The Supreme Court of Victoria has overturned the earlier religious vilification findings by Judge Higgins against Daniel Scot, Danny Nalliah and Catch the Fire.

The Supreme Court judgement can be read at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

This judgement criticizes Judge Higgin’s legal reasoning, and also his specific findings about what Scot said at the Catch the Fire seminar. For example, it is pointed out that Scot did not say that Muslims were demons, a shocking and yet false claim against Scot that has been spread all around the world. The ruling also discusses important issues of principle, e.g. is it possible to deride someone’s beliefs without inciting hatred for the person, and to prove incitement against people, is it enough to prove incitement against beliefs.

These detailed findings vindicate suggestions – made by many, including myself, see here – http://www.jihadwatch.org:80/dhimmiwatch/archives/004890.php, and the original barrister for the Christians, David Perkins – that Judge Higgins’ judgement was fundamentally and irretrievably flawed.

The Supreme Court has asked for a new judge to be appointed to hear the matter back at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, based on the evidence already presented.

Although it is not difficult to see that Judge Higgins’ findings brought little credit to the judiciary, they also have brought discredit upon the law itself, which was cobbled together from anti- racism legislation. There is also the inherent implausibility of asking a low-level civil tribunal to deal with complex religious issues: it was highly problematic for the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to be hearing such a matter in the first place. This body may be the right entity to make rulings on the heights of buildings in the Central Business District of Melbourne, but it is manifestly ill-equipped to find on matters which are linked into fundamental ideological conflicts between world religions.

The Supreme Court judgement also brings discredit to Christian leaders and groups who were quick to denounce the two pastors immediately after Judge Higgins produced his flawed judgement.

In the current course of events there are dangers of heightened tensions between religious groups in Victoria. On the one hand Jewish and Muslims groups, and some Christian organisations such as the Victorian Council of Churches, have been strong supporters of Victoria’s religious tolerance law and the alleged value in improving religious tolerance in our state. On other hand many Victorian Christians have opposed the law – including more than 30,000 signatories to a petition.

The Bracks government, recently re-elected, will come under pressure over this ruling, especially as Judge HIggins’ findings – including his personally destructive but false findings against Daniel Scot – were cited with approval in parliament earlier this year by members of the government, as part of their case in support of retaining the religious vilification laws.

This “Catch the Fire” matter has been going on now for almost five years. How much longer will it take for the pastors to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome to the allegations which have been made against them?

Mark Durie