Posted on 10/31/2003 9:53:25 AM PST by HarleyD
A legal tribunal in an Australian state will proceed with a case in which Muslims have accused Christians of vilifying Islam. The tribunal rejected arguments that it lacks the authority to hear the case.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is hearing the first case of its kind under Victoria's hate laws, which penalize anyone found guilty of inciting hatred, contempt or revulsion on the grounds of race or religious belief.
The Islamic Council of Victoria and three individual Muslims have brought the complaint against an evangelical Christian organization, Catch the Fire Ministries, which ran a seminar on Islam last year.
The complainants accuse the group of vilifying Islam during the seminar and on its Internet website, and want a retraction, an apology and compensation.
The Christians' legal counsel, David Perkins, argued that the tribunal could not hear the case because Australia's constitution, which is deemed to protect free speech, is in conflict with that state's Racial and Religious Toleration Act, under which the complaint was brought. The controversial Act was passed by the state's Labor government two years ago.
But presiding Judge Michael Higgins ruled that the state's legislation was not affected by federal laws, and the case is going ahead.
The Islamic Council of Victoria's legal representative, Brind Woinarski, told the tribunal seminar speaker Daniel Scot had alleged that the Quran encouraged violence, and that Muslims in Australia planned to turn the country into an Islamic state.
Scot, who claims to be an expert on Islam, told the audience Islam sanctioned lies and deceit when dealing with non-Muslims, he said.
Scot had also claimed that Muslims ascribe the same value to women as they do to a donkey or a dog, said Woinarski, who argued that the Racial and Religious Toleration Act was put in place to prevent such stereotyping.
Facing the complaints are Scot, an Islamic studies scholar who fled Pakistan in 1987 because of religious persecution; and Catch the Fire president Danny Nalliah, a Sri Lankan-born pastor. Both are now residents of Australia.
Perkins argued earlier that Catch the Fire's activities were exempt from the legislation.
The law includes several exemptions, including one for cases where it is established that a person acted in good faith, in discussion or debate for a genuine religious purpose.
Perkins said further that, while the law dealt with inciting hatred, contempt and revulsion, the ministry "exhorted Christians to love Muslims and pray for them."
In its lengthy defense statement, Catch the Fire has responded to each complaint in turn, asserting that the seminar had accurately reflected the Quran and other important Islamic texts.
Christian groups working in the Muslim world have voiced concern about the case.
An organization called Voice of the Martyrs, headquarters in Oklahoma, said Nalliah and Scot would not be allowed to argue on the basis of whether or not their statements were true, but only on whether or not they incited hatred against Muslims.
"This case is a wake-up call for Western Christians," said the group's spokesman, Todd Nettleton. "These men are not on trial for telling lies. They are on trial - in what we would call a free nation - for telling the truth."
Earlier a UK-based Christian organization called the Barnabas Fund, headed by a respected expert on Islam, also decried the case.
"This is an indication of the growing trend to place Islamic teaching and Muslim actions beyond the bounds of criticism, not only in the Islamic world, but also, as a result of misguided ideas of political correctness, in the West as well," it said.
Originally set down for three days, the ICV versus Catch the Fire case was already on its seventh day Monday and was continuing, a tribunal spokesman said.
Something wicked this way comes...
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.