Anyone in Britain who wants to know what is likely to happen as a result of the proposed law against incitement to religious hatred should look at the first verdict handed down in Australia's state of Victoria last week under a very similar law. Two Christian pastors from the Catch the Fires evangelical ministry, Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, were found to have committed religious vilification against Islam. Their crime? Quoting the Koran in a way that got "a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter".

The judge, Michael Higgins, said they had 'made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct'. Ridicule in Victoria is thus now a crime. And as Andrew Bolt observes in the Herald Sun, the pastors have been convicted essentially for telling the truth:

'The judge gave 13 examples, starting like this:

"Pastor Scot, during the course of the seminar, made statements --

"(1) that the (Koran) promotes violence, killing and looting

"(2) that it treats women badly ...

"(5) that Allah is not merciful and a thief's hand is cut off for stealing ...

"(12) Muslim people have to fight Christians and Jews, humiliate them and fight them until they accept true religion (sic)..."

'Indeed, at least eight of the accusations arose from Scot quoting the Koran at the seminar, and -- it seems to me -- for the most part accurately. The Koran indeed tells Muslims to "kill disbelievers where you find them" in defending Islam, to "fight those who believe not in God ... until they pay the jizya (a penalty tax for non-Muslims)", and to share loot after a war. It also instructs men how to punish "ill-conduct" in their wives -- "admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds (and last) beat them (lightly)". Thieves must indeed have hands lopped off, and so on. So what did Scot, in those 13 examples the judge gave, say that was actually false? Higgins in his summary does not say -- other than that he used wrong immigration statistics and failed to cite a verse of the Koran that claimed Allah was indeed merciful. But he ruled that in quoting the Koran Scot "failed to differentiate between Muslims throughout the world, (and) that he preached a literal translation of the Koran and of Muslims' religious practices which was not mainstream ..." '

Bolt points out that when the law was introduced, the government gave assurances that it would only be used against 'the most noxious forms of conduct", and would 'promote racial and religious tolerance'. Yet now two pastors have been convicted for, at worst, poking fun at the Koran -- while, Bolt charges:

'the Islamic Council... voted to install as Australia's Mufti Sheik Taj El-din El-Hilali, who has praised suicide bombers as "heroes", accused Jews of using "sex and abominable acts of buggery, espionage, treason and economic hoarding to control the world" and called September 11 "God's work against oppressors" -- as well as "the work of 100 per cent American gangs". '

In Victoria, this law has already incited inter-religious strife and community tension, criminalised truth-telling and restricted legitimate speech. Far from producing greater tolerance, it has attacked a cardinal tenet of a tolerant and just society. The Australian experience should be a chilling warning.