Good man! I'm proud of him. If everyone was that brave then they wouldn't be able to ban free speech because they can't afford to put everyone in prison.

Posted by: Elephant at June 22, 2005 10:35 AM

The usual idiots of the PC-crowd: let's protect freedom of speech by controlling what people can actually say.
Also Europe wants to turn "islamophobia" (that word should be abolished) into a criminal offense. Notice they never use words such as "Catolicophobia" or "Buddhismophobia" or "Judeophobia". Of course, only Islam is so fearful it justifies a "phobia". The most violent lobby wins.
This is just a small show of what's going to happen if similar legislation passes in other countries. In fact, in Italy a law that was created by the Fascist State to protect the Catholic religion against criticism is already now being used to "protect" Islam, such as in the Fallaci case. Irony, anyone?

Posted by: cronopio at June 22, 2005 10:58 AM

This does not seem to have made it onto the Barnabas Fund website yet.
http://www.barnabasfund.org

Give thanks and pray for a man of courage, willing to stand up for his convictions.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 22, 2005 11:17 AM

While the p.c. fools in Oz slip into Dream Time, I cheer this pastor's stand for telling what the Koran itself preaches.

How about if they start a movement, outside of the courtroom Down Under, to really prevent vile propaganda, with a slogan that goes so well with a cool can of Foster's:

BAN THE KORAN! IT'S BLOODY HATESPEECH!"

(Repeat as needed)

To show the foolishness of the judicial ruling.

And to implode the ill-conceived law by exaggerating it to ludicrous extinction.

Posted by: BigSleep at June 22, 2005 11:20 AM

The legislators who crafted this law have confused the rights of people with the non-existent rights of ideas. This pastor has indeed villified the Islamic ideology, but simply by pointing out how it villifies itself. But Islam, like all ideologies, is an idea. The Quran is a thing. Ideas and things have no rights, people have rights.

This vilification law is an abomination that is at odds with the UN Declaration of Human Rights in which all civilized peoples recognize the inalienable right to freedom of conscience.

The name of his ministry is remarkably apropos, as this decision has fanned the flames of his message to places of prominence on the world stage that he alone could not have accomplished.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at June 22, 2005 11:24 AM

Quoting Koran Could Be Illegal Under Proposed UK Bill, Lawmaker Says
By Nicola Brent
CNSNews.com Correspondent
June 22, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A British lawmaker says reading excerpts from the Koran that advocate harsh treatment for Christians, Jews and unbelievers would violate a religious hatred bill currently before parliament.

"If this bill makes any sense at all, it must mean banning the reading, in public or private, of a great many passages of the Koran itself," Conservative MP Boris Johnson said.

And that, he added, was "absurd and paradoxical, given that the measure is intended to be a protection against Islamophobia."

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill edged closer to becoming law Tuesday, after a House of Commons debate and second reading vote.

Lawmakers from both parties who oppose the bill backed a compromise amendment, which would have allowed prosecution only in cases where attacks on religious beliefs were seen to be masking a deeper motivation of inciting racial hatred. However, that amendment was tabled.

During the debate, Johnson read out various excerpts from the Koran regarding the treatment of non-Muslims, including sura 22:19, which read in translation: "As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods."

Johnson said while the Koran was not "unique in its hostility to other creeds," he challenged a government minister to explain "why and how you think the repetition of those words in a public or a private place does not amount to an incitement to religious hatred of exactly the kind this bill is supposed to ban."

The proposed legislation, which has been introduced in a bid to protect Muslims, would apply to "words, behavior, written material, recordings or programs that are threatening, abusive or insulting [and] likely to stir up racial or religious hatred."

Convictions under the law could lead to a seven-year jail sentence.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke told lawmakers the bill was about "hatred and incitement to hatred," assuring them it would not be "stopping anybody telling jokes about religion, stopping anybody ridiculing religions or engaging in robust debate about religion."

It would protect "people, not faiths," he added and assured opponents that proposed amendments would be considered "constructively" in committee. Critics say the bill in its present form is dangerous and vague, would threaten freedom of speech, and breed more hostility in British society.

This is the third time in as many years that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government is trying to push through the controversial measure.

A first attempt was withdrawn in 2002 because of fierce opposition in the upper House of Lords; a second failed earlier this year when the government removed the religious hatred clause from a broader piece of legislation it wanted to see passed into law before parliament dissolved for the general election in April.

This week, the government argued that while it did not believe there would be many prosecutions under any new laws, parliament needed to make it clear that "hatred, racism and extremism" would not be tolerated.

But Johnson said Islamophobia in Britain was "in danger of being exaggerated" and accused the government of serving its own political ends.

"If a religion is worth believing it ought to be strong enough, frankly, to withstand the most scurrilous and monstrous attacks and, if a religion is worth believing in, those assaults should diminish the critics and not the religion itself," he said.

Artists and writers have responded with skepticism to repeated government assurances that they would not face prosecution because only complaints approved by the attorney-general would go to court.

"Mr. Bean" actor Rowan Atkinson has voiced reservations that a politician "subject to the political agendas of the day" should hold such discretionary powers.

The government may see it as desirable at some point "to prosecute a few writers or journalists or playwrights in their desire to ingratiate themselves with a particular religious community," he said this week.

Christian groups and civil liberties campaigners have also expressed concerns about the bill.

The bill also aims to protect people defined by their lack of faith, such as atheists and humanists, as well as satanists, pagans and members of religious sects.

letters@cnsnews.com

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at June 22, 2005 12:45 PM

I wonder how long it will before such tyrranical laws reach the shores of America? I wonder what our founding fathers would have done against such tyrrany?
My fear is with these judicial tyrrants in the U.S. looking at world law vs. the U.S. constitution, then this is likely to happen here as well.

Europe wants to turn "islamophobia" (that word should be abolished) into a criminal offense.

If this happens will these whacko PC judges look to Europe for their rulings? Will pastors in America be arrested for simply telling the truth about Islam?
I have been to seminars about Islam at Calvary Chapel and in no way are they hateful, but some do not want to hear to truth.

Posted by: eaglecap at June 22, 2005 12:54 PM

You might want to let Judge Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal know your opinion on the court case, Moslems, Islam, etc.:

Judge Higgins: vcat@vcat.vic.gov.au

Cheers,
Your Servant of Halla
Seymour Paine
..and remember: Proof-read carefully to see if you any words out

Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 22, 2005 1:33 PM

Seymore paine thanks for the email address. He is what I email the PC judge:

Dear Justice Higgins

Well done in your guilty verdict on the Daniel Scot religious vilification case. Your sentence shows true wisdom.

That is, convict these two for expressing their freedom of speech, for vilifying Muslims, merely by reading from Islamic texts.

Next give them a sentence where you force them to vilify themselves through a series of publically demeaning adds that will lead to people hating and vilifying them.

And how long did you say it took for you to become a wise person of the law? You didn't get your degree from the same uni as Dr Death (Dr Patel) did you?

So much for separation of church and state. Your verdict will esentially lead to a defacto enshining of Islamic ideals in our laws, over and above that of any other belief system.

You must indeed be proud. I hope you spend you Islamic money well, was it worth selling out your own heritage and culture?

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at June 22, 2005 7:39 PM

The premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, has said he will not support the same religious vilification law in his state. This is very good news. Very surprising too, since NSW has quite a few Muslims. You'd think it would be such a great vote-winner for him, but amazingly enough, even Laborites experience some lucid moments in their political careers once in a while.

Talkback radio callers on this issue with Nalliah were pretty hot and heavy yesterday. Most supportive of Nalliah, and quite a bit of vitriole towards Islam and Muslims for bringing this blight onto us. The few supporters were obviously Muslims. I heard one repeat the lie that the Quran does not preach hatred and death to non-Muslims. And another claim that the Bible is just as bad.

For Nalliah to stand up like that is wonderful. If he just gave in and apologized, then the issue would fade away. But with him digging his heels in, it keeps the issue in the forefront and his courage makes people admire him, even if they don't agree with him.

I don't believe the judge could have come up with such a verdict based on the evidence. My belief is that he was told how the verdict should go.

Posted by: feralee at June 22, 2005 9:12 PM

From todays Daily Telegraph. Note the part where its stated that this scum won't be charged - that's unbelievable. They were planning an act of terrorism, why can't they be charged? The Victorian govt. is prepared to send a pastor to prison because he stated his opinion of Islam - seems he was quite correct in that opinion. Yet they are not prepared to charge jihadi scum who were planning terrorist attacks in our major cities?

ASIO launches secret terror raids
June 23, 2005

ASIO yesterday raided a series of houses after receiving intelligence that a radical Islamic group was plotting a terrorist attack on Australia.

The Daily Telegraph has learned that extremist cells in Sydney and Melbourne have been liaising on plans to carry out a terror assault.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House were named as targets but sources said the group intended to strike first in Melbourne.

The extremists have been secretly bugged talking about overseas terrorist incidents and revealing how they wanted to commit similar attacks in Melbourne.

About six Melbourne members have attended training camps in remote areas of Victoria during the past year.

Surveillance officers have confirmed the Melbourne cell has connections with a radical Islamic group in Sydney.

The Sydney group has been observed using small boats to observe the Opera House and Harbour Bridge.

Yesterday's ASIO raids - in which Victoria Police and Australian Federal Police were also involved - were designed to disrupt the group before members were able to go ahead with their plans.

Authorities do not expect to charge members of the network at this stage - unless the raids turn up unexpected information.

ASIO and AFP agents have for months been ready to swoop if cell members moved to buy materials or looked like endangering lives.

One of the four Melbourne houses raided yesterday was in the city's northern suburb of Brunswick East, where ASIO officers, AFP agents and members of Victoria Police's security intelligence group searched a home from 8am to 3pm.

The Melbourne cell never reached the stage of nominating targets or discussing specific terrorist attacks.

"But they have shown a real intent to do something, that they actually want to do something," a source told The Daily Telegraph.

"They are talking a lot about terrorist attacks overseas and expressing extremist views and talking about doing something here to show support for those Islamic groups committing terrorist acts elsewhere.

"They do go off together on what they call training camps, where they go off and set themselves up on deserted properties.

"But they aren't training camps in the way al-Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiyah have terrorist training camps. It's more a case of hardening themselves up, starving themselves for days, living rough. A bonding experience.

"Other than that, they pray together at the same mosque, they meet each other regularly and share their extremist views.

"They have links with people in Sydney who have links with other extremist Islamic groups.

"But I wouldn't describe them as a tangible group with solid connections to any known terrorist group.

"Nevertheless, what they have discussed is disturbing enough to warrant breaking them up."

AFP agents at the Brunswick East Housing Commission property raided were granted entry without resistance.

"I woke up and found them about 8am, maybe it was earlier," a neighbour said. "There were four to five unmarked cars, people came and went."

The Lebanese family of five living at the address that was raided declined to talk to The Daily Telegraph yesterday.

A spokeswoman for Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock yesterday confirmed ASIO was involved in a series of searches in Melbourne.

She refused to say if further raids were expected'.

Posted by: DianaC at June 22, 2005 9:56 PM

I think these men are heros for free speech and freedom of religion!!

Posted by: eaglecap at June 22, 2005 11:18 PM

Thank you Seymour Payne for the address.
We are in deep trouble when islam, or a real religion for that matter, is given this kind of protection against free speech.

Fallaci under attack in Italy, the new law brit Blair plans to push through his parliament, this outrage in Australia...aaaaaagh....

Posted by: dby at June 23, 2005 2:36 AM

Here's what I wrote to judge Higgins:

Judge Higgins:

You have caused a major stink by sentencing two Koran-reading preachers to shut-up and a consequent jail term. Obviously, you know that what you did was wrong: Islam is not a religion, but a violent ideology based on conquest, booty and domination.

I suspect you do not make the laws and you merely claim to follow whatever the law stipulates in your state of Victoria, however: There is something called common sense and a natural instinct for survival, and putting our own people behind bars when Islamic terror drives the world into the abyss is not 'helpful'- to speak in Downer lingo.

I hope that you, and more of your kind will grow a chin (and some backbone) to stand up to what we hold dear: PC is a brain-disease, no less, and Mohammedans want you dead. They don't care for your laws, they want SHARIA!

Shame on you, judge! Shame on you!

Posted by: Terminator at June 23, 2005 7:06 AM

THANKS for the address Seymour Paine

My submission as follows:

Dear Judge Higgins,

"Congratulations" on doing a good job on what you would claim is "merely upholding the law".

I was going to express my views in this Email on what I think of Islam and its elitist teachings and less than hidden agenda for world domination.

BUT

What is the point - it will not undo what you have done - the Victorian law is ill conceived and poorly legislated - how do I know this - because of the judgement YOU were able to come up with.

I do congratulate the stand of the 2 Christian ministers, who, though possibly a tad extreme, have made valid points about the Koran itself.

As one of the ministers said in court - (words to the effect of) "If you should not quote the Koran then the words should not be in the Koran".

Well - your future is assured - you have taken the first step towards the introduction of Sharia Law in Australia - start brushing up on your understanding of the Koran.

It may very well be worth your while to practise the words "Allah Akbar" such words will be well received by Muslims as you uphold changes to the law which swing towards Sharia.

Understand the following:
Muslims claim and believe:

That Islam (the Koran) is perfect.
That Muslims are better than none Muslims.
That Sharia (Allah's law) is the only valid law.
That Islam should dominate the world.

I do not know how old you are but I am old enough to have been born at the start of WW2. I seem to remember that Nazis held somewhat similar views.

Of course, Hitler made one serious mistake - he failed to declare nazism as a religion. Note well - Prophet Muhammed did NOT make the same mistake.

If you are a Christian, may I suggest that you consider very carefully the differences between the life of Jesus and the life of Muhammed. By the way - though Jesus is accepted as a Prophet by Muslims, they do not believe He died on the cross, neither do they believe He was the only begotton Son of God.

Words (to the effect) from the Bible - by their fruits you shall know them - I now ask you to re-read the immediately preceeding paragraph again (Jesus and Muhammed).


Again - if you are a Christian, may I suggest that you look up the roll of Ishmael and Isacc in the Bk of Genesis. There are only a few verses of extreme significance there. The significance of Isacc is that he [is] the claimed lineage from Abraham for Jesus, Ishmael for Muhammed (as Muslims claim but the claimed lineage seems a tad short).

A hint - do not miss out on God's description of Ishmael and his descendants - better still - here it is:-

Genesis 16:11-12 NKJV (the Angel is talking to Hagar, Abraham's barren wife Sarah's hand maiden)
11 And the Angel of the Lord said to her: "Behold, you [are] with child, And you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, Because the Lord has heard your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild man; His hand [shall] [be] against every man, And every man's hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

Does the above seem familiar in todays violent world ? Though Christianity has had a shameful and bloody past, which religion is the most violent today ? - which religion would God's description most fit today ?

You may very well live to regret this judgement of yours - I am very confident that others will regret it.

From
(name and address sent with Email but withheld here)
>>>>

DOG !!

Posted by: lazydog at June 23, 2005 12:58 PM

Brave christian, I pray for him.

Posted by: Franze at June 23, 2005 5:07 PM

The pastor involved will understand that to wrongly accuse another, demands an apology. However, should one apologise for telling the truth ? The accused has been charged for vilifying Islam by claiming that the "The Religion of Peace" is inherently violent. How can Islam be blamed when it preaches non-violence towards innocent people? The fact of the matter is that all those who do not acknowledge Allah to be the one and only deity are NOT innocent. Islamic Believers of "Dar-al-Islam" (the household of Peace) are obliged to convert us Kafirs / Infidels of "Dar-al-Harb" (the household of war) to Islam - or else ! Those who don't surrender are to be punished and killed -- at YOUR (Islamists') hand - and the "Merciful" Allah in the Koran makes that quite clear. Now, is Islam inherently non-violent? If the Koran is true, that Allah is the Chief Terrorist !

Posted by: Skilli at June 23, 2005 7:52 PM