4.7 The High Court of Australia has listed various definitions of the term “religion”. In the case of the Company of Jehovah`s Witnesses of Adelaide, Latham CJ stated that “it would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop a definition of religion that would satisfy the followers of all the many and different religions that exist or have existed in the world.” [5] The rejection of the proposed Bill of Rights to implement Australia`s obligations under the ICCPR and the Commission`s proposal for specific legislation on religious freedom mean that there is no comprehensive Commonwealth legislation that protects religious freedom or prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. The treatment of religious freedom in Australian common law has developed in a different historical and legal context from that of England. This difference – which includes the fact that Australia never has a legally established religion – is set out in the Joint Judgment of the High Court in PGA v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 355, [26] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). (d) in the course of employment as an employee of an institution carried out in accordance with the doctrines, principles, beliefs or doctrines of a particular religion or belief, which is a distinction, exclusion or preference made in good faith in order to avoid a violation of the religious vulnerability of adherents of that religion or belief. [7] Anti-discrimination laws dealing with unfair treatment based on a number of attributes, including religion, also apply at the federal and state levels. These laws contribute to religious freedom by allowing Australians to practice religion without fear of the consequences of the executive, organisations or individuals. This is achieved by prohibiting adverse treatment based on a person`s appearance, belief, or religious observance. Some argue that these laws are inconsistent at the state level and may be limited at the federal level. [2] [T]he criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle; and second, the acceptance of behavioral canons to give effect to that belief, even if behavioral canons that violate ordinary laws are outside the realm of any immunity, privilege, or right granted on the basis of religion. These criteria may vary in their comparative significance, and there may be varying intensity of belief or acceptance of behavioral canons between religions or among adherents of a religion. [6] Victoria is a diverse and multicultural state where many people practice a range of religions and have a range of religious beliefs. The law protects your right to believe in a religion and to practice your religion.
It is illegal to discriminate against or denigrate you because of your religious beliefs or activities. The law deals with public conduct, not personal beliefs. 4.11 The practice of religion or the “canons of conduct” described by Mason ACJ and Brennan J is a potential source of conflict between freedom in the exercise of religious beliefs and the exercise of other rights and freedoms by others. 4.16 The 17th century philosopher John Locke wrote about the importance of tolerating other religious beliefs: [ Note: More information in this section can be found in the references on this website about freedom of belief and freedom to manifest that belief and the collective aspect of freedom, religion or belief. 4.13 Negative religious freedom, on the other hand, is freedom of coercion or discrimination on the basis of religious or non-religious beliefs. [10] In Scientology, Mason ACJ and Brennan J commented: In the 1983 Supreme Court decision in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-Roll Tax (Vic), the Court focused on whether Scientology was a religion (and therefore a right to a tax exemption). In a decision, the court noted that Scientology is a religion, arguing that the definition of religion must be flexible, but also remains skeptical of false claims. Justices Ronald Wilson and William Deane presented five “circumstantial evidence” of a religion: [Note: For more information in this section, see the notes on this website on permissible restrictions on freedom to profess a religion or belief, and the balance between religious freedom and other rights: European approaches. The legal definition of insult is “conduct that causes hatred, serious contempt, disgust or severe ridicule of a person or group of people because of their race or religion.” Relevant laws protecting religious freedom include sections of the Australian Constitution, federal anti-discrimination laws and human rights and anti-discrimination laws based on states/territories.
Since these freedoms are not protected in a single legal act, but appear as sections, clauses and exceptions in other laws or statutes, the legal protection of religious freedom is often a source of great debate and difficult to see in Australia. (i) that the set of ideas and practices included a belief in the supernatural (something that could not be perceived by the senses); (ii) that “ideas relate to the nature and place of man in the universe and his relationship to supernatural things”; (iii) that followers accept that certain ideas compel or encourage them to adhere to certain codes of conduct or practices of supernatural significance; (iv) the followers themselves form one or more identifiable groups; (v) Followers themselves see all ideas, beliefs and practices as a religion. [21] [A] Definition of religion. Mark an area where a person subject to the law is free to believe and act in accordance with their beliefs without legal compulsion. [11] Royal Marriages Act, 1772 (12 Geo 3 c 11).
Comments are closed.