Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694820060917.pdf (Australia)
Submission to the Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion and belief Religious Freedom defined Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of which Australia is signatory to states: 1.

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2.

No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3.
3.

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitatioons as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4.

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertakes to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Terms of Reference  The enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief globally, the nature and extent of violations and abuses of this right and the causes of those violations or abuses;  Action taken by governments, international organisations, national human rights institutions, and non-government organisations to protect the freedom of religion or belief, promote religious tolerance, and prevent violations or abuses of this right;  The relationship between the freedom of religion or belief and other human rights, and the implications of constraints on the freedom of religion or belief for the enjoyment of other universal human rights.
Freedom to adopt a religion or belief or choice The ability to adopt a religion or belief of choice without coercion is a human right which should be protected according to Article 18 (2) of the ICCPR.

This freedom has been violated Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 196 globally and also in Australia.
In countries that employ Sharia law and in a number of moderate Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, a person born to a Muslim father must be a Muslim and does not have the choice to adopt any other religion.

In several countries the penalty for conversion is death.

In western countries, there can also be negative consequences for conversion.
Michael Nazir- Ali, the Bishop of Rochester warned that Muslims in Britain face being ostracised, lose their jobs, for their marriages to be dissolved and children taken away if they change religion and reported that there have been cases of honour killings (Doward, 2007).

In 2016, a hairdresser was stabbed to death by her Iranian husband in a Sydney apartment because she converted to Christianity (Grant, 2016).
Currently, religious freedom is mentioned under Section 116 in the Australian constitution which states that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

This protection does not extend to legislation from the states.

Would the constitutional protection allowed by Section 116 guarantee freedoms for all to change religion if they should choose to in Australia?
Additional protections may be required to ensure that the right to adopt a belief is a freedom for all in Australia.

Freedom to manifest one's belief in teaching The freedom to manifest one's belief in teaching is a human right which should be protected according to Article 18 (1).

In Australia, this freedom is under threat.

One example of the threat to the freedom to manifest one's belief in teaching is the case of Archbishop Julian Porteous.
A complaint was made and accepted by the Tasmanian Anti- Discimination Commissioner against the archbishop.

His supposed crime was distributing a Catholic booklet which contained Catholic teachings about marriage to Catholics.
The complainant, Martine Delaney, claimed the contents of the booklet were 'offensive' and 'insulting' and requested that the content of the Catholic booklet be altered and as the Archbishop disagreed, she had the support of the Anti-Discrimination Commission to progress to a tribunal hearing.
That the anti-discrimination commission accepted the complaint shows a disregard and indeed violation of Article 18 (1) and (3) of the ICCPR which states that everyone should have the freedom to manifest one's belief in teaching subject only to limitations prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
That a religious teaching is offensive and insulting does not meet the criteria set by the ICCPR for limiting religious freedom.

Simon Breheny, policy director of the Institute of Public Affairs said that, “the laws that allowed for this complaint to be made should be repealed.

Respect for religious liberty and plurality means allowing religious organisations to have the right to express themselves without fear of being dragged in front of a tribunal”.
(Drummond, 2016) Changes are necessary to ensure that religious freedoms are protected and religious groups are not taken to court because they have caused 'offense' by teaching their beliefs.

Freedom to manifest one's belief in practice In Australia, the freedom to manifest one's beliefs in practice is under threat also.
In 2013, Dr Mark Hobart underwent a lengthy investigation by the Medical Board of Victoria for refusing to Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 196 refer a couple to another doctor for a gender-selective abortion as they did not want to have a girl (Devine, 2013).

It should be noted that although Dr Hobart was a Christian, there would also be many people of other faiths and of no faith who would object to gender-selective abortions.
Additional protections are required to ensure that there is freedom to manifest one's belief in practice in Australia, particularly in the area of referring on a patient for an abortion.

According to the ICCPR, religious freedom should only be limited when needed for the fundamental rights or freedoms of others or in the interest of public health and safety.
Given that information on abortion services is readily available, there should not be any legal requirement on doctors to refer on to an abortionist if this is against their religious beliefs.

Freedom for parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children Article 18 (4) of the ICCPR states that religious freedom includes the rights of legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
In the west, there have been instances where this freedom has been violated.

One example is the recent case in Canada where Justice Robert Reid in the Ontario Superior Court dismissed an application by Greek Orthodox father, Steve Tourloukis, that would have allowed him to remove his children from school classes that went against his religious values (Yawar, 2016).
In Western Australia, Section 71 of the School Education Act 1999 allows the parent of a child at a public school to notify the principal in writing that the child is not to receive any special religious education or attend that part of a school activity at which prayers, songs and other material based on religious, spiritual or moral values are being used.
Under section 72, a parent may, on the basis of a conscientious objection request in writing that the principal grant an exception for their child from attendance at classes at which a particular part of a course is taught.

While the above legislation considers the needs of parents, the final decision regarding the child's education remains with the principal instead of with the parents.
In cases where the principal disagrees with the parent as occurred in Ontario, the parent's freedom to ensure the religious and moral education of their children would be violated.

Therefore, in Western Australia, the current legislation does not protect the freedom for parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children as stated in Article 18.
Overseas, the 2005 Texas education code protects parental rights by stating in Chapter 26 that parents have the right to access all material their child is taught and also are able to opt out of any school activity that conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

Adopting legislation similar to the Texas education code would provide protections for parents in accordance with Article 18 (4).
Conclusion Religious freedom as outlined in Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political is insufficiently protected in Australia.

The report on the Commonwealth Governments Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same Sex Marriage) Bill states that there was consensus in the committee that religious freedoms should be positively protected.
However, the suggestion by some to extend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to include religion would be detrimental rather than helpful to religious freedom.

This is as any belief has the potential to be offensive to any other belief and it should also be noted that the ICCPR does not mention protecting people of religion from offense.
Laws that make offense a crime Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 196 such as 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act result in increased prosecution and disharmony between people and shuts down freedom of speech.

Instead what is needed is increased religious protections for people of religion in accordance to Article 18 of the ICCPR.

Currently in anti discrimination legislation, religious freedoms are protected in 'exemptions'.
However, the word 'exemption' has negative connotations, implying that a group of people have special rights and want to discriminate against others.

It does not reflect that religious freedom is a human right.

There have been efforts recently also to remove religious exemptions.

A preferred phrase to use instead of 'religious exemptions' would be 'religious protections' as this better reflects religious freedoms as a protected human right.
The issues raised above indicate that protections are needed to ensure that people can choose their religion, live in accordance to their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution for offending others and have the ability to opt out their child out of any school activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs.

References Devine, M. 2013 Doctor risks his career after refusing abortion referral.
Herald Sun http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/doctor-risks-his-career-after-refusing-abortion- referral/news- story/a37067e66ed4f8d9a07ec9cb6fd28cf5?nk=a0f7fc55aeb11944f61ec68f673c405e- 1493290606 Doward, J.

2007 Bishop warns that Muslims who convert risk being killed.

The Guardian.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/16/religion/anglicanism Drummond, A.

2016 Same sex marriage discrimination case ends.

News.
News.

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/antigay-marriage-book-complaint- withdrawn/news-story/d57663aa660ffab8a0c65f90d19c2590 Grant, B.

2016 Sydney woman stabbed to death.

Daily Mail Australia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3815124/Hairdresser-35-stabbed-death-Iranian- husband-Potts-Point-apartment-angry-converted-CHRISTIANITY.html Yawar, M, 2016 Court rejects Hamilton dad’s fight to get warnings from school board over false teachings.

CBC News.
CBC News.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/court-rejects-hamilton- dad-s-fight-to-get-warnings-from-school-board-over-false-teachings-1.3870555 Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 196