"With over 22 per cent of the population reporting as having 'no religion' in the 2011 Census, wording that explicitly protects all Australians would have been far more appropriate."

The No Religion proportion is likely to be more than the 22% that ticked 'No Religion' in the census: the 'Not Defined' proportion was about 9% and only a small proportion of those were attempted 'definitions' (that did not fit the pre-determined definitions).

Note in the appropriate section here - titled Religious Affiliation - http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013 - the proportion of 'Non-Christians is 7.2% and there is also a category of 'Other non-Christians' of 0.8%.

I'm pretty sure that 7.2% Non-Christian came out of the ~9% 'Not-Defined', and is really more 'not-religious',

... so the total of No-Religion in Australia is really closer to 30%.

Correction - the proportion of 'Religion-affiliation-Not-Stated' nationwide in the 2011 Australian Census was 8.55% -

go to here - http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/0?opendocument&navpos=230 and download the 'Expanded Community Profile' excel spreadsheets and look at sheet X08c - X08 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION BY AGE BY SEX (3 of 3)

'Religious affiliation not stated' (at the bottom) total was 1,839,648 ie. 8.553%

Moreover, there is a link on the top right-hand corner to this: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2901.0Chapter8302011

Note the Non-Christian code/category does not appear on that web-page about religious affiliation, nor does it appear on the excel spreadsheet.

How can the ABS provide such discrepancies??
.

It's not even a question of religion:

Any individual or truly-private body should be able to discriminate to their heart's content, employ whoever they like and reject whoever they like, on whatever grounds and for whatever reason, good or bad, but the moment they receive a single cent from public coffers, or any other form of public support, that freedom ends. Period.

As Yuyutsu rightly points out, there must be freedom for a purely private body not receiving a cent of public money directly or in kind to discriminate in any way it wishes. I would extend the exclusion to a body, even if not receiving money, which has a part in the exercise of state authority or the disposal of state finances. "State" includes municipal, and "state authority" includes application of or exemption from truancy laws.

It would be an improvement if freedom of and (especially) from religion were positively spelled out to include freedom for blasphemy, apostasy, proselytisation, unbelief and impiety (provided individual rights including privacy are not impinged). Expressed and honoured commitment to that should be a condition for acquiring Australian residency, with breaches including calls for protecting a "prophet" from insult being a qualification for a single ticket on the next plane out.

The proposed legislation has major failings, especially in the protection of free speech. Do the drafters look back on good old days when raising topics like the vote for women was offensive? And today, some find the notion of gay marriage offensive. Is that subject to be banned?
The bill seems to be more about the entrenchment of discrimination than limiting it. It’s one thing for a church/mosque to have its own internal discriminatory rules, e.g. against women, but this legislation is about endorsing hospitals’ withholding of treatment, e.g. from pregnant women—while being paid by public taxation.

Postsers you all forget this bill was written by lawyers for lawyers. With all the grads coming out of law school there are only so many seat in parliament for them. So some of them are going to have to practice law, what better way than to set up the country up to have endless decimation cases bottling up the court systems. This will provide profitable work or many a year, and the small tweaks they can make along the way will see any new graduate of law through to their retirement.
There is supposed to be separation of the courts and the parliament nothing could be further from the truth these days.

They still put the act on but it’s lawyer’s all the way down.

I certainly do not wish to be deliberately intimidated or publicly humiliated. Intimidation is particularly obnoxious.
That part of the act should be worded to limit behavior that is, "reasonably likely to intimidate or publicly humiliate" but no one, or no organization, deserves any better protection than that. If I do or say something idiotic why should other people not be able to be critical of me and my ideas. How otherwise would I learn?

When a religious or any other group such, as the anti-vaccination folk speak or write crap, I am entitled to call it what it is and criticize the supporters as misinformed. If they feel offended or insulted they have brought it on themselves by peddling un-evidenced views.

I agree with the previous comment that once any group receives any minor government support they should provide the full range of services permitted under the law in that field and provide it to everyone.

We should not allow the Vatican to dictate anything in the medical care or employment area. In fact, in many fields, the hierarchy's opinion is of little real value.

We have seen the limited range and ability of the Vatican's collective intellect in ethical matters in recent years. In the past I would have been burned at the stake for making such a remark and the religious wish to achieve a return to that situation.

Religions do receive public money by way of grants; and tax exemptions & tax deductions -

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Hillsong-Church-got-federal-funds/2005/02/17/1108609349680.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/kevin-rudds-church-of-choice-gets-36000-grant/story-fn3dxiwe-1225783242238

An interesting and timely article. It is beyond belief that maintenance of these special privileges for institutions whose continuing existence is based on perpetuating unfounded, irrational beliefs, totally devoid of any objective evidence base, can continue into the 21st century in a supposedly secular country and in an age of advanced science and technology!

There is an interesting related article I read this week: "Why Should Religion Get a Free Ride?", by Greta Christina, from "The Beacon", Journal of the Melbourne Unitarian Peace Memorial Church, December 2012: 12 – 14. See www.melbourneunitarian.org.au It asks "Why should religion, alone among all other kinds of ideas, be free from attempts to persuade people out of it?

You've won me Moira. The whole thing is a crock of something very smelly, forced upon us by the do gooders, ratbags & bleeding hearts.

The whole thing should be dumped in the giant garbage bin of history, or we will suffer so many unintended consequences, we may all have to be struck dumb.

That bottle red head in Canberra had best be very careful what she has the bottle blond in Canberra sign into law. [Will I still be able to tell the truth like that].

You see I find the appearance, &/or the sound of our Julia extremely offensive. I'm sure there are many hundreds of thousands with similar feelings.

What will the law require be done to prevent this woman offending me by her continued appearance in public? Will it require her to be locked in a windowless, sound proof room to prevent this offence?

As you can see, none of it can ever work. There are some who are possibly even offended by my telling of what I find offensive.

Free speech needs to include a right to offend!
If I offend members of the murderous Taliban, by calling them recidivist criminal cowards, who quite deliberately and knowingly, murder innocent women and children/volunteer health/foreign aid workers, then expect our own moral values/scruples to protect them from deserved reprisals!
Given they being the very worst kind of recidivist cowards, continue to hide behind non-combatant woman and children.
Then that should remain my guaranteed, freedom of speech right, but particularly, if manifestly true!
We do need a long overdue bill of rights, which must enshrine freedom of speech; and the freedom of the press, to expose criminal behaviour; and or, official corruption!
Like say lobbyists with very deep pockets and or questionable ulterior motives? None of who ought to be able to hide behind a very big bank account; Silks and a self evidently manipulated, system of concurrently over burdened law!
I believe we can walk and chew gum.
Or put another way, routinely and ridgedly, protect an individual right to personal privacy, and freedom of speech!
Much larger more punitive penalties should ensue, where personal privacy is invaded!
This should mean, even officialdom ought to require a endlessly renewable and justifiable court order, to invade any persons' personal privacy or space!
Except say, where they accept a paid or unpaid, board or public service position or responsibility!
Even so, official breeches cannot continue to be condoned; or remain sacrosanct, as occurred in the extreme injustice imposed by officialdom on Doctor Haneef, or Mz Roue; and or, numerous and well publicized others, we'd have never ever known about, but for the freedom of the press!
Perhaps enforced early retirement ought to also include loss of pension and retirement privileges; and include a black mark that would preclude an offending former police person, judge, Lawyer etc i.e., from ever being able to accept a paid position on a board or public service?
Even an honest mistake cannot be allowed as a defence for officialdom; given, ignorance of the law is never ever one either!
See, problem solved?
Rhrosty.

Dear McReal,

<<Religions do receive public money by way of grants; and tax exemptions & tax deductions>>

It's not religions that do, but organised bodies that claim to be religious. Any receipt of public money drives such organisations further away from religion, even while they retain their false name and claim.

As an example, one of the tenets of most religions is "thou shalt not steal". Government money, having been robbed away from people against their will, is stolen money. It's a wonder how so-called 'religious' organisations reconcile themselves with partaking of it!

Dear Julian,

Thanks for your support, but truancy laws call for the incarceration of innocent children. I remember myself going to year 1 in school even though I already knew everything they taught there, even though I was heavily bullied, for the sole reason that I wanted to protect my parents from going to jail. I was a little hero, but that should not be necessary. Families should be able to decide for themselves on matters of education as well as be able to protect their children from state-indoctrination. Families should be able to limit the type of teachers and classmates to which their tender children are to be exposed.

One of the changes we could also make is remove the cowards castle.
Or so-called Parliamentary privilege to impune, without any real consequence.
If Andrew bolt just happened to be a politician, and made his, too white speech inside any of those chambers, he would be largely free of any official reprisals, and able to continue to offend and re-offend, just as long as he withdrew and apologised.
None of which would have prevented the harm he did to folks, with a proud ancestral background.
I mean to say, my family all have the same forbears, yet some of them are blue eyed blonds, while others have black fizzy hair, brown eyes and permanent suntans.
Others seem to tan more easily than most, without burning.
Me, I tan in patches and burn in others. [Great natural camouflage.]
Yet, green eyes, golden hair and a really wicked and mischievous sense of humour, identifies me as a tripled distilled Celt.
Would I be offended, if some mean-spirited person, claimed I was too brown to be a Celt?
You betcha!
And I'd be even more offended if he/she hid inside a cowards castle, while making such a remark; or indeed, any other unfounded or unprovable accusation or personal vilification.
Politicians ought to be able to produce some verifiable evidence of wrong doing, before accusing or implying others, of being responsible for such activities!
Our parliaments cannot be allowed to become prejudging Kangaroo courts, without also being required to adhere to the standard rules of evidence!
What gives offence or vilifies outside parliament, also does so inside!
One set of rules; and or, rights for pollies and very different others for you and I?
No thanks.
Rhrosty.

Moira and her supporters deny the social diaster of an education system that is godless. It appears she is more interested in 'rights ' of minorities than the good of society. Most parents want the 'right ' to have the choice of sending their kids to be educated with godly values or secular dogma. Parents are voting with their money and feet. In fact those sending their kids to private schools are paying twice. They support the godless system with their taxes and then pay private fees. Sending kids to schools that push godless values is equal to child abuse.

Dear Runner,

I agree with your last post.

What worries me though, is your lack of interest in minority freedoms ("It appears she is more interested in 'rights ' of minorities than the good of society."):

It is about time that you recognise that we, religious people, ARE a minority in this country. If you want your religious freedom respected, then your only non-violent option is to allow the same freedom to all other minority groups.

runner,
As usual you never let evidence get in the way of your story. You hardly ever comment with supporting evidence on this site.

Please study the research undertaken on social justice in the 31 OECD countries. The first six places were Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands, not one of them a strongly religious country, or one where private or church based schools play a significant role. The religious USA was ranked 27th. The top UK heritage country was Canada at ninth.
Finland is at the top in the education stakes.

One other comment stated that Julia Gillard should be kept in a windowless room. She has very bit as much right to express her party's views as Abbott, Hockey, Robb or Turnbull and what they talk about as far as budgets and economics shows that they either don't understand money theory or they deliberately mislead. Gillard is closer to the truth on budget and money matters far more often than the four horsemen of the right.

'If you want your religious freedom respected, then your only non-violent option is to allow the same freedom to all other minority groups '

Yuyutsu

Who has ever suggested violence? I think you are getting secularist view of the unborn and Islam mixed up with followers of Christ.

I am a strong supporter of choice unlike the fundamentalist atheist who want tax payers money spent only on pushing their dogmas. Maybe home schoolers should also get a slice of the tax pool as they usually do a great job educating their children.

Foyle tries to attack my views on the basis of 'social justice ' research. Please give us a break and don't insult my intelligence with such nonsense. I am sure social justice research also reveals how sexist Australians are (probably conducted by Indian members of the UN).

The constitutional rights of free speech seem ridiculous should they come with caveats. The State or the Executive with full powers to decide what constitutes 'hate' speech is just as scary as the most rabid hater.

My faith is more in ordinary human beings to be able to distinguish the 'nutters' who spread hate and ill-will.

The experience with Andrew Bolt is one such lesson. He was called out on his lack of research and less than illuminating journalistic skills. Those who were targeted already had the right to pursue Bolt in the courts.

While I understand the ideas behind such a Bill and the perceived good intent, there is a risk of these provisions being further and further extended and revised until one is too afraid even to voice a contrary opinion or to raise concerns about various customs or practices by groups of people, religious or otherwise.

Many years ago listening to a Geologist speaking at the National Press Club who questioned creationism and made some comment against a religious group and who was pursued by that group relentlessly. In the end, the legal process cost him a lot of money despite winning the case (from memory) he was essentially ruined. This should never be able to happen and is more of a constraining of rights than the opposite. I wish I could remember his name but the NPC site does not appear to archive older speeches.

Discrimination is another matter in an employment setting. But how can one prove they are discriminated against. How does one prove someone is ageist, racist, religionist, or sexist. Employers always discriminate choosing the person THEY think best to do the job or to fit in with the current team.

I don't think it hurts to have anti-discrimination legislation in place to affirm the rights of all particularly disabled people who may often find they are the best person for the job but not as 'employable' based on perceptions of their abilities. Always difficult to prove and uphold. Incentives to hire disabled people may also prove more fruitful than punishments for not.

Time to get rid of the Human Rights Commission and all of the other self-perpetuating politically correct quangos that have lived long beyond their original purpose was largely met. Get rid of the legislation too.

Instead, what about Nicola Roxon and all of those very well paid politicians and bureaucrats help Families Minister Jenny Macklin explain how she (or they) could live on $35 a day.

'Employers always discriminate choosing the person THEY think best to do the job or to fit in with the current team. '

Never a truer word spoken Pelican. You won't find to many bible believing Christians at the ABC just like you won't find to many overt homosexuals working in Bible based schools. Top Government jobs are usually given out not on the basis of competence but often on towing the systems line.

not on the basis of competence but often on towing the systems line.
runner,
that's about the most accurate statement you have made here. The tragedy of being the disruption of much needed harmony in the community is due to these parasites. There's no accountability in the public service. It literally is destroying our society. It's playing right into the hands of the criminals.

My suspicion is that the anti-blasphemy aspect of the new draft legislation has some connection with that U-Tube video a couple of months ago and the reaction to it. It would be interesting if the Attorney General could be pressed on who influenced her to make this draft amendment, if she could give a straight answer.

I think even if the draft legislation is ammended it will still have a desired effect by it proponents to scare people off from making comments that might insult or offend.

Foyle says, "One other comment stated that Julia Gillard should be kept in a windowless room. She has very bit as much right to express her party's views as Abbott, Hockey, Robb or Turnbull and what they talk about as far as budgets and economics shows that they either don't understand money theory or they deliberately mislead. Gillard is closer to the truth on budget and money matters far more often than the four horsemen of the right".

Foyle did you deliberately misunderstand my post, or do you have some blind spot.

That statement was used to indicate why the legislation is totally flawed, & just can not work. If the giving of offence to someone is reason to be prosecuted, & locked up, Gillard could never be released, & quite a few from here, would be with her. What we could talk about in there, with out attempting to kill each other, I'm damned if I know.

runner wrote;
"Moira and her supporters deny the social disaster of an education system that is godless. It appears she is more interested in 'rights' of minorities than the good of society. Most parents want the right to have the choice of sending their kids to be educated with godly values or secular dogma."

The study I mentioned was conducted by a competent German research group and can be found at;
http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf

Obviously runner is a believer in miracles such as virgin births, resurrections and water into wine. I accept none of that.
Secular education teaches children to look for evidence and to base their ethics on well being and social justice rather than on a book which approves murdering 'witches' (usually poor or ugly or oppressed women) or stoning naughty boys.

Indoctrinating children in old nonsense is child abuse. Teaching children to seek and analyze evidence is preparing them for the one sure chance they get at a decent and fulfilling life. People don't own their children, they have borrowed each child from that child's future.

Parents following runner's advice are the ones guilty of child abuse.

Dear Foyle,

<<People don't own their children, they have borrowed each child from that child's future.>>

If parents don't own their children, how much less so the government!

How dare you impose your Godless-state values on young tender children who have no power to refuse, how dare you incarcerate them in secular re-education camps. Those children have none but their parents to protect them, to save their souls from the woes of materialism - we are not talking about YOUR children - corrupt them as you like, but we are talking about religious children who have chosen to be born to religious parents in order to fulfil their dream of a lifetime of spiritual upliftment, who chose their parents as their agents, not you!

The state is not interested in the welfare of children, only in utilising them as part of its work-force. There is nothing decent or fulfilling in that dull way of life which the state envisage for its subjects (no wonder so many of them turn to drugs and alcohol). Only parents love their children and only they may express the wishes of their own children while they cannot yet themselves voice their objection to secularism.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Very well said. A godless society is a totalitarian nightmare - ie. souless and cold which turns people into slaves. I've recently had a personal wake up call by something a work colleague said to me. I'm now going back to church after many years in the wilderness. I work in the public service and had been in a nightmare position for several years. I did desperate and willful stuff to help me recover. I am now recovered and in a better place. I am worried where our society is going.

Foyle

'Secular education teaches children to look for evidence and to base their ethics on well being and social justice rather than on a book which approves murdering 'witches' (usually poor or ugly or oppressed women) or stoning naughty boys. '

You are a champion at denying the rotten fruit of godless education and totalling misrepresenting Christ's teachings. No doubt your 'ethics' don't include telling the truth. I should not be surprised as your teachers such as Stalin, Mao and other devout god deniers did the same.