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: what’s all the fuss? > Comments

Religious freedom: what’s all the fuss? : Comments

By Tom Calma, published 16/4/2009

Resistance to research into religious freedom has been a surprising response to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Discussion Paper.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
We don’t have to discredit you Tom.
You do it yourself when you dismiss opposition to your agenda as “a growing fundamentalist religious lobby, in areas such as same-sex relationships, stem-cell research and abortion”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/17/2366511.htm
Also when AHRC President Catherine Branson QC says that “we cannot always trust our Parliament to pay sufficient regard to the protection of the human rights of every one in Australia”
(Who should we trust, unelected Tom and Catherine?)
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/op_ed/20081210_preventing.html
These statements “might be construed as implying that the project has some preconceived ideas” wouldn’t you admit?
You say that “The Australian Human Rights Commission’s interest is - and always has been - in having a national discussion to see if there are any ways that groups can continue to be civil to each other or, better still, more civil: a necessary condition to maintain a civil society!”
I find your conflation of civil discourse with civil society problematic but the real question is Tom, how do intend enforcing your notion of civility?
Finally, comparing yourself to Jesus Christ because you claim to be similarly embracing a radical agenda takes the cake. (Hey, at least you didn’t compare yourself to Mohammed)
But don’t worry Tom, we don’t want to crucify you.
We just want to stop you before you do any more damage.
Posted by KMB, Thursday, 16 April 2009 7:57:34 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
Every day we have a class of individuals elevated by the State Churches, to the position of Almighty God and given the power and the glory rightfully said to be His. I talk about the Judges and Magistrates of Australia, capital letter atheists and dishonest to boot. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a law they refuse to accept. The Judges like playing God in their own theatres called Courts.

The automatic refusal of the Judges of the Federal Court of Australia to grant a Christian the right to jury trial may be coming to an end. The Parliament of the Commonwealth under Whitlam established an Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Liberal Government and all others since emasculated its powers for thirty four years, by convincing them that the separation of powers derived from the Constitution, was legitimately served by merging the administrative functions of the Federal Court with the judicial functions of the judges, reserved by S 79 Constitution to be exercised by a plurality, in a court without a capital C. They refused to consider reviewing administrative functions when done by a Judge. Court and Judge as words are not in the Constitution. A Justice is the word used, not Judge.

The words court and church are synonymous. The Greek word for church in Matthew 18:17 is ecclesia; a gathering of the people, and when Jesus Christ said Tell it to the church, he meant to tell it to a gathering of ordinary common people who make up a church and are compelled to exercise the judicial power. When Whitlam proposed a class of State Churches, to be called the Federal Courts, the Liberals supported the abolition of Protestant Christianity and substituted priestly rule.

What they introduced into Australia was the Roman Catholic legal system where a priest rules supreme. The State priests are the Judges and Magistrates of Australia. The Protestants have been too busy gazing at their navels to notice, but at last the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is now recognizing that administrative functions can be reviewed by them even when done by a Judge
Posted by Peter the Believer, Friday, 17 April 2009 7:16:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religious freedom?
Are you kidding?

I've been trying for over a year to get a novel "Jewel Of Medina" and cant because its a book about the marrierd life of Mohammed and his bride,Fatima, who was 9 years old.
Why the queasiness? We all know what legitimate married life entails. It happens the world over. So?

socratease
Posted by socratease, Friday, 17 April 2009 10:14:51 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
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE OF SOCIETY

It is not society that is intolerant of religious groups so much that religous groups are intolerant of society. They form religious groupings or (tribes) that marry only those of their own beliefs and pretty soon they have formed a breakaway bloodline. Society is not intolerant of them until this happens. It is not their beliefs that anger society so much as their segregation of themselves into tribes who then seek political power by standing for government. The Family First Party is a prime example of this. They have gained some balance of power vote in the senate or so I read.

Can someone actually tell me why in a so called secular government a religious party like this is actually allowed to seek power. The laws surrounding those with strong religious affiliations and their right to stand for political election needs to be urgently reviewed and tightened if we are serious in wanting our system of government to separate church and state.

What does anybody really care if the bloke down the road believes in pink fairies at the bottom of the garden as long as he does not seek to form big groups who then seek to impose their will on the rest of society by seeking power. Believe any damm thing you like just do it in private at home. Once you get priests on your payroll, that is-: depending on church donations for their wages that’s when the trouble starts.
I’ve never seen one religion yet that didn’t try to control the feritility of women because that means more bums on seats and more money for the church and higher wages for the priests. A horse called self-interest in fact.
Posted by sharkfin, Friday, 17 April 2009 10:50:01 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
Socratease- That is a very interesting piece of information, that you cannot obtain a copy of Jewel of Medina, relating to Mohammed's marriage to a 9year old girl.

It seems that Western authorities have moved very quickly to ban any such books because the Muslims don't like to hear any such truths about Mohammed. Obviously they fear uprisings and murder in the form of Jihads if it is allowed to be freely read.

This backs up what I say in the post above that it is religions who are intolerant of the society around them. To the point where books have to be banned in the surrounding society because of the religions intolerance of information they would rather not hear. It is the religious believers seeking to censor the freedom of information of the non-believers. Religious intolerance indeed.
Posted by sharkfin, Friday, 17 April 2009 11:11:13 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
KMB and PtB, the moment gods stomps down into the Simpson Desert and announces that we should all be Christian, you can have all the theocracy you like.

Until then, you'll have to accept that either God doesn't care or doesn't exist, and tolerate laws that treat humans like humans.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 17 April 2009 11:43:46 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
" ... We just want to stop you before you do any more damage. ... "

Ooooo! who's we KMB?

..

Keep up the good work Tom. My favourite Church was vilified in '71 for memory for marrying 2 Gays. "Spiritually" speaking they still do though the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom does not recognise it.

No true religious freedom here mate.

..

Ey!? Re Mabo & Terror Nullius- they knew there were BlakFellas, but classified them as animals for convenience didn't they?

When they overturned the Terror notion, they should have applied the law of the time shouldn't they?
(TREATY or WAR)

NaNaNa NaNaNa,
NaNa NaNaNa NaNa NaNaNa NaNa NaNaNa NAAAAAAAAARRR NAAAAAAAARRR

TREE EE TEA TREE EE TEA.

..

I reckon there's lots of reasons, but one reason they discriminate against BlakFellas is to bolster their legal defence by saying BlakFellas always needed to be positively discriminated against. Still no good reason for not managing whiteys and others who neglect and abuse their kids ey? I am pleased to note that Al Jazheera have made ugly australian guvment discrimination against BlakFellas part of their opening promo.

It's coz they forcibly transferred the children from one group to another in contravention of the genocide convention act post WWII, and I'd wager that some of that land is loaded with wealth. And what do they say, oh, sorry, no continuity of BlakFellas for Land Rights.

..

Hey they're talking about Samuel Adams on CNN at the moment.
That was a N.American style of RagHead rebellion wasn't it?

HaHaHa
Posted by DreamOn, Saturday, 18 April 2009 11:34:25 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
"Australia is also a free society. Freedom of thought, expression and belief are fundamental to our lives as Australians. Any attempt to close down discussions about freedoms relating to religion and other belief systems, would be deeply concerning."

Tom, I agree with your desire for inclusion and tolerance (acceptance). As an Australian I enjoy the freedoms we take for granted and the laws that we have enacted for our protection including freedom of speech.

However freedom of speech is one thing, but if we were to bring into law certain concessions or changes in a rush for religious 'tolerance', equality and inclusion I would urge some caution.

Not all religious rituals, rites or activities fit well with the other rights and freedoms we take for granted. Female genital mutilation just for starters, or punishments (incl. death) for non-marital sex or infidelity. These are extreme examples but they are not considered extreme in some countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Inclusion and tolerance does not mean that we tolerate changes to long fought human rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy. A person should not have the 'freedom' or right to inflict pain or punishment on another person because of socially skewed views about religious tolerance.

How much are we willing to tolerate? Tolerate is an odd choice when we really mean acceptance. Tolerance implies we don't like it but we put up with it. Are there some things we should not put up with under the guise of religious freedoms?

Most immigrants to this country come here for a better life, improvements in living conditions, freedom from persecution and religious freedoms. It would be ironic if in a rush for religious freedom we actually became less free.

There are many issues that need nutting out and what might seem obvious about religous freedom is not as simple as it might appear. Certainly more discussion is needed to nut out definitively what we mean by religious freedom.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 19 April 2009 12:09:02 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
That is a good description of the problem that the call for religious freedom creates.

One of the values that can become a casualty is the importance of reason and logic as a backbone to behaviour. We have just had a case where a man wearing a turban won a case of discrimination against a club who forbade the wearing of any head gear in the club. They were forced to change their rules to make an exception for ‘religious reasons’.

Presumably they had good reasons for banning head gear and would have presented them in their case. The man with the turban only had to say that he needed to wear the turban for religious reasons. Exactly how do you prove the logic behind that argument? We strive as human beings to always act logically and rationally and that is the basis of how we resolve problems. It seems that religious behaviour is exempt from this kind of scrutiny. A person just has to say ‘religious reasons’ and we are expected to give them freedom. Why are they not called upon to argue that their behaviour is in fact a logical conclusion to reasonable facts? What are those facts? Why should your religion be taken seriously? Does your God override reason? Does he override the Gods of other religions? Why do you need to be religious? Can’t your find other ways to solve your problems? Can’t you dress like most people and still be religious? What exactly do you mean that it is a part of who you are? Isn’t religion a thing of the heart? Can you provide proof that it is what God wants?

The point is that we have to argue and give reasons if we want to change laws. Religious people only need to cite ‘religious freedom’ or claim discrimination and we feel like we have to stand aside and let them through. Either we strive always to behave according to reason and logic or we just throw up our hands and let the loudest religion win. We cannot really have it both ways.
Posted by phanto, Sunday, 19 April 2009 1:26:40 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
I don't think anyone is say advocating for, say an extreme example for the sake of argument, the *Church of Satan* where Holy Maiden sacrifice on Black Friday is considered acceptable.

Certain religious problems to which *Pelican* alludes are easily overcome by the installation of enshrined constitutional Human Rights.

Such as the Right to Freedom of Thought, Freedom not to be Raped, Tortured, Intimidated, Indoctrinated from ChildHood or Murdered .. or to have your body medically interfered with unnecessarily.

Say in the case of Muslims, yes by all means have a Mosque, but no you can't have a speaker to shout at everyone in the neighbourhood, no everyone doesn't have to donate or be run out of town, no everyone doesn't have to attend unless they truly want to, no you can't coerce women in any matter as she has the same Human Rights as you, including to run off with someone else, married or not.

Of course, dob in programs, inspections, legal representation and enforcement must be part of the equation.

Same with over population - link it to Human Rights. If a State cannot provide water, food, medication, education, and economic security and a decent standard of living for everyone then

STOP BREEDING!

Thereafter adopt, and when placements for more rug rats comes on line, put the names of those who are keen in a hat, with no person having advantage over another.
Posted by DreamOn, Sunday, 19 April 2009 2:52:28 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
"I don't think anyone is advocating for, say an extreme example for the sake of argument, the *Church of Satan* where Holy Maiden sacrifice on Black Friday is considered acceptable.

Certain religious problems to which *Pelican* alludes are easily overcome by the installation of enshrined constitutional Human Rights. "

DreamOn I was more than alluding I thought I was being direct.

I seek exactly what you suggest, enshrined Constitutional rights that are unambiguous and cannot be abused. It is not unreasonable to seek clarification on what we mean by religious freedoms and how far we extend these freedoms?

You may accept certain behaviours as obviously unacceptable here in Australia, but if you have ever lived overseas there are very different takes on 'normal'. You may think that my example of genital mutilation OTT but there have been cases here in Australia. It is exactly these sorts of issue we need to be clear about.

Another one is strict religious sects in Australia that can destroy families by refusing to allow children to visit with a parent that may have left the Church and are now seen as outsiders who lose these parental 'rights' based on strict Church doctrine.

phanto

I am familiar with the Manuka incident and there was no reason to deny entry to the gentleman concerned. The owners conceded it was poor training on their part in relation to making their staff aware of cultural differences in relation to dress code. The act of wearing a turban does not infringe apon anyone else but it was an important part of the wearer's religious beliefs.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 19 April 2009 3:12:19 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
Dream on- Certain religious problems to which Pelican alludes can be easily overcome by the installation of enshrined constitutional rights.

And if one of these religious groups ever gains power by being democratically elected, they will in all probability quickly dispense with any human rights laws that don't agree with their religous beliefs.
Posted by sharkfin, Sunday, 19 April 2009 5:33:57 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
Pelican -
The act of wearing a turban does not infringe upon anyone else but it was an important part of the wearer's religious beliefs.

Well a turban is headgear and the owners had rules about headgear not being allowed. They must think headgear impinges on the rights of others in some way or else they would not have a law against it. If I wore a beanie I'd be still denied entry.

Who says it is an important part of the religious beliefs?- the person wearing the headgear and because he says religion he is exempt. Why? If I said my beanie was an important part of my religious beliefs who has the right to deny my wearing it? Which religions are really religious and which are not?

Once you make exceptions that are not based on reason you open yourself up to the ludicrous. It causes far more problems than it solves.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 20 April 2009 12:27:37 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
Dear All

In countries where there are sizable Muslim populations you can no longer discuss parts of sharia law openly.Any public airing is now considered actionable as an offence under "secular" law because it is said to be heretical and inflammatory according to Muslim clerics.Religious freedom is gone. Over sensitivity to their religious rights and demands have won. You cannot discuss human rights for women because it offends them but they can criticise our women's civil rights and freedoms all they like because their religion demands the women behave in a modest way and dress accordingly.Discuss the pillboxes their women have to live in and they are ready to riot...and they have the numbers to make it extremely volatile.

There goes democratic rights in our secular societies.
The Trojan Horse has been let in and the city is ready to fall if it hasnt all but already.
Have a good day Dear All, because they certainly are having one, today, and tomorrow and tomorrow. Game over.Set and match.

Am I being unduly pessimistic?
At least at present I wont be dragged into our court of law and accused of heresy and blaspheming the religion.I dont think so.Not sure.
Who know?

socratease
Posted by socratease, Monday, 20 April 2009 1:24:47 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
" ... And if one of these religious groups ever gains power by being democratically elected, they will in all probability quickly dispense with any human rights laws that don't agree with their religous beliefs. ... "

*SharkY*
Yes, I made a similar comment somewhere here recently but, under the present constitutional system, and apart from the bastardry in the australian act eliminating of appeals to lizzie in council

(which remains enshrined in the constitution incidentally)

it is not so easy to manifest constitutional change.

One of the good things about multiculturalism I would add. When you have a rich "garden" thriving with a variety of different views and philosophies etc it is less likely that you will get the rise of one over the other to any extreme extent. Except of course when primal behaviour is invoked say for example by the "perceived threat" of others making war upon Self, family, mates etc ..
Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 20 April 2009 3:26:12 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
CONSTITUTION:

Chapter III – The Judicature

74 Appeal to "Lizzie Winza" in Council

No appeal shall be permitted to "Lizzie Winza" in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, UNLESS the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by "Lizzie Winza" in Council.

..

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/current%5Cbytitle/A53EB3E5F305B1D1CA256F7100504CBF?OpenDocument&mostrecent=1

Australia Act 1986
Act No. 142 of 1985
This compilation was prepared on 31 March 2003
Prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting,
Attorney General’s Department, Canberra

11 Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council
(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, no appeal to Her Majesty in Council lies or shall be brought, whether by leave or special leave of any court or of Her Majesty in Council or otherwise, and whether by virtue of any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Royal Prerogative or otherwise, from or in respect of any decision of an Australian court.

..

This change was not made with the Will of the Ozzie people and pursuant to the relevant sections of the Constitution itself.

..

I wander if she would overturn the racial discrimination currently being perpetrated against the BlakFellas?
Posted by DreamOn, Monday, 20 April 2009 3:41:03 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
"racial discrimination perpetrated against BlackFella"....

What a lot of crap. Have you any idea what power they now have and what they get from the taxpayers?

Not long ago to save their sacred rocks they drove the Japanese off to NT to build the new LPG plant which will create a thousand jobs in NT.
Jobs are the last things they want.

We had to cough up over a billion dollars to get oil drilling rights off Exmouth. Racial discrimination?

Their kids are brought to the courts in droves and leave grinning and giving high fives to their buddies who came to support them.
Racial discrimination? Yes,strangely enough.We the tazxpayers are no longer adequately protected against them.They have the run of the place.

Please dont talk about racial discrimination. You make me sick.
Posted by socratease, Monday, 20 April 2009 8:49:38 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
Father Frank Brennan, the Roman Catholic Lawyer appointed at great expense by Robert McClelland probably himself a Roman Catholic Lawyer, to investigate whether we need a Bill of Rights, ought to know he is a scammer.

In 1986, an investigation of Hansard would reveal that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was enacted into Australian Domestic Law, for a five year trial period in 1981 by the Fraser Government. The five year trial period ended in 1986, and the Hawke government proposed and the Parliament passed an Australian Bill of Rights. They also passed a Bill to remove the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 where it is Schedule 2, so it would be Schedule 1 to the Bill of Rights Act.

After it was passed, pressure from WA Inc ( Brian Burke and the Masonic Freemasonry dominated WA legal profession) caused Bob Hawke and cabinet to not send it for Royal Assent.

So the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stayed as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 and remains there to this day. S 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) makes a Schedule part of an Act, so it is law. Its application would decimate the legal profession, so they are in denial. The Covenant has been made the basis of a criminal offence, which you will find at S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) and carries a penalty of seventeen years jail. Article 14 of the Covenant, says: All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Losing a court case is a severe deprivation of physical liberty, civil or criminal.

If a criminal can get a jury trial, equal treatment for a civil trial should mean a jury as well.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 6:27:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto:"They must think headgear impinges on the rights of others in some way or else they would not have a law against it. "

Erm...no. The ban on wearing headgear indoors derives from a show of deference to the Queen. Most clubs used to have a picture of the Monarch hanging somewhere prominent and it was considered impolite not to doff your cap in the (symbolic) presence. Even in the (real) presence, however, those whose religion mandates a head covering are exempt from removing it, so the club members that decided to fight this one were simply dumb.

What made you think there would be a rational reason?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 6:59:14 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
*PtheB*

But at least some of the schedules are limited aren't they, say those that only apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with immigration and social security law.

Yes I noted that the fraser guvment appeared also to be involved in the matter of the formulation of the australia act. ThankU for your informed views.

Curiously, I spoke to frank brennan many years ago and he expressed the view that the australia act was entirely constitutional.

My limited understanding was that the pommy parliament created the australia act to trump the constitution which was then enacted into australian law.

As stated on earlier occasions, it then makes the relevant provisions within the constitution governing its change irrelevant at that point in time, and if the constitution could always be over trumped, then the australian constitution is no constitution at all, but just part of the make it up as you go tradition of that place east of Ireland, south of Scotland and over the sea from Bretonny. ;-)

What a shame that wretched goat blair fell from grace, though I am of the view that seeing Lizzy hand back the Scottish Crown was most excellent.

Terror Nullius -> Mabo -> Treaty -> Republic (or something new)
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 11:23:33 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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