They may be unconstitutional and unenforceable in parts.
Who can get away with what when criticising religion? Is it just prominent newspaper cartoonists or television programs? or can the average Australian citizen have a go at unlawful or obnoxious religious practises and beliefs?
Freedom of religion does not mean that religion is above the law or exempt from the law.
It seems that we don’t have a definition of what is a religion. Our Courts best discussion is a Scientology and Taxation case in which the judges did not really agree.
The Australian Constitution does not bind the States or local governments (or ministerial executive powers) which may well pass laws or who may make decisions prohibiting, or promoting, or unduly protecting religious beliefs.
While the Commonwealth laws do not specifically prohibit religious vilification the Criminal Code makes it an offence to urge violence against another group or groups which would threaten the peace, order and good government of Australia.
International law requires States to prohibit some forms of hate speech but Federal Australia reserved the right not to introduce any further legislative provision.
This has not stopped some Australia States. Take for instance the Victorian Law which sets out to protect ... [a]religious belief or activity [which] means— … holding or not holding a lawful religious belief or view …
I wonder how this may be applied to the aspects of Islam and Sharia that are not lawful or are unlawful here in Australia?
Does the requirement of the religious belief being lawful mean that the Victorian law simply does not protect from vilification a class of persons who, for instance, behead their opponents based on religious belief.
Why are such beheaders to be protected from vilification in the same way as others who claim the religious umbrella?
Why is it not lawful to vilify those aspects of a religious belief and those believers that promote or practise the genital mutilation of infant girls, or the killing of people who may want to leave the faith – and so on?
What is a “lawful religious belief”? Where does a religion that has some lawful aspects and some unlawful aspects fit in to the protections? How wide is the umbrella to be?
It is aberrant and obnoxious to the Australian constitutional right to free speech in the course of political discourse, on the streets as well as in main stream media, not to be able to vilify acts which are criminal just because some claim they are justified by a religious belief.
What if there are billions under an “umbrella” of a particular religion?
Is the entire “billions” and every one of the disparate adherents protected by the Statute no matter how unlawful and abhorrent some of its believers, beliefs and practises may be?
The High Court has observed that ‘insult and invective’ are a legitimate part of political discussion and debate. The High Court, in an appropriate case, might read down the scope of religious vilification laws which have long been the subject of academic and other criticism. They are accused of lacking ‘sufficient precision and clarity. It is said that an incoherent body of case law has developed, where too much is left open to the decision maker in each individual case.
Meagher concluded that the primary goal of racial vilification laws in Australia—to regulate racial vilification without curbing legitimate public communication—is compromised by this lack of precision and clarity.
The Australian Law Reform Commission has already suggested that s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act would benefit from more thorough review in relation to freedom of speech.
It is at least arguable that the State law of Victoria – in so far as it may purport to protect unlawful and obnoxious practices from vilification by bringing them under a general protection of religious belief – are invalid as unconstitutional.
Free speech is not a licence to offend.. I am offended by the statement that I need any sort of licence to speak.
I object to reasoning that if “I am offended therefore it is illegal to state it in public!?”
Each of us is sovereign of ourselves. The State and laws, are our servant.
Australian’s need no licence to speak. Sometimes it is necessary to offend. Can’t I say that it is wrong for religious groups to circumcise girls, or to aim to keep half their subject community, women, enslaved in their home.
In Australia Get in line to have your belief scrutinised.
If you don’t want your church to be ridiculed as child abusing then make sure your clerics don’t abuse children.
If suicide bombers believe they will be rewarded by virgins in heaven and you can’t make fun of that, what can you make fun of?
Should we say anything, anytime, anywhere? Where does the boundary of prudence and wisdom lay?
Outrageousness in the pursuit of political and social discourse is inherently subjective. Those who are outraged can respond with the same tool – free speech
Words do have consequences. They can be weaponised. Should they not be spoken?
How does it avail the cause of civilisation to fight for democracy with silence.
Where words are intended to stop peoples participation in society by reducing their self or public worth, Should they not be spoken? Probably not in the workplace, no free slagging of women in the male work environment, probably not in the street, no free slagging of women wearing burkas.
Who decides? Who do you appoint, who have you heard of in history who can decide for us all where the line is?
Should we be prisoners of our own opinions because we deny ourselves the knowledge that may change them. I am big enough to read peoples bigoted and racist statements and make up my own mind about it. I don’t need someone to do it for me.
If you forbid someone from saying truly what’s on their mind you won’t know what’s on their mind. By finding out what it is then you can deal with it. We need the capacity to observe the reality of rascism (for instance) and contend with it.
I may well want to march in the street one day to support Muslim rights and the next day to support the right to print criticisms of them. Humans can be robust and dispute and discuss ideas.
By calling for others to have a restriction on the right to free speech you can be sure it will happen to you. We can learn from calling each other names.
Recognise the Right time, the right environment, the right words.
John Bolton Sept 25th 2016
VICTORIAN LAW -Extracts
8 Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Note
Engage in conduct includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct--
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.
9 Motive and dominant ground irrelevant
s. 9
(1) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.
(2) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons is the only or dominant ground for the conduct, so long as it is a substantial ground.
11 Exceptions—public conduct
(1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith--
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for--
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.
25 Offence of serious religious vilification
s. 25
(1) A person (the offender) must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely--
(a) to incite hatred against that other person or class of persons; and
(b) to threaten, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards that other person or class of persons or the property of that other person or class of persons.
Note
Engage in conduct includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
Penalty: In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units;
In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.
In previous cases some words have been defined.
Incitement includes words and actions that actually incite others, and also those that are calculated to encourage incitement but do not have that effect in practice;
· the Act does not ‘prohibit statements concerning the religious beliefs of a person or group of persons simply because they may offend or insult the person or group of persons’ — that which incites hatred is distinct from that which is offensive;[1]
· some account may be taken of the audience when determining if a particular statement is likely to incite[2] and the effect of the statement on an ordinary member of the audience is the relevant test;[3]
· for the purposes of the ‘genuine religious purpose’ defence: both proselytism and religious comparativism are religious purposes; conduct is genuine if it is really undertaken for one of these purposes; the requirement that it be in good faith is a subjective test; and the requirement that it be reasonable is an objective test, taking into account the standards of an ‘open and just multicultural society’.[4]
There are areas of disagreement between the judge. Whether ridicule or contempt expressed towards a religion, as compared to religious believers, is sufficient for the purposes of the Act.