National Observer Home > No. 64 - Autumn 2005 > Legal Notes
The Totalitarian Effects of Anti-Free Speech Legislation
Of increasing concern has been the
spreading tide of legislation that, on
socio-political grounds, prevents freedom
of expression and freedom of
choice. It now appears, for example,
that if a person wishes to engage a secretary,
the person cannot discriminate
against men, or against homosexuals,
and so on. This restriction of liberty
of choice or association is improper
and dangerous. Australians should be
able to employ whomsoever they wish,
and they should not be compelled to
enter into close associations with
those they do not prefer.
Ominous restrictions have also appeared
in regard to freedom of expression.
It is now unsafe to criticise homosexuals,
for instance. Recently two
Sydney radio presenters were ordered
by an administrative tribunal to apologise
for critical comments made about
homosexuals, and homosexuals have
become aggressive in pursuing by legal/
administrative proceedings those
who speak disapprovingly of them.
Recently the Jewish and Moslem
lobbies have succeeded in many States
in having legislation enacted to proscribe
racial or religious “vilification”.
(The term “vilification” is itself an artifice.
Initiating “serious contempt . . .
or revulsion” or “severe ridicule” is
enough.1)
Hence it becomes unlawful to express
repugnance for a Muslim terrorist,
for example, who on the ground of
his “religious belief or activity” murders
large numbers of innocent civilians.
2 Likewise many statements by
the more extreme Muslim religious
spokesmen in Australia should be
treated appropriately with contempt
or revulsion. But to react in this way
is to act illegally.3
Legislation of this kind, which represents
a type of fascism of the left, is
wrong in principle, is dangerous generally,
and is particularly dangerous
when Muslim and Jewish religious
extremists are murdering victims in
the Middle East and when aggressive
and hostile activity is taking place in
Australia itself.
A practical example of these difficulties
is seen in the recent decision
of Judge Higgins, in the Victorian Civil
and Administrative Tribunal, in December
2004, in Islamic Council of
Victoria Inc. v. Catch the Fire Ministries
Inc. Judge Higgins, who came
from the controversial plaintiffs’ firm
Slater & Gordon, was appointed by the
Bracks Labor Party government,
which enacted the relevant legislation
at the instance of the Jewish and Muslim
lobbies.
The defendants were Catch the Fire
Ministries Inc. and Pastors Nalliah
and Scot. The complaint concerned a
seminar held in Melbourne on 9
March 2002, entitled “Insight into Islam”.
Pastor Scot drew attention at the
seminar to a number of disturbing
statements in the Koran, as well as to
a number of other statements in the
Koran of which he expressed approval.
The seminar appears on balance to
have been a reasonable presentation.
There are undoubtedly profoundly
disturbing statements within the Koran,
and some of the extreme statements
made by Moslems within Australia
are even more disturbing. Needless
to say, discussion of these matters
should not be repressed.
Judge Higgins however held that
Pastor Scot had been in breach of the
legislation. His judgment contained
many significant errors of fact. For
example, he accused the pastor of stating
that “Muslims are demons”. But
in fact Pastor Scot had merely pointed
out that the Koran stated that Allah
had sent a group of demons (“jinn”}
who when they had heard the Koran
became Moslems. This particular misrepresentation
by Judge Higgins was
very serious, and there were many
other equally serious misrepresentations
in his judgment.
The background to the case is that
the Islamic Council — various Islamic
bodies receive financial support from
Saudi Arabia — is highly organised.
There has been a tendency amongst
left-liberal groups in the community
to champion the cause of Moslems in
Australia and to dismiss concerns by
others about aggressive statements by
some Imams, the fact of Islamic terrorism
in many parts of the world and
specific threats by terrorists that they
will target Australia or Australians.
Islam is an extreme religion, and there
has been a practice for Moslems in
Australia to maintain separate groups
and not to inter-marry or integrate
within other groups. There is a serious
question whether Moslems are
desirable immigrants to Australia and
whether there are already too many
Moslems within Australia.
Left-liberal groupings have not been
acting in Australia’s interest in supporting
the Moslem cause so readily.
It is significant that, for example, in
the Catch the Fire Ministries case the
Uniting Church of Australia sought to
intervene, surprisingly taking up a
position contrary to Pastor Scot. The
Uniting Church has recently become
perhaps the most leftish of all the
Christian groups in Australia, and is
sometimes criticised for presenting
more a liberal social position than a
religion. The Catholic Church sought
to intervene also. That Church is divided
between left-liberals and conservatives,
and most of its social and
political commentary emanates from
the former group. History reveals
Lenin to have been an extremely unpleasant
man, but his description of “useful idiots” is appropriate to describe
many of the groups who now
find it fashionable to pursue such prey
as Pastor Scot.
It is also a matter of regret that
Allens Arthur Robinson appeared pro
bono for the Islamic Council. Pro bono
work is to be encouraged, provided
that the matter in hand justifies it.
However in the present case there
were protracted proceedings against
the defendants, who were of very limited
financial means, and Allens
Arthur Robinson’s decision to act in
this way may be expected to attract
criticism, and indeed criticism appears
to be justified.
Hence a double attack on freedom of
expression and freedom of association
is taking place.
On the one hand, inhibiting legislation
with indefinite and ambiguous
provisions is passed, such as the socalled
Racial and Religious Tolerance
Act. Legislation of this kind operates
in terrorem. After the ill-founded decision
of Judge Higgins against Pastor
Scot, many will be unprepared to
make critical comments or give warnings
about Islam and about Moslems
in Australia or abroad, however wellbased
those comments or warnings
would be. In particular, in a world
where Moslem terrorists are active,
and where threats are made by them
against Australia, and where some
Moslem leaders in Australia express
sympathy with terrorists, the ability of
Australians to defend themselves and
their interests is seriously diminished.
On the other hand, left-liberal
groups make use of legislation of this
kind in order to advance their agenda.
The most disturbing aspect of this
agenda is that the security of Australia
is not to be protected.4 On the contrary,
one of the principal purposes of
the left-liberal agenda is to weaken
Australia’s security.
1. See, for example, sections 7 and 8 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
(Vic.).
2. See for example section 8 (1) of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic.).
3. There is a limited defence in section 11, which applies only where the person’s
conduct is regarded by an often politically-motivated administrative tribunal to be
reasonable and in good faith for a specified purpose in the public interest. But tribunal
members with particular political or social prejudices may find almost any statement
unreasonable.
4. See the Editorial Comment, supra, at pages 5-7.
National Observer No. 64 - Autumn 2005
