by Peter Kell

The present case before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Victoria, under that State’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, has raised the real questions of freedom of speech and religious tolerance in a civil society. The case concerns vilification purported to have been done by a charismatic Christian group in a seminar on the differences between Christians and Muslims.
What stand should Christians take in such a matter?
Several church communities have sought to intervene in the case. At least one cleric has appeared before the Tribunal as an ‘expert witness’. The Age reporter described him thus: “Father McInerny, a Catholic priest who lived in Pakistan for nearly 20 years and has a degree in Islamic studies from Rome, was the first expert witness in the test case of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.”
The reporter went on to say: “Father McInerny told the Tribunal that there were atrocities against Christians in Pakistan, but most people got on well. ‘I don’t deny there have been horrific incidents, but they are not representative of the Muslims of Pakistan, not representative of Muslims in Australia, and not representative of the trajectory of 1400 years of history,’ he said.”
This approach is one Australians find very comfort-able. In a society in which religion is often seen as being part of the private sphere, an approach that treats all religious activity as of equal value is seen as being helpful to the maintenance of civil society. The most public demonstration of this was the variety of religious rites used before the opening of the new Parliament House in Canberra.
Yet this approach, as valuable as it may seem to many, fails at the very point which Jew, Christians and Muslim agree – that God has made himself known to humanity. For Jews it is in the Torah and the associated material of the Prophets and the Writings; for Muslim it is in the Koran; for Christians it is in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Incarnate Son of God witnessed to and contained in the text of the New Testament. Christians also affirm the validity of the Jewish Scriptures.
It is this very agreement on the concept of revelation (while there is disagreement on the content) that makes the Victorian case important. If Australians believe we have a society in which the right of people to hold religious opinion is upheld (even if that right in fact has no real legislative protection in this country), then the possibility and the actuality of offence is guaranteed.
For Christians to simply say that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, both ontologically and as Israel’s true Messiah, cannot but offend Jews and Muslims. To compare the Christian claim with that of other faiths will cause even more offence.
This does not even raise the issue of the non-revealed religions and their significantly different sources!

What does this mean for civil society? The Victorian legislation makes certain exemptions for public interest, academic and religious discussion and publication, as long as these are done ‘in good faith’.
It is this very issue that is on trial in Victoria.
Regardless of why the Muslim attendees were present – and it seems that at least one of them was sent to listen to the material – any discussion of classical Christianity and its distinctive from other faith positions would cause offence. It does not even need to be directly addressed. A person listening to the Collects for Good Friday in the Book of Common Prayer, the official standard of the Anglican Church of Australia, will be confronted by these ideas. The only article in the 39 Articles of Religion to carry an anathema, Article 18, expresses the view that to seek salvation, a relationship with the true God other than through the Christian route, is a damnable error.
The issue that has not been addressed is motive. To act or speak in such a way as to intend to incite hatred is clearly unacceptable, both within the Australian ethos and also within Christian civil practice and ethics. Yet to say that one may not express the values and core propositions of a faith, even comparatively, is also contrary to the Australian self-understanding.
Tolerance requires more than a mere putting up with others. If the issue is ‘truth’, which Jews, Christians and Muslim contend, then robust debate and even robust critique must be part of the social dialogue. “When civil strife makes civil hands unclean,” we must act as a society, but in the realm of ideas we are all in the lists. Truth needs no defence but itself!

Peter Kell is a lawyer and a member of Sydney Standing Committee.