Does Legislating Religious Tolerance Work?
In my last Egypt News column, I discussed some of the benefits and challenges of living in a multicultural society. One of the greatest challenges we face today is respecting the religious beliefs of our fellow Australians.
Legislation is currently before the New South Wales Parliament that seeks to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to encourage religious tolerance, by prohibiting the inciting of hatred towards or showing contempt for other religions. The sentiment behind this bill is commendable, but in actual fact it is more likely to encourage religious intolerance than prevent it.
Similar religious vilification laws have been introduced in Victoria. These laws have opened up a Pandora’s box of legal action. In the most well publicised case, two Christian pastors were accused of inciting hatred against the Muslim community in Australia. The case was based on a seminar the pastors, Danny Scot and Danny Nalliah, gave discussing Islam. They were reported by some Muslim converts who attended the seminar incognito. In particular, the Muslim complainants objected to passages the pastors read from the Koran. The case went to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where Scot and Nalliah were found guilty of vilifying Muslims. Their defence cost them $1 million, and it will cost them even more as they appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
These laws also allow for frivolous legal cases. In another Victorian case, a convicted child sex offender, who identifies himself as a pagan, has made a complaint against a Christian program run in gaol. He claims the program vilified him by making negative comments about witchcraft. Recently the Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, has announced he will review the religious tolerance laws to try to prevent these kinds of spurious claims being brought before the courts.
None of us want to encourage the vilification of Muslims or any other religious community in our country. On the contrary, we should uphold the mutual respect that our society is built on. At the same time, we should be free to engage in an open discussion about what we and others believe. Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental rights that we enjoy, and any attempts to reduce it are dangerous.
The answer lies not in additional legislation, but in education. Legislation creates divisiveness instead of promoting tolerance, accommodation and acceptance. We should support an open dialogue where critical examination of all belief systems is possible, provided it is done in a respectful manner. I will continue to oppose this bill and any other attempts to reduce our freedom to express our beliefs or discuss the beliefs of others.
GORDON MOYES
