| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
This is extraordinarily bad news: the two Christian pastors from Catch the Fire Ministries on trial in Australia under its new religious vilification laws have been found guilty -- essentially for telling the truth about Islam. From The Australian, with thanks to all who sent in stories about this:
In a decision handed down today in a key test of Victoria's three-year-old racial and religious vilification laws, Judge Michael Higgins found in favour of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which took the action against Catch The Fire.Judge Higgins found that Catch the Fire and Pastor Scot had breached section eight of the Religious and Racial Tolerance Act.
Also found in breach was church leader Pastor Nalliah, who was an unsuccessful senate candidate for the Family First party in this year's federal election.
Judge Higgins will decide on penalties, which could include orders for an apology or damages, early next year.
Judge Higgins said the seminar run by the ministry, a newsletter on its website, and a website article written by an author identified as Richard all breached the Act.
In a summary of reasons for his decision, Judge Higgins said Pastor Scot had throughout the seminar made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct.
"It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims' religious beliefs," Judge Higgins said.
"It was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their God, Allah, the prophet Mohammed and in general Muslim religious beliefs and practices."
Judge Higgins said that, during the seminar, Pastor Scot had claimed that the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons.
Pastor Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun western democracy by violence and terror and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation, and he exaggerated Muslim population numbers in Australia.
"I find that Pastor Scot's conduct was not engaged in reasonably and in good faith for any genuine religious purpose or any purpose that is in the public interest," he said.
Judge Higgins evidently was unmoved by direct evidence from the Qur'an promoting violence and killing (see 9:5, 9:29, 2:191, etc.). As for the idea that "Muslims were liars and demons," that is extreme and inaccurate, and I don't know what the pastors really said, but there is an Islamic doctrine of religious deception (taqiyya or kitman), based on Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106. This doesn't make all Muslims liars, much less demons, but it certainly should make one unsurprised when discovering a Muslim lying.
Yasser Soliman, president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, said it had been important to make a stand against vilification of Muslims in the community."We also had the support of the Catholic Church, the interfaith community and the Uniting Church and the Jewish community" Mr Soliman said.
"Because it was very important that we all stood together against vilification and understand that vilification is a tool used by extremists, and we must always condemn extremism and vilification.
"That was important, because left unaddressed, it was limiting the (Muslim) community's ability to be seen as average Australians.
"People were being demonised, (being denied) the ability to get jobs, to be friends, to be safe.
"We had to act upon it and felt it was important to have it determined by law."
Certainly no one should be demonized, and innocent people should not be made to feel unsafe. But if it is against the law to say that a book that directs believers to kill or subjugate unbelievers is promoting violence, the line is being drawn improperly here. It is chilling any reasonable discussion of the nature of Islam, the connection of Islam to terrorism, and the significance of large and growing Muslim minorities (of which untold numbers are certain to be attached to the Sharia, and hoping one day to implement it) for the continued survival of Western pluralistic societies.
Finally, Ali Dashti has sent in a helpful collection of links about the global assault on free speech:
This assault on Australian freedom has been going on for some time:An outrageous attempt to muzzle the Australian press
First of all, I would like to remind everybody that the killing of people for blasphemy, criticizing Muhammad and Islam, is a part of the Sunna, Muhammad's personal example, and as such a part of Islam, despite what PeeCee media may claim. Non-Muslims such as the poetess Asma bint Marwan were murdered by Muhammad's thugs for doing nothing else than daring to criticize his teachings. Read more about it here:
List of people killed for opposing Muhammad
This is the immediate and direct Islamic cause why Theo van Gogh was murdered, and why Ayaan Hirsi Ali is fearing for her life:
Muslims demand suppression of movie-production 'Submission II' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
There is right now a coordinated, global Islamic attack on Western freedom of speech, designed to intimidate us into submission just like the early Muslims and Muhammad himself did with their opponents. As an example, I want to mention a conference in Birmingham in August, in which more than 20,000 Muslims from many countries participated. Some called for the UN to declare defamation of Muhammad an international crime.
It seems as if the UN has shown some willingness to listen to this:
UN Forum Explores Ways To Fight 'Islamophobia.'This direct attack on our freedom and democracy is happening at the same time, from the UK to Denmark and from Belgium to the USA. It needs to be fought with all our strength, or democracy itself will be lost:
UK: Is it only Mr Bean who resists this new religious intolerance?
British Muslim leader comes out for censorship
UK: Will Cummins fired for articles on Islam
Norway: Muslim activists want stricter blasphemy law
Denmark: Moderate Muslims afraid to speak out
Can It Happen Here? Sweden’s "Hate Speech" Laws Hateful—And Unequally Enforced
French priest fined for "anti-Muslim" comments
Belgian politician critical of radical Muslims goes into hiding after death threats
ACAIR Threatened With Lawsuit by CAIR
CAIR demands apology from Paul Harvey
CAIR Calls on Wiesenthal Center to Repudiate "Islamophobia"
Scholar researches origins of the Qur'an, fears for his life
Posted by Robert at December 17, 2004 7:39 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I just sent this one in as well, I'm happy to see you reach the same conclusions as I did. It goes a bit far to equate muslims to demons but the rest is simply a case of stating the bloody obvious. I too mentioned taqiyya and kitman in regards to muslims lying for their religion and the fact that the Quran does in fact promote hatred and violence. It's a fact that Dar-el-Harb has to be Islamized, by force if necessary. It's quite disturbing that not only do muslims not have any real arguments to counter the criticism levelled against them, but Western leaders are actively shielding them from it. Do they really think this will accomplish anything? It's just making people more mad and extreme in their opinions. If they stifle the debate now and don't give 'moderate' muslims a fair chance to distance themselves from the radical fringe and re-think their beliefs in answer to criticism it will no doubt lead to all of them being put into the same basket. This is seriously the biggest mistake the politically correct left is making and I hope they will be punished hard for it.
Posted by: Leveller![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 17, 2004 8:17 AM
Maybe a way around the limitations of speech we suffer.... is to say it and retract it......with a big cheesy grin on your face.... then say it again.
A matter of keeping up in the race and playing the enemy at its own game.
at December 17, 2004 8:27 AM
This is disturbing indeed because of the precedent effect it'll have. This means no more open discussion about the truth abt islam.
Can this ruling be challenged in a higher court? Is there any hope of overturning this verdict? Can the law itself be challenged?
at December 17, 2004 8:38 AM
It becomes more Orwellian everday with people being punished for telling the truth and history being rewritten.
Posted by: Elephant at December 17, 2004 8:40 AM
I am sure you can't go to jail in Australia from telling the truth, but you can go to jail due to poor use of language (e.g. using the "demon" word) to describe any one group of people. I don't think you can technically even call Satanists "demons". I think the people who dobbed these Christians in knew full well that it was only this poor use of language that could be used against them successfully in a court of law.
Now the islamists will gloat over this verdict and hope that it sets a legal precedent that terrifies people away from criticising Islam in "any" way. We need to just stick to the plain facts and use colourless and emotionless language when speaking the truth. That is the safe way to do it.
If it gets so bad in the west that someone does send another person to jail for telling the truth at least they can have dignity in being nothing but right. Also, people on the outside will be far more willing to fight for their release. That is cold comfort I know.
at December 17, 2004 9:02 AM
This is a stupid decision stupidly arrived at. If it can be made the centerpiece of a counter-campaign, an effort to point out how and why Infidels everywhere, in their own lands, are being systematically assaulted and silenced, either physically, or by the use of badly-drawn laws that never should have been passed, or by idiotic judges -- and this Higgins is clearly an idiot, for his remarks, including that which accuses the pastors of "mocking" Muhammad -- so what? what business should that be of the Australian government -- or of essentially not finding all the good things to say about Islam and the behavior of Muhamamd.
And this, after the brilliant and overwhelming testimony of Mark Durie (which see on the Internet). This has to be appealed. And if nothing else works, the Australian Parliament must revoke this idiotic law.
And does Higgins himself have tenure for life? Let his decision, and let the evidence adduced above that shows exactly what Muhammad did, with the Bani Qurayza, at Khaybar, with Asma bint Marwan, and in a hundred other incidents, including that involving Aisha which Charles Moore raised -- let it all be repeated whenever and wherever it can. And let everyone discuss, over and over, until the entire Infidel world knows it by heart, the concepts of taqiyya and kitman, and the insistence that "war is deception," and the difference between what a smiling imam at a mosque outreach session says, or what is presented by the nice Pakisetani lady who visits your children's public or private school class and tells the class, in her soft voice, with her sweet smile, all about the wonders of Ramadan, and about the close family life, and -- you know, all the really important things about Islam, as the teacher, quite satisfied with his own display of "tolerance" (because there is always some mutterer on the faculty who nastily implies that this kind of visit is only propaganda -- well, the teacher who allowed the lady's visit thinks to himself, how wonderful of me to stand up for tolerance and of course diversity).
The Muslim rule is clear: Say Something Nice About Us or We Won't Allow You To Say Anything At All.
Systematically, as in a war, the "pen, speech" (propaganda) that is one of the well-known instruments of Jihad (and casually referred to as such) is being used, and laws passed, and intolerable pressures applied (where is Will Cummins now?), and people lose their jobs. Back in 1988 the philosopher Jacques Ellul, one of the most celebrated figures in France, complained publicly that "it is now impossible to criticise Islam in France." More than fifteen years later, it is becoming more and more possible to criticise Islam -- to criticise it in the sense only of quoting exactly what happens to be in the Qur'an and hadith and sira, and to say something about the fact that Muslims regard the first as the immutable word of God, and about the latter two, that they offer a view of Muhammad, of how he regarded Infidels, and warfare, and what he could do with Aisha, and what he could do with anyone whom he felt was in the way or unpleasant towards him. And he is not simply a figure in a book; he is, for Muslims, the best of men. As Iqbal Sacranie said the other day, it is far worse to criticise Muhammad in the view of Muslims, than to criticise Allah.
So here we are. Quislings and dopes all around. In the U.N., high up in the bureaucracy. In the E.U. All over the press of the Western world. All over the universities of the Western world, first starting with bought-and-paid-for centers (Exeter, Durham, Bradford in England; Esposito's operation that should now be severed, in institutional affiliation, with Georgetown).
This is going to require constant pressure and counter-attack at every level.
It would be nice if, for example, just a few professors of history, not of Middle Eastern history, but of other areas, were to make the scandal of Middle Eastern teaching their own particular interest, and were -- for the good not of a narrow field, but of history itself as a discipline -- to study carefully the offerings and the hiring practices in their own universities when it comes to Islam, to Middle Eastern studies, and eveything that relates to them.
Terrible news.
Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2004 9:03 AM
Terrible news indeed. But remember this is just one setback in one battle. It is not the war. Although they could probably have been wiser in their use of language my heart goes out to the two pastors who believing that they live in a free society felt free to say what they thought.
So what now?
1) This must be appealed. This case should go to the High Court and all the way to the Australian Supreme Court if need be. In this way the smug Muslim leaders might have to realise that they have mounted a bucking bronco as their local attempt to silence critics escalate into Islam's dirty washing being displayed all over Oz. If there is not already a support fund it must be set up as soon as possible.
2) The absurdities of this law should be exposed. See it here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s8.html Note the last sentence. The State of Victoria presumes jurisdiction over the thoughts and words of the rest of the world it seems!
3) A prosecution against Muslims should be brought on the basis of the law. Should not be difficult to find material. How about visiting the local Mosque next time Sura 9 is recited.
4) The application of the law in this case should be used as precedent by all of us fighting similiar proposals (as here in the UK). We should point to the fact that no matter what the nice 'Muslim moderates' say, this is the kind of action that will inevitably follow.
at December 17, 2004 9:29 AM
Immanuel Kant lives, and wears judicial robes in Australia!
The monster is spreading around the planet; the U.S. is the last bastion of reason in the entire world, and it is slowly succumbing as well. . .If we go, there will be no where to turn.
To all you Kantians out there: Be careful what you wish for--you may get it.
Posted by: cubed at December 17, 2004 9:58 AM
P.S. Art is the means by which we can make directly visible many of the values we hold that are otherwise not directly visible--things like "justice," and "kindness," and "truth."
Art enables us to connect emotionally with these values, to recognize their importance to us in a way that we will never forget.
Is there a Mel Gibson clone "out there" who recognizes the purpose of art, and who recognizes movies as art?
It's time to make movies about 1) the life and times of Muhammad; 2) the life and times of Pelayo; 3) the life and times of Ibn Rushd; and many, many more.
It is through art that the people who still don't know and/or don't care or who are sitting on the fence can be rapidly educated about the danger we face (the committed Kantians are hopeless--forget them).
The problems we have in our educational system are both lack of factual knowledge (anybody see the results of the last international assessment? We once again hit bottom) and lack of thinking ability due to the avoidance of philosophy; we MUST have some means to do an "end run" around our miserably pathetic educational system, with all the PC, the errors of omission and commission, and the simple "dumbing down" of the population.
The means is, quite simply, art, especially the movies, which reach the largest audience.
Posted by: cubed
at December 17, 2004 10:26 AM
This is the worst news I've seen in a long time. It sets a terrible precedent for the future of the West.
Why is it that we can mock our own religions traditions, or see them mocked by those who hate them, in movies such as "Dogma" (which I myself found very entertaining), and yet a church can't hold a seminar on Islam without this kind of ruling?
I'll tell you why: because Mahomet is the "seal of the prophets" and Islam has a mandate to make everyone on earth either believe that or die. Or be a dhimmi.
It is time for this to stop!
Posted by: Cato the Elder at December 17, 2004 10:45 AM
I agree with you cubed a film is the best and probably the quickest way to educate people even better for people who maybe aren't so literate.
Mel Gibson would be perfect, there would be plenty of blood and gore for him to go at, he seems to like that sort of thing and he is a staunch catholic... do any of you people out there have any influential contacts ?
Posted by: True Brit at December 17, 2004 10:48 AM
How about arresting muslims simply for being a member of a criminal organization (Islam)?
Posted by: Kim Hartveld at December 17, 2004 11:19 AM
Doesn't this work both ways ? An immam screaming kill the infidels etc from the pulpit would surely be dragged before the court, their websites shutdwon etc etc ?
Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at December 17, 2004 11:28 AM
Amazing John Kerry and the Muslims using the same "drag them into court" threat tactic when an opposing voice is heard. So what if they only spoke the truth.
If the "Silent Majority" of Muslims are good and decent people, I would tell them to find a voice. After all, Hitler's Germany had its Silent Majority, also, and they let the lunatics run the show. Ultimately, the world caught on, and we know how that ended.
Posted by: RIslander at December 17, 2004 11:41 AM
Just starting a conversation about Islam is in the public welfare that fact that Islam is intolerant allows lying murder rape torture and theft to reach their goals should be a topic of conversation .This decision is the as bad a decision as any in history Unbelievable.
Since the judger said
He said Scot "preached a literal translation of the Koran and of Muslims' religious practices which was not mainstream but was more representative of a small group in the Gulf states.
How is it not in the public interest to know?
Koran "promotes violence, killing and looting";
"I find that Pastor Scot's conduct was not engaged in reasonably and in good faith for any genuine religious purpose or any purpose that is in the public interest."
at December 17, 2004 11:50 AM
I agree with all of you that this is terrible news, but it illustrates the necessity of knowing how to handle the media, whether it be print, radio or television. It's a double-edged sword - if you know how to use it, you can cut through any and all bullsh*t, but if you don't, you'll get cut yourself, just like these Australians did. When it came to using the media, these guys were hacks - you can't be throwing the word "demons" around like nothing's going to come of it. What were they thinking? They WEREN'T thinking.
NO ONE can deny you the freedom of thought and speech, no one can deny you the right to criticize. As long as you don't make the mistakes these men made - mistakes a freshman in Media Arts 101 wouldn't make - you'll be fine. They say if you play with fire you might get burned, I say if you play with fire, have your flame-retardant gloves on.
Maybe these guys should have read a little Marshall McLuhan (?). You can't just stumble into these things.
at December 17, 2004 1:55 PM
Isn't it brilliant? The only thing better would be if those fellows had been dragged into the public square and been give 80 lashes apiece before they had their hands and feet cut off. As is, it's still good news. A five year prison sentence would be cause for dancing in the streets. If some Moslem youths go out and fire-bomb the church, I'd be happy to pay for the gas. The greater the confrontation, the more intense the animosity, the deeper the anxiety, the stronger revulsion toward the dhimmi government and the triumphalist Moslems in the Western world the better it is for the free world.
Nothing politicizes a man faster than having his head smashed at a rally for his cause. This is a propaganda coup. Some might be cowed and dismayed, but the rest will move from anger and defiance to out-right resistence, which one can only hope will meet even more determined aggression from the Moslems. Every such travesty of justice in the free world should make the people ever more radical.
Hugh is completely right in his call for counter-dawa: spread the message of the evils of Islam. Hey, go to jail for the night. Get the word out. And if you spend the night in the slammer, think how many cocktail parties you'll be invited to afterward. Be known as the one person in your community who is willing to stand up and be counted as the man who won't take it anymore.
This is brilliant. If thousands of people go to jail for criticizing Mohammed everyday, O, Brave New World.
Take Hugh's advice, and spread the word. Take my advice, and go to jail. Brilliant. Send the whole congregation to prison. Wonderful.
Posted by: sonofwalker at December 17, 2004 2:17 PM
I second that sonofwalker, but let's be smart about it, people - don't make the mistakes these Aussies made. All it takes is one intemperate word or remark and you've deligitimized yourself and the message.
Posted by: Mike at December 17, 2004 2:55 PM
My message is simple:
USE THE MEDIA TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.
at December 17, 2004 2:56 PM
What we need is thousands more like these pastors going to jail to give witness to the truth about Islam. By the way, I don't have a problem with calling Muslim terrorists "demons." Do you?
Posted by: Mark James at December 17, 2004 6:02 PM
How about us all chipping in, and paying these guys fines?
I could give 50 dollars, and if we all did so, then it would send a message to the muslim community that these guys have supporters.
Posted by: Voltaire at December 17, 2004 7:27 PM
The Oz government is trying to keep the lid on this clash of civilizations and is doing this as a form of damage control. They don't want people talking about it!
May I quote a Mr. Stewert Peters, of Punchbowl (a Sydney suburb with more than its fair share of Muslims) who wrote to Sydney's Daily Telegraph in October 2003:
"A good proportion of the crimes perpetrated by Islamic Middle-Eastern immigrants have a sinister difference to that of crime by other ethnic groups. The victims of Asian triads and extortion are predictable [other Asians]. However the sheer violent random, racially motivated nature of gang rapes, gang bashings and all manner of intimidatory behaviour carried out by groups of Middle-Eastern Islamic immigrants share a unique malignancy that differs greatly from other ethnically initiated crimes and must be extracted from our society. To continue ignoring this unique cultural clash within our country is ludicrous; the culture of denial must stop."
In response to an article by Caroline Regidor (Sydney's Daily Telegraph, October 23, 2003) a certain L. B. Loveday wrote: "Caroline Regidor claims 'back in the 1950's it was the Southern Europeans who instilled fear in the good folk of Sydney.' Ms Regidor was not around then and does not give a source to her claim; I was and say she is talking nonsence." Regidor claimed that some community had always been blamed for crime in Sydney, and that today's scapegoats are the Muslims - not so!
Such letters would not be printed nowadays and the 'clash of civilizations' issue is too much of a hot potato to write about, despite the fact that it's getting worse and the majority fear the overt criminality of the local Muslim community.
Every year Auburn hospital (Sydney) treats 40 women who have suffered illegal genital mutilation at the hands of their Muslim families (Daily Telegraph, Nov 13) and yet to raise a strong voice against this shocking barbarity would be considered racist.
In 2003 one Muslim terrorist from France (Mr. Brigitte) married an Australian girl who converted to Islam, probably so he could stay in the country. She had previously been involved in a Jewish Lesbian pressure group - despite not being Jewish. When her hubby was arrested for plotting to blow up the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, the biggest problem for Muslims here, seemed not to be that he wanted to wipe Sydney off the map, but that his darling wife was pictured without having her hair covered. The photos in fact, were taken of her before she converted to that aforementioned wonderful and peaceful religion. (Peace be upon the child molesting warlord, etc.)
I own a book printed in 1968 called "Religions in Australia" by Tess Van Sommers. In her chapter "The Muslims" she writes: "Next to the Jews the largest single group of practising non-Christian religionists in Australia are the Muslims." Nowadays the Jews are considered to be a tiny community who often hire 24 hour armed guards for their synagogues, to protect them from.... well, you know who. Tess wrote (in 1968) that the largest mosque in the country had a congregation of 400. Nowadays that is nothing. Tess also writes "There are at least 8,000, about half of whom live in the state of Victoria." This is quite interesting. From this we see that they got a good head-start in that state and this is why free speech is being attacked there first. NSW, SA, WA, etc. will perhaps go down this same dark road in about 5 or 10 years.
Posted by: Timbo at December 17, 2004 7:48 PM
How about us all chipping in, and paying these guys fines?
I could give 50 dollars, and if we all did so, then it would send a message to the muslim community that these guys have supporters.
Posted by: Voltaire at December 17, 2004 07:27 PM
Sounds like a good idea--how much is the fine? Is there a place to send a contribution to?
And thank you, True Brit, for your support of the idea of films on various subjects involving Islam; they would be full of intellectual conflict, real action, politics of the day, a great teacher of history (the real thing, not the revisionist junk we see so often these days), and an incredibly effective way to reveal Islam for what it really is.
Of course, whoever took the initiative in any such film would have to go into hiding, because. . .Well, you know.
Posted by: cubed at December 17, 2004 8:49 PM
Nice idea about everyone chipping in to pay the fine, but I have a moral ojection to this on the grounds that they are not guilty of any crime, so the fine is a false penalty.
The verdict should be appealed immediately, or they should go to prison rather than pay the fine. Paying up is the same as agreeing that you are guilty of something.
Posted by: DianaC at December 18, 2004 2:36 AM
They are appealing to the high court of Australia. So it might be a moot point after all, about paying their fine.
Posted by: Voltaire at December 18, 2004 3:15 AM
I wonder if Musulmans ever protest REAL "hate speech"? I mean, it only defames their enemies and is not a danger to their faith.
Posted by: bastardos at December 18, 2004 6:54 AM
It was all a setup anyway. The way I heard it, some Anglo-looking Islamic converts went there specifically looking to be offended. They were sent there by this Victorian anti-villification group because this govt group wasn't drumming up enough business from real life villification cases (there just weren't any, surprise, surprise!).
And given that they were converts, they probably didn't have a clue as to what Islam was really about. Probably converted by a load of BS about how wonderful and merciful Allah is and la di dah, and what a great person this "prophet" was, etc. Then when they hear reality, they of course feel offended, because it's not the reality they were entrapped with. They believe it's all lies and smears, when it's the truth. Then the judge is also in the dark, so he believes that what was said was not true when it was. So it's almost like we're butting our heads against the walls with this. We're fighting dirty, underhanded taqiyaa with our naive truth-based societies and institutions.
It's good to know this is being appealed. It needs to be brought forward, into the public eye. I hope people understand what's at stake. This is really, really BIG.
Posted by: feralee at December 18, 2004 7:30 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)