Christian
radical reflections 50,
December 29, 2004 AD
Mr Justice Higgins' judgment can be found at
and now we wait to hear his judicial remedy.
In the meantime, Waleed Aly's article "It was about the vilification of Muslims" in The Age December 30, 2004
succinctly explains Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. It is not a matter of testing any religion for its compliance with "political correct speech"; it is not a matter of putting any religion on trial for views that may be held within that religion concerning the doctrines of any other religion(s). Rather the Act is a necessary extension of laws that prohibit vilification - the law is framed to allow an aggrieved party to mount a civil case when that party believes vilification has taken place.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Higgins has spelled out in conclusive detail why, in terms laid down by the Act, the appellant's case (the Islamic Council of Victoria) has been upheld and why he has decided that vilification has been perpetrated by the defendants.
In the light of the many "straw men" coming out in defence of a Christian's right to freedom of speech, it might be appropriate to explain the role of the court in this matter. In brief, it's task is to legally adjudicate between appellant and the defendants to ascertain whether vilification of Muslims had taken place. It is a violation of public justice to vilify people because of their religious beliefs.
Some now rise up to defend those found guilty by saying that the defendants had no intention of vilifying Muslims. Quite so. When they read the judgment they will see that the Act explicitly says that a person's motive for engaging in such conduct is irrelevant for determining whether a contravention of Section 7 or 8 of the Act has occurred. The law has been framed to protect a person, or a class of people, from conduct which would ascribe illegal, immoral and treacherous intentions on the basis of their religious beliefs. Judge Higgins found, after an exhaustive analysis of the evidence put before him, that the two respondents, the seminar, the web-site and the article, had indeed unjustly ascribed such intentions to Muslims.
Waleed Aly states that the view that "Australian Muslims would rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia when the time is ripe" is a "hate-inducing sociological assertion". These are not the exact terms used by the Judge to refer to the violation. But Aly's use of the term "sociological" in this context is not without interest. The conventional sociological distinction between ascribed and achieved status has an important theoretical part to play in such juridical decision-making. The Act is actually seeking to protect people from any "hate-inducing ascription", and that is what Justice Higgins had to find, and now has found, in the seminar, the web-site and the article. The defendants are guilty of unjustly vilifying Muslim people. Their guilt lies not so much in an "(hate-inducing sociological) assertion" but in a "(vilifying) ascription". They may want to set forth this view as "their bona fide opinion" but what they have done by word and deed is to powerfully set about redefining the social standing of Muslim people, to suit their own ideology. Thus the term "ideological" may be a better one for Aly's purposes in this instance; or he might want to suggest that the defendants' arguments against Muslims were somehow "dressed up" in (pseudo-) sociological garb.
As a Christian sociologist I find Aly's comments are very welcome. They are stimulating and useful. They provoke me to seek something valuable to say in this sorry episode about promoting a Christian view of public justice. Yes, Christians of all persuasions have a responsibility to find a path upon which we can walk to assist our Christian brothers and sisters, also those with whom we disagree and those who have erred badly. "Pastors Daniel and Danny" lack a Christian sociology. It does not take one too long to search through the site of Catch the Fire Ministries www.catchthefire.com.au/ to see that the political ideology of this group gives far too much credence to a form of nationalism and political vilification that resurfaced in this country prior to September 11, 2001. That was when the captain of the Tampa, the Norwegian freighter, provoked the ire of the PM and Ministers of the Government, for doing what the law required - taking asylum seekers on board his ship bound for Australia. The famous stand off occurred, only broken when the PM sent in special SAS troops to take control. Further, during the election campaign of that year it was alleged by the PM and his Defence Minister that some were threatening to throw their babies into the Indian Ocean if they were not granted asylum.
Vilification is no less real or unjust when it derives from elected political leaders using deed and word as they tried to do in these events, redefining the social standing of very vulnerable people to enhance their own public standing. There is a deep embarrassment to the Australian Commonwealth as a whole that has resulted, and that is also part of this case. It is long past the time when Mr Howard and his ministers should have paused and reflected upon the "flow-on" effects of their conduct. We should not be taken by surprise by the consequences when a reckless self interest takes over the reigns of Government.
How does this culture of political recklessness arise? It is as if it has overtaken us without warning. But it is the logical outworking of an ideology, a political commitment to self-interest as a sine qua non of political involvement. It is this ideology which gives a sense of continuity to our recent history.
From 1983 the Hawke-Keating Labor Government legislated on the
basis of an "enlightened" self-interest that would guarantee a free
market and a thriving industrial economy. We have come to call it
"economic rationalism." But self-interest cannot be contained within
an abstract "economic sphere", at least not for long. As a spiritual
power, self-interest manifests itself in all of life, in politics as much as in
industry; in cultural expression as much as in family routines and rituals. It
continues to make an enormous impact upon an increasingly secularised Christian
church. How can "enlightened" self-interest be accepted as the normative
basis for a nation's economy, without self-interest becoming the basic
spiritual doctrine for modern life? When this spirit takes over, other forms of
self-interest emerge - and since 1996 the Howard Government has proceeded to
construct a new nationalistic self-interest on the basis of the previous
economic self-interest demanded by Labor. It is this kind of self-interest,
this kind of nationalism, which is now promoted by Catch the Fire Ministries as
the approach to public life for all Christians. I dare suggest that this case
cannot be rightly understood if this political commitment is kept from view. In
that sense, Catch the Fire Ministries promotes a political view which comports
with the dominant materialism and secularising forces of this society.
Such a view now tries to suggest that multi-culturalism is the villain of the peace; the nation has apparently lost its identity in a post-modern fog where true values are no longer to be found. Multi-culturalism needs to be resisted by the assertion of a Christian mono-culturalism. That is the view that CTFM promotes. That is also a view that needs to be challenged by a biblically-directed understanding of culture and society, a Christian sociology.
Just because the policies of multi-culturalism were justified wrongly, by Governments committed above all else to economic self-interest, does not mean that it is wrong for a nation to strive to be authentically multi-cultural. What needs to be subjected to critical scrutiny is the commitment of Governments, political parties and the electorate to a form of politics in which economic self-interest is given first (idolatrous) place. It is time for economic interests to be put in their place by coherent policies promoting public justice, instead of public justice being made a subsidiary to self-interest. Then also it will become clear why a just multi-culturalism is indeed an integral part of such a public-legal order administered to uphold public justice. That is also the Christian political path which Catch the Fire Ministries does not seem to have contemplated.
Perhaps that is the root of this problem - the absence of an authentic, repentant, self-denying Christian politics. After all the One who Christians claim to follow did say, "Unless you deny yourself, and take up your cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple."
The Christian evangelisation of Muslim people, as with any group, must always take another path, the narrow way, framed in the loving, caring spirit of 'second mile Christianity' (Matthew 5:41). Those who in Christ's name would proclaim the gospel in public had better be careful to adopt a scrupulous self-criticism of their actions and their words lest they lead themselves astray. And clearly our actions and our words can lead us astray. Christians who want to promote a biblically-directed public-legal involvement have nothing to fear from such self-criticism and it is the best kind of preparation for when one confronts neighbours who have an alternative religious perspective. Nothing is to be gained by vilifying the confessors of alternative creeds. The Christian path is clear - not only do we "make friends quickly" on our way to court when we trip up and cause some offence that needs to be remedied (Matthew 5:25), but we make every effort to "maintain good conduct" (1 Peter 2:12).
The best way to hold public seminars without vilifying the confessors of alternative creeds is to actually structure such conferences so that people can learn from those who hold the alternative religious views that are under discussion. As I have suggested already, Christians need to hear and appreciate the views of those neighbours who have converted to Islam. Does this mean asking such people to be featured speakers at such a Christian conference? Why not? It would be most helpful for Christians of all persuasions to hear and learn from recent converts to Islam. Yes, this is a situation in which spiritual confrontation cannot be avoided. It is far more "dangerous" to engage "straw men" and pretend that one is confronting an alternative religious perspective by keeping it and its adherents at a safe distance. Yes this is a hard path and not one to be taken up in any triumphalist spirit. It could be a way of openly demonstrating that the Christian is called to hold out the grace and love of the Gospel to all our neighbours who are also created in God's image, the image Christians confess has been irrevocably restored through the work of the Crucified, Risen and Ascended Mediator.
|
December 2004 © Christian Radical Reflections, is written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise published, reprinted or transmitted without permission. This personal project aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development of policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and our neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html |