.

(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?