Dangerous protections: how some ways of protecting freedom of religion may actually diminish religious freedom

Anti-vilification laws

Freedom of speech must be limited to certain circumstances. Freedom to manifest one’s beliefs involves freedom of speech. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights limits religious freedom to that which is "necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedom of others". There is rightly some limitation on speaking with the aim to inflame violence, certain kinds of dangerous panic and on certain forms of defamation. However, in recent times there has been an effort to extend these limitations under the heading of anti-vilification laws.

Certainly, severely ridiculing and insulting people is not a good thing and is not openly advocated or mandated by any religious belief I know of. The Christian faith in particular urges believers to be gentle and respectful of others. However in the light of the cultural context I have been outlining, statements of the central Christian doctrines such as the uniqueness and supremacy of Christ and the liability of unbelievers to God’s judgement and so on may easily be taken as severely ridiculing other people.

Anti-discrimination law proposals

Anti-discrimination laws also present a problem. At first it might be thought that to protect people from discrimination on religious grounds is a very good thing. However, religious communities and institutions have a problem existing in an environment with extensive anti discrimination laws as they need to preserve the right to discriminate in order to preserve their very identity and purpose. It is an established principle of anti-discrimination law to provide an exemption to religious groups. Not that this is entirely a happy position for religious groups to find themselves in. They now exist as exceptions to the norm and are positioned outside the legal (or by implication) ethical mainstream.

The Report 2000 On Religious Freedom In the World draws our attention to the tendency in some nations to give police and government agencies power to define "what are the admissible forms of religion". This endangers religious freedom, the report states, because of "an attitude that defines any 'strong' religious experience as 'sectarian'". The report expressed concern at the "worrisome symptom"of the "danger of an 'obligatory relativism' which can be perceived in some Nations". I suspect that it was anti-sect laws in some European countries which was in mind, although the comment can equally apply to tendencies here in Australia. So far the recommendations of Report 92 have not been accepted by the NSW government, and God willing, never will. Political good sense has prevailed.

Religious communities need to genuinely embrace religious freedom and not support it only as self-interest dressed up as principle. It is sad to see some religious groups in Australia defending freedom of religion while they do not do so in countries dominated by their religion. Religious groups need to be unafraid of being offended and committed to the freedom of others, to criticise them in ways that they may find unpleasant. This applies as much to the majority Christian groups as minority ones.

People of good will, of religious commitment or none, need to be committed to a society which allows genuine freedom even if at times this has tension with the good of cultural harmony.

I am particularly concerned about the danger of entrenching some of these problems through bills of rights and other forms of judicial oversight of religious freedom. A free society is not a perfect society nor is it a society which is free from the messiness of conflicting, strongly held viewpoints in the public arena.

It is much better to rely upon core cultural values in Australia such as these than create laws designed ostensibly to protect religious freedom but may turn out in the long run to be dangerous protections indeed.