Posted on 12/31/2006 12:31:16 AM PST by naturalman1975
YES, the Supreme Court yesterday overturned the convictions of Pentecostal pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot for preaching hatred at a church seminar on Islam. But how did it get so far? As I wrote at the time, Scot in particular had been found guilty by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal of breaking the Bracks Government's vilification laws by quoting the Koran, mostly accurately. The Supreme Court even confirmed that "on any analysis (Scot's) plea to love Muslims and to minister to them comes across as sincere".
And it gave an extraordinary number of examples of VCAT accusing Scot of saying what he had not -- such as calling Muslims "demons" who thought killing was "good". Ten times it corrects VCAT with: "Pastor Scot did not say . . ."
What drove the Government to pass such dangerous laws? What drove the Equal Opportunity Commission to hunt these pastors? How did VCAT rule as it did? There is a touch of Salem about this.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
What drove the Equal Opportunity Commission to hunt these pastors?
They are all Muslims.
What drove the Equal Opportunity Commission to hunt these pastors?
They are all Muslims.
Well, it's a state law, put in place by the current state government which is a socialist government.
Constitutionally the Commonwealth government can't interfere in that - not without using some pretty heavy treaty powers. It hasn't done so largely because the law is clearly unconstitutional (in violation of Section 116 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia) and so the Supreme Court of Victoria or the High Court of Australia will eventually overturn it.
A - Stupidity.
One of the greatest barriers to achieving a Free Republic is confusing stupidity with evil.
Evil men and their schemes proliferate among an uninformed, lazy, and morally dissolute people.
What happened to the big "separation of church and state" thing (non existant) that the dems and the ACLU rave about. Does it only work when trying to get rid of religion, and not in protecting it?
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.