Two Nations Legislate Dangerous Trends for Christians

[Shammu]

Two Nations Legislate Dangerous Trends for Christians

by Fred Jackson and Jenni Parker
December 21, 2004

(AgapePress) - Christians in several countries are noting with alarm the mounting evidence of what can happen when governments favor homosexuals or religious sects with special rights, while anti-Christian bias is increasingly sanctioned. Recent examples have come to light in Australia and in Canada.

In Australia, a judge has ruled that an evangelical Christian group's criticism of Islam violated the nation's law against racial and religious vilification. Pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot of Catch the Fire Ministries were tried under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws and found guilty of publicly mocking Islam. The Islamic Council of Victoria had filed legal action against the ministers, claiming that they called followers of Islam demons, liars, and terrorists.

Christian Teaching Criminalized

Last week in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Judge Michael Higgins cited comments Scot made to a church congregation during a seminar on Islam, saying that Muslims want to turn Australia into an Islamic nation and that the Koran promotes violence, killing, and looting.

According to a WorldNetDaily report, the judge found that Scot's comments were not made "in the context of a serious discussion," but were instead "presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning, and derogatory" of Muslims, their god Allah, the prophet Muhammed, and Islamic beliefs and practices in general. The judge ruled that a website article and a newsletter published by Catch the Fire Ministries were also in violation of the religious vilification laws.

Scot and Nalliah maintain their innocence and insist that no hate speech was involved in the ministry's presentation. Following the decision the pastors spoke to the media, stating their intention to "continue to stand up for religious freedom and freedom of speech in Australia." They added that they expect this ruling will have "major implications for the critique of the religious texts of other religions."

In their formal complaint, the Islamic Council asked for an apology, compensation and costs. Since there is no set monetary limit under the haThis could amount to many hundreds of thousands of dollars - on the other hand they could be very 'nice' and simply ask for an apology. However, there is no set monetary limit under this legislation, so the penalty in the case remains to be determined.

According to a Catch the Fire Ministries article, the case continues to be watched by Christians and governments nationally and internationally, and the British government is currently considering similar legislation to the Victoria statute.

Meaning of Marriage Muddied

Meanwhile, in Canada, the Globe and Mail newspaper is reporting that civic officials in some provinces could be forced to perform civil marriages for homosexuals, even if they object on religious grounds. A new homosexual marriage law that has been approved by Canada's Supreme Court allows an exemption for churches, but it fails to provide any protection for Christians who might work as marriage commissioners, court clerks, or justices of the peace.

According to the Globe and Mail, there is disagreement among the provinces concerning the assertion of Justice Minister Irwin Cotler that civic officials will be able to opt out of performing same-sex marriages based on religious grounds, with different jurisdictions adopting different policies. Manitoba's Premier Gary Doer says commissioners in his province must perform such ceremonies if they want to remain licensed, because as provincial officials they must not discriminate.

Saskatchewan has established the same policy, with no opt-out for civil employees. However, one Conservative Member of Parliament in Saskatchewan, MP Maurice Vellacott is insisting that Cotler has "made it very plain" that civic officials would be able to opt out of performing homosexual marriages if they have "conscience qualms" about doing so, and therefore, the Justice Minister has an obligation to ensure this right.

And in New Brunswick, where same-sex marriage is still against the law, the provincial officials are preparing legislation to allow court clerks who perform civil marriages to opt out of performing them for same-sex couples by citing a religious objection. And in British Columbia, marriage commissioners have been instructed that they can refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, so long as they refer the couple to a commissioner who will perform the ceremony.

Twelve B.C. marriage commissioners have resigned over that rule, however, apparently unwilling even to make same-sex marriage referrals. Meanwhile, in Manitoba, two commissioners have quit over their province's "no opt out" policy and have filed human rights complaints. The current legislative quagmire is one that many Christians, Canadian and otherwise, predicted well before the Canadian Supreme Court decided in favor of redefining marriage.

Now, while some human rights activists argue that no province has the right to allow its civil officials to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, others argue with equal vehemence that government employees must not be forced to act against their religious convictions. There is no end to the controversy in sight.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion02005.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.

[Shammu]

An important update 11 years in the making.


June 22, 2015

Danny Nalliah—Won our Battle for Free Speech Against Islam


In 2002 the Australian province of Victoria under LABOR, passed the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. which:-

“prohibits conduct that incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule of a person or group of people based on religious belief. “

This was a subjective law (“offence” coming from emotions) not an objective law (“truth” coming from the rational).

That same year the Islamic Council of Victoria filed a complaint that resulted in convictions for two Pastors, Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot – the first convictions in Australia under the nation’s religious vilification ban.

How the battle for free speech was fought

The complaint lodged in VCAT said Scot and Nalliah had “vilified Muslims” at a seminar on Jihad on March 9, 2002. The two Pastors addressed a private seminar held by Catch The Fire Ministries to some 250-300 Christians. They were lecturing on the differences between Christianity and Islam. The seminar came about as a result of “September 11” and their community wanted an understanding of the true features of Islam. Danny Nalliah having lived under Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia and witnessed three beheadings, had quoted from the Koran during the seminar, to demonstrate what some Muslims believe.

The Islamic Council of Victoria had sent three Anglo-Saxon converts to Islam masquerading as Christians to the Christian seminar. They took on 52 points as complaints against the seminar and took Pastors Scot and Nalliah to court under the Equal Opportunity Commission and demanded an apology.

Danny Nalliah refused to apologise on the grounds that what was stated was word-for-word from the Koran.


The court case at the VCAT tribunal went on for forty days over a period of two years.

In the eyes of the law, it’s not a matter of whether or not these two men told the truth – they did – but whether someone felt bad about what they said.  Even the Islamic Council barrister told the judge,
Your honour may I put in record, under the new law—TRUTH is not a defence’.[\b]

On December 17, 2004, VCAT Judge Michael Higgins, ruled that Catch the Fire Ministries, Pastor Danny Nalliah and speaker Daniel Scot vilified Muslims at a seminar in 2002, in a newsletter and an article on a website.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) determined that Pastors Scot and Nalliah violated the Act.

The Tribunal not only found the pastors in breach of the Act but also ordered the pastors publicly to apologize for their sincerely-held beliefs and promise never to repeat those beliefs.

Nalliah refused to apologize. “Right from the inception, we have said that this law is a foul law. We will go to prison for standing for the truth and not sacrifice our freedom and freedom to speak,”

Their case was then brought before the Supreme Court

On August 14, 2006 Australian attorneys, with the assistance of The Becket Fund on international law arguments, submitted appeals papers to the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne based on the Victorian legislation violating international human rights treaties.

(These actions by VCAT were in direct violation of international law. Australia is obliged by international conventions to protect rights of conscience, freedom of expression, and equal protection under the law as Australia has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and its enforcement mechanism, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The free speech, belief, and religious exercise provisions of Articles 18, 19, and 26 in the ICCPR protect the right freely to preach about and analyze religious truth-claims of competing religions.)

In December 2006, the Supreme Court upheld their Appeal and ruled in favor of Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, vacating the original ruling and ordering the trial to be heard again in front of a different judge at VCAT. The Islamic Council of Victoria was ordered to pay half of Nalliah and Scott’s legal fees.

During the five years duration of this legal action Danny Nallaiah endured “Alluha Akbar” death threats, threats of his house being burned down and his children being kidnapped by phone. Further the cost of legal fees by the time the case was decided had amounted to $600,000.

Back at VCAT, the parties agreed to go to a mediation prior to the re-hearing to see if the case could be resolved.

The case was finally resolved at a Mediation at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Friday 22 June 2007. If mediation had not resolved the complaint it would have gone to a re-hearing at VCAT in December 2007.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal of Australia, the Islamic Council of Victoria and Catch the Fire Ministries have reached an agreement that citizens have the right to “robustly debate religion” and “criticize religious beliefs” within the limits of the law.

The ICV has agreed to withdraw the complaint. A media release was issued as follows:

VCAT Media Release
Human Rights Division – Anti Discrimination List – VCAT Ref: A392/2002
Friday 22nd June 2007

Joint Statement of the Islamic Council of Victoria Inc.,Catch The Fire Ministries Inc., Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot

The Islamic Council of Victoria (the ICV) has reached an agreement with Catch the Fire Ministries, Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Daniel Nalliah about the complaint the ICV brought in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), concerning what it alleged were acts of religious vilification in contravention of s 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001(Vic).

Although some of the terms of that agreement are confidential, the parties have agreed to make this joint public statement.

Notwithstanding their differing views about the merits of the complaint made by the ICV, each of the ICV, Catch The Fire Ministries, Pastor Scot and Pastor Nalliah affirm and recognise the following:

1) the dignity and worth of every human being, irrespective of their religious faith, or the absence of religious faith;

2) the rights of each other, their communities, and all persons, to adhere to and express their own religious beliefs and to conduct their lives consistently with those beliefs;

3) the rights of each other, their communities and all persons, within the limits provided for by law, to robustly debate religion, including the right to criticise the religious belief of another, in a free, open and democratic society;

4) the value of friendship, respect and co-operation between Christians, Muslims and all people of other faiths; and

5) the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act forms part of the law of Victoria to which the rights referred to in paragraph 3 above are subject.

Champion of free speech in the West.

As a result of this case WA, NSW and SA completely rejected the same UN inspired legislation for their states—leaving LABOR governed Victoria as one of the few places in the free world where this legislation exists.

Select Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the United Kingdom invited Danny Nalliah to address them on a similar law that was being fashioned for the UK Parliament. As a result that law did not get passed in the UK.

The US Congress also invited Danny Nalliah to address a Congressional Select Committee hearing in order to brief the Committee on a similar law that was being introduced to the USA. Based on the Australian experience that law also did not make it through Congress.

83 cases across the world…are now using this Australian case as a defence against Islam’s attempt to introduce “offence legislation” (Sharia Law) onto the legal statue books of the West.

The tenacity of this Aussie battler not only saw through that 5 year long legal action, countless threats of intimidation from the Islamic community and a cost of $600,000 to put a stop to this draconian piece of UN inspired legislation taking hold in other free nations of the West.

However, after travelling to the UK and the USA Danny saw how the West was buckling under the oppression of the Politically Correct laws that were being introduced by the socialist inspired UN. So in 2013  Danny founded the Rise Up Australia Party in order to protect the Australian values and culture—as he says  “to keep Australia—Australian”.

http://concit.org/danny-nalliah-battler-for-free-speech/

[nChrist]

Thanks for the update.