Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversial religious freedoms
Controversial religious freedoms
Controversial religious freedoms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversial religious freedoms
Introduction
In her obiter dicta of Kruger v Commonwealth, Gaudron J (in dissent) made an interesting argument concerning constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion (s. 116). She said that the Commonwealth can infringe on these guarantees in order to perform a needful government action. Gaudron stated this in reference to section 116 of the Constitution and in context of the Stolen Generations. Gaudron reveals an interesting trend in the Commonwealth today showing a disregard towards religious affiliation. As a Christian, I disagree with the meaning of Justice Gaudron’s statement. It infringes on the rights of people like me who seek to follow their religion without government intervention. There needs to be changes in section 116 since it is too broad in its interpretation and can be used by the Commonwealth to interfere with religion. For my thesis, I will argue that Gaudron’s limitations restrict the freedom of religion of Australians and there needs to be a referendum to amend section 116 of the Constitution.
1. Kruger v Commonwealth context
Before I argue my thesis, it is important to understand the context of this argument. Gaudron’s dicta were made in dissent of the final decision with Kruger v Commonwealth. Gaudron and her fellow Justices dissented but came to similar conclusions in response to the plaintiff’s argument. The plaintiff, Kruger argued that the 1918 Ordinance declared by the Chief Protector that legalized taking away Aboriginal children was unconstitutional. It prohibited their freedom of religion. Brennan CJ, Toohey and Gummow JJ argued that section 116 acted for the purpose of enabling all Australians the right to worship whoever they sought fit. However, they looked at the purpose of the ...
... middle of paper ...
... towards the limits shown towards freedom of religion.
Conclusion
Through adding ‘or place specific limits’ to section 116 and adding a provision to section 122, the limits to freedom of religion described by Gaudron J will be mostly removed. This will give greater liberties for the everyday Australian’s liberties to worship any religion they wish. However, we may have to wait a while since our current Government is not interested in these changes. I say this since our Prime Minister is atheist and the Labor Government have more pressing issues at hand. When these changes are administered by any future government will make Australia a better place to live and more family-oriented. Also, the common religious disinterest within Australia will dissipate and also make Australia a safer place to live.
Works Cited
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
The validity of British’s occupation of Australia has been fundamentally shaken. The decision protected Aboriginal people’s cultures and lifestyles to a certain degree. Moreover, it guaranteed that some of the lands they live will not be developed. There were five key issues of importance to legal precedent in the Mabo decision for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2017). For example, it helps to promote the idea of non-discrimination. From then on, a series of laws had been introduced to help safeguard their standard legal rights and
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
“ It remains to be noted that none of the great constitutional rights of conscience, however vital to a free society is absolute in character. Thus, while the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion goes a long way, it does not serve to protect acts judged to be morally licentious, such as poly amorous marriages. Children cannot be required to execute the flag salute which is forbidden by religious belief… Similarly freedom of speech, often defended by the courts, does not extend to the seditious utteran...
Between 1947 and 1971, even if you did not practice your religion it was still expected that you would identify yourself as being a part of your/ your family’s religion. In 1947 the ‘no religion’ category made up only 0.3% of religious affiliation in Australia. A change in social values and attitudes has since seen a dramatic increase in people identifying as belonging to ‘no religion’ with the category reaching 6.7% in 1971, “The specific instruction 'if no religion, write none' included in the 1971 Census saw an increase in this response from 0.8% in the previous Census to 6.7%.”(Australian Social Trends, 2013). The chart below is a visual representation of the growth in the ‘no religion’ category.(sourced from Australian Social Trends, 2013).
...ays Proposals May Challenge Religious Freedom." Irish Times. 29 Aug. 2011: 4. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
“The Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxi) Marriage: (xxii) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and relation thereto, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of inf...
Canada is known for their diversity and multiculturalism where they ensure that all citizens are able to keep their identities and take pride in their ancestral roots regardless of where they are from and which religion they affiliate with. They encourage racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding . Since multiculturalism is such an important part of the Canadian identity, people cannot be stripped of their rights to freely practice their religion, especially if they claim to value the individual identity. However, even though the above is what Canada strives to stand for, it isn’t achieved in reality. For example, if everyone were free to practice their religion however they wanted to in public, conflict would arise in society since everyone may believe that their religion is superior to others. So in order to ensure there is peace amongst us, the government must regulate how people practice their religion, at least in the public
McCrudden, C. Int Jnl Constitutional Law. Multiculturalism, freedom of religion, equality, and the British constitution: The JFS case considered 20119 (1) 200-229 doi: 10.1093/icon/mor022 (Date of Access: 12/12/11)
A key legal of the current law is regarding the fact it violates stakeholder rights and perspectives through the disregard of social and cultural rights among the aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and therefore requires specific abolition. This removes their ability to a choice in lifestyle, interactions socially with others, certain restrictions for a child attending and enrolling in a school. With this being effected it removes many rights stated under the Universal Declaration of Indigenous rights, for example article 2 and 9 both referring to the scripture of indigenous people having the right to equality and anti discrimination in accordance to their community, traditions and customs. However, The Racial Discrimination Act (1975) is one of Australia's most important laws for protecting human rights, however in order to implement the intervention the Federal Government suspended the operation of The Racial Discrimination
Religious Freedom Restoration Act In this paper I will describe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Act was used to contradict the decision of the court case of Employment Division v. Smith, which allowed the government to forbid any religious act without giving a reason. The RFRA brought back the requirement that the government provide an adequate reason to forbid any religious act. The government once again had to show that the act was of compelling interest to the state.
Good morning members of the panel today I will be critically reviewing and reporting on the relationship between International law and the Australian domestic law. I will be analysing how well the Australian and international law reflect the Universal Declaration of human rights, and what more could be acted upon to ensure the safeguard of Human Rights for future generations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a set of rights set for us merely because of the simple fact that we are humans. Human rights Is a right to which is believed to belong to every individual. All members of the human family are entitled to have the right to freedom, justice and peace in the world. The Declaration was accepted by the United Nations General Assembly on
An individual does not make a community, and a community does not make a society. In order to have a functioning and prosperous society, one must relinquish some free will in return for protection. According to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, there are certain rights of the individual which the government may never possess. Centuries after the publication of Mill’s Essay, the court case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) challenged the protective role of government against the free exercise of religion.
“Provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act.” Facts On File Issues and Controversies. Jan 21 2000:18.
Initially, I will give a brief definition of “religious belief” and “religious discrimination” and write afterwards about prohibitions regarding religious discrimination, reasonably accommodation of religious beliefs and practices, undue hardship, and about the question “Who is subject to the provisions under Title VII?”.