|
|
|
 Win for Aussie Pastors, Becket FundDec 15, 2006 The Supreme Court of Victoria in Australia upheld the appeal of Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, two Australian pastors who could have faced jail time for publicly comparing Christianity and Islam according to their own religious beliefs. The court ruled for the pastors, vacating the original ruling and ordered the trial to be heard again in front of a different judge. The Islamic Council of Victoria was expected to challenge the ruling.
Far from incendiary, their remarks were thoughtful Christian reflections on Islam and on the dialogue between Christians and Muslims. They said that while they didn’t agree with Muslims, Christians were called to love and not hate Muslims. Despite this, The 2004 ruling of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that public expression of the pastors’ beliefs "vilified Islam" and was in violation of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act because the pastors’ beliefs were deemed “offensive” and “unreasonable” interpretations of Christian and Islamic teachings. In August, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, working with a team of Australian lawyers, presented arguments to the Supreme Court defending the pastors religious liberty rights under international law.
"The Pastors were victims of a short-sighted law that pretended to promote tolerance but in fact tolerated absolutely nothing," said Becket Fund founder and President Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson. "Hopefully this ruling will help the Australian courts realize they cannot and should not try to control religious discussion in their country."
"This is a step in the right direction," added Angela C. Wu, International Director of the Becket Fund. "I sincerely wish that these pastors, as well as all clergymen in Australia regardless of faith, can feel free to preach matters of religious conscience without fear of reprisal from the government."
In the original ruling, the pastors had been ordered to apologize for their sermon, and could have faced jail time if they refused to comply. The case will be sent back to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for another hearing with no further evidence presented.
Relevant Cases
|
|
|
