Riveting article in yesterday's Times law pages about how the crime of inciting religious hatred -- very similar to the new law being propsed for Britain by the Home Secretary -- is playing out in Australia. As might be predicted, it is being used to suppress legitimate freedom of expression and democratic argument and fomenting community tension. The article, by British barrister Neil Addison about a key Australian case, is quoted here at length to convey the full force of what is at stake :

'The Australian case involves an allegation of “religious vilification” brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) against Catch the Fire Ministries and two of its pastors, Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah. It relates to a seminar they presented in March 2002. The event lasted a day and dealt with the concept of jihad, the history of Islam, its future in Australia and whether it was compatible with Western concepts of democracy.

'The seminar involved quotations from the Koran and references to the life of Muhammad and the Hadith (traditions) of the Prophet that together form the basis of Sharia. Present during parts of the seminar were three Australian converts to Islam who reported back to the ICV, which brought the case under section 8 of the Victoria Racial and Religious Toleration Act 2001, which had come into effect in 2002. That section says: “A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.”

'The claim asked for damages and also that the defendants be ordered to “acknowledge” that remarks at the seminar were inaccurate, “retract” the statements, “sincerely apologise” for the offence caused and be prohibited from “further publication or distribution, directly or indirectly of any material containing statements, suggestions and implications to the same or similar effect”. If such an order was made, any breach would be a contempt of court punishable with imprisonment.

In their defence Catch The Fire Ministries argued that the seminar accurately reflected Islamic teaching and history, it was an exercise in free speech and reflected their personal religious beliefs. During the case it became apparent that the converts had been deliberately sent to the seminar with a view to bringing a case. Both pastors were known to have strong views about Islam and Sharia but these were based on knowledge and experience. Scot is a Christian from Pakistan who had gone to Australia to escape persecution, and Nalliah had worked in Saudi Arabia, where the practice of Christianity is a criminal offence. At one point Scot was asked whether he believed that Muslims and Christians prayed to the same God and the question was allowed by the judge.

'The trial was scheduled to last for three days. It actually extended over seven months and the judgment is still awaited. Meanwhile, another case has been launched by a witch who claims that her religious beliefs have been vilified. Whatever the ultimate decision these cases demonstrate the dangers inherent creating a crime of incitement to reli'gious hatred.

'Proposals to criminalise religious hatred or vilification draw comparisons with existing race crime legislation. However, there is a fundamental difference between being a member of a racial group and being a member of a religion. Race is something you are and cannot change; religion is something you choose and that you can change. A Jew who becomes a Christian still remains a Jew, but a Christian who becomes a Muslim ceases to be a Christian. Jews who had converted to Christianity were still gassed by the Nazis because of their race, not their religion. Belief in a religion is belief in an idea and in particular historical figures whether Muhammad, Christ or Joseph Smith. The life of historical figures and the religion they established must be open to examination, to question and indeed to ridicule. To say that “all men are created equal” is idealistic but to say that “all ideas are created equal” is idiotic.

'The danger with creating these special types of religious offence is that they stimulate feelings of divisiveness, create “thought crimes” and lead to show trials where judges, or juries, have to make decisions in areas where historians and philosophers have been unable to agree for centuries. If the law makes it impossible to argue about religion or the history of religion in any meaningful way then only the extremists on either side of a debate will benefit. Or as Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, has said: “Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can exist only if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?” '

Australia today, Britain tomorrow. This Home Office proposal must be fought by everyone concerned with the fundamental liberties of a liberal society.