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.