'Catch the Fire' Appeal allowed!
The Court of Appeal (Supreme Court) of Victoria has ALLOWED the appeal sought
by Catch The Fire Ministries, Pastor Danny Nalliah and Pastor Daniel Scot.
All three Justices - Nettle, Ashley and Neave - agreed that the appeal should
be allowed. In particular, the argument that the Tribunal had wrongly
interpreted Section 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, the basic
section that sets out the offence of religious vilification was successful.
The Court gave orders that the Tribunal orders re 'penalties'
(advertisement, not saying similar things) be set aside, and that the matter be
sent back to VCAT to be heard by a different judge with no new evidence.
The
Court also ordered that the costs relating to the previous Tribunal hearing and
the next one be decided by the Member who hears it.
The Court ordered that
the Islamic Council of Victoria pay half of the costs incurred by Catch the Fire
Ministries and the pastors in conducting the appeal.
Pastor Danny Nalliah and Pastor Daniel Scot welcomed the decision, as the
statements made by the Justices show that the decision by Judge Higgins was
flawed.
However, the process is far from over!
Click here
to read the FULL decision.
Click here for more details and
a report on the decision.
Click here
for Catch the Fire Ministries Media Release.
Media:
Initial
reports
Court
orders vilification retrial
The Age, Barney Zwartz,
Religion Editor, December 14, 2006.
Church
race case back to tribunal
Herald Sun, AAP, December
14, 2006
Detailed
reports:
Pastors
will keep 'telling truth' on Muslims
The Age, Barney Zwartz,
December 15, 2006.
Free
speech win for Islam critics
Craig Binnie, December 15,
2006 Herald Sun.
Preachers
claim win
The Australian, December 15, 2006
A
Lack of faith in these laws
Andrew Bolt, December 15,
2006
Initial brief comment on his blog.... supporting the pastors...
Also
comments on the blog....
Pastors'
toil and trouble
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, December 20,
2006
Full length column.
Click here
to join the blog.
Analysis:
Christian
Pastors vs Islamic Council of Victoria
Analysis by Peter Faris
QC.
Alternatively click here.
As well as
highlighting the deficiencies in the RRTA and the original decision, Peter
highlights the comments by Justice Nettle that comments made on talk back radio
- to a more 'general' audience could incite hatred whereas the same comments
made at a religious meeting or seminary might not!
As a part-time media
commentator, Peter is rightly concerned!
Salt Shakers
Email:
Email sent following the decision, highlighting some
of the findings in the decision.
Two Danny's case - further update
The main reasons for upholding the appeal (striking down the
guilty verdict and the penalties imposed by Judge Higgins) appear to be that
Judge Higgins made some considerable errors of judgement in interpretation of
what constituted vilification. Some of these interpretations appear to arise
from accepting minority opinions of previous judgements rather than majority
opinions.
Justice Nettle stated in his findings "In my view it was calculated to lead
to error for a secular tribunal to attempt to assess the theological propriety
of what was asserted at the Seminar."
He also stated "The Tribunal’s concentration on the issue of whether Pastor
Scot’s statements represented a "balanced" presentation of the religious beliefs
of Muslims, and the Tribunal’s conclusion, based on Father McInerney’s opinion,
that they did not, appear to me to have resulted in the Tribunal disregarding
significant aspects of Pastor Scot’s statements which, at least arguably, went a
long way to ameliorating any risk of inciting hatred of Muslims (even if they
did nothing to redress the imbalance perceived by Father McInerney). Thus, to
take the Tribunal’s 19 findings as to what Pastor Scot said at the
Seminar:...
Justice Nettle then listed 14 things Daniel Scot "DID NOT SAY" that
Judge Higgins said he had said.
One of these was the often-quoted
statement that "Muslims are demons". Justice Nettle makes it clear that Pastor
Scot DID NOT say that! He also mentioned a number of things that Daniel Scot was
criticised for saying that were actually quotes from the Qu'ran or where he
quoted other peoples' statements.
The Appeal judges also suggest that the 'audience' to which a statement is
made should be taken into consideration and that too little attention was paid
to the last third of the seminar which dealt with loving Muslims and how to
befriend them to reach them for Jesus Christ.
The Justices found no
conflict between the R & RT Act and the Australian Constitution.
Clearly there were many things wrong with the Decision handed down by
Judge Higgins. Those in the media, and those Christians who supported the
Muslims throughout the case and continue to uphold the validity of Higgins
judgement, such as the Uniting Church Justice and International Mission Unit run
by Mark Zirnsak, and the Catholic Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission, should
read this appeal judgement and re-think their position in light of the
truth.
We are getting a legal opinion on this judgement and its
ramifications to churches/ministries. We will forward that opinion early next
year.
Peter Stokes, 14 December
2006.
