An Australian Attorney: To Oppose Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance Is to be Against the Basis of Equality, Freedom and Peace in Human Society

(Clearwisdom.net) The case of Australia vs. the Federation Of Chinese Associations has concluded, after one year, with an out of court settlement. The case centers around a situation in which the Falun Gong Association of Victoria had paid for a stall but were refused the right to occupy it at the 2002 Spring Festival. As part of the settlement, the Federation Of Chinese Associations has pledged that they would always abide by the requirements of the Equal Opportunity Act, and that they would allow Falun Gong practitioners to participate in Spring Festival celebrations for the next five years. The attorney representing Falun Gong practitioners, Mr. Mark Irving, is well known for his work in anti-discrimination cases. In court, he enumerated the cases of brutal persecution against Falun Gong in China during the past three years, and called for the just treatment of Falun Gong practitioners.

It was only 10 days before the hearing began when the Holding Redlich law firm, reputable for its protection of equal rights, agreed to represent Falun Gong at the open hearing. Because the Falun Dafa Association of Victoria is a non-profit organization, and because this case is completely for the benefit of the public, Holding Redlich provided its services free of charge. Assisting Mr. Irving was a young attorney, Mr. Luke Brown, who offered help tirelessly and collected a lot of background information.

Mr. Irving took this case only three days before the day of the hearing, which was Tuesday, February 18. In gathering information for this case, he spent his personal time on the weekend to talk to Falun Gong practitioners. During the following few days, he got up at 4:00 every morning to read relevant materials and legal documents to prepare his statement for the hearing.

The hearing was originally scheduled for five days, but concluded early on the morning of the third day. On the first day in court, Mr. Irving stated in his opening remarks that "Falun Gong is a cultivation practice based on the fundamental principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance and that the Law in Australia is also based upon the same principles. Today, we sue the Victoria Federation Of Chinese Associations for their use of illegal means to exclude Falun Dafa from opening a stall at the Chinese New Year Festival of 2002 in Melbourne's Chinatown District. Our purpose is not to seek financial compensation, but we hope that the Victoria Federation Of Chinese Associations understands that Falun Gong has no political motives, but that it is a cultivation group which abides by the law. In accordance with the basic law of the cosmos, Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance, Falun Gong practitioners try to become better members of society."

He told the judge that although Falun Gong practitioners had paid for the stall rental, they were subsequently denied the right to open a stall, so they had to operate off to the side of the center stage of the Spring Performance. They had to set up posters, demonstrated the five sets of Falun Gong exercises, and presented many gifts including balloons to children passing by. No police officers or anyone else had complained that Falun Gong practitioners were a threat to public safety.

Mr. Irving stated clearly that the reason the event organizers refused Falun Gong from participating in the celebration was that they were afraid of offending "influential friends," referring to the reach of Beijing's long arm into Australia.

When questioning the plaintiff's primary witness, Falun Gong practitioner Dr. Michael Pearson-Smith, the lawyer representing the defendant tried to make the case that if Falun Gong practitioners participated in the Spring Festival celebrations, they would jeopardize public security. He actually could not present any evidence to indicate that Falun Gong practitioners had committed any violent acts or had ever been arrested in the over 50 community celebrations and other activities that Falun Gong practitioners had participated in during the past several years. Using this opportunity, Mr. Irving asked the witness to read aloud the section in the book Zhuan Falun, regarding how to handle conflicts and how to act with benevolence and kindness when being offended. Through this, they demonstrated to the judge that Falun Gong practitioners do not get involved in politics nor are they against the Chinese government. They only want to stop the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Although most people would think that this case is a human rights case, according to Australian law, any criticism or intention of changing a nation's policy is considered to be having a political opinion. Therefore, Mr. Irving pointed out that Falun Gong practitioners were discriminated against because of their political opinions. According to Australian law, it is illegal to discriminate against a group because of their political opinions. In this context, "politics" is not a derogatory term, as it refers to a citizen's legitimate rights.

On the second day of the hearing, before questioning the defendant's witness, Mr. Irving first enumerated some facts of the persecution in China. He stated that at least 560 practitioners have been tortured to death; over a thousand people have been sent to mental hospitals, and over 100,000 have been sentenced to forced labor camps. He then asked a critical question, "Do you agree with the Chinese government in their suppression of Falun Gong?" The witness replied that he had no opinion on the matter. Mr. Irving then exhibited a document from 2000 to show that the witness was lying.

Although Mr. Irving still had more questions for the witness of the defendant, the judge stated that he had enough reason to believe that political discrimination indeed existed. He suggested that both sides achieve reconciliation.

Mr. Irving dedicated himself in those several days to work to uphold justice and protect the principle of social justice. He worked hard also because he supported the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance. As he pointed out in his opening remarks on the first day of the hearing, "The principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance are also the basis for Australian law. To oppose Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance is to be against the basis of equality, freedom and peace in human society."