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:
- the dignity and worth of every human being, irrespective of their religious faith, or the absence of religious faith;
- 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;
- 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;
- the value of friendship, respect and co-operation between Christians, Muslims and all people of other faiths; and
- 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?