Response to following request from christian-witness.org :
Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:46 PM
Subject: Fw: Gospel Freedom in Jeopardy
Please pray about and do your best to publicise the following.
At short notice, The Christian Institute has organised a series of meetings on the Government's Religious Hatred Bill featuring Pastor Daniel Scot from Australia.
Daniel Scot faces a possible prison sentence in Australia because he criticised fundamentalist Islam in a church seminar. He was found 'guilty' under a religious vilification law in the state of Victoria. The law is very similar to the 'incitement to religious hatred' offence being proposed by the UK government. Parliament is currently considering the planned law in the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
We have organised a series of meetings in England and Wales at which Daniel will tell his story and show why Christians must actively oppose this 'religious hatred' law.
Meetings have been arranged at short notice at the following venues:
LONDON - Monday 22 August 2005, 6.00pm
St Helen's Bishopsgate, Great St Helen's, London, EC3A 6AT
CARDIFF Tuesday 23 August 2005, 7.30pm
Heath Evangelical Church, 120 Whitchurch Road, Cardiff, CF14 3YL
NEWCASTLE - GATESHEAD
Wednesday 24 August 2005, 7.30pm
Emmanuel College, Consett Road, Gateshead, NE11 0AN
LIVERPOOL - Thursday 25 August 2005, 7.30pm
Bridge Chapel, Heath Road, Liverpool, L19 4XR
More details of the venues are on a leaflet which can be viewed at our website:
(TCE: this page is also well worth visiting to see how local MP, Julie Morgan, (Labour; Cardiff North) voted on many issues vital to the spiritual and moral future of the UK. Please point out her record to your Christian friends - and especially anyone you know who voted for her).
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
Daniel Scot will speak at all the meetings. A lawyer will also explain the problems with the Government's planned offence. A member of staff from 'The Christian Institute will make clear what can be done to try to stop the proposed law.
This is a vitally important issue. Please forward this email to whoever you think may be interested in these meetings.
Please print and distribute the leaflet within your church, giving these events the widest publicity.
Please pray that God would protect and strengthen Daniel and his family at this time.
Yours in Christ,
For further details on the Daniel Scot (and Danny Nalliah) case and other aspects of this dangerous situation please look at some of the many sites which make comment, e.g.:
[the two links above may no longer work, but others on this page still connect - Aug, 2007]
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004890.php (recommended since it contains
the view of one of the expert witnesses who was denied to the defendants!)
(follow 'Blasphemy Petition' link to excellent material on this proposed UK 'law')
http://www.observationdeck.org/weblogs/?p=702 (very interesting analysis and details of Daniel Scot's history and credentials - as well as typical comments by the man in the street)
Heath Evangelical Church
Tuesday, 23rd August, 2005, 7.30p.m.
The meeting at Heath Evangelical Church began, appropriately enough, with the reading of Scripture before prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-4):RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED BILL
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Mike Judge, Publications Manager for the Christian Institute, gave the historical background of the Bill and emphasised the importance of the correct Christian response. We will not reproduce all of Mike's words, since the views of the Christian Institute can easily be obtained from their website:
Experienced barrister Mark L.R. Mullins, Chairman of the London Branch of the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship, then addressed the legal aspects of the proposed Bill which will amend Section 18 of the Public Order Act of 1986 [below are the notes supplied by Mark Mullins]:
A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
The Government is aware of Daniel Scot*s case but does not believe that the same thing could happen in the UK. The purpose of my talk this evening is to show that there are serious dangers in the proposed offence of inciting hatred against persons on religious grounds that would catch exactly this sort of behaviour here.
The Bill will amend Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 so that it will read:
(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if-
a. he intends thereby to stir up racial or religious hatred, or
b. having regard to all the circumstances the words, behaviour or material are (or is) likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are (or it is) likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.
This is nothing less than a blasphemy law for all religions which, in my view, will be used to restrict Christians preaching the Gospel. I will now take you through this offence to try and show you how potentially dangerous it could be.
The threshold for committing the offence
First the words, sign, material or behaviour must be threatening, abusive or insulting. These words will be given their ordinary dictionary meaning. While the courts have held that words which are rude or offensive are not necessarily insulting the example of Harry Hammond demonstrates that where Christians are concerned the threshold can be disturbingly low.
Mr Hammond was a 67 year old street preacher who suffered from Asperger*s syndrome. On 13th October 2001 he stood in the Square in Bournmouth holding a placard displaying the words: "Stop immorality, Stop homosexuality, Stop lesbianism". This sign stirred up the crowd resulting in Mr Hammond being attacked and pushed to the ground with mud and water being poured over him. Mr Hammond was arrested and later convicted for displaying the sign. Very sadly Mr Hammond died shortly afterwards. Following his conviction his case was appealed to the High Court who held that the magistrates were entitled to find the sign to be insulting because it appeared to relate homosexuality and lesbianism to immorality.
The provision that the words must be threatening, abusive or insulting will not provide much protection if this case is anything to go by. One can easily see how other religions would be insulted by*the claim of the Christian faith that all are sinners destined for hell and the only way to God is through His Son, Jesus Christ.
It is worth noting that the ancient common law offence of blasphemy required the words to be contemptuous, scurrilous and ludicrous matters relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and the formularies of the Church of England: very similar you might think.
Just as the words "threatening, abusive or insulting" will be given their normal meaning so also will hatred. The dictionary defines hatred as intense dislike or detestation. This is the same definition that the Australian court used in Daniel Scot*s case.
What is worrying about the stirring up of hatred is that it is a wholly subjective state of mind which is not necessarily linked to any outward form of behaviour. The common law offence of blasphemy required the words or behaviour complained of to tend to endanger society by endangering the peace or depraving public morality or shaking the fabric of society or being a cause of civil strife. While these may be quaint expressions at least they have an objective element to them.
Religion is not defined and can therefore cover cults including Satanism. We saw recently that on HMS Cumberland a satanist was given permission to read his satanic scriptures on board ship.
In the State of Victoria, Australia, a witch used the same law that caught Daniel Scot to argue that the King James Bible has the potential to vilify many groups in Australian society and should not be used by people running the Alpha course, a widely used introductory course to Christianity. Although this claim was thrown out by the court it shows how easy it is for anybody of apparently any religious belief to bring a complaint.
The offence of stirring up religious hatred does not require intention because the offence is framed in the alternative:
(a) he must either intend to stir up racial or religious hatred; or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances the words, behaviour or material are (or is) likely to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are (or it is) likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.
So, in summary, you can be guilty of religious incitement if your words are deemed insulting, and there is a likelihood that at least one person is likely to feel intense dislike as a result.
Let us look at the defences for the offence in the Bill:
(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.
(5) A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial or religious hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.
You will notice that truth is not a defence and raises the question about how serious the Government really is about protecting the rights of people to confront the misconceived though genuinely held beliefs of others.
Furthermore in sub-clause five a person has to show that he was not aware that his words might be, threatening, abusive or insulting. When it comes to criticising other people*s beliefs or lack of them most people are aware that their words might be insulting to those who hold the views under scrutiny. After all we are warned by Paul in Galatians 5 against removing the offence of the Cross.
Standard and burden of proof
While it is true to say that the standard of proof is the criminal standard this factor is neutralised somewhat under the new offence because the threatening, abusive of insulting words or behaviour must only be likely to be heard by someone in whom hatred is likely to be stirred up.
If a person is found guilty of stirring up religious hatred then he faces seven years imprisonment. Compare this with the offence of causing grievous bodily harm which covers all really serious harm short of murder under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. What Section 20 has in common with this offence is that intention is not required. However the maximum sentence for causing really serious harm is only five years - two years less than for stirring up religious hatred.
On 22nd June Daniel Scot was ordered to apologise for his comments during the seminar and not to speak about the Qu*ran or Islam anywhere in Australia. If Daniel Scot does not comply then he will find himself in prison. This indicates a further danger to the UK law. If it is passed then it could act as a Justification for Local Authorities and the Police to apply for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in similar circumstances to Danny Scot. It also opens the possibility of private Injunctions being applied for by organisations such as Muslim Council of Britain.
The European Convention on Human Rights
I think it is unlikely that a general challenge to the new offence of religious incitement as being incompatible with the rights to freedom of religion and speech would succeed because they can be limited in certain circumstances although it may be that individual cases might be in breach.
The need for this Law
The Government say that the new offence is aimed at really serious cases and they refer to the attacks on mosques after September 11th. Of course firebombing a mosque, or a church, or anywhere else, is already illegal. It*s already illegal to incite someone to commit criminal damage or violence to a person or to commit a terrorist offence. It*s already illegal to harass someone, shouting at them in the street or pestering them with nuisance phone calls or poison pen letters.
The Government says the new law addresses what they call a gap, lacuna, whereby existing race law protects Jews and Sikhs, because they are mono-ethnic religions, but doesn*t protect multi-ethnic religions such as Christians and Muslims.
However race and religion are two very different things. Race is unchangeable.
However people change religion all the time. Race has no moral component.
Religion, by definition, determines a person*s morals.
Let me read you the previous Home Secretary*s example of a situation where the prosecuting authorities would consider taking action under the new offence:
"In response to an extreme racist organisation widely distributing material setting out a range of insulting and highly inflammatory reasons for hating Islam. Such reasons have included suggesting that Muslims are a threat to British people and liable to molest women and that they should be urgently driven out of Britain."
However even this offence is caught by existing legislation. Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contains the offence of religiously aggravated harassment.1 (1The religious aggravation element was inserted by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)
On 9th January 2002 Mr Norwood, the regional organiser of the British National Party, displayed a poster in the first-floor window of his flat in Shropshire, containing words in very large print "Islam out of Britain" and "Protect the British people".
A member of the public was offended by the poster reported the matter to the Police who removed it and charged Norwood with the offence of causing religiously or racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under Section 31 of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998.
He was convicted in the Magistrates Court and the conviction was upheld in the High court who found that the sign was insulting to Muslims. The European Court of Human Rights rejected a claim to review this decision as inadmissible because it found that such a general, vehement attack against a religious group, linking the group as a whole with a grave act of terrorism, is incompatible with the values proclaimed and guaranteed by the Convention, notably tolerance, social peace and nondiscrimination.
Attorney General*s Fiat
The Government say that no prosecutions will take place without the consent of the Attorney General. However this will place an enormous amount of pressure on one man and expectations of some in the faith community may cause him to allow prosecutions that the Act was never intended to cover. Even if the current Attorney-General resists such pressures, what about his successor, or his successor*s successor?
The other practical problem with this safeguard is that the Attorney General will not make a decision until after a (possibly) lengthy and intrusive police investigation which will inevitably involve unnecessary anxiety for otherwise law abiding members of the community. This could be seriously disruptive if complaints were made at the beginning of a five day university mission for example.
Unfortunately once this offence becomes law no amount of Government assurances will really matter. It is then in the hands of the courts and it will take on a life of its own.
The danger with the religious incitement law is not just that there will be prosecutions. It*s the chilling effect. You will recall that eighteen months ago the Bishop of Chester was investigated by the police for saying that homosexuals could be cured by therapy. Even though he had committed no offence the threat of police investigation can have a disproportionate effect on normally law abiding citizens and discourage them from coming any where near to crossing the line. There have also been examples of the police threatening prosecutions for proselytising Muslims under the existing law.
A stick to beat opponents?
The final danger is that this proposed law could be used as a stick by people to beat their religious opponents with, as the Daniel Scot case demonstrates.
Premier Radio is a Christian radio station based in London. In 2001 the Mysticism and Occultism Federation used five part-time monitors to listen in to the station with the deliberate intention of taking offence and making complaints against it. They objected to them airing preachers warning of the danger of dabbling in the occult. Surprisingly, the Authority upheld some of their complaints. As a result of these complaints the renewal of Premier Radio*s broadcasting licence was put in jeopardy although it was in the end renewed.
In Australia it is reported that Muslims are having their meetings infiltrated by Christians. We can see how this could quickly turn into a tit-for tat exercise with the Attorney-General being caught in the middle and being censured for whatever action he takes.
In summary then, I believe that this is a further erosion of our Christian privileges in this land. The Christian faith has been protected historically because it represents the cultural heritage of this country - and, more importantly, because it is true. The effect of according equal standing of all other religions will inevitably be at the expense of the truth, as we have seen in Australia with Daniel Scot*s case.
As the Prophet Isaiah said in Isaiah 59: 14
"And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter."
17th August 2005 MARK L.R. MULLINS
1 Harcourt Buildings
London EC4Y 9DA
Daniel Scot then made a statement, based on the following pages supplied to the congregation, summarising his background, brief details of his seminar on Islam, the resultant court case in Victoria, Australia, the judges decision, and the possible outcome for himself and all believers:
STATEMENT BY DANIEL SCOT
My name is Daniel Scot. It is a great pleasure to be here in Britain - a country with a great reputation for free speech and religious liberty. But I am very concerned about a new law being proposed by your Government. I can tell you, from my personal experience, that the plans for an "incitement to religious hatred" offence are very dangerous to free speech.
Since 2001, we have had similar laws in the state of Victoria in Australia. These laws were used against me by a well-organised Muslim group after I criticised Islam in a church seminar for Christians. Although my criticisms of Islam were calm, reasonable and based on my considerable knowledge and experience - and although these comments were made in the setting of a Christian religious meeting - I was found guilty under these laws. If such laws can catch someone like me, then similar laws could catch anyone for criticism of religion.
Let me tell you what happened. On 9 March 2002 I gave a seminar in a church in Melbourne. The aim was to help Christians understand the Muslim faith. I have done many such seminars in churches throughout Australia. The reason that I speak on this subject is because of my particular experience and knowledge.
I was born in Pakistan in 1951. My parents were Christian. I grew up in Pakistan - a country which is predominantly Muslim and whose culture is Islamic. I was lecturing in Mathematics at the University of Punjab. In fact, in order to get this job I had to study Islam and pass an independent exam. In 1986 Pakistani law changed and blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed became a criminal offence punishable by death. Shortly after this new law was introduced I was summoned before my University Authorities and pressured to convert to Islam. I explained that I had no assurance of salvation in Mohammed and Salvation was only through Jesus Christ. As a result of this, a charge of blasphemy was brought against me. I also learned that several thousand students were threatening to kill me. I went into hiding and eventually fled to Australia. I cannot go back to my homeland because of the capital charge against me.
So, when I give seminars to Christians about the teaching of Islam and when I talk about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam and Sharia Law, I know what I am talking about.
I also make it clear in my seminars that not all Muslims know what Islam teaches. Most Muslims do not know in detail the full teaching of Islam and are peaceful friendly people. But I believe it is important that people are aware of the implications of the full teaching of Islam. In my seminars I express criticism of Islamic teaching on jihad, women and other matters. These criticisms of Islam are not unique to me. They are mainstream international concerns.
On 9 March 2002 I was giving my usual seminar to a group of Christians in a church. Unknown to me, three Muslim converts were in the audience. They had been encouraged to attend by a Muslim who is a member of the Islamic Council of Victoria who also worked for the Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoria. The three Muslim converts made notes of the seminar which formed the basis of a complaint that my seminar had vilified their faith.
I ended up in court. The case lasted from October 2003 until June 2004 and has cost us over 200,000 Australian dollars. The cost would have been higher but much of the legal work was done for free. I was found guilty of "religious vilification". But I believe I am innocent of such a thing. All I did was to state my well-founded beliefs about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam and Sharia Law. The case has caused me a great deal of alarm and distress.
Under the law I was charged with, any statements made for any genuine religious purpose by a person acting reasonably and in good faith are exempt from the "vilification" offence. But, despite my extensive knowledge and experience of Islam and despite the fact that my seminar was for Christians in a church, the judge dismissed this exemption. By the way, I understand there is no such exemption planned by the UK Government for its "incitement to religious hatred" law.
In Australia, this law is a civil law with civil penalties. The court has ordered me to place four advertisements in Victorian newspapers carrying a statement bearing my name but written by the Islamic Council of Victoria. The statement says, among other things, that I have vilified all Muslims. It says I "presented the seminar in a way that was essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their God, their prophet Mohammed and in general Muslim beliefs and practices". The cost of placing the advertisements would be about 70,000 Australian dollars. The court has also ordered me to give an undertaking not to make any similar criticisms of fundamentalist Islam anywhere in Australia at any time in the future.
If the court could show me where I have been inaccurate or untruthful, I would apologise for that. But everything I said was accurate. In all good conscience, I cannot apologise for telling what I believe is the truth. Nor can I keep silent about the teachings of fundamentalist Islam. I cannot say I was wrong, when I believe I was right. I cannot do what the court is asking.
As a result of this, I may be found in contempt of court. This offence carries a possible prison sentence. I do not want to go to prison, but that may be the price I have to pay. But I will not say my teaching was wrong and I will not stop speaking the truth about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam.
I understand the offence proposed by the UK Government is to be a criminal offence punishable by a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. This proposed law frightens me because I know what it could do.
I believe there are two things about my case which people should worry about. First, people should worry that fair comment and criticism about religion can so easily lead to a legal action under such a law. Second, people should worry that a well-organised minority religious group who knows how the legal system works can bring litigation to silence any criticism of its beliefs. I have no doubt that if the "religious vilification" law did not exist in Victoria, those three Muslim converts would never have been sent to my seminar.
There may be some people who do not agree with my criticisms of Islam (although there are many who do agree). But that is not the point here. The point is, I should be free to argue my views - and I should be particularly free to do so in a religious meeting. What if you want to criticise Islam? Or Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism? I believe you should be free to do so. I believe you should be free to do so without fear of being hauled before the courts.
I am a man who had to flee for my life from the effects of Islam. I have studied Islamic religious history and its holy books. I am an ordained Christian minister who spoke calmly and reasonably of my concerns about Islam to a Christian group in a Christian church. And in doing so, I have suffered a lengthy and costly legal action and been found guilty of "vilifying Islam". I face the possibility of going to prison. If it happened to me, it could happen to you.
Having been in fear of my life because of my Christian faith, I know how precious freedom of speech and religious liberty is. It is too precious to throw away in a misguided attempt to protect religion. An "incitement to religious hatred" offence will damage free speech and stir up religious groups to bring litigation against each other. If my story says anything, it says drop this proposal.
Mike Judge, spokesman for The Christian Institute, then asked Daniel a short series of questions to clarify the nature of the 'trial' in Australia and the importance of taking appropriate action via local Members of Parliament to prevent this Bill becoming Law. We will not reproduce these comments here, but recommend that any interested party contact the Heath Evangelical Church for the tape/CD of the meeting.
The following was also supplied at the meeting:
Biography and details of the 'religious vilification* case
Life in Pakistan
Daniel Scot (53) is a Pakistani-national (now an Australian citizen) born in 1951 in the Punjab province in central Pakistan. Pakistanis do not have Western-type surnames. Daniel*s father was Ahmed Siddiqui, so Daniel was known as Daniel walid ("son of") Ahmed Siddiqui throughout his childhood. He later chose the surname Scot for himself. He is married (to Mariat) with five adult children.
Daniel*s parents were part of the small Christian minority in Muslim Pakistan. Following his education, Daniel wanted to become a lecturer in maths at the University of Punjab, but preference was given to Muslims. Daniel therefore made a point of studying Islam and its sacred texts with such diligence that he passed an examination in Islamic studies with a perfect score -100% - ahead of all Muslim applicants. He got the job.
In 1986, the Pakistan Penal Code was amended (Section 298-C) to make the offence of insulting the Prophet Mohammed punishable by death. Shortly after this new law had been passed, the Punjab university authorities summoned Daniel Scot and pressured him to convert to Islam. He refused, saying Mohammed offers no assurance of salvation and that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ.
The very next day Daniel Scot went into hiding because it became known that he was to be formally charged with blasphemy. He faced death threats from students. Daniel hid in various places, sheltered by friends. Some months later he managed to leave Pakistan. Because of the capital charge against him, Daniel cannot return to his homeland.
In 1987 Daniel Scot arrived in Brisbane. He gained a position as lecturer in mathematics at the Queensland University of Technology, later joining the mathematics department at the University of Queensland.
In 1994, Daniel Scot was ordained as a pastor in the Assemblies of God church and his ministry is based at Northside Christian Church in Everton Park, Brisbane. He began holding seminars on Islam. His specialist knowledge of Islam*s holy books led to many invitations to address church meetings, Bible colleges and other groups.
On 1 January 2002, a new law - the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act - came into effect in the Australian state of Victoria. It created the offence of religious vilification - inciting hatred against a person or group on the ground of their religious belief. The new law stated that intention was irrelevant (Section 9).
There was considerable community controversy when the new legislation was first mooted in 2000. The Victorian government received some 15,000 submissions opposing such a law. The final law was amended to include key exceptions for statements, discussion or debates made for any 'genuine religious purpose'. The intention of this amendment was to address the points raised by religious groups who said the law would harm freedom of speech.
On 9 March 2002, two months after the law came into force, Pastor Daniel Scot conducted one of his seminars on Islam at the invitation of Pastor Danny Nalliah, head of Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne. The seminar was held in a church, and over 200 Christians attended.
In addition, unknown to the conference organisers, three Muslim converts with European surnames attended the seminar at the urging of May Helou, a member of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) who was seconded to work with the Equal Opportunities Commission of Victoria (EOCV). The three Muslim converts attended different parts of the seminar at different times, but none attended the introduction which put the parts in context. They took notes which formed the basis of a formal complaint to the EOCV by the ICV.
Much of the formal complaint related to statements by Pastor Scot which were direct translations from the Quran. The three complainants later admitted that their knowledge of the Quran was slight. They apparently had not recognised the verses.
The seminar was recorded on audiotape. The transcript shows that Pastor Scot told his audience several times that "Muslims are not the enemy. We must love Muslims." He said that most Muslims in Australia do not know what is in the Quran. They can recite some verses in Arabic, but they generally do not understand what these verses mean. He said most Muslims are peace-loving, kind, family-oriented people. He urged Christians to show love to Muslims and to befriend them by inviting them into their homes.
The ICV then took the case to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) where Judge Michael Higgins adjudicated. The hearing began in October 2003 and ended in June 2004. On 17 December 2004 he handed down his finding - that Pastor Daniel Scot and Pastor Danny Nalliah were guilty of vilifying Muslims.
On 22 June 2005 the judge handed down the penalty. The respondents must place a statement (drafted by the Muslim Council of Victoria) admitting they were wrong to criticise Islam in various Victorian newspapers. The cost of placing the advertisements would be $70,000AUS. They are also banned from ever making any similar comments on Islam anywhere in Australia.
Daniel Scot has said that he cannot comply with the order because he does not believe he has done anything wrong. Nor is he willing to keep silent about the teachings of fundamentalist Islam. As such, Daniel faces a possible prison sentence for being in contempt of court. Daniel has said he is willing to go to prison if that is the price of remaining true to his faith.**********************************************************
At the end of the meeting The Christian Institute supplied printed material giving guidance on:
Why a religious hatred law would harm religious liberty and freedom of speech;
For Word and PDF versions of this advice go to:
We also recommend that you read:
http://www.christian.org.uk/equalitybill/briefing_july2005.pdf [link may no longer work!]
Further material was available (please contact the Christian Institute for this material) dealing with:
Answers to likely arguments;
How to meet your MP (How to approach the meeting; What to say; Writing to your MP);
Daniel Scot Seminar (9th March 2002) - 'Jihad from the Quran';
This Daniel Scot Seminar is available from:
We would hope that one of the good things that will come out of this satanic attack on the truth would be that Christians will at least read the notes from Daniel's seminar and thus be more fully informed than they would otherwise be! There are so few good books on the real truth about Islam - but Daniel has been used to reveal that truth and may have to suffer imprisonment and other punishments for remaining true to His Saviour. Do not let that sacrifice be in vain. That is our hope. But we have also held similar hopes in the past - that the Christian Church in the United Kingdom would make serious use of the many excellent books and materials revealing the truth about Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and any number of similar deceptions, and would take discipling and evangelism seriously. Please - dare to be a Daniel!
We hope, in time, to make easier the task of spotting the horrors of Islam that Daniel's seminar revealed, by high-lighting the major points of his talk.
E-mail updates on the proposed bill