Thanks to Religion of Pieces for making me aware of this story:
A TRIBUNAL decision seen as gagging critics of Islam has been torn up in a decisive victory for two fundamentalist preachers facing jail.
The Islamic Council of Victoria had complained that comments by Catch the Fire Ministries pastors had exposed Muslims to hatred and ridicule.
Yesterday's unanimous decision by three Victorian Court of Appeal judges was widely applauded as a win for freedom of speech.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal had agreed with the Islamic Council that pastor Daniel Scot had engaged in conduct that incited hatred, contempt, revulsion or ridicule.
VCAT's Judge Michael Higgins said Mr Scot had caused 250 Christians to laugh at Islam during a 2002 seminar.
But yesterday the Court of Appeal set aside the orders and returned the case to the tribunal for decision by a different judge, without the rehearing of evidence.
Justice Geoffrey Nettle said a recording of the seminar had left him unconvinced that Mr Scot had incited hatred.
He said that though Mr Scot's style sometimes ridiculed Islam and resulted in cynical laughter, his plea during the seminar to love Muslims seemed sincere, as did the audience's reaction to it.
Mr Scot allegedly "made fun of Muslim beliefs . . . in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their God, . . . the Prophet Mohammed and, in general, Muslim religious beliefs and practices."
It was alleged he stated that the Koran promotes violence, killing and looting and treats women badly; that the faith considers women, dogs and donkeys of equal value; that domestic violence in general is encouraged; and that Muslims are liars and demons.
Judge Higgins had ordered Mr Scot and fellow pastor Daniel Nalliah to correct the statements and apologise in full-page newspaper advertisements.
But the appeal court said Mr Scot had been taken out of context, and had been quoting from the Koran.
Outside the court, Mr Scot said he would rather have gone to jail than apologise.
"Muslims have got to hide the truth to convert more people to Islam," he said. "We are not afraid to tell the truth.
"We can't be muzzled."
6 comments:
Actually, that was part of the case. This case goes back a few years now. At one point, the Defense was accused of inciting bigotry because they read the Koran aloud in the courtroom.
Well, I could be wrong, but from what I've read, it would seem that this part is probably untrue-- that the faith considers women, dogs and donkeys of equal value. While it is probably true that women are considered equal to dogs, I believe that they are not considered equal to donkeys. It is not uncommon for women to be beaten . . . however, i believe that it is much less common that a Muslim male would beat his donkey.
Why would this be so?
The Koran specifically advocates beating women in certain instances, but as far as I know the Koran does not advocate beating of donkies or other animals that perform a useful function. This is one example of the inequality in the Islamic view of women and donkies.
Donkies are useful beasts of burdern...but they can be very stubborn. I would imagine that if they are mistreated they might refuse to perform...so it is probably not a good idea to beat them-- the beating of donkies is probablt less common than the beating of women.
The statement may be accurate about women and dogs...while there may be negative consequences to beating donkies, there are none with beating dogs. (Dogs are probably not treated better than women--even though, I suppose it could be argued that unlike women, there is no such thing as murdering dogs to 'defend the families honor' in the event of certain types of sexual interaction. And I really doubt that the barbaric practice of FGM is applied to female dogs).
So, it seems to me that, while women and dogs are often treated quite poorly, in most cases donkies are treated better than women...and therefore to say that they are considered of equal value, if not completely false, is at the very least somewhat misleading.
Question-- I believe I read that in Britain there was a law passed outlawing 'hate speech' and writings that might incite hatred. While this might initially seem like a good idea, it is obviously an infringement on the right to free speech.
While writings that incite hatred were banned, I believe I read that, amazingly, the Koran was specifically exempted from this law.
I do not remember all the facts-- does anyone know about this?
Pastorius-
It certainly is strange. Quite a conundrum-- in any case involving Islam...if the facts about what the religion teaches are made known, they would definitely prejudice people against Islam. The only to have a fair trial would be to supress the facts.
Hey, wait a minute! Supressing the facts in order to have a 'fair' trial? DOH!
(Hopefully, little by little, the truth about both Islam and the dangers of dhimmitude will become more evident to the world.)
Krishna,
that's a pretty impressive analysis of the relative treatment of dogs, donkeys and women under Islam. However, just to be honest, women stand to inherit money under Sharia (ever if it is only 50% of what a man would inherit), and women's word is counted at being worth half of what a man's word is worth in an Islamic court of law. I don't think donkeys or dogs word is worth anything in a court of law, neither do I believe they stand to inherit any money if their master dies.
So, you see, women have it pretty good, in some ways, compared to donkeys and dogs.
"We can't be muzzled" but...
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=NS1432184J&news_headline=nun_accused_of_religious_harassment
I was always taught in Sunday school to 'tell the truth and shame the devil' . But nowadays if you tell the truth in Britanistan you get fined £200 = $400.
... Allah F***ing Akhbar
Post a Comment