Date: Thursday 31 March 2005
Subj: Papua: Christian leader fears genocide.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
In Papua (formerly Irian Jaya), Eastern Indonesia, a quiet, hidden, atrocious campaign of ethnic cleansing is in progress. Unless there is radical policy change and reform, Papua will soon become majority Javanese and majority Muslim through the genocide of the predominantly Protestant indigenous Papuans. It is appalling hypocrisy that many Western governments that espouse the high principles of human rights seem content to disregard the genocidal policies of the Indonesian government, and the genocidal atrocities perpetrated by the systemically corrupt Indonesian military (TNI) against indigenous Papuan civilians – policies and atrocities enacted with the sole aim of attaining unhindered access to Papua's vast resources for the purpose of exploitation. Through joint military training agreements, governments will ensure that the TNI is as professional a well armed human rights-abusing killing machine that it can be. These governments will be judged by history as complicit in this genocide, regardless of their human rights rhetoric.
-------------------------------------------
SBS Dateline (Australia) recently aired a report on Papua by Nick Lazaredes. (Link 1)
The report comprised film footage smuggled out of Papua, and interviews with a milita informant, a human rights activist who infiltrated the Laskar Jihad, and Papuan Baptist minister Sofyan Yoman. Pastor Yoman expresses his deep fear for the future of the predominantly Protestant indigenous Papuan people as Indonesia implements a policy of transmigration, shipping in massive numbers of Muslim immigrants to alter the racial and religious demographics of Papua. He says that six ferry loads of Muslim immigrants and soldiers arrive each day.
Pastor Yoman also alleges that special autonomy funds to the value of 2.5 billion rupiah (around US$260,000), meant for humanitarian purposes, have been diverted to the Indonesian military (TNI) and are being used for military operations and atrocities against indigenous Papuans. These is great concern for large numbers of indigenous Papuans who have been driven from their homes by TNI operations. Photos shown on SBS Dateline pictured the aftermath of a TNI attack in late February on the remote highland village of Wunin, where elderly villagers were murdered and schools and churches were burnt to the ground. It is estimated that some 20,000 Papuans are struggling to survive in the jungle. Many are dying of disease and starvation in an unseen campaign of ethnic cleansing.
TNI – TRAINING MILITIAS
SBS Dateline obtained information that indicates the aid funds are being spent by the TNI primarily in funding and training militias. A militia informant told SBS Dateline, "I can tell you here and now that in Manokwari the military are establishing and organising militias, which are known as Satgas Merah Putih. They have established two bases in Manokwari, in transmigrant areas where there [are] many Muslims."
According to the informant, the pro-Indonesia Satgas Merah Putih (Red and White militias) are being armed in preparation for an ethnic cleansing campaign against the indigenous Papuans. The informant continues: "Large numbers of bullets in boxes are being stored in workshops in food stalls and by the road. What is the motive or reason for this? So I am convinced that the military is organising militias in these two places and at some stage these militias will become a force used to attack the community as happened in East Timor."
TNI – IN LEAGUE WITH JIHADISTS
SBS Dateline also interviewed a human rights activist who had infiltrated the Laskar Jihad (Islamic "holy war" militia) through the local Mujaheddi mosque in Sorong. He told SBS, "The sort of activities Laskar Jihad were involved in, in Sorong, were firstly, intimidating and killing Papuans who were involved in the Papua Independence Movement, and secondly, spreading rumours in various places, to create fear." He also described to SBS the nature of the Islamic teaching received in the mosque. "The truth of Islam had to be made concrete, so we had to wage jihad against those who wanted to destroy the Islamist community, both its people and its places of worship. We were taught how to monitor the strength of the religious groups. In particular in Sorong, we monitored places of worship. I don't just mean Christian places of worship but also those of other religions. We were also told to determine the number of neighbourhoods in Sorong where the majority of inhabitants were Christian." He also noted, "Haji Ahmad once said in the Mujaheddin mosque, our network, the Laskar Jihad in Sorong, all its activities would be reported to al-Qa'ida."
MILITARY BUILD UP IN PAPUA
In the SBS Dateline interview, Pastor Yoman comments on the link between the TNI and the militias: "Wherever there are Indonesian soldiers, the militia and the jihadists are there too. They are inseparable. They are very close." With this in mind, the news that the military is about to enlarge its presence in Papua, particularly in Sorong, is of great concern.
According to the Jakarta Post (19 March), Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Hotmagaradja Pandjaitan said on Friday 18 March, that, in line with the Army's guidelines on the development of its strength, a new division of elite troops is to be set up and stationed in Papua. The Jakarta Post reports that the plan involves the gradual deployment of up to 15,000 troops from the Army's Strategic Reserves Command (Kostrad) from 2005 through 2009.
"The first 5,000 troops will be recruited from Makassar in South Sulawesi," Pandjaitan told the Jakarta Post. "They will be deployed in Sorong, Papua. To bring the number up to a total of 15,000, we will also recruit troops from military commands (Kodam) nationwide."
--------------------------
The present scenario faced by indigenous Papuans is that of increased Javanese Muslim population, increased TNI presence, increased Western support (including military training) for the TNI, restrictions on foreign journalists and NGOs, and war-ready TNI armed and trained Merah Putih and Laskar Jihad militias, all in a rich land ripe for exploitation. No wonder Papuan Christian leaders are warning of impending genocide.
PAPUA ON WCC'S AGENDA AT UNCHR
The World Council of Churches' (WCC) will seek to raise awareness of the critical situation in Papua at this year's 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) (12 March-22 April ). According to the WCC press release, notable religious leaders from Papua will address a public event on Thursday, 31 March. Then from 2- 4 April, representatives of faith-based bodies attending the 61st session, including the WCC, will meet to strategise together on the human rights of the Papuan people. A study on the economic, social and cultural rights of the Papuan people commissioned by the German churches with the WCC, and undertaken by Papuan academics and human rights defenders, will also be released. (Link 2)
- Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au
Links
1) SBS Dateline – transcript. 16 March 2005
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2005-03-16#
2) Papua focus of WCC at UNCHR 61st session
http://www.wfn.org/2005/03/msg00213.html
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Senegal: Christian workers on trial.
Date: Tuesday 22 March 2005
Subj: Senegal: Christian workers on trial.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
-----------------------------------
SENEGAL: CHRISTIAN WORKERS ON TRIAL
-----------------------------------
According to its constitution, Senegal is a secular state. However, many Senegalese regard their nation as Islamic, with no place for visible, active Christianity, especially missionary work. This intolerance is fostered and fed at the highest levels of local Islamic leadership. Increased anti-Christian sentiment is expressing itself in increasing levels of intolerance and more frequent incidents of persecution in what has historically been one of West Africa's most tolerant Muslim nations.
DAKAR TO HOST DIALOGUE
Senegal’s President Maitre Abdoulaye Wade has announced that Senegal will host the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) summit and a subsequent Muslim-Christian dialogue in December 2006. In a 24 February interview in Yemen with the Yemen Observer, President Wade said that a dialogue of leaders from the region was needed to discuss the issue of religious tolerance.
President Wade told the Yemen Observer, "I have proposed an Islamic and Christian dialogue that would be at the end of the conference we are organizing in Senegal, immediately after the OIC summit in November '06, if this date is maintained."
According to the Yemen Observer, "Saudi Arabia has put forward a rival proposal to host the next OIC summit in Mecca, but Wade claims strong support for Dakar, including African and Western countries interested in bridging the misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians. 'The idea is in the air,' he said, 'for a dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews. This dialogue exists – the Pope has supported seminars between ulammas and archbishops of the Vatican, but there has never been a summit of the leaders of the world. The leaders of the world need to send a very strong message to the world community for tolerance and understanding,' said Wade.
"In Senegal, he pointed out, the population is 5% Christian. 'In every family we can have Muslims and Christians. Everyone should have the right to practice their own religion, and the Prophet is an example of this – he received Jews, he received Christians. But now there is intolerance and prejudice. We have to eliminate this and learn to live in the same land, the same country, the same Earth, because I think we all have the same God.' " (Link 1)
The key word in all this is clearly "misunderstandings". A regional dialogue to clear up "the misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians" might not advance the cause of religious tolerance very much, as the persecuted apostates and remnant Christians of the Muslim world might struggle to accept that their experience of Islam as an oppressive, intolerant system is a "misunderstanding". (This in no way implies that all Muslims are intolerant.) However, a dialogue about full religious freedom (as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 18 – which includes the right to convert), security for all, equality for all (including before the law), and the problem of the inherent intolerance of Qur'anic and historic Islam would be very interesting and possibly very worthwhile.
Senegal presently has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to religious tolerance. The Reverend Moises Suriba, a Brazilian Christian worker, and his colleague, Francois Iraguha from Rwanda, minister to street boys and homeless young men in Dakar, Senegal. They have become victims of Senegal's rising religious intolerance. Senegal's historic commitment to religious tolerance is about to be tested in the courts in what is the first legal action against Christian workers in Senegal.
MISSION UNDER ATTACK
The Reverend Suriba and his co-worker Francois Iraguha run a ministry for street boys and homeless young men in Dakar. Some 18 young men live in the Bethany Mission house and receive professional skills training. Dozens of other street boys and homeless young men go in and out of the house freely: for showers, medical care, food, clothing and company.
According to reports, neighbours became hostile towards the Christian ministry, especially after several young Muslim men turned to follow Christ. On several occasions groups of local Muslims have invaded the house and been disruptive and abusive. The Christian workers are regularly threatened.
Eventually one hostile neighbour pressed charges against Suriba and Iraguha, alleging that they had physically assaulted them. Suriba and Iraguha were not able to defend themselves in court against the charges as the case was heard in their absence.
On 28 December 2004, Suriba and Iraguha were convicted of assault and sentenced to one month jail plus a fine of 50,000 FCFA (US$100 – around an average week's wage in Senegal). Suriba and Iraguha have appealed against the judgment. The penalties have been deferred and the case will soon be heard again by the Court of Appeal in Dakar. Meanwhile, the same hostile neighbour who lodged the initial charges of assault has since lodged a complaint against the deferment of the penalties.
An observer notes that this is the first time a hostile Muslim has attempted to use the law as a weapon against a Christian ministry in Senegal, and they fear that if he is successful this could set a new trend in persecution in Senegal. This case will set a precedent one way or the other.
It would be good for the international Christian community to watch this case. Will Senegal refuse to tolerate intolerance, even in the face of rising Islamic zeal and anti-Christian, anti-missionary sentiment? If Senegal wants to dialogue about religious tolerance with regional leaders in Dakar's grand halls in December 2006 then it must promote and demonstrate religious tolerance in Senegal's mosques and on the streets of Dakar today. For the sake of Dakar's homeless young men, indeed for the sake of all Senegalese society which is the ultimate beneficiary of such Christian ministries, we hope and pray that tolerance and justice prevail.
Elizabeth Kendal
Link
1) Senegalese president calls for dialogue of world leaders
By Faris Al-Sanabani & Gabriel Matthew
Yemen Observer Newspaper
24 Feb 2005 – Vol.VIII Issue 08
http://www.yobserver.com/cgi-bin/yobserver/exec/view.cgi/17/3968
SEE ALSO
Senegal to Host Interfaith Dialogue Meet
By Javid Hassan, Arab News, RIYADH, 23 February 2005
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=59410&d=23&m=2&y=2005
Subj: Senegal: Christian workers on trial.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
-----------------------------------
SENEGAL: CHRISTIAN WORKERS ON TRIAL
-----------------------------------
According to its constitution, Senegal is a secular state. However, many Senegalese regard their nation as Islamic, with no place for visible, active Christianity, especially missionary work. This intolerance is fostered and fed at the highest levels of local Islamic leadership. Increased anti-Christian sentiment is expressing itself in increasing levels of intolerance and more frequent incidents of persecution in what has historically been one of West Africa's most tolerant Muslim nations.
DAKAR TO HOST DIALOGUE
Senegal’s President Maitre Abdoulaye Wade has announced that Senegal will host the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) summit and a subsequent Muslim-Christian dialogue in December 2006. In a 24 February interview in Yemen with the Yemen Observer, President Wade said that a dialogue of leaders from the region was needed to discuss the issue of religious tolerance.
President Wade told the Yemen Observer, "I have proposed an Islamic and Christian dialogue that would be at the end of the conference we are organizing in Senegal, immediately after the OIC summit in November '06, if this date is maintained."
According to the Yemen Observer, "Saudi Arabia has put forward a rival proposal to host the next OIC summit in Mecca, but Wade claims strong support for Dakar, including African and Western countries interested in bridging the misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians. 'The idea is in the air,' he said, 'for a dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews. This dialogue exists – the Pope has supported seminars between ulammas and archbishops of the Vatican, but there has never been a summit of the leaders of the world. The leaders of the world need to send a very strong message to the world community for tolerance and understanding,' said Wade.
"In Senegal, he pointed out, the population is 5% Christian. 'In every family we can have Muslims and Christians. Everyone should have the right to practice their own religion, and the Prophet is an example of this – he received Jews, he received Christians. But now there is intolerance and prejudice. We have to eliminate this and learn to live in the same land, the same country, the same Earth, because I think we all have the same God.' " (Link 1)
The key word in all this is clearly "misunderstandings". A regional dialogue to clear up "the misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians" might not advance the cause of religious tolerance very much, as the persecuted apostates and remnant Christians of the Muslim world might struggle to accept that their experience of Islam as an oppressive, intolerant system is a "misunderstanding". (This in no way implies that all Muslims are intolerant.) However, a dialogue about full religious freedom (as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 18 – which includes the right to convert), security for all, equality for all (including before the law), and the problem of the inherent intolerance of Qur'anic and historic Islam would be very interesting and possibly very worthwhile.
Senegal presently has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to religious tolerance. The Reverend Moises Suriba, a Brazilian Christian worker, and his colleague, Francois Iraguha from Rwanda, minister to street boys and homeless young men in Dakar, Senegal. They have become victims of Senegal's rising religious intolerance. Senegal's historic commitment to religious tolerance is about to be tested in the courts in what is the first legal action against Christian workers in Senegal.
MISSION UNDER ATTACK
The Reverend Suriba and his co-worker Francois Iraguha run a ministry for street boys and homeless young men in Dakar. Some 18 young men live in the Bethany Mission house and receive professional skills training. Dozens of other street boys and homeless young men go in and out of the house freely: for showers, medical care, food, clothing and company.
According to reports, neighbours became hostile towards the Christian ministry, especially after several young Muslim men turned to follow Christ. On several occasions groups of local Muslims have invaded the house and been disruptive and abusive. The Christian workers are regularly threatened.
Eventually one hostile neighbour pressed charges against Suriba and Iraguha, alleging that they had physically assaulted them. Suriba and Iraguha were not able to defend themselves in court against the charges as the case was heard in their absence.
On 28 December 2004, Suriba and Iraguha were convicted of assault and sentenced to one month jail plus a fine of 50,000 FCFA (US$100 – around an average week's wage in Senegal). Suriba and Iraguha have appealed against the judgment. The penalties have been deferred and the case will soon be heard again by the Court of Appeal in Dakar. Meanwhile, the same hostile neighbour who lodged the initial charges of assault has since lodged a complaint against the deferment of the penalties.
An observer notes that this is the first time a hostile Muslim has attempted to use the law as a weapon against a Christian ministry in Senegal, and they fear that if he is successful this could set a new trend in persecution in Senegal. This case will set a precedent one way or the other.
It would be good for the international Christian community to watch this case. Will Senegal refuse to tolerate intolerance, even in the face of rising Islamic zeal and anti-Christian, anti-missionary sentiment? If Senegal wants to dialogue about religious tolerance with regional leaders in Dakar's grand halls in December 2006 then it must promote and demonstrate religious tolerance in Senegal's mosques and on the streets of Dakar today. For the sake of Dakar's homeless young men, indeed for the sake of all Senegalese society which is the ultimate beneficiary of such Christian ministries, we hope and pray that tolerance and justice prevail.
Elizabeth Kendal
Link
1) Senegalese president calls for dialogue of world leaders
By Faris Al-Sanabani & Gabriel Matthew
Yemen Observer Newspaper
24 Feb 2005 – Vol.VIII Issue 08
http://www.yobserver.com/cgi-bin/yobserver/exec/view.cgi/17/3968
SEE ALSO
Senegal to Host Interfaith Dialogue Meet
By Javid Hassan, Arab News, RIYADH, 23 February 2005
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=59410&d=23&m=2&y=2005
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
UK: Religious tolerance laws will stir strife.
Date: Tuesday 15 February 2005
Subj: UK: Religious tolerance laws will stir strife.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
The British government is presently seeking to extend the existing offence of "incitement to racial hatred" to cover also "religious hatred". Having passed through the House of Commons the proposed religious hate law now proceeds to the House of Lords. A Barnabas Fund press release of 8 February calls on "the House of Lords to be firm in the face of government pressure and reject laws banning incitement to religious hatred which pose a serious danger to free speech." (Link 1)
If the House of Lords passes this religious hate law, then Britain can expect to experience the same troubles, tensions and divisions – not just between faiths but within them – that are now being experienced in Victoria, Australia, since the introduction of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. (Link 2)
----------------------------------------------
The proposed British legislation, which forms Schedule 10 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, was passed by the House of Commons on Monday 7 February by 291 votes to 191.
The government rejected calls to amend the proposed law by tightening up definitions. The only concession from the government was to change the proposed offence of causing "racial or religious hatred" to "hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds". Home Office Minister Hazel Blears said the change would help clarify the situation. She assured MPs, "This is about protecting people, not about the ability to criticise, ridicule, lampoon and have fundamental disagreements about beliefs." (Link 3)
Like the proposed British law, Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (R&RT Act) also aims to protect persons (not ideologies) and safeguard free speech. However, as the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) vs Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries (CTF) proved, an attack upon the the integrity and teachings of the Qur'an, or upon Islam (as a faith or as a social-political-legal system), may be deemed to be an attack upon all Muslims. And this, despite persistent calls to love Muslims, and the acknowledgment that most Muslims don't even know (let alone follow) many of the teachings of the Qur'an. What's more, defamation is not the issue here, so truth is not a defence. The only issue is whether the judge believes anyone could be incited to hate members of any racial or religious group on the basis of what you said! This is why on 17 December 2004, after two years of court procedures in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, pastors Scot and Nalliah (CTF) were convicted of religious vilification. The penalty hearing will be held on 2 May 2005. There will probably be an appeal.
The judge's decision in the Victorian case demonstrates that a judge may fail to differentiate between words, texts or behaviours that are anti-Islam or anti-Qur'an (against an ideology/religion) and those that are anti-Muslim (against the person). Or the judge may simply regard vilification of Islam AS vilification of Muslims, having no understanding of the uniquely Christian world view that demands that even if the ideology is 'hated', the adherent is to be loved .
Under the proposed British law, a person "who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusing or insulting..." whether they intend to stir up religious hatred or simply permit the "words, behaviour or material to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are likely to stir up racial or religious hatred", can be found guilty of the offence of inciting religious hatred.
Like the Victorian state government, the British government insists that free speech will be protected. However, protection cannot be guaranteed. In Victoria, the exemption that was supposed to protect the two Christian pastors – the exemption for debate held reasonably and in good faith for genuine religious purposes or in the public interest – did not protect them. The judge simply determined that the pastors had not acted reasonably or in good faith for a legitimate religious purpose or in the public interest, and were therefore not protected by Act.
The British comedian Rowan Atkinson is a vocal opponent of the proposed religious hate law. In explaining why he supported the Liberal Democrats and Labour dissidents in their objection to the law (a link to the objection can be found at Link 2), he acknowledged, "I understand what the intentions of the government are here. I know that they do not intend to militate against people like me or [author] Salman Rushdie or playwrights.
"But the only safety valve that they have put in the legislation is the fact that the attorney general will have the final say. A safety valve operated by a politician subject to the political agendas of the day is not to me a good enough safety valve," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday [7 Feb].
Mr Atkinson told the BBC that the legislation is problematic because it is "all-encompassing". "The incitement of religious hatred doesn't even have to be intended, it is just if it offends any person. It couldn't be more broad." (Link 3)
-----------------------------------------
COMMENT BY REV. DR MARK DURIE (Australia)
The Reverend Dr Mark Durie provides an analysis of the assumptions behind such vilification and religious hate laws. While this is written specifically with regard to the Victorian R&RT Act, what he says can equally be applied to the British situation.
Dr Durie writes: "The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act reflects a world view according to which religion is an expression of cultural diversity: it is seen as an attribute of personal identity, like culture, language or social customs.
"This is an inadequate assumption for regulating religion. Different religions will and do seek radically different values, and can produce quite different kinds of societies. Such differences extend to different understandings of slavery, caste, marriage (e.g. monogamy, divorce, polygamy), the death penalty, euthanasia, the distribution of wealth, sexual politics, abortion, attitudes to truth, the nature of political representation, the whole legal system, and warfare. Treating religious beliefs as merely a matter of identity is a recipe for confusion.
"The case demonstrates that apologetic religious activity which challenges a religious belief system could be found illegal to the extent that it is judged to marginalize and diminish the dignity of those who hold such beliefs. This could be done, for example, by saying that a particular belief system is flawed and inferior to other belief systems. By means of this law, the state could end up protecting — and thus promoting — particular religious beliefs. Similar protection does not exist for most other kinds of beliefs. For example if you state that the virgin birth is ridiculous, you could be breaking the law, but if you said that the flat earth theory is laughable, you would be safe as long as no Australian religious group holds this view.
"It is a fact that the Qur'an and Hadiths contain numerous examples of shocking material, including incitements to hatred and killing. Few would dispute that this material, taken in isolation, has the potential to offend. There is no doubt that this material, because of its place within the canon of Islam, and its embedding within the exegetical and legal traditions of the shari'a, forms part of the 'attributes' of Muslim beliefs – whether or not individual Muslims are familiar with it – and thus it gains a measure of protection under the Act.
"For this reason the Act's presupposition (paragraph 4(1)a) that ignorance is the cause of religious tensions is naive. It is the knowledge, not ignorance of some religious teachings, that is more likely to create religious tension.
"The problem of an offensive canon is not unique to Islam, but it is particularly acute for Muslims: there is nothing so offensive in the life of Jesus or Buddha: a frank critique of the life of Muhammad risks illegality to a degree that a critique of the life of Jesus does not. The very nature of such material makes robust religious debate difficult in a way the Act does not anticipate. Because religions differ in the degree to which their canon contains such material, the Act causes a kind of religious discrimination."
---------------------------------------
BRITISH MUSLIMS DIVIDED
Most Muslims support the proposed religious hate law and have lobbied aggressively for it (see Barnabas Fund 8 Feb press release at Link 1). They see it primarily as a tool they can use to silence public criticism of their religion, and thus protect Islam, leaving Muslims free to propagate a more peaceful apologetic in line with their own beliefs or interests. This however, is not acceptable. Muslims must confront the problems in their Qur'an, sharia law and history.
There are other Muslims however, who are not so sure the religious hate law is a good thing. An article on the fundamentalist Khilafah.com expresses the concern, "The adoption of an 'incitement to religious hatred' law will be an attempt to muzzle Muslims from quoting the Quran, and the other sacred texts of Islam. There is no shortage of verses in the Qur'an to excite the interest of the British judiciary. The dozens of verses exhorting Jihad for starters, or perhaps the verses warning of the plans of the Jews or Christians, or which castigate the unjust!" (Link 4)
These laws do not inhibit confrontation between people. They create that! But they do inhibit confrontation with troublesome and offensive ideologies, texts and histories. The more offensive the material, the more probable it is that its exposure will be deemed vilification or incitement to hatred.
These laws open a religious and legal Pandora's Box. Is this really what the British want?
- Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au
Links
1) BARNABAS FUND
Religious Hate Law: A threat to free speech?
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/itrhc/about_itrhc.htm
This site contains everything you would ever need for studying or monitoring the UK's proposed religious hate law. The site contains Barnabas Fund press releases on the progress of the law, the text of the proposed religious hate law, and numerous media articles and political statements.
2) RELIGION LAW
http://www.religionlaw.co.uk
This site contains a link to the text of the UK's proposed incitement to religious hatred law, and gives some history behind the present law proposal.
This site also contains links for everything to do with the Victorian situation (click on "Australia")including links to the transcript of Daniel Scot's Seminar on the Qur'an (run by Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2002); as well as the Islamic Council of Victoria's initial complaint, Catch the Fire Ministries' formal defense, the judge's decision, and various other submissions and documents.
3) Religious hatred law gets backing. BBC 7 Feb 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4242397.stm
ALSO http://www.christiantoday.com/news/soc/186.htm
4)The Qur'an to be banned in UK?
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=10645&TagID=1
Subj: UK: Religious tolerance laws will stir strife.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
The British government is presently seeking to extend the existing offence of "incitement to racial hatred" to cover also "religious hatred". Having passed through the House of Commons the proposed religious hate law now proceeds to the House of Lords. A Barnabas Fund press release of 8 February calls on "the House of Lords to be firm in the face of government pressure and reject laws banning incitement to religious hatred which pose a serious danger to free speech." (Link 1)
If the House of Lords passes this religious hate law, then Britain can expect to experience the same troubles, tensions and divisions – not just between faiths but within them – that are now being experienced in Victoria, Australia, since the introduction of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. (Link 2)
----------------------------------------------
The proposed British legislation, which forms Schedule 10 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, was passed by the House of Commons on Monday 7 February by 291 votes to 191.
The government rejected calls to amend the proposed law by tightening up definitions. The only concession from the government was to change the proposed offence of causing "racial or religious hatred" to "hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds". Home Office Minister Hazel Blears said the change would help clarify the situation. She assured MPs, "This is about protecting people, not about the ability to criticise, ridicule, lampoon and have fundamental disagreements about beliefs." (Link 3)
Like the proposed British law, Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (R&RT Act) also aims to protect persons (not ideologies) and safeguard free speech. However, as the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) vs Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries (CTF) proved, an attack upon the the integrity and teachings of the Qur'an, or upon Islam (as a faith or as a social-political-legal system), may be deemed to be an attack upon all Muslims. And this, despite persistent calls to love Muslims, and the acknowledgment that most Muslims don't even know (let alone follow) many of the teachings of the Qur'an. What's more, defamation is not the issue here, so truth is not a defence. The only issue is whether the judge believes anyone could be incited to hate members of any racial or religious group on the basis of what you said! This is why on 17 December 2004, after two years of court procedures in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, pastors Scot and Nalliah (CTF) were convicted of religious vilification. The penalty hearing will be held on 2 May 2005. There will probably be an appeal.
The judge's decision in the Victorian case demonstrates that a judge may fail to differentiate between words, texts or behaviours that are anti-Islam or anti-Qur'an (against an ideology/religion) and those that are anti-Muslim (against the person). Or the judge may simply regard vilification of Islam AS vilification of Muslims, having no understanding of the uniquely Christian world view that demands that even if the ideology is 'hated', the adherent is to be loved .
Under the proposed British law, a person "who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusing or insulting..." whether they intend to stir up religious hatred or simply permit the "words, behaviour or material to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are likely to stir up racial or religious hatred", can be found guilty of the offence of inciting religious hatred.
Like the Victorian state government, the British government insists that free speech will be protected. However, protection cannot be guaranteed. In Victoria, the exemption that was supposed to protect the two Christian pastors – the exemption for debate held reasonably and in good faith for genuine religious purposes or in the public interest – did not protect them. The judge simply determined that the pastors had not acted reasonably or in good faith for a legitimate religious purpose or in the public interest, and were therefore not protected by Act.
The British comedian Rowan Atkinson is a vocal opponent of the proposed religious hate law. In explaining why he supported the Liberal Democrats and Labour dissidents in their objection to the law (a link to the objection can be found at Link 2), he acknowledged, "I understand what the intentions of the government are here. I know that they do not intend to militate against people like me or [author] Salman Rushdie or playwrights.
"But the only safety valve that they have put in the legislation is the fact that the attorney general will have the final say. A safety valve operated by a politician subject to the political agendas of the day is not to me a good enough safety valve," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday [7 Feb].
Mr Atkinson told the BBC that the legislation is problematic because it is "all-encompassing". "The incitement of religious hatred doesn't even have to be intended, it is just if it offends any person. It couldn't be more broad." (Link 3)
-----------------------------------------
COMMENT BY REV. DR MARK DURIE (Australia)
The Reverend Dr Mark Durie provides an analysis of the assumptions behind such vilification and religious hate laws. While this is written specifically with regard to the Victorian R&RT Act, what he says can equally be applied to the British situation.
Dr Durie writes: "The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act reflects a world view according to which religion is an expression of cultural diversity: it is seen as an attribute of personal identity, like culture, language or social customs.
"This is an inadequate assumption for regulating religion. Different religions will and do seek radically different values, and can produce quite different kinds of societies. Such differences extend to different understandings of slavery, caste, marriage (e.g. monogamy, divorce, polygamy), the death penalty, euthanasia, the distribution of wealth, sexual politics, abortion, attitudes to truth, the nature of political representation, the whole legal system, and warfare. Treating religious beliefs as merely a matter of identity is a recipe for confusion.
"The case demonstrates that apologetic religious activity which challenges a religious belief system could be found illegal to the extent that it is judged to marginalize and diminish the dignity of those who hold such beliefs. This could be done, for example, by saying that a particular belief system is flawed and inferior to other belief systems. By means of this law, the state could end up protecting — and thus promoting — particular religious beliefs. Similar protection does not exist for most other kinds of beliefs. For example if you state that the virgin birth is ridiculous, you could be breaking the law, but if you said that the flat earth theory is laughable, you would be safe as long as no Australian religious group holds this view.
"It is a fact that the Qur'an and Hadiths contain numerous examples of shocking material, including incitements to hatred and killing. Few would dispute that this material, taken in isolation, has the potential to offend. There is no doubt that this material, because of its place within the canon of Islam, and its embedding within the exegetical and legal traditions of the shari'a, forms part of the 'attributes' of Muslim beliefs – whether or not individual Muslims are familiar with it – and thus it gains a measure of protection under the Act.
"For this reason the Act's presupposition (paragraph 4(1)a) that ignorance is the cause of religious tensions is naive. It is the knowledge, not ignorance of some religious teachings, that is more likely to create religious tension.
"The problem of an offensive canon is not unique to Islam, but it is particularly acute for Muslims: there is nothing so offensive in the life of Jesus or Buddha: a frank critique of the life of Muhammad risks illegality to a degree that a critique of the life of Jesus does not. The very nature of such material makes robust religious debate difficult in a way the Act does not anticipate. Because religions differ in the degree to which their canon contains such material, the Act causes a kind of religious discrimination."
---------------------------------------
BRITISH MUSLIMS DIVIDED
Most Muslims support the proposed religious hate law and have lobbied aggressively for it (see Barnabas Fund 8 Feb press release at Link 1). They see it primarily as a tool they can use to silence public criticism of their religion, and thus protect Islam, leaving Muslims free to propagate a more peaceful apologetic in line with their own beliefs or interests. This however, is not acceptable. Muslims must confront the problems in their Qur'an, sharia law and history.
There are other Muslims however, who are not so sure the religious hate law is a good thing. An article on the fundamentalist Khilafah.com expresses the concern, "The adoption of an 'incitement to religious hatred' law will be an attempt to muzzle Muslims from quoting the Quran, and the other sacred texts of Islam. There is no shortage of verses in the Qur'an to excite the interest of the British judiciary. The dozens of verses exhorting Jihad for starters, or perhaps the verses warning of the plans of the Jews or Christians, or which castigate the unjust!" (Link 4)
These laws do not inhibit confrontation between people. They create that! But they do inhibit confrontation with troublesome and offensive ideologies, texts and histories. The more offensive the material, the more probable it is that its exposure will be deemed vilification or incitement to hatred.
These laws open a religious and legal Pandora's Box. Is this really what the British want?
- Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au
Links
1) BARNABAS FUND
Religious Hate Law: A threat to free speech?
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/itrhc/about_itrhc.htm
This site contains everything you would ever need for studying or monitoring the UK's proposed religious hate law. The site contains Barnabas Fund press releases on the progress of the law, the text of the proposed religious hate law, and numerous media articles and political statements.
2) RELIGION LAW
http://www.religionlaw.co.uk
This site contains a link to the text of the UK's proposed incitement to religious hatred law, and gives some history behind the present law proposal.
This site also contains links for everything to do with the Victorian situation (click on "Australia")including links to the transcript of Daniel Scot's Seminar on the Qur'an (run by Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2002); as well as the Islamic Council of Victoria's initial complaint, Catch the Fire Ministries' formal defense, the judge's decision, and various other submissions and documents.
3) Religious hatred law gets backing. BBC 7 Feb 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4242397.stm
ALSO http://www.christiantoday.com/news/soc/186.htm
4)The Qur'an to be banned in UK?
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=10645&TagID=1