Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 Totally Explained

Everything about The Racial And Religious Tolerance Act 2001 totally explained

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 was implemented by the Steve Bracks' Labor government in the state of Victoria, Australia. It was effective from 1 January 2002.

The Act

The explicit purposes of the Act are to;

To promote racial and religious tolerance by prohibiting certain conduct involving the vilification of persons on the ground of race or religious belief or activity.

To provide a means of redress for the victims of racial or religious vilification;

To make consequential amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act 1995. The expressed objects of the Act are to;

To promote the full and equal participation of every person in a society that values freedom of expression and is an open and multicultural democracy;

To maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment doesn't vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons;

To promote conciliation and resolve tensions between persons who (as a result of their ignorance of the attributes of others and the effect that their conduct may have on others) vilify others on the ground of race or religious belief or activity and those who are vilified.(External Link

)

The first case

The first ruling on the laws went to the Islamic Council of Victoria against Catch the Fire Ministries on 17 December 2004.
   On March 9, 2002, Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah spoke at a seminar concerning Islam, sponsored by Catch the Fire Ministries. The seminar was attended by three Australian Muslims, who along with the Islamic Council of Victoria, launched action under the Act, claiming that the intent of the speech had been to vilify Muslims, rather than to discuss Islam itself. After being considered by the Equal Opportunity Commission, the case was heard by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and became the first real test case under the Act.
   In the landmark ruling on December 17, 2004, the Tribunal ruled that Nalliah, Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries had breached the new law. When summing up the decision Judge Michael Higgins remarked that; "truth is no longer an acceptable defence". On appeal the Judge heard further submissions regarding 'remedies' early in 2005. Nalliah publicly declared his intention to continue fighting the case, potentially as far as the High Court of Australia. The Age newspaper quoted him as stating "We may have lost the battle, but the war isn't over. The law has to be removed, there's no question."
   The case attracted widespread attention in the United States and Matt Francis, from the Australian Embassy in Washington DC claimed that the embassy was; "flooded with messages from Americans concerned to learn that two Christian pastors in Australia are facing accusations of vilifying Islam". He also claimed a significant number of e-mails and phone calls were received about the case. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Non-profit interfaith public interest law firm based in Washington, intervened on Pastor Daniel Scot's behalf, and attempted to engage a dialogue with the Attorney General of Australia. The firm sent multiple letters of concern that touched on Australia's Human Rights record. Part of the first exchange exclaimed that;

"Australia is obliged by international conventions to protect rights of conscience, freedom of expression, and equal protection under the law as Australia has ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and its enforcement mechanism, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The free speech, belief, and religious exercise provisions of Articles 18, 19, and 26 in the ICCPR protect the right freely to preach about and analyze religious truth-claims of competing religions."

(External Link

) The US Non-profit proceeded to provide funding for legal representation with local counsel, and provided legal arguments employed before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Supreme Court (appellate level) vacated the order of the Tribunal and ordered the Islamic council of Victoria to pay half of Scot and Nalliah legal bills.
On June 22, 2005, Judge Higgins delivered his final verdict on the religious vilification issue regarding "remedies". He found that financial compensation would be inappropriate, but ordered Nalliah and Scot to take out newspaper advertisements to the value of $68,690 which summarised the findings in the case. Nalliah once again slammed the ruling, comparing the legislation to "sharia law by stealth". He vowed that he'd rather go to jail than comply with the ruling. Nalliah's lawyers had previously appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria, in an 'Originating Motion' alleging both that Higgins showed signs of bias, that there were errors in the decision and that the Act itself was unconstitutional. Following the decision, a formal appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court - Court of Appeal - and the Originating Motion was dropped. The Appeal was heard in August 2006.

The second case

In 2005 the second case using the act was brought to VCAT against the Salvation Army by Ararat penitentiary inmate Robin Fletcher, against the Salvation Army. Prisoner Fletcher, a convicted child sex offender, serving a 10-year sentence, is a Wiccan who claimed in his suit that the 'Salvos', "posed a danger to his safety", and that the Salvation Army's 'Alpha Christianity' course, offered in jails, discriminated against him on the ground of his Wiccan religion.
Justice Stuart Morris, the president of VCAT presided over the case, and summarily dismissed Fletcher's claims against the Salvation Army, Corrections Victoria and course distributors CMC Australasia as "preposterous". He added that the allegations were "nowhere near the mark" of religious vilification. In his summation he called for the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act to be amended to limit people's right to launch a lawsuit."
Books promoting Islamic holy war and the killing of non-Muslims who insult Muhammad were submitted to the Victoria Police security intelligence unit by the Jewish council. The council's director of policy analysis, Ted Lapkin described the books for sale as; "Extreme jihadist material, explicitly calling for violence against non-Muslims".

Media Blitz

In February 2006 Bracks launched a $260,000 media "blitz" to counter community opposition to the act. The advertising campaign was attacked by the State Opposition as a "politically motivated campaign by the Bracks Government using taxpayers' money". The Bracks Government had by the start of 2006 received more than 5000 letters concerning the laws, with the vast majority opposed. Opposition youth spokesman Nick Kotsiras said he believed the campaign was designed to counter strong community opposition to the laws and would be aimed particularly at young people, stating that; "This only illustrates this Government's inability to deal with the cultural differences that exist here in Victoria."

Victorian Liberal Party position

State shadow Attorney general Andrew McIntosh announced prior to the election that the Liberal Party would repeal the religious section of the "fundamentally flawed" Act. While addressing a protest rally, organised by the Coalition for Free Speech, outside the Victorian Parliament, he said they'd keep the act but fine tune it, stating that; "Large sections of the community advocate on behalf of the act, and large sections say it's disgraceful. We need to bring the groups together."

Criticism

In January 2006, nineteen Christian leaders from Melbourne's largest churches gathered 27,000 signatures for the removal of the civil provisions of the Act. They expressed "Dismay" at the premiers continued insistence of faith leaders support. Jenny Stokes, of the Coalition for Free Speech, which organised a protest rally against the law, said she welcomed the commitment to repealing the act's religious section but wanted a commitment that the Liberals wouldn't replace it.Further Information

Get more info on 'Racial And Religious Tolerance Act 2001'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://racial_and_religious_tolerance_act_2001.totallyexplained.com">Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.