The following is from The Age, an Australian Newspaper. It is a report an ongoing appeal on the part of two Australian Pastors, Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, both of whom are originally from Muslim nations who were prosecuted under the Racial and Religious Tolerance act, for holding a seminar on Islam in 2002 in which they discussed Islamic doctrine and the Koran. At no point did they incite hatred towards Muslims or even suggest that people act violently towards Muslims, and in fact that wasn't even alleged in the charges, rather it is charged that portraying Islam in a negative light amounted to an act of hatred towards Muslims.
Bizzarre as it may seem, this law is being used as in Australia to prevent "blasphemy" against Islam in a manner similar to anti-blasphemy laws in countries that enforce Sharia (though thankfully without the death penalty called for under Sharia). This isn't the first time Daniel Scot has had to deal with prosecution under anti-Blasphemy laws, as his own biography notes:
“Daniel Scot is a Pakistani who came to Australia in the late 1980's.
He was forced to leave Pakistan after being charged under the blasphemy laws for which the penalty is death. He was one of only two Christian lecturers in Mathematics in Pakistan at university level. He was not only on top of the merit list when he competed for the position, but obtained 100 % in Islamic knowledge which were part of his examination for the position of lecturer in Mathematics.
He lectured at Queensland University in Mathematics. He reads and writes classical Arabic and speaks a total of 4 languages.
He is a Christian but is regarded as a world non-Islamic Authority on Islam and lectures in various parliament houses in Australia on Islamic matters and travels the world lecturing on Islam.”Barney Zwartz
August 22, 2006
IT IS impossible to vilify Islam without also vilifying Muslims, because the two are indistinguishable, the Victorian Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
"If one vilifies Islam, one is by necessary consequence vilifying people who hold that religious belief," Brind Woinarski, QC, told the court.
Mr Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria's religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.
Cameron Macaulay, for the pastors, argued that the act explicitly confined the prohibition to vilifying persons, not the religion — otherwise it could operate as a law against blasphemy. Instead, it recognised one could hate the idea without hating the person.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle asked Mr Woinarski: "There must be intellectually a distinction between the ideas and those who hold them?" "We don't agree with that," Mr Woinarski said. "But in this case it's an irrelevant distinction, because Muslims and Islam were mishmashed up together."
Justice Nettle: "Are you saying it's impossible to incite hatred against a religion without also inciting hatred against people who hold it?" Mr Woinarski: "Yes."
Mr Macaulay said orders by Judge Michael Higgins against the pastors to take out a newspaper advertisement apologising and not to repeat certain teachings were too wide, and beyond his powers under the act.
He said it was surprising that the pastors could hold the beliefs but not express them. "They are restrained by law from suggesting or implying a number of things about what in their view the Koran teaches: that it preaches violence and killing, that women are of little value, that the God of Islam, Allah, is not merciful, that there is a practice of 'silent jihad' for spreading Islam, or that the Koran says Allah will remit the sins of martyrs.
"Contentious or otherwise, these are opinions about Islam's doctrines and teaching. Statements of this kind are likely to offend and insult Muslims but their feelings are not relevant under the act." Mr Macaulay said the act burdened free speech, contravened international treaties Australia had signed and breached the Australian constitution.
The act, amended in May, has been controversial. Opponents rallied against it outside Parliament earlier this month, and some Christians vowed to make it an issue at the state election.
This case has been monitored by Christian and Muslim groups overseas, and at one point Judge Higgins had to assure the Foreign Affairs Department he was not considering jailing the pastors after a flood of emails from America.
The case continues today.
I believe Danny Nalliah nailed it when he was quoted in The Australian as saying:
"I have lived in Saudi Arabia and learned the real nature of Islam. It is to dominate other religions and other cultures. The Koran speaks of world domination. I have spoken to a lot of Muslim leaders who say it is easy to exploit the Western system. The say the key is to be patient, to learn the language, and to build up numbers. Then build up political power."- SEAGOON
