in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), concerning what it alleged were acts of religious vilification in contravention of s 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic).

Although some of the terms of that agreement are confidential, the parties have agreed to make this joint public statement.

Notwithstanding their differing views about the merits of the complaint made by the ICV, each of the ICV, Catch The Fire Ministries, Pastor Scot and Pastor Nalliah affirm and recognise the following:

1. the dignity and worth of every human being, irrespective of their religious faith, or the absence of religious faith;
2. the rights of each other, their communities, and all persons, to adhere to and express their own religious beliefs and to conduct their lives consistently with those beliefs;
3. the rights of each other, their communities and all persons, within the limits provided for by law, to robustly debate religion, including the right to criticise the religious belief of another, in a free, open and democratic society;
4. the value of friendship, respect and co-operation between Christians, Muslims and all people of other faiths; and
5. the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act forms part of the law of Victoria to which the rights referred to in paragraph 3 above are subject.

All of this represents a position Christians would support and willingly adhere to. So what was all the fuss about? Did we really need five years of legal proceedings and the Supreme Court to help us get to this commonsense conclusion?