Dr Francis Nigel Lee
Sunday- Dec 19, 2004
THE TWO
DANNYS CASE: IMPLICATIONS IMMEDIATE AND LONGER TERM:
At 9:30 am, Friday 17th
December, 2004, Judge Michael Higgins handed down his decision on the case of
the Islamic Council of Victoria versus Catch the Fire Ministries under the
Racial and Religious Vilification Act, popularly known as the ‘Two Dannys case’.
Judge Higgins found that
vilification had taken place, that they had breached Section 8 of the Racial
and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 which says a person cannot engage in conduct
that "incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe
ridicule of, that other person or class of persons". Then he proceeded to
attack the integrity, honesty, scholarship, and reputation of Daniel Scot in
particular. Almost incomprehensibly, the Judge listed a series of statements
and allegations from Pastor Scot in his lecture at the seminar, which were
basically quotations from the Qur’an, while other
points could be abundantly documented from around the world (Islamic
persecution of Christians), or from the Qur’an, the Hadiths, or from Islamic scholars.
Bill Muehlenberg
of the Australian Family Association makes the following observation in his
media release on Friday: The Judge said that Pastor Scot "failed to
differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, that he preached a literal
translation of the Qur’an and of Muslims’ religious
practices which were not mainstream".
Most Muslims would of course
object to this, arguing that they do adhere to a literal understanding and
translation of the Qur’an. And how does a secular
judge with no expertise in religion make such decisions, when Islamic scholars
themselves are divided on such crucial questions of theology, interpretation
and exegesis?
Much of what the Judge
considered offensive was simply a set of quotations from the Qur’an itself. To argue that quoting a religious book makes
one guilty of vilification would put 98% of religious discussions out of
bounds.
I here offer my own (MRA)
assessments of the decision:
*First, freedom of speech
died on Friday 17th December. If one cannot Even quote a religious book, be it
the Qur’an, the Vedas, or the Book of Mormon without
vilifying some respective group and incurring the wrath of the judiciary, then
we have no forum for legitimate discussion.
Many warned that this Act
would have the effect of shutting down all criticism and Discussion of Islam in
particular. The verdict on Friday has only vindicated those fears.
*Second, freedom of religion
died on Friday 17th December. In the seventeenth century pastors and elders in
particular were forced to conform to the rites and ceremonies of the
Established Church of England on pain of fines, forfeitures, and imprisonment.
That regime came to an end with the Toleration Act of 1689 under which
Dissenters could build their own chapels and maintain their own pastors at
their own expense. Ever since all English-speaking countries have enjoyed
religious freedom, the heritage of which was enshrined in our Australian
constitution of 1901, Section 116.
Now, however, merely for
holding a seminar on Islam for the information of their congregations two
pastors are in trouble with the law and will have penalties imposed. A long
period of 316 years has concluded.
*Third, truth died on Friday
17th December. Under this legislation Truth is no defence!
Thus quotations of the Qur’an, no matter how apt and
relevant; or evidence of persecution of Christians in Islamic countries, no
matter how well documented; or citations of Islamic policy on women or
religious minorities, no matter if they came from Islamic sources, were all
held to be vilification. Truth counts for nothing, both in the law itself, and
in the judge’s ruling. In this regard the ruling was a typical post-modern
attack on Christian values and verities.
Finally, justice died on
Friday 17th December. Not only did the judge ignore some very learned
submissions from Christian scholars of Islam (some converts from Islam), but
was clearly partisan toward the post-modern concepts of truth and the
multi-faith perspective, while opposed to Biblical Christianity. There were
manifold criticisms of the latter, but not one criticism, even a mild one, of
Islam. Possibly significantly, when Today Tonight reported the decision on
Friday evening, another segment preceded it, which related how a young
housebreaker reaped $50,000 damages because the owner sought to defend his
property against the intruder. Our justice system has collapsed into farce!
Implications of the Decision
1. In the first place, it
now appears that we have a de facto official, established religion in this
state, viz. Multi-cultural, Multi-faith-ism. With representatives of the major
denominations present at the court and supporting both the Government and the
Muslim party, and also issuing press releases welcoming the decision (at least
from the Uniting Church), the message seems clear that we must all conform to
this new multi-faith religion. Otherwise, to quote the UCA press release, we
align with ‘Christian extremist groups’ who are not welcome in
2. In the light of this
decision, and the way in which the case began, we can well anticipate the
advent of spies being sent to all Church seminars, teaching sessions, and even
Sunday services to examine whether there is any ‘vilification’ involved. While
this for us would be intolerable, for the Islamic Council and their multi-faith
allies in the mainstream churches it would all be necessary in the interests of
achieving the ‘tolerant society’ which they seek. However, to continue to
preach and uphold truth conservative churches (i.e. ‘Christian extremist groups’)
we may well have to go underground, meeting in homes and halls on a rotating
basis.
3. It is difficult to
anticipate from this point what the outcome of this decision will be for
conservative churches, especially with a media supportive of government and
hostile to Christianity, but certainly difficult times lie ahead. We cannot
expect justice from our courts, nor can we expect support from politicians. We
face an unsympathetic and hostile media, and a suspicious populace, as evident
from many callers to talk-back radio. Our only help is from the vertical
direction, from the Lord who made heaven and Earth. Such times encourage us all
the more to look for the Blessed Hope, the appearing and coming of Christ Jesus
our Lord. We can be sure that all that has happened, and will happen, is part
of God’s plan, Who will intervene to save His people
in His good time. ‘By your endurance you will gain your lives’, Luke 21:19.
Meanwhile, this is a wake-up call to the church to put away all that is of the
world, and for churches to let go of ‘passenger’ Christians, and to be wholly
devoted to our Lord.