Religious vilification: confused policy, unsound principle and unfortunate law

University of Queensland Law Journal, Dec, 2007 by Rex Tauati Ahdar

   Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which
   prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of
   antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular
   religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or any
   other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents,
   or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or
   belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

But the question remains: what is 'stirring up religious hatred' and what is merely expressing 'antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult'?

The prospect of litigation is also heightened by the very public nature of the disseminating speech and the breadth of the audience. Evangelism and proselytism aim to be broad and to reach as many people as possible. The likelihood that some listeners will be grievously offended or that some will be stirred to hatred cannot be discounted. Even religious seminars or publications directed solely or primarily for believers of a particular faith may be taken advantage of by believers of a different religion. (26) The latter again may be seriously offended by material not principally tailored for them. This was the case in Catch the Fire. Three attendees at a public seminar run primarily for conservative Christians and held in a church were Muslims who had been prompted to attend by the Islamic Council of Victoria. (27) None had attended the entire seminar but, pursuant to a plan, each had sat in at different times to ensure that the complete event was covered. (28) Each said they were 'very upset' (29) at what they heard. So, even material designed for one's own flock may need to be censored for fear of attracting unwelcome complaint. Exclusivist religions, such as Islam and Christianity, which believe their faith is the unique or best pathway to God and salvation, are in particular danger. Statements that strongly affirm the truth of their faith and, expressly or by implication, point to the falsity of other faiths are prone to prosecution. As one critic of the Victorian legislation wrote:

   If we love God, then it requires us to hate idolatry. If we believe
   there is such a thing as goodness, then we must also recognise the
   presence of evil. If we believe our religion is the only way to
   Heaven, then we must also affirm that all other paths lead to Hell.
   If we believe our religion is true, then it requires us to believe
   others are false. Yet, this is exactly what this law serves to
   outlaw and curtail: the right of believers in one faith to
   passionately argue against or warn against the beliefs of another.
   (30)

Would a newspaper be in danger under a religious vilification law if it chose as its daily Bible verse the text: 'If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ let him be accursed'? An agnostic reader of the New Zealand Herald in 2006 was deeply offended by this particular choice and complained that the newspaper was inciting religious hatred towards non-Christians. The New Zealand Press Council dismissed the complaint (31) but under a religious hatred law the newspaper might think twice about selecting and inserting such potentially offensive texts at all.