Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries Inc (Final) [2004] VCAT 2510 (22 December 2004)

Last Updated: 29 December 2004

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION

REASONS FOR DECISION

REASONS

THE APPLICATION

1	This is an application under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The Islamic Council of Victoria brings the action in a representative capacity (see Section 19 of the Act).

THE LEGISLATION

2	The Complainant alleges that the Respondents breached Section 8 of the Act. It provides as follows:

"(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."

3	Section 9 provides as follows:

"(1) In determining whether a person has contravened Section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in such conduct is irrelevant.

(2) In determining whether a person has contravened Section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons is the only or dominant ground for the conduct, so long as it is a substantial ground."

4	Section 11 provides:

"A person does not contravene Section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith -

(a) In the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) In the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for -

(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or

(c) In making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.”

5	Section 4(2) of the Act is in the following terms:

“It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act are interpreted so as to further the object set out in sub-section 1.

Turning to sub-section 1, it provides the objects of this Act are:

“(a) to promote the full and equal participation of every person in a society that values freedom of expression and is an open and multicultural democracy;

(b) to maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment does not vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons;

(c) to promote conciliation and resolve tensions between persons who (as a result of their ignorance of the attributes of others and the effect that their conduct may have on others) vilify others on the ground of race or religious belief or activity and those who are vilified.””

6	A combination of Sections 8 and 11 may be seen to strike the balance between the right to express one’s views in a robust fashion, provided it does not transgress the obligation to ensure that what is said or done does not constitute religious vilification. Legislation of this nature is now common in the Federal and State arenas, although this legislation is only one of two which specifically deals with religious vilification.
7	Legislation of this nature may be described as attempts to prevent discrimination. There are authorities which support the view that such legislation should be given a beneficial construction and that any defences or exemptions should be construed narrowly. See Waters v PTC [1991] HCA 49; (1991) 173 CLR 349 at 359 per Mason CJ and Gaudron J; Kazek v John Fairfax [2000] NSW ADT 77. The latter decision was overturned on appeal, but on other grounds.
8	However, notwithstanding this approach to the legislation, which possesses the character to which I have referred, as in all cases it must be the legislation as interpreted which will determine the scope of the exemptions.
9	The Premier, in introducing the Bill to the House in the Second Reading Speech, referred to the fact that there were exceptions and then made the following comment:

"This exemption clause is based on exceptions already existing in equivalent legislation in New South Wales and other jurisdictions.

These exemptions are not a shield for unrestrained abuse."

10	Again, I think the words of the Premier are seeking to make it clear that there is a balance to be struck between free speech which is the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion, but that such a freedom is not to be abused.
11	The complainant in their submission rely upon the explanatory memorandum. They are entitled to do this by reason of s.35(b) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. It was submitted that the explanatory memorandum supports the application of a narrow interpretation to this legislation. However that clearly is not the case having regard to the following passages:

“The Act will prohibit extreme conduct which promotes and urges the strongest feelings of revulsion, hatred or dislike of a person or group on the ground of the racial background or religious beliefs and practices of that person or group. Engaging in prohibited conduct can give cause for a civil complaint. This proposition is balanced by exceptions to liability, which are designed to strike a balance between the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom from racial and religious vilification.

An exemption is provided for conduct or discussion that is engaged in “reasonably and in good faith” in an artistic performance, for a genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose or for any purpose that is in the public interest. These nominated purposes are intended to have a broad meaning. For example, the discussion of religious issues includes a statement of religious belief, religious instruction and discussion concerning the conduct and practices of religious bodies. Similarly, the discussion of matters in the public interest would include discussion of any public affairs with which the community may be concerned.” (My emphasis). (See page 1755).

Having regard to those comments, I believe that Section 11 should be interpreted broadly, but not, of course, so as to defeat the primary purpose. See Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCA FC 16 at 73. In that case French J noted that the legislation before the Court described the exemptions in the Second Reading Speech as "broad". Having regard to that statement, the Court observed that there was nothing in either the explanatory memorandum or the Second Reading Speech which should be read other than in a way which gives full force and effect to them. I see no inconsistency with what is contained in the Second Reading Speech and in the explanatory memorandum, and I therefore propose to interpret the legislation on the basis that the exemptions are to be "broadly" construed, but as I have indicated, but not so as to defeat the primary purpose.

12	Section 8 prohibits conduct which occurs “on the ground of” the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons. In my view, the use of the words “on the ground of” are designed to create a causal connection between the “conduct” and the religious belief or activity. It is not dissimilar to the use of the word “because”, which is used in Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (CTH). I see no difference to the use of this concept in dealing with the Act which is currently before the Tribunal.
13	Although it must be shown there is a causal connection between the conduct and the religious belief or activity of another, Section 9(1) provides that a person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant. Further, Section 9(2) provides that the religious belief or activity of another does not have to be the only or a dominant ground for the conduct, but it must be a substantial ground. The extent of the connection between the conduct and the religious belief of another may be open to various interpretations. However, what is abundantly clear in this case is that the statements made, whether orally or in writing, (the latter including the newsletter and the article) are made because of the religious beliefs and activities of Muslims who adhere to the religion of Islam.
14	The test to be applied is agreed by both parties to be an objective one. See John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Kazak [2002] NSW AD TAP 35. In that decision the Tribunal relied on the various decisions which related to defamation law, which is logical in the context of the use by the legislature of the words hatred, ridicule and contempt. The Tribunal concluded at paragraph 16 as follows:

“This, in the context of vilification provisions the question is, could the ordinary reasonable reader understand from the public act that he/she is being incited to hatred towards or serious contempt for or serious ridicule of a person on the grounds of race? The question is not, could the ordinary reasonable reader reach such a conclusion, only after his/her own beliefs have been brought into play by the public act”.

15	Further, the fact that the ordinary reader is free to disagree with these facts or opinions is irrelevant. Many readers will disagree with the sentiments expressed in the article or conduct, but that is not the test. The test is whether an ordinary reasonable reader who is not malevolently inclined or free from susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined to hatred by the publication or conduct: see Kazak at first instance p.52.
16	Finally, the social and historical context of a public act must be relevant at this stage of the enquiry, albeit only to the extent that they may be presumed to be part of the ordinary reasonable reader's knowledge and experience of human affairs (see paragraph 21 of Kazak (on appeal)).
17	Insofar as that test is concerned and whether it is to be applied to Section 8, it is submitted by the Complainant that the use of the words “any person” should be given their ordinary and beneficial meaning. In other words, it is the conduct that incites “any person” and that no such limitation as was applied in Kazak, should be read into this legislation. I am of the view that the use of the words “that incites” is not materially different from the words which were interpreted in Kazak. If the legislation in Kazak was couched in the following terms – “a person shall not perform a public act that incites hatred etc.” – I do not believe a different test would have been applied. I am of the view that the descriptors which set the outer limits of the spectrum within which the ordinary person may be found, are those set out in Kazak. Section 8 of the legislation adds the word “revulsion”, but I do not think that alters the descriptors applicable to the “ordinary reasonable person”. Accordingly, I propose to apply the test which is set out in paragraph 16 of the decision in Kazak (on appeal).
18	The meaning of other words in the section are ones that present no difficulty.

Incites – means to urge, spur on, animate, stimulate or prompt to action.

Hatred – means intense dislike, detestation.

Serious – means weighty, important.

Contempt – the feeling with which one regards anything considered mean, vile or worthless.

Severe – hard or extreme.

Ridicule – means words or actions intended to incite contemptuous laughter at a person or thing or derision.

In respect of the above interpretations, see the Macquarie Dictionary.

19

The only anti-discrimination case I have been referred to involving religious vilification is Deen v Lamb [2001] QADT 20. That involved a complaint by a Muslim who was the Chairman of the Islamic Council of Queensland. It related to a Federal Election and a pamphlet distributed by one of the candidates. It contained a quote from the Qur’an to say that:

“So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a greater endeavour.”

20

There were other quotes from the leaflet, but the Tribunal made a decision to rely upon one only. The interpretation of that passage was that people who regard the Qur’an as authoritative are compelled to disobey secular governments, and to war against non-believers, and that Osama Bin Laden and his followers were acting entirely consistently with the teachings of the Qur’an. The pamphlet then went on to compare various Christian Bible passages favourably against the Qur’an. There was no actual use of the word Muslim in the pamphlet.

21

In upholding the claim for religious vilification by reason of what was contained in the pamphlet, the presiding Member said,

“I am of the opinion that the Respondent has, by his pamphlet, incited serious contempt for Muslims as a whole, representing that they, as believers in the teachings of the Qur’an are persons who will be prone to disobey the laws of Australia when those laws conflict with the teachings of the Qur’an, to the extent of being prepared to commit murder. He has compared them unfavourably with Christians in that respect. Further, I am of the view that the Respondent has incited hatred towards Muslims. His express identification of a reputed murderer with others who profess the same faith can have no other tendency.”

22

However, the presiding Member went on to decide that, notwithstanding his findings in respect of the pamphlet, that it was protected because of the fact that it was made during the course of a Federal Election. In so finding, the decision relied upon the Commonwealth Constitution insofar as it contains within it, an implied freedom of communication on matters relevant to political discussion. Reliance was placed upon the decision of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45; [1992] 177 CLR 106 at 139. There is also a provision in the Act which provides that it is not unlawful to do a public act, with a 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. Accordingly, it was found that the conduct of the candidate for election, fell within one of the exemptions contained within the Act. The Respondents in this case rely upon not dissimilar exemptions which are contained in the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and I will return to this issue in due course.

23

If I am wrong with regard to the interpretation which I have adopted of the objective test and that the correct analysis is that stated by counsel for the complainant, I am of the view that it makes no difference to the result in these proceedings. For reasons which I will explain, whatever test is applied, I am satisfied that there has been a breach by the respondents of Section 8 of the Act.

Standing

24

This proceeding was instituted by the Islamic Council of Victoria. Section 19(1) of the Act provides that a person who claims that another person has contravened the provisions of Part 2 (which includes section 8) may complain to the Commission, that is, the Equal Opportunity Commission (see section 3). Section 19(2) provides that a person may complain on behalf of the person or persons if the Commission is satisfied that each person is entitled to complain, and has consented to the complaint being made on the person's behalf. Section 19(3)(b) refers to the representative body, in this case the ICV, and it requires that that body have a sufficient interest in the complaint.

Section 19(4) provides that a representative body has sufficient interest in a complaint, if the conduct that constitutes the alleged contravention is a matter of genuine concern to the body, because of the way conduct of that nature adversely affects or has the potential adversely to affect the interest of the body or the interest or welfare of the person it represents.

Insofar as there is a reference to the Commission, where the matter is determined at VCAT, then the representative body must satisfy the Tribunal of its right to bring the proceedings.

25	The Respondent does not concede that the ICV has the necessary standing to bring the proceedings.
26	Mr Yasser Soliman was called to give evidence. He said that he was President of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which is a Victorian constituent member of the peak national Muslim organisation in Australia, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. He said the ICV is an umbrella organisation made up of approximately 30 major self-governing Islamic organisations in Victoria and is widely representative of the strength and diversity of the Muslim community in this state. It is incorporated under the Association of Incorporation Act 1981. He said that the organisation represents the Victorian Muslim communities on many issues to State, Federal and Local governments and departments, various local and federal authorities, the media, authorities and other organisations. It liaises with federal government ministers, departments and representatives, including ministers for employment, immigration, citizenship and multicultural affairs and the Victorian Multicultural Commission, PACMAC (Pollution & Community Multicultural Advisory Community), and other regional representatives, and with the Victoria Police and Federal Police - the Cultural Diversity Inventory Project - Management Committee with the Department of Justice. He asserts the ICV plays an active role as the Victorian Muslim's peak body for consultation, co-operation and advocacy with the State Government and its agencies. It has a further role in providing the Australian public with information about Islam and its beliefs, as well as the concerns of the Muslim community in promoting understanding and co-operation between all faiths and ethnic groups in combating all manifestations of racial and religious tolerance.
27	He said in making the complaint, the ICV was acting on its own behalf and on behalf of Thomas, Jackson and Eades. After the seminar was conducted, he met with the three individuals and discussed their concerns regarding the seminar. He said the individuals believe that they and Muslims in general had been vilified at the seminar, and sought advice and support in connection with the desire to seek redress of their grievances.
28	After hearing the accounts of the seminar and examining the website material, the ICV decided on 29 March that the seminar and website material could adversely affect the interests of the Islamic community as a whole, and they therefore lodged a complaint on its own behalf and on behalf of the relevant individuals, with the Equal Opportunity Commission. Before deciding to bring this complaint, he consulted the Executive Committee of the ICV and the member organisations of the ICV, including the Victorian Board of Imams and received support. He said the ICV's participation in the complaint is part of its role in representing Muslims in Victoria on social, political and other issues affecting their welfare and interests. In evidence, he produced the Constitution of the Islamic Council of Victoria. When cross-examined, he said that the ICV was a founding member of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. He conceded that he had not produced the Constitution of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. He was asked questions with regard to the representative capacity of the Islamic Council of Victoria. He indicated that they had between 24 and 25 member societies in Victoria. One qualifies for membership according to the Constitution and they should have more than 100 members and have a place which they either lease, or own, from which to operate. Societies are required to submit membership lists to ensure that the numbers required are not duplicated and each has the necessary numbers. The ICV also make, on occasions, visits to the various societies to ensure that they are basically operating within the rules, including payment of membership fees. He said that some members are not financial members of the societies. All members and non-members are allowed to attend from the Islamic community, but it is only when it comes to the general meeting, when it is a matter of voting or being voted for, that financial members are allowed to take part in an activity. Mr Soliman said that from time-to-time he makes statements on behalf of the ICV and has authority to speak on behalf of that body and that he has the authority to address religious questions, provided that the comments are things about which he knows. He said that he is not a scholar of the Qur'an, but would regard himself as a student. He said the Board of Imams was not an elected body, but they are appointed by individual societies across the state and they then apply to become members of the ICV, so that it is quite representative of different views and different communities. They, however, have no voting rights and all qualified Imams are automatically honorary members of the Council. He said that although the cost of a membership is $1.00 per person, many societies, in order to maintain registration, have 100 financial members, even though they may have 1,000 or 2,000 members. The critical requirement is that the society have 100 financial members. He conceded that there was no rigid controls or audits of the numbers, but the ICV generally had a good feeling about the number of members in any particular society.
29	Mr Thomas is one of the original complainants. He gave evidence with regard to the institution of these proceedings. He said the Islamic Council of Victoria has a membership list of Islamic societies and he thought there were 25 member societies. He said he was aware of two Islamic groups which were not under the umbrella of the Islamic Council of Victoria, but he was unable to say why they were not so associated. He said that the proceedings currently before the Court were as a result of a decision taken by a Committee of the Islamic Council of Victoria. The Committee is an elected body. Mr Thomas said that the membership of the Islamic Council of Victoria is by way of a society and that individual members do not form part of the Islamic Council of Victoria, but they have individual personal membership of the societies. He said the Islamic Group of Victoria is an umbrella group and he conceded that a number have quite different views, depending on their particular theological bent. He was unable to say what the actual proportion of Wahabists Shi'ites Sunni Muslims or any of the other Sects who are involved in Victoria. He was asked about whether the Islamic Council of Victoria considered the Catch the Fire Newsletter, and he replied that the Committee did so and felt that it, the Newsletter, would cause harm to the community against Muslims in Australia.
30	Having regard to the evidence I have set out, I am of opinion that the complainant has standing. It satisfies the conditions imposed by section 19 of the Act. It is obvious that the structure of the organisation and its relationship to the Societies is an unusual one, in that it would appear that individuals join a Society, which in turn becomes a member of the ICV. In my opinion, the ICV has a sufficient interest in the complaint, having regard to the evidence of Mr Soliman. It is clear that there are other organisations who represent Muslims and who are not members of the ICV, and in particular there is reference to Iska, a Muslim body in Brunswick. Notwithstanding that, it is apparent that the ICV has responsibility for the representation of Muslims in this State. There is some support for that view in Exhibit "M", the Community Accord, which is admissible on the issue of whether the ICV is a representative body. However, I do not give great weight to that document having regard to the fact that it deals with a discrete subject matter, but nonetheless demonstrates that the ICV is a signatory to a document which can be seen as indicating it is representative of Muslims in Victoria.
31	I therefore find that the complainant is a representative body and has standing in respect of these proceedings.

Applications for Intervention

32

At an early stage of the proceedings there were three applications by various parties to intervene, namely the Uniting Church of Australia, the Catholic Church and the Board of Imams of Victoria. All three sought to intervene to the extent of placing written submissions before the Tribunal in support of the complaint. The Uniting Church stated that it wished to intervene lest there be a public perception that the conduct, which is the subject of the complaint, is being held out as consistent with Christian beliefs and ideals and that the Church wishes to express support for the complainant in its attempt to protect the right of the Islamic community not to be vilified on the grounds of religious belief or activity. The Catholic Church sought to intervene on the basis that it is committed to social harmony between all segments of society and would not wish to see the attitudes espoused by the Respondents become an acceptable part of the Australian scene, which is characteristically tolerant and open. The Board of Imams also sought a limited right to intervene and it described itself as having been for 20 years the head spiritual body for Muslims in Victoria and to make submissions on behalf of those who it represents. I rejected each of the applications on the basis it was clear that these proceedings would be protracted, a fact which had been demonstrated by the course which followed. I also was of the view that each party had in essence taken an adversarial approach to the hearing and that it was not appropriate for there to be interveners in the proceedings. Finally, I took the view that a representative of the Board of Imams could have been a witness in the proceedings but was not being called, which raised the question of whether the drawing of an adverse inference may be an issue, and I was concerned that it may not be fair to the respondents to allow a view to be expressed, in circumstances which it could never be subjected to cross-examination.

The Complaint

33	The seminar was held on 9 March 2002 between 10:00am and 5:00pm at Full Gospel Assembly in Surrey Hills, Victoria. The speaker at the seminar was Pastor Daniel Scot. He has claimed that there were between 200 and 250 people present. The seminar was advertised on a website and posters were displayed at the seminar publicising the presentation.
34	Exhibits "T" and "U" are copies of material which advertised the seminar. Exhibit "T", after providing details with regard to the venue and the speaker, contained the following:

Conference Topic.

Insight into Islam.

What is holy Jihad?

Come and hear a man of God who is saved from Islamic Shari'a Law/Torture.

This seminar will give you tremendous insight into Islam and the future of Australia.

Free admission. A love offering will be taken.

Seminar agenda:

10:00am to 12:00 noon What is Jihad, and the affect on the future of Australia?

1:00pm to 3:00pm The Bible versus The Qur'an.

3:30pm to 5:00pm How to witness effectively to a Muslim.

35	Exhibit "T", under the heading "Ministry News", the following appears:

"It's official, Rise up Australia is igniting hearts and lives across our great nation .... Praise God! Further details hit the Rise up Australia link."

36	The seminar was attended by Yusuf Eades, Jan Jackson and Malcolm Thomas. Mr Eades attended the seminar between 11:00am and 12:30pm, Ms Jackson between 11:am and 2:00pm and Mr Thomas between 3:30pm and 5:00pm. Each of the attendees are of the Muslim faith and they assert that what was said at the seminar, constitutes racial vilification under Section 8 of the Act.
37	The Complainant also relies upon a newsletter which was distributed via the first named Respondent's website for the period "Summer 2001". It is alleged that the newsletter also breaches Section 8, on the basis that its contents constitute unlawful vilification.
38	The Complainant also relies upon an article published on the First Respondent's website in 2001 entitled "An Insight into Islam by Richard". Again, it is asserted by the Complainant that this article constitutes unlawful vilification contrary to Section 8 of the Act.
39	The response of the First, Second and Third named Respondents is set out in Particulars of Defence, dated 10 April 2003, and consists of 65 paragraphs. In general, there is a denial that any breach of Section 8 of the Act occurred. It is asserted that many of the statements complained of were accurate, did not amount to religious vilification and, in any event, were protected by Section 11 of the Act. All of the evidence of the Complainant's witnesses was subjected to long and detailed cross-examination about these grounds of defence.
40	Before setting out the substance of the complaint made by each of the individuals, it should be noted that they are largely direct quotes of what was alleged to have been said by Pastor Scot. It is clear that his use of the English language is poor in many respects. Sentences tend to run together and ideas and views are repeated. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the complaint the Complainant sets out the allegations with regard to what took place when Mr Eades was present. Those allegations are as follows:

"10. While Mr Eades was present, the Third Respondent discussed "silent Jihad" and implied that through the practice of "silent Jihad" Muslims plan to impose Islam on Australians.

(a) "Now bible tells us you know the truth; the truth will set you free but Muslim people when they come to some teaching they don't like, people you know they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the truth they will hide the truth. They will tell lies";

(b) "Even in Australia I was told by a Coptic Church, their secretary told me that their members have been approached if they become Muslim they will be given $10,000 here. So they're offering money here, it's not only happening in 7^th century Arabia or in Pakistan or some other countries, right here, under our nose. OK, so that's a valid way of converting, it's a "silent Jihad"";

(c) "There are many things in the Qur'an are not completely clear, not very clear, so then you read Hadith, you read the explanation. OK, so when people read that, study that for six years, they become true Muslim and we call them terrorists. But actually they are true Muslims because they read the Qur'an they understood it and know they're practising it";

(d) [after describing an article about an interview between a Rabbi and a chief Mufti] "So Chief Mufti, when he was interviewed Rabbi asked him that what is your plan for Australia and that Chief Mufti said our plan for Australia is that we will declare Islamic nation when they'll be 51% Australian. He said OK, so what will be your plan for other 49% who are not Muslim at that stage? So the other 49% will have choice to become Muslim or leave Australia. That was declaration not in Pakistan, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Iran, here in our own city called Sydney";

(e) "[I]f you don't become Muslim then your head should be chopped off, if you don't pay the poll tax, you have option to leave the country, if you don't do that, then your head should be chopped off. So that's Islam. OK. So this is, we need to be aware that Muslim have not forgotten the definition. They know what it means, but they will not tell you want it means, unless appropriate time";

(f) "So when we think of good things or bad things, what Allah says, good need not be good as we understand, so Allah says of fighting, war is ordained for you. It's good for you that you loot people, you kill people, you destroy people. You may not like it but Allah says it is good for Muslim people. So we read in the Holy Qur'an chapter 9, verse 23, that the prophet said all you who believe fight those disbelievers who are in your neighbourhood, then Muslim they will act on this verse; chapter 9 verse 23, and people in the neighbourhood, that's where this trouble will start first and that's according to the Holy Qur'an";

(g) "Conquered country has option to become Muslim, people they become ...can become Muslim. Otherwise they should pay jizya. Jizya means protection money. You know there's some nice people that ask you give me $10,000 otherwise you will be a dead man, dead woman. Jizya protection money, so a Muslim if you living in Islamic country you have to pay jizya protection money [sic]. OK. And if you refuse to do this is the third option, that be sword to those who will not pay jizya. [sic]";

(h) "And then we read in chapter 48 verse 16, 17 and many verse reference in chapter 9, that if people will not take part in Jihad in the holy war then they will go to hell. They will have pain for doom. So when need arises Muslim scholar, Muslim cleric hear them read these verses from Qur'an and help Muslim people to see how important it is to kill, to destroy, to loot non-Muslim. And they're not told these things unless the need arises, so Muslims scholars they don't release this information to general Islamic public, because this would be only released when the time will be right. Then they'll say look you are true Muslim and Allah say this is the definition of true Muslim. Otherwise you're all going to hell. You want to go to hell or you want to go to heaven. Of course Muslim want to go to heaven so they have to take part in the holy war, otherwise they will be in hell";

(i) "Then Muhammed received a new revelation, so we read in Qur'an, chapter 49 verse 15, chapter 9 verse 44, that true Muslims they are true Muslims who take part in holy war. That means if you are not true Muslim then you will not go far with the holy war but if you are true Muslim then you will go far with the holy war";

(j) "So if you want to be sure, of your paradise, you should be surely dead man. To be dead sure you have to be dead. In Islam for salvation. And that's why there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim people waiting in queue for suicide bombing. Then they can be dead sure, because they will be definitely dead, and then they will be dead sure of their salvation".

11. While Mr Eades was present, the Third Respondent implied that Muslims are motivated by the Qur'an to become violent and intolerant when they are powerful. The implication appears in the following statements:

(a) "So when we read the Qur'an carefully we find out there are many verses in Qur'an which speak non-violence, and there are many many more verses in Qur'an which speak nothing but violence. Why is it so, because when Muhammad the prophet of Allah, the founder of Islam, when he was poor, when he was needy, why he has no manpower, that time he was teaching gentle things, no violence, don't do this, don't do that, but when he became powerful he has army then he was receiving new revelation";

(b) "So it [the Qur'an] states there's no compulsion in religion so Muslims can show you, look Qur'an sees wonderful things and there's no room for violence, and it's true Qur'an does teach. Why? Because at that time Muhammad was not a very powerful man he is not a big army so it was a different type of teaching that time";

(c) "Then Jihad also is against people who are weak against women and children, you have to defend them so if somebody attacks your wife you defend your wife and children, so that's defensive Jihad. So Jihad is a wonderful thing, it's just for defensive purposes. Why? Because so far Muhammad is not in position to attack people. But then he got into position."

12. By the statements referred to in paragraphs 10 to 11 above and throughout the Seminar, the Third Respondent:

(a) incited scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims;

(b) mocked what Muslims believe;

(c) repeatedly invoked laughter from the audience when describing apparent Muslim beliefs;

(d) misrepresented the Islamic faith;

(e) misrepresented the religious and non-religious practices, behaviour and conduct of Muslims in Australia."

41	Mr Eades gave evidence by telephone link and indicated that he kept notes of what he heard at the seminar. As indicated, he attended between 11.00 a.m. and 12.30 a.m. Further, he has listened to the tape for the purpose of refreshing his memory, and said he had a clear recollection of Pastor Scot uttering the words which are set out in paragraphs 10. and 11. of the Complaint. In his Affidavit he said that when listening to the statements which were made at the seminar by Pastor Scot he understood him to be saying that Muslims are motivated by the Qur'an to become violent and intolerant when they are powerful. He further said that he believed the behaviour and conduct of his community, and the Islamic faith was misrepresented at the seminar as a result of the statements that were made. He asserts in paragraph 12. of his Witness Statement that it was apparent throughout the presentation that Pastor Scot mocked what Muslims believed and repeatedly invoked laughter from the audience when describing Muslim beliefs. He said that he observed Pastor Scot work on, and with, the emotions of the audience by provoking scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims. He asserts that Pastor Scot selectively chose quotes from Muslim religious texts, adopted questionable interpretations of them and drew unfounded conclusions without anybody challenging him. He conveyed things that were untrue. For example he pointed at conflicts involving Muslims in different parts of the world and said that in Australia Muslims are the same, but just hiding it. He said that he believed that in the context of the seminar with posters stating "Rise Up Australia" displayed, that this provoked scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims amongst the audience. He stated that the audience around him were angry and upset during the course of the seminar, and he can recall hearing very negative comments about Muslims. He said Pastor Scot would incite the audience and they would respond by shaking their heads. He observed expressions of concern among the audience. He said that while there were no actual threats made, there was a feeling that members of the audience were acknowledging what Pastor Scot was saying and that something needed to be done against Muslim communities.
42	Mr Eades said that he confronted Pastor Scot at 12:30pm, during the break taken for lunch, and repeated what he had said in reference to Muslims having the right in their religion to rape the wife of non-Muslims and loot their homes. He said that Pastor Scot did not deny that he said these things, nor did he clarify what he had said. He did say that it would be explained in more detail during the latter part of the seminar.
43	Mr Eades said that he was apprehensive for his personal safety during and after the seminar, had the fact that he was a Muslim been discovered or disclosed. He was extremely upset and disturbed by what he had observed and did not want to experience the hostile atmosphere any longer. He left the seminar feeling hurt, embarrassed, distressed, intimidated and frightened by what had occurred.
44	Mr Eades said that he had read a copy of the "Catch the Fire" newsletter after the seminar. It asserts that it vilifies him on the basis of his Islamic faith. In particular the newsletter:

"(a) Described the "plans of the enemy to take the land (Australia) & stop it from coming into God's full will and purpose in this hour" and implied the "enemy" specifically included or referred to the "faith of Islam";

(b) Foreshadowed that Australian Christians would "lose your homeland to a foreign religion and its [sic] people", and implied the foreign religion was Islam and the people Muslims;

(c) Predicted that Muslims, by their marriage and birthing practices will rapidly increase as a percentage of the Australian population and overtake "Aussies";

(d) Predicted that Muslims will "infiltrate" all aspects of Australian public and religious life with the specific purposes of stopping "the name of Jesus being mentioned" and spying on western governments;

(e) Stated that "the motto of the Muslim is to convert the whole world to Islam, by peace or violence" and suggested that Muslims will engage in the same kind of violence in Australia as engaged upon by those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre on September 11 2001;

(f) Accused unidentified Islamic countries of the deliberate slaughter and torture of Christians;

(g) Suggested that Muslims were gaining entry to Australia ahead of, and in preference to, Christians from Islamic countries who were the subject of rape, torture and threatened slaughter;

(h) Suggested that the Muslims who gained entry to Australia were capable of, and would engage in, the same kind of violent conduct against Christians in Australia."

45	Insofar as the article entitled "An Insight into Islam by Richard" dated 24 September 2001 from Catch The Fire Ministries Inc. website, he said that he had read that article and that it vilified him on the basis of his Islamic faith. In particular, he alleges the following:

"(a) Suggested Islam was an inherently violent religion and that claims by Muslims that Islam was a religion which encompassed values of love and peace were false;

(b) Suggested that it was not possible to separate Islam from "terrorist" groups and that Muslims who claimed such groups were "rogue" or separate were lying;

(c) Implied that Islam, and Muslims, endorsed the killing and enslavement of whole groups of people, based on their religion, giving an alleged example from the Qur'an about the killing of tribes of Jews;

(d) Characterised the Prophet as a paedophile;

(e) Described the Qur'an as calling for "atrocities on civilisation";

(f) Characterised terrorism as "the very nature of Islam itself";

(g) Described "millions" of Muslims who adhere to Islam today as being like "'nominal' Christians", without a proper foundation for their beliefs in Islam and adhering to Islam without critical evaluation of their reasons for doing so;

(h) Stated "[a]s you can see above, Islam clearly calls for the destruction of people wherever they may be found";

(i) Characterised the Qur'an, as a text which

(i) teaches that the killing of the innocent in order to further a cause is "absolutely OK";

(ii) teaches hate not love;

(j) Implied that those responsible for the events of September 11 engaged in that conduct in pursuance of the teachings of the Qur'an and that terrorism is "intimately tied to Islam ideals".

46	He states that he has been hurt, embarrassed and distressed by reading the content of the said newsletter and article.
47	When Mr Eades was cross-examined by Mr Perkins, he said that he heard about the seminar whilst he was at the Islamic Council of Victoria. The purpose of attending the seminar was because he was interested in what was being said about his religion. He was aware before the seminar that there may be remarks and talk about Islam being dangerous and violent and there was some concern to have some representation before the seminar. The concern was that there may be some incitement against Muslims. When asked what arrangements did he make with others with regard to their attendance at the seminar, he said he decided to go at the last minute. He left the seminar at the time that he did because he was very upset by what had been said, and he had been there for 1½ hours and said no particular time had been arranged with anybody else to attend, as far as he could remember. When he left the seminar he met Jan Jackson. In a response to a question from Mr Perkins, he said that he did not make the complaint on the basis of what was being said about Muslims in other countries, but he was talking about the Muslim communities in Australia and that was the basis of the complaint. He was not going to defend anyone's actions as to what happens overseas.
48	Mr Eades said his reaction to what was said at the seminar was emotional because the content was putting people in danger. He denied that he lost his objectivity. He agreed that he was very upset and shocked at what he heard and was in tears for a few minutes and this was around the time that he spoke to Jackson. He said he had spent a number of years studying the Qur'an. He asserted Pastor Scot in the seminar was focussing his attention on the Muslim community in Australia. From his point of view, the whole seminar was about Islam in Australia and, indeed, the future of Australia. He conceded that Pastor Scot was entitled to teach on the subject of Holy War, but said he was in fact vilifying Muslims by making statements about their intentions that were untrue and was putting them in danger.
49	He was cross-examined about his knowledge of an Islamic group in Brunswick called ISCA and he conceded that they have a view on Jihad, but it was one which is not representative of Muslims in Australia and that the organisation was not under the umbrella of the Islamic Council of Australia. They were a small separate sect who held beliefs which were not "orthodox Islam", particularly with regard to Jihad as a state of affairs which you bring into existence and put into effect against non-believers. By "orthodox" he said that he referred to the majority of people, that is, the general Muslim population. He conceded that he would not consider himself a Muslim scholar. In his opinion, there are certain things that all Muslims agree about in the Qur'an, and there are other matters upon which there is disagreement. There are certain things that all Muslims agree about, such as the Pillars of Islam and he denied that Jihad is one of the pillars of the faith.
50	Eades conceded that he met with the other two Complainants after the seminar. He attended a meeting at the Islamic Council a few weeks to a month after the seminar. He spoke with Jackson and Thomas and Soliman. He was asked about his knowledge of evangelical Christians and he said that he had been to churches on a number of occasions, and they were charismatic speakers, by which he meant that they were lively and energetic and they would talk to the audience and walk around and there would be singing and dancing and sometimes clapping. He was asked whether Australian Muslims are different to Muslims in the rest of the world, and he said that Australian Muslims fit in and generally share the language and culture with other Australians. Muslims also share similar views on religion on a worldwide basis.
51	Jan Patricia Jackson made a statement dated 12 August 2003. In her statement she had been, as at that date, a follower of the Islamic faith for some 3.5 years. She was informed by a friend from the Islamic Council of Victoria of a seminar that was to be conducted by Catch The Fire Ministries. Accordingly, between 11:00am and 2:00pm on 9 March 2002 she attended the seminar at Surrey Hills. She took notes on what was said at the seminar which are annexed to her statement. She then typed those notes as a record of what she had heard and she listened to the audio tapes of the seminar.
52	She can recall seeing posters displayed at the seminar publicising the presentation and included the following statements:

"(a) What is holy Jihad?

(b) Rise up Australia.

(c) This seminar will give you tremendous insight into Islam and the future of Australia.

(d) Hear a man of God saved from Islamic Shari'a Law - torture and death.

53	There were approximately 200 to 250 people in the audience and she identified the speaker as Pastor Daniel Scot. She could recall Pastor Scot describing the "silent Jihad six time approach" and that it involved:

"(a) the merchant, in other words, the use of a Muslim's business connections.

(b) Marriage, that is marrying non-Muslims and converting them.

(c) Money, bribing people to convert to Islam.

(d) Mosque, that is the building of a Mosque from which help is offered to persons who Muslims then try to convert.

(e) Madrassah, that is a school or training institute where Muslims are taught what they need to know to go out and convert others."

54	Pastor Scot suggested that there were millions of people now training in Madrassahs in Pakistan and that they are true Muslims, implying that this fact was a cause for concern or fear in non-Muslims, and the use of mysticism attracting westerners to convert to Islam.
55	She understood Pastor Scot to be saying, through the practice of a "silent Jihad", Muslims plan to impose Islam on Australians against their will.
56	She was present when Pastor Scot ridiculed Allah, the Qur'an, the Prophet and the Hadith.
57	In paragraphs 9 and 10 of her statement, she sets out various statements which were made by Pastor Scot. They include statements such as the best thing that any Muslim can do is to take part in the Holy War in which Muslims will loot people, destroy houses, kill men, take women and children and become very rich, and Muslim people have to fight, unless everybody become Muslim, unless they accept true religion. Muslim men are superior to Muslim women and that the Qur'an confers upon them the right to beat women. There are various other allegations contained in the paragraphs.
58	Ms Jackson said that Pastor Scot conveyed such statements in a unilateral uncontested dialogue and at times in a sarcastic and sneering tone. She was of the belief that the behaviour and conduct of her community and the Islamic faith was misrepresented at the seminar and that the image of Muslims in Australia had been severely damaged as a result. She said that it was apparent to her that throughout the presentation Pastor Scot ridiculed what Muslims believe and repeatedly invoked laughter form the audience when describing apparent Muslim beliefs. The overall atmosphere she describes as being one of denigration and ridicule of Muslims and the Islamic faith.
59	She said that she observed Pastor Scot work on and with the emotions of the audience by provoking scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims. For example, she said that he pointed out conflicts involving Muslims in different parts of the world and said that in Australia Muslims are the same but just hiding it. She said that he implied that Muslim people were violent, intolerant and have ill intent and that Islam will dominate the future of Australia, unless non-Muslims "rise up" to prevent this.
60	She indicated that Pastor Scot invoked negative responses from the audience and that she could recall hearing murmurs, groans, sniggering and laughter from members of the audience. She formed the view that the audience was encouraged to be afraid. She stated that at the lunch break a person, whose identity she did not know, spoke to her and asked her whether she enjoyed the first session and commented that "it was a bit heavy, a bit scary" and that she was scared. Ms Jackson said that she saw this as a direct incitement of fear. She said that she left the seminar at approximately 2:00pm because she was so uncomfortable being there. She indicated that she was shocked, disturbed, insulted and outraged by what she had observed.
61	She also attested to having read a copy of "Catch the Fire" newsletter (purporting to be for the period Summer 2001) which she obtained from the Islamic Council of Victoria following her attendance at the seminar. She believed that much of the content of the newsletter vilifies her on the basis of her Islamic faith. In particular, in paragraph 17, subparagraphs (a) to (h), she interpreted the newsletter stated that the enemy, that is the faith of Islam, had plans to take the land (Australia); that Muslims by their marriage and birthing practices will rapidly increase as a percentage of the Australian population and overtake "Aussies"; that they will infiltrate all aspects of Australian public and religious life for the purpose of stopping the name of Jesus being mentioned and spying on western governments; that the motto of the Muslim is to convert the whole world to Islam either by peace or violence and suggested that Muslims will engage in the same kind of violence in Australia as engaged by those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre on September 11 2001; that Muslims were gaining entry to Australia ahead of and in preference to Christians from Islamic countries and suggested that Muslims who gain entry to Australia were capable of and would engage in the same kind of violent conduct against Christians in Australia.
62	She also referred to an article entitled "An Insight into Islam" by Richard, dated 24 September 2001, which is located on the Catch The Fire Ministries Inc. website. Insofar as that article is concerned, she asserts that it suggested Islam was an inherently violent religion and that claims by Muslims that Islam was a religion which encompassed the values of love and peace were false; that it was not possible to separate Islam from terrorist groups and that Muslims who claim such groups were "rogue" or separate were lying, implied that Islam and Muslims endorsed the killing and enslavement of whole groups of people based upon their religion, giving an alleged example from the Qur'an about killing of tribes of Jews; characterised the Prophet as a paedophile; described the Qur'an as calling for atrocities on civilisation; characterised terrorism as the very nature of Islam itself; characterised the Qur'an as a text which teaches the killing of innocent in order to further a cause and teaches hate and not love and finally implied that those responsible for the events of September 11 engaged in conduct in pursuance of the teachings of the Qur'an and that terrorism was "intimately tied to Islamic ideals". She concluded by asserting that having read this material that she was hurt, embarrassed and distressed and finally that she held a belief that the seminar, newsletter and article are incitement to ridicule and fear and that their purpose could not possibly have been for genuine academic or religious reasons.
63	When she was cross-examined she said that May Halou had advised her about the seminar and she felt that she had concerns about it and she asked her to go along. This conversation occurred the night before the seminar and the Islamic Council of Victoria was present there as part of a Muslim convert support group. The concern expressed to her was that Christians were going to hold a seminar of Islam without any Muslims being present and there was also concern about the concept of the “rise up Australia”. Further, there was concern about the nature and tone and flavour of the advertising in conjunction with the fact that it was not a two-way debate. Ms Jackson said she went home that night not committed to going the next day. Halou then rang her on the following day and asked her whether she would go and Jackson said that because she had no commitments she agreed to do so. The phone call occurred around about 8:30am. She arrived at the seminar at 11:00am and did not know what time the seminar actually commenced. She said that when she arrived at the seminar she picked up a brochure which had on it “Rise up Now or Pay the Price” and she said she wasn’t sure what the words “Pay the Price” meant. She said that since the seminar she had checked, not every reference to the Qur’an which was used by Pastor Scot, but she had checked some, and often what was quoted wasn’t in accordance with the Qur’an. She said that she could not list suras by number, but she could refer to some of the things that were said which were not a correct reading of the Qur’an. She said that topics which were misquoted were Jihad, martyrdom, the story about the boys in the cave and references to killing and looting and booty. She said that in relation to the word “booty” when she looked up the Qur’an, she found the words “spoils”, rather than “booty”. Her attention was then directed to the Qur’an Pickthall translation and to verse 19 there is a reference to “booty” and she agreed that the word appeared there. She said that she had been a Muslim for some four years, but that she is not a scholar in the Qur’an. She conceded that if Pastor Scot said that he had read the Qur’an as many times as he had and that was accurate, then he would have a better understanding than she would as to what was in the Qur’an, but she still was of the opinion that some of the quotes from the Qur’an were, in her opinion, incorrect.
64	In response to a question from Mr Perkins, she said that some parts of the Qur’an are inconsistent with other parts. She said that despite the inconsistencies, she believes that it is the word of God and she tries to live the message of the Qur’an in her life. She said that when she reads the Qur’an and the commentary and footnotes that refer to inconsistencies and abrogation she takes them into account and does not ignore them. She was asked whether she had studied the Hadiths and she said that she had one volume, which is basic Hadith, but beyond that she hadn’t studied them. She conceded that the Hadiths are a primary source of the obligation for a Muslim when studying the Qur’an.
65	She said that she met Eades at the seminar at the lunch break and they had a discussion about what they had heard. She said Eades was upset at what he had heard and, indeed it had added to her upset. She said he was nearly in tears and shocked. She said that when Eades spoke to Pastor Scot she herself joined in after a while and told him that he was inciting fear. She said people were then gathering around and Pastor Scot said something in his defence, but she cannot recall what was actually said. She said that she was part of a Muslim group called the “Revert Support Group” who are a group of people that have converted to Islam and that the witness Malcolm Thomas was also a member, although Eades is not. She said she left the seminar prior to Thomas arriving because she had had enough. She said she did not know that Thomas was coming. She said that she telephoned Halou and gave her impressions of the seminar.
66	Jackson said that she was aware of Islamic militant action and that the militants adopt interpretations of the Qur’an and she said that she believed that the interpretations by the militants were not in accordance with the Qur’an and what they do in the name of Islam distorts Islam.
67	She agreed that May Halou was employed by the Equal Opportunity Commission and she agreed that Halou encouraged her to go along to the seminar to ascertain whether her pre-existing opinions about the seminar would turn out to be right or wrong.
68	She said that around the time of the seminar, Islam was under the spotlight in the sense that people were saying that terrorists are Muslims and Muslims are terrorists and that they’re interchangeable. She agreed that that was a topic of public importance and at the time of her evidence still was. Further, that there was public debate about the subject and material was published by the Islamic Council of Victoria. She agreed that between September 11 and the seminar there was a greater attention paid to Muslims and their beliefs and such issues were in the public domain and that the debate had continued up to the seminar and indeed that the seminar was a response to demand. Passages from the seminar were put to her at a time she wasn’t present, when Pastor Scot said that Christians should love Muslims. Her reply was that she heard the speaker calling Muslims liars and that to turn around later and then say, well, we should love them, didn’t add up for her.
69	Malcolm Arthur Thomas gave evidence and produced witness statements. He said that he had been of the Islamic faith for a period of 18 years. He attended the seminar between 3:30pm and 5:00pm. He took notes of the seminar and typed them soon after as a record of what he had witnessed and heard. He has also listened to the audio tapes. He said that he could recall Pastor Scot saying that almost 50 percent of the Islamic population were women and they had no choice to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. Pastor Scot said that Muslim children are not free to accept Jesus as their Lord or Saviour. Further, he described an incident where a Muslim male became Christian and he was dragged out of the church and badly beaten because the Muslim culture does not allow young men or women to decide for Jesus. He heard Pastor Scot say that violence in the Islamic culture is very common, in that not only are children beaten, but wives are also beaten. Pastor Scot said that the Qur'an "says that scourge your wife. You know what scourging means? It is like whipping of a slave". He asserted that the statements made by Pastor Scot at the seminar were based on inaccurate interpretations of the Islamic faith and at times entirely inappropriate. He said it was apparent to him throughout the presentation that Pastor Scot mocked and ridiculed what Muslims believed. He also said that he observed Pastor Scot working on the emotions of the audience by provoking scorn, fear and hatred of Muslims. He said he was concerned about what the possible consequences of the misrepresentation at the seminar of the Islamic faith and what effect it would have on the image of the Muslims in Australia. He said that what was said by Pastor Scot invoked fear, that he was hurt and distressed by what he heard and was also intimidated and frightened and apprehensive for his own safety had it been discovered that he was a Muslim. He said that he had read the Catch the Fire Newsletter for Summer 2001, which he obtained from the Islamic Council of Victoria after attending the seminar. He asserts that much of the content of the Newsletter vilifies him on the basis of his faith. He interpreted the Newsletter as describing plans for Muslims to take over Australia; that Muslims by their marriage and birthing practices were increasing their percentage of the population; that they are infiltrating the Australian public and religious life; that Muslims have an intention to convert the world to Islam by peace or violence and will engage in the same type of violence as September 11; accused unidentified Islamic countries of deliberate slaughter and torture of Christians; suggested that Muslims were gaining entry to Australia ahead of and in preference to Christians; and Muslims who gained entry to Australia were capable of the same kind of violent conduct against Christians in Australia. He had also read the article "An Insight into Islam" by Richard and made similar complaints about its content as was made by Jackson. He asserted that the seminar Newsletter and article are an incitement to ridicule and fear and that they could not possibly be considered religious discussion or academic content and that what was said disturbed him and made him frightened.
70	Mr Thomas made a further Witness Statement with regard to Pastor Scot's statement and he asserts that at no stage in the presentation did Pastor Scot make it clear that he was referring to views expressed or published by others. The presentation came across as if Pastor Scot was presenting his views of the Muslim faith. Insofar as Pastor Scot's Witness Statement is concerned, he asserts that paragraphs 34 and 35 stated by Pastor Scot that the vast majority of Muslims did not know the Qur'an and that the manner and presentation by him when referring to Islamic beliefs, reinforce the impression that there was one true interpretation of Islam and he was presenting that view. Furthermore, the manner of presentation was emotive and used sarcasm and adopted a mocking tone. He asserts that when Pastor Scot referred to the need to love Muslims the words were in fact inconsistent with the manner of his presentation and what he was saying about Muslims in general. He said that the presentation portrayed Muslims as dumb, childish, incapable of thinking for themselves, misguided and therefore dangerous.
71	Insofar as the Witness Statement of Mark Durie is concerned, he refers to paragraph 33 and 34 of Durie's Witness Statement and said that slides were presented, but they were not a prominent feature of the presentation and he did not believe that they had the effect of making the presentation more academic, clinical or analytical. His assessment of Pastor Scot's manner was not consistent with an academic presentation. He assessed the reactions of the audience as one of ridicule and of mocking laughter. The audience was not relaxed and was very excited. He said that he felt frightened during the presentation. He said that it was he who asked Pastor Scot the question with regard to the relationship between Muslims and Christians.
72	When cross-examined he said that he did not put the fact that he asked a question of this nature in his witness statement and he denied that the omission was because it did not suit his purpose. He conceded that Pastor Scot's answer was not violent or threatening.
73	A number of questions were directed to him as to how he came to attend the seminar at the relevant time, namely 3:30pm. He confirmed that he was the then Secretary of the Islamic Council of Victoria and that he had had a discussion with one May Halou, who had told him that a seminar was being conducted on Islam and would he be interested in attending. Halou is a member of the Executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria and chair of the Islamic Women's network. He said that he told her he possibly would go along, but did not tell her when. He said he made a decision about 2:00pm that afternoon to go along, when he had finished his responsibilities at home. He said that he had no knowledge of what had been said that day prior to his attendance. He did however later attend a meeting at the Islamic Council of Victoria offices at which Jackson, Eades and Soliman were present. The purpose of the meeting he said was to collect their thoughts on what each person had heard at the seminar and decide if there was any thing that should be done about it. He was unaware as to whether any notes were taken of the meeting. It was put to Thomas that in fact the attendance at the seminar by various people connected with the Islamic Council of Victoria was deliberate in that they had staggered their times so as to fit in with each other and thereby have someone present during the whole of the seminar. He denied that that was so.
74	He was asked questions about how people reacted during the course of the seminar during his attendance. He said it was conducted in a very intimidating, mocking way. He agreed that Pastor Scot's reply to his question was benign and unintrusive, but other words were said within the context of the seminar, which had people laughing, which had people mocking, which had people looking at each other in horror, had people saying hallelujah and amen and that it was quite an intimidating environment. His attention was directed to a passage from the Qur'an which was read by Pastor Scot dealing with three men and a dog and he said that from his point of view Pastor Scot was mocking the Qur'an. He also said that the story which he read from the Qur'an was not accurate.
75	I have set out in detail the nature of the complaint made by each individual. I do so because, although the proceedings are brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria in a representative capacity, it is the individuals who were at the seminar and heard and saw what took place. The original complaint to the Tribunal, together with the Witness Statements, sets out what they observed and heard and the precise way in which they believe that what occurred amounted to vilification. That said, it is for the Tribunal to determine what amounts to vilification, having regard to, and listening to the tape and consideration of the Newsletter and article. However, what was contained in the statements and given in evidence does have a limited probative value. For example, each of the Complainants conceded that they were not “Islamic scholars” but were converts to Islam, but used the Qur’an as a basis for their beliefs and the manner in which they conducted their lives. They were cross-examined about their views of historical events and as to their accuracy and understanding of them by Mr Perkins. Whether their understanding of events or the underlying basis of Islam is correct or not, it is not relevant. Each of them were witnesses, which I found to be straight forward (subject to one exception which I will deal with in due course) and held a belief in their religion which was genuine and, I believe, firmly held.
76	As indicated, I found the evidence of Eades, Jackson and Thomas as genuine. However, there is one aspect of what was said which causes me considerable difficulty. It is quite clear, in my view, that there was, in all probability, a plan to ensure that each of these individuals attended the conference at particular times in order to hear what went on. Their attendance at the seminar on that day conveniently covered almost all of what was said and done. It is asserted by Eades and Thomas that their presence was accidental. Jackson said that she was rung by Hayou at 8.30 on the morning and she agreed to go. I find the evidence of Eades and Thomas difficult to comprehend. I have given their evidence less weight than I would otherwise have done having regard to this doubt as to their reliability. On the other hand, their descriptions of Pastor Scot in working on the emotions of those present is supported when one listens carefully to the tape and to the responses.
77	The use of their evidence is confined to the fact that these individuals attended the seminar and their evidence is probative of method of delivery and conduct of what took place. The real question is the weight which should be given to such evidence, given that these were subjective interpretations of what was said, taking into account that it was a subject matter which went to the basis of their religious belief. The extent to which they were upset at what they saw and heard is a factor to be taken into account. Each said that they were very upset at the proceedings and, indeed, Eades said that he was in tears. That fact must also be taken into account in determining their objectivity.
78	The extent to which such evidence can be used was discussed by Hely J in Jones v Scully. His Honour observed that people affected by what was said and done was subjective, but was admissible to the limited extent that a court or tribunal can use such evidence, but it is not determinative of the actual result. Therefore it may be used in a narrow fashion. Furthermore, even if the three individuals did not attend the seminar, it would not prevent the complaint from being made to the Equal Opportunity Commission and to this Tribunal subject to proof. (See the comment in Jones v Scully at paragraph 99).
79	The newspaper and article were such as to lead to a much wider audience. In fact, I believe that is the reason why the legislature, both in this State and other jurisdictions, have made clear that it is an objective test to be applied. It is the concept of the reasonable person possessing particular attributes by which the test is to be applied, not particular individuals whose sensitivities, be they well held or otherwise, may be subjected to.

The Transcript and Tapes

80

I turn to the transcript of the seminar which extends to some 110 pages. As I have indicated, it took place over the course of the day and I do not intend to set out each and every passage which may constitute a breach of Section 8. The following passages are sufficient to make out a breach applying the test which I have set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of these reasons. I also make the point that I believe it is important to have regard to the cumulative effect of the statements made by Pastor Scot. One utterance standing alone may not be significant, but when regard is had to the totality of what was said, it makes the complainant's case cogent.

During the course of the seminar, Pastor Scot made the following statements:

(1) that the Qur'an promotes violence and killing - p.4; T24 (looting, killing and destroying people - good for Muslim people - p.24;

(2) Muslim scholars misrepresent what the Qur'an says by varying the emphasis depending upon the audience - pp.4-5;

(3) that the Qur'an teaches that women are of little value, e.g.:

(a) woman is like a field to plough, use her as you wish - p.6;

(b) in the Hadith Bukhari woman, dog and donkey are of equal value influencing prayer of a Muslim man.

(4) that Allah is not merciful. The thief's hand is cut off for stealing. Mohammed did not spare anybody. Amputation occurs for even the stealing of an egg - p.10;

(5) Muslims lie for the sake of Islam and that it is "all right", they have to hide the truth - pp.10-11;

(6) Muslims are demons - pp.13-14;

(7) the practice of abrogation, that is cancellation of words from the Qur'an and Hadiths solely to fit some particular purpose or personal need - pp.14-17;

(8) the concept of Silent Six Jihad, some of which are use of business connections - p.6; using money to induce people to convert to Islam - p.17; training of Muslims in Madrassahs and the statement there are millions of people right now under training in Madrassahs implying a threat to Australia;

(9) People do study for six to seven years they become true Muslims. And we call them terrorists, but they are true Muslim; they have read the Qur'an, they have understood it and now they are practising it, that is the connection between the Qur'an and terrorism - p.19;

(10) Muslims intend to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic nation - p.23;

(11) Mohammed trained the entire nation and he took literally, part in the Holy War. He showed Muslims how pleasant it is and if you are killed in the Holy War you can be brought back to life because dying as a martyr is such a wonderful thing - p.32; Allah will remit the sins of martyrs and bring them into paradise, a reference to a connection to suicide bombing - p.33; parents bringing up their children for martyrdom, where there is a reference to a teenage son will be a suicide bomber and if killed he can intercede for his mother and father and relatives - p.34;

(12) Muslim people have to fight Christians and Jews - p.38; humiliate them - p.39; fight them until they accept true religion - p.40.

(13) After reference to the bombing of the Trade Centre in New York it is mentioned that the person who masterminded it stated that "The Holy War is the spirit, it is the soul of Islam. If you remove it, nothing left, so that is the truth about the matter" - p.

(14) That the Qur'an states that Allah misleads and deceives people - p.48, and referred to Allah as the greatest deceiver - p.50. The Qur'an states that there is a "list of sins which Muslims are not supposed to do, however if needed, then that's a different story. But we will look at later. Sin is a relative thing in Islam" - p.55, and that Allah says if you will not commit sin, Allah will destroy you - p.56.

(15) That Muslims are taught that children should obey their parents, but if the parents are not Muslim, then children have a responsibility to mistreat them and to deal with them harshly, so when you are true Muslim, as you know David Hicks, you have heard of him, now he has responsibility to do that because he is true Muslim. So when true Muslim, you have to destroy your relative and so on, so that's the commandment of Allah, you cannot just ignore it - p.59-60.

(16) There is a reference to the Qur'an allows the use by Muslims of prostitutes - p.60-61.

(17) Allah says "Do not covet", that's a good thing, but then Allah says if you are true Muslim, Allah has promised you plenty of spoil, so you go for looting, you go for Holy War and Allah will give you a lot of spoil - p.64. That the Qur'an allows a Muslim to have a child wife because the holy prophet was in his fifties when he married a seven year old girl.

(18) That Muslims derive money from drugs, so they make a lot of money and they can spread Islam and fulfil their desire - p.71.

(19) Refers to the fact that it was thought that he was Muslim and had converted to Christianity, what would be the responsibility of fundamentalists in that respect, to which the audience said "Kill, kill". That in Australia in Islamic houses violence is very common because they know that beating is not wrong according to the Qur'an. Allah says "Scourge your wife" - p.95. That Muslims in Australia double their population in less than seven years. They are growing because they control the Immigration Department - p.97.

81

It should be noted that from time to time there is talk of witnessing to Muslims. There is also talk about how to socialise with them and to do all things necessary to convert them to Christianity. Further, if one looks at objectively what took place and applied the test set out in Kazak, then I am of the view that the seminar taken as a whole breaches section 8 of the Act because it incites hatred, contempt and revulsion because of the religious beliefs of Muslims. Furthermore, there are many passages in the transcript which are designed to ridicule Muslims. These statements about Muslims and their religious beliefs and practices produce laughter from the audience. Examples are contained at pp.18-19, 33, 37, 44, 46, 48. As an example, it is stated that Allah has 99 names and the Hadith "tells us Allah has actually hundred names, but the hundredth name is not known to Muslim people, that's only known to a camel. So you have to inquiry from a camel to find out the hundredth name". There are numerous other stories throughout the seminar of a similar kind, and looked at objectively are designed to ridicule Muslims and their beliefs.

In support of the view that much of the seminar was concerned with the witnessing to Muslims, reference should be made to the evidence of the witness Mathews, who states that the prominent feature of the seminar was an injunction to love Muslims. It may well be that this was part of the reason for the seminar. However, it does not fit well with an examination of the substantial part of the seminar, which is clearly anti-Muslim. On any view it mocks their religious beliefs and practices, that is, that they live their lives substantially in accordance with Qur'anic injunctions. Although I have serious reservations about the explanation about witnessing to Muslims, I am prepared to accept that, viewed objectively, it could be accepted as such. However, that fact does not justify what was otherwise said by Pastor Scot.

EXPERT EVIDENCE

82

The Tribunal is not bound by the rules as to evidence but may inform itself on any matter as it sees fit (section 98 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998). However, it has been traditional to apply the rules of evidence because they are an established set of principles developed by the superior Courts over many years and which are designed to ensure fairness between the parties to the litigation. Their application in a Tribunal setting assists in doing that which it is required to do, namely, act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case in all proceedings - see s.97 of the Act. I therefore propose to follow the rules of evidence in these proceedings, and in particular in respect of expert evidence, and only to part from it, if at all, when circumstances demand.

83

Opinion evidence may be given if a witness has practical experience which is such as affords his opinion greater weight than that of an ordinary person (see Bennett v. R (1998) 144 F.L.R. 311).

In FGT Custodians Pty Ltd v. Fagenblat [2003] V.S.C.A. 33, Ormiston JA said at page 43:

"Of course an expert may, in forming his opinion, have regard to the wide variety of facts of a general kind which by reason of experience and training, that witness has come to know as part of the general background knowledge of the relevant area of their expertise, but a court is not entitled to accept as established fact, a factual conclusion reached by an expert, the foundations of which is to explicitly stated and which is not the subject of direct evidence before the court".

The Court in particular referred to the decision of Heydon JA in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v. Sprowles [2001] N.S.W.C.A. 305 that it is clear that the expert must either prove by admissible evidence the facts on which the opinion is based or state explicitly the assumptions as to fact on which the opinion is based.

84

In these proceedings, evidence was given of historical matters reaching back to the 7th Century. Indeed, it was these matters which Pastor Scot used in the seminar and continued to advance in the course of his evidence. These related to such matters as the conduct of the prophet, in that Century. That conduct at the seminar in using factual conclusions about matters such as what occurred in Mecca and Medina and the actions of the prophet in those years are facts which cannot be the subject matter of proof in any direct way. Yet those facts were used by Pastor Scot in the seminar to explain the interpretation of Qur'anic verses.

They are historical matters. An expert can, however, express a view on how they may be accepted by the Tribunal as to their meaning. Islamic experts can and do express their views based upon the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the literature. Precisely the same process would be applied with regard to Biblical material and the history of Christianity.

This problem is not unique in Milirrpun & Ors v. Nabalco Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth [1972] 73 A.L.R. 65 per Blackburn J. This case deals with opinions of two anthropologists who gave evidence with regard to Aboriginal tradition. This was in support of a land title claim. Of necessity they had to rely upon hearsay evidence in the form of oral statements passed by generations of Aboriginal elders. At pages 92-93 of his judgment, Blackburn J said:

"... In my opinion it is permissible for an anthropologist to give evidence in the form 'I have studies the social organisation of these Aborigines. This study indicates observing their behaviour, talking to them, reading the published works of other experts; applying principles of analysis and verification which are accepted as valued in the field of anthropology. I express the opinion as an expert that proposition X is true of their social organisation'".

He concludes:

"In my opinion, such evidence is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it is based partly on statements made to the expert by the Aboriginals".

85

In these situations, the expert is taking explicitly the assumptions as to fact on which he expresses his expert opinion. This is what Professor Kazi does, for example, when he explains a particular interpretation of the Qur'an or the Hadith. He brings to that task an impressive list of qualifications, and as an expert is able to place a particular verse in context and to give it an understanding as to its nature, which may be contrary to a simple literal interpretation. However, like all expert evidence, it is simply material which the Court may rely upon in coming to a conclusion, and in particular to give it what weight it believes it deserves. For example, in Professor Kazi's situation there are some aspects which require consideration which I will deal with in due course and which ultimately go to the weight of such evidence.

Evidence of Father McInerney

86	Father Patrick McInerney described himself as a Catholic priest, missionary, and resides at the Columbian Mission Institute in New South Wales.
87	A copy of his Statement, dated 15 August 2003, was tendered in evidence. Paragraph 4 of that Statement sets out his qualifications to comment as an expert. Prior to making his Statement on 15 August 2003 he was provided with a number of documents, that is the Complaint, the Defence, a list of the Respondent's documents, advertisements downloaded from the Catch The Fire Ministries Inc. (CTFM) and the newsletter.
88	He said that when he prepared his Expert Witness Statement he did so having regard to those documents which I have listed and addressed his mind to the question which was asked of him, namely will they constitute a fair and true representation of Islam. Subsequent to the preparation of that statement he has read a transcript of the seminar, the copy of the Witness Statement of Pastor Daniel Scot, the Witness Statement of Mark Durie and he listened to the tapes of the seminar. He said that when he listened to the tapes of the seminar nothing in them altered or qualified in any way the expressions which are contained within his Witness Statement. In answer to the question of whether the seminar represented a fair and true representation of Islam he gave the following response:

"I do not regard that this seminar gave a true, accurate and representative view of Islam."

89	Father McInerney's qualifications include, between 1983 and 1986, the completion of a Licentiate in Rome. This dealt with a study of Arabic and Islamic studies at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic studies. This ecclesiastical degree is said to be the equivalent of a Masters in a sectorly university in Australia. In addition, he has spent a very substantial period of time in Pakistan which is a largely Muslim country. Further, in 2001 to 2002, he completed a Masters in Theology at Yarra Theological Union, an associated teaching institute of the Melbourne College of Divinity. His major thesis, entitled "Reconciling Differences Between Religions", was one which attracted first class honours. Since 2002, he has been a staff member of the Columbian Centre for Christian/Muslim Relations in the Columbian Mission Institute presently located in New South Wales.
90	He asserts, and I accept his qualifications to comment on the material are his formal post graduate degrees in both Islam and Christianity and most especially the long and wide experience over 20 years in Pakistan. During cross-examination he elaborated on his knowledge of Islam in response to questions from Mr Perkins.
91	He was asked what studies he had made of Islamic religious literature. He said that his initial studies in the seminary included some study in Islam, although it was not exhaustive. In 1983 he went to Rome and did a three year degree in Arabic and Islamics and the course included teaching of the Arabic language, the life of the Prophet, the Qur'an, commentaries on the Qur'an and courses on Shari'a Islamic law. It included courses on the history and expansion of Islam and, as well, the current constitution of some countries and how they apply Islamic law and he has also read various books about the subject. In Pakistan he said he was pastor in a parish so was quite busy in administering to the Christian community, but at times he did teach courses on Islam for which he had to prepare and therefore to read text again, and in the course of his present work at the Centre for Christian Muslim Relations he has been able to read further, including doing research on the internet and looking at various websites. He was asked about he primary sources on the life of Mohammed and he said the first would be the Qur'an, the second the Hadith materials and there were also biographies. He was asked what primary sources he had made use of in relation to the comments of Pastor Scot and he said that he had read the transcript of the seminar which provides quotations from the Holy Qur'an and Hadith material. He said that all Muslims are obliged to follow Mohammed's teachings as recorded in the Hadiths.
92	He was asked about what study he had made of the Qur'an itself and he said that he had read parts of it, he had done a course as part of his studies in Rome on the Qur'an and that the Qur'an is constantly referred to in Islamic sources on the life of the Prophet, on Hadith material, on the expansion of Islam, on the current interpretation of Islam and on the way Muslims today are interpreting the classical text of Islam. He said he had studied the Hadiths as part of his degree studies in Rome. He conceded that he had never read either the Qur'an or the Hadiths "right through".
93	He was asked about the question of whether, in relation to internal Islamic politics, there are people who describe themselves as moderate and whether there are other groups who are described by the moderates as being extremists, to which he replied in the affirmative.
94	The methodology adopted by him in preparing his Witness Statement was to compare various paragraphs set out in the Particulars of Complaint and the Particulars of Defence and to comment on their accuracy. I do not propose to set out in detail the way in which he has dealt with each of these paragraphs. Briefly he states that:
(i)	While it is in the public interest for all citizens to have knowledge and awareness of Islamic texts (from which the laws of Jihad derive, it behoves the one who presents that information publicly to assure that the knowledge and awareness that is presented is accurate and representative, most specially when the leader of one religious group is presenting the faith of another religious group. Whilst he had heard and read derogatory comments about Islam from Christian speakers and authors and websites and equally about Christianity from Muslim speakers and authors and websites, such behaviour ultimately does more harm to the presenter than to the one who is so falsely represented.
(ii)	Whilst it is true that some Muslims have offered monetary advantage as a law to conversion, this is not the general practice of Muslims.
(iii)	It is unfortunate that much polemic about Islam focuses on Jihad and especially on Jihad as a military enterprise. This narrow focus on militancy does not represent the wider dimension of Jihad as struggled to overcome egotism. Nor does the focus on Jihad represent the wider reality of Islam as a religious movement that promotes worship of God, the practice of social justice, morality, ethics and spirituality. Furthermore, contrary to what is claimed in paragraph 12(a), the laws of Jihad do not establish the legal framework in Shari’a for the treatment of non-Muslims. The laws of Jihad concern the self defence of the Islamic community, some of which descriptions do not concern the treatment of non-Muslims. However, the corpus of descriptions of the Shari’a concerning the treatment of non-Muslims, as derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah are much wider than the limited descriptions of Jihad. Therefore, a proper understanding of the treatment of non-Muslim minorities cannot be obtained solely from a study of the Qur’anic text and teachings of Jihad.
(iv)	He concedes that one of the possible outcomes of a careful study of the Qur'an is radicalisation of the student, producing a readiness to commit to Jihad in the form of terrorism; that Islamic terrorists justify their acts on the grounds of teachings concerning Jihad found in the Qur'an and Hadith; that such teachings are presented in certain Islamic training centres; that certain Islamic training centres have been known to produce terrorists; and that certain leaders of Islamic training centres have also been linked to terrorist acts; such radicalisation is only one of the possible outcomes. In fact, he asserts the statement made in paragraph 10(c) of the Complaint is incorrect because most students of the Qur'an do not become radicalised, but rather become committed to fostering peace, justice and community among peoples. Finally, those rare students of the Qur'an who do become radicalised, he asserts it is not the Qur'anic text as such which has led them, but their teachers who use a particular extremist interpretation that is not shared by the bulk of Muslims throughout the world. He finally states that the extremists are a very small minority within Islam who do not represent the whole of Islam and are often publicly repudiated by the majority of Muslims around the world.
(v)	Insofar as paragraph 13 asserts, that if you don't become Muslim your head will be chopped off, if you don't pay the poll tax you have the option to leave the country and that if you don't do that your head shall be chopped off, is a statement designed to attain attention-grabbing sensationalism. He says that contrary to the claim made in that paragraph, the statement is not as claimed and accurate report of the classical laws of Jihad, based upon Qur'an and Hadith, indeed violates the cardinal principle of "no coercion in religion" (see Qur'an 2.256). Finally, with regard to these comments, he does not deny that Muslims sometimes have not abided by this principle, just as it is admitted that sometimes Christians have practised forced conversion under penalty of death.
(vi)	He states that when asserting what the text of another religion says, especially when the issue is controversial and sensitive, it is better to cite the actual text rather than to give a free translation. He then proceeds to give examples of differences in various translations and how they differ. Furthermore, he points out that Qur'anic verse has application to a specific context at a particular time and it is not an incitement to random violence against all neighbours at all times. He points out that some Qur'anic verses refer to a particular time and place when the Nascent Islamic Community was still vulnerable and under attack and needed all able-bodied men to defend itself and he states it is not a general commandment for all times and all places. He states that the popular rhetoric of paragraph 10(h) does not represent mainstream teaching.
(vii)	He states it is a consistent mistake to translate the verb "yuJaHiDun" as "Holy War", that is, a military campaign. The actual word means to strive, to struggle, to make an effort, and he sets out a series of translations to demonstrate that interpretation. He does so to illustrate that the military campaign (in his view) is only a small part of what is required of a Muslim, and only in the dire situation of imminent attack, may one resort to self defence.
(viii)	He states that the Christian tradition also extols those that have been martyred for the faith and proclaims them saints. That is, gives assurance that they have attained heaven and states that it's not surprising that the Islamic tradition would do the same. He asserts however that authentic martyrdom and suicide bombing are vastly different. The authentic teaching of both Christianity and Islam repudiates suicide bombing. He concedes that it is a fact that there are Muslims who have volunteered as suicide bombers, but they do not represent the vast bulk of Muslims around the world. The extremist interpretations that are used to beguile uncritical and disaffected young Muslims to this position are, in his view, repudiated by most Muslims.
(ix)	He rejects the proposed trajectory of Mohammed's career, from peaceful and tolerant when he was in a weak political position, to violent and intolerant when he was in a powerful political position, and states that it is not in accordance with the facts and he then sets out the historical facts by which he justifies such a conclusion.
(x)	Paragraph 38 is set out hereunder as it literally appears in the Statement. I have done so because the Statement commencing with the word "however" and ending with the word "wisdom" are facts which Mr Perkins did not take issue with Father McInerney.

"Admittedly, some Muslim sources down through the ages, including some Muslim extremists in our present day, have and do vaunt the military exploits of Mohammed and the early Christian community and urged their followers to a similar implementation today. However, these extremist views do not represent the bulk of Muslims throughout the world. In fact, most Muslims down through the ages, and including the present moment, are peaceful, decent, God fearing, honest citizens, trying to feed and educate their children in sometimes trying circumstances, leading moral and ethical lives, sometimes exemplifying the attainment of great spiritual wisdom."

(xi)	With regard to the complaint in paragraph 11 and the defence reply in paragraph 14 he states that while it is admittedly "in the public interest and in accordance with legitimate religious purposes that these perspectives on Mohammed's life be studied", it is incumbent on the presenter to inform the public that this is one particular perspective only on the life of Mohammed; that it is not the most commonly held perspective; that it is in fact a minority perspective; that it is not the only perspective and that there are others and these have a wider acceptance among the majority of Muslims who have studied the original sources and the tradition as a whole and that a failure to inform the public of the status of one's own perspective does leave one open to the charge of having misinformed the public whom one purports to serve.
(xii)	He also criticises the selectivity of such matters as comments concerning the life of Mohammed, Qur'anic text, Hadith material, scholarly treatises literature and even modern day actual incidents. He concludes that people of reasonable good will, be they Muslim or Christian, would say that such a one-sided selective treatment does not adequately represent Islam, Mohammed or the great bulk of Muslim history down through the ages or the great bulk of Muslims throughout the world today.
(xiii)	He states that certain aspects of Jihad reasonably conclude that Jihad is for defensive purposes, whilst other aspects would allow one to reasonably conclude that it is for aggressive expansionist purposes. Again he criticises the way the Jihad has been dealt with in the seminar, using selectivity and the final presentation is a one-sided distortion of Jihad. That view of Jihad is embraced by a tiny majority of extremists and that the position is that most Muslims throughout history and in today's world would not recognise and accept it as an authentic representation of mainstream Islam. He concludes that when presenting another faith such as Islam to a Christian audience or indeed presenting Christianity to Muslims, clarity and justice demand that it be done adequately and fairly.
(xiv)	Father McInerney in his statement is also critical of the treatment of the Madrassahs in Pakistan. He concedes that they have produced radicals and extremists who became activists in Afghanistan and in Kashmir. He criticises what he calls the populous rhetoric of millions as inaccurate, as is the implication that such extremism is characteristic of true Muslims, let alone most Muslims throughout the world who would be appalled at the indoctrination of gullible students that sometimes takes place in such Madrassahs. He concedes that there has been anti-Christian violence and other bloody incidents in Pakistan, but states that these have been deplored by the majority of people in Pakistan, including many, but not all, Muslim religious leaders. Finally, he asserts that the Madrassahs have not been the only cause of such violent acts and he refers to the wider issues of poor education, corruption in society at all levels of the bureaucracy, administration, police, court and politics, which causes frustration and despair and sows the seeds for extremist solutions.
(xv)	He refers to the sensationalist account of Qur'an 48:18/20 which includes the following:

"You will loot people, you will destroy their houses, you will kill men, you will take women and children and you will become very rich."

He then sets out three translations of the same verses for purposes of comparison and contrast. He asserts that the oral sensationalist rendering is far from the exposure of the nature and true nature of the religious teaching or religious text.

(xvi)

Whilst he supports robust and critical exposition of Islamic teachings and text, it should be no different from Christian teachings and text. He indicates that it is important to present such material by placing it in perspective so as to provide balance and adequate representation. Paragraph 62 of his Statement is in the following terms:

"Yes, the Qur'an and the Hadith include many passages which some might reasonably regard as offensive and even shocking, but so does the Bible, including the New Testament. What matters in this regard for both Muslims and Christians, and sadly sometimes Ministers and Imams, lack the proper critical scholarship that the task requires, is proper interpretation of their scriptures. It is inappropriate to apply text from 1^st Century Palestine or 7^th Century Arabia to 21^st Century Australia."

He then sets out examples of the inappropriate application of ancient text to modern society. For example, relationship between husband and wife and the issue of beatings, which the Qur'an 4.34 condones or sanctions and is no different than the conduct of Christian courts of medieval Europe where men were allowed to beat their wives with sticks, with criminal impunity, so long as they were no thicker than a person's thumb, also known as the "rule of thumb". A controversial example of the marriage of Mohammed to Aiishah and the subsequent consummation of that marriage in 623 when she was still a young girl is such that it is all too easy and inaccurate for controversialists of our day to impugn Mohammed for his action in terms of ethical, cultural and moral sensitivities of the 21^st Century. But he notes that girls of that era matured more quickly than do youths today, that Aiisha was not a pre-pubescent child at that time as some have alleged and that moral and ethical sensitivities of the contemporaries raise no objection at that time and that all reports indicate a happy marriage. However, misguided attempts by a few claim that behaviour as a precedent and a permission for entering into marriages with young girls, in very different circumstances of our day and are rightly condemned by all people of good will.

(xvii)

What is contested is whether the particular interpretation is representative of the practice of teachers and followers of Islam throughout history and whether it is representative of the bulk of Muslims today, including in Australia.

(xviii)

A substantial part of Father McInerney's statement deals with the subject of inter-religious dialogue, with particular focus on the way in which this is practiced in the Catholic Church. My interpretation of the statement with regard to this dialogue is that, while one as a Catholic person is duty bound to the teachings of the Church, that person is also required to respect other religious traditions and:

"acknowledge the commonalities they share, point out perceived deficiencies and whilst holding to the truth of the Catholic position is nonetheless encouraged to work for the common good. The Church therefore urges its members to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions."

(xix)	The Statement sets out in detail the concept of dialogue and juxtaposes that position with what occurred at the seminar.
(xx)	Finally, it is perhaps appropriate to set out paragraph 81 of the Statement which is in the following terms:

"One-sided, selective, literal archaic interpretations of certain teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith in our present day would admittedly induce fear and apprehension - as one-sided, selective, literal archaic interpretations of some Biblical text. Note well that is not all teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith and not all Biblical text, but only some. As always, the core issue is not that of the authenticity of the original sources, but of fair and representative selection and interpretation of those sources in the present day. (My emphasis).

95

Father McInerney was cross-examined over a number of days by Mr Perkins. He conceded that he had been active in interfaith dialogue for a number of years and that it was part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. He has addressed Jewish, Christian and Muslim seminars on questions of interfaith relations. When asked whether he spoke in favour of interfaith dialogue, he said that he did and, as indicated, that it was part of the teachings of the Catholic Church. In response to a question from me, Father McInerney said the interfaith dialogue is promoting mutual understanding between adherence of different faith communities. It can be simply a matter of what is called "a dialogue of life", where people live in the same neighbourhood and they get on with one another. It can be a dialogue of understanding, where people share their respective faith and the other person listens and grows in understanding, it is usually reciprocal.

96

He said that when he speaks at such meetings, he speaks as a Catholic priest. He said that his understanding of the seminar was that it was to give teaching about Islam, so that Christians would be able to - those who attended the seminar, the Christians who attended the seminar would be able to evangelise Muslims. He said that evangelisation is a complex topic, it is understood differently in different traditions and it is more usually a clear invitation for people to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour. He was asked whether it was a legitimate religious purpose to teach Christians to evangelise and he said that it was the duty of Christians to witness and to evangelise and that it is contained in the New Testament. His attention was drawn to the Columbian website and it was put to him that it contains all pro-Islam text. He denied that that was a fair statement. He agreed there were similarities between Islam and Christianity and at page 210 of the transcript set out the common beliefs. He conceded that under the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan a person found guilty faced a mandatory death sentence. He agreed that a topic such as "What is Holy Jihad", would produce different views and that as a Catholic priest the only way to decide between the various competing opinions would be to select the most reasonable and the most representative. Father McInerney was asked what did he understand by the expression "rise up Australia". He said that his general impression was that it was the type of language that is used in evangelical church traditions. It was put to Father McInerney that paragraphs 55 to 57 deal with Christian violence in Pakistan and he reaches a conclusion that one of the major problems for Pakistani Christians is not Islam, but the lack of it. He was asked what he meant by that and he relied that if Muslims in Pakistan followed the teachings and values that are in Islam, incidences against Christians and Christian property would not occur. Father McInerney's attention was directed to part of an article he had written entitled "Twenty Years in Pakistan". He conceded that what he wrote was not part of any authorised Catholic doctrine, but basically were his ideas. His attention was directed to a passage which reads as follows:

"The signs of hope are in the lives of the ordinary people. I know instances where Christians and Muslims are good friends. The image in the press is of bombing, sectarianism, outright killings which occur from time to time, but what never makes the newspapers of course is the 99 percent of people who get on with their lives with the basic human qualities of good ness, kindness and service, so I go with the spirit and make the most of the opportunities and render the negative side, the shadow side, as minimal as possible."

97	He conceded that that was highlighting the positive, rather than highlighting the negative. He said that he makes the most of opportunities in dialogue with people by promoting goodness, kindness, justice and service. He was asked how he proceeds to ignore the negative side and he said that there are atrocities committed in Pakistan. There are abuses of human rights committed in Pakistan against Christians and they are reported in the press, but the reality of life lived in the busy city of Lahore, is that most people get on with each other. Christians and Muslims in places live side by side as neighbours and he thought it important to promote to highlight that the majority get on well with each other. He conceded that he was giving evidence about his lived experience. He was asked about the passage in his witness statement where he states that it is in the public interest that people know about Islam and the Qur'an. He conceded there were passages in the Qur'an which spoke about killing captives and he replied by saying that if people want to know what is in the Qur'an they have a right to hear it and if others wish to present publicly what is in the Qur'an they have a right to present it and to be heard, but he would ask that the public presentation be fair, accurate and representative. He said the Qur'an was a sacred text and the significance of it for Muslims is that it is regarded as being the revealed speech of God and that it provides guidance for their living. He conceded there are schools of thought about the Qur'an which have observable differences and there is no formal school of thought which says that something is either right or wrong. He said the scholars who are known by the Arabic word as "Ulamar" have an honorific position of interpreting the Qur'an, but it's not absolutely held, and some scholars have a greater status than others.
98	He was asked what studies he had made of Islamic religious literature. He said that his initial studies in the seminary included some study in Islam, although it was not exhaustive. In 1983 he went to Rome and did a three year degree in Arabic and Islamics and the course included teaching of the Arabic language, the life of the Prophet, the Qur'an, commentaries on the Qur'an and courses on Shari'a Islamic law. It included courses on the history and expansion of Islam and, as well, the current constitution of some countries and how they apply Islamic law and he has also read various books about the subject. In Pakistan he said he was pastor in a parish so was quite busy in administering to the Christian community, but at times he did teach courses on Islam for which he had to prepare and therefore to read text again, and in the course of his present work at the Centre for Christian Muslim Relations he has been able to read further, including doing research on the internet and looking at various websites. He was asked about he primary sources on the life of Mohammed and he said the first would be the Qur'an, the second the Hadith materials and there were also biographies. He was asked what primary sources he had made use of in relation to the comments of Pastor Scot and he said that he had read the transcript of the seminar which provides quotations from the Holy Qur'an and Hadith material. He said that all Muslims are obliged to follow Mohammed's teachings as recorded in the Hadiths.
99	He was asked about what study he had made of the Qur'an itself and he said that he had read parts of it, he had done a course as part of his studies in Rome on the Qur'an and that the Qur'an is constantly referred to in Islamic sources on the life of the Prophet, on Hadith material, on the expansion of Islam, on the current interpretation of Islam and on the way Muslims today are interpreting the classical text of Islam. He said he had studied the Hadiths as part of his degree studies in Rome. He conceded that he had never read either the Qur'an or the Hadiths "right through".
100	He was asked about the question of whether, in relation to internal Islamic politics, there are people who describe themselves as moderate and whether there are other groups who are described by the moderates as being extremists, to which he replied in the affirmative.
101	He said that insofar as the seminar is concerned, what he objects to and does not believe to be accurate is that there is a clear implication that a true Muslim is one who carries out certain acts, e.g. some horrific events in Pakistan, and it's clearly implied that if they read the Qur'an and the Hadith they will come to this interpretation and that the propensity for violence is true Islam. He said he denied strenuously that they are representative of the bulk of Muslims either in Pakistan or in Australia, nor are they representative of a trajectory of 1,400 years of history.
102	Mr Perkins sought to put before Father McInerney a book entitled "The Reliance of the Traveller", which he described as a classic manual of Islamic sacred law. Father McInerney said that he had never heard of the book, nor it's author. His attention was directed to the back of the book where it was certified by Al Azar University, which is the Islamic University located in Cairo, to which he agreed.
103	In the course of this hearing, two approaches were taken by the respondents. The first, was to place in front of the witness a book or an article and to ask that witness whether he agreed with what was contained within certain passages and, if not, why not. Secondly, it was sought to tender various books at the hearing in support of the respondent's case. In the course of argument, I took the view that, firstly, it was quite open to a cross-examiner to put to a witness a statement contained within a book and to ask that witness whether it represented an accurate view of Islamic faith. Secondly, there was an attempt to tender certain books without the author being called, but which set out certain views. Finally, I took the view that ultimately the case should be conducted on the basis that a determination of the admissibility of the questions put to the witness or of the books themselves would be deferred pending my final decision.
104	Following that ruling, I haven taken the view that a party was entitled to place before a witness any statement, subject to relevance, from whatever source could be put to an expert witness, with a view to asking him whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposition about which he is giving expert evidence. I adopted that approach because it seemed to me that, when cross-examining a witness, a person could orally put to such an expert witness a proposition which is contained within the book without naming its source or, indeed, its provenance. I propose to continue to adopt that view on the basis that I believe that it is admissible evidence from a source, although not known to the witness, it is nonetheless, provided that it is relevant, can be asked of an expert witness.
105	A similar difficulty applies with regard to the tender of books. This matter was dealt with in Jones v Scully (2002) FCA 1080. At paragraph 82 of the decision, Hely J under the heading of Historical Evidence and Admissibility, made the following comments:

"There is very little by way of either case law or textbook commentary on the admissibility of historical evidence. However, the most authoritative case on the subject is the Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth [1951] HCA 5; (1951) 83 CLR 1. At 196 Dixon J sets out what have come to be regarded as the principles to be followed in deciding whether a particular historical work is admissible. His Honour said that the courts "may use the general facts of history as ascertained or ascertainable from the accepted writings of serious historians ... and employ the common knowledge of educated men upon matters and for verification referred to standard works or literature and the like.""

106

Dixon J further states that such historical facts may be ascertained or verified not from the polemics of the subject, but from serious studies and enquiries and historical narratives.

107

At paragraph 83 referred to the Australian Communist Party case being applied in Ritz Hotel v Charles of the Ritz (1987) 14 NSW LR 107, where McClennan J was concerned with a 1938 book, which was a memoir of the life of Cesar Ritz, written by his widow. The Trial Judge in that case applied Dixon J's principles, holding that the events described in the book were neither general facts of history, nor were they within the common knowledge of educated men. Further, His Honour said that the book itself was not among the accepted writings of serious historians, nor was it a standard work. See also Bellevue Crescent v Marland Holdings (1998) 43 NSW LR 364. After reviewing these authorities, Young J made the following observation:

"Whilst Courts may obtain the base of facts such as when a particular war broke out or other matters of record from reputable histories, analysis as to why certain things happened and generally how people behaved is not a matter which can be proved by the evidence of people who are not there, but that have ascertained the historical facts and then have analysed them to work out a conclusion."

108

Hely J took the view that although it may be that the respondent is convinced of the historical accuracy and truth of the information that is contained in the books, she has not established that they contain anything more than one person's point of view on a particular topic or topics. Further, that she had failed to establish that the historical evidence said to be contained in the books are "general facts of history" that are within the common knowledge of educated persons. Nor has she established that the books sought to be admitted by her are among the "accepted writings of serious historians" or that they are "standard works of literature". I propose to apply the principles which I have stated where they arise in this trial, subject to one caveat. In the Ritz case it was sought to be tendered as evidence of the facts was a book written by the widow of Cesar Ritz. As I understand it, the book was tendered as part of the respondent's case as primary evidence of the facts. There are many variations as to the manner in which such books can be treated.

1. If the book is tendered as part of one party's case in order to prove the facts contained therein, then it would certainly have to meet the test which is set out by Dixon J in the Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth.

2. On the other hand, a book may be tendered, or passages thereof, as part of cross-examination, with a view to determining whether the expert either accepts or rejects the book in general or portions thereof. If the witness accepts that the facts contained within the book, regardless of its provenance, in his expert view represent correct historical facts, then of course there would be no need for the tender of the book itself. However, where the witness does not accept what is stated in the book, then, in the absence of other evidence which indicate the general facts of history, I would reject its tender.

109	There seems to be no basis for the tender of a book which falls outside the parameters set in the Australian Communist Party v the Commonwealth, which sets out views which are rejected by the witness being cross-examined. In this case, Father McInerney, who was presented by the applicant as an expert in Islamic studies, was presented with the book in the course of cross examination. The book is entitled "The Reliance of the Traveller".
110	Insofar as the book "The Reliance of the Traveller" was concerned, Father McInerney said he had never heard of the book and Mr Woinarski objected to the contents being put to him. Mr Perkins asserted that as an expert he could comment on the principles that he was about to ask him, about which he could make comment. I accept that in the course of conduct under objection it was conceded that the book was published through Al Azar University, which is an Islamic University in Cairo. Certain passages of the book were then put to him for comment. Most of the propositions that were initially put to him were ones that he had not known about. At page 274 of the transcript, it was put to him by Mr Perkins that the world's Islamic literature includes this book, which was put out by a reputable University and stated to be a classic manual of sacred law. He was asked whether he was suggesting that it was not, to which he replied "Not at all". Furthermore, it was put to him that you don't suggest that they are not part of a classic statement of Shari'a law, to which he replied "No". It was further put to him that in the book, at page 598, it was asserted that, for Islam, politics and religion are one. After objections from Mr Woinarski, the question was withdrawn and Father McInerney was asked the question on the basis that leaving aside the assertion contained in the book, whether it was true to say that for Islam there is no real distinction between politics and religion, to which he replied "Yes".
111	Father McInerney was asked what he understood by the meaning of the work "apologetics", to which he replied "the word is defending one's own faith against criticisms made by another and answering those criticisms". He conceded that it was a subject taught in theological circles and that it was a religious exercise, although he had not played any part in it. He conceded that there was an injunction to Christians on the one hand and Muslims on the other, from their respective articles of faith, that they should go out and witness to those who do not share their faith and that the process is carried on as a public debate by both sides.
112	He said that the activity of evangelising, and that it is carried on by both sides, namely Christians and Muslims, wherein the latter it is described as "Dawa", the intent and activities however have the same purpose. He accepted that for a Christian evangelising Muslims can be a religious activity. Insofar as the concept of proselytism, in his view it was negative and something which he did not support and when asked to describe the difference he said that proselytising involved various inducements which may be material or ideological. He conceded that the seminar run by Pastor Scot and one of its underlying intentions was to allow people to minister to Muslims.
113	The witness was asked about when he was first approached with regard to giving evidence in this matter. He said it was about the 6th of August 2003 and he received a call from Phillip Knight, who asked for his opinion on a dispute between the parties. He said he had listened to the tapes and he often speaks about Islam; sometimes one to two times per month. He said that although he has not read the Qur'an from cover to cover, he is familiar with the main theme and the teachings of the Qur'an. He said that a version of the Qur'an in Arabic text was in fact a standard version and that he understood that the purpose of the seminar was to help Christians evangelise Muslims.
114	Asked why, in paragraph 9, he said it was unfortunate that much polemic about Islam focussed on Jihad and especially Jihad as a military enterprise and why he made that statement. In reply he said because it is one-sided and that it is not representative of the range of matters covered by Jihad. There was a group of militant extremists who teach the practice that terrorism is acceptable in furthering Muslim cause and so we had the "incidents" of 9 September, which was, in turn, condemned by leaders around the world, including politicians, Christians and Muslims.
115	He agreed that here and elsewhere, public debate had focussed on Qur'anic injunctions and that it was a matter proper for the investigation of Pastor Scot, who took no issue with the fact that it was proper for people to consider the link between behaviour and teachings. He said, however, in paragraph 10 of his Statement that the focus on Jihad was not accurate and in particular the concept that Islam had been spread by the sword, which he described was a popular misconception. At page 312 of the transcript, he describes the reasons why.
116	He agreed that he had no great knowledge of the legal framework of Shari'a, but said that he was entitled to offer an opinion on the subject matter because he has knowledge about it. He conceded, however, he had not researched the legal framework of Shari'a. Although he had no great knowledge of Shari'a law, he had sufficient knowledge to form the conclusions which he had.
117	He was closely cross-examined with regard to the paragraphs commencing from number 10 onwards. In particular, he as asked about the doctrine of religious dissimulation. He conceded that he had revised his view, which is expressed in paragraph 11, wherein it is stated that a doctrine is peculiar to Shi'ism and does not apply to all Muslims. He said that that was what he had understood, but some two weeks prior to giving evidence he had looked up the Encyclopedia of Islam and found that that was not a correct statement. He was asked why he did not, as some expert make a practice of checking, what they're saying or what they're going to say before they actually commit it to print. To which he answered that he had neglected to do so and that had he looked it up, it would not have appeared in the form in which it does at paragraph 11. He was asked about the final sentence in that paragraph which states "the generality of Muslims would be no more prone to lying than the generality of Christians". He said that what he meant by that was that each of the groups, Muslims and Christians, would, to use my words by way of interpretation, would have no greater percentage than the other. He accepted that this had absolutely nothing to do with social science, but that it was merely a statement of faith. The same applied to paragraph 12, wherein he said that it was not the general practice of Muslims to offer monetary or other advantages as a law to conversion. Whilst he accepted Pastor Scot's statement that he knows the people that have been offered money, insofar as Muslims that he knows of, he has no personal experience or anecdotal information. In response to a question from me at page 354 of the transcript, he said that the offer of monetary and other advantages as a lure to conversion is not the general practice of Muslims as he knows it.
118	He as asked what he meant about radicalisation of students in paragraph 13 of his Statement. He said that there are some texts in the Qur'an which if interpreted literally out of context could lead a person to extreme behaviour in terms of violence and that can produce an unsatisfactory outcome. He was asked with regard to whether there are any rules for the interpretation of the Qur'an and he said there were none, but that he relied upon the reading that he has done, the study that he has undertaken and his years of lived experience in Pakistan among Muslims.
119	He was asked about Mohammed's rise to ascendency in Medina and the expulsion of Jewish tribes from that City and the killing of some 800 to 900 people. He said he had not read any books and he was not a historian by training. He said the slaughter was not a racial matter, but occurred because of the contravention of a pact. Father McInerney explained by background and described it as a violent and horrible event, but pointed out that people lived in violent and extremely contested times when the event occurred. Asked about his moral judgment on the event, he said it had to be placed in the context of the breaking of a pact in 6th Century Arabia, where there was conspiracy and punishment followed. It was reprehensible and horrible, but it was not done on the basis of religion. He denied the Jewish tribe were killed because they were critical of Mohammed. He reiterated that acts and judgments upon them must be judged at the time of the event and not by 21st Century standards which have altered. He was asked finally about Muslim extremists and he said there were people who do take an interpretation of the text without adverting to the context and without a personal appropriation of the truth and the value that is intended. These people would provoke violence and acts of terrorism and actually kill or condone killing in the name of religion and they were what he would call extremists. He named Osama bin Laden, Zahladi, Ali Ruhn and the bombers in Indonesia and said he would be concerned about Jamah Islamiah.
120	Finally Mr Perkins indicated to the court that he did not intend to challenge at all part of Father McInerney's statement which reads:

"In fact most Muslims down through the ages and including the present moment are peaceful, decent god fearing honest citizens, trying to feed and educate their children in sometimes trying circumstances, leading moral and ethical lives, sometimes exemplifying the attainment of great spiritual wisdom."

121	Father McInerney, however, admitted that it was the Muslim extremists whose existence he admits have their own brand of practising the Jihad to which he replied "That's correct". When re-examined he said there were two things he would like to make very clear. The first, that we are talking about 6th Century Arabia and what happened then cannot simply be applied directly to the circumstances of today. The second thing he would like to make clear is, in particular terms, the different verses of the Qur'an where addressed to different situations and to interpret those texts without averting to or being aware of the situation which occasioned the words, ultimately is to misrepresent it.
122	Finally, he was asked about having completed a three year Licentiate in Arabic and Islamic studies at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies and he said that study which he engaged in, was of the Arab language because it was the original sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith. Beside the formal language studied, he studied the life of the Prophet, the Qur'an and some of the commentaries on the Qur'an, but it was selected passages. He indicated the Qur'an numbers 114 suras, some 6,000 verses, so it's impossible to have studied the entire Qur'an, but the major things of the Qur'an he had studied and the verses which constitute those. He also studied the expansion of Islam through different Islamic empires, the Hadith and how the Hadith was gathered and in some instances created. He studied Islam in Pakistan; he studied the constitution of different countries; and courses on Shari'a Islamic Law, the latter which is a specialisation in its own right, as Canon Law is a field of specialisation in its own right in the Catholic Church.
123	He said that in the time that he spent in Lahore, he found that most people got on with each other, Christians and Muslims living side-by-side as neighbours and that was in the context of a population of 6 to 7 million of which 96 percent were Muslim. Objection was taken to that assessment of the percentage, but I propose to allow it on the basis that it is no more than a guess or approximation and will be accorded the limited and appropriate value that results there from.

Evidence of Professor Gary Bouma

124	The Plaintiff called Professor Gary Bouma. He is a Professor of Sociology at Monash University, where he has worked since 1979. His qualifications include a BA from Calvin College 1963, a BD from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1966, an MA from Cornell University in 1968 and a PhD from Cornell University in 1970.
125	His primary field of study is the sociology of religion, focussing on the management of religious diversity and religion in Australian society. He has been researching among Australian Muslims for 12 years, conducting in-depth interviews and community visits in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide.
126	His Witness Statements attest to the fact that he has read the complaint, the defence and the witness statements, including the transcript of the seminar. His Witness Statement was then tendered. He expressed the view that based upon the material that he has read the Catch the Fire Ministries’ seminar and its teaching about Islam, including how those teachings are explained and justified in the Respondent’s Witness Statements:

(a) appear to treat all Muslims, including Australian Muslims as being the same as the small radical minority of Muslims;

(b) treats Australian Muslims as a singular, undifferentiated group to which they attribute without evidence the teaching of a small radical minority of Muslims, largely located in the Gulf States. They treat Islam as an undifferentiated homolithic religion, rather than Muslims who are richly diverse, while sharing some basic beliefs and practices, best summarised in the “Five Pillars of Islam”. The Five Pillars do not include Jihad;

(c) do not present any evidence that the views described and attributed to Muslims are in fact held by Australian Muslims in general and/or by their leaders;

(d) provides motivation to a small number of Australian Christians (some of whom I know from personal knowledge and from my research are active in attempts to stop the construction of Mosques) to engage in inflammatory remarks about local Muslims as though the attributions engaged by the Catch the Fire Ministries were accurate and perpetuate violent acts against Muslims;

(e) inaccurately depicts Australian Muslims in a way that promotes unjustified fear and antagonism towards them on the part of Australians who in fact have nothing to fear.

127	He saw nothing in the Catch the Fire Ministries material which demonstrated that the authors or speakers had attempted interaction with Australian Muslims.
128	He said that using the testimony of converts to describe negatively the group from which the convert has come is a common technique among Christian Evangelicals and is usually not harmful. But in this case where such teaching is used to demonise another religious group and to raise fears about it, it crosses the line from personal testimony about a faith journey to a misuse of such testimony to create fear and suspicion.
129	He said that Muslims have risen to 1.5 percent of the Australian population through immigration and a comparatively high birth rate, but further growth is entirely dependant upon these factors and is very likely to flatten out as birth rates continue to decline towards Australian norms and as the group ages. Rising to more than 3 percent is extremely unlikely and rising to an unnaturally significant block is unimaginable. Even if the growth rate of rising 0.4 percentage points per 5 years were continued, in 50 years Muslims would be just over 5.5 percent of the Australian population. He then compared such growth with Buddhists and, in short, said that any prediction of a future in Australia with Muslims as a dominant electoral force is based upon fantasy and not a realistic assessment of demographic projections. He stated that the Catch the Fire Ministries representation of Australian Muslims as a unified homogenous community is not correct and is unlikely ever to be so. He then put Muslims had come to Australia from over 62 different nations, which makes them one of the most ethnically diverse religious groups and are unlikely to be susceptible to block voting or unified opinions on any issue.
130	He states that the Catch the Fire Ministries presents Australian Muslims as being a singular religious homogenous group, characterised by the beliefs and interpretations associated with only one tradition within Islam, namely, Wahhabism. This is a particular form of Islamic fundamentalism which arose if Saudi Arabia and which provides the theological legitimation for Al Qaeda and Jamah Islamiah. Australia has very few Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Yeman or the other Gulf states and while there are 1.1 percent from Egypt, they largely arrived 30 years ago, before the rise of this teaching. This distribution does not provide a basis for the argument that the teachings described by the Catch the Fire Ministries are wildly held by Australian Muslims.
131	He further asserts that while the Catch the Fire Ministries makes much of Sunni and Shia differences, the Sunni Shia distinction is not significant in Australia. He said that many mosques in Australia are attended by both Sunni and Shia Muslims and the leaders have been careful not to import the difference between these groups into Australia, but rather are seeking a way to be Muslims in Australia rather than following overseas models.
132	He said that based upon his research and experience with the Muslim communities in Australia, it is his opinion that Muslims in Australia are not seeking to establish an Islamic state, but are trying to find their way forward as Australian citizens who are also Muslims. His study of Australian Muslims clearly indicated that they migrated to Australia to improve their lives and set about getting jobs and educating their children like every other group of migrants to Australia. Many had expected to return to their homelands, but remained, having established families in Australia. They have received support from the Australian Government for the establishment of mosques in this country.
133	He said that based upon his research and experience with the Muslim community in Australia, it is his opinion that Muslims are no more likely of becoming the monolithic fearsome force described by the Catch the Fire Ministries.
134	He states that the Catch the Fire Ministries is right insofar as it argues that there is some attempt on the part of Islamic leaders in the gulf states to impose their views. However, there is no organisational structure in Islam to enable this and not all of the views espoused are the same as the Wahhabist interpretations of the Qur’an they depict. Each mosque is separately governed and aside from federations and councils there is no capacity of one group to dictate its interpretation to others or to declare orthodoxy or a single moral code. There is much diversity in Islam in general and Australia in particular.
135	He argues that Pastor Scot's view is that if scripture says “x”, “x” will be done and that this is altogether simplistic and insulting to religious cultures, including Islam. All scripture requires interpretation and he points out that the literal interpretation in the bible of bodily harm, as expressed in Matthew:7/9 is not literally followed.
136	He states that scripture is interpreted within particular cultural situations. Australia has a norm of low temperature religion. Charismatic Christianity is as offensive to this norm as is Wahhabist Islam. He states that his study of Australian religious and spiritual life in comparison with other countries describes this culture. Religious groups that migrate to Australia over time tend towards this norm. He concedes that every religious group has its radicals and they always constitute a minority, almost by definition, as they define themselves against the majority. However, to raise fears about Islam because it has risen to 1.5 percent of the population on the basis that some Muslims somewhere might become a dominant view in Australia, would be like a group raising fears about the rise of Pentecostals in Australia, because large numbers of Pentecostals hold certain views in the United States.
137	He said he has been having on-going interaction with leaders of Muslim communities in Australia for over 12 years. Those interactions have occurred in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. He states that he has been impressed by the patience, willingness, the counsel, calm and forgiveness when under attack from those, usually Christians, who would limit their capacity to worship, block attempts to build mosques and harass those who were identified as Muslims by their dress. He states that Muslims participated in community events to mark the events of September 11 and the Bali bombings. They have been willing to open themselves to visits by curious Australians offering hospitality and information. They have condemned the activities of others of their faith that have raised concerns and fears. They seek to be accepted as full participants in Australia’s religious life.
138	Professor Bouma was cross-examined by Mr Perkins. Professor Bouma said that he could not reconstruct the precise way in which he came to be engaged by the complainants. One mode was certainly with the receipt of an email from the complainant's solicitors.
139	At page 484 of the transcript he was asked did he understand the concept of a world religion, to which he replied in the affirmative. When asked what it is, he said it is a western construction of various religious forms, which categorises various people’s beliefs and practices and organisations into convenient categories for analysis. He was asked whether Islam is a world religion, and he said it is usually conceived as such and treated in the same way by scholars. He agreed that Christianity is a world religion. Asked what features lead them to being so classified, he said the commonality of belief and practice of a group that extends, is extensive and large within the world. It was put to him that the concept of world religion is generally used to distinguish other religions, which are not treated or conceived as being world religions and he agreed with that proposition and said that there was a very long list of those that are considered not to be world religions. He said that he considered Islam and Christianity being in the category of world religions. He was asked whether there was a diversity within Islam and he said yes, the same way as there is a diversity within Christianity. He said that the ordinary person on the street tends to lump Islam into one single category even though that is not correct and, for example, the media are beginning to understand it.
140	When asked what studies had he done to support what he had said, he indicated that he has just conducted a nationwide study on religious diversity in Australia, involving community studies in each capital city and all communities in which questions were asked of not only religious leaders, but of ordinary members of various congregations and religious bodies and that study provides a solid basis for the information that he gave. The study was funded by the Department of Immigration Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, but he was not in a position to produce it at this stage.
141	Asked about other research he had done, he said there was an edited volume he had written which dealt with the emergence of religious diversity in Australia and the cultural context of the acceptance of diversity as being normal in a wide diversity of religious groups. He said he had a particular knowledge of the sociology of religion and of things which have in the past been facets of religion, such as the notion of apostasy. He said he was not familiar with the fact that apostasy was part of English law until relatively recently. Asked about blasphemy laws, he was aware of their existence in English law. Asked with regard to Australian law, he said that he was not aware that blasphemy law has been interpreted to protect only Christianity and not Islam. He said that during the course of the seminar, there was reference made to other countries and that he contra distinguished them from what was going on in Australia. His attention was drawn to paragraph 7 of his Witness Statement in which he said that the seminar, in teaching about Islam, appeared to treat all Muslims, including Australian Muslims as being the same as a small radical minority of Muslims. He conceded that he had not conducted any studies or surveys with respect to Jihad. When asked about the small radical group of Muslims, he said that the beliefs outlined at the seminar are those associated with a particular strand of Islam; one which he would rightly describe as being far from the majority of Islam anywhere in the world. It is radical, it is a minority and it is not necessarily located in one place. Asked where it is located, he said Haddism emanates from Saudi Arabia and is one of the streams of Islam which is a very complex and richly diverse religion. He said the fact that it is a minority is relevant substantially to any notion of being fearful of it, particularly in Australia. He said the tenor of the material which he had read could be claimed that the proposition in the Catch the Fire material is that all Muslims are violent. His attention was drawn to page 82 of the seminar and he said that that was an example of the mentality of the material in the seminar, treating Muslims as one group, and one group holding a particular set of very negative beliefs which can really only be attributed to a minority, and if the speaker at the seminar had some caveat in respect of this matter, he did not notice it. However, his attention was directed to a statement made by Pastor Scot, where he said that some Muslims think that violence is not the only way and Professor Bouma said he did not notice a statement to that effect. Asked whether he was an expert witness with some sympathy for the Islamic Council of Victoria’s case, he said yes, that he had been concerned for the treatment of religious minorities in any and all societies, including Australia. That concern was for their wellbeing and that they be allowed to function and practice without interference. He said that he did not listen to the tapes of the seminar, but read the material. He was asked about the frequency with which Pastor Scot talked about praying for Muslims in the course of the seminar. He said that he couldn’t venture a number, but he agreed that Pastor Scot considers that important.
142	His attention was directed to paragraph 16 of his Witness Statement where he said there was some attempt on the part of Islamic leaders in the Gulf States to impose their views. He was asked what evidence he had with regard to that. He said that it arose from his reading of studies of the activities of some of these groups. When asked to name which groups, he said the Wahabists, which come out of Saudi Arabia in particular and they were influential. When asked to name other groups, he said “I can’t name any others”. Asked why he couldn’t name some other groups, he said that he couldn’t say and it was then put to him he was speaking as generally as he can with a view to simply supporting the Islamic Council’s of Victoria’s case, which he denied. He said that he believed from his readings that Islamic leaders in the Gulf States impose their views in order to support Wahabist views in other parts of the world and that sometimes includes financial support, literature and general support. Asked whether they do that in Australia, he said that he didn’t know for sure.
143	His attention was drawn to paragraph 18, where he said that picture is interpreted within particular cultural situations. He said that what he was meaning by that is that the culture within which it is interpreted will affect the way that it is interpreted. He conceded that he had not carried out any studies on the Qur’an, but had read it “cover to cover”. He accepted the proposition put to him that Pastor Scot, whether you accept his views or not, had made a systematic and significant study of the Qur’an.
144	He was asked what he meant by the word radical and he said it was a group which presents its views as being the core views and their interpretation of the views that must be held in order to be a true member of that group. He placed the people who hold Wahabist views within that category.
145	He was taken to the objectives of the Islamic Council of Victoria and the fact that one of them was to promote the true teachings of the Qur’an. He conceded that there would be diverse views with regard to the teachings and could be described as opinion. He agreed that in Islam, in the absence of an authoritative figure, such as the Pope in the Catholic Religion, it is impossible to say that something is a true Islamic teaching. He agreed that the existence of controversy over the meaning of the Qur’an is almost inevitable.
146	He was asked about Madrassahs and he said that they were Islamic Schools. He was asked about the article from the Reader’s Digest, which was quoted by Pastor Scot, and the reference to the Madrassah, which is described as the Jihad factory and, further, whether he thought that the conclusion was not right. In answer, he said that the article describes Madrassahs in Pakistan and makes statements about what is taught, but it has no bearing on anything that is happening in Australia at all.
147	He was asked about his comment in paragraph 18 that charismatic Christianity was offensive. He said he did not use that word in a derogatory sense. He said that charismatic Christianity goes against the norm of low temperature religion, which is an Australian pattern, and that Australia as a general nation of orientation takes religion easily and not too seriously. So when groups try to raise the temperature of Australian religion, as would Wahabist Islam or charismatic Christianity, they operate against this general norm and find themselves having difficulties achieving their ends. He considered that his personal rhetoric was much in line with the proposition that people who don’t conform to the average are offensive. He was asked about his particular interest in a religion and he admitted that he was an Anglican priest and had been so for some 20 years and ministers in the Church St Martins in Hawksburn.
148	He conceded that since September 11 he had spoken to the public forum which included Mr Yasser Soliman and that there were expressions at the meeting of views about how important it was to place emphasis upon community building, understanding and accepting different religions and beliefs and maintaining a harmonious society. He also conceded that the views expressed at the conference were in favour of interfaith dialogue.
149	He was asked about his statement in paragraph 7(d), which stated that the seminar provided motivation to a small number of Australian Christians engaging in inflammatory remarks about local Muslims, as though the attributions engaged by the Catch the Fire Ministry were accurate and perpetuate violent acts against Muslims. He considered that in relation to Catch the Fire Ministry, he had no direct or indirect evidence with regard to them being engaged in such sort of conduct and he said he justifies his statement because as part of his research he has encountered Christian groups, who have been actively involved in the anti Muslim activities, using this sort of rhetoric. He was again referred to statements made by Pastor Scot about loving Muslims. He said he was not suggesting that Pastor Scot was telling lies when he made that comment. He then added that it was an interesting form of love that says “I love you in order to change you from what you are to something you are not”. He conceded that the Bible said that Christians should go out and proclaim the word of Jesus. He was asked whether Pastor Scot was doing precisely that and he said “I’m not saying that I didn’t think he was doing anything other than that” and that he is in defence of minority religious groups. But the question is under what circumstances, and how one in this society carry out the whole business of religious competition. We have to have a fair and equitable floor for doing that and to be able to respectful presenting our own cases as clearly as we can, but that is not often best done by being terribly negative about other groups. In a multi-faith society with respect, then you start with respect and present your goods in a religious economy in which competition occurs and a fair description of what goes on is there, but not denigrating the goods of others. It was put to him that it can’t be denigration of a religion to discuss its holy book in terms of what it means, to which he answered “it can be if it is done in too negative a way”. He conceded that statements about loving Muslims was a statement of a religious purpose. However, on re-examination about the activities of other Christian groups I allowed this questioning under objection and having read the material I believe it’s not relevant to the Respondents to have Professor Bouma’s evidence.

Evidence of Dr Abdul Kazi

150	The Complainant called Dr Kazi to give evidence. He is currently retired, but held the position of Professor of Islamic Studies in the International Islamic University of Malaysia and prior to that was the Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne teaching Arabic and Islam. He has made three Witness Statements in this matter which have been tendered in evidence (see exhibit "N"). Dr Kazi was asked to explain what are Hadiths and what place do they have in Islam. He said that Hadith must be read along with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the word of God as preserved and as it was revealed, word by word, and it is believed to be absolutely authentic text. Hadiths are narratives which speak of what the Prophet Mohammed says or did, or approved, in the presence of his followers and companions. What he said and what he did were later passed on from generation to generation by people who heard them and at a subsequent time were written down. The earliest collection survived in the middle of the 2nd Century and most of them date back to the 3rd and 4th Century of the Islam era. Since a great deal of time had passed, the Hadith scientists worked out a system of verification and the one which proved the highest test, was accepted as absolutely true. Others were of a lesser character. These are the ones which have been witnessed and reported by a great number of companions who heard him say or saw him and these were reported by a sufficient number of the disciples down the ages. He said that the position of Hadith is that it explains the Qur'an and really institutes a law of its own.
151	The methodology used by Dr Kazi in his expert Witness Statement is to identify passages in the defence and to explain the shortcomings and why they breach the Act. The Tribunal finds this an unusual approach to the issues, but in the final analysis it is regarded as acceptable when one has regard to the nature of the complaints which are set out in the initiating document together with a reading of the transcript and having listened to the tape.
152	Before dealing with these issues, it is appropriate to deal with the question of the expertise of Dr Kazi as this was directly challenged by counsel for the Respondents. In the opinion of the Tribunal, there were reasonable grounds to test the expertise of this witness. This is because when he commenced to give evidence, paragraphs 2 and 3 were the only statements of the witness' expertise. Although one can draw certain inferences from those paragraphs, they fall far short from what could be expected of a witness in demonstrating expertise. To a certain extent this defect was remedied by the provision by him of a relevant CV which has been separately tendered and which constitutes Exhibit " ".
153	Nonetheless, Mr Perkins, although conceding Dr Kazi's expertise in Arabic but no further, it is therefore necessary to deal with the evidence given by Dr Kazi with regard to his expertise.
154	Dr Kazi conceded that his engagement came about as a result of a contact from Mr Phillip Knight, who is associated with the Islamic Council of Victoria and who he had met on a number of occasions earlier. It was put to him whether he knew the difference between an independent expert and an expert. He acknowledged that an expert should be independent and was then provided with material by the lawyers acting for the Islamic Council of Victoria. This included transcripts and witness statements and he said in evidence that the material that he was given was not attempting to guide him in any way. He said he was a retired Professor of Islamic studies from the International Islamic University of Malaysia and that he was there from 1992 to the year 2000 and prior to that was an Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne, where he taught Arabic language, literature and Islamic studies. He said he received his Arabic doctorate in 1958. He said he joined the University of Melbourne in 1961 and became head of a Department which taught Hebrew, Arabic, biblical studies and Islamic studies. By reason of becoming head of the Department he was accorded the title of Associate Professorship. He has prepared a thesis which was a comparison of two manuscripts for the same book, one of which was found in the British Museum and the other in the Vatican. It was presented some two years ago, but it has not yet been published.
155	Mr Perkins asserted that whilst Dr Kazi had expertise in Arabic, he had no expertise in Islamic law generally, nor did he have expertise in the law of Sunni Islam. Dr Kazi said that his thesis basically dealt with the Sunni Schools of Law and apart from the Zaydi School, whose manuscript he edited, he has also made reference to the Imami School. He said that Zaydis, while they are a branch of Shi'ites, the theology and law are closer to the Sunni School than they are to the major Shi'ite School. He was asked whether he had published any work on Islamic law, to which he replied in the affirmative, and nominated two publications. He said that all his writing was academic and none political.
156	Taking into the account the answers which Dr Kazi gave in cross-examination and the relevant positions he has held, I am of the view that he is sufficiently qualified to give evidence with regard to Islam.
157	Turning to the Witness Statement, Dr Kazi identifies the following matters which I shall attempt to state as briefly as possible.
(i)	Of item 12, page 3 of the Defence, he asserts that the statements made under (a) and (b) are misrepresentations or misunderstandings of fact. He stated that Islamic law (Shari'a) and Jihad is part of the Islamic international law and as such relates to a war between a Muslim state and a non-Muslim state and that it does not relate to the treatment of non-Muslins within a Muslim state. In paragraph 6 he quotes a Muslim Scholar of the 13th Century who notes that Jihad is a war waged by Muslims whenever their security is threatened by infidels. Further, from his reading, there is not a single piece of evidence in Islamic legal discourse which instructs Muslims to wage perpetual war against those nations which fall outside the sovereignty of the Islamic state, or to kill non-Muslims.
(ii)	He takes issue with item 13 and the second paragraph of the Defence which suggests that in Islam telling lies or deception is permissible under circumstances. He states that such assertion has no basis in Sunni Islam which constitutes 85 percent of the Muslims of the world. The only possible exception is Taqiyyah, which only operates in particular circumstances and he concludes that denying truth is tantamount to denying God as one of his names is truth.
(iii)	In the defence to paragraph 10(b) of the Particulars of Complaint he states that using the money in the form of a bribe to entice someone to accept Islam is not endorsed by the Qur'an.
(iv)	In the defence 10(f) to the Particulars of Complaint it is alleged that the Qur'an and the life of the Prophet to encourage Muslims to kill people, loot people and destroy people and that although this allegation is repeated many times there is no such teaching or encouragement for such acts in the Qur'an.
(v)	Where the Particulars of Defence refer to paragraph 10(g) of the Particulars of the Complaint he states that the law of Jihad has nothing to do with the issue of Jizyah. Jihad is war between a Muslim state and another, whereas Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects as a fee for exemption from military service.
(vi)	The defence to paragraph 10(h) is one in which the Respondents will say that the statements are accurate reports of what the Qur'an teaches and that when war breaks out, Islamic scholars have the role of advising on the rules of engagement. Professor Kazi says that the references in the Qur'an which are quoted, namely Chapter 48, verses 16 and 17, in fact deal with Bedouin Arabs who, according to their ancient custom, were keen on going on raids when there was a chance of greater booty to be one. The Qur'an was attempting to turn their attention away from such a cause. There appears, however, to be a concession made by Dr Kazi on this aspect where he states that some Muslim preachers exaggerate the Qur'anic injunctions to suit the occasion and to exhort Muslims to embark on Jihad. The justification for that is the environment of political conflict and repression in which Muslims in many countries find themselves today and that exaggeration or highlighting of a point for political purposes is not confined to Muslim preachers.
(vii)	In response to paragraph 10(i) the complaint alleges that the Qur'an states that true Muslims are only true if they take part in holy war and that this statement has been taken out of historical context, it being related to the fact that the Muslim state at the relevant time was threatened by the Pagan forces of Mecca and hence the exhortation appropriate to the time.
(viii)	This relates to paragraph 11 of the complaint. It states that Pastor Scot said that whilst there are many verses in the Qur'an which speak non-violence, there are many more which speak nothing but violence. The proposition advanced by him at the seminar was that when Mohammed the Prophet, the founder of Islam, when he was poor and without power, taught gentle things without violence, but when he became powerful his armies then started receiving new revelations. The Respondents say that this was precisely the situation and that the pattern of Mohammed's life can and does influence Muslims to adopt, as a matter of doctrine, more peaceful, tolerant strategies of coexistence when they are in a weaker political position, and more violent and intolerant strategies when the Muslim community achieves greater political dominance. Dr Kazi, in relation to these competing versions, demonstrates that Pastor Scot was looking at the Qur'an text in isolation. As I understand Dr Kazi's explanations, the life of the Muslims at the time went from being a small dispersed community in Mecca to a state in Medina which no doubt had a far reaching effect upon the relations of Muslims with the outside world and, having become a state, a new set of dynamics came into operation mainly, the defence of the state by Muslims. In response to that it is said in the Defence that it as a matter of public interest and in accordance with a legitimate religious purpose that these perspectives on Mohammed's life be studied and that nothing in paragraph 11 constitutes vilification.
(ix)	The next matter which is addressed by Dr Kazi are items 21 and 22 on page 7, which relate to paragraph 16 of the Particulars of Complaint. This is the reference to the "silent Jihad six times approach". Dr Kazi said that such an approach had no basis in the text or in practice in Muslim history as far as he knew, that the use of business connections was no different and evidenced elsewhere and, in his view, no Muslim is known to have busied himself marrying non-Muslims with the sole purpose of converting them to Islam and, indeed, most Muslims prefer their children to marry other Muslims and, if possible, from their own cultural ground. He asserts that the other points mentioned in the "silent Jihad" are likewise mere allegations and are not mentioned in any literature.
(x)	Paragraph 17 of the Particulars of Complaint refers to the Qur'an, Chapter 48, Verse 18, in the context of the booty/spoils of war that a soldier may get from the soldier he has vanquished. Professor Kazi points out however that the verse does not go on to say "you will loot people, you will destroy their houses, you will kill men, you will take women and children, etc.". He asserts that neither this verse nor any other verse of the Qur'an, nor any saying of the Prophet give licence to a Muslim to kill or harm any person, Muslim or non-Muslim, except in a legitimate armed conflict. Furthermore, that insofar as the Prophet is quoted as "I desire that I should be killed in Allah's cause and then make alive and the be killed again ...", it is said to extol the virtue of martyrdom of giving one's own life for the cause and not for the killing of others.
(xi)	This refers to paragraph 26(a) of the defence and deals with paragraph 18 of the complaint. Dr Kazi states that the Hadith quoted is true, but is not understood by Muslims in a literal sense. The word “fighting/combating” has been taken literally, rather than figuratively. Taking it literally would go against the Qur’anic principal of no compulsion is allowed in the matter of belief [Chapter 2. Verse 256]. Further, verse 9 of Chapter 61 makes no mention of fighting at all. Insofar as there was a reference to the Qur’an, 9.56 – 57 has been misinterpreted to suggest that Mohammed became powerful when people started becoming Muslims. He states the context of these verses as when Mohammed migrated from Mecca where he had been prosecuted to Medina the majority of inhabitants welcomed them and accepted Islam and the City of Medina became a Muslim city state. While there were a group of people who did not accept the Muslims and living in a Muslim society and in fact felt sympathy with the Meccan pagans who were reading the onslaught against the Muslim state. Dr Kazi says this was the dilemma and that the verses under discussion in a sense described their psychological and social dilemma.
(xii)	Item 26(b) asserts that in the Qur’an Chapter 4.69 according to the defence allows martyrs to intercede on behalf of their parents and other relatives, this honour and permission supposedly becomes a big incentive for parents to send their children for martyrdom. However, Dr Kazi states that the verse quoted in fact says nothing of the sort and he quotes a verse which makes no mention of parents and relatives. Dr Kazi further states that giving up a life for a good cause and the resulting pride experienced by parents exists in all societies, Muslim and non-Muslim.
(xiii)	Item 26(c) suffers from distortion as Muslims belief human beings as descendents of the same race are equal. Dr Kazi says that contrary to what is alleged the Qur’an asserts that race and gender are not valid basis for a person’s superiority. Race and gender are "God given" and are not a valid basis for a person's superiority. That lies in the knowledge of the truth acquired by man and an affirmation of the truth and in living righteously. These virtues can and should be acquired and anyone who acquires them is superior. The defence (26c) refers to the fact that Jews were first regarded as the best people in the world, but when Jewish people didn’t give money to Mohammed for the Holy War, then Allah told that the Jews are the worst people and they are your worst enemy. So it depends, that if you give money you are good and if not you are bad. Dr Kazi says in response to this that Jews as such were not declared superior, but were chosen for a period of time in history of mankind in that ultimate sense. Once they ceased to perform that task, they ceased to be chosen. Further, he states that tasks were divinely guided moral and spiritual development of human race received a new insight and impetus for the life and teachings of Christ which was then entrusted to his disciples. The Qur’anic view of Christianity as it involved is twofold – the Qur’an is on the one hand critical of the Trinitarian theology, but on the other hand, is appreciative of Christianity’s spiritual dimension, which manifests itself amongst the genuinely religious people in their devotion to God and in compassion towards God’s creatures. Furthermore, any suggestion of superiority of men over women is not based upon gender, but on the basis that men are physically stronger and are breadwinners for the family. If men treat women as inferior despite Koranic injunctions, it is old cultural values which have continued in some sections of Muslim society.
(xiv)	This refers to items 34 and 35 in the defence. Item 34 looks at the percentage of women in Islamic society where they have no choice but to accept Jesus. Even in Australia, Muslim children are not free to accept Jesus as their saviour. Culture doesn’t allow young men and women to decide for Jesus, so we need to pray that God will somehow make a way for them. Further, it refers to cultural violence in Islamic culture as being very common and that it is in the public interest to discuss these matters. Dr Kazi quotes the relevant Qur’anic verse that states that men are the protectors and the maintainers of women because God has given them one more strength than the other and because they support in what they have. Dr Kazi says that reading all the verses in the preceding paragraph, one can see that the purpose of them is to guide people to manage their family unit as much as possible, keeping it intact and harmonious. In support of that, there is a quote from a commentator on the Qur’an, Muhammas Asad, pages 109 to 110. Furthermore, Dr Kazi says that sociologically speaking domestic violence appears to be a widespread phenomena across religions and cultures.
(xv)	In respect to items 44 and 45, in item 44 the defence states that Islamic doctrine provides a foundation for those Muslims, some of whom proclaim upon a foundation provided by Islamic doctrine that establishing a Sharia states it is the duty of all Muslims who plan or hope to impose Islam on Australia. A liberal democracy is a system of government alien to Islam and should be opposed as a principal of religious obedience. The first two respondents say that the holding of these positions was attributed either to all Muslims or Australian Muslims in general and that a robust discussion of such religious teachings was in the public interest. Dr Kazi states that Muslims of Australia would like Australia to remain by large what it is today, namely, a liberal democracy, multi-faith and multi-cultural. They do not hope or plan to impose Islam on Australia. Dr Kazi further states that the demographic increase of Muslim population in Western countries is due more to migration from Muslim areas and refugees and less to a deliberate higher birth rate and demographic changes in ethnicity and religion have been taking place throughout the world. As to the claim that Muslims play a divinely sanctioned role to exert influence upon Australian political life, lacks any basis and he supports this by reference to the lack of Muslim members of Parliament, both State and Commonwealth, and their participation in other levels of Government.
(xvi)	Insofar as paragraph 35 and the article by Richard is concerned, the Respondents generally say that these are reasonable conclusions to draw from a careful study of the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Suras. They do not admit the claim with regard to lying and say that Islam does endorse killing and enslavement of whole groups of people who refuse to submit to Islamic rule. Further that the reference to genocide of a tribe of Jews by Mohammed is attested to in Hadith collections, Sura traditions and by virtually all scholars of Islam, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Further, that Mohammed married his wife, Aisha, when she was a girl of 6 or 7, consummating the union when she was 9 and Mohammed was in his 50’s and that they say that the desire to marry a girl of that age would in our culture be regarded as paedophilia. They also allege that this aspect of Mohammed is example from the basis in Shari’a law for marriage of pre-pubescent girls and this forms part of Shari’a law in some nations of the world today. The defence, in paragraph 49, states that the Qur’an calls for the destruction of people who oppose Islam and that incitement to commit acts of terror in Jihad is intrinsic to the Qur’an, being an example of Mohammed. It’s further stated that the Qur’an teaches Allah loves Muslims and Muslims must do the same and it teaches that Allah hates non-Muslims. Finally they say that the Muslim terrorists act in accordance with their understanding of the teaching of Islam, and further say that the aims and methods of terrorists are intimately tied to Islamic teachings both in self-understanding of the terrorist and in truth.

Dr Kazi states that a form of Islam is an inalienable part of Islamic terrorism is totally false and that terrorism or suicide bombing is neither a part of Shari’a law or part of Islamic history as a result of politically turbulent times, or that the genocide of the Jewish tribe in Medina by order of the prophet is an unsubstantiated story, even though it is reported in Bukhari, but there are not sufficient witnesses to give it any degree of certainly. Finally, in Arabia when a girl reaches the age of puberty she is considered to be of marriageable age and it is reported that when the prophet married Aisha she had attained the age of puberty. Further, that laws and values of the 20^th Century cannot be applied to customs of the 7^th Century.

158

Dr Kazi made two further Witness Statements. The second is dated 14 October 2003, by which time he had received a copy of the transcript of the seminar and a copy of the full text of the seminar. He stated as a result of that he was more alarmed than he was in reading the complaint and defence. He stated that he had read the statement of Mark Durie and had read document 240 in the respondent's list of documents entitled "Jihad, Holy War Verses in the Qur'an" by Daniel Scot. In respect of the further information, he made the following observations.

Pastor Scot's teachings at the seminar are alleged by Dr Durie to be consistent with the range of teachings of neo revivalist and traditional Sunni Muslims. He stated whereas neo revivalists are an easily identifiable school of Islamic thought, today the traditional Sunni Muslims are almost the whole body of non-Shi'ite Muslims from early times until today, with a range of views on Jihad and other questions. However, Wahhabis are one small segment within the traditional Sunni Muslims. He states that not all neo revivalists are Wahhabis. Further, that neo revivalists advocate the revival of Islam through the implementation of Sharia law. Under this implementation a state is run as an Islamic states. Wahhabism is a form of neo revivalism and they have their own distinctive view of Sharia which his based upon a strict application of the Qur'an and the traditions of the prophet, rather than on analogy or rational argument. Wahhabism does not take into account the historical or cultural context of the traditions of the prophet. He states that neither Wahhabis views nor neo revivalist views are necessarily the views of the vast body of traditional Sunni Muslims.

159	With regard to the third Witness Statement, he states that of 237 supposedly Jihad (fighting on the path of Allah) verses mentioned by Pastor Scot, very few qualify for inclusion in that category. At least 50 of the verses mentioned by Pastor Scot have no connection with war, fighting, aggression, struggle, killing, booty, et cetera. Pastor Scot even included some Meccan verses (numbers 25, 29, 37, 39, 40 and 42) in the Jihad category, although there was no armed conflict between Muslims and the pagans of Mecca in that period. He notes, for example, that punishment for murder (chapter 2.179) has been counted by him as a Jihad verse when it has nothing to do with that subject matter. Dr Kazi listed Jihad verses used by Pastor Scot. At page 3 of his statement he lists the key Jihad verses in Pastor Scot's list. Dr Kazi gives a general outline of the history of the prophet Mohammed's life in the Meccan period and later in the Medina period. In the first period there was no arms struggle on the part of Muslims, but on the contrary they were living in a hostile period. In the second period, that is the Medina period, Mohammed and his disciples fled from persecution in Mecca to Medina and it was only after that period that Jihad, whilst retaining the Meccan sense of effort and struggle, increasingly took on the added meaning of arms struggle in defence of their belief and the community/city state. At page 3 of his statement he sets out particular verses and places them in their historical context. This is elaborated by him in his evidence and as part of the cross-examination. Dr Kazi asserts that the interpretation and presentation of Pastor Scot's interpretations of the Jihad verses are both incorrect and misleading.
160	Dr Kazi was cross-examined about his chairmanship of the Islamic Co-ordinating Council of Victoria between 1991 and 2001. He said that this was a body which was parallel to the Islamic Council of Victoria and that it includes some 11 societies, which he was able to name. He said the Islamic Co-ordinating Council had a constitution. He said that he was chairman of the multi-faced resource centre, which comprises 7 faith communities and he did this from 1988 to 1990. It had ceased to function and was an organisation which included Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. It was an attempt to establish a resource centre which members of other faiths could come and meet each other and literature could also be accommodated. In general it was to encourage good will amongst all religions. He has also been a member of the Royal Muslim League since 1991, which is an organisation to gather representatives from different countries, to discuss the issues and express whatever support it can give to their struggle and to their needs.
161	Dr Kazi said that he was also a member of the Islamic Society of Victoria Preston. The objectives of that organisation were read to him and it was put to him that they were political, to which he replied that they are not political and neither explicitly or implicitly and that the objectives were drawn from other non-Islamic charity or organisational constitutions. He agreed that part of the aims of the organisation was to vigorously combat and correct misrepresentation of Islam and false propaganda through the proper legal channels. He stated that any organisation or any media which misrepresents Islam and particularly accuses it of something wrong or puts Muslims in a bad light, that the organisation should be able to combat that by correcting the impression and do it within legal means. Dr Kazi conceded that a person has a right to their own faith and their own belief and their own terms, however, that in respect of the Qur’an he concedes that there is no central authority in Islam as far as Qur’anic interpretation is concerned and that has been so for all time. He said that there are rules as to how to interpret the Qur’an and, indeed, a number of scholars, including one Taymiyah, has mentioned in documents this subject and as well as there has been a book written on how to interpret the Qur’an. He conceded, however, that there were a number of approaches.
162	He was asked about the dichotomy between Church and State in Islam and it was put to him that there was a consistent body of Islamic thought that there’s no dichotomy to be found between Church and State. When asked about the comment by one scholar that Islam is not a religion, but a comprehensive system of life, and whether he agreed with that, he said yes and no – in that Islam there is no organised structure which could be called “people of the Church”. He said that Shari’a has not been the law of the State in most of the Muslim countries and that the law that is in most Muslim countries is a law that is important. It is not indigenous and it is a kind of foreign body which people find difficult to understand and difficult to implement and live by. He was asked what is an Islamic State and he said it is one which identifies itself as an Islamic State. As to its exact nature, it depends from state to state, what content it has. One cannot give a blanket answer to what an Islamic State is and he contrasted the position in Iran and Pakistan. It was put to Dr Kazi that no matter where in the spectrum of views that one holds, each person is entitled to say that their views are the views of the true Muslim. His answer at page 1243 of the transcript was that there are no Councils which in the sense pontificates in Islam and there is freedom for anyone to express a view. He regards himself as a person who has views which reflect and are close to the view of the majority of Muslims, that is, he is in the mainstream and that his views are a reflection of the average. He conceded that if somebody had a view which was different, one could not say that this is wrong.
163	He was asked about whether he knew an organisation known as ISCA, which he replied “Yes”. He said that they are a small minority group which exist and have a belief along the lines of “them or us”, and in terms of continuous struggle, and he described them as a combatant group.
164	He was referred to the book “The Reliance of the Traveller”. He said he had not read that book and was directed to 9.8 and 9.9 of the text which talks about making war against Jews, Christians, conversion to Islam, the penalties if they don’t do so, and also to a passage regarding the rules of warfare. He was asked whether the book could be said to be a classic manual of sacred law. He answered that it was written by an author in the 13th Century who belongs to the Shafi’i School of Law. Firstly, he said it was not a medieval classic text. Secondly, that it was written in Egypt, at a time when Mongols invaded Iran, Iraq and most of Syria and Egypt were surrounded. In reference to Imam in the book, he said that his reading of a text which was shown to him indicates the limit of the author’s contextuality and of his understanding of Syria (1295). Insofar as the book was concerned, his attention was directed to the Certificate of Alazar University, confirming that the translations correspond to the original Arabic and certifies the translation corresponds with the Arabic original and conforms to the practices of the faith of orthodox Sunni community. Dr Kazi conceded that the University of Alazar, an old established University with a good reputation as a place of learning. Although he had some reservations about certification by the University, he agreed that the book was part of Islamic legal discourse. Criticisms he made of the book, was that the author was summarising some of the views of the Shafi’i School and is not reflecting his time. He said that what the author thought in terms of earlier scholars within his School, within his line of thinking, is accurate and is appropriate, but as a text it was not appropriate in terms of advice and of the 13th Century. It is inappropriate in terms of advice in the 20th Century. Despite by being pressed by Mr Perkins, Dr Kazi remained critical of the book and said that the author’s treatment of the subject was out of time and place. It was put by Mr Perkins that he had set out to take a particular attitude to the book “The Reliance of the Traveller” without having read it, without having read the certificates and without knowing about it, to which he replied that “it can be translated by anybody”.
165	He referred to paragraph 6 of his Witness Statement and confirmed that he hadn’t read the seminar transcript or the notes of the seminar at the time it was made and that he had relied upon the detail which was contained in the complaints and that which was also contained in the defence. Later he obtained a copy of the transcript of the seminar. Dr Kazi said that he had not been previously called in any court or tribunal to give expert evidence. He said he prepared his Witness Statement without reference to any precedent as to how it was to be done. He said it was a natural thing an intelligent person should be able to do and he did not know of any right answers as to how an expert would prepare his statement. He said that he "checked out the Qur’anic versus and the Hadiths", and looked at translations such as Pickthall, Yousef Ali and Lal Hilari.
166	He said that when preparing is statement, he noted that the word Jihad was used as meaning to fight and that many of the verses in the Qur’an do not always mean fighting, but struggle. For example, all of the versus revealed in Mecca definitely do not mean fighting.
167	He conceded, that his Witness Statement did not have a bibliography. He said he did not think it was necessary because it was not a document for publication, but for the purposes of giving evidence. He also conceded that he had reference to books and had given a summary without reference to actual pages. He was asked why in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of his Statement he did not deal with what was said at the seminar with regard to the topics of those paragraphs and his answer was that he presented the basic argument that Qur’anic verses cannot be understood without the knowledge of the context and many of the verses which were quoted in the seminar were given without context and in fact they were quoted to support an argument taken out of context.
168	He was asked about this Witness Statement of 14 October 2002 and in particular paragraph 2 where he states that he read Durie’s statement which said “no single view of Jihad is correct” and he said that he agreed with that view.
169	He was asked about his comments whereby he said that when he first made his statement of 18 August 2003, he had only read the particulars of the complaint, but that when he listened to the transcript he was more alarmed. It in fact strengthened the view that he held about the seminar when he first read the complaint and defence. It was put to him by Mr Perkins that he had, as early as mid 2002, been made the spokesman for the ICV on this particular issue. He denied that. It was further put that he was emotional about July 2002 over what was said in the media about Muslims, the Qur’an and Mohammed and in particular he was asked about a response he made to an article by Andrew Bolt in July 2002. It was put by Mr Perkins that before October he was upset, emotional and not independent and dispassionate as an expert should be. He denied that he was emotional and stated that he was a very rational person. He did, however, concede that in relation to the Andrew Bolt article that he said that it was infuriating him. Essentially, what was put to him by Mr Perkins was that he had adopted views before he had read the transcript and before he had considered systematically and methodically what the actual facts were. He said that he made his statement in the way that he did because he had no idea that the seminar had been recorded and that a transcript was available.
170	He was asked about Chapter 9, Verse 5 of the Qur’an and he said it referred to events in the 8th Century and had no application after that date and he said that he formed this conclusion from the literature.
171	Dr Kazi was questioned about the killing of Jews of Keraza which Mr Perkins described as genocide. Dr Kazi questioned the use of the word "genocide" and in his witness statement he said it was an unsubstantiated story and there were not sufficient witnesses to give it any degree of certainty. His attention was directed to literature which dealt with a report from one of the survivors, which was a young boy. Dr Kazi conceded that the literature does contain such reports, but the basis of the statement is unsubstantiated, and that if an event of such a magnitude occurred, then there would be more witnesses, particularly townspeople. He said the reason for its veracity is being questioned on the basis of that criticism, although he conceded that it is mentioned in all six Hadith collections.
172	He was asked about chapter 4 verse 89 in the Qur'an which it was put to him requires that Muslims should kill those who turn away from Islam. He agreed with that, but he says it does not suggest that you go on a continuous war against non-Muslims. He said in fact the verse relates to and addresses a group of people in Medina and not outside. As I understand, Dr Kazi is saying that this verse in the Qur'an deals with a particular situation and not with a general direction to Muslims to engage in fighting and killing.
173	His attention was directed to a book entitled "The Decline of Eastern Christianity" and he conceded it is a well known and reputed book. He said that you do not accept everything that is in it. Indeed, he referred to one particular paragraph where he said the author was trying to point out with a definite aim in mind, being eastern Christianity's decline because of Islam and that he (Dr Kazi) proposes that that is not right because eastern Christianity survived because of Islam and because of Mohammed's openness and tolerance, whereas Muslims in Spain did not survive. He was taken to other pieces of literature such as that relating to Apostasy, which he states, contrary to some views, that the death penalty does not apply unless the Apostate joins the enemy and fights.
174	He was asked about the politics in Indonesia and was shown an article in a newspaper entitled "Jihad Bombings Man" and he was asked "What are the circumstances which would make it necessary for such a ban if it's already banned in the Qur'an?". The answer was as follows: "That the recent spate of bombings are being carried out by some individuals led, perhaps, by some religious leaders. The leadership is emerging because the true leadership doesn't exist and the models before them, that is the models of confronting the forces of capitalism, that is a leftist movement of communism or socialism which has emerged in the Muslim world". As I understand it, he is saying that that was the reason for the ban and that it has nothing to do with Jihad theology or Jihad law.
175	He was also asked about Sura 8 verse 30 and Mr Perkins put to him that it states that God is the best of liars. Dr Kazi denied that the words say that, and he pointed out the words in fact say that Allah is the best of plotters. He said that particular translation by a person called Bical was misleading and totally wrong. In that regard, the Tribunal has looked at Exhibit "7", which is the translation of the Qur'an by Pickthall, which uses the words stated by Dr Kazi and not what was put to him.
176	Dr Kazi was asked about his witness statement at paragraph 9 where he said the Qur'an does not encourage Muslims to kill people, loot people and destroy people just because of their religion. He described in evidence any allegation to the contrary as being absolutely untrue, unless, as I understand it, you are involved in armed conflict. He also said it was totally unfounded to suggest that the slaughter of non-believers in Islam is encouraged. Again he reiterated that in all the literature and the history books, including that which was referred to by Pastor Scot, the reference is to actual battle that took place on both sides where people are killed. He was referred by Mr Perkins to a book which states that Islam is perpetually at war. It was my understanding his answer to that is that that is a literal statement, and the references to morality and immorality and that good and bad are perpetually at war from the beginning of life to the end, and that Islam stands for truth, justice, light and morality, and there will always be people who are not happy with that, and that there will be perpetual scuffles between the two, and that is how he understands a passage of that nature.
177	He was referred to paragraph 10 of his statement that the laws of Jihad have nothing to do with the issue of Jizyah. That Jihad is a war between a Muslin state and another. Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslim subjects as a fee for exemption from military service. It was put to him that these two ideas are novel. In answer to that he said that when he was referring to Jihad as a war between a Muslim state and another, he said that the latter could be Muslim or non-Muslim, and that it is well documented and beyond doubt, and that when fighting took place, either both sides or one would claim that this was a Jihad against the other. Insofar as paying a fee to avoid military service, there was an exemption which relates back to a Christian tribe in Syria, that it continued and in fact it is now used in a number of Muslim countries where military service is compulsory, particularly Turkey and Syria where a person who does not wish to join the military service may seek exemption by paying. He denied the proposition put by Mr Perkins that it was universally agreed that Jizyah is a tax paid by Christians and Jews and others so that while they can never be full citizens equal with Muslims, they can have the status of tolerated persons and the protection of the Muslim authorities. In answer to that, Dr Kazi said: "Generally speaking, yes. This was the case in medieval times when the suppression of communities and non-involvement in military defence was the operative principle, but it is not the current position and it has not been for hundreds of years". It was put that it applies wherever Sharia law applies and he said that he has seen no evidence for that and he is not aware in any Muslim country, whether old or a republic, that non-Muslims are paying this tax.
178	With regard to the organisation ISCA he said that he was aware of it but had little association with the organisation, but he knows something about them. He said that he believes they represent a point of view which is extreme and unrealistic, and in his view harmful to the Muslim cause, and they do not represent any views of mainstream Islam. It was put to him that he has no expertise as a sociologist or demographer, in respect of which he said that it was unnecessary to do so, insofar as forming a judgment is concerned.
179	He was taken to paragraph 26 regarding his views on domestic violence and again it was put to him that he had a lack of sociological qualifications in that regard. He said in order to make a statement with regard to domestic violence, it is the duty of the researcher to establish a factual basis for the domestic violence and at present there is no study of comparative violence and to say that it is greater amongst Muslims is a statement purely based upon prejudice. Without a proper statement, it is all conjecture that is often prejudicial.
180	He was taken to paragraph 32 of his statement with regard to Mohammed's marriage and he was questioned about his statement that laws and values of the 20th Century cannot be applied to customs of the 7th Century. He said the law of Sharia has evolved, it being part divine, part human, and it enshrines the eternal values as well as the values and concerns which are part of the 20th Century. Asked whether he found the circumstances of marriage once someone has reached the age of puberty moderately repugnant, he said no. Later he said that the circumstances in which the marriage took place and was consummated is, in our terms today, morally repugnant. He said that, as I understand it, one cannot use a set of cultural values and people living them at one time make a value and moral judgment on a totally different people in a different cultural context. Asked whether they are bound to treat the life of Mohammed as an example of the morality which they apply in their own lives, he said: "That is so in a general sense, but you do not follow it in every way". He said he did not think that Muslims want to live in an archaeological age, whatever that may be.
181	Dr Kazi was re-examined by Ms Mortimer. She put to him Exhibit "O", which was produced during cross-examination. It was his curriculum vitae, which contains material which should have formed part of the content and form of his expert report in accordance with VCAT Practice Note 2. Mr Perkins cross-examined on that document, but no attempt was made to tender it until re-examination. Despite the failure to produce such a document at the appropriate stage, I propose to allow its tender. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, although essentially they have been followed in the course of this hearing. The document is one which had been provided to Mr Perkins. It was used early in the cross-examination. This document should have been before the Tribunal well before this date. The criticism is well founded, but -

(a) it is an important document

(b) no prejudice was demonstrated by reason of its timing and it is a document which should be before the Tribunal in order to assess the evidence of Dr Kazi.

Ms Mortimer asked him with regard to his history and he said that he, between 1958 and 1961, was a senior lecturer at Sydney University. He taught Arabic language and Islamic theology, philosophy and socialism. I see no unfairness with regard to this, as it was in Mr Perkins' possession at an early point in time and he cross-examined on it.

182	Ms Mortimer asked Dr Kazi about Jihad and its meaning, and he confirmed that it is an Arabic word which means "struggle or making an effort, expending energy in doing something".

He was asked why it was important to consider the Arabic version of the Qur'an, to which he replied that, historically, the view of the Christian scholars has been the Qur'an should not be translated and people should read it and understand it in Arabic. He said Arabic language is very complex and it is important that the original text be consulted. He said that being able to read the Arabic text as he can, as well as in English, he found the range of meaning within the original Arabic text is, from what I understand as to his evidence, more meaningful than if you read only the English language. He said it was customary among Muslims of non-Arabic speaking background to learn Arabic, and I understand his evidence is that such an ability helps understand the Qur'an.

183

Dr Kazi was re-called and asked questions about a magazine known as Australian Minaret. He said that it was an official journal of the Australian Federation of Islamic Council. Dr Kazi conceded that he had a substantial and profound involvement in the organisation which runs the magazine. He agreed that he was also responsible in large measure for setting up the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. The magazine edition in 1977 Volume 11 contained a book review of Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an. Dr Kazi agreed that he had read the book review and said that it was not true that Pickthall's English translation of the Qur'an was accurate. He said Pickthall's translation at places is not accurate, and he gave as an example the use of the word "scourging", which was defined as whipping, which was not warranted as being a translation from the Arabic word. He said that he questioned the Pickthall translation of the Qur'an, which he thought was not academically rigorous. He said that when he read Pickthall's version, he made an analysis more closely of how he translated and he found that there were errors and decided it was not reliable. He said he formed this view during the course of these proceedings because it made him look up more accurately what had happened (1743).

Further Evidence of Yasser Soliman

184	Mr Soliman was asked about meetings which were arranged prior to the seminar. He said there were no formal meetings, but discussions on a casual basis which suggested that the seminar may be of interest, and a number of us became interested to go. There was no specific arrangement. After the seminar, people started giving each other feedback and for the first time people met at the ICV. He said the purpose of going to the seminar was to work out and engage with all sorts of different communities at a time when it was felt that we were become too isolated and we thought that this was a particular event that was important for us to engage in on behalf of the Muslim community. During the course of the hearing, I asked Mr Soliman, given that he knew that the seminar was coming up and thought it important to attend, was there any attempt to make contact with those running the seminar to indicate that their attendance was going to take place. He said there was no indication, we just turned up as in the poster and that it seemed to be an open invitation. He agreed that he does make contact with church groups and they turn up without prior contact, but they may not where there is a public meeting. He said that when interfaith groups' churches had specifically had functions related to Muslims to interface dialogues, we just turn up. It's an open invitation. There would certainly be prior conduct if they had been requested to attend with an RSVP. He agreed that, not only did he have no contact with the respondents prior to the seminar, he took no steps to engage in dialogue with them after the seminar and, following a discussion, took the complaint directly to the Equal Opportunity Commission. His explanation for that was that they formed the view that the respondents had already set in their mind what Islam teaches an they weren't really open to a discussion about that and he referred in particular to the feedback that he received from Eades, following his encounter with Pastor Scot. Mr Soliman was asked by Mr Perkins as to why the three complainants were recent converts. Mr Soliman said at that particular time at which the seminar was held, a lot of volunteers were afraid to come out of their houses and go on public transport and be involved in many activities. He said that they didn't have many people available to do many things and the fact that they were converts meant they could feel safer in moving around in the community and for other people who weren't converts it was a matter of convenience and nothing was planned.
185	He agreed with Mr Perkins that following September 11 there was a considerable amount of material in the media about what had happened and opinions about who had committed the act and why. The debate was being carried on by both Muslims and non-Muslims. He agreed that he was putting his view personally and through the ICV and he agreed that it was a matter of public interest post-September 11 and through to 9 November 2002. He said following September 11, the Islamic Council of Victoria, which he described as a voluntary organisation, were overwhelmed in terms of being faced with people being attacked in the Muslim community, demands all the time by the media, by the police, by the Government, by interfaith dialogue and that it was more than a full-time job for anybody. He agreed that, up to the date of the seminar, Muslims were in the forefront of the press and that it was fair to say that the degree to which Muslims were in the forefront of the press was far more intense than he had ever found previously.
186	He agreed with Mr Perkins that following September 11, the ICV had not in any sense said anything in support of what happened in the United States, but there were a number of people in the community who had a lot of different perceptions and that they were all proper matters for public consideration and discussion, particularly in a democracy. Whilst agreeing with that proposition, he said the act of vilification is not a proper matter for discussion. He agreed that Jihad was. He also agreed that any person with no religious belief at all, is entitled to read the Qur'an and make of it what he or she considers appropriate. He agreed that Pastor Scot was what he purported to be, namely a Pastor, and that the topic that he was discussing was a topic which involved considering what the Qur'an said. He said, however, that despite the fact that Pastor Scot said he had particular intentions, when he spoke to the audience he did not believe that what was said was accurate. He said that he went beyond what the Qur'an's teachings on the subject of Holy War, and he went ahead and taught other things as well. Not only did he say things about Jihad which were not accurate, he spoke about other matters such as what Muslims were planning, what sort of a mindset they had and what they were going to do. Mr Soliman said that the use of the word Holy War is non-existent in the Qur'an or in the Hadiths and that the Holy War was never a term used by Muslims, but was a term initiated by Christians during the time of the Crusades and that he, Pastor Scot, was using that over and over again to try and create a certain perception that there's something holy about war. When pressed, he said that when people talk about Holy War, it means an aggressive war. People are in the process of carrying out a Holy War and they're searching for people to kill and that it's okay because it's something holy that's taught by their religion. He said that, as a Muslim, the majority of the Muslim world do not find that a war of aggression is taught by the Qur'an. In fact, the opposite.
187	It was put that steps were taken to isolate Pastor Scot after the seminar, because he had expressed a different view to his. His answer was that the issue was that we do not want this to become a Muslim versus Christian issue. We wanted to isolate the actual complaint about vilification; not make it into a Christianity against Islam or Muslim against Christian thing. He said following the lodgement of the complaint, he went to other Christian groups to advise them about that fact and to explain that it wasn't a Christian against Muslim thing. "We went to visit a number of Christian leaderships to explain to them what we were doing". He agreed that the minutes of the ICV indicate that Phillip Knight outlined a vilification case. It was perpetrated by a Christian group towards Muslims at a recent church seminar and advice had been sought from the Equal Opportunity Commission as to the steps to be taken, and it was decided that the ICV would represent the three witnesses at the Equal Opportunity Commission meetings. All agreed that the best course of action is to work closely with other Christian groups to make a joint statement to isolate the person (presumably Pastor Scot). He said that that was why steps were taken to contact other Christian groups and to explain what was taking place.
188	Mr Soliman was asked by Mr Perkins a question on the extent to which Islam is a political body and the extent to which it is a religious system and that if he was aware of that discussion. He was asked whether he was aware of any published work which suggest that religion and state or politics or religion are quite distinct and different things in Islam to which he said "No". But when asked whether insofar as Islam is concerned, there is not any real distinction between politics and religion, he agreed that from the point of view of the majority, there was no real distinction. He said, however, that whilst people have that view, Muslims, while in Australia, understand there is a separation of Church and State. He said that whilst the belief of there being no difference existed, Muslim practice respects that separation of Church and State. Mr Soliman said that he consulted the Board of Imams with regard to the institution of this legislation and they were in agreement, provided that it was understood that it was not a Christian against Muslim issue.
189	Mr Soliman's attention was directed to the "question" which was asked by Mr Thomas of Pastor Scot and the response which was given. He was asked how conceivably could any of the statements amount to vilification or hatred of Muslims. His response to that was, as I interpret it, in essence to accept the answer was not suggesting that, but because of the fact that there were other things that he had said, and that he was putting a view of Muslims in every possible negative way, with nothing positive to say. In re-examination Mr Soliman was shown a document entitled "Community Accord". He described the document in this way. It is a document where representative organisations from across Victoria were invited to come and sign the accord having regard to how they will treat each other. He said I understand that the Islamic Council of Victoria, along with other organisations from the Jewish community and other committees, were also involved and that basically the recognition that the Victorian Government sees the Islamic Council as representing Muslim communities. The document is signed by the Islamic Council of Victoria and signed personally by him, he thought it was dated around 2002 (see Exhibit "M").

The Case Presented on Behalf of the Respondents

190	The respondents filed a Witness Statement of Daniel Scot, dated 2 October 2003. In that Statement he attests to the fact that he was born to a Christian family in Pakistan in 1951 and was brought up in a country, the population of which is predominantly Muslim and whose culture is Islamic. He lived there before coming to Australia in 1987.
191	Between 1956 and 1966 he spent time at a Mission School and thereafter 3 years at a Mission Secondary School. Between 1968 and 1970 he attended a Senior High School at Islamia College, a large private Muslim run College. Between 1970 and 1976 he attended Karachi University and also did part-time study in the Punjab at an inter-denominational training institution where Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and others received theological education. His formal qualifications are a Batchelor of Science, with Honours in Applied Mathematics from the University of Karachi in 1975, a Master of Science in Applied Mathematics from the University of Karachi in 1976 and a Batchelor of Theology from Gujranwala Seminary in 1987. He states that he studied in theology courses, including apologetics, which is the branch of theology which defends the Holy Scriptures and sends forth the evidence of the Divine Authority and comparative religion, church history, theology, books of the Old Testament and books of the New Testament.
192	He stated that his Christian beliefs extend back to 1973 and that he was actively involved in religious discussion with Muslim people about salvation and the different approaches taken in the bible and in the Qur'an; the differences being the moral teaching of Jesus and the moral teaching of Mohammed. He said from the time that he was in Senior High School he systematically studied the Qur'an and Islamic religious history. He stated that he had systematically read and re-read the Qur'an in its entirety at least 100 times and that he had extensively read and studied commentaries on it. He had also carried out studies of the Hadith and carried out extensive study on the life of Mohammed, using both in a general way to interpret the Qur'an.
193	In September 1986 he became the first individual to be accused under Pakistani's Blasphemy Law, which took place when, as a mathematics teacher of 12 years standing, he found himself summoned to attend a College Investigative Council, the topic of which was his religious beliefs, which was designed to establish the extent to which he adhered to Islam. He expressed his religious views on that subject, as a result of which he was charged with blasphemy. He thought that his life was in danger and accordingly he went into hiding; he was pursued by thousands of students, but that the prosecution became stalled for a few months, during which time he was able to exile himself overseas.
194	After leaving Pakistan, he taught mathematics at two universities in Australia from 1988 to 1994 and then he felt and responded to God's call to full-time Christian Ministry. At paragraph 20 of his Statement he said that between 1965 and 1994 he had been researching and teaching in various Christian groups, with an emphasis on reaching the Muslim community. He said that he had taught in many bible colleges and churches and Muslin groups. Throughout this period he said he was involved in practical outreach to Muslims by sharing the world with thousands of them.
195	He said that present he was the Director of the Ibraham Ministries International (IMI) of which he had been a Director since 1997. He is also an accredited Pastor of the Assemblies of God Church, since approximately 1995. He said that his involvement with the IMI was such that the group met regularly in Brisbane to discuss and seek God's guidance on how to encourage Christian awareness about Islam and Christian ministry among Muslims.
196	He said that his involvement with IMI was seeking to bring Christ to the Muslim communities and Muslims to Christ; to educate and train Muslim Missionaries to understand the Qur'an and Islamic religion and Islamic mindset; to educate Christians how to preach and witness to Muslims and to help prepare and educate Christians when living within a Muslim community or country.
197	He said that he had been involved in travelling both within Australia and around the globe to various bible colleges and seminaries. He delivered literally hundreds of training courses in that time, some by hour long or day long seminars and others by weekend courses. He had addressed about 10,000 Christian and Christian leaders on sharing their faith with Muslims and that as a result, either directly or indirectly due to his teaching and preachings, thousands of Muslims have come to know Jesus.
198	At paragraph 27 he said that he had written 3 books on Islam-related topics and approximately 20,000 of those books had been distributed through the seminars which he had presented.
199	At paragraph 29 he lists the seminars and training sessions he had either visited or conducted.
200	At paragraph 29 he expressed the reasons which caused him to believe that this Ministry to Muslims is important and, without reciting each and every one of those reasons, essentially, they relate to:

(a) That Muslims constitute a very sizeable portion of the world's population that is increasing, particularly in Western countries;

(b) That Islam is the second-largest religious group in the Western world and that many people who enter the faith are converts who lack real understanding of the teaching of the Qur'an;

(c) That propaganda for the Islamic faith is extremely well-funded by wealthy nations, such as Saudi Arabia and that deep research on Islam from a Christian point of view has been substantially neglected and that much of the research has been done by Western liberal theologians and academics who lack real experience and understanding of Islam and are often not generally independent;

(d) That many Arabic translations of the Hadith are designed to intentionally obscure what would otherwise be the devastating logical consequences of the textual understanding and that there should be exposure and understanding of what the Islamic religious text actually say as a necessary precursor to an understanding of the reality of the Islamic faith in the light of the teachings of the Qur'an;

(e) That links between the Qur'an and the Old Testament are sometimes confounding and there is a tendency for Christians to be baffled and laud by false theologies in presentation of the teaching of the Qur'an by Muslim leaders; and

(f) That Muslim missionaries provide false and unfair comparisons between the teachings of the Qur'an and the biblical text.

201	He said that when he conducted the seminar on 9 March 2002 he had several source documents available to him in that he used the Pickthall translation, the Rodwell translation of the Qur'an and also AL Hilali's Qur'an, which he described as a scholarly translation with annotations published by AL Madinah I Munawarrah Islamic University in Saudi Arabia. He said that he had an English Arabic version of the Hadith named Bukhari; a Revised Dictionary of Islam by Thomas Hughes, the reprint of which was unknown as to date but asserted the book was originally published in 1885. He pointed out that the versions of the Qur'an had different verse numbers and different chapter numbers. I interpolate there to indicate that this was a common expression of opinion by people representing both Muslim and Christian people.
202	He asserted that all of the written materials that he referred to in the seminar were authentic Muslim religious texts from well-known traditional authorities. He thought that insofar as the translations were concerned that Pickthall's translation was more literal than the other to which he had made reference.
203	He said at paragraph 32 that, as a person who teaches about Islam, he was always prepared to discuss his views and to listen to and consider other people's views. Further, that it often happens in the course of a seminar that people ask questions and that he found, generally, that if they related to the content of religious text or views about their interpretation, which are by published commentators that he had a ready ability to answer. Furthermore, he stated that in presenting the seminar in question he was not expressing views of his own, but rather was referring to views which had been expressed and published by others. He said that when he answered questions about the Qur'an at seminars he did not merely use the text, but also the Hadiths and his knowledge of the way in which Mohammed lived according to classic Islamic books on his life.
204	At paragraph 34 he said that, in his opinion, his teaching at the seminar was the next position of the views of traditionalist school of Muslim thought. Furthermore, that the traditionalist school was a fair and appropriate one and that he repeatedly stressed that not all Muslims held those views and there were various other views as well.
205	He confirmed the finding which I have already made. Namely, that the transcript constitutes a fair and accurate account of what was actually said at the seminar. He said, however, that at this seminar, based upon his observation, that the attendees were attentive and focussed and that they felt that what he was teaching them was quite overwhelming. He said this was a common occurrence and that he tends to deal with it in a way which allows him to move to the next topic which he wishes to discuss.
206	Insofar as the Complainants had accused him of mocking and ridiculing Islamic belief, a claim which he totally rejects, he makes the following comments. He asserts that the situations complained about, which included attempts on his part to be humorous and attempts to contrast Islam and Christianity, frequently create palpable tension. He said that audible surprise or horror is not unusual. He said that neither the Complainants nor any other audience member suggested that he had been mocking or ridiculing what he was doing. He said that whilst the reading of and reference to some of the Qur'anic versus that he cited may be a cause of surprise or horror, that it was contained within the context of the text which he was reading which caused the reaction.
207	He denied that he delivered any part of the seminar in a sarcastic, sneering tone, calculated to provoke laughter and derision from the audience. He concluded that if there was anything other than the subjective and incorrect opinion of the Complaints to support the proposition that he did, then he was unaware of that fact. He denied that he ridiculed or reviled Allah and stated in paragraph 41 that it was completely untrue that he vilified Muslims during the seminar. He said to do so would be completely contrary to his own personal views and his own teachings on Islam. He asserted, however, that it must be expected that as a moral and religious text, the Qur'an can reasonably be objected to direct and pointed criticism. In his Witness Statement he then gave particular examples.
208	At paragraph 44 of his statement, he drew attention to the fact that many organisations copy this information, material and commentary on the internet and that these are all freely available within Victoria, which are similar to the views which he has expressed.
209	He attacked those people who he referred as "Westerners" who turned to Islam as people who often accept it without any real intellectual explanation of its tenets or literature. He said that he had a belief that contemporary Christian/Muslim dynamics, which involve Christians being encouraged to convert to Islam, was a process in which they did not fully know about it - "I assume Islam".
210	At paragraph 47 he said that consistent with his conscientious belief, he wanted to inform people that they should know what the Qur'an says - the bigger picture - so that they can make more informed judgments about Islam. I consider that it is appropriate for people to know about the various Islamic schools of thought, particularly the traditionalist.
211	Finally, he asserted that the racial and religious vilification legislation a fetter of the delivery of his teaching about these ideas and he asserted that it was both unconstitutional, unlawful and, by reason of the constitution, immune from effect.
212	Attached to his Affidavit is a statement which extends to 137 pages. In his general remarks he categorically condemns and opposes violence or hatred against any people or people who profess the Muslim faith. He states that he finds the oppression of Muslim people appalling and that they have the same fundamental human rights as any people on this earth. He asserts that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act treats religion and race on an identical basis. There is a failure to draw a distinction between the two. Religions are belief systems and race is quite different. He asserts that examining a religious belief is an entirely legitimate religious activity. Indeed, it is a fundamental right and it is in the public interest that it occur freely. Insofar as the Muslim faith is concerned, he asserts that neither the Qur'an, nor the Hadiths are organised in chronological order so that the interpretation of those authorities require the ability to locate a particular version or tradition within the story of Mohammed. He acknowledges that the investigations of the Qur'an and the Hadiths are complex and highly developed areas of Islamic studies and that Muslims do not all believe the same things about what is Islam, but nonetheless asserts that there has been a scholarly census on very many matters described as a stable core which could be called the orthodox mainstreaming teaching of Islam.
213	He draws a distinction between Christians when they read the Gospels, which are essentially the only primary source material on the life of Jesus, but that Muslims in general have not read the complete Hadith collections, or the authentic Sura's for themselves. Consequently, it is asserted that most Muslims do not have direct personal familiarity with the primary source documents of their faith or even a close similarity with the text of the Qur'an, except in the form of recitation. He also asserts that the information about the life and person of Mohammed is filtered by the agenda of Islamic educators. He draws a distinction between Islam as practiced in the West can be very different from traditional mainstream Islam as practised under Shari'a conditions.
214	Insofar as Jihad is concerned, he portrays it as Holy War and an integral part of Islam. Indeed, he calls it the 6th Pillar of Islam (a fact which is denied by others). In defining Jihad, he refers to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which describes it as principally an offensive character. In particular, he asserts that the idea that Jihad is a spiritual struggle or last resort in self defence is not borne out in mainstream Muslim scholarship. In support of that proposition he quotes Mohammed's biography, as written by holy Muslim observers and supports it with quotes from Bernard Lewis, a well-known author on Islam. Quotes are reproduced in the attachment as to Lewis' version of Mohammed and Jihad, the concept of biblical Christianity and Islamic Jihad and quotes many authors with regard to the distinction.
215	He asserts that it is entirely reasonable to study Jihad directly from the Qur'an, and at page 9 quotes a theological essay devoted to that subject and quotes passages. He also quotes British sources with regard to the subject of Jihad and the Qur'an. See page 10 of his Appendix.
216	He asserts that the seminar organised by the Catch the Fire Ministry was in response to a need felt among the Churches for information on Islam, particularly in light of September 11 and there are many questions asking how Islam differs from Christianity and how they can share their faith with Muslim people. He states that the seminar was organised for a general religious purpose reasonably and in good faith. He therefore asserts that the seminar was divided into three sessions. Firstly, Jihad on the Qur'an, secondly, the Bible and the Qur'an - a comparison of Islam and Christianity, and, thirdly, witnessing to Muslims. He asserts that virtually all the complaints made by the Complainants relate to the first session on Jihad in the Qur'an. He asserts that both Eades and Jackson missed crucial statements on the purpose of the seminar and, in particular, the concept that this is what Muslims believe, as opposed to what the Qur'an teaches. He particularly emphasises the third session was intended to encourage sensitivity and respect for Muslim people and the need to love Muslims and to reach out to them.
217	He asserts that in session 1 he pointed out that the nature of the Qur'an in itself and, in particular, the absence of chronological order, made it a difficult book to study and that he did not claim that all Muslims accept his interpretation of the Qur'an. Furthermore, in sessions 2 and 3, he stated that he believed that many Muslims do not understand what is in the Qur'an and they are not familiar with the things that he is teaching about and he gives examples. He said he made it clear that what he was teaching is not what about most Muslims believe, but since it can be demonstrated in the Qur'an it is part of Islam, which is based upon the Qur'an. He also emphasised to the Christian audience that they should be considerate in approaching Muslims and gave specific examples. Those included the Christian's interaction with Muslims.
218	He asserts the seminar was not intended for a Muslim audience and that it was offered to Christians on Islam for the purpose of training them for evangelism.
219	He asserts that one of the objects of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is to promote conciliation and resolve tensions which can arise because of ignorance and, so, for that reason, he took care to provide explanation in most cases where he believed that specific complaints about Muslim behaviour can be supported from the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's and, where relevant, the opinion of Islamic scholars. He asserts that the statements are supportable in this way and were made reasonably and in good faith for the religious purpose of the seminar.
220	At page 16 of the annexure, he states that the seminar discusses the Islamic faith, based upon its canonical sources. This was done in good faith for a genuine religious purpose of equipping Christians with knowledge and understanding of Islam based upon the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's. The seminar, newsletter and article did not incite hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of any person or class of person and he insists on his love for Muslim people and a clear distinction is made between Muslim people and what Islam teaches in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's.
221	Pastor Scot said it cannot be regarded as controversial that there are passages in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sura's, which could and do incite believers in Islam to violence and hatred of non-Muslims. He said the passages are well-known and wildly cited by terrorist groups and that he had also referred to writings by devout, well-informed and authoritative Muslim scholars who urged believers to Jihad based upon such passages. In his opinion, exposing the roots of this problem within Islam is not the same thing as inciting hatred. Since Christians are one of the named targets of Jihad fighting in the Qur'an, they have a right and a duty to be well informed about this aspect of Islam, in the same way as the Qur'an has a great deal to say about Christians. He asserts that it's a fundamental principle of religious freedom that people should be free to examine and critique religious belief systems and he regards this as foundational to democracy. He said that he opposes anti-discrimination or anti-vilification legislation which suppress (sic) critical analysis, dialogue and evaluation of Islam. He further asserts that apart from the genuine religious purpose of the materials which are being complained about, it is in the public interest for free and unafraid discussion of religious faith to take place in our society.
222	In his attachment at page 17, he deals with his response to each specific complaint. First of all, there is the concept of "silent Jihad" which is said to be Muslim plans to impose Islam on Australians. He argues in his Appendix 2 that historically, although he was not saying that all Muslims take the same view, however some do, and some of these are well trained in Islam and have considerable influence. He then cites material indicating that Muslims have a religious obligation to enforce the divine will of Allah as revealed to Mohammed in the Qur'an, so that ultimately Muslims will have the dream of establishing the power of Islam in the world. In support of that proposition, he cites a book purchased by Mark Durie from the Islamic Council of Victoria, which is a children's textbook entitled "What Islam is all About" and it refers to this concept. He further cites the establishment of the Islamic state from the Meccan and Medinian phase in theories of how to achieve this. Furthermore, he supports his argument by reference to statements made by Bilal Cleland and his concept of the creation of an Islamic system of government in Australia. These arguments are set out at page 102 to 105 to Appendix 2 of his Statement. At page 105 he records the following conclusions with regards to the views of Cleland:

"According to Cleland, Western liberal democracy is essentially Christian in character and it is therefore alien to the Islamic system of government. If Cleland's intentions were realised in Australia, this would spell the complete end of liberal democracy by its transition into theocracy. It would be the imposition of a system of government which is foreign to Australia."

223	Insofar as his statement at the seminar where he said that Muslim people when they come to some teaching which they do not like that they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the truth, they will hold the truth, they will tell lies.
224	He states that in the context of Islamic teaching, concerning unpalatable topics, particularly in the context of interface dialogue, which itself is a religious activity, that process is only a part of a broader question as to how truth and deceit are handled in Islam. He refers to Appendix 3. He asserts that a careful study of Islam reveals that many of its ethical teachings are situational. The end justifies the means. In order to attract a person to Islam, a Muslim can show versus of the Qur'an which give non violent teachings and he then gives examples. At page 106 of his Appendix, he states that Muslims are permitted to tell lies under certain contexts. These include for reconciliation, in Jihad, for husbands when dealing with their wives and when Muslims' safety is a risk. He asserts that Allah teaches in the Qur'an that if it is helpful for a Muslim, he can lie and even so that he is not a Muslim under duress, and again he refers to various Sura's (see page 106 of the attachment).
225	When he was cross-examined, Pastor Scot accepted that there were a number of different views with regard to the Muslim faith. He agreed that he referred to an article in the seminar concerning Muslims being terrorists producing factories. He said that he was not asserting that every Muslim is a terrorist and that the vast majority of Muslims don't know the Qur'an. He said that in preparing for the seminar his starting point is the Qur'an, which had been studied over more than one thousand years by scholars who have immersed themselves in Islamic theology. He was asked whether he saw a distinction between what is in the Qur'an and what people are taught, based upon the Qur'an, and he agreed that they are different.
226	He was asked questions with regard to his relationship with Dr Durie. He said he first met him on 5 March 2002 at a seminar and thereafter he corresponded with him by email. He said that when the complaint was received with regard to the conduct of the seminar on 9 March, he had prepared a written response to the complaint and that he had discussed it with Dr Durie. He would send him emails and he asserted that the main reason was because his English was not very good. He conceded that his contact with Dr Durie was not simply with regard to his English, but also to receive advice with regard to the preparation of the response. Dr Durie had, on one occasion, represented him at the Equal Opportunity Commission.
227	He was asked questions with regard to the description of most Muslims by Father McInerney in his statement. He said that he had no doubt that Muslims were peaceful, decent God-fearing, honest citizens, who tried to feed their children in sometimes trying circumstances and that most try and educate their children in similar circumstances. When asked whether they lead moral and ethical lives, he said that that was something that only they can know. He said that they sometimes exemplify the attainment of great spiritual wisdom. He said that he had difficulty with the concept that they lead moral and ethical lives because those values are contrary to the moral ethical values of Christ and that that was what he was speaking about at the seminar. He was asked whether he had read the whole of the Qur’an in Arabic, to which he replied that he had read the relevant parts in Arabic. Asked how he could be certain that he had read all the relevant parts in Arabic, he said that he had read the Qur’an many times and read different translations and editions of the same translation and he had no doubt to believe that they were not trustworthy, but that if he had any doubt that the best method is to study translation by looking at the Qur’an in Arabic. He pointed out that 70 percent of Muslims are non-Arabic speaking, so one cannot assume that they can read and understand the Qur’an. He said that personally he had attended a course at the University in Queensland in 1996 and took part in an elementary course of Arabic reading and writing, which he completed. He said that in addition to that course, he had obtained books on Arabic and that he had kept reading these books. He agreed the word for Madrassa in Arabic means school and he was shown a photograph of a Catholic school in Melbourne which had this name displayed. He said that when he was referring to Madrassas in the seminar, he was referring to a Reader’s Digest article, which indicated that there are millions of people under training in Pakistan. He agreed that he did not ask any Islamic people to come to the seminar, but that he was asked by a group of Christians who wanted to learn about the teachings of the Qur’an and Jihad and some other issues. He agreed that he did not ask any Muslim people in Australia about what he was going to teach at the seminar and he said that he did not believe that he was required to. Furthermore, he said that he was not teaching what Muslims say in Australia about the Qur’an, but what the Qur’an itself says.
228	He was further asked with regard to the comment of Father McInerney and he said he did not know whether Father McInerney was a Christian because he had not asked him, so he cannot say. He was asked about the use of the name Daniel Scot and he said that he had used this name since 1971. His original name was Daniel Son of Ahmed Siddiqui. He was cross-examined about his statement of writing three books on the Qur’an and that 20,000 of them had been distributed through seminars. He agreed, however, that none of the books had been completed or published. He said that parts of the books had been photocopied, stapled together and then distributed at various seminars and he agreed that, in fact, he sells them.
229	He further agreed that the material from the books in an uncompleted form were distributed under the name of Sarfaz Ahmed Siddique. It was put to him that dealing with the material in this way had the advantage of allowing many people to believe that in fact they have come from a person who is a Muslim, which is not correct and, in fact, is written by a Pastor of the Assembly of God. At page 1905 of the transcript he conceded there was nothing there to indicate that fact, but he said that when you read the preface it gives an indication that somebody Christian was writing the material.
230	He conceded at the seminar he used the Pickthall translation of the Qur’an, as well as other translations. He agreed that he preferred the traditionalist view of the Qur’an, but conceded that there were other views. He was asked whether he believed the God of Islam as being the same as the God of Christianity and he said he did not accept that that is so.
231	There was much discussion about whether Pastor Scot was stating what was in the Qur’an and whether they were his own personal views. He spelt out his methodology in this way, that he would read the Qur’an, the Hadiths and any particular sources that he felt it was necessary to assist in his interpretation. Thereafter he would state to those present what the Qur’an says about a particular subject matter. This represented his views with regard to what the Qur’an said.
232	He was asked about the issue of what value the Qur’an places upon women and in particular Mr Woinarski said to him, did he tell the seminar that Islamic teaching according to the Holy Qur’an “there is not much value of women”. His answer to that was “No” and what was said must be read in context. He was then taken to page 6 of the transcript of the seminar where he said the following:

“In Islamic teaching according to the Holy Qur’an there is not much value of women. We read in Qur’an, Chapter 2, Verse 226, it say there ... Chapter 2, Verse 200 ... Sorry, Chapter means Sura in Arabic ... it says that woman is like a field to plough, so you use her as you wish. So it’s like a piece of land, so that’s the value which the Holy Book of Muslim people put on a woman.”

233	Further, at page 7:

“In Hadith the value of women is not very high. Hadith Bukhari says that when Muslim man is praying, if a dog passes by then his prayer is annulled, or if some donkey passes by when Muslim man is praying, his prayer is annulled, or is some woman passes by then is prayer is annulled. So woman, dog, a donkey, they are all equal value, influencing prayer of a Muslim man. So that is the value we read in Hadith Bukhari.”

234

It was put to him that the question of the value placed upon women by the Qur’an was not relevant to the subject matter about Jihad and he answered it by saying that men were to take part in the Holy War and that it was further explained that women were still there, but they had a different position from men. He denied that he was attacking Islam by referring to women. He said at page 1952 of the transcript that people were there to learn what the Qur’an says on different topics, such as Jihad and also “dealing with other topics”. He was asked whether he thought that was the true teaching of Islam’s attitude towards women and he said it was the teaching of Hadith Bukhari, and he did not have a personal opinion, but this is what he had read, this is what the Prophet of Islam had said and had then been recounted by Islamic scholars, so that it may be true or may not be true. He said that that view of Islam is accepted by some and not by others. Traditional people who follow the tradition of the Prophet of Islam believe it to be true.

235

Pastor Scot’s attention was directed to a passage which is contained at page 100 of the transcript in which he says that he is reading from Chapter 18 of the Qur’an which is in the following terms:

“There were two men and third was their dog. No, no, no, no. I am reading from Chapter 18 of the Qur’an. There were three men and fourth was their dog. No, no, no, no. There were four men and fifth was their dog. No, no, no, no. There were five men and sixth was their dog. No, no, no, no. There were six men and seventh was their dog. No, no, no, no. There were seven men and eighth was their dog. Only Allah knows how many men, but there was one dog. This is Holy Qur’an. This story we read in Holy Qur’an in Chapter 18 and then it says that those, they travelled a long distance and they arrived to a cave and they slept in that cave. But that dog was very clever. When dog was sleeping his eyes were wide open. So the slept there for a while. Guess how long they did sleep. They only slept for 309 years. So they slept and slept and slept for 309 years. So these revelations we learn from the Holy Qur’an.”

236	Pastor Scot admitted that he was not in fact reading from the Qur’an at all, but was paraphrasing a story in the Qur’an.
237	Pastor Scot was also cross-examined about his reference to David Hicks, who he described as a true Muslim. He was asked about whether he had met Hicks, to which he answered in the negative. His attention was then drawn to the fact that he said that he did not know whether Father McInerney was a Christian because he had not met him and how could he then say that David Hicks was a true Muslim, when the same applied, namely, that he had never met. He said that he was not saying that in a general sense, but that putting it in context he was saying that the law in the Qur’an says that a Muslim is not to befriend other people if they are not Muslim and that person must be fought with. He said that following from that David Hicks is fighting the Australian Army and therefore is a true Muslim.
238	He was referred to page 8 of the transcript of the seminar where he said that Mohammed wrote lots of verses in the Qur’an about Christianity. Pastor Scot conceded that Mohammed could neither read nor write and what he had done was recite the revelations by Allah, but he said that he was talking in a Christian setting and they would understand what he was meaning in the same way as the Bible would say that Matthew wrote something, when clearly he did not. He conceded that he also attributed Chapter 57, Verse 27 and Chapter 5, Verse 82 where Mohammed talks about the Christians to the Meccan time of his life where, indeed, it was the Medina period and he accepted that he was wrong in what he said.
239	It is said that he was expressing his view when he said that Islamic teaching according to the Holy Qur’an there is not much value in women. That opinion which he holds is based upon the teachings of the Qur’an and the Hadith. He was asked whether he was familiar with the commentary of Yusuf Ali and he said that he was and that he did not agree with Sura 2, Verse 223, as interpreted. It was put to him that if he looks at the Qur’an and the references to the treatment of women and the analogy drawn by looking after your land and good crops, that what the Qur’an is doing is using that as an analogy, a proposition with which he agreed. As I understand it, what Mr Woinarski was putting to him, was that what may appear to be a derogatory comment with regard to the Qur’an’s treatment of women, could be interpreted, not in that way, but how it was expressed by use of Ali. Assuming then that that proposition is correct, then why did he not tell the seminar of that fact.
240	After much prevaricating, at page 2008 of the transcript, he said that the analogy to which he had agreed was that being drawn in the 20th Century and the circumstances in which the actual revelation was given was such that there was no question of an analogy.
241	His attention was drawn to page 23 of the transcript of the seminar and the reference to the magazine called Maccabees, which emanates from the Jewish community and where it states in the edition in the first week of September 2001 that one Rabi had met the Chief Mufti of the Islamic community and that when he was interviewed the Rabi asked him what is your plan for Australia, to which the Mufti replied that our plan for Australia is that we will declare an Islamic Nation. He was asked whether there was an article in the magazine interviewing the Chief Mufti, to which he replied it was a reference to the interview and it was not an article as such. He said that in fact it was a letter to the editor of the magazine. He said he could not find any source for the interview. He was asked why was he prepared to tell this seminar what he told them without having seen the interview and he said that he was because he had read other material of a similar nature. He was then asked whether he told the seminar that the alleged interview had been given some years before the letter appeared. Mr Woinarski put to him that he wanted the people at the seminar to believe that the letter had appeared in September 2001. It was put that he told the audience in the seminar that the magazine was respected among the Jewish circle and can be found in universities and he conceded that, in fact, one of the members of the audience had asked him where the comments by the Chief Mufti had been documented and he used the words “when or did he say it”, to which he had answered that it was contained in a magazine called Maccabees in Universities. He conceded that he did not tell the man who asked the question that it was only a letter and that the letter referred to something that had occurred years prior to September 2001. Mr Woinarski put to him that he gave the part that suited his purpose, to which he replied, “That was the information which was relevant, but it was not the only information”. He said he had other information, which can be found in the Parliamentary Library, which emanates from Iman Hillali and that such comments had also been made openly in Universities and other places. He was asked why didn’t he tell those at the seminar that there existed other circumstances in which such a thing was said. His answer was that he could not tell everything because there was not much time and the seminar was “not one week intensive course”.
242	He was asked as to why at the seminar he told somebody to turn off a recorder because they were not allowed to record his speech. His answer was that he didn’t mention it in the witness statement, but that there was an intention to prepare a handbook so that it would be easier for Australian people to follow and understand. He conceded, however, there was no prohibition on people coming into the seminar, to which he agreed. He said, however, that it was a Christian seminar – “a religious service”. It was conducted in a church, that it was started with a prayer and there was 20 minutes of singing. He described it as a proper religious service, conducted in a church so that the church people can come and they can learn.
243	He agreed that one of the purposes of the seminar was specially focussed on how to share the gospel with Muslims. He was then asked to explain his comment on the seminar which went along the following lines:

“Islamic population doubles now in Australia in less than 7 years. It used to double in 10 years, but now it is doubling in less than 7 years. Islamic population growth is 15 percent every year. In the census of 1996, 5 years ago, the Islamic population was 201,000 in Australia. Last year census tells us 350,000 is the count to the Bureau of Statistics, so within 5 years they have increased 75 percent, 15 percent every year.”

244	He said that that was correct and when asked where he got the figures of growth from 201,000 to 350,000, he said it was mentioned by an Islamic leader in Sydney. He said there some mention of half a million, and others 350,000, so that he took the conservative figure. When pressed, he admitted that the source of the figures was not the Bureau of Statistics, despite having attributed at the seminar the Bureau as the source. Furthermore, he was wrong that the figure was 350,000 and, finally, that it was incorrect to say that it was an average of 15 percent, whereas the correct figure was 8 percent. It was put to him that he wanted the people at the seminar to be concerned about the number of Muslims that were in Australia at the time of that event and that that was something that concerned him. His reply to that was that he had a responsibility to share gospel, so that it was appropriate to know that people with whom he wanted to share gospel. It was put to him that it didn’t matter how many Muslims there were in Australia because the need to witness to Muslims would be the same regardless of the number, to which he agreed.
245	He was asked about the reference to control by Muslims over the Immigration Department and he said that the word he used should have been “influence” rather than “control” and he agreed that one way of looking at what he had said to the seminar was that the relationship between the Muslims and the Immigration Department was that the population of Australia had been able to grow. He then qualified that by saying that that was only one factor and the other one was the number of wives that Muslims were entitled to have, which would increase the growth of the Islamic population. He was asked about what sources he had available to him prior to the seminar. He said the main source was the Qur’an and the Hadith and the Life of Mohammed. It was put to him that he promoted basically a fundamentalist view of Islam.
246	He agreed that was of one school, but that he spoke to other scholars in Australia and the UK. He was asked whether he held a belief that there are many Muslim people who do not believe much of what he taught. He agreed with that but said, however, that when you look at Islamic scholars and the Hadith, those scholars understand Islam much better than those who don’t agreed. He said, however, that Muslims will have a different view to his about Jihad and still be regarded as true Muslims. They don’t know what is in the Qur’an, to which he replied, “on these issues, yes”. It was put that he decided to promulgate, based upon his reading, a view of Islam, to which he agreed. It was put to him that he chose to teach only the traditional fundamentalist view about holy Jihad, to which he replied, “yes, but I didn’t go into detail about it. I mentioned their propensity and the different facts which they have”. He agreed that he did not tell them that there were many Muslims in Australia who did not hold the same beliefs, and that they really did not know what the Qur’an really says. He was asked whether he dismissed their beliefs and he said only in the context where he mentioned that he had a specialist view which was gained from conversation and observation, whereas these people do not have such knowledge of the Hadith and Islamic law and life of Mohammed.
247	His attention was directed to page 18 of the transcript, which was the Reader’s Digest article referring to the Madrassahs. The source was an American journalist, who stated there were 10,000 Madrassahs. He further stated that Pastor Scot was recently in America and he heard a debate between some scholars and one pointing out there were 39,000 training schools in Pakistan and he ended the statement by saying:

“This is so there are millions of people right now under training in Madrassahs in Pakistan and they are true Muslim”.

248	He indicated that it was his opinion that we call true Muslims terrorists as they are described within the language of the Reader’s Digest article and he had used the language that the article had used. He said that there are Muslims who read the Qur’an and Hadith and they study for 6 or 7 years and they are true Muslims. The people we was calling terrorists, were those who were trained in the type of schools referred to in the Reader’s Digest article 2042.
249	His attention was directed to the statement made at the seminar, where there was a reference to Chapter 5 of the Qur’an, Verse 5, where he is quoted as saying that a Muslin man can marry a Christian woman or a Jewish woman, but a Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man or a Jewish man and he cites as an example a case of a young Muslim woman who became interested in a Catholic boy and her father killed her because it’s not allowed in the Qur’an. The passage ends with the statements “so that’s a strict thing”. Furthermore, he then states that when Mohammed became powerful he gave another revelation, Chapter 24, Verse 3, that believers should only marry believer, so that this previous one was cancelled. It was put to him that he was telling the audience that Chapter 24, Verse 3, abrogated Chapter 5, Verse 5. It was put by Mr Woinarski that that was not a proper reading of the two suras. He agreed that he had said that Chapter 24, Verse 3 meant that believers should only marry believers and he agreed that sura 24:3, when looked at in isolation, does not say that a believer cannot only marry a believer, but he said that he was thinking about other verses, like Chapter 2, Verse 221. He agreed he did not refer to the other verses and he said that her was merely speaking in the light of studying the Qur’an quite a few times, so that he had in his mind at the time he was speaking those references. On this subject, his attention was directed to Exhibit 249, which is a summary of the Qur’an by him using the name Sidiki. He was taken through the chronology of the suras and in particular column “M” which indicates that Sura 5 came chronology after Sura 24, to which he answered that some authorities place it after and others place it before that date. It was put by Mr Woinarski that 9 out of 11 chronological studies say that Chapter 5 is after Chapter 24 and at page 2054 he agreed that he did not say that and it was put that the verses had been reversed by him in order to establish the proposition which he was putting to the seminar with regard to violence and the allegation in particular that thousands of Christian women are kidnapped and raped. He said the latter was a fact of history.
250	Pastor Scot was taken to the degree of laughter which was heard on the tape and it was put by Mr Woinarski that he wanted to get the audience of the seminar to laugh at some of the things that were said about Islamic beliefs. In answer to that, he said that it was a religious meeting in a church in the context of lively charismatic churches. He said that in relation to his church, they are very cheerful. I interpret that to say that it is quite different from other religions, and he agreed that some of the things he said were intended to be humorous. He said from time to time he paraphrased passages from the Qur’an and intended to inject humour and there was the reference, for example, to the exchange of a wife. In response to a question from me he said that in fact that illustration was not intended to be humour, but people did laugh at it. At page 2106 of the transcript he was referred to the concept of abrogation or cancellation. He said there are 33 types of abrogations. He said that people say there are less than 33 and he accepts that he did not make any qualification at the seminar.
251	His attention was drawn to what he said in reference to Chapter 5, Verse 38 of the Qur’an, namely that the right hand of a thief should be cut off. He said he probably used the Pickthall translation. It was put to him that when witnessing to a Muslim, it is important that you must not say a number of things about their faith which was wrong, because you would not then build up the trust. In that context, he was cross-examined about his treatment of Chapter 5, Verse 38, 39 and 40 of the Qur’an. At the seminar he told the audience that if Allah was merciful, why would a thief’s hand be chopped off. It is recorded at page 10 of the transcript that according to the history of Islam, Mohammed did not spare anybody. If anybody is found stealing, even stealing an egg, his right hand is chopped. It was put to him that he had used this part of the Qur’an out of context. His attention was drawn to Verse 39 of Chapter 5, where Pickthall interprets that whoever repents after his wrong-doing Allah will relent towards him and be merciful. He agreed that that was the content of Verse 39. Verse 40 then spells out punishment of a severe kind, e.g. losing a leg, for a further offence. What was put to Pastor Scot was that at no time did he refer to Verse 39 in the seminar, the logic of which the Tribunal finds difficult to understand. When questioned, Pastor Scot said the reference to being repentant and merciful occurs, not after the first offence has been committed, but before the hand has been chopped off. But it refers to a second and subsequent offence. As I understand his evidence, the first verse is therefore mandatory, but the second is an example of what we would call, in the present age, a discretion with regard to mercy. Hence the hand is cut off for theft without mercy and only after a second offence occurs and the offender repents, then the merciful approach applies. Pastor Scot said that these verses are consistent with Islamic law. He said that he did not have time to explain to the seminar the basis for such a view. He was asked about references in the bible to the concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and he said that he would accept such a concept because of his beliefs. He said, however, that Jesus did not break people’s eyes and he could not do that. Furthermore, Jesus forgives his enemies and he would also forgive his enemies, whereas Mohammed didn’t do that.
252	He generally conceded that the Qur’an was a 7th Century document and when he forms his views about the Qur’an it puts it in context and, to use his words, “the fighting that was going on between people”.
253	Mr Woinarski put to him a number of passages in both the Qur’an and the Bible, which are similar, for example, Allah says that Muslims should not befriend their parents or their brethren or any close relative if they are not Muslim and he agreed that the Bible contains a statement that one cannot be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his mother, father, wife, children, brothers and sisters and even his own life. He agreed that it was in the Bible and the New Testament.
254	Pastor Scot was asked about the Ibraham Ministries International Organisation. He agreed that at paragraph 25 of his Witness Statement that each one of the aims of the organisation relates to Muslims. He was handed the constitution of the Ibraham Ministries International and he agreed that in its objects it makes no mention of Islam. He also agreed that nowhere is the word Muslim mentioned. He was also asked about a conversation he had with a person named Dalton and he agreed that he told him that Islamic terrorism was likely to appear in Australia and he said that he might have used such words as “there was a need to warn Australians of the true nature of Islam”. Also, that he had pointed out what had happened in some other countries and said that this could also happen here. He was asked whether the purpose of the seminars was predominantly to warn Australians, to which he said that he could not recall, but that most likely his wording would have been to inform what Islam was and what he knew.
255	Pastor Scot was asked whether he was in favour if inter-faith dialogue, to which he replied that he was, but he was not in favour of discrediting the teaching of Jesus or compromising the Gospel. He said later in his evidence that in some respects he is not in favour and in other respects he is in favour, but what is important is you do not compromise and you do not water down the teachings of Jesus and in that respect he was not in favour of inter-faith dialogue.
256	He was asked what was the artistic purpose of the seminar, to which he replied, it was religious purpose to explain to the church people on certain aspects of the summit? teaching and to teach them how to share Gospel of Muslim, how to answer the questions that some people ask and how to be sensitive towards their customs. That was the purpose of the seminar in that church.
257	He conceded that in general of the 1.2 billion Muslims, most are not fanatics and that the majority of them are like us, simply looking for a friend that they can trust, to which he agreed. He said the purpose of the seminar was to enhance, love Jesus Christ and without being less understood by Muslim people when you are talking with them so the religious duty and that meeting in church was basically this purpose to equip other believers to share Gospel with them.
258	In re-examination, he was asked whether Mohammed could read or write. He had answered “no”, and he said that the vast majority of Muslim scholars are of that opinion. There are, however, some that say that there was some doubt about that. Insofar as Sura 57 is concerned, he said that with Meccan and Medina suras, there is a difference between some scholars and it is a very rough type of approximation and there is also no chronological order.
259	He was asked questions about David Hicks and the fact he was mentioned in the seminar and that he expressed the view that he was a true Muslim. He said he was explaining the context of another verse of the Qur’an, which says that true Muslims fight for Allah and that in that context he said that David Hicks is fighting for Allah, or believes he is, and he is like any other true Muslim. He said that when he referred to David Hicks as a true Muslim, he was appreciating that he stands for his beliefs, because he believes that that is what the Qur’an says and he stands by that and he is prepared to die for that and that he was in fact complementing him as a man acting out his beliefs.
260	He was asked about the reference to the volume of women as expressed in the Qur’an and that in his answer he referred to the value as expressed in the Hadiths. He said that there are many passages with regard to the value of women which are contained within the Hadiths and that they made comments about their value, similar to which he had expressed in his evidence in chief. For example, Bukhai, Volume 1, Hadith Number 301, it is said that women are deficient in their intelligence.
261	He was asked questions about the analogy of a woman being like a field to plough and to use her as you wish. He said that you cannot draw the analogy by simply looking at the Qur’an, but you must also look at the circumstances under which the verse was given and if you leave out the context, there is nothing wrong with the analogy, but the context can give a different meaning.
262	He was directed to questions which were put to him that there is a consistency in the Arabic Qur’an and there is a common belief with many Muslims that the real Qur’an is in Arabic. He said that he believes that there was no special incapacity with Arabic language, that it cannot be translated or understood in other languages.
263	He was asked about his reference in the seminar to temporary marriages, that is, not with a wife, but as a form of prostitution, and he said the practice was not confined to one or two countries, but existed particularly where Shia people, such as in Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. He said the reference to temporary marriages arrived from a scholar, Altavadi and there was also a commentary at Chapter 4, Verse 24.
264	His attention was drawn to an answer he gave in cross-examination about conceding that the world today is quite different to the world in which Muslims lived, to which he agreed. He was further asked whether he conceded many Muslims took into account changed circumstances, and he answered, some did and some did not. Asked to explain this, he said that though people are living in the 20th Century, they were required to follow the way Mohammed lived and that has to be followed. There is, however, a process of reasoning employed by Islamic scholars, who say that because circumstances are different, thought has to be given to change, but such scholars are not often very well received.
265	He was asked to clarify whether the seminars which he gave are for the public. He said they are held in public halls because it was a general Christian religious meeting, so everyone was supposed to be Christian.
266	With regard to the number of Muslims in Australia, he said that he believed there were between 350,000 and 400,000 and that he based that on a book written by a Professor who is an expert witness on Islam and he wrote a book entitled “Many Religions are Australian”. He says the Muslims were encouraged not to mention their religion and another source was information from the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is commonly available on a website. It is an Islamic website called “Islam in the World” and it nominates 382,000 Muslims in Australia. He said there are much higher figures which some people claim, but he took 350,000. He then referred to Document 198 in the material, which is dated 12 July 2002, where it is stated that the Muslim population is between 281,000 and 450,000 in Australia. This document was put out by the Islamic Council of Victoria. He said that at no time did he exaggerate the number of Muslims in Australia for some purpose of his own. He was asked about a document, Exhibit “M47”, which is a book which is freely distributed in Victoria and has a number of pages on Jihad. He said that he had read that book and that the teachings in that book were traditional insofar as Jihad is concerned.
267	Mr Perkins asked him to elaborate on an answer that he gave when he said at the seminar that he taught traditional, fundamental views, but was not limited to that, but he had looked at modern Islamic scholars, such as those living in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and Iran. He said that he had looked at a range of views.
268	He was asked about the role of Pakistan from an Islamic point of view and he said that Pakistan claims to be the fortress of Islam.
269	He was asked about the explanation with regard to the first 20 minutes missing on the tape and he said that when we entered the church we started with the singing, and everyone was singing and then we had a time of prayer.
270	He was asked whether it was appropriate for him to refer to the Reader’s Digest at the seminar. He said that from his point of view that he was of the opinion that there was nothing wrong with that because what was there was a good summary and from the time that he was in Pakistan he had many discussions about Madrassah. He said the Reader’s Digest article corresponded with his experience to a limited degree, but he had a much broader knowledge than the Reader’s Digest article writer. Nonetheless, he thought it was a very brief relevant summary.
271	He said that with regard to congregations of Christians, they are charismatic gatherings. He said some people come to Church to worship and they have a very sober long face, whereas we believe the Bible tells us that God loves us as his children and there is joy and happiness and we are in the presence of the heavenly Father and we talk to him. He said this type of worship doesn’t apply to all Christians, but more of the evangelical Christians. He said that evangelical Christians clap, and sometimes scream even, and he referred to praying in tongues and he said that it is common practice.
272	He said that insofar as he was concerned, there was nothing wrong with using humour in the way in which he did. His attention was directed to the fact that he was being critical of the Qur’an and he was asked whether he thought he was entitled to be critical. He said there was certain passages in the Qur’an which he didn’t accept and did not like and that he was entitled to be critical. He was asked questions with regard to Chapter 5, Verse 39 and to explain why Verse 39 was not mentioned and that in cross-examination it was put that he should have referred to it. He said would have been time consuming and he said the detail is that the first time the hand would be chopped off people, the second time the punishment allowed was to cut a leg off, but if you repented, that is, you didn’t repeat stealing, then you are spared that punishment.
273	He was asked to elaborate on the answer that he gave to interpreting the Qur’an in the context of the 7th Century when people were fighting each other and he was asked what he understood of the fighting that was occurring in the 7th Century and as to whether it was Jihad or not. His answer was that Jihad doesn’t tell you that people have to fight with you. Jihad tells you that you go to extend the boundaries of other’s territory and conquer religions.
274	He was asked to elaborate on the references to the Qur’an in the Ibraham Ministries’ constitution and he said that generally sometimes he sees Islam interpreted so this is one aspect which comes under training and includes the teaching of Qur’an and Islam and teaching aspects of that nature, but that is not the only thing which they do. We have programs monitoring, caring for people, doing all sorts of things.
275	Furthering re-examination, Mr Perkins asked for an explanation from Pastor Scot as to why he believed that the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are totally opposite to each other in character. His explanation is contained at pages 2,301 and following.
276	I found Pastor Scot to be passionate with regard to his religious beliefs. He sought to quote to the Tribunal the Bible, rather than answer questions directly. Ultimately, however, he would produce a responsive answer. However, his evidence was very unsatisfactory in many ways.

There were two aspects of his evidence which I found totally unsatisfactory and which create in my mind substantial doubts about his credibility as a witness. Firstly, in his witness statement he states that he has written books on Islam and that they had been distributed in seminars. In evidence he actually nominated a title to those books (see T1901) and he said that he had distributed approximately 20,000 of them. In fact he had not written three books. None of the books have been published and, indeed, have not been completed. Having read his witness statement, I had assumed that these were published books. In fact they are photocopies of part of what he has written, which has been photocopied and sold under a different name at conferences and seminars. He sells the photocopies of the uncompleted books for between $10 and $15, although he gives some of them away. Furthermore, the books are sold under the name Sadiki, which give the impression that it is a Muslim name.

Secondly, the way in which he dealt with the Qur'an verse 38 to 40 gave me great concern with regard to his ability to put forward an honest and fair representation of Islam. I am of the view that he deliberately omitted verse 39 so as to give an anti-Islamic interpretation of a Qur'anic verse. Indeed, when his attention was directed to this, his explanation was that there were time constraints. He then gave an explanation (T2114-2116) which I find extraordinary, namely that he omitted it because verse 38 requires amputation, verse 39 says if you repent you will be forgiven, but he said this relates only to a second offence, and that was the reason for his omission of that verse. Despite the arguments of Mr Perkins to the contrary, I find that assertion illogical and unsustainable. In my view, viewed objectively, it was an act with was deliberately deleted by him to support his views with regard to the Qur'an.

These are only two examples as to why I have substantial doubts with regard to his credibility. Overall, he was negative in his approach to Islam and its religious teachings.

Statement of Daniel Nalliah

277	Daniel Nalliah provided a Witness Statement in which he indicated that he was a registered Pastor of the Assembly of God of Australia and also a Director of Catch the Fire Ministries, which was founded in 1998. He said that Catch the Fire Ministries is an incorporated association of which he is both Director and President. The Ministry functions on donations. He does not receive a regular salary.
278	One of the activities of Catch the Fire Ministries is the “Rise Up Australia Prayer Movement” which is a nationwide prayer movement which sponsors in thirty towns and cities across Australia. The catch cry “Rise Up Australia” is an expression of an exhortation to rise up in prayer and repentance. The exhortation has no overtones whatsoever of civil unrest or violence. Further, reference to the enemy is simply references to Satan. Catch the Fire also runs organisations such as Options Plus Care, which is a pregnancy counselling organisation, and they assist in the resettlement of refugees in some parts of Australia on their release from detention centres.
279	He asserts that Catch the Fire Ministries has launched a campaign to bring reconciliation between Aboriginal people and others within Australia and he recites reconciliation marches which were conducted on 30 and 31 of May and 1 June 2003, following which letters were written to the Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable John Howard.
280	He said that the Catch the Fire Ministries had undertaken a number of political activities in that he had met with Mr Ruddock to discuss religious freedom for Christians and discuss a range of matters, including Muslim converts seeking to leave Egypt to come to Australia.
281	He said the constitution of Catch the Fire Ministries Inc. sets out in a formal way some of the aims and objectives. It employs some biblical religious terminology in a manner which many people will be unfamiliar. One example is the reference to “the bride” which means, in short, “the Church”. Another example is the relation between the fire and the holy ghost. The fire is what came upon disciples [tongues of fire] as described by Christ. He then sets out the constitution of Catch the Fire Ministries and then goes on to describe its objectives, which are to propagate the message of the word of God and help people catch the fire of the holy ghost so that people would live a life of victory and not defeat. He then sets out specific objectives which broadly involve the upholding of the family as the basic social unit of society; to establish self-governing, self-propagating local churches; to encourage an attitude of Christian fellowship towards all believers in Jesus Christ irrespective of doctrinal or other differences.
282	He then describes the basis upon which one may apply for membership, followed by the fact that the Catch the Fire Ministries is a non-profit organisation which functions as a para-church with a prayer focus. It is affiliated with an organisation Australian Christian Churches (ACC). The key focus is the creation of an awareness of current issues which may affect Christians in politics, legislation and religion. The work of the Catch the Fire Ministries is carried out in conjunction with around 140 churches which are affiliated to the ACC throughout Australia. Furthermore, he states that he is licensed as an itinerant pastor in the area of “specialist ministries” by the Assemblies of God of Victoria. Worldwide, the Assemblies of God is one of the largest Christian denominations, with hundreds of millions of members throughout many nations. It is the largest Pentecostal denomination in Australia. It is the largest network of Christian churches in Australia after the Catholic Church and it is larger than denominations such as the Anglicans and the Uniting Churches. His work as a pastor involves among other things the promotion and application of Christian values, both in private and public life. The public aspect necessarily involves contact with politicians and insofar as he is concerned politics involves an appropriate personal expression of religious beliefs, values and conscience. He was born to a Christian Tamil family in Sri Lanka and describes his interaction between Christian pastors and violence inflicted upon them by Buddhists.
283	During his time that he lived in Saudi Arabia between 1995 and 1997, he lived near sacred Muslim sites at which Christian worship was a criminal offence and could be punished by the death penalty. In 1997 he published a book entitled “Worship Under the Sword” which documents the experience of living as a Christian under Shari’a Law in Saudi Arabia. He stated that 7,000 copies of the book had been sold.
284	He states that while he was in Saudi Arabia he watched public executions and chopping of hands said to be in the name of God and carried out pursuant to Shari’a law. Furthermore, he had friends who were of the Christian religion who were captured and tortured and he took the view as to whether Islam really reaches violence or whether the people concerned were acting contrary to the Qur’an.
285	He said that whilst in Saudi Arabia he interacted with Muslims and to his amazement the more he learnt about Islam the more concerned he became, particularly with regard to the teaches which were set up in the Qur’an and confirmed what he was witnessing in Saudi Arabia.
286	At paragraph 23 of his statement he said that his conversations with Muslim missionaries who had travelled overseas to teach Islam brought him deep concern and that a typical statement was that it was very easy in the west to spread Islam and, although we/he did not represent democracy, we could us it to further our cause. Further, than when we have the numbers, we will then impose our law and systems and that Jihad was one of our methods to intimate and bring fear to the west.
287	He stated that whilst Christians in Saudi Arabia were not permitted to worship openly, he became aware of a small and scattered fellowship of believers in Christ throughout Saudi Arabia and on the fact that those fellowships were linked with each other. The consequence of this was that they experienced religious persecution and that sometimes Christians were tortured and even executed for their religious observance.
288	The above circumstances led him to establish and lead an association of underground churches entitled the United Churches of Saudi Arabia (UCOSA).
289	During 1997 he began a process of informing about the matters which I have just mentioned and it gave him opportunities to travel to Europe and the United States and to tell other people what was happening. Those organisations to which he made contact with included “Open Doors” (in Holland), “Christian Solidarity International” (England) and the “International Christian Concern” (United States of America). In November 1997 I visited the United States of America and in Washington DC I had meetings with members of Congress and with officials of the United States Department of State in which I informed them about the situation for Christians as it was in Saudi Arabia. I also had contact with and provided information to the Helsinki Commission, a committee of the US Congress, and leaders and members of an organisation known as “Christian Coalition”. I provided advice and information to those congressman concerning the needs of the Christian minority in Saudi Arabia.
290	The United States Freedom from Religious Persecution Bill was passed by Congress on 18 November 1998. This law provided that any minority religious groups in any country should be given religious freedom and it empowers the United States to intervene and to impose sanctions on a country which does not have to prevent religious persecution. The Bill also established an ambassador at large for international religious freedom.
291	At paragraphs 31 to 35, he described moves which he made to allow Christians to worship publicly, receive visits from Christian ministers and own and import bibles and other Christian literature, as well as ensuring that they have freedom to worship in the privacy of their homes and the need to free Christians from imprisonment in Saudi Arabia. He states that Christians in Saudi Arabia were being arrested because of their religious observances and speaks constantly about his relationship with the United States Department of State and Congress members of the Senate.
292	He said that he will contend in these proceedings that the Racial and Religious Vilification Act constitutes an infringement of fundamental constitutional rights of free speech, including the right to speak about religion, morality, conscience and the right to practice religion freely.
293	At paragraph 37 he states that he personally has a profound view that when Islam states that we are peaceful, another side states that violence is the way. He asserts that his experience of Islam gave him actual knowledge of the way the systems work in practice and that as an Australian citizen he has the right to express his concerns based upon his experiences before coming to Australia.
294	At paragraph 38 he states that his faith enjoins his members to love all people, including Muslims, but they also have the right to examine and study another religion, its holy text, its beliefs and practices. He states that he wishes to be part of a people who are well informed and not naïve and who are able to consider and reflect upon and discuss the text and teachings without interference.
295	He said that after September 11 2001, he was asked by many people to share what he knew and that that is what he did through his newsletter, website and the seminar. He said that the message conveyed was one of love. Further that the newsletter constantly encourages Christians to love Muslims and he cites three statements which were made at the seminar in support of that view.
296	Insofar as the website article of Richard Braidich was concerned that following the events of September 11, Braidich, who was a friend of Saudi Arabia, had sent him something which he had written on terrorism and the connection with the Saudis and that he put this on the Catch the Fire website with Braidich’s permission.
297	He states that both the article by Braidich, which was on the Catch the Fire website, and the Catch the Fire Newsletter were published before the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act came into force in 2002. He stated that he only removed both the article and the newsletter soon after the complaint was brought against the Catch the Fire Ministry, and its removal was intended as a gesture of good will in the context of the mediation process occurring in mid-2002. However, he asserts that the removal was not predicated on any view and that the material in any case was erroneous.
298	He states that the Catch the Fire Ministries Newsletter is published quarterly and read by more than 10,000 people around the world and that he has never in those newsletters raised concerns about Buddhism or Hinduism because of the fact that they do not promote violence.
299	He refers to the Witness Statement of Mark Durie concerning what he describes as a particular genre of worship, namely the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, and that he agrees with the statements made by Mark Durie.
300	Finally, in relation to the seminar, the fact that the perpetrators were Saudis and that because many people knew of his experience in Saudi Arabia, he received many requests for an insight into Islam through “Rise Up Australia”. He said that he became aware of Daniel Scot’s Ministry as a Christian teaching about Islam via hearing a tape speaking to a conference. He realised that he had a good knowledge of Islam and Islamic text and, accordingly, he asked him to speak on the three topics which have been outlined. The seminar was designed for Christians, in his view, to answer their questions and to equip them to witness to Muslim people. Witnessing is an essential part of Christianity.
301	Finally, he indicated that the seminar was taped as they expected that people would want copies. He said they did not make the copies available after the meeting because our plan was to transcript the tapes and then re-record the material using a native English speaker; a plan which was made at Daniel Scot’s request because he had received death threats from Muslims and he wanted to keep a low profile. Furthermore, they wanted a fluent speaker and that at the time the complaint was lodged through the Equal Opportunity Commission they had taken no action to transcribe or re-record the tapes.
302	He stated that the material which was published and the complaints which were made again him attracted immunity having regard to the Australian Constitution. He states that once religion becomes the subject of an intention to legislate or of actual legislative provisions, religion has become the legitimate subject of political debate. He denies any religious vilification.
303	Mr Nalliah was cross-examined by Ms Mortimer. Ms Mortimer took him to the Catch the Fire Ministries’ Newsletter, the first of which was published in July 1999. He said that he wrote pieces for it. He agreed this devoting to describing his travels, in his teaching work or sharing the gospel, meaning trying to persuade people to become Christians. He conceded that at the bottom of the back page words “Catch the Fire Ministries Inc, PS Danny, was a reference to him. He conceded it was sent to people who were members of Catch the Fire. This was not necessarily members of Catch the Fire, but affiliated with the organisation which has 140 churches across Australia. He said the Newsletter is distributed by co-ordinators across Australia, but it was also located on the website. The website link commenced in either 2001 or 2002. His attention was drawn to page 3 of that document, which is headed “Evangelism Banned in Australia”. He said that is an article about the anti vilification legislation and what occurred is that he had a supernatural encounter with Jesus which took place on 9 April at 5:00am in a dream, which in fact turned out to be true, with the enactment of the anti-vilification legislation. He said that after that dream he heard the Lord say very clearly:

“If my church be proactive and rise up, it shall stop the coming disaster upon the land of Australia. If my Church chooses to relax and be reactive, surely the price you would pay to rise up again would be very costly. If my people would gather in my name as one nation, leaving their differences, and would name the sins of the land and repent and call upon me, I shall hear their cry and visit the land.”

304	The newsletter of Winter 2000 was admitted, under objection from Mr Perkins, although he did not wish to speak to it. It is admissible for reasons which I shall shortly refer.
305	Mr Nalliah was then taken to the Newsletter for Summer 2001 which he thought was published in November. He agreed that in that Newsletter he wrote the article “Rise Up or Pay the Price” and a further article “How Can We Save Our Nation” on page 3, which notes that in the Newsletter of Summer 2001 he refers to being in Ethiopia and being woken by the Lord on April 9 2000. In my view, the Summer Edition of the newsletter is a continuation of that which is contained in the Winter 2000 edition where he first talks about speaking with God and being pro-active and the words “rise up” are used. In my view, the two documents are linked and form part of the development of a campaign to oppose the legislation which is before the Tribunal. Although the document dated Winter 2000 has only marginal probative value.
306	At page 8 of the Summer 2001 edition, he concedes that he wrote the document entitled “A Message from the Lord to the Prime Minister of Australia, The Honourable John Howard”. He was asked about his reference to “the enemy” in the Newsletter and he said that it encompasses everybody that has an accepted Christ. He said it includes Muslims and all those who do not know the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, they’re blinded to the truth and that’s true of anyone who does not know the Lord. He said that that’s not his words, that’s exactly what is in the word of God in the Bible. It was put directly to him that he, when using the word “enemy” was referring to Muslims, but he denied that that was the case and indicated it encompassed a much larger group, as explained by his earlier definition.
307	His attention was then drawn to the Newsletter of September 2002. He agreed he wrote the article in that document entitled “The Evangelism Banned Legislation Passed” referred to the legislation before the Tribunal. He also agreed that he wrote page 1 of that Newsletter where he said the Church needs to write up and take a stand against the enemy’s attack upon the Church, as it comes through the most unexpected sources. The word of God very clearly states that the enemy would come amongst us like wolves in sheep’s clothing. When asked what that was a reference to, he said that it was what the Bible preaches. His attention was directed to the word “the last few weeks have been very interesting and challenging for our Ministry and us as a family”. It was put to him that was a reference to the complaint by ICV, to which he replied “Not necessarily”. But he then said that quite possibly it was, although that during that time they had other challenges. His attention was drawn in that document to the “stop press” which records that the Equal Opportunity Commission stated that they had found that the complaints of religious vilification against Catch the Fire Ministries Inc. had not been proven. He said that that was a mistake, as the Equal Opportunity Commission could not make a decision o this and that he corrected it in a later newsletter.
308	His attention was drawn to the article entitled “Evangelism Banned Legislation Passed Recap of the Word from the Lord/Come True”. In that article it states that the legislation had been passed and what the Lord had told him from Ethiopia in the Year 2000 had come true and that was the start of Rise Up Australia a call to prayer and repentance. He was asked whether he was referring to the anti vilification legislation in that article, to which he said “yes”. He also said, however, there was another piece of legislation which was passed which was banning door-to-door salesmen from selling goods and that one of the practices of the Christian Church had been to go door-to-door, sharing the gospel, as commanded by the Lord Jesus. His attention was directed to a reference of the Victorian Government receiving 5,000 letters of protest against the Bill and that the article referred to the fact that “all religious discussions are exempt from this Bill”. He was asked where in the Bill does it state that all religious discussions are exempt from this Bill and he said that he didn’t know, that his English was not good, but that he had spoken to the Minister for Cultural Affairs who told him that there was freedom to talk about religious issues and he said that when he wrote the article and mentioned the exemption he may have been referring to Clause 11.
309	He was asked about the concept that only Christians were invited to the seminar and any Muslims who attended came uninvited and that he had come to that conclusion because the flyers were distributed only to Christians or Christian groups. However, he conceded that there was a possibility that there was a brochure on the website and he was shown a document, Exhibit “BBBB” which is headed “Hot News” and which advertises the seminar.
310	He was asked by Ms Mortimer about whether he believes in multi-faith prayer meetings and things like that, to which he answered “definitely not”. He said that for a Christian to visit a mosque and make a statement that anybody worships the same God is not correct. He would not criticise the Christian leader for visiting the mosque, but he would certainly criticise him for making in a statement that he did. From his point of view, the Christian God and Allah are quite separate. He said that Catch the Fire Ministries do not engage in any interfaith dialogue and they have never been invited.
311	Pastor Nalliah was shown the Community Accord which is Exhibit “N” and which is signed by the Islamic Council and by other bodies. Mr Perkins objected to the admission of this document as evidence. It is a document which has obviously been produced by the Victorian Offices of Multicultural Affairs. It states in its opening words that it is reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women of all Victorians. It then expresses a desire to promote realisation of the principals contained in the universal declaration of human rights, the international convention of the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. It then contains a statement which is in the following terms:

“We proclaim this community accord.”

And what followed are in the following words:

“In recognition of Victoria as a vibrant, diverse and progressive state in which all people live, work and prosper together, we, the undersigned representatives of Victoria’s ethnic and religious communities undertake to:

Respect all ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic communities, promote respect for diversity across our communities, seek opportunities to work together to reaffirm our similarities as human beings and the fundamental principal that unites us as Victorians, advocate for the elimination of racial and religious intolerance, reject all forms of racial and religious vilification, violence, harassment and unlawful discrimination.

In endorsing this declaration, we, the undersigned, accept responsibility to comply with these principals.”

312	The document is then signed by a wide variety of groups. These include the Jewish Community Council of Victoria, the Hindu Society of Victoria, the Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria, Hebrew Congregation, the Board of Imams Islamic Society of Victoria, the Vietnamese Community in Victoria and many such other organisations and Churches. The document is signed by Mr Soliman on behalf of the Islamic Council of Victoria. He was asked by Ms Mortimer whether he agreed with the sentiments which are contained within the document. It should be noted that the Catch the Fire Ministries or the Assembly of God is not a party to the accord. He said that he did not know whether he agreed with the sentiments which are contained within the document. He said that he would have to study it before being in a position to do so.
313	His attention was directed to a document which refers to Rise up Australia, Catch the Fire Ministries and what is referred to as prayer strategy. Paragraph 5 of the document refers to asking the Lord to give you insight with regard to strongholds in the area in which you are living and it then mentions brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosques, temples, Freemasons, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. Asked whether he was asserting that a mosque is a stronghold of Satan, he answered it by reference to the Bible. When asked whether a mosque, which is a place where Muslims worship, as being equated with a brothel, he said that it was not necessarily so. He conceded that he had described as Satan’s strongholds brothels, bottle shops, gambling places, etc. However, he finally conceded that he regarded mosques as Satan’s strongholds and he said that is because of the reference in the Bible concerning people who do not know Jesus and therefore will not know the light. He said that as a result of what is contained in the Bible that he loves Muslims. He said that he might look at the religion of Islam and say they need to be free, but “when its Muslims, we love them”.
314	He was asked about the document entitled “Ministry News” which advertised the seminar and why he described it as an Islamic conference. He said that this was probably a mistake as a result of his English. Asked whether he would say it was or was not an Islamic conference, he said it was Islamic. Asked whether it was an Islamic conference, he requested an opportunity to look up the dictionary to determine what the real meaning of “conference” is. He finally conceded that it should have been referred to as an Islamic seminar or a seminar on Islam.
315	Pastor Nalliah was taken back to the document entitled “An Insight Into Islam by Richard”. He agreed that Catch the Fire published on its website material which was written by other people and that this was an example. He said he worked with Richard in Saudi Arabia and that they spent a lot of time working, particularly amongst Saudi Arabian Muslims. A point of publishing this article on the website was to give people an understanding of September 11. He said his aim was to deal with misconceptions of categorising all Muslims and putting them into the one box and he thought that this article gave an insight into matters and exactly what is in the Qur’an and they (Muslims) are very nice people.
316	His attention was directed to page 3 in the Statement at the bottom of the page:

“If Muslims have consciences, and most are nominal and don’t follow the dictates of their Book, why have we experienced such an atrocity by those who clearly set out to die and take thousands of innocent people with them? The answer is frightening.”

317	He was also taken to page 6 of the article and the last line which is in the following terms:

“Remember, of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, BUT, make no mistake about it. Terrorism is intimately tied to Islam in ideals, and it is impossible to be divorced from it – and Saudi Arabia is the fuel behind it.”

318	And finally, at page 4, his attention was directed to a sentence which is in the following terms:

“Thank God that most Muslims don’t follow Islam literally or seriously.”

319	He was asked by Ms Mortimer that the thrust of the message in the article was that Muslims who seriously, or other than nominally, follow Islam are capable of committing the terrorist acts discussed in the article.
320	After some argument, he responded by stating that a true Muslim can be categorised possibly in two different ways. One who reads the whole Qur’an but does not practice aspects of it because it is against his moral conduct because he is living in a democratic society, and he could still be a true Muslim, worshipping his God, keeping all the Five Pillars of Islam, but not fully taking all verses which are difficult to be part of that. What I understand is that what Richard Bradich is stating in the article is that, if you are to practice every single word in the Qur’an, then obviously you will be categories as a terrorist because the Qur’an does have statements of violence against Christians and Jews.
321	His attention was directed to Exhibit “CC” which is the Catch the Fire Newsletter for Summer 2001. He was taken to page 1 of the article, which contains the heading:

“Rise Up or Pay the Price”

And he was asked whether he criticised Pentecostal Pastors who join in with all religious leaders in many countries to pray in the name of God and he agreed that he was doing so because the Bible is very clear in stating Jesus made the statement, “I am the way, the truth and the light”, and what he meant through that was that he was the only doorway unto God, so that when you are praying to God of the Christians you pray through Jesus and what had happened here was that many people gathered from different faiths and they prayed directly to God, which is a direct violation of the command of Jesus, according to the Bible, and that he did not agree with that. Furthermore, in this article which he wrote he was directed to the sentence on page 1 which is in the following terms:

“Come on men and women of God, don’t sell your birthright in order to maintain your place in the city. Stand up for what you believe. If not, you will lose your homeland to a foreign religion and its people.”

322

Asked whether the reference to foreign religion was to Islam, he said not necessarily, and that it could be Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism or Satanism. However, he agrees that he does include Islam and its followers, but not exclusively. He was referred to another passage in the article, which talks about the enemy getting well organised to take over the land and it was put to him that that was a reference to Muslims. He said, no, that Satan has his plans to take Australia and it could be from groups of people. He referred to people in the Aboriginal community and the fact that he had met with Aboriginal leaders and they shared information about what is happening among Aboriginal converts to Islam. Asked whether he meant that Satan is working through Muslims, he replied that when you refer to Muslims you can categorise them in many ways. For example, people call themselves who die as martyrs as Muslims, but the Western world would call them terrorists. In Saudi Arabia they’re called Freedom Fighters because they’re not looked at as terrorists. He said, however, at page 2694 of the transcript that insofar as this applied to Australian Muslims, he was not referring to all Muslims, but some who are doing things in Australia.

323

His attention was directed to page 2 of the article which is headed “2020 – Will Australia be a Christian Country” and paragraph 2 of that article is in the following terms:

“While many Australians do not want to have children until they are 35-40 years old, due to pursuit of their career in life (some are even freezing their eggs in order to do so), the Muslim has four wives and ten to twelve children per family. While the population of Aussies is on the decrease, another population is rapidly on the increase. Church, can you see it, are you so blinded?”

324	Asked to whom this statement was direct, he gave a variety of answers, including Australian Muslims, the broad population of Muslims around the world, all Australians, the Christian community here and, finally, it was put to him that the ordinary meaning of that statement is that there are too many Muslims and not enough Pentecostal Christians and he finally responded, yes, we do have a problem.
325	His attention was also directed to a paragraph written by him, which is in the following terms and is contained in the same article:

“What has happened in England could well happen in Australia. Twenty years ago there were some one hundred mosques in the land. Today it’s estimated there are over one thousand mosques in England. Many Mayors are Muslims. This has resulted in some churches being closed down and converted to mosques. They have also very cleverly infiltrated Parliament and other influential places, including many churches (even in Australia). This is in order to stop the name of Jesus being mentioned, because Satan knows the name of Jesus is trouble for him and also to spy on what the Western governments are doing.”

326	He said that he was referring to events that had happened in England and that if a church closes down it is a dangerous development. He agreed that when he refers to the infiltration of Parliament and the use of the word “they”, he is referring to Muslims. He said that in that paragraph he is not necessarily referring to Muslims when he talks about the infiltration of Parliament, as he constantly directs his attention to the demonic powers of darkness and Satan and evil and that he is referring to all groups of people in that paragraphs. He denied that the answer that he gave was a reconstruction which was designed to suit his purposes in this case. He was referred to the use of the word “they” in relation to the infiltration of Parliament and other influential places. It is a suggestion that Muslims are moving into places, like Parliament, where they should not be and he said that that was not necessarily so, but that the message that I’m conveying that there are Muslims with ideologies which I know of, if they are in Parliament then it is not good for us and that includes many churches. Asked where he makes the distinction between categories of Muslims I that paragraph, he said he does so by indicating that he does not use the word “all” when referring to Muslims. Asked about his statement about Muslims spying on Western governments, he again makes the point that he is talking about some groups of Muslims and justifies that view by the absence of any word such as “all” before the word “Muslims”.
327	He was then asked about the use of the word following the last paragraph, where he next commences with the words “will you let it happen in Australia?” He said when he used those words, he was not talking about all the matters that he had set out in the previous paragraph, but only about churches, and that he was talking to the Christian community in the Newsletter and asking whether they are going to let the churches become mosques and whether they are going to do that or not, or whether they’re going to protect the church? When pressed, he said that he intended to include the other matters as well that are contained in the previous paragraph.
328	His attention was directed to another paragraph where the following words appear:

“The motto of the Muslims is to convert the whole world to Islam by peaceful violence.”

329	It was put to him he did not qualify that statement by reference to categories of Muslims, which he denied, and said there are categories of people there and he particularly referred to what was contained in the article about an Imam stating in the course of a meeting, when asked about what Holy War is, answered that “Holy War is we will make everyone in Australia worship Allah. Through peace or through violence.” When asked about the motto of the Muslim which I have referred to he said that when he was working in Saudi Arabia, amongst very large Muslim communities, they quoted to me the Qur’an and what they would establish across the world, and if they failed with priests then they would use violence and in his opinion that’s what he said again (in the article?). Asked whether that was the message he wanted to spread in Australia, he said that is the real message which is out there.
330	He was asked about some other words, namely, “they all believe in the same book, the Qur’an, and he was asked whether “they” refer to Muslims and it was suggested that he said that because Muslims believe in the Qur’an and are capable of repeating September 11 attacks and that’s the message”. To which he answered, “that’s correct, not all Muslims, some Muslims”.
331	His attention was directed in the article at page 3, under the heading “How Can We Save Our Nations”, where he wrote “we need to love the Muslims, but not sell our birthright or heritage to them”. Asked whether that meant “don’t allow Muslims to take over Australia”, he said it meant “don’t let Islam take over Australia”. He agreed that Muslims are people who believe in Islam.
332	He was asked about Muslims coming to Australia as boat people, and he quoted figures which he had obtained from the Reverend Fred Nile and a newspaper which he now agreed were incorrect. The article further refers to Muslims who are coming to Australia in boats and the fact that visas are given to Muslims who come to Australia that way, where Christians cannot get visas because they are given to Muslims who come in boats, “whilst from the very countries where the Christians are being raped, tortured and killed”. In one of the articles there is reference to John Howard, and asking him to “stop those boats from coming”. He agreed that the article could be interpreted in that way.
333	He was asked whether he had reported any condemnations by Muslims of the September 11 attacks and he stated that “to be honest he really could not recall in Australia whether he saw any public condemnation of terrorist groups”. Asked whether he chose not to report those condemnations, because they showed Muslims in a positive light, he said “because I really could not put truth into those statements according to what I knew at that point of time. Possibly there are those who are positions at high levels and what they say is not true. The general Muslim population would be very sorry about what had happened and I fully appreciate their statements”, but he agreed that he did not report any of them.
334	He was asked about the removal from the website of the statements and article by Richard and he said that that was intended as a gesture of good will, but as far as he’s concerned there’s nothing wrong in the article by Richard or the statements in the Newsletter and he agreed that he would publish them again.
335	Asked about the style of worship in the Pentecostal movement, he agreed that it encourages people to express their emotions and it goes beyond emotions, it’s a supernatural encounter, which involves lots of noise and shouting. He had described it as people expressing themselves freely, not felling confined to a particular formality.
336	He agreed that the purpose of the seminar was to warn Christians about the dangers of Islam as he saw them. The second was said to be designed to persuade Christians about why Islam needs to be stamped out in Australia and he denied that that was the case. He said their desire was for Christians to have an understanding of Islam, so that they could share the gospel effectively with those who believe in Islam. The third proposition put to him was that the purpose of the seminar was to alarm Christians about the content of Islam so that they would try and convert people to Christianity. He said that he did not know whether the use of the word “alarm” was correct. Pastor Nalliah denied that the more the Catch the Fire Ministry highlights the danger of Islam, the easier it is to obtain donations to the church, and the more that they emphasise the dangers of Islam, the more likely it is that they will encourage people to become active within the church. A proposition which he again also denied.
337	Pastor Nalliah was re-examined by Mr Perkins. He said that in relation to the Newsletter and Christians, some 4000 copies were printed and he said that each Newsletter was addressed to “Dear Family in Christ”, so it’s constantly addressed to the Christian community.
338	He said that the article by Richard was on the website for possibly four months.
339	He was asked the source of his views with regard to the birth rate of various groups in Victoria and he then referred to a number of sources, such as an article by Mr Costello, a book entitled “Islam in Australia” and an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Pastor Nalliah was asked about the expression “Catch the Fire” and why was it used, and he referred to a passage in the Bible and also a reference in the Newsletter of 2001 with regard to news of victory. He said this had nothing to do with war talk, but he was simply trying to communicate with the Christian community and often that language is different to another person’s ears. Insofar as the concept of “Rise up or Pay the Price”, he said in no way does that represent something about bringing civil insurrection into the land. It basically means telling the Church to rise and take their stand in the nation, with the emphasis on prayer. He said the use of the word “enemy” had nothing to do with Muslims, but was based upon the Bible. He said that in the middle column of the article, where he said that “the God we serve as Christians is not the Allah the Muslims serve” and he confirmed that that is his opinion, and it is based upon facts according to the Qur’an and the Bible.
340	He was asked about the cross-examination with regard to standing up, otherwise you will lose your homeland to a foreign legion. He said that what he believed and it was based upon the fact that the church had taken a lukewarm stand in standing up for Jesus. Asked about the expression “Rise Up Now and Stand for What We Believe”, he said he wrote that because he travels across the land and he’s seen how the Church has compromised the word of God and how Satan has entered the Church in so many subtle ways, and the land, and I’ve written there stating and telling the Church to wake up. Asked about the expression “whether Australia, by the year 2020, would be a Christian country”, he said that he is a Christian and it would hurt him if that does not and he’s determined to see that it does not happen and he did not want to see the loss of Christian values in our nation.
341	He was asked about the sentence about people very cleverly infiltrating Parliament, in order to stop the name of Jesus being mentioned. He said that that was an opinion which was held by him at the time of writing the article and still is. Asked to explain the words “Stand Up Now”, he said that what he was saying was, are people going to let the Churches also shut down in Australia, which he would regard as a bad thing.
342	He said the statement by the Imam, “Australia will worship Allah through peace or violence”, he said that it was an appropriate thing to refer to in a religious newsletter and it does not come as a surprise, having lived in Saudi Arabia, and he believed that the motto of a Muslim is to convert the whole world to Islam by peace or violence, where he had heard the same thing being expressed in that country. He said he was seeking to challenge the Christian community to rise up and take a stand and see the name of Jesus to be put up so we could maintain our Christian heritage as a nation. He said that those who believe and practice the scriptures which are in the Qur’an have used in the past, as in September 11, those scriptures to do those acts in those countries or in any other nation and he asked what stops them from doing the same in the nation of Australia.
343	He was asked about the Newsletter of the Summer 2001 and the statement that “We need to love Muslims with all our heart, however difficult it may be” and that is what he preaches.
344	His attention was drawn to the number of statements which he was shown by Muslim clerics and scholars around the world which condemned September 11 (Exhibit “FF”) and he was asked about his view of those documents. He said that the documents were prepared to offer Islam in the positive light by condemning terrorist attacks. However, he referred to the fact that one of the documents was by Hammas, which is known for suicide bombing and so he invites the question as to whether the validity of the document is credible or not, particularly because of the reference to Hammas.
345	He was asked about the relationship between the aim of the seminar to warn Christians about the dangers of Islam and the necessity to love Muslims, and how the two fit together. He said the concept of love in the Christian faith is very different to the concept of love in the Islamic faith. Through Christianity, Jesus says that they are to love enemies no matter what the situation is and he says that those who do wrong to us, we would pray and love them very much. So what is happening, is that it is alerting the Christian community about what is happening and that they need to pray and love Muslims. There was cross-examination with regard to a statement by Sheikh Hillali, which appears at 2866 and following, but I do not propose to allow that to be admitted on the basis that it does not arise out of cross-examination.
346	When re-examined, he was asked what did he consider was the purpose of offering the seminar, and he gave the following answer: "I basically organise as many seminars and conferences, and this particular seminar was organised in particular after September the 11th because of the number of Christians across the nation who wanted to know more about Islam and were very naïve, not understanding what the teachings of Islam was. That was the focus in deciding to organise this seminar".
347	Dr Durie was called to give evidence by the respondents. He prepared the transcript of the seminar and it was tendered through him. As previously indicated, I believe that it is a very accurate transcript of what was said on the day.

348	However, the complainants assert:

1. That Dr Durie is not qualified as an expert to give evidence on Islam;

2. That his views are partial due to a longstanding commitment and interest in the respondent succeeding in the defence of these proceedings; and

3. Lack relevance and accuracy.

349	It is submitted that the Tribunal should disregard the whole of Dr Durie's evidence except for Attachment A to his witness statement, that is, the transcript of the seminar.
350	The basis upon which the argument is put is as follows:

(a) he has no formal qualifications in Islamic theology and he concedes that. That he asserts that he has made a self study of the subject is irrelevant to the question of proving expertise. But it is relevant to demonstrating that he is not qualified as an expert; he cannot judge his own qualifications but has not allowed anyone to test his claim;

(b) he has no training which could operate as a substitute for formal qualifications;

(c) he is not a Muslim and has not acquired knowledge in practising Islam which, in some circumstances might qualify him to express some opinions about the meaning of Islamic teachings or the beliefs of Muslims;

(d) on his own admission, his real "interest" in Islam is of recent origin and triggered by the terrorist acts on 11 September 2001;

(e) his experiences in Aceh have no relevance to his expertise in this proceeding, although they may qualify him to testify about Acehnese languages and culture;

(f) he has not engaged with Muslims in Australia or overseas - in the sense of attending conferences, seminars or participating in debates. He does not participate in any inter-faith dialogue, and he cannot thereby have acquired any experiences which might qualify him to give expert evidence about Islam or its adherents. His very recent establishment of a website where he promulgates his particular views about Islam does not establish any qualification by way of experience. The complete absence from his statement of his qualifications and experiences of any engagements with Muslim clerics, academics or community leaders is also highly relevant in demonstrating his lack of relevant expertise. Indeed, the polemical nature of that website militates against objective balance;

(g) in reality, he has done no more than read a large number of books and articles on Islam, and even then, only to follow a plain bias in thinking about Islam and Muslims. In this sense, Dr Durie is obviously an intelligent person who has pursued a particular interest - but he has done that in a way which any intelligent person could do, and his evidence before the Tribunal simply recites what he has read. It is not expert evidence.

351	Further, on the question of impartiality, the complainant's rely upon the following:

(a) he provided advice to the respondents in the case including advising them of matters which Dr Durie regarded as having "legal significance";

(b) he participated with Nalliah in the formulation of a "strategy" to respond to the complaint;

(c) he acted as a representative and advocate for the respondents in earlier parts of this proceeding and in respect of aspects of the mediation as their only representative;

(d) he advised Scot on whether to use the respondents' solicitors and to change counsel in relation to the proceedings;

(e) he collaborated with the respondents' lawyers in the preparation of the particulars of defence and the evidence;

(f) he collaborated with the respondents' lawyers and Scot in the compilation of documents to be used by the respondents in the proceeding;

(g) he provided Scot with material which Dr Durie considered would be useful to Scot in his defence;

(h) he expressed, in strong words, a view that the complainant (and, it could be inferred, all Muslims) are "the enemy";

(i) he assisted in the preparation of Nalliah's witness statement;

(j) he drafted and advised upon the respondents' written EOCV response, which forms part of this proceeding and indeed became in substance Attachment A to Scot's statement;

(k) he advised Scot and Nalliah about the public relations aspects of the case;

(l) he, by his own admission, has sought to advance the case of the respondents in a public sense;

(m) he has sought to obtain the help of other "experts" to assist the respondents in the proceeding, including the giving of expert evidence;

(n) he has acted as a contact point for the Barnabas Fund who wanted to give assistance to the respondents in the preparation of their case;

(o) he has in communications, with Scot and with a journalist, identified himself with the respondents in relation to the case using the terminology "our interest" and "[o]ne of the things we're doing";

(p) by his own admission, he was present during the Tribunal hearings to support and assist Scot and Nalliah;

(q) he comprehensively failed to disclose his prior involvement in the manner set out in paragraphs (a) to (o) above to the Tribunal. He resisted disclosure of many documents sought under summons by reference to legal professional privilege although this claim was manifestly hopeless. The Tribunal should infer this non-disclosure was deliberate because he was aware of the effect the disclosure might have on the Tribunal's perception of his independence. This is particularly significant in view of the fact that Dr Durie had read Practice Note VCAT 2.

352	Dr Durie's CV is set out at p.59 of his witness statement and indicates that he is presently Senior Associate with the title of Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. His qualifications and experience are impressive and demonstrate that he is eminent in the field of linguistics. He has lived in Aceh, Indonesia and has carried out what are obviously detailed studies amongst the indigenous population, who he states are substantially Muslim. Appendix 2 constitutes a summary of his qualifications and experience concerning the concept of Jihad in the Acehnese province and he has written several articles and has reviewed books on Islam-related issues. At pp.3 and 4 of his statement he sets out the questions which he was asked to consider by the solicitors who briefed him on behalf of the respondents.
353	The complainants took an unusual course with regard to Dr Durie's evidence. On 1 March 2004, just before the luncheon adjournment, I indicated I would stand the matter down and I would deal with the issue of expertise at 2.15. Upon resuming, I was informed by counsel for the complainants that they did not wish that the question of the expertise be determined at any preliminary hearing, but be determined at the conclusion of the case. This course was also adopted by counsel for the respondents. I agreed to that request on the assumption that Dr Durie would be cross-examined about the substance of the material which is contained within his allegedly expert witness statement. However, counsel for the plaintiff took the forensic decision to rely solely upon the argument that Dr Durie was not an expert and that he was partial, and that his statement should be rejected. In so doing, they declined to cross-examine him on any matters other than the grounds upon which it was argued I should reject the statement. The result is that should I find Dr Durie is an expert who can give impartial evidence, then his statement stands unchallenged.
354	When cross-examined, Dr Durie said he was a Minister at St Mary's Church in Caulfield. He has not completed any independent formal study of the Arabic language. He cannot read Arabic. He could not read or understand classical Arabic. He has no formal qualifications in Islamic theology, but has studied it privately for three years.
355	He has a familiarity with Acehnese Jihad literature, but in the context of his linguistic research. His PhD was in "The Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of the dialect of North Aceh". He conceded that his thesis was essentially a linguistic one and not a theological one.
356	He said he first read the Hadith collections after 9 November and he thought it was about January 2002. He has read translations of the Koran and has looked at Pickfull's translations but has not read in its entirety any translations of the Koran. He agreed that after 11 September he asked himself what is Islam and decided to find out. He agreed, however, that as 2001 he was not an expert on Islam. He agreed that he wrote an article entitled "Understanding Islam, what does the Qur'an say?" at around 2001 and that although he had read some sections of the Koran, he was not an expert.
357	He agreed that he had limited contact with Muslims in Australia. He agreed that in 2002 he wrote to the Archbishop Peter Carnley promoting the Anglican Church of Australia following a press release from the Church referred to the principal cause of terror as being injustice. In that letter he said that he had a long involvement with Islamic communities and that he told the Archbishop the events of September 11 is an example of the application of classical Jihad theology. He asserts that although he is not an expert in Islamic theology, he was competent to make that judgment. He had focused on particular subjects in Islamic theology but would not, at that time, label himself an expert who he regards as somebody who has a broad understanding on a full range of topics within the theological systems of Islam. He agreed that in the letter to the Archbishop he said that the media statement with regard to Australian bishops reveals a sad ignorance about Islam and recalls for him President Bush's statements about true Islam being "non-violent". It is apparent that Dr Durie was critical of that statement.
358	The letter from Dr Durie of 27 November 2001 was tendered under objection. I propose to allow the tender of the document. There was an order for discovery made in these proceedings, but the document was not in existence at the time. Indeed, it was not obtained from the internet until some days before the use of it in cross-examination. It has probative value and is admissible as being relevant to what Dr Durie was saying with regard to his expertise at the time of writing. That expertise is referred to in the second paragraph of the letter.
359	He agreed in the past that he had responded to an invitation from the Equal Opportunity Commission about including Muslims in the "Race Discrimination Act" legislation and that at that time he expressed the view that to do so would be adopting Sharia law through the back door.
360	Insofar as this litigation is concerned, he conceded most of the assertions which are made, with the exception of paragraph (n) and (q). He said that after the complaint was lodged with the Equal Opportunity Commission, he met Pastor Scot and agreed to give advice and assistance to him. He advised him how to respond to the complaint and his attention was directed to a response which Pastor Scot had written, and he agreed that his handwriting was on the document making comments, but he said those comments were not directed to Pastor Scot, but notes to himself about some thoughts. Indeed, he agreed that he drafted a response to the complaint and this was then amended by Pastor Scot. At transcript 2408 he said the work of drafting it and putting it together was his and he conceded the response was largely consistent with his views. He agreed that he represented Pastor Scot at two conciliation meetings at VCAT and at one of the mediations he met Solomon alone and his recollection was that Solomon had requested that.
361	He agreed that he played a role in drafting the defence. He said he made notes of a meeting with Pastor Scot and passed them on to counsel, Mr Perkins, who later met with Pastor Scot and a witness statement was drafted. He said that Pastor Scot was concerned about his command of the English language.
362	He said he had been present at the hearing of this matter, that is, at VCAT, to assist Pastor Scot, but that he was aware of his overriding duty to the Tribunal when in the witness box. He agreed that during the course of the hearing he passed notes to Mr Perkins not only when expert witnesses were giving evidence, but when witnesses such as Eades, Thomas, Jackson and Solomon, that is, non-expert witnesses, were giving evidence. He conceded at one stage he was kneeling at the Bar table, a fact which I observed myself.
363	He conceded that he had been in regular communication with Pastor Scot as to how the case should be conducted. He also advised Scot on his legal representation being changed. He said this was an important case and he hoped that both sides were well represented. He denied that he thought that his interests and Pastor Scot's interests were the same.
364	He was taken to numerous emails sent to Pastor Scot and admitted that he told him that one of the existing responses to the complaint which had been drafted, "is not in our interest". He explained this by saying that he was speaking on behalf of the case and that he was not and did not have any personal interest at all. He conceded he was reflecting a desire for a successful outcome. Further, he also agreed that he had made contact with people overseas with a view to sounding them out with regard to issues in the litigation.
365	Included in the series of emails there is a reference to a meeting between the Premier and Pastor Nalliah, and Dr Durie advises Pastor Scot to omit reference to the meeting, making a comment "Do not alert the enemy of what God is doing through you in this way". He said the reference to the enemy was simply referring to the opposition, and he denied at any time he was demonstrating bias towards the respondents.
366	In re-examination he admitted that he had a website at the Church and that there were items on it about Islam. He said part of that material was after September 11 and he dealt with some of the key doctrines of Jihad and the history of Islam. Included on the website was advice to Christians on the way they should deal with Muslims. He said that was advice to love Muslim people and not to respond out of fear. He described his PhD and said as part of that he read many references to the Koran and said that the "whole analysis and understanding of this (Acehnese) cultural tradition requires an engagement with the theological framework of Jihad, even though he was analysing these materials for linguistic purposes. He said that he knew Eades and in fact had taught him as an undergraduate student, and they had many conversations with regard to Islam.
367	Mr Perkins sought to re-examine Dr Durie on a number of matters which I do not propose to form part of my decision-making process. The reason for this is that the cross-examination went to the issue of Dr Durie's expertise and what was sought to be done in cross-examination by Mr Perkins was to deal with the actual subject matter which was discussed from its source. In other words, to allow him to give evidence expanding upon the subject matter and not directed specifically to the issue of expertise or attempts by him to claim expertise which he may not possess. Insofar as the letter to Archbishop Carnley was concerned, it was conceded by Ms Mortimer that he does claim an expertise in inter-faith apologetics, and this founds the basis for him being able to state that he was competent to make the judgment which he did, which was to object to the statement made by the Church that there is a connection between terror and injustice. The same applies to his statement about the comment made by President Bush, which is one which he rejects.
368	He was asked about what steps he took to obtain advice on the proper ambit of his role as an expert witness. He said that he met with Mr Nash QC and he was given advice with regard to his responsibilities as an expert witness. He said he spoke with Mr Nash concerning responsibilities to the Court in the nature of the process of giving advice and that he had endeavoured to follow the advice which he was given and attempted to safeguard his independence as an expert.
369	He was asked about his objection to the fact sheets of the Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria and the basis upon which he objected. He said the fact sheets are a description of human rights under Islamic conditions. They presuppose the existence of Sharia law as the law of the land and it seemed incongruous to him that the Equal Opportunity Commission, which has as its function to uphold principles of liberal democracy, would be presenting a statement on Islam and human rights that presupposes a Sharia law system. Objection was taken to the development of this form of evidence and I believe this was correctly made. Nonetheless, the fact that he made this objection is open to the inference that he was anti-Muslim in respect of his conduct. He has provided an explanation, namely, there are a set of values which deal with human rights about which he had read in a book by Maudoodi. That explanation was perfectly admissible on the basis that it rebutted or was capable of rebutting any anti-Muslim sentiment.
370	With regard to his participation in the preparation of the defence, he was asked to explain the role that he played. He said that he attended a meeting with Mr Perkins and other consultants which were listed there "(and ?) instructing solicitor, and we discussed a wide range of issues to do with the defence, the nature of the complaints, and I gave advice about some of the issues that I felt seemed relevant to the defence. That was the nature of the contribution which I made at the time". He could not recall the date, but the defence was drafted after the meeting and he saw the particulars after it had been completed. Coming back to the letter to Archbishop Carnley, he was asked about whether he regarded what he said as requiring amendment of alteration, and he said: "I would say instead of the fact terrorism has been a perennial feature of Islamic Jihad, I would say the use of terror has been a perennial feature of Islamic Jihad since the 7th Century" and that he would stand by those views. At p.257 of the transcript he was asked whether the expertise that he claims in respect of inter-faith apologetics, what does it say about his expertise in Islamic theology, he said in answer: "I claim expertise in some specific topics of Islamic theology. They are the doctrine of Jihad, the areas of VIMIS and VIMA, Islamic teachings about Christianity and Jesus, and I also have expertise in some specific issues that have cropped up over centuries in Christian/Muslim apologetic dialogue, such as Mohammed's treatment of captives or his marriage to Aieshia and upon which he now claims expertise. He states that although he said that as at November 2001 he was not an expert on Islam, he now claimed expertise on Islam in specific subjects and that such expertise existed at the time he made his submission of the witness statement.
371	He was asked by Mr Perkins as to the role he took in relation to the preparation of the case. He then said in summary that he wrote a submission to the NRC on behalf of Daniel Nalliah and shared that document with Pastor Scot. "I gave comments to him on his submissions to the NRC at that time. I was not party to legal discussions at that time. When mediation failed and the matter went to the Tribunal, I met with yourself (Mr Perkins) and other parties involved such as instructing solicitors to discuss the case and gave advice at that time." He said that the Daniel Scot witness statement was prepared over a period of time and that he would from to time make a suggestion about this or that which might be looked at. "Further, at the point where witness statements were being drafted, I attended a meeting with Mr Perkins and Daniel Nalliah where aspects of his witness (statement?) were discussed and I met with him and spoke about his story. He asked me for help with English in drafting a sort of narrative of his story. I had no further role in the development of his witness statement. I have not read it. At the time of its submission, I had no role in the preparation of Daniel Scot's witness statement. In that I made contributions to him in his works on the appendix, but his actual statement itself is one which I had no role or involvement in the writing of that and have not read it." He asserted that he, to this date, had not read either Daniel Nalliah's or Daniel Scott's witness statement. This was as at 3 March 2004.
372	Mr Perkins then asked him the following question:

"I was asking you whether you formed an opinion in fact as to whether it was appropriate for you to assist him with his English. ... I did form an opinion.

What was the opinion? ... That it was appropriate.

Why? ... Because I was able to give that assistance.

373

At that point I intervened and asked Dr Durie whether anybody conversant with plain English could not have corrected any defects, for example his solicitor, to which he replied: "I was asked to assist and I believe it was appropriate to assist and I did". I then asked him whether it was to correct English and for no other reason, to which he said: "Yes, it was only to correct the English". He conceded that anybody with a reasonable knowledge of the English language and spelling and grammar could have performed that task, to which he replied: "Absolutely".

374

Insofar as the admissibility of Dr Durie's evidence is concerned, I find that he does not have the necessary expertise to give evidence concerning the Qur'an and the approach of Muslims to such material such as the Hadiths which are part of the understanding of the Qur'an. It is clear that he took no interest in this area until after the atrocity of September 11. He admitted:

(a) He is a linguist, as is demonstrated by his PhD thesis.

(b) The only fact he can rely upon insofar as his mixture with Muslims is concerned, took place as a result of his study into what I regard as a narrow area, namely linguistics in Acheh. That study does not have a theological basis. He conceded that fact.

(c) He first had contact with and read the Hadiths in about 2002 when he was on holidays.

(d) He first decided to look into the question of Islam and Jihad after September 11.

(e) He has never held any appointment of an academic nature with regard to Islam. The highest it can be put is that he is a very intelligent individual with skills and has undertaken a study of Islam and Jihad. There are circumstances in which an individual can make a detailed study of a subject matter which may be sufficient to qualify that person as an expert.

However, I find that having regard to the evidence that I have heard, that Dr Durie does not possess the necessary expertise in the Qur'an or Muslim beliefs and practices such as to qualify him as a person who can give expert evidence. I accept the complainant's argument in their legal submissions that, as indicated, he is no more than an individual who is intelligent and has read the Qur'an and formed views about its relationship to society and in particular the practice of Jihad.

I observe that the respondent's counsel took every opportunity to attack Professor Kazi and Father McInerney on the basis of their lack of expertise, although there was no such attack on Professor Bouma. I find it rather extraordinary the respondent was prepared, notwithstanding the views of the witnesses called by the complainant to suggest that Dr Durie is an expert in circumstances where his qualifications totally lack theological training and a wide study of Islam generally.

I therefore reject his evidence on the basis that he lacks expertise.

If I am wrong with regard to that view, then in any event the weight which should be given to Dr Durie's evidence is, to say the least, minimal. It is clear from the authorities that if he is an expert witness but it is shown that he is a partial witness, then that does not go to admissibility but only to weight. See FGT Custodians Pty Ltd v. Fajenblat [2003] V.S.C.A. 33.

The role of an expert witness and the obligation to the Court or Tribunal is well understood and expressed in the authorities and the literature. Both express the role in the context of a duty of an expert witness, as being one essentially to the Court or Tribunal. On any view, the admissions made by this witness's conduct transgress the basic principle of "independence or impartiality". It is hard to conceive of a more substantial example of a breach of these rules than what has occurred in the conduct of these proceedings. Dr Durie concedes each of the matters which are set out by the complainant with regard to his participation in these proceedings, save for paragraphs N and Q.

The obvious conclusion of these proceedings have been overseen and orchestrated by Dr Durie. They demonstrate a blatant bias. I do not accept that paragraph N of these submissions, that is his relationship to the Barnabus Fund has any relevance, but I find paragraph Q to be accurate.

I do not propose to set out in detail the allegations which amount to partiality, but they include the following:

(a) He participated with Pastor Nalliah in the formulation of a "strategy" to respond to the complaint.

(b) He advised as to whether counsel should be changed.

(c) He collaborated with the respondent's lawyers in the preparation of the defence and evidence.

(d) He played a part in the compilation of documents to be used.

(e) He corresponded with the respondent using the word "we" in relation to strategies against the "enemy".

(f) He drafted documents which were to be used and were used in these proceedings. He was present throughout the proceedings and gave advice to Mr Perkins with regard to questions which should be asked. I noted his attendance on a regular basis at the Bar table, passing messages to counsel in respect of not only "expert" witnesses but also lay witnesses.

In evidence he said that he had consulted senior counsel with regard to the role he could play in the proceedings and his duty to the Court as an expert witness. I cannot concede that Senior Counsel would have given him advice that his conduct was permissible and in accordance with the duty of an expert. No evidence was called from that Senior Counsel as to the advice given. There is no reason why that evidence could not have been called, save for a claim for privilege, which in any event would have been waived to support his assertion that he acted in accordance with his duty to the Court.

Having regard to the above matters, I reject his evidence because he -

(a) lacks the expertise required of an expert witness;

(b) that he has demonstrated such a degree of partiality that I would not give his evidence any real weight. However, this finding is really unnecessary, because he fails to satisfy the threshold test, that is, that he qualifies as an expert.

Accordingly, his evidence is rejected on the basis that it is not that of an expert witness.

375

Jacob Matthews gave evidence on behalf of the respondent. He is by occupation a teacher and he made a statement dated 2 October 2003. in that statement he said that he has been a director of Catch the Fire Ministries since 2002. He attended the seminar. He said he had been attending prayer meetings by Catch the Fire Ministries for several years. He said that he met Pastor Nalliah at these meetings and had a general awareness of the work he had been involved in in Saudi Arabia.

He said he was particularly interested in Islam as he was brought up in a family which had a very long heritage of Christianity in Malaysia. He said that he, in the past, had an incident involving a Muslim when they had a discussion about the prophet Mohammed, and that when he quoted Matthew 24 and explained his view to that person, he lost his temper and threatened him. He said the experience had a profound effect upon him and he became aware how unacceptable his views were in Islamic society.

He said from his point of view the seminar was a convivial meeting and it involved a good, friendly crowd which had come from various churches. He said that he knew the faces of many of the people present. He said he was unaware that Muslims were present at the seminar, but had he known that, he would have attempted to welcome them, to reassure them and to make them feel at home, and he would have informed Pastor Scot of their presence.

He said the form of charismatic Pentecostal worship tends to be difficult, even for other Christians to adapt, much less for Muslims. The worship tends to be very noisy and appears to be uninhibited. The dynamics of such a meeting, including shouting, clapping, loud music, speaking in tongues and vocal responses such as "amen" and "hallelujah". This is in marked contrast to a traditional Christian church in which the dialogue is usually one way and it would be considered rude and out of place to interject.

He said that the predominant feature of what was said at the seminar was an injunction to love Muslims. That message was very strongly conveyed from start to finish. I recall Daniel Scot repeatedly pointing out that Muslim people were not at fault and that the Christian response was to love Muslims in full equality with an evangelist focus.

He said that from his point of view he was shocked at learning that the seminar had become the focus of vilification proceedings and he rejects the implication that the seminar had in any way vilified Muslims.

He said that this was the first time that he felt that freedom of speech was under threat, and the subject of Islam was now being encircled by a taboo in the country. When cross-examined he was asked why would he have attempted to welcome and reassure the Muslims had he known they were present. His answer was: "It is important to be sensitive to people who are with us and are of a different persuasion". He said: "A church would welcome anyone who was a stranger who didn't know the way we do things and we would explain things and make them feel comfortable as part of our Christian ethics". It was put to him that the reason why he would have told Pastor Scot was that he could then choose to modify what he was saying. His answer to that was that he did not know what Pastor Scot was going to say and that that would not have been his reasons for making known the presence of the other individuals. Asked if he knew what the seminar was about, he said he knew it was about Islam and Jihad, and as far as he was concerned, he just knew he was going to a seminar on Islam. He said he wanted to know more about Islam because of his interest in it. He said he did not attend the seminar because of the events that occurred on September 11. He said that he had not attended seminars in Australia about Islam which have given by Muslims.

The respondent tendered a witness statement of Annette Potter, who is a teacher by occupation and who attended the seminar. She said there was no religious basis for her attendance and she said she was shocked at the fact that it was alleged that the seminar vilified Muslims. She said that she regarded the allegation as totally untrue and an affront to her because the allegations are not grounded on fact. She has spoken and listened to many people knowledgeable about Islam and she found that David Scot was the best informed speaker she had ever heard on Islamic beliefs. She had heard other people such as university lecturers and academics teach about Islam and found Pastor Scot was in fact an excellent teacher, that he was economical and fluent in his words, and gave sources for everything which he said. What she heard was, in her estimation, a very sound exposition of the Qur'an and found the presentation brilliant, knowledgeable and logically compelling. The manner of presentation was earnest, clinical and factual.

She said that Pastor Scot seemed to know the Bible and the Qur'an really well and combined the two in a fashion which was impressive both in content and methodology. She found that the cumulative logical effect of what he said was such that she felt satisfied that she had an understanding of the Jihad by the end of the seminar. Her recollections of the seminar is that it was about what is to be found in the Qur'an and not about Muslims. When cross-examined, she said that she was a Christian and attended an Anglican church. She adheres to the Bible as being the word of God and lives by its standards. Her attention was directed to a letter which she sent to Andrew Bolt in which she stated that when Pastor Scot spoke at the seminar, he used the term "the holy Qur'an" in a reverential way. She agreed that when she said that that expression was used every time there was a mention of the Qur'an, that that might not strictly be true. Her attention was also directed to the letter to Andrew Bolt in which she said that from her point of view he did not once mock or belittle anything of Islamic beliefs at all. Her attention was then directed to pages 100-101 of the transcript, where there is a reference to chapter 18 of the Qur'an and that there was a story with regard to a number of individuals and a dog, and that they went to a cave and slept in a cave for some 309 years, and this story was described as a revelation from the holy Qur'an, which produced laughter from the audience. She said that she was speaking from memory and she genuinely has no recollection of hearing audience reaction.

Assessment of the Evidence of the Witnesses

(i) I have already given my views with regard to the evidence of Jackson, Eades and Thomas.

(ii) Solimon's evidence was confined to and admissible only with regard to the question of standing, and I accept his evidence and, as indicated, find that the Islamic Council of Victoria has standing.

(iii) I found Dr Kazi to be essentially a reliable witness. He was a man who, because of his age, had some difficulty in expressing himself in clear language. Nonetheless, he gave his evidence calmly and was by any standards an intelligent individual. That said, his evidence must be considered in the light of -

(a) he is a person who has had an association with the complainant. For example, his role in the magazine "Minaret", which is a magazine produced by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils of which he was a member;

(b) he is a Muslim, and it could be said that by reason of that fact he has some interest in the proceedings;

(c) I found it rather disturbing that he firstly accepted Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an as accurate, but during the course of these proceedings determined it was not reliable. Given his claim to expertise, I found it a rather late development, given his knowledge of this translation.

That said, I found him to be a witness who had a good grasp of Qur'anic verses, he also had an ability to explain their meaning by reference to their context, that is, when they were written and the relevant circumstances in which they were made. Subject to the above reservations I accept that he gave evidence which was accurate, and given his expertise in his evidence which I accept.

(iv) I found Father McInerney to be a very impressive witness. He had a basic understanding of Qur'anic injunctions, the Hadiths and the literature. In particular he had a detailed understanding of current Muslim beliefs and practices. His role in interfaith dialogue is significant and I accept that he has an understanding of the beliefs and religious practices of Muslims which he sets out in his evidence. He concedes that there are groups of Muslim extremists who hold different views to the majority of Muslims both here and overseas. He was an intelligent witness and was meticulously honest in the sense that he would make relevant concessions where appropriate.

(v) Professor Bouma's evidence was given in a rather "brusque" manner. The impression I got is that he did not like his views to be challenged and subject to scrutiny. That said, there was no attack upon his qualifications, which was in the "sociology of religion, focusing on the management of religious diversity and religion in Australian society". He concedes that he is not an expert in the Qur'an, although he says that he has read it from "cover to cover". He conceded that in fact he did not have a familiarity with the Qur'an as does Pastor Scot.

(vi) Having listened to him on the tapes and having carefully read the transcript, I am of the view that he is a person who appears to have a commitment to his religious beliefs. However, I am of the view that he is prepared to do whatever is necessary, to convey those beliefs to other individuals. He is a person who I found was not a credible witness insofar as his general presentation was concerned, as well as the issues I have particularly identified. In the final analysis, I have considerable doubts with regard to his credibility. Whether that failure is due to a deliberate refusal to accept matters put to him or that he is so involved in his religious teaching, as to fail to see the real issues, is a matter which I have given serious consideration. On balance, I think that he was not a credible witness. I found him to be evasive and I have considerable doubt that what he told the seminar was his real beliefs about the Qur'an. I do not accept that he has acted in the presentation of that seminar in good faith, applying a subjective test.

(vii) Insofar as Pastor Nalliah is concerned, I do not accept he is a witness of credit. While I am prepared to concede doubt as to the credibility of Pastor Scot, I have no such problems with that of Pastor Nalliah. Having observed him give evidence, he was clearly evasive and not a witness I am prepared to accept. I found his evidence with regard to the newsletter of 2001 nothing short of a refusal to accept what he had written and what he meant by those comments. The document speaks for itself. His answer to questions in cross-examination and general demeanour were totally unsatisfactory. He deliberately attempted to separate Muslims from the broad statements he was making in circumstances where the context was such that his intentions were abundantly clear.

(viii) The witnesses Potter and Matthews contradicted the evidence of the lay witnesses called by the complainant. Potter, in cross-examination, was directed to statements which could be said to contradict her witness statement. Matthews gave evidence which I think was substantially honest from the point of view of his perception. I do not question his credibility, but I do his judgment. The latter aspect may be based upon his association with the firstnamed respondent as a director. I do not agree with his judgment of what took place at the seminar. Objectively, I believe that what took place was quite different to his description. The same applies with regard to the witness Potter.

Submissions of the Parties

(A) The complainant's submissions were much more succinct than those of the respondent. As with the respondent's submissions, I do not propose to set out each and every argument which has been made. The main aspects are as follows:

(1) The Tribunal should follow the test in Kazak insofar as section 8 is concerned, both at first instance and subsequently on appeal. I have done so, but not precisely in the way in which it has been suggested by the complainant as is indicated in paragraphs 11 and 17 of these reasons.

(2) That the statements made both orally and in writing suggest that it was the religious belief and activity of Muslim people (that is, adherence to Islam) which the respondent's conduct was based upon. They rely upon the opening words to the seminar "Islam - what Muslim people believe". It is said further that the newsletter and the article make it plain that the fact that Muslims are adherents to Islam, which should give other people cause to be suspicious of them generally, and of how they behave in and towards western democracies. It is asserted that the statements were plainly calculated to convey a message about Muslims. There is then set out a number of quotations from the material which indicates that Muslims are liars; spread Islam through the building of mosques; have people training in Madrassa's; that they are terrorists; that they will take part in Jihad; they will mistreat non-Muslim parents; that they use the refugee system in Australia to increase their numbers to the detriment of Christians; that they infiltrate parliament and other influential places and spy on western governments; that they must eliminate Jews and Christians, that their God is neither compassionate nor merciful; that the Qur'an calls for atrocities on civilisation.

It is submitted that when one applies the test set out in Kazak to the statements to which I have referred, then that must constitute religious vilification.

The above conclusion must follow from the content of the seminar article and newsletter in that it -

(a) incites hatred of Muslims to become or remain terrorists and to take over Australia by immigration and birth rates;

(b) that Muslims are inextricably connected to terrorism by reason of the September 11 events;

(c) contempt for Muslims, including all Australian Muslims, by saying that there is a commitment to violence to impose Islam on other people, and there is a deliberate practice engaged in by Muslim scholars and clerics of concealing its true nature;

(d) there is severe ridicule in the material of Muslims in general, including Australian Muslims by belittling the notion of martyrdom and implying that the Qur'an urges Muslims to go to war, for which they will receive great riches and booty;

(e) revulsion of Muslims in terms of encouraging listeners to change their view on Muslims or who practice a religion which glorifies violence and killing; sanctions domestic violence; subrogation of women;

and various other matters such as being involved in lies and deceit, conspirators to overthrow western democracies, and such matters as evangelism and the sanctioning of the defiance of Australian law.

(f) Insofar as the exceptions are concerned, the complainants rely upon the decision of Bropho, where French J sets out how a section which is almost identical to that which is contained within the Victorian legislation should be interpreted. I have dealt with that in the course of my reasons.

(g) It is asserted that none of the activities, that is, the seminar, newsletter and website, were engaged in reasonably and in good faith, and the complainant relies upon the definition of those words as set out by French J in Bropho.

(h) It is further stated that not a single Muslim who gave evidence and was extensively cross-examined confirmed that their beliefs accorded with what Pastor Scot taught at the seminar.

(i) The making of the statements and the conduct of the seminar as a whole cannot be said to have been for a genuine religious purpose.

(j) The respondents particularly rely upon the statement of Father McInerney with regard to his statement at paragraph 38 with regard to Muslims generally, and they rely upon the fact that Mr Perkins indicated that he was not concerned to challenge that statement and later said that he was simply pointing out that he was not running a case that that statement is wrong. Furthermore, this statement was accepted by Pastor Scot, save for one aspect, namely, the moral and ethical teachings of Islam and Christianity were different to that statement. The submission then points out that he was informed that Father McInerney was a Christian who was expressing his view and Pastor Scot then resorted to the suggestion that he had not personally spoken with Father McInerney and he could not therefore say whether he was a Christian.

(k) It is conceded that the evidence of the expert witnesses had a limited value, having regard to the legislative framework. It was put, however, that the statement made by Father McInerney and the way in which it was treated was an admission by the respondents that their statements were exaggerated and misrepresented the beliefs and attitudes of most Muslims. Further, that such an admission allows the Tribunal more easily to conclude that the conduct was objectively capable of inciting the reaction set out in section 8 of the Act, and indeed to throw grave doubts on the claim for exemption pursuant to section 11. Finally, that in respect of the non-expert witnesses, that they were reliable, were supported by the tapes of the seminar, and their evidence could be used to the limited extent that it is relevant to the question of incitement.

(l) That the evidence of Pastor Scot was evasive, inconsistent and exaggerated.

(m) That the evidence of Pastor Nalliah establishes that since September 11 the first respondent profits from its criticism of Islam and Muslims, and actively fundraises with messages designed to generate fear and mistrust of Islam and Muslims, including in Australia. Further, that the views expressed about Islam are pejorative and inflammatory; are to a large extent based upon his personal experiences in Saudi Arabia; that he has little or not interaction with Australian Muslims and with Islamic events or teaching in Australia; and that CTFM does not believe nor engage in interfaith dialogue; that the message of the church is not a religious one at all but the Qur'an is an instrument used to perpetrate their extremist views about the dangers of Muslims generally, those being cloaked in religious trappings; and finally that anything which was said and done needed to be modified or could have been done in a more reasonable and less inflammatory way, and he proclaims and intention to continue to behave in the same way in the future.

(n) It was submitted that Pastor Nalliah's evidence was evasive, inconsistent and exaggerated. He was reluctant to answer questions and, when he did so, he gave answers which disclosed no basis for what was asserted.

(o) It was submitted that the evidence of the experts is largely, if not entirely, admissible on the ground of section 11A only and not section 8.

(p) That Father McInerney's evidence was admissible as going to the reasonableness and good faith for the respondent's conduct in making the statements and giving the seminar, and that his view is that what was presented was very one-sided, selective, and that the Islamic faith was not accurately or adequately represented.

Professor Bouma's evidence is relevant as these issues go to the reasonableness and good faith for the respondent in making the statements. That based upon his evidence, things and messages conveyed by Muslims, including Australian Muslims, are not the same and that there is not a singular differentiated group to which one can attribute the apparent beliefs of a small radical minority of Muslims largely located in the Gulf states. Further, his evidence can be used in support of the view that Muslims show patience, willingness to counsel, calm and forgiveness under attack and have participated in community events to mark September 11 and the Bali bombings.

Dr Kazi is qualified as an expert by both training and experience, that he is a practising Muslim and his views and training with regard to the interpretation of the Qur'an should be given appropriate weight. It is conceded that the fact he is a practising Muslim is capable of effecting that weight. That on the basis of Dr Kazi's evidence, the Tribunal can find that the respondent's statements which are referred to by Dr Kazi in his first statement are not only inaccurate, incomplete or lack any real textural basis, most of what Dr Kazi said was not challenged by the respondents.

Dr Durie's evidence is attacked on the basis that he has no expertise with regard to Islam and that his experiences in Acheh are not relevant to his expertise. He lacks any formal training and his real interest in Islam is of recent origin, namely, triggered by the September 11 attacks. He has not engaged with Muslims either in Australia or overseas, in conferences, seminars or in any inter-faith dialogue. Finally, that he was not impartial for reasons which are set out at page 60 of the submissions and which I have accepted as being relevant. Such activities, of course, can only affect the weight and not the admissibility of the material.

The complainant made reply to the submissions of the respondent. The complainant submits that the respondent, in its submissions, rely on material which was not in evidence and not put in cross-examination to witnesses (see the footnote at page 2 of the submissions). Further, it is submitted that the content and lack of structure in the respondent's submissions reflect much of the conduct of their case, namely, argument for its own sake, replete with inflammatory assertions, designed apparently to do no more than reinforce and repeat the respondent's negative and offensive views about Islam. The respondent refers to the public interest and say that those words do not stand alone, and it is clear that the conduct engaged in must be "reasonably and in good faith" (see Jones v. Scully at paragraph 232). It is put by the complainant that the issue of public interest has not been identified, and in particular has not taken into account the difference between the interest of the public and the concept of public interest.

The respondent focus their attack upon the complainant's witnesses, and it is put that this is not a witness case, given that there were tendering of the tapes and a largely agreed transcript, and that the newsletter and articles speak for themselves. All this conduct is common ground, and the key witnesses on the issue being the respondents themselves and not the complainant's witnesses.

It was submitted that no inferences should be drawn with regard to the failure to call witnesses such as Clelland, Knight and D'Alton because they were not relevant.

The respondent at no time has attacked Professor Bouma and it is submitted that the Tribunal can accept as unchallenged his evidence.

It was submitted the Tribunal should conclude that Pastor Scot was inaccurate and deliberately ignored the historical context of the passages of the Qur'an to which he was referred. He did so because of the literalist reading of them best suited his underlying message that Islam is a religion of violence, hatred and destruction. The complainant argues that not a single Muslim witness before the Tribunal gave any evidence which supports the literalist account given by the respondent on what Muslims believe.

The complainant argues that the evidence of Dr Durie should be rejected because of his lack of expertise and partiality. Further, they assert that it is incorrect that Pastor Scot's views could be validly held. The complainant admits that some of the extreme views expressed by Pastor Scot could be seen broadly as consistent in some respects with certain schools of Islam, such as Wahhabism. However, there is no evidence of any following of Wahhabism teachings in Australia. It is submitted that there is no evidence before the Tribunal that any Muslims in Australia believe what the respondent has asserted they believe, nor accept that the Qur'an means what the respondent asserts it to mean. Indeed, even if such evidence existed for reasons which the complainant has set out in its primary submission, what was said by Pastor Scot would still be unlawful under section 8.

The complainant also submits that the seminar was held in a hall and that it was advertised without limitation as to who could attend. It is put there is nothing to suggest the world at large was not invited, including Muslims. The Tribunal can infer the respondent knew that the promotion of the seminar was not limited to Christians and, given the website advertisement, such a proposition by the respondent is untenable.

The complainant rely strongly on the evidence of Bropho v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the comments by Hely J in Jones v. Scully where His Honour in the latter case relied upon the sensationalist nature of the material with regard to a leaflet which vilifies Jews because they are Jews, and he held for that reason its distribution is neither reasonable nor in good faith. Accordingly, it is put that there has been a clear breach of section 8 and that no benefit or protection is or can be derived from section 11.

(B) The respondent's submissions are, to say the least, voluminous. I shall set out as best I can a summary of what is said.

(1) The ICV is a political pressure group seeking to suppress opinions by others on the Qur'an.

(2) Islam has no distinction between politics and religion, and the ICV is part of that political aspect.

(3) The seminar was about Muslims world-wide and not simply Australian Muslims, a fact admitted by Eades and Soliman.

(4) Islam has not central authoritative force whereby a particular interpretation of the Qur'an can be authorised, compare the Catholic Church and the Pope, therefore when Pastor Scot expressed his opinions, no-one can say that they are incorrect and that people have the right to express their views.

(5) In Australia there are groups of Muslims with different views, e.g. ISCA, and it cannot be asserted that one group has a monopoly on interpretation.

(6) Much criticism was made of Mr Woinarski's opening. It was said that the newsletter and other material does no more than challenge others to deal with the Qur'an and his message. Insofar as there is reference to the character of Mohammed, it is necessary to look at encyclopaedias for the facts, because there are no contemporary biographies of him and the first chronicle was some 125 years after his death. It is said the realities of life are very much matters of legitimate public interest since Mohammed was founder of Islam and his example is proclaimed as something to follow. It is asserted that there are passages in the Qur'an which are true and it is in the public interest that a religion based upon it should be discussed without the insertion of some ideological block by the ICV. It is again asserted there is an observable symbiosis between terrorism and the Qur'an. Further, in response to the opening the respondent says that the ICV as a corporation cannot have a religious belief and there is no admissible evidence concerning the beliefs of anyone else. The existing complainants lack such beliefs and are not within the ambit of legislation. The actual beliefs of some or other Victorian Muslims were not opened in any forensic appropriate fashion and are not in evidence. Victorian Muslims, because of the disparate nature of their views, do not form a relevant class of persons.

In dealing with the witnesses, Eades, Thomas and Jackson, they went to the seminar psychologically pre-aroused by discussion with others from the ICV that they were happy to take on the mantle of the faithful and prepared to travel in secret. They are censorious because of their need to prevent discussion or learning comparing the Qur'an with Christian morality. Each of the three were "pious frauds" trying to stifle discussion, and they display zealotry and passion. They approached the discussion of Islam as though some were entitled to discuss it while others were not, as though only Muslims in Australia know what the Qur'an says (which is not correct) and that each of them knows that Islam is not just a religion but a political system.

In respect of Jackson, she had limited knowledge of the Qur'an, her views were uncritical and she was part of a support group along with Thomas. She turns to her friends for interpretation of the Qur'an, but thinks that those who are militants or do violence, distort Islam. She condemns Muslims who literally take the Qur'anic exhortations to kill Jews and Christians, but she does not understand the mind set of those with different opinions. She agreed that after September 11 Islam was in the spotlight and that the ICV sought to participate in the debate. She admitted that Scot, prior to the seminar in the ICV, were each responding to a demand for information. She considered she left the seminar without hearing all of it and did not hear the statement "we love Muslims but we hate wrong teaching".

Eades was described as a person who was intellectually dishonest. The evidence he gave with regard to people paying to convert to Islam demonstrated a failure to investigate matters which went to the complaint he had made, that is, for example, the building of mosques about which he had made no further inquiries. He was critical of Pastor Scot, but he knew nothing of what went on in Pakistan, and that he displayed a degree of intellectual arrogance and showed that he was unable to accept that other people may have valid opinions, even where the subject matter is unclear and even where he has no valid opinion himself, and that this arose as a result of cross-examination with regard to the Qur'an. However, he ultimately made the explicit concession which he had strenuously attempted to avoid, namely that his opinion was no more value than that of Pastor Scot. Further, that his complaints about certain things said by Pastor Scot about Jihad were no more than a difference of opinion concerning the applicability of some things which are referred to in the Qur'an. It was put by the respondent that Dr Eades failed to notice actual threats to the security of Australia by people who proclaim Jihad. He had failed to notice that the nation was at war and that the whys and wherefores of the decision to go to war were the very stuff which in a democracy needs to be before the electors. It is claimed that Eades agreed that Pastor Scot's portrayal of Jihad is one held by ISCA, even though they are a separate group which he tries to differentiate between that group and orthodox Islam.

With regard to the evidence of Mr Thomas, he said that he did not attend the whole seminar, but he felt Pastor Scot portrayed Muslims as dumb; that he felt insulted at something which was in reality no more than someone else expressing an opinion with which he did not agree, and that his evidence and general views were consistent with the articulated vigilance of the organisation of which he was secretary (the ICV) and he was psychologically expectant of offence emanating from Pastor Scot.

Insofar as Dr Kazi is concerned, he criticises his evidence, and in particular his independence. He points out that Kazi was connected to ICV over many years, that he was editor of a magazine called Minaret and that he had represented Muslim people overseas. He was critical of Dr Kazi's statement that unless you can speak and understand the Qur'an in Arabic, you cannot presume to speak authority with regard to Islamic subject matter. He was also critical of Dr Kazi not producing a CV at the start of the proceedings. Further, that he prepared his witness statement on the basis of the pleadings which were before the Tribunal and only later did he give his reaction to the transcript and audio. He said that Pastor Scot reads the Qur'an in English and that he has given seminars about it in England so that Dr Kazi's views about his lack of expertise (or not being an Arab scholar) is irrelevant.

He submitted that the evidence of Ms Jackson, which is set out in some detail in the submissions, together with the evidence of Mr Soliman, indicates that there was a significant amount of press around about Islam and terrorists, and that there were a range of views being expressed and that Jihad at that time was a matter of public interest.

The respondent said that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the Australian Government has declared war on terror and that there is a political debate about that war. Further, the respondent says it is entitled to inform people about what the Qur'an, a holy book which informs Muslims, says about Jihad and relations.

That it is open for Australian citizens to invite specific comparisons with other systems of moral thought which is part of the implementation of academic religious freedom and freedom of speech concerning political affairs.

Part of the defence case refers to the fact of the Act is invalid on constitutional grounds, the Federal law includes regulations at law in certain Islamic organisations which was recently introduced. It is put that there was a major flaw in the way in which the experts were called by the complainants in that the entire business of preparation of witness statements was carried out in a way which -

(1) failed to comply with relevant rules/requirements for expert witnesses

(2) failed to identify the questions to be addressed by them

(3) failed (e.g. Dr Kazi) to provide information (CV) enabling his expertise to be assessed

(4) overlooked properties of proof

The respondent maintains its objections to much of the affidavit material and say that hearsay was used to obtain improper advantage. That much of the opinion testimony given is in reality incapable of being seen as testable scientific opinion. Further, the holding of the religious belief, whether Christian, Islamic or atheist, is not unreasonable or illegal in the Australian legal system. It states that it is impossible or inappropriate to judicially examine other people's faiths and that one cannot say whose religion is better, and the religious beliefs are on a different plane of credulity in matters of logic and proof.

It is said that even though history is a discipline, in the end history is a series of subjective statements about what (to those who originally saw them at first hand) were the objective facts. Ancient history is different because there are no contemporaneous pieces of oral evidence in existence. Both Father McInerney and Dr Kazi had a problem with confusing fact with historical opinion. Their views, like that of Pastor Scot, are merely historical opinion which is untestable.

The respondent relies upon Young J in the Bellview Crescent case where distinction is made between the facts of history (dates of war et cetera) and social history (why things happen and how people behaved, an analysis of why things happened and how generally people behaved cannot be proved by evidence of people who were not there, but have ascertained the historical facts and analyse them to work out a conclusion). Further, judicial notice can be taken of encyclopaedias, but not of history or pre-history. Finally, it is said that the experts can discuss their opinions. They may hold their theories, but there is no way of proving or selecting the correct opinion.

It is conceded that pursuant to State legislation VCAT has jurisdiction, but the validity of the Act itself is not accepted. It is finally put that Eades and other misunderstood or ignored the context in which the statements at the seminar were made. The various implications which are alleged to be contained within the extracts of the witness statements do not, as a matter of logic, follow.

Finally, it is argued that the complaint has not been made out, that the transcript of the seminar is to be preferred over that which his solely contained within the particulars of the complaint, and further that the defendant has made out its defence under section 11, namely that the seminar was conducted reasonably and in good faith with regard to a religious activity which was in the public interest.

The respondent's further submissions are to effect that Islam is not a lawful religion within the meaning of section 3 of the Act. The respondent relies upon Choudhury's case (1990) 3 W.L.R. 986 where it is stated that it is clear that there are fundamental differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In that case, the Court of Appeal in England held that the common law offence of blasphemy was for historical reasons clearly restricted to a scurrilous vilification of the Christian religion. It seems to be agreed that blasphemy is rarely applied, but has not been abolished. Certainly in Victoria there is no Act which specifically abolishes blasphemy. The State of Victoria has not taken legislative action to abolish blasphemy and unless the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is to be seen as bringing about that as a result, it is said that to abolish it, Parliament would have to have expressly and unambiguously declared that it is its intention to alter the common law, but it has not done so.

Further, Harper J, in Pell v. The Council of the Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria (1998) 2 V.R. 39 case made some comments concerning the law of blasphemy. These comments were made prior to the introduction of the current legislation. Harper J in that case made remarks as follows:

"A plural society such as contemporary Australia operates best where the law need not bother with blasphemous liable because respect across religions and cultures is such that, coupled with an appropriate capacity to absorb the criticisms or even jibes of others, deep offence is neither intended nor taken."

Respondent's argument is the law of blasphemy is a protection for Christianity but should not, for that reason, be extended to other religions.

Further, the respondent argue that publication of the Qur'an in Victoria amounts to sedition. Sedition is that which arouses hatred against one section of Her Majesty's subjects and is asserted as always being an offence in both the UK and Australia. The respondent contends that given the content of the Qur'an and specifically what appears to the ordinary reader to be religious injunctions to kill Jews and Christians, that its publication involves sedition.

Conclusion of Respondent's Submission

(1) Most of the conduct complained of does not fall within section 8 because the belief/activity is plainly unlawful in this jurisdiction.

(2) Of the conduct which might fall within section 8, the complainants have run contradictory arguments. On the one hand they describe fundamentalist Islamic ideologies as being valid interpretations of the Qur'an; they do not differentiate between extreme views and moderate Islam, but then conclude that because Australian Muslims do not hold extremist religious beliefs, they are the class of persons in section 8 about whom the conduct is said to relate. Further, the complainants have not shown that it is the same class of persons who hold the relevant belief/engaged in relevant conduct whom others were incited to hate. Further, there was no evidence about the belief of Australian Muslims and in particular there was a failure by the ICV to call clerics and to give such evidence.

(3) That Islam is a phenomenon of legitimate public interest, cultural sensitivity should not be turned into cultural cringe. It is in the public interest for people with knowledge about these things to speak frankly without fear of political censure or vilification from groups which may disagree as a result of having competing points of view.

(4) That the complainants' witnesses have agreed that Australian Muslims believe the same sort of things as Muslims the world over and that they have failed to adduce any evidence to establish the particular religious beliefs or activities of the relevant class of persons. No evidence was given of Islamic teachings in Australia from which any conclusions can be drawn about identifying mainstream teaching, thinking or beliefs, particularly concerning Jihad. There was some evidence that Wahabbist views are extreme and are not representative of Muslim ideologs in Australia, but that is lacking in detail. The complainants have not discharged the onus of what Muslims do or do not believe.

Insofar as the explanatory memorandum is concerned, reference is made to the board and general language of the Act. Further, that Australia and Victoria is a culture which permits and tolerates discussion of religions and its criticism, whereas Islam tends to restrict freedom of discussion. Further, that the Second Reading Speech makes it clear that the legislation does not prevent criticism and comment on racial matters or religious views, and indeed cites a freedom of communication case, namely Nationwide News v. Wills [1992] HCA 46; 177 C.L.R. 1.

Finally, insofar as the seminar is concerned -

(1) Does not constitute religious vilification

(2) Pastor Scot was referring to and teaching the Christian gospel and saw sharing Christianity in Muslims to be part of his life's work

(3) That the Qur'an contains non-violent parts and violent parts, but is nonetheless Islamic teaching

(4) Pastor Scot was not trying to put down Islam, but trying to reveal the true teaching of Islam and how Mohammed taught in his time.

(5) The concept of silent Jihad is one which was expressed in views by Pastor Scot as a label that fits squarely within the normal social incidents of life as humans. It is put that it is difficult to see how it is objectionable and it is entirely consistent with Mohammed as the reference to him demonstrates.

(6) Insofar as Jihad is concerned, he stated that it is preposterous that martyrdom cannot be discussed, evaluated and judged in Australia. Further, Pastor Scot was talking about Mohammed's time and there is no basis for it to be assumed that the complainant was the target of hate speech. Insofar as suicide bombing is concerned, there are between 1.3 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and it is the fastest growing religion and the second-largest religion in the world. That there are suicide bombers in the world who follow martyrdom and expect their rewards in paradise.

(7) With regard to the laughter heard on the tape, the complainant is portraying it as deriving from evil, rather than innocence, but this has not been explained how it can be done so. There is no basis for treating laughter at these matters as vilification. Amusement at hearing something completely outside the scope of one's experience may bring on laughter. It is not ridicule, and certainly not consistent only with hate speech, vilification, ridicule or severe ridicule.

(8) The comparison made by Pastor Scot between the Qur'an and the Bible is perfectly appropriate in an evangelical setting. The purpose of the seminar was to how to love Muslims and help them see the truth.

(9) Pastor Scot relates anecdotally some things about Mr Deedat, who is an Islamic speaker whose anti-Christian books were published in the 1980s, and in particular a meeting which he had with him in Brisbane. This was a video tape which the complainant at one stage announced they would tender, but then determined not to do so.

(10) Pastor Scot deals with a number of subjects, such as the Sabbath and its observance; honouring parents and duties to relatives; murder; adultery; stealing; telling lies and coveting. All of these matters are not within the context of references to the Qur'an and comparisons with Christian doctrine, all of which are legitimate subjects.

(11) Pastor Scot has a reasonable position which he has explained in a reasonable manner and consistent with his belief that what Jesus had to say was the truth, and that none of the seminar is capable of being characterised as vilification or hate speech.

(12) The seminar was presented by a Christian pastor who had substantial expertise concerning Islam and the Qur'an. The public interest permitted the definition of topics, the treatment and the actual presentation given. The seminar did not vilify Muslims or encourage dislike, hatred or any other negative feelings about Muslims in Australia or Muslims generally. It was not one-sided, it was engaged in reasonably and in good faith in the course of a discussion or debate held for genuine academic and religious purposes. All purposes involved were purposes that were in the public interest.

(13) Insofar as the amended complaint is concerned, the complainant has presented a case in its final submission different to that which was set out in the amended complaint, and there is attack with regard to the accuracy and understanding of the evidence by both Eades, Jackson and Thomas. It was put finally that the complainant's witnesses had made so many errors that their credit was doubtful and that they all came to the seminar with a predisposition to find fault, slight or vilification. The allegations which are made by them should be rejected in favour of the evidence of Annette Potter, whose evidence was described as "unchallenged".

Conclusions

376	The question of whether Islam is a religion was raised by the respondent. The Tribunal's view is quite simple, and that is that it is a religion. The expert witnesses who were called by the complainant each conceded that it was a world religion.

An obscure argument was put by Mr Perkins based upon a number of essentially legal issues. The respondent seeks to deny that Islam is a religion by reference to a decision that the law of blasphemy only applies to Christianity. The basis of that view is in doubt in this State and, indeed, may not even exist (see the view of Harper J in Pell v. The Council of the Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria (1988) 2 V.R. 39).

The fact that there is an absence of strict division between church and State does not detract from the conclusion that Islam is a religion. The relationship between the two may be an issue, but to suggest that there is no such thing as an Islamic religion does not stand scrutiny.

The above is demonstrated by the fact that Islam, which has adherers, in excess of one billion people throughout the world; who regard the Qur'an as equivalent to the Bible; that it agrees substantially with Christian beliefs save for particular events; that it is accepted by millions of people as a religion by which people live their lives based upon the teachings of the Qur'an and Hadiths; that it has a structured organisation which teaches and promotes its views; and finally has places of worship world wide, that is, mosques, has to deny any argument that it is not a religion.

377	The respondent asserts that the distribution of the Qur'an is illegal because it is a seditious act. I can find no reference to this argument in the defence. It was not put to any witnesses, but that may be explicable on the basis that no person was called who had legal qualifications to express such an opinion. I find that this argument is without any basis. Indeed, it is arguable that the same logic would apply to the Bible. The argument is put upon the basis that it is seditious because it contains and injunction to kill certain people in certain circumstances. Those circumstances have no relevance to the 21st Century, as was indicated in the evidence of the experts. In my view, this is yet again another example of an attempt to use an ancient historical document out of context in an historical sense and it is rejected.
378	There were a number of arguments put with regard to the failure to call witnesses. They relate to various individuals (for example Clelland) with regard to the issue of the proceedings.
379	I find that this could only apply to one circumstance, and this relates to the failure to call any Imam to give evidence. It is conceded by both parties that there is no ultimate body or person who can give final rulings with regard to matters of religion within the Islamic faith. The comparison is made with the Pope within the Catholic Church, which is not inappropriate.

That said, I am of the opinion that evidence could have been called from a cleric or Imam who speaks on spiritual matters on behalf of Muslims. Why such a person was not called is not explained. The only inference I can draw is that such a witness, as opposed to lay people and experts from the Catholic and Anglican Church, is that they may have given evidence adverse to the complainant's interests. With regard to this issue I do find that it has some substance. In my view, the calling of such a person such as an Imam or cleric could have assisted the Tribunal, but no such evidence was called.

380	As I have indicated, I have carefully listened to the tapes. I have done so on a number of occasions. I have also carefully analysed the transcript, which I find to be substantially accurate. However, what the audio does is to produce a fairly significant alteration in the import of what was said by Pastor Scot. It is obvious, in my opinion, that the method of personal presentation can be a significant factor in the interpretation of what is meant to be conveyed by the speaker. Applying the objective test to which I have referred, I have found the oral presentation is a significant step or, more accurately, it is an important feature which demonstrates that Pastor Scot has, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of person, engaged in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of that other class or class of persons. That class of persons are Muslims in general, but in respect to these proceedings Victorian Muslims.
381	I have been assisted in making findings by the expert evidence which has been called in this case, namely Father McInerney, Professor Bouma and Dr Kazi. Furthermore, I’ve had regard to the evidence of Mr Thomas, Mr Jackson and Dr Eades. I have taken into account such evidence subject to limitations. Having said that, the issue of vilification could have been determined upon the basis of an objective assessment of the tapes of the seminar, and without regard to either the evidence of the lay witnesses or with very little reliance upon the expert evidence. However, the fact is that the three lay persons were present, heard what was said, and were able to describe the effect which it had on those present, and therefore the issue of incitement.
382	I find that the conduct of the seminar by Pastor Scot, when looked at objectively and having regard to the context of the public act, and applying the test set out in Kazak at first instance, and that referred to in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v. Kazak (2002) N.S.W.A.D.T.A.P. 35 at paragraph 16 constitutes a breach of section 8.

Furthermore, the conduct of the seminar does not fall within the exemptions contained in section 11 of the Act.

383

Pastor Scot, throughout the seminar, made fun of Muslim beliefs and a conduct. It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims' religious beliefs; it was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their god, Allah, the prophet Mohammed and in general Muslim religious beliefs and practices.

Time and again this occurs and, on any view, produces a response from the audience at various times in the form of laughter.

Pastor Scot, during the course of the seminar, made statements -

(1) that the Qur'an promotes violence, killing and looting;

(2) that it treats women badly; they are to be treated like a field to plough, "use her as you wish". Further, in Hadith Bukhari, women, dog and donkey are of equal value;

(3) that domestic violence in general is encouraged;

(4) that Muslims are liars;

(5) that Allah is not merciful and a thief's hand is cut off for stealing;

(6) that Muslims are demons;

(7) the practice of abrogation that is cancellation of words from the Qur'an and the Hadith solely to fit some particular purpose or personal need;

(8) that Muslims operate a silent six jihad, which is the use of business connections; using money to induce people to convert to Islam, and the training of Muslins in Madrassihs and the statement there are millions of people right now under training in these schools, implying a threat to Australia;

(9) that Muslims have a plan to overrun western democracy by the use of violence and terror, and to replace those democracies with oppressive regimes;

(10) that people study for six to seven years and they become true Muslims, and we call them terrorists, but they are true Muslim; they have read the Qur'an, they have understood it and they are now practising it, that is the connection between the Qur'an and terrorism;

(11) Muslims intend to take over Australia and declare it as an Islamic nation;

(12) Muslim people have to fight Christians and Jews, humiliate them and fight them until they accept true religion;

(13) Muslims in Australia are increasing at substantial rates and have influence or control over the migration of people to Australia. Figures are quoted which are wrong. It is said the figures are produced by the Bureau, implying the Bureau of Statistics, whereas they came from a different source, and that they are increasing at a rate which was incorrect.

There are many other references to the Qur'an and Muslims who are said to follow its teachings.

384	The seminar was not a balanced discussion. It was a process of taking literal translations from the Qur'an and making no allowance for their applicability to modern day society. The ordinary, reasonable reader would understand from the public act that he or she was being incited to hatred towards or serious contempt for or serious ridicule of a person on the ground of race. As was indicated in Kazak, many readers will disagree with the sentiments expressed by Pastor Scot, but that is not the test. The test is whether the ordinary reasonable reader who is not malevolently inclined or free from susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined to hatred, ridicule, contempt or revulsion by reason of the presentation of the seminar. I find that the evidence of the three lay witnesses is probative of the fact that what was said amounted to incitement. The two lay witnesses called by the respondent had a different view, but I prefer the complainant's witnesses whose evidence I find to be more consistent with my listening to the tape.
385	Furthermore, there are issues with regard to the credibility of Pastor Scot, and I have indicated circumstances in which I believe he is not a credible witness. I accept the complainant's argument that, objectively viewed, Pastor Scot's evidence was evasive, inconsistent and exaggerated. I find that it constitutes a breach of section 8 of the legislation.
386	In that regard I have taken into account the evidence of Father McInerney and Dr Kazi which was to the effect that the conduct of the seminar was not a fair representation of Islamic religious beliefs. I have also had regard to the views of Professor Bouma.
387	Interpretation of the Qur'an by Pastor Scot represented the views of a small group of fundamentalists, namely, Wahabbists, who are located in the Gulf states and who are a minority group, and their views bear no relationship to mainstream Muslim beliefs and, in particular, Australian Muslims.
388	The respondents rely upon section 11 of the legislation which states that a person does not contravene section 8 if the person establishes that that person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held or other conduct engaged in for any religious purpose or any purpose that is in the public interest.

This section, as I have indicated, is designed to protect certain conduct. I have dealt with the approach which I believe should be taken to this section, which is to adopt a broad approach. However, that does not mean that anything may be said under the guise of a genuine religious purpose or any purpose that is in the public interest. The remarks of the Honourable the Premier in the Second Reading Speech make that clear when he said:

"The exceptions are not a shield for unsustained abuse".

It is clear, in my view, that the onus in respect of section 11 lies upon the Respondents. The words of the section are not capable of any other interpretation. It states a "person does not contravene section 7 or section 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith". In my view the words are clear and it is for each of the Respondents to bring themselves within the section 11 exceptions.

In Bropho v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] F.C.A.F.C. 16, in interpreting exceptions which are almost identical to those contained in the Victorian Act that the Commissioner who heard the complaint at first instance held that the onus was on the Respondent. This was not contested on appeal, but French J said that the matter should not be regarded as settled. His Honour reviewed the cases on the matter but did not reach any conclusion on the issue, no doubt because it had not be raised on appeal. In any event, nothing which was said in Bropho alters my view that the onus rests upon the Respondent.

Assuming that the onus rests upon the Respondent, the next issue for determination is whether that onus is to be judged either subjectively or objectively. At paragraph 95 of the judgment, French J said the following in relation to the legislation before him:

"How does this approach operate in the context of s.18D. It requires a recognition that the law condemns racial vilification of the divine kind, but protects freedom of speech and expression in areas defined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the section. The good faith exercise of that freedom will, so far as practicable, seek to be faithful to the norms implicit in its protection and to negative obligations implied by s.18C. It will honestly and conscientiously endeavour to have regard to and minimise the harm it will, by definition, inflict. It will not use those freedoms as a cover to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people by reason of their race or colour or ethnic or national origin."

His Honour came to the following conclusions:

"[101] Generally speaking the absence of subjective good faith, for example, dishonesty or the knowing pursuit of an improper purpose, should be sufficient to establish want of good faith for most purposes. But it may not be necessary where objective good faith, in the sense of a conscientious approach to the relevant obligation, is required. In my opinion, having regard to the public mischief to which s.18C is directed, both subjective and objective good faith is required by s.18D in the doing of the free speech and expression activities protected by that section.

[102] A person acting in the exercise of a protected freedom of speech or expression under s.18D will act in good faith if he or she is subjectively honest, and objectively viewed, has taken a conscientious approach to advancing the exercising of that freedom in a way that is designed to minimise the offence or insult, humiliation or intimidation suffered by people affected by it. that is one way, not necessarily the only way, of acting in good faith for the purpose of s.18D. On the other hand, a person who exercises the freedom carelessly disregarding or wilfully blind to its effect upon people who will be hurt by it or in such a way as to enhance that hurt may be found not to have been acting in good faith."

With regard to the test of reasonableness, this is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as "agreeable to reason; not irrational, absurd or ridiculous, not going beyond the limit assigned by reason, not extravagant or excessive; moderate". The adverb "reasonably" is defined as "in a reasonable manner, sufficiently, fairly". In paragraph 79 of his judgment, French J said a thing is done reasonably in one of the protected activities which are set out in this section if it bears a rational relationship to that activity and is not disproportionate to what is necessary to carry it out. It imports an objective judgment. In this context that means a judgment independent of that which the actor thinks is reasonable. It does allow the possibility that there may be more than one way of doing things reasonably.

In paragraph 80 he said the following:

"An act is done reasonably in relation to statements, publications, discussions or debates for genuine academic, artistic or scientific purposes, if it bears a rational relationship to those purposes. The publication of a genuine scientific paper on the topic of genetic differences between particular human populations might, for one reason or another, be insulting or offensive to a group of people. Its discussion at a scientific conference would no doubt be reasonable. Its presentation to a meeting convened by a racist organisation and its use to support a view that a particular group of persons is morally or otherwise 'inferior' to another by reason of their race or ethnicity, may not be a thing reasonably done in relation to para (b) of s.18D".

389

Bropho's case sets out tests which are to be applied when dealing with similar legislation. It requires a recognition that the law condemns racial vilification but protects freedom of speech and defined areas of expression. The good faith exercise of that freedom will, so far as practicable, seek to be faithful to the norms implicit in its protection and to negative obligations implied in the legislation. It will honestly and conscientiously endeavour to have regard to and minimise the harm it will, by definition, inflict. The absence of subjective good faith should be sufficient to establish the want of good faith for most purposes, but His Honour concluded that dealing with section 11, subjective and objective faith is required. In my view, the presentation of an unbalanced seminar, albeit purporting to express the views of a particular individual, when viewed subjectively leads me to the conclusion that it was not an exercise of good faith. In my view, having made findings with regard to the credibility of Pastor Scot, I find he did not conduct the seminar in good faith. Nor do I find that, when viewed objectively, it can be said that this was a seminar conducted in good faith. In my opinion, the absence of a finding of good faith denies to the respondent the protections which are contained within section 11. Further, I conclude that the seminar was not conducted reasonably having regard to the definition of that word in Bropho's case. It was not conducted reasonably because it was "excessive". It was a one-sided delivery of a view of the Qur'an and Muslims' beliefs, which were not representative. It was designed to put Muslim people and their beliefs in a bad light.

390

The respondents have failed to meet the criteria set out in section 11, that is, acting reasonably and in good faith. Having regard to that finding, arguments with regard to "genuine religious purpose", or "the public interest" only arise if the conduct meets that criteria.

Therefore I find it unnecessary to deal with the latter two issues. Having said that, it could be argued that at least insofar as the seminar dealt with 9/11, it could be said to be in the public interest. However, the seminar went well beyond that narrow, but important issue.

Assuming that it was in the "public interest" to engage in the conduct to that extent, then reliance on the exception must fail because it was not done and nor do I believe that it was intended to be conducted "reasonably and in good faith".

The Newsletter

391	Insofar as the newsletter is concerned, this was written by the secondnamed respondent. The article is entitled "2002 - Will Australia be a Christian Country?". On the previous page he describes Muslims as "the enemy" due to some incident which took place in Saudi Arabia. Coming back to the article, he refers to Muslims coming to Australia by boats and he gives numbers who come in this way, and questioned as to why they are getting visas when our brothers and sisters in Christ are being slaughtered in mainly Islamic countries. Further, those Christians who tried to obtain a refugee visa cannot get one. He states, however, that Muslims obtain visas from the very countries where Christians are being raped, tortured and killed. He then asked his readers the following question: "What stops the Muslims from doing the same in Australia?".
392	Further, he refers to the expansion of mosques in England. He said many mayors are Muslims. In referring to the expansion of mosques, he states that some churches have been closed down. They (Muslims) also very cleverly infiltrated Parliament and other influential places (even in Australia). This is in order to stop the name of Jesus being mentioned, because Islam knows the name of Jesus is trouble for him and also to spy on what the western governments are doing. He also relates a story of a pastor being told by an Imam that "Holy war is, we will make everyone in Australia worship Allah. Through peace or through violence". Finally he talks about birthing practices as being such that Muslims are increasing in numbers while "Aussies are on the decline". Viewed objectively and in their totality, these statements are likely to incite a feeling of hatred towards Muslims. They seek first of all to create fear in those who read the article of being harmed by Muslims. Further, that they are increasing in numbers while Aussies are on the decline, suggesting that they are seeking to take over Australia, which is consistent by the quote said to be made by an Imam. I find that this breaches section 8 of the Act.
393	Furthermore, there is no protection to be obtained by reliance upon section 11 because I find that such statements were not engaged in reasonably and in good faith. As I have indicated, I find Pastor Nalliah not to be a credible witness. I do so because of the way in which he wrote this newsletter and the way in which he answered questions about the matter in cross-examination. In my view, he was not subjectively honest and the newsletter, when viewed objectively, does not satisfy me that it was engaged in "good faith".

The Article

394

Finally, there is the article by Richard entitled "An Insight Into Islam by Richard". The date of the article is not without significance, that is 15 days after the events in New York, which make the context important in the sense that it is a response to an atrocity. It was, according to the evidence of Pastor Nalliah, intended for distribution in the United States, however he placed it on the firstnamed respondent's website in either 2001 or 2002. I find the article to be clearly a breach of section 8 of the Act and is a much clearer example of the type of conduct which the legislature is seeking to prohibit. The article suggests that Islam is an inherently violent religion and it was not possible to separate Islam from terrorist groups. He implies that Muslims endorse the killing of people based upon their religion, e.g. the tribe of Jews referred to in the Qur'an. He characterises terrorism as the very nature of Islam itself and suggests that the prophet is a paedophile, that the Qur'an teaches that the killing of innocent people is sanctioned and it teaches hate, not love. There is no attempt in the article to distinguish between moderate and extremist Muslims. The content of the article, when viewed objectively, incites hatred against and serious contempt for people who are Muslims. Again, as with the newsletter, I find that the respondent does not obtain the benefit of the exemption because the person's conduct could not be regarded as reasonable and in good faith.

I appreciate that this article was not written by him but that he performed an act, namely, placing it on the internet was an act that incites hatred, ridicule and contempt of Muslims in general, including Muslims in Australia.

Not only is it a breach of section 8 of the Act, I am not satisfied (the onus being on the respondent) that it was performed in good faith. I have already made adverse findings with regard to the credibility of this witness and I am not satisfied that subjectively he has acted in good faith. Furthermore, the article, when viewed objectively, as I have indicated, incites hatred against and serious contempt for people who are Muslims. I am not satisfied that the test for objectivity as set out in Kazak establishes that what was done was in "good faith".

395

I therefore find that the seminar, the newsletter and the article "An Insight Into Islam by Richard" all constitute a breach of section 8 of the Act and that I am not satisfied that they were performed in good faith, whether viewed subjectively or objectively, and that they constitute a breach by the respondent of section 8 of the Act. That finding includes the firstnamed respondent, which is the Body Corporate of the second respondent, who was at all times the public officer of the firstnamed respondent. The first respondent was responsible for the organisation, conduct and promotion of the seminar and website, and its liability arises by virtue of section 15 of the Act.

396

Accordingly, the complainant succeeds in the application. I will hear the parties on the question of the relevant remedy in due course.