The paragraphs in square brackets are the report from the ABC which can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/freedom-of-speech-in-australia/4557962. My response is interspersed in between.
[The Corneloup brothers thought it was their
right to invade an Adelaide mall and start preaching their philosophy of
Islamophobia and misogyny.]
The Corneloups only stand in a very small area
of the mall. The Gospel is against Islam indeed. It is funny how ‘Islamophobia’
is used as a card against Christianity by progressives who claim to hate all
religions in their own assumption of tolerance use this term. What hypocrisy!
What progressives mean by “misogyny”
is really to doubt or challenge the secular, individualistic and humanistic
doctrine of feminism. Of course, in their own twisted sense of “justice” and “equity”,
the progressives would see Christianity as “misogynist” because it is
communalistic, not individualistic, and respects the inherent differences
between men and women.
[But unlike the US, where groups like the
Westboro Baptist Church can offend with impunity, they were wrong.]
The comparison with Westboro Baptist “church”
shows not only the ignorance of the person, but the arrogance in assuming that
he as an unsaved person, is capable of understanding the differences between
differences between different professing churches.
[In September 2010, The Street Church, founded by brothers Samuel and Caleb
Corneloup, started preaching what they considered to be the Word of God in the
middle of the Rundle St Mall, Adelaide's major shopping district. ]
It is not what the
Corneloups considered to be the Word of God, but that it is the Word of God.
This is why all unsaved people of a range of opposing worldviews, are united in
their hostility against them, whether they are Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, or
anyone else who is not a true Christian.
[The brothers and a small
group of followers armed with megaphones, signs, and placards walked up and
down the mall, airing their views on religion, sexuality, gender rights, and
equality.]
It is not “their” views.
It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the
WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE.
[Sean Fewster, the chief court reporter for the Adelaide Advertiser andAdelaideNow.com.au, followed the group’s growing
notoriety.
‘Their message was very
anti-Muslim, anti-foreigner, anti-woman and anti-gay,’ he says. ‘They were
quite fond of shouting at passers-by that they would be going to hell for
whatever they were doing at the moment, be it holding hands or wearing Muslim
dress. They talked about foreigners being dirty, they talked about unmarried
couples being sinners.’]
An unsaved person cannot
understand anything of the Word of God for what it really is. An unsaved person
is assuming they understand the Word of God when they know very well that they
do not want to know God, and hate God and His Word. This is not only arrogance,
but blasphemy. Yes, blasphemy can be committed by “pagan” people in “explaining”
the Bible which they cannot possibly understand.
What is the evidence of
the Corneloups saying ‘foreigners being dirty’, or that passers-by would be
going to hell for ‘wearing Muslim dress’ or ‘holding hands’? What is the
evidence? This is most probably the
court reporter twisting words out of his hatred for the preachers.
[There is no
constitutional right to free speech in Australia, but over the years our courts
have developed what's referred to as an implied right to political
communication. It was this concept that was at the heart of the High Court case
involving the Corneloup brothers.]
Indeed.
[Shopkeepers and the
general public moved quickly to ask Adelaide City Council to evict the fire and
brimstone preachers from Rundle St Mall. Police officers tried to break up the
Friday night prayer meetings but the preachers would often refuse to go.]
It would be interesting
as to whether the same reaction would occur if a group with a different
worldview was doing the same or equivalent things eg rallying, gathering
together to have a group meeting, handing out pamphlets etc.
[Eventually the Adelaide
City Council used by-laws, in existence since 2004, that prevent a person from
preaching, haranguing, or otherwise tending ministry without first obtaining a
permit. The Corneloup brothers decided to challenge these by-laws—a case which
went all the way to the High Court of Australia.
Yes
[Mr Fewster says the pair
were self-represented. ‘Caleb Corneloup did the majority of the speaking. He
was fond of saying that he had only a Year Nine education and yet he was
beating QCs at their own game, which he viewed as God taking mercy upon
Adelaide by allowing the preachers to continue to spread his word.’]
Indeed, God would be
giving people more time for repentance, including the people writing this
presumptuous report, assuming they understand the Bible when they cannot. Yes,
God is gracious and does not want anyone to end up in Hell, including these
defamatory liars of journalists who write this report.
[But his luck ran out
when the High Court last week ruled against The Street Church.]
This is not luck. It is
God’s plan. The Corneloups do not believe in luck.
[The court stated that
even though the council by-law restricted free speech, the council was
exercising its powers properly in creating that by-law for public order. Professor
Adrienne Stone, the director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Law
at the University of Melbourne, puts it this way: ‘The purpose of this law was
to prevent obstruction—to protect the safe and convenient use of the streets,
in this case the Adelaide Mall. And the judges took the view that this is a
reasonable and legitimate reason to limit freedom of political communication.’]
Yes, Caleb Corneloup
agreed it was reasonable to ensure public safety and order regarding use of
space.
[Last week the High Court
ruled on another important freedom of speech case that also involved a potent
mix of religion and politics—and shows the relative weakness of the implied
common law right to political communication in Australia compared to other
jurisdictions like the US.]
Indeed, there is a mix of
religion and politics – as the media has caused it to be by making it a matter
of politics.
[Radical Muslim cleric,
Sheik Man Haron Monis, wrote offensive letters to the families of Australian
soldiers who died in Afghanistan. The letters started with condolences for the
loss of a son, including phrases like 'May God grant you patience and to guide
us all on the right path.' But they then went on to brand dead soldiers as
murderers of civilians, comparing them to pigs and to Hitler. Sheik Monis was
charged under a provision of the Commonwealth criminal code which makes it an
offence to use the postal service in a way that is offensive, harassing, or
menacing. Sheik Monis responded by arguing that the prosecution could not
proceed because the laws impinged on his implied right to political
communication.]
The Gospel is offensive
to the unsaved. However, it is not hatred to share it. It is love. Therefore,
the case of Monis is not analogous to the case of the Corneloups in any way whatsoever.
[But unlike the Adelaide
case, the result was somewhat inconclusive, because the court split evenly down
the middle. Normally there are seven judges, but during the window in which
these cases were heard, a judge had retired without yet being replaced. ]
Yes
[All six judges accepted
that the letters amounted to political communication, because the letters
discussed Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan. But the court split
3–3 on whether or not the offences were a reasonable limit on the right to
political communication.]
Yes
[Three judges—Chief
Justice French, and Justices Hayne and Heydon— took the view this wasn't
a reasonable limitation, finding that the prevention of offence is not a
legitimate end to which the parliament can direct laws. Justice Hayne said:
‘History, not only recent history, teaches us that abuse and invective are an
inevitable part of political discourse.’]
Yes
[Professor Stone says
these three judges feel strongly that political communication in Australia
should be robust and vigorous, ‘to the point that it may be offensive, even
very offensive, but that just is our tradition—offensiveness (by itself) can
never be a good enough reason to regulate freedom of political communication.’]
The Gospel transcends all
this humanistic law because it IS beyond human wisdom, and understanding.
[But Justices Crennan,
Kiefel and Bell took the opposite line. They found that the threshold for
offence in the postal law is suitably high. It doesn't apply just to the merely
offensive, only to the very offensive material. They also found that because
the letter was delivered to the house of the victim, this amounted to an
intrusion into a private space. In their view, it is legitimate for the
parliament to pass a law that seeks to prevent us from receiving extremely
insulting material through the mail into our homes.]
Offensiveness is not the
issue here in Corneloup. The issue is truth that is beyond human understand and
that these judges need to hear.
[Because the court split
down the middle, the decision of the lower court allowing the prosecutions
against Sheik Monis stands. His trial will proceed.]
Indeed
[So where do these important
freedom of expression cases leave us? Professor Stone says it's now clear that
laws designed to prevent the obstruction of traffic and the safe and convenient
use of the roads are constitutional. A law that pursues those sorts of goals
can limit freedom of political communication, as long as it limits it in a
reasonably proportionate kind of a way. ‘What is much less clear is a law whose
very object is to prevent offence, even very severe offence,’ Professor Stone
says. ‘On that question in the Monis case you see that the High Court was
divided right down the middle.’]
The Gospel has not
limits. The Corneloups are to obey God rather than humans.
[If these two cases had
been heard by the US Supreme Court it is almost certain that the Corneloup
brothers and Sheik Monis would have won.]
It is irrelevant as to
whether the US Supreme Court would support the case of Corneloup or Monis.
[In 2011 there was a decision with clear
parallels to the two Australian cases.]
From a secular
perspective, they are “parallel”, as since all religions are “the same”.
[The court upheld the
right of the Westboro Baptist Church to demonstrate outside the funerals of US
soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The church believes that the US's
tolerance of homosexuals angered God and in response He allowed US soldiers to
die on the battlefield.]
Comparable to Monis, but
not Corneloup.
[Mr Snyder, the father of
a dead soldier, commenced a legal action arguing that the interruption of his
son’s funeral caused him emotional distress. He won $5 million in damages
but the US Supreme Court overturned this ruling. Professor Stone says in the US
speech is almost invariably protected. The First Amendment, the right to free
speech, shows a very high degree of tolerance for even the most offensive kinds
of speech. ‘Although the United States Supreme Court was absolutely clear it
thought that this was terrible and worthless expression, it nonetheless
protected it as freedom of speech on a public matter in a public place,’ she
says.]
It is irrelevant whether
it is ‘religious speech’ that provides ground for the ruling.
[Back in Australia it is
unclear how the law will evolve when faced with highly offensive speech.
Professor Stone says the Monis decision leaves us ‘on a knife's edge’. Since
the case two new judges have been appointed to the High Court and there is no
way of knowing on what side of the line they would fall.]
A subject matter for
media in its specifically anti-Christian propaganda.
Until next time.
Listen to the full report with Damien Carrick on the Law Report.
Comments
Post a Comment