Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
Dec 17th 2004, 5:35 am
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,048
Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
7. Racial vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race 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.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) 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.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.
7. Racial vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race 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.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) 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.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.
Dec 17th 2004, 5:45 am
#2
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,048
Re: Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
Dec 17th 2004, 8:53 pm
#3
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Re: Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
And the act in use.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...55E421,00.html
Christian pair guilty of racial hatred
By Kate Jones
December 18, 2004
AN evangelical Christian group incited hatred and severe ridicule of Muslims when it called them demons, liars and terrorists, a tribunal ruled yesterday.
In the landmark ruling, Catch the Fire Ministries pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found guilty of religious vilification, making them the first under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws.
Pastor Scot told a congregation in a 2002 seminar that Muslims were training to take over Australia and encouraged domestic violence, and that Islam was an inherently violent religion.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...55E421,00.html
Christian pair guilty of racial hatred
By Kate Jones
December 18, 2004
AN evangelical Christian group incited hatred and severe ridicule of Muslims when it called them demons, liars and terrorists, a tribunal ruled yesterday.
In the landmark ruling, Catch the Fire Ministries pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found guilty of religious vilification, making them the first under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws.
Pastor Scot told a congregation in a 2002 seminar that Muslims were training to take over Australia and encouraged domestic violence, and that Islam was an inherently violent religion.
Dec 17th 2004, 8:59 pm
#4
She's Diddy, He's Not
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: Gold Coast - just like Felixstowe
Posts: 2,454
Re: Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
Originally Posted by bondipom
And the act in use.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...55E421,00.html
Christian pair guilty of racial hatred
By Kate Jones
December 18, 2004
AN evangelical Christian group incited hatred and severe ridicule of Muslims when it called them demons, liars and terrorists, a tribunal ruled yesterday.
In the landmark ruling, Catch the Fire Ministries pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found guilty of religious vilification, making them the first under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws.
Pastor Scot told a congregation in a 2002 seminar that Muslims were training to take over Australia and encouraged domestic violence, and that Islam was an inherently violent religion.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...55E421,00.html
Christian pair guilty of racial hatred
By Kate Jones
December 18, 2004
AN evangelical Christian group incited hatred and severe ridicule of Muslims when it called them demons, liars and terrorists, a tribunal ruled yesterday.
In the landmark ruling, Catch the Fire Ministries pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot were found guilty of religious vilification, making them the first under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws.
Pastor Scot told a congregation in a 2002 seminar that Muslims were training to take over Australia and encouraged domestic violence, and that Islam was an inherently violent religion.
"Catch the Fire Ministries"? Who'd have thought that with a name like that they'd be bigoted?
Paul.
Dec 17th 2004, 9:34 pm
#5
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,048
Re: Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
First Religious Vilification Case (Qld)
It may be cited as Sultan Mohammed Deen v Andrew Lamb [2001] QADT 20 (8 November 2001)
...
However, the defence in section 124A(2)(c) applied. This defence provides "that it is not unlawful to do a public act with the relevant tendency to incite, provided it is done reasonably and in good faith for a purpose in the public interest, including public discussion or debate and exposition of any matter."
...
It was found that Mr Lamb had produced and distributed the pamphlet in good faith, and for the specified purpose of attempting to persuade electors, by a disclosure of his opinions, that he deserved their vote. The application for interim relief was dismissed.
It may be cited as Sultan Mohammed Deen v Andrew Lamb [2001] QADT 20 (8 November 2001)
...
However, the defence in section 124A(2)(c) applied. This defence provides "that it is not unlawful to do a public act with the relevant tendency to incite, provided it is done reasonably and in good faith for a purpose in the public interest, including public discussion or debate and exposition of any matter."
...
It was found that Mr Lamb had produced and distributed the pamphlet in good faith, and for the specified purpose of attempting to persuade electors, by a disclosure of his opinions, that he deserved their vote. The application for interim relief was dismissed.
