State crosses line between secular, sacred

The stated aim of the Australian Labor Party, according to its constitution, is to bring about the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange.

With the Bracks Government’s 2001 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, the ALP may well add the Almighty to their list.

Indeed, 2000 years after Jesus Christ instructed us to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s, we have now officially rendered God to Caesar — or at least to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Those who have followed the news over the last few months would be well aware that two pastors, Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot, were found in December 2004 by the VCAT to have breached Victoria’s religious vilification provisions in the Act.

They are due to discover their punishment around the time of writing.

You see, back in 2002 word got out that the pastors were organising a religious seminar on Islamic beliefs and conduct that would not be to the liking of the politically correct thought police.

So, in her dual role on the Islamic Council of Victoria and the Equal Opportunity Commission, May Helou arranged for some spies to be present at the seminar in order to catch out Pastors Nalliah and Scot.

The rest is history — hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, numerous death threats, and an increase in vilification and mistrust. The only real winners have been the lawyers.

So far, the debate surrounding the case has narrowly focused on whether or not the likes of Pastors Nalliah and Scot should be allowed to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of Muslims, as is proscribed by the Act.

What has generally gone unmentioned is that you don’t even have to ridicule Muslims to be hauled before a Victorian court — it now appears that attacking Islam as a belief system is also banned.

In his judge’s summary, Justice Michael Higgins found that Pastor Scot made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct, their god, Allah (and) the prophet Mohammed.

A great proportion of the full judgment text is taken up by arguments, evidence and judicial determinations on the tenets of Islamic beliefs and conduct.

Higgins lambasted the pastors for taking a literal interpretation of the Qu’ran which was not mainstream Muslim practice and decided that the seminar was not a fair representation of Islamic beliefs.

And what exactly would be a fair representation of Islamic beliefs?

Why, Justice Higgins has no idea, as there is no ultimate body or person who can give final rulings with regard to matters of religion within the Islamic faith.

It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

What we have here is nothing short of a blasphemy law and the irony is that the strongest supporters of these laws tend to be liberal Christians in the Uniting and Anglican churches, and their secular Leftist allies.

They claim to be doing this to protect endangered minorities from vilification yet it is perfectly clear that these laws are being used as a tool to ban criticism of particular religious beliefs.

We’ve seen similar developments in the UK . Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has brazenly called for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs.

Get that? This isn’t about shielding people from vilification — it’s about giving statutory protection to beliefs.

Abdul Aziz, a consultant adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain, was reported in The Guardian as saying that religious vilification legislation in Victoria was far closer to a blasphemy law and that proposed laws in Britain would be less ambitious.

He would say that, wouldn’t he?

The truth is that you cannot separate believers from their beliefs. People who dedicate their lives to serving their God are never going to be convinced that an attack on their religion is anything less than a personal attack on them.

If vilification is so bad, it is surprising that we haven’t yet seen calls for political vilification laws.

After all, a political ideology is merely a bundle of ideas about how the world should operate — rather like a religion.

And political vilification can get nasty. For example, elderly One Nation supporters were vilified and assaulted outside town hall meetings in the lead up to the 1998 federal election.

But if we banned political vilification, the Left would no longer enjoy their Gaia-given right to call John Howard a fascist.

So it’s much more convenient for all involved to target evangelists instead. All vilifiers are equal but some are more equal than others.

The evidence is clear — the pillars of the state have re-appropriated the right to ban blasphemy and issue determinations on religious matters, thereby repealing 200 years of secular progress since the 18th century Enlightenment.

On sober reflection, the people of Victoria might like to re-evaluate the wisdom of rendering both God, and their long-cherished freedoms, to Caesar.

This article is based on arguments in the Autumn 2005 issue of Policy, published by The Centre for Independent Studies.