Is telling the truth about Islamic teaching vilifying Islam? Many Muslims would say so. And in the State of Victoria. It is law. We covered the first trial in this case at some length. Here is an update on the appeal. “Religion in the dock in Muslim vilification appeal,” from The Age, with thanks to Rosie:
IT IS impossible to vilify Islam without also vilifying Muslims, because the two are indistinguishable, the Victorian Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
“If one vilifies Islam, one is by necessary consequence vilifying people who hold that religious belief,” Brind Woinarski, QC, told the court.
Mr Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria’s religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.
Cameron Macaulay, for the pastors, argued that the act explicitly confined the prohibition to vilifying persons, not the religion “” otherwise it could operate as a law against blasphemy. Instead, it recognised one could hate the idea without hating the person.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle asked Mr Woinarski: “There must be intellectually a distinction between the ideas and those who hold them?” “We don’t agree with that,” Mr Woinarski said. “But in this case it’s an irrelevant distinction, because Muslims and Islam were mishmashed up together.”
Justice Nettle: “Are you saying it’s impossible to incite hatred against a religion without also inciting hatred against people who hold it?” Mr Woinarski: “Yes.”
Mr Macaulay said orders by Judge Michael Higgins against the pastors to take out a newspaper advertisement apologising and not to repeat certain teachings were too wide, and beyond his powers under the act.
He said it was surprising that the pastors could hold the beliefs but not express them. “They are restrained by law from suggesting or implying a number of things about what in their view the Koran teaches: that it preaches violence and killing, that women are of little value, that the God of Islam, Allah, is not merciful, that there is a practice of ‘silent jihad’ for spreading Islam, or that the Koran says Allah will remit the sins of martyrs.
“Contentious or otherwise, these are opinions about Islam’s doctrines and teaching. Statements of this kind are likely to offend and insult Muslims but their feelings are not relevant under the act.” Mr Macaulay said the act burdened free speech, contravened international treaties Australia had signed and breached the Australian constitution….