The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Religious freedom proposal is a dud > Comments

Religious freedom proposal is a dud : Comments

By Augusto Zimmermann, published 17/7/2019

Any reform should not use the language of discrimination but ­actually put Australia in line with its international human rights ­obligations to protect religious freedom.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Freedom of speech is needing protection. Muck around with religion, which is freer than speech in this country, and you will be giving the nod to female genital mutilation, honour killing, child marriage, and all the barbarity of certain religions.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 10:40:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So you want the freedom of religion enshrined as a right!? Well easy fixed along with unfettered freedom of expression that must not ever impinge on or remove the sacrosanct rights of other individuals. And protected for all, by an irrevocable bill of human rights and freedom of expression, religious freedom, written into our constitution. As universal rights applicable to all!

It cannot confer rights to harras and harangue, nor promulgate quasi hate speech. Nor fatuous falsehoods dressed up as alleged religious belief, oft times destroyed, like a flat earth belief, by the revelations of indisputable science!

If you cannot prove your (the sun and the universe revolve around us) religious belief with indisputable evidence, you have no right whatsoever to teach or promulgate them!

Nor nutcase, control freak, stone age theories already destroyed by incontrovertible and peer-reviewed scientific evidence!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 17 July 2019 1:14:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear, hear and well said, ttbn.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 17 July 2019 1:15:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B

Your last sentence is a real hoot. Now we know you're joking.

Francis
Posted by Francis, Wednesday, 17 July 2019 1:39:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Me joking? You must be joking! And I do not resile from my last sentence and it's all too obvious implications.
Alan B
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 17 July 2019 6:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Augusto (the author),

.

You wrote :

1. « The Morrison government is preparing a religious discrimination bill. However, these reforms are utterly unsatisfactory  … such an act will be construed in such a way as to still allow the states to take action against religious leaders over the public dissemination of doctrine that leaves people feeling offended »

The contrary would be unacceptable because it would be at loggerheads with the terms of Article 18 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) to which you refer :

« the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion", which encompasses the right to "adopt a religion or belief" ».

As I am sure you are well aware, Augusto, the broad scope of this right is highlighted by the UN Human Rights Committee, which states that the “freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion and belief”. The terms “belief” and “religion” are to be broadly construed, with the UN Human Rights Committee stating that “Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief”.

In Australian case law, this broad scope was confirmed by Latham CJ in the « Jehovah’s Witnesses Case », when his Honour said:

« The prohibition in s. 116 [of the Constitution] operates not only to protect the freedom of religion, but also to protect the right of a man to have no religion… Section 116 proclaims not only the principle of toleration of all religions, but also the principle of toleration of absence of religion »

The right as expressed in Article 18 is carefully worded. It draws important distinctions between “holding” and “manifesting” a religion or belief, and emphasises that the right is held both “individually” and “in community with others”.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 18 July 2019 12:24:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy