In 2001, despite alarms from free-speech advocates, the Australian state of Victoria enacted a “‘Racial and Religious Toleration Act” which provides in part:
(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.
Now various religious enthusiasts are in court accusing each other of false teachings, and inevitably so, since some faiths 1) hold proselytizing to be an obligation of believers and 2) hold it to be an essential part of this task to argue to potential converts that there is something seriously wrong with or deficient about other faiths. “Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, wrote: ‘All these anti-vilification laws have achieved is to provide a legalistic weapon by which religious groups can silence their ideological opponents, rather than engaging in debate and discussion. …Who, after all, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?'” (Neil Addison, “Divided before the law”, Nov. 17). U.K. home secretary David Blunkett has proposed similar legislation; see Jul. 16. (Reworded Jan. 17 to reflect a reader’s objection; see letter to the editor of that date).
Comments are closed.