| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| When legal absurdity is watched world-wide |
| 2004-03-04 |
| A religious vilification case has embarrassed the plaintiffs and shown the stupidity of the law, says PIERS AKERMAN. IN a case being closely followed around the world, the Victorian Government has effectively placed Islam on trial under its controversial Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. It didn’t mean to, of course. The legislation was intended to shield religions – particularly Islam – from scrutiny and was championed by the Islamic Council of Victoria and other Muslim organisations before being passed by the Bracks Government in mid-2001. Bracks, the Premier of Victoria, is a Christian of Lebanese descent. Is this another case of dhimmitude fostered on unsuspecting Victorians, under the guise of " religious tolerence"? Indeed, the current matter was the first brought under the flawed legislation when it came into effect early in 2002. The case in the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission bears all the hallmarks of a set-up, but it has exploded in the equal opportunity industry’s face. Consider the facts. The matter had its genesis in a seminar held under the aegis of Catch the Fire Ministries, one of the major opponents of the legislation. Three complainants, all Australian converts to Islam, were encouraged to attend the seminar by contacts within the Victorian Islamic Council. One of those who encouraged one of the female attendees was May Helou, who was then employed by the Equal Opportunity Commission and also involved with the Islamic Council as its women’s education officer, the Australian Arabic Council, and Victorian Arabic Social Services. (Helou has apparently recently left her EOC position.) The principal speakers at the seminar were Christian pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah and they were charged under Victoria’s appalling legislation with allegedly vilifying Islam. Attempts at conciliation before the Victorian EOC and the Victorian Civil Administration Tribunal failed and the case is now being heard by Judge Michael Higgins at VCAT. Unfortunately for both the EOC and the Victorian Islamic Council, the three complainants – whose evidence is critical to the case – have scant knowledge of the Koran. Pastor Scot, on the other hand, has testified to having read the Koran more than 100 times and has made a study of Islam and Islamic scholars. Attempts to discredit his knowledge of the topic have backfired embarrassingly for the complainants’ counsel, Brind Woinarski QC, and have highlighted some crucial differences between Christian and Islamic teachings. Among the arguments Mr Woinarski has tried to develop is the claim that laughter during Pastor Scot’s reading of the Koran at the seminar may have breached the Act’s prohibition on "severe ridicule". The screwy law was already on dangerous ground concerning freedom of speech, but now freedom to laugh is also under threat in Victoria. Pastor Scot has also been asked to comment on the Koranic verse which calls for the cutting off of the right hand of a thief, and another verse which mentions repentance. As Pastor Scot’s barrister, David Perkins, noted, there is nothing about re-attaching the hands of those who later repent. Pastor Scot was also able to point out that Mohammed cut off the hands of thieves and that Muslim scholars, four schools of Sunni Islamic law, as well as Shi’a law, all say that a hand can be cut off and do not link the verse relating to repentance with the earlier verse about such punishment. Indeed, he explained that the Koranic law as well as the hadith (the collected teachings second only to the Koran) say that if a thief steals again they also will have their right leg chopped off. Islamic mercy, he said, was shown by the fact those who had been punished by having a hand chopped off did not have their leg similarly treated – so long as they changed their ways. The case has even examined the question of differences between Allah in the Koran and God in the Bible. The hearing was also given chapter and verse references (or Koranic reference and hadith) to the role of women in Islam. The hearing was told that the Islamic view was that the testimony of a woman was worth half that of a man, that a woman was a "toy", was "not to be seen" and was as a "rib that is crooked". It was told that a husband’s sexual demands must be met even if his wife is cooking a meal, that a wife is as property, that a "temporary wife" is acceptable and that a woman is "deficient in intelligence". Whether May Helou will be as energetic an exponent in promoting Islam when this matter is finally resolved will be interesting to see. Perhaps the most telling moment to date came just last Friday when Pastor Scot was asked by the Islamic Council’s barrister Debbie Mortimer to stop reading passages from the Koran and just give verses because the readings vilified Muslims. He replied: "If it is not for reading, it shouldn’t be in the book." Relatively straightforward and accurate reports of the trial have been placed on the web by Pastor Scot’s church; certainly in all the pertinent facts they accord with the few reports that have appeared in the local press. Summing up in the case should begin next week. The greatest crime is that the politically correct Victorian Government ever enacted the shameful legislation which permitted the case to begin at all. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #8 Charles The web site you requested www.catchthefire.com.au/ |
| Posted by: tipper 2004-3-4 11:21:08 PM |
| #7 Note rant tags. If interested, read what follows - it's just some honest observations, Joycian-style, from an atheist. I know some will flip, but so what? Many are permanently flipped, IMHO. I am not inviting a debate - take it or leave it as you please, but don't try to engage me over it, I'm not interested in rehashing the oldest hash known to man. [rant] As an atheist, I always find discussions and articles like this fascinating. Much is along the pot calling the kettle black line -- usually nit-picking trivialities, while ignoring the surrounding mass of obvious ooga-nooga bullshit. BUT. I agree with PlanetDan - and many others: I believe a religion can serve a useful, if not noble, purpose - or I believe it deservingly dies out. Where the purpose is essentially positive, that it demonstrably does much more good than bad, it is to be applauded - and its believers protected from unwarranted persecution - and the law of reason determines the sum of that latter judgment. Where the balance goes the other way, it is a pestilence - and the adherents are carriers deserving no quarter. All religions I have encountered (with one notable exception) have a jewel (or more) of obvious truth. It's just the massive BS baggage that converts are expected to swallow along with the goodies that leaves me cold. One reason why I have relatively few critical comments about Christianity is that there is an elegance and profoundness present in its practical tenets and application. I've read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. I've read the Book of Mormon. The Qu'uran. The Upanishads. The Dancing WuLi Masters. A raft of books trying to explain Zen in words. The Zen of Motorcylce Maintenance came closest to what I saw first-hand in practice in Asia. And I've read much more. Not much of the Torah, yet, but I guess I'll get around to it someday. Contrasting Christianity and Islam, the topic here... What strikes me about the Bible is that some of it is so simply written, yet profound, that it is breathtaking - and timeless. I find nothing in the Qu'uran that even approaches the same way of speaking or the self-apparent wisdom, much less the positive effects. Islam is that exception - and it propagates for reasons other than positive choice and beneficial effect. Where the Bible gives simple rules that have a profound effect (e.g. Do unto others...) with absolutely no negative fallout, the Qu'uran is a book of pure fear of retribution and it is laced with dictated hate. It is a rant of hate and threats - thus I must conclude the author was a twisted individual seeking revenge for slights, real or imagined. The most dogmatic dire pedestrian writings of the Old Testament are of the same ilk as the whole of the Qu'uran. It never fails to rise above that mark - but the Bible does -- and it does it without requiring some "official" of the faith to explain away what is written or fill in between the lines and spin it for consumption. The good stuff is there in black and white. I have found nothing in the Qu'uran to match it, no profundity or vision or anything inspiring or worthy of further study. Some will say that is a defect of translation. Bullshit - in practice it proves my point. In practice, Christianity has many positive effects that exceed the negatives - which make the news on occasion. The qu'uran is a book of do's, don'ts, and unrelenting fear. Most religions offer the intellectually-challenging lame promise of an ooga-booga afterlife (what a word) usually one full of Earthly hedonistic rewards (Gee - I wonder why...) and continued subservience to some entity. Yawn. For me, this is of no consequence - it's the practice on Earth that matters - for that is the only provable reality. Islam is utterly barren of reason beyond the enrichment and empowerment of its status quo - in other words it has all of the negatives of religion, but lacks any saving-grace positive. It is an excellent example of a system that fails to balance its negative impact - in any way. Thus, IMHO, it deserves to be exterminated as the human pathogen it daily proves to be. This just my opinion. Take it or leave it. [/rant] |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-4 7:56:24 PM |
| #6 I think the acid test of a religion is how provides value to society/humanity. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc may have their faults, but they do challenge people to do and be better. What was the quote from Hiwayee? They came to do good and they done right well. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-4 3:57:50 PM |
| #5 Islam has outlived any usefulness I think the acid test of a religion is how provides value to society/humanity. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc may have their faults, but they do challenge people to do and be better. Look at how adherents have created advancements in science, arts, culture, etc. I see nothing of the sort from Islam. Either nothing, or worse, death and destruction. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2004-3-4 2:04:18 PM |
| #4 Typical cult behavior - "our religion is what we say it is, regardless of what you think or what's written anywhere". Islam has outlived any usefulness it may have ever had, and needs to be added to the garbage heap of history, along with dozens of other dead-end cults. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-3-4 11:11:16 AM |
| #3 Relatively straightforward and accurate reports of the trial have been placed on the web by Pastor Scot’s church What the address of the website? And before I forget: Bwahahahahaahhaha! |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-3-4 10:55:29 AM |
| #2 Debbie Mortimer to stop reading passages from the Koran ..... because the readings vilified Muslims. Hilarious! And at the same time shocking! |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-3-4 10:01:19 AM |
| #1 Perhaps the most telling moment to date came just last Friday when Pastor Scot was asked by the Islamic Council’s barrister Debbie Mortimer to stop reading passages from the Koran and just give verses because the readings vilified Muslims. He replied: "If it is not for reading, it shouldn’t be in the book." Heh. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-3-4 9:31:42 AM |