Peter Kurti: Do we really need laws to protect religious freedom? - The Centre for Independent Studies
Donate today!
Your support will help build a better future.
Your Donation at WorkDonate Now

Peter Kurti: Do we really need laws to protect religious freedom?

BALANCING the right to relig­ious liberty against other rights and freedoms ­enjoyed by Australians is likely to be one of the biggest political challenges facing the Turnbull government in 2018.

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right because it allows ­people to make the most important decisions about how they live their lives, raise their children and participate in their communities.

We saw religious freedom become front-page news in 2017 during the same-sex marriage vote, including debates in Parliament about amendments to the bill that became law in December.

The concern then was whether or not the new marriage law gave ­adequate protections to people who decline to be involved with same-sex marriage ceremonies on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

The amended Marriage Act ­addressed many of these worries. But broader concerns about religious freedoms remain, such as parental rights to educate children, and the status of faith-based charities.

And how much protection will a Muslim or a Christian have if they ­express a view about same-sex marriage or voluntary euthanasia … or the curriculum of a religious school?

The heat of the topic makes it easy to believe reports the religious freedom inquiry chaired by Philip Ruddock has received more than 16,000 submissions.

One possible recommendation from the Ruddock Inquiry is for a federal religious freedom act, an idea first proposed 20 years ago by the forerunner of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Such an act would put into law ­obligations Australia has already ­assumed by ratifying international covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

These covenants uphold the right to religious freedom, which includes the freedom to believe and disbelieve, as well as freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.

Limits to religious freedom can be imposed by the state, but only when public safety, national security, or ­social cohesion is threatened. Otherwise, citizens should enjoy complete religious liberty. But treaties do not create rights directly enforceable in Australian courts.

In fact, they are not even part of Australian law unless the federal government includes them in legislation.

One reason Ruddock might recommend a federal religious freedom act is that it would allow the government to do just that: Turn Australia’s moral obligations into legal ones. Of course, such a proposal is not quite that straightforward.

For example, proponents of states’ rights would likely resist any interference with the legislative independence of states and territories.

But advocates of a federal religious freedom law might argue, in turn, that no new rights are being created — such as the right to be ruled by sharia law or the right to religious polygamous marriages.

Securing religious liberty is so pressing today because, increasingly, even to express a religious point of view or to make a decision based on faith is liable to be condemned as an act of “hate speech”.

No wonder that Christian Schools Australia is campaigning for the right of all faith-based schools to hire and fire staff in accordance with religious doctrine and teaching to protect ­instructional integrity.

Is it so unreasonable to permit a Christian or Islamic school — to which, don’t forget, parents have chosen to send their kids — to uphold the teachings of the faith and secure the culture of the school?

But such selection is invariably slammed as hate-filled discrimination. Religion has almost come to be seen as a new form of racism — ­always unacceptable and never to be tolerated in any shape or form. The 2016 Census shows that more than 60 per cent of Australians have some kind of religious allegiance.

Internal belief is just one part of that allegiance: external practice is just as important.

Freedom to believe must always be accompanied by the freedom to speak, to organise and to associate with others. But this freedom is under serious threat from determined foes of religion.

A religious freedom act would not enforce religious law, such as sharia. It would simply protect existing freedoms and ensure Australian law is ­always consistent with freedoms protected by international law.

Religion’s opponents insist that believers already have all the freedom they could possibly want and shouldn’t be given licence to indulge in further acts of “hate speech” or ­discrimination.

Driven by the advocates of identity politics, this drive against religion threatens to make it harder for ­Australian society to be truly tolerant of diversity.

The Ruddock Inquiry must now step up to the plate to help strike the right balance of freedoms.

Peter Kurti is a senior research fellow at The ­Centre for Independent Studies.