Quoting Scripture Illegal: The Koran in Australia, The Bible in Canada

Human Events
tells us that
in Australia the law considers it “religious vilification”, a criminal offense,
to quote the parts of the Koran liberals consider it impolite to mention:


Two Christian pastors in Australia have been found guilty of religious
vilification of Muslims. The decision threatens us all.

One of the pastors, Daniel Scot, is Pakistani. He fled his native land seventeen
years ago when he ran afoul of the notorious Section 295(c) of the Penal Code –
which mandates death or life in prison for anyone who blasphemes “the sacred
name of the holy Prophet Muhammad.”…

Scot went to Australia, only to run afoul of that nation’s new religious
vilification laws. Last Friday, Judge Michael Higgins of The Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal found him guilty of vilifying Islam in a seminar hosted
by his group, Catch the Fire Ministries. The judge noted that during the
seminar, Scot stated that “the Quran promotes violence, killing and looting.”…

He also scored Scot for contending that the Qur’an “treats women badly; they are
to be treated like a field to plough, ‘use her as you wish,’” and that in it,
“domestic violence in general is encouraged.’” He charged Scot with saying that
the Qur’an directs that “a thief’s hand is cut off for stealing.” Yet the idea
of the field and “use her as you wish” are from Sura 2:223 of the Qur’an.
Husbands are told to beat their disobedient wives in 4:34. Amputation for theft
is prescribed in 5:38….

When during the trial Scot began to read Qur’anic verses that discriminate
against women, a lawyer for the Islamic Council of Victoria, the organization
that brought the suit, stopped him: reading the verses aloud, she said, would in
itself be religious vilification. Dismayed, Scot replied: “How can it be
vilifying to Muslims in the room when I am just reading from the Qur’an?”

This of course reminds me of the Saskatchwan case in which quoting the
Bible was ruled to be illegal. As I
posted in 2003,

… Let’s talk about this so-called high threshold, and let’s look at
comparable Saskatchewan human rights legislation and a decision of December
2002, the Hugh Owens decision.

In paragraph 7 of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench decision in the
appeal of that particular case, we have the description of the offence:

The bumper sticker in the advertisement displayed references to four
Bible passages: Romans 1 [+/-]Open Link in New Window, Leviticus 18:22 [+/-]Open Link in New Window, Leviticus 20:13 [+/-]Open Link in New Window and 1 Corinthians 6 [+/-]Open Link in New Window:
9-10, on the left side of the sticker. An equal sign (=) was situated in the
middle of the sticker, with a symbol on the right side of the sticker. The
symbol on the right side was comprised of two males holding hands with the
universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission found–and the court upheld this–
that this advertisement violated the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code because it
exposed homosexuals to hatred. They made a specific legal finding that it
exposed homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.

Quoting Scripture of any kind seems to get judges mad at you, doesn’t it?

Comments are closed.


Bad Behavior has blocked 428 access attempts in the last 7 days.