Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Pastors refuse to apologise for vilification -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) it plans to harvest 900 minke whales and, for the first time, hunt humpbacks - a cull that's incensed anti-whaling nations. I personally think what we saw today was so pathetic that it totally validated the position that conservation-minded countries like Australia and New Zealand have taken, saying that, "Hey, this is not about science, it is about whaling." With that in mind, Australia put up a motion condemning the science. 26 countries signed the document, delivering another small but moral victory. Australia has led the world to say, "Japan, this isn't on. "Japan, please go and have a look at it again. "Please listen to the IWC, please listen to world opinion "and please don't go exploding whales in the name of science." They are using a loophole that's in the convention. Japan can do this unilaterally, whether the International Whaling Commission asks them to stop it or not. They're abusing that loophole. The only way to stop them doing it is to amend the convention and get rid of the loophole altogether. Australia will attempt to close this loophole in the long term, but at this stage there's no process to do that. Such a flaw is typical of the international whaling body - a regulator many believe is now in need of major reform. Sarah Clarke, Lateline, Ulsan, South Korea. The last remaining family with children held in immigration detention on Nauru will move to Australia next week. The Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, has granted temporary visas to nine members of the Ramahti family. The two Afghani parents, their four children and three adult male cousins have been on Nauru as part of the government's Pacific Solution since December 2001. They'll be eligible for a range of medical and welfare services when they arrive in Australia. A Christian minister who vilified Muslims says he'd rather go to jail than apologise. Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot have been ordered by a Victorian judge to publish the vilification finding in a series of newspaper ads. The Islamic Council's case against the two men was supported by other Christian churches, but the churches also want the laws amended. Ben Knight reports. The court battle might have ended, but the debate is far from over. You come here and you want your way. This is my country. We want to be able to have our way. This is my country too. We have a choice, nation of Australia. We either can follow the Koran and follow Islamic Sharia law and be slaves in this nation, or follow the Bible and be a free and democratic society. Last year, Pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot from Catch The Fire Ministeries were found to have spoken and published anti-Muslim statements in 2002. It wasn't long after September 11 and Muslims say there was concern about a backlash. They were fearful. I mean, this was a serious thing that they encountered. Judge Michael Higgins today ordered the pastors to run a series of newspaper ads to say Pastor Scot's presentation And that Pastor Nalliah's article was: The ads would also say that neither man was a credible witness, although the judge found they were otherwise of good character. He's ordered that the men not repeat the offending statements. We will not apologise. . Right from the inception, we stated this is a foul law. It stated this is a foul law. It causes disunity. Right from the beginning, we have stated we will not apologise. We will go to prison for not stand --for standing for the truth. Any claim to martyrdom on the basis of remedies this light would be a little bit pushing the envelope. The Islamic Council was supported in the case by the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting churches. But those churches also want the law reviewed or changed to stop cases like this from getting this far. Free-speech advocates say it should simply be scrapped. The government disagrees. We don't want to see people incited to hatred and so, for that purpose, I think it is sending the right message. In a religious context, as long as it's fair and reasonable, you can see what you feel and what you believe. But you can't vilify people, you can't whip up hatred people, you can't whip up hatred and that's absolutely essential to understand for a modern harmonious