Reading time: 3 minutes

A growing chorus of Conservative dissatisfaction with the federal government’s religious discrimination bill has won another voice in Independent MP Bob Katter, who fears the bill may unwittingly expose Christians to complaints discrimination from Australians who do not profess any religion.

Mr. Katter disagrees with the Bill’s definition of religious belief, which includes “not having a religious belief” or “not engaging or refusing to engage in religious activity”.

“The definition is not just contradictory,” Mr. Katter said.

“My concern is that the consequence of this contradictory definition is that the legislation could be used against people of faith and especially small business owners. “

For example, section 26 of the bill seeks to make it illegal to discriminate against a person attempting to purchase or access goods, services or facilities because of their religious belief, such as a muslim woman who is refused a coffee because she is wearing a veil.

Mr Katter is concerned that by defining religious belief to include “not having a religious belief,” the door may be opened to complaints from activists against religious businesses, such as a Christian baker who is unwilling to provide services to someone. ‘one who does not share their faith.

“The purpose of this legislation is that someone should not be able to sue or punish me for my religious belief,” Mr. Katter said.

Neil Foster, associate professor of law at Newcastle University and a board member of Christian legal think tank Freedom for Faith, agrees the bill could spark such a complaint.

“Yes, it is possible for a person to go into a business that they know is run by a Christian, and if a person refuses to serve them on the grounds that they do not belong to a particular religion or religion. no religion at all, she could sue for discrimination, ”Associate Professor Foster said.

However, Dr Foster believes that there are “very few instances where this could happen” because a complainant would have to show that he has been discriminated against because of his lack of religion and not some other trait like gender or race.

Vexatious or spurious complaints from activists are also unlikely to succeed under the new legislation, because “the courts are not fooled,” said Dr Foster.

Denial of service to religious Australians is much more common and overall he thinks the bill is worth supporting even if it “may not be perfect.”

The omission of the “Folau clause” is worrying

Mr Katter, along with other Conservative MPs, is also concerned that with the drafting of the so-called “Folau clause” of the bill, the government has failed to understand the purpose of protecting religious freedom.

The third version of the bill offers much stronger protections to organizations than to individuals.

“The entire intention of this bill is to protect against religious persecution; people who are being punished for their religious belief, ”Katter said.

“There is no Folau clause in the bill, so I don’t know why the Morrison government is bringing this legislation forward.”

Associate Professor Foster believes that individuals may benefit from some protection under section 14 of the bill by making an allegation of “indirect discrimination”.

If an employee is fired for religious purposes, such as quoting scriptures, outside of work because of a social media code of conduct or otherwise, their employer would discriminate if this was found to be unreasonable.

“The point of this legislation is that someone shouldn’t be able to sue or punish me for my religious belief.”

Likewise, qualified bodies will have to demonstrate under Article 15 that the provisions of their codes of conduct which could discriminate against religion are “essential requirements”.

“It’s less clear than what used to be called the Folau Clause,” Associate Professor Foster said.

The representative of the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference on Religious Freedom, Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli, gave qualified support for the bill.

“We had hoped that the bill would go further in protecting religious freedom,” he said.

“However, we believe that this more limited bill will still be an important recognition of the rights of people of religious faith to express their religious beliefs and to engage in religious activities.”

Related stories