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. Here�s 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


The tribunal focused on vilification whereas the Supreme Court has in effect said the legislation is about incitement of a third party to hatred of another person or group of persons. The words “vilify” and “vilification” should be removed from the legislation altogether.

A third problem lies with section 11, the so called exception clause, which reads:

A person does not contravene section 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith,

Advertisement
  • (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
  • (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for (i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose.

From Justice Nettle’s comments on this clause it is apparent that while the seminar might have met a “genuine religious purpose” and been conducted in “good faith”, it is questionable whether it would have met the criteria of being engaged in “reasonably”.

Justice Nettle himself says that an assessment of whether conduct was engaged in reasonably “may not always be easy”. Indeed, what is reasonable to one person may be totally unreasonable to someone else, and to try and judge what is reasonable by “the standards of an open and just multicultural society” as Justice Nettle suggests, will make for a very subjective assessment.

So while the Christian community can be grateful that the appeal was upheld and greater clarity given to the Act, the Act remains deeply troubling and therefore Christians, civil libertarians and all persons of goodwill should be unrelenting in their efforts to gain very substantial modification of this legislation by the Government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 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 Scot’s (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