Skip to comments.Christian Pastors Found Guilty of Vilifying Islam
Posted on 12/17/2004 3:27:05 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
One does wonder, though, if the "fix was in" with that judge.
At the bottom of the page, for interesting reading:
Submission to the Equal Opportunities Commission - Response to complaints from the Islamic Council. (pdf)
The Equal Opportunities Commission (of Victoria.)Blech!
Meanwhile in another State, (New South Wales) an attendee of the Lakemba Mosque is to stand trial for terrorist plot to blow up our power-grid...and is asking for bail.
One law for Christian pastors and another the totally opposite for the terrorist I gather.
Oh well, what else could one expect? Victoria has a State Governor of Lebanese descent...a liberal. A very sad day for Australia.
You'll be fine if you visit Queensland. Lots of beaches, always sunny, Barrier Reef islands...loads of northern hospitality, Bundaberg Rum and coke...no mooselimbs!
And there you have the judge's agenda in a nutshell.
I, too, was wondering just what was factually incorrect about any of these statements. The truth defense should trump all the PC hogwash.
The AU federal government is going to have to take that judge and toss him in the drink for any of us to believe it's safe anywhere there.
Could be billions in tourist dollars lost on this case.
Let me see if I got this right. If I were in Australia and I attended a Muslim "service" that quoted the Qu'ran, and if that quote advocated violence against Christians and other peoples "of the Book," I could then sue the Muslims for hate?
Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is the 'baby' of the State Premier and will last as long as he does...
During the last elections, when John Howard was re-elected by an increased margin, a new political party made an entrance. Family First.
I believe that catchthefire ministries are connected with that new party...which did very well.
Family First are here to stay. That's more than what the Premier of Victoria can hope for!
I hope you are good at predicting the future.
It seems to me that the tribunal is guilty itself of violating this law. By denouncing the ministers' religious descriptions of islam, the tribunal has demonstrated an intolerance which is designed to bring about serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of" another person or group on the basis of religious belief...
I hope the ministers intend to pursue those charges.
Theoretically, yes - at least in the state of Victoria where this case took place. It is a bad law - but it is a bad law that does seem to be written to be applied equally.
Don't blame the judge. He is upholding the law and at his level, he really does have to uphold the law as written. Constitutional concerns and common law concerns (and this case involves both) are outside his balliwick.
I expect this case will go to the Supreme Court of Victoria and if necessary to the High Court of Australia. I am 90% certain the Supreme Court will overturn this ruling, and 99% sure the High Court will on Constitutional grounds.
If this does not occur, I will be one of many agitating for the Commonwealth government to use its treaty powers to overturn this law - and I honestly don't think there will be any difficulty in persuading the government to do so.
This is a bad law - but this is a ruling in a rather low level court, with a pretty limited scope for ruling. It will be appealed - and when it reaches courts concerned with the Constitution and Common Law, I cannot see the law surviving.
That's alright - there's plenty of beaches and rum in the USA.
Is the whole rest of the world falling for this Islam crap? It's does make one wonder...
BTW - thanks for the link on your "page" - I plan to download and read.
I wasn't dissing Australia in my post just Im not traveling too much beyond the boarders these days!
It is quite interesting that the secular multicultural fundamentalists are bringing back heresy law. And ironic, of course.
This is why I'll be watching President Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court with great interest. To me, the appointments will be the strongest of indications of which way this country will go in the future.
Coming soon to an apostate nation near you. REALLY near.
Yup. Merry Chris...ooops, sorry. Someone might be offended. Happy Ramadan.
.....see you in the catacombs next year?
Islam is pretty open about what it teaches, and the 4 schools of interpretation are not terribly different in any case. In fact, there are numerous Islamic websites where the complete outline of their theology is laid out like a Venn Diagram ~ a task virtually impossible with any other religion! Someone well versed in the "Book of Common Prayer" might well think citing some of the better known Islamic beliefs was simply casting ridicule on the whole thing.
Seems to me the judge set this whole thing up for a big tumble when he referred to "their God Allah", rather than just to "God". Now that doesn't mean he intended to do so, but it is instructive that he ended up thinking that way after having a parade of Moslem witnesses and complainants come before him.
I still think Australia needs to be put on the State Department's restricted travel list until they figure out whether or not they want to be a free society or one which recognizes Sharia Law, like the Islamofascist state to our North we call Canukistan.
I would vilify Islam with a burst of six that would have the moderators ban me forever.
But, keep this in mind, the following was the sentiment of Omar M. Ahmad, the Chairman of the Board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR, as told at an Islamic conference held in Freemont, California, in July of 1998.
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.
I am guilty.
I'm more distressed to see members of the anglosphere turning in the direction of thought and speech control. Australia, Canada, England .... they all appear to have "bosses" who tell them what they can think and say.
Render unto God the things that are God's -- TRUTH is God's.
"Much of what the judge considered offensive was simply quotations from the Koran," he added. "To argue that quoting a religious book makes one guilty of vilification would put 98 percent of religious discussions out of bounds."
If the truth hurts then outlaw truth. Brilliant.
From what I have read of this law, the facts of this case do seem to match its provisions reasonably closely. If they didn't it might not be as moronic a law as it in fact is.
In my view, the Judge was on a hiding to nothing in referring to 'the God Allah'. If he hadn't made the distinction, he'd probably be being attacked by Christians at the moment for making a legal ruling that suggested that Allah and the God Christians believe in are the same God (which some Moslems and some Christians do say is the case, but which is certainly not something that is proper for a Judge to rule on.) His distinction in my view was simply an attempt to avoid that issue. Basically he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in that situation.
As for your suggestion that Australia should be put on the US State Department's restricted travel list, that would be a great way to antagonise one of the few countries that has stood with America in recent years. Now maybe if this was an act of the Federal government I could understand wanting to do that - but this law is a product of one of the most left wing governments in the country in what is probably the most left wing state in the country. This is not an Australia wide issue - it's an issue created by a state government that would love to embarass the Federal government overseas.
Frankly, I don't think Steve Bracks is all that important even in Australian terms - and his misguided policies certainly don't seem to me to be anything for Americans to be getting their knickers in a twist about.
Advocate whatever you like - but frankly, I think some Americans are seriously overestimating how important this issue is. It's one minor court in one left wing state - and it is almost certain to be overturned when it reaches a higher court.
As I understand it, the Judge in this case hasn't even mentioned the Free Speech issue and that strongly suggests that he knows it's the real issue - and he's leaving it to the higher courts (which can set far wider precedents) to deal with.
I am curious about something. I wondering how all of these people who are defending Islam will feel when Islam is THE majority religion of their regions and the Muslims show them no respect and give them no favor. IOW, the Muslims are using them to further their cause. When they reach their goal these people will be useless to them.
Right. If I were a Smart Guy, I'd write an molten, acid essay on our Constitutional Right Not To Be Offended. You've read that one, right? It's plainly on open display -- in the Penumbra to the Constitution.
Still, as you note, free speech is the issue, as well as a little knowledge of history. This particular judge, if he and his gumbahs running Victoria state keep it up will be bowing to Mecca 5 times a day, and feasting on stew made up out of those wild camels you fellows keep.
I don't think anyone was arrested - I can't swear to that, but the case has been generally handled as a civil case rather than a criminal one (even though criminal penalties can be imposed under these laws - the Judge has pretty much ruled them out in this case).
Police are not looking for people breaking these laws. Rather what has happened is that an Islamic group has chosen to bring a case under them.
I'm sure somebody could make a case against certain Moslems under this law, but so far nobody seems to have chosen to do so.
But there's nothing 'funny' going on. It's simply a matter that somebody really has to make a complaint for this law to apply.
Like I say, I don't think it's fair to blame the Judge. He has a job to do and he's not at a level where he can really interpret laws outside the narrow statutes. In Australia we tend not to like low level judges changing what the law is - that's a function for the various Parliaments and in rarer cases where there are conflicts for the state Supreme Courts and the High Court of Australia.
But as for the actual Victorian government - while I don't think they are *all* bad, most of them are pretty clueless and driven by a fairly hard left ideology that hasn't yet worked out where the real threats are. The biggest issue in Victorian politics really seems to be whether a particular road should be a freeway or a tollway - they are not interested in any really serious issues that I can see.
Proves you can't win with these judges.
Intriguingly, that's what the Moslems use to peddle Sharia Law ~ a promise that you won't have to deal with the Trial Court judges anymore.
Guess that makes it attractive to some.
This isn't a trial court - the the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It deals with civil matters and is really designed to deal with things like the supply of goods, credit, guardianships and residential tenancies.
The state government (in its 'infinite wisdom') also chose to place issues of 'discrimination' under its authority. In my view, mostly because they were hoping to sidestep Constitutional issues. They won't succeeed.
Hope you Aussies stay safe.
Best wishes for a Blessed Christmas.
Ammo would be the better option.
Thanks for the Blessed Christmas wishes. I wish you and your loved ones the same, and stay safe.
I have been following this situation for some time, I was shocked to hear the verdict last night. However, as naturalman explained so well, this is not the end of the story by any means. Catchthefire have a Site - there should be an update coming soon:
Christian Pastors Found Guilty of Vilifying Islam.
How can one villify the most evil force on earth?
Big (((:::D-U-H:::))), b? Good catch!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.