Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Hereís how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Appeal is favourable for Catch the Fire Ministries

By David Palmer - posted Thursday, 11 January 2007


Almost two years to the day after Judge Higgins, Vice President of VCAT, found Catch the Fire Ministries Inc and Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot guilty of vilifying Islamic belief and practices during a seminar, and consequently in breach of section 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, three judges sitting in the Supreme Court of Victoria, unanimously upheld the appeal against the Tribunal’s decision, effectively unravelling that finding and the basis on which it was constructed.

With the penalties set aside, the court has sent the matter back to the tribunal with the stipulation that it be heard by another judge and without the calling of further evidence.

Furthermore, the Islamic Council of Victoria, which originally brought the complaint, was ordered to meet half the two Pastors’ Appeal costs and may well end up paying a proportion of their tribunal costs as well.

Advertisement

Because each judge gave his or her own judgment, they differ somewhat in detail. Justice Nettle’s judgment is the most comprehensive of the three and the one most favourable to the two pastors.

The basis of the court’s decision lay in the tribunal’s failure to correctly construct and apply Section 8(1), the key clause in the Act which has as its all important clause, “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”.

Justice Nettle faulted the tribunal’s interpretation of Section 8, namely that Pastor Scot was moved by the religious beliefs of Muslims to make statements such that an “ordinary reasonable person” would be inclined to hate Muslims. Rather, the correct interpretation was “whether, having regard to the content of the statements in the context of the whole of the seminar, and to the nature of the audience …, the natural and ordinary effect of what was stated was to encourage the hatred of Muslims based on their religious beliefs”.

The other two members of the court largely agreed with this assessment of Section 8 and so with this corrected understanding of the meaning of Section 8, the matter has been referred back to the tribunal for re-assessment.

A number of other points made for the tribunal’s consideration included:

The tribunal erred in failing to draw a distinction between hatred of the beliefs of a particular religion and the hatred of persons holding those beliefs, though the distinction is not always so sharp.

Advertisement

The tribunal erred in its assessment of the 19 specific instances of supposed vilifying statements made by Pastor Scot, either by misconstruing Pastor Scot’s words (Scot did not say “Muslims are demons”) or failing to take into account other ameliorating material.

The tribunal does not come out at all well in Justice Nettle’s analysis.

The tribunal erred in attempting to assess the theological propriety of what was asserted at the seminar.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

37 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Palmer is a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Australia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Palmer
Related Links
Catch the Fire and Daniel Scotís (in)credible testimony - On Line Opinion
Free speech protects against extremism - On Line Opinion
Is this religious persecution? - On Line Opinion
More outrages, more revulsion, more enmity - On Line Opinion
There is free speech, and then there is hate-inducing vilification - On Line Opinion

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 37 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy