Religious Tolerance logo

Hate speech

Australia: Limitations on hate
speech based on religion & race

Sponsored link.


The UK and some of its former colonies, such as Canada and Australia, place far more limitations on their citizens' speech than does the U.S.  Canada does not allow hate speech involving attacks on people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But the legislation does allow such hate speech if it is religiously motivated. Australia goes one step further, and bans certain types of hate speech even if it is part of a sermon or presentation on religion.

Two Evangelical Christian pastors were convicted of violating the state of Victoria's "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001." They had delivered a seminar which compared Christianity and Islam. A court judged the speech to have violated the law, and ordered the pastors to give a public apology. The decision has been appealed.

The law:

The following is for general information only. If you need to make a decision based on the law, please consult the full text which is available online. 1

The government of the state of Victoria launched "A Bill to promote racial and religious tolerance by prohibiting the vilification of persons on the ground of race or religious belief or activity, to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 and for other purposes." The short title is the "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001." It was passed on 2001-JUN-14 and came into effect on 2002-JAN-01.

According to the Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs:

"The Act prohibits racial and religious vilification. Vilification is public behaviour that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of another person or group of people because of their race or religion. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act sets a high standard for determining vilification, and it is only in extreme and serious cases that vilification will be found to have occurred."

"The Act provides a community standard about our responsibility towards each other in a multicultural society. It seeks to ensure that people are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their particular race or religion, and do not become targets of vilifying behaviour." 2

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the law's preamble states:

"...some Victorians are vilified on the ground of their race or their religious belief or activity. Vilifying conduct is contrary to democratic values because of its effect on people of diverse ethnic, Indigenous and religious backgrounds. It diminishes their dignity, sense of self-worth and belonging to the community. It also reduces their ability to contribute to, or fully participate in, all social, political, economic and cultural aspects of society as equals, thus reducing the benefit that diversity brings to the community.

It is therefore desirable that the Parliament enact law for the people of Victoria that supports racial and religious tolerance."

Section 8 (1) of the law states:

"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."

Other sections of the law state that:

  • The person's motivation is irrelevant.
  • No violation of the law happens if "the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith" and had a "genuine...religious...purpose."

The law provides maximum penalties of Australian $30,000 (about US $23,000) and six months in jail.

Author Mark Zimsak commented about a campaign of misinformation promoted by parts of Victoria's religious communities.  Zimsak noted:

"That discussion and criticism of religion can occur under the Act is evidenced by the fact that you will be able to find books in most public libraries that critique and criticise most religions and religious beliefs. There has not been any attempt to have such books banned under the law."

He wrote that:

"The national Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission released a report in 2004 documenting increased levels of discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in Australia following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the US and the terrorist bombing in Bali in October 2002. Muslim women were particular targets of physical violence carried out by strangers. Such incidents included having dogs set upon them, attempts to run over them, being spat at, having things thrown at them from cars and having their hajibs [sic]  pulled off. The victims of such attacks often fear leaving their homes."

"However, harassment and discrimination has also been directed at people mistaken as Muslims, such as Christian Arabs and Sikh men wearing turbans. In one case an Egyptian Christian woman was knocked to the ground and needed hospital treatment after a man threw stones at her from a passing car." 3

Sponsored link:

The incident and complaint:

May Helou, an employee of the The Equal Opportunity Commission and member of the Islamic Council of Victoria recruited three Muslims to attend a seminar, given by Pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah in 2002-MAR. It was titled "The Nature Of Islam," and was organized by Catch The Fire Ministries, an Australian Evangelical Christian group affiliated with the Assemblies of God. Part of their presentation involved a comparison between Christianity and Islam. Afterwards, the three observers prepared a 52 count complaint against the ministry and the two pastors. 4

A one-day mediation session did not resolve the problem. The Islamic Council of Victoria laid a complaint under the tolerance law. Hearings at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal started in 2003-OCT and continued for 40 days, spread over a total of nine months.

According to Wikipedia, The Roman Catholic and Uniting Churches supported the Islamic Council while and Pentecostal and Evangelical groups alleging that the law unduly restricted free religious speech. 5

Pastor Danny Nalliah, said:

"This has caused us a tremendous amount of time and stress.....I have lived in Saudi Arabia and learned the real nature of Islam. It is to dominate other religions and other cultures. The Koran speaks of world domination. I have spoken to a lot of Muslim leaders who say it is easy to exploit the Western system. The say the key is to be patient, to learn the language, and to build up numbers. Then build up political power....Even Christians believe everyone should know about Christ and want people to follow Christ. But the worry is with Islam, it goes one step further. If peaceful methods fail, the Koran says you can use violence." 4

The case has been widely reported in the media, particularly in Fundamentalist and other Evangelical web sites. A Google search for scot nalliah tribunal returned 592 hits on 2006-AUG-24. Nalliah criticized the decision, and compared the law to "sharia law by stealth." He said that he would prefer to go to jail rather than apologize.

During 2004-NOV, Nalliah ran for a seat in the Australian Senate as a candidate for the Family First Party. One of his competitors Barnaby Joyce, attacked Nalliah, quoting from one of Nalliah's brochures. According to Wikipedia, they allegedly:

"....asked parishioners to pray to their god in order that he might pull down 'Satan's strongholds', which included brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosques and temples (including Freemason, Buddhist and Hindu temples)." 5

The ruling and appeal:

On 2004-DEC-17, the court ruled that Nalliah and Scot had broken the law. Sentencing was reserved for early 2005.

On 2005-JUN-22, Judge Michael Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered Nalliah and Scot to make an apology in the form of an advertisement in two of Victoria's main newspapers. The total cost would have been Australian $68,690 (about US $52,000).

Total legal costs to this point exceeded Australian $1 million (about US $750,000). 4

According to Wikipedia, Nalliah and Scot's lawyers have appealed to the Court of Appeal, "alleging both that Higgins showed signs of bias and that the Act itself was unconstitutional."

A conservative Christian legal and defense group in the U.S., the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is supporting Nalliah and Scot's appeal. Becket Fund president, Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson, is quoted as saying in an article titled "Aussie Pastors Face Jail Sentence for Expressing Beliefs:"

"Pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah are victims of a misguided piece of legislation that flies in the face of religious freedom protected by international law. Instead of promoting religious tolerance, the Act inevitably promotes disharmony and suspicion. Now people are afraid to engage in any genuine dialogue about religious belief because someone might be taking notes in preparation for a lawsuit."

"Our clients were expressing their opinions regarding the differences between the two religions. It doesn’t matter whether the government or anyone else thinks their opinions were wrong -- everyone has the right to be wrong on matters of belief without fear of government sanction." 6

Barny Zwartz of The Age newspaper reported on the hearing before the Court of Appeal between 2006-AUG-14 and AUG-22:

"Debbie Mortimer, SC, for the Islamic Council of Victoria, said the Muslim side had sought a public apology and undertakings not to repeat the vilification, but the pastors had refused and said they did not recognise the findings or even the law on which they were based (the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act)."

"She said the tribunal gave the pastors another chance before ordering them to apologise in newspaper advertisements and granting the injunctions forbidding them from repeating the statements anywhere in Australia. She said the ban applied only to the two pastors."

"Justice Geoffrey Nettle said: 'Surely that can't justify restraining them from saying something that said by anyone else would be legal? In the case of the newsletter, for example, Pastor Nalliah says many churches have closed down. What's wrong with saying that'?"

"Ms Mortimer replied: 'The tribunal has found there is something wrong with saying it. Truth is not a defence, it's irrelevant to contravention of the act'." 7

The court has reserved its decision.

References used:

  1. Text of: "Version No. 001, Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, Act No. 47/2001," 2002-JAN-01, at:

  2. "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act," Victorian government, at:

  3. Mark Zimsak, "Religious tolerance will ensure community safety," On Line Opinion, 2005-AUG-24, at:

  4. Paul Sheehan, "Spreading the word of intolerance," 2004-OCT-04, at:

  5. "Danny Nalliah," Wikipedia, at:

  6. "Aussie Pastors Face Jail Sentences for Expressing Beliefs," The Becket Fund, 2006-AUG-14, at:

  7. Barney Zwartz, "Questions over ruling on Muslims," The Age newspaper, 2006-AUG-23, at:

Site navigation:

Home > Religious laws > Hate speech > here

Home > Religious hatred & conflict > Specific conflicts > Hate speech > here

Copyright © 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2006-AUG-24
Latest update: 2006-SEP-07
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)

Go to the previous page, or to the "Hate speech" menu, or choose:


Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

GooglePage Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.