The author seems spot on regarding the disappearance of liberties that's taken place over the last little while. To be honest, if Saint Paul was travelling around today, it's likely that few, if any, western nations would allow him in. So, Christianities main evangeliser wouldn't even get to visit because he'd be seen as too radical, unfortunately.

The same deviants who pushed to pervert marriage often defend Islam. Strange world.

Not sure how 'tyranny of the majority' came into popular use when democracy is about the will of the majority. In this country, the real tyrants are the minorities who make the loudest noise to frighten our cowardly politicians – and, the majority stays silent.

The dumbclucks who voted YES to SSM were not dumbclucks because they voted for SSM, but because they voted for a Bill that had not been tabled and whose contents were kept secret by our undemocratic politicians of all colours. Had they known that there would be little, if any, protection for people needing it, I believe they would have voted NO, as 40% of us did.

Because of this, SSM will always be contentious; simmering resentment will never go away. It is a zero-sum and ham fisted, with a few people getting rights, and many more losing rights. Not the stuff social harmony is made of.

And, too many Australians don't give a stuff.

The real dumbclucks were those who demanded that the parliament know the will of the people, before a SSM bill could be put! Therefore the contents of any allowed bill, would not have been known!

When the people said yes in overwhelming landslide numbers, they knew the real will of the people!

The born to rule ultra right wing were not happy! But were allowed to put every amendment they had in the locker, all of which were voted down!

So let's just set the record straight, although there in Hansard for all to read for themselves if they want to fact check. And what's plainly missing in some of the earlier comments.

That said, I agree, we should have a bill of rights, which can never ever include a right to be wrong, yet preach as holy gospel. Nor can they have the right to be bigots enshrined in law. Or just hate filled gormless morons!
Alan B.

There is no freedom of speech, or religion, in Australia, unless seen as residual to all restrictions which they are subject. Australia's High Court has said that while "freedom of speech" is a "highly valued element in our society", "of cardinal importance", and an "essential element", free speech does not mean free speech but "freedom governed by law". It has also been said in the High Court that "recourse to the general law reveals that ... speech ... may be regulated and ... severely restricted" and similarly "religious conviction is not a solvent of legal obligation". Religious conduct is subject to "ordinary laws i.e. those which do not discriminate against religion generally or ... particular religions or conduct of a kind which is characteristic only of religion". As has also been said in the High Court, "in law there is no absolute freedom to do anything that might affect another". This echoes Mill's comments that "acts, of whatever kind, which without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled ... As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it". In other words it will often be a question of determining how religious interests should be balanced with other interests, e.g. if one section of the community has a higher suicide rate than others, is it really best that people can pick and choose whether to serve them in a shop? This article might have benefited by more analysis about that

ttbn referring to the majority who voted for same sex marriage as 'dumbclucks'. Coming from that is priceless...although being one itself, it is well placed to identify them.

Well put William S., but a couple of things.
“if one section of the community has a higher suicide rate than others, is it really best that people can pick and choose whether to serve them in a shop?”
The wedding cake issue is not about who you serve but how a tradesperson employs their skills. How can a free person not have the right to refuse to create, or maintain, something he/she finds offensive? Can pacifist fitters and turners be forced to build weapons of war?

“…Mill's comments that "acts, of whatever kind, which …, do harm to others, may be…controlled”
I think it is important to discriminate here twixt direct and indirect harm. When you “steal” someone’s girlfriend, beat your colleague in the big race, create a better mousetrap than your business competitor, or end up having the funniest put-down at the office Christmas party, have you really committed a wrong that you must be answerable for? People have committed suicide because of failed endeavours such as business or romance and yet has one ever heard of prosecutions of the alleged ‘wrong doer’.
Sorry to say, but you’re like the shyster lawyer who declares that whenever there is suffering, someone must be financially responsible. In life there is suffering which is direct and palpable: financial loss, physical harm and even libel, and then there is that, which in one field or another everyone suffers at some time, where we must endeavour to use our inner strength to overcome. It is not always easy to do, but if we weaken, that does not justify us blaming others.

Rather than putting your scholarship (which you obviously possess) into denying Australians freedom of speech, association and religion, why not into the creation of inner strength workshops for those demographics who possess a higher than average suicide rate?