The Victorian Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the evangelical Catch the Fire Ministries and two of its pastors

An appeal court ruled today that a racial vilification case involving a church accusing Muslims of training to take over Australia must be heard again by a tribunal.

The Victorian Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the evangelical Catch the Fire Ministries and two of its pastors who were ordered last year by the Victorian Civil and and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to correct and apologise for statements they made about Muslims.

In a unanimous decision today, three appeal court judges ruled that the orders made by VCAT be set aside and the case return to the tribunal to decided again, without the re-hearing of evidence.

The case centred on comments made by pastor Daniel Scot during a seminar, as well as by the church on its website and by pastor Daniel Nalliah in a newsletter.

Pastor Scot's comments included that Australia's Muslim population was growing rapidly "because they control the immigration department".

Comments also said Muslims were demons, the Koran promoted violence and killing, Muslims derived money from drugs and intended to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic nation.

The tribunal agreed with the Islamic Council of Victoria that the church's conduct incited hatred against the Islamic faith.

In the Court of Appeal, the church argued that VCAT erred in its interpretation of the law.

The church said the Islamic council should have had to prove that people were actually incited to hatred, rather than show the comments were likely to incite hatred.

Source : http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20926278-1702,00.html


Andrew Bolt comment
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.

At least the Supreme Court insists there is a "distinction between hatred of the religious beliefs of Muslims and hatred of Muslims". We should now be free again to criticise a faith without being found guilty of vilifying the believer.

But until these laws are scrapped, can you be sure?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20928768-25717,00.html


Salt Shakers report
The Catch the Fire ministries appeal was successful in arguing that section 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal.

All orders from the VCAT hearing have been set aside.

The case will go back to VCAT to be decided without further evidence by a Member other than the member who made the original orders (ie. not judge Michael Higgins).

The appeal court ordered the Islamic Council to pay half of CTFMs appeal costs. This amounts to a partial win but the case continues in VCAT.


Bill Muehlenberg report
I have just returned from the Court of Appeal in Melbourne where the two Dannys have had their appeal to their conviction of vilification charges upheld. The three judges all found that sections of the Racial and Religious Intolerance Act were wrongly interpreted in the original decision, and VCAT will now have to hear the case all over again, with a new judge, and no new evidence or witnesses allowed.

Is this the best possible outcome of the case? I believe so. Of course if the appeal were upheld, and the case thrown out altogether, that would seem the best option. It would certainly be best in many ways for the two Dannys. It has cost the them many thousands of hours in time, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses. Four years of grief and worry will now be supplemented by more uncertainty, expense and hassle.

Yet as I told both Dannys after the decision this morning, this may be a blessing in disguise. The church could have too easily said, we won, and left it at that. It could have rolled back to sleep, lost its alertness and vigilance, and forgotten that this is still a bad law that needs to be overturned.

With this decision, the church will hopefully still stay vigilant, and attention will still be focused on this horrible law. So from my perspective, this is the best possible outcome.

Yes it means more grief and costs for the two Dannys, but as I have been praying over the last few days, the best outcome would be one in which God is glorified and the gospel is further advanced. I think this decision helps to do those two things.

More great news. The judges ordered the Islamic Council of Victoria to pay half of the costs of the appeal which Catch the Fire Ministries had to pay! The ICV immediately sought to contest that economic decision.

It is a shame in some ways that this case will now drag on and on, but we praise God that all three judges agreed with the appeal, or parts of it, and they effectively said that the original guilty verdict was flawed and therefore nullified. The whole case has really been one long farce, as is the legislation that lies behind it. This is a terrible law and the Appeal Court has effectively agreed that it is.

You can look up the decision on the Supreme Court website: http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/CA256CC60028922C/HomePage?ReadForm&1=Home~&2=~&3=~

Praise God for a mighty victory and a great outcome. A million thanks to all of you who prayed or have been involved in other ways. The battle is not yet over, but this has been a real bit of encouragement. It is certainly a victory for religious freedom and common sense.

Please pray for Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot as they now face more waiting, uncertainty, hardship and expense.


Roslyn Phillips report
We are praising the Lord! This morning three Victorian Supreme Court judges - Nettle, Ashley and Neave - handed down their decision to uphold the appeal by pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah against their conviction for religious vilification.

You can read the entire 51 page judgement yourself on:
http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/CA256CC60028922C/HomePage?ReadForm&1=Home%7E&2=%7E&3=%7E

In my view, Justice Nettle's judgement is a damning indictment of Judge Higgins' original decision to convict the pastors in December 2004. Justice Nettle lists about 20 separate instances where Judge Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) misrepresented what Daniel Scot had said in his seminar on Islam in March 2002 (eg Higgins wrongly claimed that Scot had said "Muslims are demons").

Justice Nettle also points out that Judge Higgins in effect failed to recognise the difference between hatred of the sin and hatred of the sinner, and did not acknowledge that it is possible to criticise certain beliefs without inciting hatred against those who hold those beliefs.

Justice Nettle says Judge Higgins' views on the accuracy or inaccuracy of Pastor Scot's views on Islam and the Quran were not relevant to the case, noting: "In my view it was calculated to lead to error for a secular tribunal [like VCAT] to attempt to assess the theological propriety of what was asserted at the Seminar."

Justice Nettle also notes that Judge Higgins paid insufficient attention to Daniel Scot's emphasis on the need for his audience to love Muslims, to show sensitivity for Muslim culture and respect for the Quran and Mohammed.

Justice Nettle says at one point: "I have listened to the tape recording of the Seminar... Unlike [Judge Higgins], however, I was unable to perceive from the tape anything in the manner of Pastor Scot's delivery which rendered his statements more likely to incite the audience to hatred and other relevant emotion of or towards Muslims. To the contrary, as it seemed to me, what one hears is a speaker who, although endowed with an admirable command of the English language, speaks it as a second language with all the difficulties which that sometimes entails. I hear a degree of nervousness in delivery, a pattern of speech which is idiomatically incongruous and consequent double entendre which the speaker sounds not to have intended. Admittedly, his style is given to ridicule in places, and the ridicule results in cynical laughter at places. But on any analysis his plea to love Muslims and to "minister" to them comes across as sincere enough as do the sounds of his audience's reaction to it."

While Judge Higgins paid great attention to the hurt feelings of the three Muslims who attended the seminar, Justice Nettle says that "the affront to the feelings of the Muslim witnesses was largely if not wholly irrelevant. The concentration needed to be on the members of the audience who were not Muslims. What demanded to be assessed was whether the effect of the injunctions to love and to witness to Muslims was sufficient to prevent hatred and other relevant emotion by the non-Muslims towards Muslims.

"In fact, the Seminar was replete with statements by Pastor Scot, to which neither Mr Thomas [a Muslim complainant] nor [Judge Higgins] made any reference, favourable to Muslims and ex facie calculated to persuade an audience of non-Muslims to love and 'witness' to Muslims (despite Pastor Scot's perception of the shortcomings of Islam)." Justice Nettle goes on to quote substantial parts of the seminar where Pastor Scot speaks of Muslims and their culture in positive terms.

Justices Neave and Ashley have written briefer judgements than Justice Nettle, and while supporting his main conclusion, do not agree with him on all points. Judge Ashley was particularly critical of the conduct of the pastors' VCAT defence, which in his view took up too much time in irrelevant theological debate. In my view, Judge Higgins was more to blame for allowing such debate and presuming, with no theological training, to decide who was right and wrong.

The orders (penalties) handed down in 2005 by Judge Higgins have been set aside - and we praise God that the two pastors are once again free to preach and teach about Islam and hold seminars like the one Pastor Scot conducted in a Melbourne church in March 2002.

Yet the case is far from over. It has been sent back to VCAT - an action which could be perceived as passing the buck on this politically highly sensitive issue. The Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) has been ordered to pay half the costs of the Supreme Court appeal. A VCAT judge (not Higgins) will reconsider the evidence already given and make another decision next year - guided by comments of the three Supreme Court justices.

DANGER LOOMS FOR SA

The two Daniels have welcomed the Victorian Supreme Court decision and have again called for the repeal of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act - which has demonstrably created more, not less, intolerance and disharmony in Victoria's religious community as a result of cases like theirs. Other cases such as the complaint of a convicted paedophile witch against a Salvation Army officer conducting a prison Alpha Bible course show that vilification laws like these can be and are used to harass groups with differing beliefs.

South Australia would face the same trauma if the SA Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2006 - due for continued debate on 6 February 2007 - is passed.

Clause 61 of this bill would introduce a new SA offence of "victimisation" - in reality vilification, similar to the definition in the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act: "engaging in a public act inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or group" on any of the many unlawful grounds of discrimination in the Equal Opportunity Act.

Unlike in Victoria, religion is not one of the unlawful grounds in SA - but almost everything else you can think of, and many things you haven't thought of, are included. No other state with anti-vilification laws has so many prohibited grounds for vilification. Marital status and sexuality vilification would be banned under this bill and the SA Commissioner for Equal Opportunity told a delegation from Festival of Light Australia on 9 November that she would NOT automatically dismiss complaints against doctors who publicly warn of health risks of the homosexual lifestyle, or pastors who expound Bible passages which condemn divorce or homosexual behaviour. Legal advisers to the SA Attorney-General told us that truth would not be a defence against such complaints, nor would there be an exemption for acts with a religious purpose.

Christian schools who discriminate in employment against practising homosexual teachers would be required to publicise that policy and report it to the Commissioner, who would be empowered by the bill to publicise such schools and "name and shame" them. No school could discriminate against pupils on the ground of marital status or sexuality; Christian schools could be prohibited from teaching biblical sexuality since such teaching could be deemed to incite hatred or contempt for those who do not practise it.

The Commissioner would be empowered under the bill to investigate, without approval by the Tribunal or the Attorney-General, any matter of her choice, even where no one has lodged a complaint. We could see a resurgence of witch hunts - or rather, "Christian hunts".

Remember that even if such complaints are dismissed, there is no compensation for the lost time, stress and legal costs incurred in conciliation proceedings. Interstate, the result has been that newspapers choose not to publish important facts (eg about the homosexual lifestyle) because they are not considered worth the hassle of dealing with vilification complaints by homosexual activist groups.

This issue is not yet on the radar of most media. Short, topical letters to the editor and to MPs (eg Premier Mike Rann - premier@saugov.sa.gov.au; Opposition Leader Iain Evans - davenport@parliament.sa.gov.au) could help bring this bill to the attention of people in high places who need to understand that our freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are seriously under threat.