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.

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.

Hear, hear and well said, ttbn.
Alan B.

Alan B

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

Francis

Me joking? You must be joking! And I do not resile from my last sentence and it's all too obvious implications.
Alan B

.

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 …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The Human Rights Law Centre observes that the “active exercise” of the right to manifest one’s belief is “usually performed externally, to the outside world”. Similarly, the ALHR (Australian Lawyers for Human Rights) notes that holding or changing a belief has “no impact on others” whereas manifesting one’s belief has “potential impact upon others”

The right to hold a religion or belief is absolute. The right to manifest a religion or belief is not absolute, as the manifestation of one’s beliefs may impact the enjoyment of the rights of other people. The appropriate limitations on the right to manifest a religion or belief are carefully considered in international human rights jurisprudence, including within the ICCPR itself.

2. « If the government does not reform the existing laws to remove constitutionally invalid restrictions on religious freedom and its correlating freedom of speech and freedom of association (for religious people or not), we can only hope that an Australian state will know it should and can take the initiative to restore our fundamental rights and freedoms, and pay proper respect to the Constitution »

Exaxtly, Augusto, but let's say : "to the State and Federal Constitutions" !

.

Maybe religion itself is a dud?
If it actually worked the way it was supposed to then religious people wouldn't be arguing and fighting over it.

AC, religion as an entity is real, it has a name therefore it exists.
What does not exist is the substance to religion.
Religion is a man made creation, which was created, I believe by a somewhat well meaning fanatic.
He was a good salesman, some might even say a good con-man.
I will not argue with either description.
I do however ask, why we are contemplating the creation of laws to force us to not be ourselves.
Any attempt to form laws controlling what we say is akin to controlling the very air we breathe.
We have certain inalienable rights, and no third party, especially not a govt, shall interfere with those rights.
The right to speak freely is a most important one.
Any attempt to tamper with it IS CENSORSHIP!
When we scrutinize speech, we are told that we must legislate against harmful and hateful speech.
No we don't, stop and think what harm is caused by someone insulting or abusing someone else?
Being upset by the mere mention of words is 'soft' violence, at best.
No one was hurt, other than probably someones feelings.
Emotions vary too much in humans and cannot be gauged or legislated for or against.
As for religion, it is a fantasy which was eventually taken by those who would seek to control the people by using the threat of the fear of God to keep people in line, or do their bidding.
It is a naive fool who insists they want people to curb their language for fear of upsetting some overly feminite, sensitive people out there who are in a very, very small minority.
The very idea of legislating on speech is madness and shows a new low in our capacity to demonstrate maturity, reason, objectivity and an open mind.
Merely discussing the prospect is unmitigated madness.

EDIT: When I say 'religion', I am specifically referring to Christianity for the purpose of my previous comment.

ALTRAV
You might also include Islam or any religion which seeks to proselyte its beliefs.
David

So what's the Sun God doing these days other than shedding light for us all to see by?

VK3AUU, fair enough.
I thought I would go with Christianity for convenience sake and the fact that I know a little more about Christianity than any other faith, but I Concur.
I guess my objections to any of this is not because I am not a religious person, but because it flies in the face of what I believe in, and everybody else, should believe in.
Being free, free to say and do whatever they please.
I have never argued against the consequences, that is a given.
But at least leave me the right to "suffer the consequences".
It is yet another brick in this country's regressive "house of failures".
Pandering to the minorities has been an unjustified and yet proud historical embarrassment and dogma of this country.
And we keep going further and further down the road to self destruction without any sign of common sense and reason from all those who should know better.

I have my own religion, & have no truck with the usual lot. I am the head of it, & the disciples.

Those adhering to my religion are offended that there is a single Muslim in Australia, & mosques are the most offensive buildings. The only way to relieve my offence is to remove all Muslims from the country, & open the Mosques to the street people.

A problem isn't it? They can do away with the offensive section 18C, or they have to remove these offensive people to comply with it. Talk about the law, & those who make it being an ass.

There is no connection between a "religious discrimination act" and religious freedom. Such an act would not be necessary for the practice of religion, nor would it forward the freedom of religion in any way.

Individuals should be free to associate or not with anyone of their choosing: if that be on grounds of religion (or gender, sexuality, age, race and what-not), then so be it - nobody is exempt from having some people who do not like them, there will always be others!