Freedom
of Religion: Challenges and Opportunities
Colloquium
University of Southern Queensland
(Toowoomba Campus: Q501)
22 November 2019
PROGRAM
9.15
|
Welcome
Professor Reid Mortensen
|
|||
9.30
10.00
10.30
11.00
11.30
|
Convenor: Jeremy Patrick
Equality and Religious Freedom I (Chair: Jeremy Patrick)
Issues in
Conscientious Objection: How Can Judges Decide Whether You are Cooperating in
Evil?
Mr. Patrick Quirk, Thomas More Law School
Should Religious Schools Should Be Allowed to Discriminate?
Mr. Michael Dimarco
A time for everything. Time
to revisit a bill of rights?
Kim Bailey, Charles Sturt University
Morning Tea
International Perspectives (Chair: Sarah McKibbin)
Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University:
The Supreme Court of Canada Tries (and Fails) to Balance Equality and
Religious Freedom
Dr. Matt Watson, University of Queensland
|
|||
12.00
|
Religion, Culture and the Constitutionality of
the Doctrine of Entanglement for the South African Context
Professor Shaun de Freitas, University of the Free State
|
|||
12.30
|
Title TBD
Dr. Dani Muhtada, Universitas Negeri Semarang
|
|||
1.00
1.45
2.15
2.45
3.15
3.45
4.15
|
Lunch
Afternoon Tea
Equality and Religious Freedom II (Chair: Reid Mortensen)
Drawing the Boundaries: Exploring the Current (and Future!)
Scope of the Religious Bodies Exemptions in State Antidiscrimination
Laws
Dr. Sarah Moulds, University of
South Australia
Religious
Freedom in the Workplace and the Folau Effect
Dr. Alex Deagon, Queensland University of Technology
| |||
4.45
|
Closing and drinks
|
Colloquium Dinner: Time & Location TBD
Organised by the USQ Law, Religion, and Heritage Research Program Team
ABSTRACTS
Equality and Religious Freedom I
Mr. Patrick Quirk, Thomas More Law School
Issues in
Conscientious Objection: How Can Judges Decide Whether You are Cooperating in Evil?
David Oderberg is a recognized
philosopher whose work was recently cited in the US Supreme Court landmark case
of Burwell v Hobby Lobby (2014).
Oderberg's 2018 book on conscience protection - “Opting Out” - has engaged
lawyers and policy experts by suggesting a Conscience Protection Bill, which
could be written into all “equality laws.” This paper will explore Oderberg’s
suggestion with emphasis on the problems that can arise when judges attempt to
make decisions about “theology” and the extent of acceptable cooperation in a
wrongful action.
Mr. Michael Dimarco
Should Religious Schools Should Be Allowed to Discriminate?
“Religious schools should
be allowed to discriminate” was the issue put to debaters at this year’s
Inaugural Annual Religious Liberty Debate. This Presentation is an overview of
the issues relevant to that debate. It addresses the intersection of various
rights, the Ruddock Review, the legal framework pertaining to the topic and the
issue of language and the effect that certain words can have on this debate. It
also suggests the exceptions-based approach currently enforced to address this
issue, is insufficient and that reform is needed to adequately address this
complicated and important issue.
Kim Bailey, Charles Sturt University
A time for
everything. Time to revisit a bill of rights?
For those who believe, religious faith is
the expression of how they understand self and the world. Freedom to express
faith must be conceptualised as a basic human right. With the changing
landscape of identity politics, safe spaces and the new tolerance, freedom of
expression of faith is under attack. This right can no longer be assumed to
exist as a democratic principle in Australian society. As our legislature
continues to grapple with defending religious expression through “shield”
legislation, the time is ripe to reconsider whether a constitutionally
entrenched bill of rights is a better solution. This paper will critically
consider the position that faith groups have historically taken on a bill of
rights, and offer argument for why a bill of rights needs to come back into the
debate.
International Perspectives
Dr. Matt Watson, University of Queensland
Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University: The Supreme Court of Canada Tries (and
Fails) to Balance Equality and Religious Freedom
My
article analyses the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the case of Law Society
of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, which forced the court
to grapple with the question of how to balance equality and religious
freedom. I argue that the reasoning of several justices displayed an
impoverished understanding of the right to freedom of religion. I challenge
the finding of the majority that the law societies’ decisions to refuse
accreditation advanced the objectives of maintaining equal access to and
diversity within the legal profession, and maintaining public confidence in
that profession. I also consider—and ultimately reject—the argument that by
accrediting the proposed TWU law school the law societies would have been
conveying a symbolic message that intolerably denies the dignity and equality
of LGBTQ+ individuals.
|
|||
Professor Shaun de Freitas, University of the Free State
Religion, Culture and the Constitutionality of
the Doctrine of Entanglement for the South African Context
The South African
judiciary supports the protection of the autonomy of religious associations.
The doctrine of entanglement (or non-entanglement) forms part of the said
protection which means that the courts are hesitant to become entangled in
the doctrines held by a religious association. The application of the
doctrine of entanglement has recently been criticised for supposedly resulting
in religious practices being adjudged separately (in line with the doctrine)
and in some way shielded from constitutional scrutiny, while all cultural
practices are expected to be constitutionally compliant. In response to the
above, it is argued that the doctrine of entanglement is nothing more nor
less than the South African Constitution’s democratic ideals and aspirations
towards the protection as well as the furtherance of diversity, and that the
said doctrine should therefore not be understood as presupposing that
religion be prioritised above that of culture. This is also of importance to
democratic and by implication plural societies beyond South Africa.
|
|||
Dr. Dani Muhtada, Universitas Negeri Semarang Title TBD
Equality and Religious
Freedom II
Dr. Sarah Moulds, University of
South Australia
Drawing the Boundaries: Exploring the Current (and Future!)
Scope of the Religious Bodies Exemptions in State Antidiscrimination
Laws
Australia is in the midst of an impassioned debate
about how to appropriately balance freedom from discrimination with freedom
of religious expression. At the State and Territory level, uncertainty
surrounds the content and operation of relevant anti-discrimination laws, and
significant differences exist across jurisdictions. These differences
have both normative and practical implications for those seeking to exercise
their right to freely express their religion, and for those demanding
protection from discrimination. In this paper, I briefly summarise the
existing State and Territory provisions and reflect on the consequences of
federal-led reform agendas on the scope of these laws.
Dr. Alex Deagon, Queensland University of Technology
Religious
Freedom in the Workplace and the Folau Effect
|
Israel Folau was dismissed as an
employee of Rugby Australia after expressing controversial religious views on
social media. Some have characterised this as a simple contractual issue, while
others see it as symptomatic of a more fundamental religious freedom problem.
In this paper I approach the case from the latter perspective, considering the
central challenge raised by the Folau case, which is the extent to which an
employer can govern religious speech by an employee. I propose that it can be
appropriate for an employer to restrict the religious speech of an employee,
subject to certain conditions that may not have been satisfied in the Folau
case.
No comments:
Post a Comment