Talk:Danny Nalliah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Flag
Portal
 Danny Nalliah is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Nalliah is particularly known for his conservative and often incendiary comments about Muslims and Jews.

The body of the text doesn't say anything about him saying stuff about Jews. Andjam 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Ambi 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Overly broad reverts

Rebecca has been making overly broad reverts to the article. For example, she has removed <references/>, even after she has been told that she had made such a revert. Also, she has not given any reasoning for the reverts. Andjam 10:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This diff shows that Rebecca removed your substantive changes to the lead para while preserving the <ref> tags you added, although it seems she also removed the <references /> tag at the bottom, which I presume was accidental.
As to the substantive change, I think that Nalliah's Family First candidacy is notable but fairly unknown, and Catch the Fire is fairly unknown too. He received massive media attention for the series of comments he made about Muslims, starting with those that led to his prosecution. The phrasing possibly suggests that he does it more often than he actually does, but it's still what he's best known for. --bainer (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing the references is obviously not good, but has been fixed. As for the rest, most of the differences are minor stylistic points, where I chose the one that read better (I did forget to remove the "However", though). The only significant disagreement was the lead paragraph. I think it is fairer to have the politcal candicacy at the end of the paragraph, as he is primarily a pastor. That he is most known for incendiary comments about Muslims seems indisputable to me, so I can't see any problem with that sentence, except that what is meant by "conservative" is not clear at all. JPD (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem I had with the "incendiary comments" sentence was that I felt it was weasel words. Rather than say that he makes incendiary comments, just state that he was found guilty of breaking anti-vilification laws. As well as the confusing use of "conservative", the original version (fixed a couple of months ago) made an unverified claim that he made incendiary comments about Jews as well (see above talk). The sentence is a trouble magnet. Andjam 14:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be fair to call some of his comments inflammatory, no matter what the legal finding was or whether the comments were part of the case. Such a description is probably heading towards weasel words, but it is the intro to the article, so it should be ok to leave a certain amount of explanation for later in the article, especially as the vilification case is mentioned in the next sentence. Trouble magnet or not, I think the sentence can be made accurate, and the intro reads poorly without it. At the very least, I think the lead paragraph should make it clear that he is known for comments about Muslims, which your version does not. JPD (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the last part, wasn't it the court case, rather than the comments themselves, that made him appear in the headlines? Andjam 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I also wonder whether "X is known for" is the kind of tone that belongs in an encyclopedia. Andjam 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Nalliah is a firebrand speaker. He's known precisely because of his incendiary remarks about Muslims, and this is stated in the article. I don't think this is opinion (I ran it past TBDSY, who has some respect for Nalliah, at the time, and he didn't see it as an issue). To dance around this by only stating that he was "found guilty of violating anti-vilification laws" is a case of utter weasel words and obscures the issue.
I also don't see the need to list his candidacy for the Family First Party in the lead - the main reason it attracted attention at the time was because of Joyce's attack on him, and to put that in the lead would be overdoing it, so I think it is better discussed in the appropriate area. Rebecca 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the politics stuff, you originally had the mention of politics in the first sentence. Andjam 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the sentence about conservative and incendiary remarks and specified that the case of breaking anti-vilification laws related to Muslims. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • FTR, I have reverted it. Rebecca 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
After coming straight from a cold edit-war on Conservatism I am most disappointed that elsewhere something similar is happening. "particularly known for" is one editor's POV to swing the article in their chosen direction. "conservative" is one editor's POV label to discredit the term itself (I don't know how provacative anti-religious remarks could be considered conservative - putting them in the same line makes it seem as such, the editor doing so knows this). michael talk 06:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you're entirely right about the "conservative" one. That needs to die, and I've chopped it out of the article accordingly. How else would you rephrase "particularly known for"? (It is bad grammar anyway) Rebecca 07:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wipe these lines out:

"Nalliah is particularly known for his often provocative comments about Muslims"
"In a landmark case, along with his colleague Daniel Scot, Nalliah was found guilty of inciting hatred under Victoria's then-new religious vilification laws."

Replace with:

"Nalliah, along with his colleague Daniel Scot, was charged under new Victorian religious vilification laws and found guilty of inciting hatred towards Muslims in an seminar on Islam."

michael talk 07:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still a case of weasel words, and it smells of deliberately obscuring the issue to cast him in the best possible light. Nalliah is known for his provocative comments about Muslims, be they in that one seminar or the Family First incident. I happily chopped out the "conservative" from the phrase, because that was indeed a completely unfair slipup on my part, but that doesn't mean I won't revert POV-pushing. Rebecca 07:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I meant when I said: "particularly known for" is one editor's POV to swing the article in their chosen direction." From the start, the article isn't about Nalliah, its about the comments he made: "deliberately obscuring the issue to cast him in the best possible light". Articles relating to these politicians aren't about the politicians, they're about the incidents they've caused - a systematic effort to make the incidents bigger than the person themselves. I can't see you changing your mind though. michael talk 07:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
An inherent part of a biographical article is explaining why the person is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thus it is always going to swing to why the person is notable. I'm always wary about my biases when writing about people like this - as soon as I wrote this I ran it past an evangelical Christian Wikipedian, and when unwitting issues have been pointed out (as with the conservative issue above), I've shot them on sight. I'm getting the feeling that the other side here aren't giving their biases the same consideration. Rebecca 08:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer my qualms, you simply brushed them off: "An inherent part of a biographical article is explaining why the person is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thus it is always going to swing to why the person is notable" Yes, and the way you word that notability matters more, so the point was missed entirely. In the line I suggested, he's still charged for inciting hatred under religious vilifcation laws {provocative comments), minus another line that doesn't need to be there.
You just defended yourself from a non-existent attack, accusing me of not giving my bias the same considerations and presenting your writings as immaculate because you got one person to approve it.
I stand by my words. Judging from what you've said, you have no intention to budge. michael talk 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel that I'm controlling my POV fairly well, so well that I'm accused of having a POV that is different to the one I have. I've been accused of having an anti-homosexual POV, but if I did, I wouldn't have created Thomas McCosker. You may say that Danny became well-known because of his views on Islam, whereas I'd say that he became well-known because of the legal action brought against him. Likewise, I hadn't heard of Theo Van Gogh because of his film, but because he got murdered. It's not the action, but the reaction. Andjam 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid weasel words worked example

In the wikipedia weasel word worked example, they described

"Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history."

as an example of weasel words, and suggested replacing with a verifiable fact

"The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team."

even though the former is a fairly "obvious fact". Isn't saying that Danny has made provocative comments analogous to saying that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team, whereas noting the successful lawsuit is analogous to mentioning the Yankees championship record? Andjam 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting analogy, that I'm not quite convinced by. At any rate, I think the way it is done in the 2nd para of New York Yankees is quite good. As for this article, it seems to me undeniable that Nalliah is widely known because of his inflammatory comments concerning religions other than Christianity, particularly Islam. It is also true that his comments were first brought to public attention by the lawsuit, but not all the comments which attracted controversy were covered by the lawsuit. Arguing about whether to only mention the lawsuit or whether to make a more general statement seems quite petty, but I feel that the lawsuit statement by itself is very abrupt and also hides the fact that the controversy surrounding him is wider than what the lawsuit dealt with. JPD (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of word conservative

Nevertheless, his candidacy caused considerable controversy when conservative National Party Senate candidate Barnaby Joyce launched a heavily publicised attack on Family First (which his party had exchanged preferences with) the day before the election.

Does the word conservative add to the above sentence? Even if such a label is helpful, is it a bit ambiguous as to what it refers to? Andjam 12:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I deleted the word conservative, and that got reverted, with the reasoning "Why? I think it's relevant to mention that Joyce's comments were coming from a social conservative and not a leftist.". Does this mean that "conservative" refers to Joyce in particular, rather than the National Party? I'm also a little unconvinced that labelling is a good idea. Andjam 10:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The National Party is conservative. Why again label Joyce? michael talk 10:58, 17 June 2006
    • The sentence in question has nothing to do with the National Party. It has to do with Joyce, who is a social conservative. His comments got such attention at the time precisely because they were coming from a socially-conservative Christian. Waging a war on the use of the word "conservative" is senseless, particularly when it adds useful context and can't really be read pejoratively in any way. Rebecca 10:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
      • Should the part about "National Party" be moved or removed then, and possibly add the word "socially" in front of conservative. Also, are you suggesting that it's unusual for a conservative to condemn the statements in the brochure? Andjam 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The bit about the National Party is only relevant in that it tells someone who doesn't already know who Joyce is who he is. I've got no objection to adding changing conservative to social conservative, if that makes it more accurate.
        • I'm certainly not trying to suggest that it was unusual for a conservative to condemn those remarks. Much of the reporting at the time gave Joyce's attacks on Family First on the basis of Nalliah's material considerably more currency than they would have if it had been the Greens doing so, precisely because Joyce agreed with the party on many issues. If absolutely necessary, I'm sure I could dig up some articles to this effect, but is that really necessary? Rebecca 11:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not quite understanding the difference between what you're saying in the first and second sentences. Andjam 11:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Striking down the prophets of false

The section on brochures could do with some references.

  • Were the brochures written by Danny, or distributed by him?

"pull down Satan's strongholds", which were classed as, among other things, mosques and temples, with Buddhists and Hindus specifically singled out

  • The sentence sounds like it says Buddhists worship at mosques, and Hindus worship at temples. Did the brochures read like this? Andjam 03:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
From memory, I'm not sure either Joyce or the media clarified that one. Rebecca 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the issue here that if mosques were mentioned that Muslims were implicitly singled out as well? (Even if it does seem a bit odd, the statement as is isn't self=contradictory.) As for sources, could someone find details on the articles that the broken links at Family First Party used to link to. JPD (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interview with Danny Nalliah added to external links

I've added a link in the "external links" section of this article to an interview I recorded on my show a few months ago with Danny Nalliah: http://www.prodos.solidvox.com/?p=11

Please feel free to email me if you wish: prodos "at" prodos "dot" com.

[edit] Comments about Muslims vs Comments about Islam

From Prodos: The article currently states "Nalliah is particularly known for his often provocative comments about Muslims".

I think it might be more accurate to say "Nalliah is particularly known for his often provocative comments about Islam".

i.e. I am making a distinction between "Muslims" and "Islam".

I could probably also dispute the use of the term "often provocative" but I'll leave that for another time.

I've spoken to Danny Nalliah several times - including interviewing him on my show @ http://prodos.solidvox.com - and have read his and Daniel Scot's presentation to VCAT - in response to the complaint against them by the Islamic Council of Victoria. Also, I've been researching this case and the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of Victoria, Australia.

Nalliah is strongly and openly critical of Islam - the religion - as represented by what's in the Koran, Hadith, and authorative Islamic texts.

But I've found that his writing, speeches, and comments in general distinguish between Islam, the religion, and Muslims in general.

An example of what I believe is a typical Nalliah condemnation of Islam:

"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." Reference - From abc.net.au

I do note, however, that the finding by Justice Higgins against Catch The Fire, Danny Nalliah, and Daniel Scot treat the condemnation of Islam and Islamic texts as in effect amounting to the vilification of Muslims. I quote from Justice Higgins (with emphasis added by me):

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 ... From an archived copy of this decision at the Australasian Legal Information Institute

From the same document:

... Pastor (Daniel) Scot has ... 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.

This last quote refers specifically to Daniel Scot, but I take it that it applies equally to Danny Nalliah.

My view is that this distinction - Condemning Islam v Condemening Muslims - is an important one to make in this article as it goes to the heart of what exactly is Danny Nalliah's approach. I make no comment at the moment about whether such a disctinction is valid or not. I merely draw attention to its important role in understanding someone like Nalliah.

Especially since, from what I understand of Evangelicals Christians, "converting" people is a key activity. In fact the purpose of the seminar which gave rise to this case was to train Evangelical Christians to

Writes Danny Nalliah, in his WITNESS STATEMENT to VCAT (VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL):

... This seminar was designed for Christians, to answer their questions, and to equip them to witness to Muslim people. The activity of “witnessing” is an essential part of Christianity. ... My newsletter constantly encourages Christians to love Muslims and I note that this message of love was communicated at the seminar. In the course of the seminar the following things were said – a. Now please remember, we are not here learning how to fight with Muslim, we are learning here how we can love Muslims and help them to see the truth. b. Muslims are not our enemies; We love Muslims and hate their wrong teaching. c. He wants to save every lost people because He loves every one of them. Our God He loves sinners and He hates sin. Similarly, we do love Muslim but we hate wrong teaching. We have to be very clear. Muslims are not our enemy they need Jesus.

Thanks.

PRODOS (Melbourne, Australia)

[edit] Claims about incendiary comments about Muslims

Some versions of the article has him saying that he is particularly known for provocative comments about Muslims. A citation isn't given. Following WP:BLP, I'm removing the comment pending a reliable citation. Andjam 07:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. The sources are already in the body of the article; the lead, as it is supposed to do, summarises said article. I'm not particularly happy about the lead as it stands either, but it needs to be rewritten in a manner acceptable to both of us, not lamely censored. Rebecca 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

________________


I would like to correct some of the factual statements in this entry. I have monitored and been involved with this case from the beginning as well as assisting in the legal cases of most of the complaints that have been lodged under the RRTA. I also attended the original seminar that Pastor Daniel Scot spoke at... I ahve not made these changes at this point - as I thought some may consider them major... I haven't edited on Wikipedia before so thought I would start on the 'talk' page'! I have given my email so I can provide additional information if required by other editors. Jenny Stokes - Salt Shakers.

I agree with the comments of those saying Danny Nalliah and Danny Scot spoke about Islam and not against Muslims - since the appeal has now been upheld, and Justice Nettle has revealed that at least NINE of the things Judge Higgins claimed Daniel Scot said he did NOT actually say, I believe the language in the introductory paragraph and elsewhere should be toned down. At this point I will start with the section "Nalliah, Islam and the law". Re: "On March 9, 2002, Nalliah and Scot spoke at a seminar concerning Islam". Correction: Only Daniel Scot spoke at the seminar. Danny Nalliah was in Mildura that weekend and did not attend the seminar.

Re: "The seminar was attended by three Australian Muslims, who were invited to attend by May Helou of the Islamic Council of Victoria and the Equal Opportunities Commission, Victoria. They later launched action under the controversial Religious and Racial Tolerance Act, claiming that the intent of the speech had been to vilify Muslims, rather than to discuss Islam itself." Corrections:

  • Two of that Muslims were asked to attend by May Helou. (I would say that ‘invited’ does not represent what really happened. May Helou even phoned one of them on the Saturday morning to remind them about it and urge them to attend. [VCAT transcript of hearing reveals that.]
  • The three Muslims, along with the Islamic Council of Victoria, launched action…
  • The law is the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act – the wording is in the incorrect order in the Wikipedia entry.

Re: "In a landmark ruling on December 17, 2004, the court ruled that Nalliah and Scot had breached the law.

  • It is the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - not a court.

Re: "While prison terms are an option under the act, the judge declared that that would not be appropriate in this case, and reserved sentencing for early in 2005." Prison terms are not an option under Section 8 of the Act – the 'civil' part - which is the section under which the complaint was made in this instance. They are only an option under Part 4 of the Act, dealing with ‘Serious Religious Vilification’.

Re: "The subsequent legal action became the first real test case under the Act, and the Christian community was split, with the Catholic and Uniting Churches supporting the Islamic Council, and Pentecostal and evangelical organisations alleging that the law inhibited free speech."

  • It was not the whole of these two denominations. It was the Justice and International Mission Unit of the Uniting Church of Victoria and Tasmania and the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Melbourne Catholic Archdiocese.

Re: "On June 22, 2005, Judge Michael Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal delivered his final verdict on the religious vilification issue. He found that financial compensation would be inappropriate, but ordered Nalliah and Scot to take out newspaper advertisements to the value of $68,690 in order to publicly apologise for the comments. Correction: The advertisements were to contain statements summarising Judge Higgins decision – not an ‘apology’.

Re: "Nalliah's lawyers have already appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleging both that Higgins showed signs of bias and that the Act itself was unconstitutional." Correction: This should read 'appealed' not 'have already appealed. The hearing was held in August 2006. There were actually two actions that are being confused here. They first lodged an 'Originating Motion' that covered these aspects. This was later withdrawn as they then lodged an appeal and it proceeded. The formal appeal was based on 'errors in law' made by Judge Higgins.

Re: "On 14 December 2006, the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld Nalliah's appeal and ordered that the matter be re-decided, without hearing new evidence, by a Judge (other than Higgins) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Islamic Council of Victoria was ordered to pay half of Nalliah's legal costs." Corrections:

  • The appeal was heard and decided by the Supreme Court acting as the Court of Appeal. It was an appeal by Daniel Scot, Danny Nalliah and Catch the Fire Ministries – not Nalliah alone.
  • The matter will be heard by a ‘Member’ of the Tribunal – this may or may not be a judge.
  • Re costs – it is half the costs of the appeal. [The costs relating to the original Tribunal hearing and the one to come will be decided by the VCAT Member.]

Jenny Stokes, Salt Shakers. www.saltshakers.org.au Jenny Stokes 10:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of section

I removed a section of the article as it contained allegations about a living person that cited only the Adelaide institute and leftwrites.net , neither of which I regard as a reliable source. I googled for other hits, and didn't come across anything apart from two opinion pieces (neither of whom I regard as very reliable). Andjam 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced information

I have removed the following unsourced paragraph added by 220.237.25.181 :

According to Danny Nalliah: “Divorce must be kept in line with scripture and remarriage should only be on the grounds of sexual infidelity, as upheld by Christian leaders for the past 20 centuries” which, effectively tells women in his congregation, and elsehwere, to “shut up and take it” when their husbands bash them up, as divorce is not accepted by him or his Church, merely for reasons of domestic violence. Like many on the religious and political right, a great deal of fuss is made regarding sex, but mere violence, expecially to women, is not of such concern.

It should not be reinstated without a citation. Blarneytherinosaur talk 07:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's biased and misrepresented too, so even with a citation, the only thing could be added is his opposition to divorce except on the grounds of marital infidelity. To allege that he meant for women "to shut up and take it" is just an insult. michael talk 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point of the quote remains: that he believes victims of domestic violence should remain with their partners. However, until someone actually makes something of such disgusting comments, I don't really think it belongs in this article. Rebecca 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)