 On 14th of December 2006 the Victorian Appeal Court upheld the appeal by two Assemblies of God pastors - Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot - against the 2004 decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal that they broke the Bracks Government's vilification laws at a Christian seminar on Islam in 2002. However the pastors' case has been sent back to the Tribunal, to be heard again by a different judge. The Supreme Court judges said that telling the truth about another religion may incite contempt for followers of that religion and thus break the vilification law.The judges said the pastors also urged Christians to love Muslims - to invite them to meals, to respect their culture and dress and to win them to Christ. But this may not be enough to save the pastors when their case is heard again later this year.The two Daniels may still end up behind bars - because the Victorian vilification law says telling the truth can be a crime.
 |
Herald Sun writer, Andrew Bolt: "These exhausted pastors have been harassed, threatened, denounced as bigots and flayed in the papers and on the ABC. But it is not enough to shrug at the persecution of Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot and say justice was done in the end." *
*A comprehensive article from Andrew Bolt , 'Pastors' toil and trouble', was written on Wednesday 20th December edition of the Herald Sun regarding the court case battle and the Supreme Court decision.
TO READ CLICK HERE
 | SO WHAT???You might be thinking :
"Well, … what happens in Victoria doesn't affect me! Who knows, those two Danny guys could be'nutters' or even 'bigots'. And to tell you the truth - I don't really care!"
STOP PRESS … … Only a handful of people are aware that the Rann Government is preparing to bring in new legislation. While the bill's name may sound innocuous enough, SA Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2006, it is set to make the very real and horrendous problems of the Victorian vilification laws look totally insignificant in comparison …
AND THIS WILL AFFECT YOU!!! | The following article has been published on the www.willyouvisitmeinprison.com website by permission of Charles Francis QC "Freedom of Speech under threat" Much injustice in Australia has occured in the name of equal oppurtunity legislation, argues Charles Francis QC. Many Christian churches, ministers and priests, who in the past have supported such laws, now regret having done so...
To view full article click here So what is the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill all about?... | | | | | | On the 26th Of October 2006, the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill was quietly introduced by the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson. If this new bill passes successfully, it would bring in sweeping changes to the way we think and how we act. These changes won't be seen overnight, but, in the words of one MP, "New laws create new attitudes". With what we have gleaned from history, there is good reason to expect these changes are going to be for the worse. | Whilst the EO Bill appears complex, what it sets out to do is quite straight forward: - Reduces freedom of speech
- Broadens the definition of "victimisation" to include "vilification"
- Increases the Equal Opportunity Commissioner's powers
- Provides State sponsored legal action
- Represses freedom of religion
| | | | | 1. Reduces freedom of speech | | Western liberal democracy requires a series of civil and political rights in order to function. Many of these freedoms have been recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the right to freedom of speech and expression. Australia has always enjoyed a high standard of freedom of expression. 1 These freedoms allow Australians to speak without fear of being punished for expressing their opinions. While it is necessary to balance freedom of expression with the restrictions necessary to prevent or punish expression which is actually harmful 2, such as child pornography, that balance should be weighted - so as to promote the truth. The promotion of truth has been recognised as a worthy aim in the Defamation Act 2005 (SA), which provides that a truthful (or substantially truthful) statement will not give rise to liability for defamation.
However, the EO Bill would seriously change all of this. As you read this paper you will become aware that, very soon, we would have to be extremely careful with what we can say (or write) in public. We would be constrained in a way never thought possible in South Australia, to the point that even if we do say something that is true that someone takes offence to, in the new legal territory we enter, truth is no longer a defence. 
1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19.2. Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 142, per Mason CJ.
| | | The EO Bill broadens the definition of "victimisation" to include "vilification", and uses the same wording as the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act for vilification. Thus "victimisation" is defined as engaging in a public act (any form of communication with the public or conduct in a public place) of inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule for a person or group of persons on the ground of their age, race, sex, sexuality, marital status, chosen gender (trans-sexuality), pregnancy or potential pregnancy, disability, residence, chosen legal profession, etc. These are the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the proposed new SA equal opportunity laws. We see then, the EO Bill increases the number of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Religion is not mentioned in this new list.
| | | NO ACCOUNTABILITY Clause 7 of the SA Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill would establish that the Minister (who is a member of Parliament - and accountable to Government) may neither give direction in relation to what action should be taken on a particular complaint, nor seek information to identify a party in the proceedings. Although these limitations are valid in a court system, the protections available within the court system are not present in the Equal Opportunity system. This situation is unacceptable. Given the need to maintain the accountability of the Equal Opportunity system, the Minister should retain his/her power to supervise the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. The supervisory role should continue to give directions in the manner in which a particular complaint should be dealt with.  | EO Commissioner's Power(Whilst most of these problems exist under the current Equal Opportunity Act, they are seriously exacerbated in the proposed legislation) - The Commissioner is required by law to assist the complainant with advice, but does not assist the defendant (accused), who must obtain his or her own legal advice.
- The conciliation takes place in private and no independent witness may observe or report the proceedings. The Commissioner may decide to dismiss the complaint - but the defendant cannot receive compensation for any stress, lost time, inconvenience or legal expenses incurred in attending the conciliation proceedings.
- The Commissioner may support the complainant's request for an apology or compensation - possibly amounting to thousands of dollars - or other measures. If the defendant does not agree, he or she can take the case to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal for determination in a public hearing which can be reported in the media. However the Tribunal does not offer the defendant all the protections of a normal court. The normal rules of evidence do not apply.
- In some cases, defendants who believe they are innocent of the complaints against them have been advised by lawyers to effectively "plead guilty" - to apologise and pay compensation at the conciliation stage, rather than pay the very high legal costs of a Tribunal hearing. Even if the Tribunal eventually dismisses the complaint, the defendant's costs may not be reimbursed - whereas the complainant's case, if supported by the Equal Opportunity Commission, is funded by the taxpayer.
- Under clause 67 of the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, the Commissioner would be empowered to investigate any matter, without prior approval or referral from the Tribunal or the Attorney-General, even where no one has lodged any complaint. This would give the Commissioner power to pursue his or her own personal agenda, using public funds without public accountability. The Commissioner would be able to act as "prosecutor" and "judge" at the same time - contrary to the principles of natural justice.
|
| | | | The EO Bill would allow the state to sponsor legal action against an individual, on a civil standard. This creates a new precedent in the procedure in Australian law. It creates an unbalanced situation before the courts, where the civil legal action is encouraged and paid for by the government. The government should provide resources for both the person making the complaint and the accused, or neither. | 
| | | | Whilst religious bodies could continue to discriminate in relation to training, ordination or appointment of clergy, clause 24 of the EO Bill would repeal section 50 (2) of the EO Act - so that religious hospitals, childcare centres, etc, would no longer be able to discriminate on the ground of sexuality, even if such discrimination is required by the beliefs of the religion. Furthermore, clause 17 of the EO Bill would allow religious schools to discriminate in employing staff but only on the grounds of sexuality and chosen gender (trans-sexuality), and only if such a policy is advertised to all current and prospective employees, parents and students, and lodged with the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, who may publish it. In addition to the above, religious schools would not be allowed to discriminate against students on any of the prohibited grounds - including sexuality.
| | | | | It is important to point out that Clause 61 of the EO Bill also requires secondary schools to have a written-victimisation policy, including procedures to resolve complaints available to all students. Since "victimisation" also means "vilification", any public comments in Christian secondary schools relating to biblical teaching on marital status (eg condemning unwed cohabitation), homosexuality, adultery or promiscuity, could lead to complaints being made to EO Commissioner by offended ("victimised") students, teachers, staff, parents, and so on.
| DUBIOUS EXEMPTIONS Due to pressure from sections of the Christian community, it is most likely the ardent supporters of the EO Bill may grant Christian schools an exemption on religious grounds. But we must ask, "How long will this be for?" Five years? Two years? The reality is, any exemptions could easily be removed by future governments.
| | | Proponents of the EO Bill believe it is a 'new' means by which intolerance and discrimination can be eliminated from our society - allowing all people to be treated fairly and afforded equal status. They perceive 'equality' and 'fairness' attainable only when ideas and actions conform to their own worldview model. Supporters of this type of 'tolerance' and 'anti-discrimination' regulation, until now, have endeavoured to use current legislation to persuade others in the community that all attitudes, values and practices are of equal worth. This has largely been effective, because for over half a century there has been a rapid shift within our society (and in the West in general) - moving educational, political, medical, media, law, union and religious institutions, toward the libertarian view. Nevertheless, there still exists many individuals and groups who resist this movement. Moreover, they are prepared to exercise their rights of freedom of speech to defend what they consider to be more justifiable and moral ways of thinking and behaving - which are primarily borne out of our nation's Judaeo-Christian heritage. Essentially, EO Bill proponents view current laws as too ineffective for bringing about total social change of a libertarian ilk. For them, legislation needs to go beyond mere persuasion; because this is too arduous, and the fact remains, too many people just refuse to think and behave the way they want. The legislation being proposed is deemed necessary for constraining freedom of speech and propagating, particularly by way of "thought-control" (in all areas of life - especially in education) what is considered to be the type of attitudes, values and practices which they believe are less discriminative, more tolerant and egalitarian - based on a relativistic libertarian model. |
| | | The following complaints could be lodged with the SA Equal Opportunity Commission if the SA Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill is passed in 2007 1. "Victimisation" (often called "vilification") complaints (Clause 61)
- that a public act has incited hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Act - could be lodged by:
A.) a used car salesman, against a newspaper columnist who made humorous derogatory remarks about used car salesmen [lawful occupation is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | B.) a lawyer, against a citizen who wrote a letter to the newspaper criticising lawyers as being greedy and arrogant [profession is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | C.) a single mother, against a TV current affairs program where a guest said that married couples generally provide a safer environment for raising children than do single parents [marital status is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | D.) a student, against a teacher who told the class that faithful marriage is the only place where truly safe sex can occur [marital status is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | E.) a pregnant woman, against a pro-life counselling agency whose brochure listed serious physical, mental and moral risks of abortion [pregnancy or potential pregnancy is a prohibited ground of victimisation: the woman could claim that the pro-life brochure incited serious contempt against pregnant women who abort their unborn babies for reasons of social convenience]. | F.) a homosexual man, against a physician who published an article outlining serious medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle [sexuality is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | G.) a woman, against a person who wrote a letter to a newspaper arguing that women, for physical and other reasons, should not be allowed to fight in army combat roles [sex is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | H.) a homosexual student, against a Christian secondary school whose staff member read out a Bible passage which condemned homosexual behaviour [sexuality is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | I.) a teacher, against a parent who wrote to her school council, objecting to the teaching of reading through books showing children with "two (lesbian) mummies" or "two (homosexual) daddies" in junior primary school classes [sexuality is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. | J.) a homosexual secondary school student, against a school, for choosing "heterosexist" plays like Romeo and Juliet without the alleged "balance" of plays and novels about homosexual partners [sexuality is a prohibited ground of victimisation]. |
2. Discrimination complaints could be lodged by:
| K.) two lesbian year 12 students, against a Christian school who refused to allow them to attend the school formal as a couple [partial removal of more general exemption for religious bodies such as schools, clauses 17, 24 - religious schools can discriminate on the basis of sexuality only in relation to employment, not in relation to provision of services, ie to students]. | L.) a burka-wearing Muslim woman, against the government for requiring her to show her face in a photograph on her driver's licence [religious appearance or dress is a prohibited ground of discrimination - clause 60]. | | M.) An employer interviews 2 people for a job as an assistant. One is rejected because the employer does not like that person. If the rejected person has a characteristic that is a protected ground under the Act (after the Bill is accepted), - the aggrieved person and EO Commission could claim that the rejection was on the basis of that characteristic. The employer would be required to justify his/her decision against people who are trying to attribute his dislike to a protected ground, which would make his/her decision unlawful. | N.) A 13 year old attending high school and some of his friends begin to accuse a fellow student of being a homosexual. The group makes jokes about his sexual practices, and any time he looks at another male student or teacher, he is accused of casting amorous glances at them. Any time the school's procedures for dealing with this harassment is deemed insufficient, a complaint of discrimination could be made on the ground of sexuality. | | O.) A man could identify as a woman by dressing as a woman for a period of time, and then claim entry into a fitness club that is exclusively for women. It would be discrimination on the ground of his chosen gender (femaleness) if the man wasn't allowed entry to the fitness club. | P.) Furthermore, in relation to this particular 'exclusive-to-women' fitness club, any person who writes or expresses a view criticising this situation could be subject to a complaint of victimisation on the ground of chosen gender. | | | 3. Sexual harassment complaints (clause 64) could be lodged by:
Q.) an employee of a company, against the company manager, because another employee told a risqué joke - without the knowledge or consent of the manager [in other words, an employer would be liable for harassment or discrimination committed by employees unless the employer provides "training" of all employees in anti-discrimination and non-harassment].4. "Name and shame" (clause 17)
R.) Christian schools which restrict employment to staff who practise a biblical lifestyle (eg in conformity with 1 Cor 6:9-10) could be targeted and/or picketed by homosexual activists following publication of the names and addresses of schools with this policy by the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity [clause 17].
| | | | The new EO Bill does provide exemptions for vilifying acts. If they are a fair report or done reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic, scientific, research or other purposes in the public interest. However, there is no exemption for truth or acts done for religious purposes.
This situation leads to inconsistencies or, to say it another way, "double standards" in our society. Such as (and there are many examples), comedians could use the "artistic purpose" exemption to severely ridicule a person or group on the ground of their sex or sexuality, but a priest who explains one of Paul's Letter to the Romans (which addresses, amongst other things, moral behaviour) could face legal action. Or it is possible, a sexual health educator could use the "academic purpose" exemption to make (intentional / unintentional) comments, e.g. "...those who don't agree with comprehensive sex education being taught to primary school children are probably religious fundamentalists..." which have the effect of inciting serious contempt and severe ridicule toward a group, without having to face legal action, but another researcher who uses the "academic purpose" exemption to explain the high health risks of abortion could face legal action if members of the audience perceived her remarks to have incited hatred, serious contempt and severe ridicule toward themselves and women who have had an abortion. To reiterate the point: whilst the SA Defamation Act 2005 (section 23) says that it is a defence if the remark can be proven to be true, this is clearly not the case with the EO Bill. Moreover, there is no objective test for demonstrating that a particular act has incited hatred, etc. People whose feelings are hurt by a public statement may claim that hatred and contempt or ridicule has been incited against them, even if no one has been harmed, or incited to do harm, or threatened with harm. | 
| | | Email/fax/phone key people:
Premier Mike Rann email premier@saugov.sa.gov.au
fax 8463 3168; ph 8463 3166 Attorney-General Michael Atkinson email attorney-general@agd.sa.gov.au
fax 8207 1736; ph 8207 1723 Opposition Leader Iain Evans email davenport@parliament.sa.gov.au
fax 8370 2626; ph 8278 5844 No Pokies Independent Nick Xenophon email nx@xen.net.au
fax 8212 5792; ph 8237 9396 No Pokies Independent Ann Bressington
email ann.bressington@parliament.sa.gov.au
fax 82379534 ph 8237 9596 Family First Andrew Evans email andrew.evans@parliament.sa.gov.au
fax 8237 9478; ph 8237 9341*** Include your postal address so you receive a response back*** Letters can be sent to all MPs
C/- Parliament House
North Terrace
Adelaide SA 5000 Click here for some sample letters:Remember:
Ask for a reply and state that you have sent a copy of your letter to a number of MPs. | If you would like to contact the www.willyouvisitmeinprison.com campaign, you can email the Editor at the following address:
willyouvisit@adam.com.au | | | Please note following correspondence received Monday 5th February 2007 | Dear Friend,
An MP has informed us that debate on the controversial Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill is on the House of Assembly Notice Paper for tomorrow (Tuesday 6 February 2007). The Labor government has the numbers to pass the bill in the lower house by Wednesday evening. But the government does not have the numbers in the upper house (the Legislative Council), where debate could begin on 20 February or mid March. If the Liberals, Family First and other Independents agree, key sections of the bill could be defeated or amended . So far, several upper house MPs are sympathetic to our concerns, but we need more. We have been busy trying to alert MPs about the dangers of clause 61 of the bill (which bans vilification on over a dozen different grounds including sexuality, pregnancy, chosen gender and marital status). However Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has written to everyone, saying in effect: Dont worry! There are exemptions in clause 61 which allow a reasonable act, done in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest (including reasonable public discussion, debate or expositions). Lawyers tell us that Mr Atkinson is wrong to imply that these exemptions would stop complaints being lodged against (say) pastors who expound Romans 1: 27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Similar exemptions in the Victorian law did not protect pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah. The SA Equal Opportunity Commissioner has confirmed to us that if a complaint were lodged against such a pastor, she would not dismiss it. She would institute conciliation proceedings and the pastor would have to attend, regardless of personal inconvenience. Any legal advice he feels he needs would be at his own expense. The pastor would then have to prove his innocence (ie the onus of proof would be reversed) by trying to establish that his sermon was reasonable, in good faith, and in the public interest. There is no guarantee that the Equal Opportunity Commissioner would agree with him. If she did, and dismissed the complaint at the conciliation stage, there would be no compensation payable to the pastor for his stress and expenses - but legal expenses for the complainant would be borne by the taxpayer. Someone has noted that if the complaint is later taken to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal and dismissed there, compensation may be awarded to the respondent. While that is true, there is no guarantee that such compensation would cover all the respondents costs. The debate is set to begin tomorrow. Even if you have already alerted the Premier and Opposition Leader, please send an urgent email to your local MP (and others if you have time), plus all members of the Legislative Council. SUGGESTED WORDING FOR EMAIL:Subject line: Free speechDear Member of Parliament, Please vote for free speech and freedom of religion. Please vote against clause 61 of the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and other parts which would prevent religious institutions from promoting traditional values. Exemptions in the bill would not stop vilification complaints from being lodged. Respondents would then have to prove that the exemptions applied - a reversal of the onus of proof. Respondents would receive no compensation at conciliation if the complaint is dismissed. This bill denies natural justice and should be rejected. NAME
STREET ADDRESS
........................................... Concerns may be shared with one or more (or all) of the twenty-two members of the Legislative Council (the Upper house of State Parliament) as every South Australian is represented by all those members. Their details are as follows: Hon Ann Bressington - ann.bressington@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon John Dawkins - john.dawkins@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Andrew Evans - andrew.evans@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Bernard Finnigan - finnigan@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Gail Gago - minister.gago@saugov.sa.gov.au Hon John Gazzola - john.gazzola@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Paul Holloway - ministerDTED@state.sa.gov.au Hon Dennis Hood - dennis.hood@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Ian Hunter - ian.hunter@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Sandra Kanck - sandra.kanck@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Robert Lawson - robert.lawson@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Michelle Lensink - michelle.lensink@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Rob Lucas - rob.lucas@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Mark Parnell - greens@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon David Ridgway - david.ridgway@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Caroline Schaefer - caroline.schaefer@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Bob Sneath - bob.sneath@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Terry Stephens - terry.stephens@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Stephen Wade - stephen.wade@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Russell Wortley - russell.wortley@parliament.sa.gov.au Hon Nick Xenophon - nx@xen.net.au Hon Carmel Zollo - minister.zollo@saugov.sa.gov.au
| |
