Australian blasphemy cases

This pages considers blasphemy cases and controversies in Australia.

It covers -

• introduction
• William Jones (1871)
• Robert Ross and bolsheviks in heaven (1919)
• lead us not into Temptation - The Life of Brian, Hail Mary, Corpus Christi and The Last Temptation (1986)
• Pell, Serrano and the NGV
• Perkins and van der Linden (2004)
• and beyond

     introduction

In considering Australian prosecutions for blasphemy since the 1780s we can differentiate between

• a handful of cases concerned with print publications, films and visual artworks
• a much larger of instances of 'bad language', prosecuted under summary offences or other public order legislation.

The 'major cases' have attracted media, government and scholarly attention and agitation by advocacy groups. Arguably they have often derived from overseas models, with local provocateurs, zealots and 'concerned citizens' emulating excitement in London, New York or other cultural centres.

In contrast, day by day profanity - particularly among workingclass males - has been largely unremarked by the mass media. It has attracted academic attention primarily in relation to questions of civility, class, gender and national identity. The number of warnings, fines or short-term prison sentences imposed by magistrates for "misusing The Lord's name" or other blasphemous speech has not been tabulated and patterns in offences over the past 220 years are thus unclear.

In relation to 'major cases' during that period there appears to have been a shift from prosecutions initiated by the state to those initiated by individuals or advocacy groups. It is difficult to escape the sense that in recent years attempts to launch prosecutions have

• been aimed at strengthening the identity of particular affinity groups (portrayed to members as surrounded by a "sea of immorality" of facing discrimination not encountered by other faiths) rather than changing society at large
• sought to secure media attention for (and thereby increase or sustain the membership base of) small advocacy groups and their leaders
• not necessarily had the support of major religious groups or community leaders
• encountered a largely indifferent audience.

     William Lorando Jones

The 1871 prosecution in NSW of William Lorando Jones featured the charge that

being a wicked and evil disposed person, and disregarding the laws and religion of the said colony, wickedly, profanely, devisedly, and intending to bring the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion into disrepute and contempt among the people of the said colony, and to blaspheme God unlawfully and wickedly, and blasphemously in the presence and hearing of divers subjects of our lady the Queen, [he] spoke and pronounced, and with a loud voice published ... profane and blasphemous words ... to the high displeasure of Almighty God, to the great scandal and reproach of the Christian religion, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her Crown and Dignity

Jones was convicted - with a £100 fine - for claims that the Bible was "the most immoral book that ever has been published" and "not a fit book for any female to read", that the children of Israel murdered the Egyptians, that Elisha "murdered a number of priests of Baal by his God's authority" and that Moses "saved 40,000 Midianitish women to make them prostitute to his soldiers".

Mr Jones, however imprudent, had been reading his Old Testament and in retrospect his claims - albeit expressed with some emotion - echo comments made by biblical scholars since at least the 1850s. Jones was not, however, lecturing in the theology faculty at Gottingen, Heidelberg or Cambridge to a learned audience: statements to the lower orders in Parramatta were less acceptable.

     Robert Ross and bolsheviks in heaven

Fifty years later authorities appear to have used a blasphemy prosecution to crimp outspoken Australian rationalist and socialist Robert Samuel Ross (1873-1931). Ross was a pioneering Left journalist and union advocate. From 1911 to 1913 he had served as editor of the Wellington Maoriland Worker, which as noted on the preceding page of this profile was later prosecuted for Sassoon's 'blasphemous' antiwar poem

As publisher of Ross's Monthly - a Left counterpart of Smith's Weekly - he was taken to court in 1919 for the offence of sending blasphemous material through the post in seeking to "vilify Almighty God and bring the Holy Scriptures and Christian religion in contempt among the people".

The item of concern was a satire spoofing contemporary yellow journalism, with bolsheviks ransacking heaven, torturing the angels and rolling their own cigarettes with pages torn from the Book of Judgement.

Ross was initially declared guilty of a "vile and indecent attack on Christian Religion", with a sentence of six months hard labour, but survived the hysteria to become a member of the Council of Melbourne University, trustee of the National Gallery and Commissioner of the State Savings Bank of Victoria.

     lead us not into Temptation

Greater wariness about government involvement in prosecutions was evident in more recent responses to films and theatrical productions that satirised or - perhaps more threateningly - respected religious belief.

Denunciations from the pulpit of the musicals Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar - arguably offences against good taste rather than the deity - were muted and appear to have been largely treated as wowserism. There was a more visceral response to Monty Python's Life of Brian, Scorsese's The Last Temptation, Hail Mary and Terence McNally's Corpus Christi.

Terry Gilliam subsequently commented

What kind of church is this, that my feeble little jokes are going to threaten its belief? With Life of Brian we were vilified ... Yet Christianity is alive and well. Come on, if your religion is so vulnerable that a little bit of disrespect is going to bring it down, it's not worth believing in, frankly.

Dr Peter Carnley, Anglican Archbishop of Perth, stated that the Last Temptation was not blasphemous. Fred Nile in contrast commented

I was convinced that the film The Last Temptation of Christ was an anti-Christ film made by Satan Productions in the Studios of Hell!

Unsurprisingly, much of Australia disagreed with Mr Nile.

Performance of Corpus Christi in Melbourne during 2001 attracted minor picketing, with protests arguably increasing the box office. A Melbourne critic commented that McNally's drama

does not interrogate or challenge the Christian doctrine. It offers instead a thoughtful, in many ways reverent interpretation of the familiar story. It powerfully affirms the central message of Christ’s teaching, in a marvellous and quietly affecting work

Some religious leaders took a different view, claiming that it was

blasphemous and perverted, another assault on the traditions and restraints that hold decent pluralist societies together

That criticism reflects a shift in rhetoric, with increasing use of appeals to 'pluralism' in suppressing ideas that are unpopular among some parts of the community.

     Pell, Serrano and the NGV

Justice Harper of the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to grant an injunction - in Pell v Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria - to prevent opening of an exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne sought that restriction on the basis that Andres Serano's Piss Christ artwork was blasphemous, contravening section 17(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

The Gallery's QC drily noted that the image was already accessible through books and a recent ABC television series by noted art historian Robert Hughes.

Justice Harper commented that there it was unnecessary to rule on whether the law of blasphemy existed in Victoria, refusing the injunction on the technical grounds that a civil court will not exercise criminal jurisdiction and will not restrain what may or may not be a legal act by using a civil remedy such as an injunction.

His opinion was that Australia "need not bother with blasphemous libel" as a multicultural and tolerant society, noting that blasphemous libel was an anachronism of English history from a time when the State was intrinsically linked with an established Church (a relationship not recognised in Victoria and prohibited by section 116 of the federal Constitution).

Harper noted that 'blasphemous libel' - if in existence in Victoria - protects only Christian religions (of potential concern to Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish or other faiths). In suggesting that it would have to be shown that the exhibition raised the risk of a breach of the peace, including widespread social unrest he found that there was no evidence before him of any unrest of any kind.

There is a persuasive analysis in 'Pell v Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria: Should Blasphemy be a Crime? The ‘Piss Christ’ Case and Freedom of Expression' by Bede Harris in 22 Melbourne University Law Review (1998) 217-229.

Agitation against the gallery is consistent with perceptions across the globe that publicly-funded institutions are 'soft targets' that will often give surrender if attacked with vigour by an extremist with a nose for publicity.

The Victorian experience, for example, was echoed in a 2005 prosecution in Greece of curator Christos Ioakimidis for displaying Thierry de Cordier's painting Dry Sin in the 2003 government-endorsed Outlook exhibition. Ioakimidis was charged with insulting public sentiment and the Orthodox Church, following a complaint by a far-right politico George Karatzaferis.

     Perkins and van der Linden

In 2004 David Perkins for the fundamentalist 'Catch the Fire Ministries', argued in the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that

The Quran contradicts Christian doctrine in a number of places and, under the blasphemy law, is therefore illegal

Responding to vilification litigation under the Victorian Racial & Religious Tolerance Act 2001 he claimed that "Australia's blasphemy law was intended to protect only Christianity" and that action to curb the teaching of Christian doctrine was invalid.

In the same vein he is reported as arguing that

The law refers to "lawful religion," which disqualifies Islam, because it preaches violence

That is a curious proposition, given the OT emphasis on "righteous anger" and the history of many sects over two millennia.

Representatives of Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths responded in a tart open letter -

The reality is that the legislation has started to expose some of the activities of religious extremist and race hate groups in Victoria. They would prefer to be able to scuttle about in private misuse of the right to religious freedom, to prey on fears and anxiety that exist in parts of Victorian religious communities, inciting hatred and hostility to those of other faiths or races. It would be a mistake to repeal legislation that makes extremist groups uncomfortable and holds them to account

In June 2005 Judge Michael Higgins ordered the Catch the Fire defendants to print an apology on their website and newsletter and in four advertisements each in The Age and Herald Sun - using words ordered by the tribunal - and not to repeat the vilification. They appealed, with the Victorian Supreme Court returning the case to VCAT which announced in 2007 that a confidential out-of-court agreement had been reached by the ICV, Catch the Fire Ministries, Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot.

Supporters of the legislation commented that believers can discuss other faiths, quote religious texts, debate the merits or otherwise of other religious beliefs but not misrepresent other faiths for the purposes of vilification or incite hatred and violence towards other religions (whether based on accurate readings of their texts or not).

Catch the Fire has subsequently gained attention for absurdities such as claims that Australian "moral decline" was responsible for drought (an unhappy God punishes sinners and sinless alike by withholding the rain) and controversy over Nalliah's address to the antisemitic League of Rights.

The Catch the Fire dispute is discussed in the valuable Hate Speech & Freedom of Speech in Australia (Leichhardt: Federation Press 2007) edited by Katherine Gelber & Adrienne Stone.

2004 also saw action by Andre van der Linden, claiming that use of 'Jesus Christ' as a swearword in television drama Prime Suspect breached the federal broadcasting code and state law.

The Australian Broadcasting Authority referred to community standards in dismissing the complaint (PDF), consistent with studies about community expectations and everyday use of such language.

     and beyond

In June 2008 a 16 year old Gold Coast teenager was charged with offensive behaviour under the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld). As noted elsewhere on this site that legislation allows action against "offensive clothing", performance or other public nuisance and is not specifically concerned with blasphemy.

The offender had been spotted by police while walking down the road wearing a "extreme metal band" Cradle of Filth t-shirt that read "Jesus is a c**t" and depicted a masturbating nun.

  next page  (Australian sacrilege cases)