tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433809260531302342024-03-14T05:53:40.539-04:00Legal HeresyThe law and politics of blasphemy, religious freedom, secularism, and more . . .Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger272125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-12302527625227378432019-01-14T22:53:00.003-05:002019-01-14T22:53:38.885-05:00Canada's Blasphemous Libel Law Repealed!Coming out of hibernation to share the news that Canada has finally <a href="https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/12/14/1667079/0/en/Repeal-of-Canada-s-Blasphemy-Law-Applauded-by-National-Secularist-Organization.html">repealed</a> its law against blasphemous libel! I spent several years researching and writing about the history of blasphemous libel in Canada for my Ph.D. dissertation and several law journal articles, and it's gratifying to think I may have contributed, in some small way, to the law's repeal.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-15745414540352967952015-11-04T00:41:00.002-05:002015-11-04T00:41:50.306-05:00"Banning race discrimination is the conservative choice" [Off-Topic]I realize this is off-topic for the blog, but I don't have anywhere else to put it as it was rejected by <i>The Australian</i>.<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Recent
columns about indigenous recognition in the pages of <i>The Australian </i>from self-described “constitutional conservatives”
have lambasted the proposal to ban race discrimination in the Australian Constitution,
labelling it a “radical” idea sure to lead to “judicial adventurism.” In reality, banning race discrimination is
the smart, safe, and conservative choice when it comes to constitutional
reform. Here are four reasons why.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">First,
the concept of banning race discrimination is not new, nor it is radical. The American Constitution banned race discrimination
in 1868. A full decade ago, a
breathtaking 97 % of written constitutions globally contained a specific ban on
race discrimination or a general guarantee of equality. We all know that Australia is now the only
democracy that has a written constitution but lacks a true bill of rights. If anything is “radical,” it is the current
Australian approach.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Second,
there are <i>already</i>, and always have been,<i> </i>some rights in the Australian
Constitution: a right to just compensation for property taken by the
government, a right to freedom of religion, a right to trial by jury, and
more. There’s even already a right to be
free from discrimination, but only on the basis of state residency. If “judicial adventurism” by “activist
judges” interpreting rights were going to be a problem in Australia, it could
have and would have manifested over the past 114 years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Third,
the decisions of our elected representatives in Parliament deserve our respect,
but not our blind obedience. Does the
Parliament of Australia have a perfect and unblemished record when it comes to
matters of race? We know the answer
because we know our history. Safeguards
are necessary in a democracy, just as having health insurance is smart even
when we’re not yet sick.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Finally,
we should not hesitate to declare this truth as self-evident: adversely
discriminating against someone on the basis of their skin colour or their
ethnic heritage is a grave moral wrong.
Full stop. Instead of asking why
race discrimination should be banned in the Constitution, we should always ask
the opposite. Why would we <i>ever</i> think that government <i>needs </i>to make people worse off because
of their race? Somehow, almost every
other country in the world manages to get by while constrained by a formal
constitutional ban on race discrimination.
Australia can too.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Changing
a constitution can have ramifications.
We should always be cautious and deliberate. But we need not give into paranoia, and we
shouldn’t hesitate to do what is right.
Banning race discrimination in the constitution is a tried, tested, and
responsible way to balance the democratic voice of the majority with the fundamental
rights of the minority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Jeremy Patrick is a Lecturer at the
University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice and co-editor of a
forthcoming book on the recognition referendum.</span></i><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-44003404837155121742015-10-28T01:12:00.000-04:002015-10-28T01:12:00.701-04:00Three Debates on Faith and DemocracyEarlier this month, I had the pleasure of engaging in a debate with my USQ colleague Dr. Vito Breda. We looked at three topics involving faith and democracy: whether there should be a ban on wearing the burqa in public, whether religious arguments belong in the debate over same-sex marriage, and whether democracies could still thrive if adherence to mainstream religions dwindled. You can watch the entire debate or parts of it using the links below:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">All Debates </span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Title: "<a href="https://vimeo.com/user10756933/review/142463286/fa768a993d">Three Debates on Faith and Democracy</a>"</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Description: "Jeremy Patrick
and Vito Breda debate whether Australia should ban the burqa, whether religion
is relevant in the debate over same-sex marriage, and whether liberal democracy
can thrive if organised religion declines."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Debate 1</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Title: "<a href="https://vimeo.com/user10756933/review/142463283/16a3ef3d21">Should Australia ban the burqa</a>?</span><span lang="EN-AU" style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-AU;">”</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Description: "Jeremy Patrick
and Vito Breda discuss whether Australia should ban the burqa. Topics
include feminism, public security, and the link between identity and political
expression."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Debate 2</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Title: "<a href="https://vimeo.com/user10756933/review/142463284/3ca0cb5906">Does religion belong in the same-sex marriage debate?</a>"</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Description: "Jeremy Patrick
and Vito Breda discuss whether religious arguments belong in the debate over
the upcoming Australian plebiscite on same-sex marriage."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Debate 3</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Title: "<a href="https://vimeo.com/user10756933/review/142463285/1cfbf201b5">Can democracy thrive if mainstream society rejects religion?</a>"</span><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Description: "Jeremy Patrick
and Vito Breda discuss the decline of religion in Western Europe and what it
means for democracy."</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-73283822243537979612015-09-29T21:38:00.001-04:002015-11-04T20:20:22.785-05:00Chronology of English Statutes & Cases on Fortune-Telling<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">Although this blog is officially on hiatus, my work for my book on the criminalization of witchcraft and fortune-telling continues apace. In case others might find it useful, here is my partial chronology of English statutes and cases on fortune-telling:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Chronology
of English Statutes & Cases on Fortune-Telling<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">1530: [<i>Egyptians
Act</i>] <i>An act concerning Egyptians </i>22 Hen. 8 c. 10 (“</span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">many outlandish people,
calling themselves Egyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandise, have come
into this realm, and gone from shire to shire, and place to place, in great company;
and used great subtle and crafty means to deceive the people--bearing them in
hand that they, by </span><span lang="EN-AU"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmistry" title="Palmistry"><span lang="EN-CA" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; text-decoration: none;">palmistry</span></a></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">, could tell men's and women's fortunes; and so, many times, by craft
and subtlety, have deceived the people of their money; and also have committed
many heinous felonies and robberies, to the great hurt and deceit of the people
that they have come among</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> . . . no
such persons be suffered to come within this the King’s Realm, and if they do
than they and every one of them so doing shall forfeit to the King our
Sovereign Lord all their goods and chattels and then to be commanded to avoid
the realm within 15 days next after the commandment upon pain of imprisonment .
. . The Egyptians now being in the Realm
have monition to depart within 16[?] days after proclamation”)</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"> </span><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> </span></i><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">(unverified: repealed in 1840 by 19-20 Vict. c. 64
or by <i>Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act
1856</i>?<i>)</i> (modernised spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1530-1531: [<i>Vagrancy
Act</i>] <i>An act concerning punishment of Beggars and Vagabonds</i>, 22 Hen. 8 c.
12 (“Where in all places through this realm of England, vagabonds and beggars
have of long time increased and daily do increase in great and excessive
numbers by the occasion of idleness, mother and rote of all vices . . .”
[requires beggars to be licensed, and sets punishment of stocks or whipping for
begging without a license or outside of licensed area] “all other idle persons going about in any
countries or abiding in any city, borough, or town, some of them using diverse
and subtle craft and unlawful games and plays and some of them feigning
themselves to have knowledge in Physic, Physiognomy, Palmistry, or other crafty
science whereby they bear the people on hand, that they can tell their
destinies, deceases, and fortunes and such other like fantastical imaginations
to the great deceit of the King’s Subjects, shall . . . be punished by whipping
at two days together [second offence is whipping, pillory, and having an ear
cut off; third offence is whipping, pillory, and having other ear cut off]” (verified repealed by 1597 <i>Vagrancy Act</i>) (modernised spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1542: [<i>Witchcraft
Act</i>] <i>The bill against conjuration and witchcrafts and sorcery and
enchantments </i>33 Hen. 8, c.8 (“if any person or persons . . .<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"> use, devise, practise, or exercise, or
cause to be used, devised, practised, exercised, any Invocations or
conjurations of Sprites, witchcrafts, enchantments, or sorceries, to the intent
to get or find money or treasure, or to waste, consume, or destroy any person
in his body members or goods, or to provoke any person to unlawful love, or for
any other unlawful intent or purpose, or by occasion or [?] of such things or
any of them, or for despite of Christ, or for lucre of money, dig up or pull
down any Cross or Crosses, or by such Invocations or conjurations of Sprites,
witchcrafts, enchantments, or sorcery or any of them take upon them to tell or
declare where goods stolen or lost shall become, that then all and every such
offence and offences . . .shall be deemed, accepted, and adjudged Felony.”</span>)
(unverified: repealed by statute of 1 Edward 6 c. 12 or 9 Geo. 2 c. 5 s. 4?)
(modernised spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1554:
[<i>Egyptians Act</i>] <i>An act
for the punishment of certain persons calling themselves Egyptians</i> 1&2
Phil. & Mar. c. 4 (recites purpose
of 1530 Act, says gypsies did not fear old penalties and have “enterprised to
come over again into this Realm using their old accustomed devilish and naughty
practices and devises”. Says all present
Egyptians must leave within 20 days or forfeit goods, and if they have not left
within 40 days, become felons) (unverified: repealed by <i>Repeal of Obsolete Statutes Act 1856</i>?<i>)</i> (modernised spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1563:
[<i>Witchcraft Act</i>] An<i> Act Against Conjurations, Enchantments, and
Witchcrafts </i>5 Eliz. 1, c. 16 (says that after 1542 <i>Witchcraft Act</i> was repealed in the first year of the reign of Kind
Edward, “since the repeal whereof many fantastical and devilish persons have
devised and practiced invocations and conjurations of evil and wicked Sprites,
and have used and practices Witchcrafts, enchantments, charms, and sorceries,
to the destruction of the persons and goods of their neighbours and other
subjects of this realm, and for other lewd intents and purposes contrary to the
laws of Almighty God, to the peril of their own souls, and to the great infamy
and disquietness of this Realm”) Sets
three categories of crimes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> “if any person or persons shall . . . take upon him or them, by witchcrafts,
enchantment, charm, or sorcery, to tell or declare in what place any treasure
of gold or silver should or might be found or had in the earth or other secret
places, or where goods or things lost or stolen should be found or become, or
shall use or practise any sorcery, enchantment, charm or witchcraft, to the
intent to provoke any person to unlawful love, or to hurt or destroy any person
in his or her body, member or goods” (Penalty:
1 year’s imprisonment and pillory; second offence: life imprisonment)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">“if
any person or persons. . . shall use,
practise or exercise any witchcraft, enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby
any person shall happen to be wasted, consumed, or lamed in his or her body or
member, or whereby any goods or chattels of any person shall be destroyed, wasted,
or impaired” (Penalty: 1 Year’s imprisonment and pillory; Second Offence: Death)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">–as
# 2 above, but where “whereby any person shall happen to be killed or
destroyed” (Penalty: Death)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">(modernised
spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">(verified repeal by
1604 <i>Witchcraft Act</i>)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1563:
[<i>Egyptians Act]</i> <i>An act for the punishment of vagabonds calling themselves Egyptians</i>
5 Eliz. c. 20 (says question about
whether 1554 Egyptians Act applies to
gypsies born in England; confirms operation of that statute, but adds that “all
and every person or persons which . . . shall be seen or found within Realm of
England or Wales in any company or fellowship of vagabonds commonly called or
calling themselves Egyptians, or counterfeiting, transforming or disguising
themselves by their apparel, speech, or other behaviour like unto such
vagabonds commonly called or calling themselves Egyptians, and so shall or do
continue and remain in the same, either at one time or at several times by the
space of one month” shall be declared a Felon)
(unverified: repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1871) (modernised
spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1597: [<i>Vagrancy
Act</i>] <i>An act for punishment of rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars </i>39
Eliz. c. 4 s. 2 (repeals all previous vagrancy acts; establishes several
categories of persons to be deemed Rogues, Vagabonds, and Sturdy Beggars,
including those representing themselves as Egyptians and “all idle persons
going about in any country either begging or using any subtle craft or unlawful
games and plays, or feigning themselves to have knowledge in Physiognomy,
Palmistry, or other like crafty science, or pretending that they can tell
destinies, fortunes, or such other like fantastical imaginations” Punishment: whipping, returned to home area,
forced labour) (modernised spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1604: <i>An Act
against conjuration, witchcraft, and dealing with evil and wicked spirits </i>2
Ja. 1 c. 12 (repeals 1563 <i>Witchcraft Act)</i>
Sets up two categories of offences:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> “if any person or persons shall . . . take upon him or them by witchcraft,
enchantment, charm, or sorcery to tell or declare in what place any treasure
of gold or silver should or might be found or had in the earth or other secret
places, or where goods or things lost or stolen should be found or become; or
to the intent to provoke any person to unlawful love, or whereby any chattels
or goods of any person shall be destroyed, wasted, or impaired, or to hurt or
destroy any person in his or her body, although the same be not effected and
done” (Penalty: 1 Year’s Imprisonment
& Pillory; Second Offence: Death as a Felon)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2.<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-stretch: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">“if
any person or persons . . . shall use, practise, or exercise any invocation or
conjuration of any evil and wicked spirit, or shall consult, covenant with,
entertain, employ, feed, or reward any evil and wicked spirit to or for any
intent or purpose; or take up any dead man, woman, or child out of his, her, or
their grave, or any other place where the dead body rests, or the skin, bone,
or any other part of any dead person, to be employed or used in any manner of
witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; or shall use, practise, or exercise
any witchcraft, enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby any person shall be
killed, destroyed, wasted, consumed, pined [?], or lamed in his or her body, or
any part thereof;” (Penalty: Death as a
Felon)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;"><i><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> </span></i><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">(verified repeal by
1736 <i>Witchcraft Act</i>) (modernised
spelling)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1714: [<i>Vagrancy
Act</i>] <i>An act for reducing the laws
relating to rogues, vagabonds, sturdy beggars, and vagrants, into one act of
parliament; and for the more effectual punishing such rogues, sturdy beggars
and vagrants, and sending them whether [sic] they ought to be sent</i> 12 Anne
2 c. 23 (version I have appears to be a summary only) (various provisions
regarding vagrants, basically whipping them and ordering them back to their
homes or a house of correction; nothing in summary about fortune-telling, but
it’s hard to know)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1736: [<i>Witchcraft
Act</i>] <i>An act to repeal the statute
made in the first year of the reign of King James the First, entitled, </i>An
Act against conjuration, witchcraft, and dealing with evil and wicked spirits<i>, except so much thereof as repeals an act
of the fifth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, </i>Against conjurations,
enchantments, and witchcrafts<i>, and to
repeal an act passed in the parliament of Scotland in the ninth parliament of
Queen Mary, entitled </i>Anentis witchcrafts<i>,
and for punishing such persons as pretend to exercise or use any kind of
witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment, or conjuration</i> 9 Geo. 2 ch. 5 s. 4 (repeals 1604 <i>Witchcraft Act</i>) (says in
Section 3 that “no prosecution, suit, or proceeding, shall be commenced or
carried on against any person or persons for witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment,
or conjuration, or for charging another with any such offence, in any court
whatsoever in Great Britain” but in Section 4 says “And for the more effectual
preventing and punishing any pretences to such arts or powers as are
before-mentioned, whereby ignorant persons are frequently deluded and
defrauded; be it further enacted. . . . that if any person shall . . . pretend
to exercise or use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment, or
conjuration, or undertake to tell fortunes, or pretend from his or her skill or
knowledge in any occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner
any goods or chattels, supposed to have been stolen or lost, may be found;
every person so offending, being thereof lawfully convicted . . . shall for
every such offence suffer imprisonment, by the space of one whole year without
bail . . . and once in every quarter of the said year . . . stand openly on the
pillory by the space of one hour” (verified
repealed by 1951 <i>Fraudulent Mediums Act</i>)
(spelling modernised)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1744:
[<i>Vagrancy Act</i>] <i>An act to amend and make more effectual the laws relating to rogues,
vagabonds, and other idle and disorderly persons, and to houses of
correction. </i>17 Geo. 2, c. 5, s. 2
(“all persons pretending to be gypsies, or wandering in the habit or form of
Egyptians, or pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like
crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or using any subtle craft to
deceive and impose on any of His Majesty’s subjects” shall be deemed rogues and
vagabonds) (spelling modernised)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">?1762: <i>Egyptians
Act</i> (unverified: repealed by <i>Statute
Law Revision Act 1871</i>?<i>)</i> (have not
obtained)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1807: Trial of Joseph Powell (vagrancy) (Perkins article)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">?1822: 3 Geo. 4 c. 40, s. 3 (“all persons pretending
to be gypsies; all persons pretending to tell fortunes, or using any subtle
craft, means or device, by palmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose on any
of His Majesty’s subjects” are to be deemed rogues and vagabonds) (repealed all
previous vagrancy legislation) (have not obtained)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1824: [<i>Vagrancy
Act</i>] <i>An Act for the Punishment of
idle and disorderly Persons, and Rogues and Vagabonds, in that Part of Great Britain
called England,</i> 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 4 (verified: repealed all previous
vagrancy legislation) (“Every person pretending or professing to tell fortunes,
or using any subtle craft, means or device, by palmistry or otherwise, to
deceive and impose on any of His Majesty’s subjects . . . shall be deemed a
rogue and a vagabond.” Penalty: hard
labor for three months) [verified repeal by <i>Fraudulent Mediums Act, 1951]</i><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1868: <i>Lyon v. Home </i>(common law undue influence on gifts)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1876: Henry Slade (Vagrancy Act 1824) (unreported,
in Hayward)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1877: <i>Monck
v. Hilton</i> (Vagrancy Act 1824)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1887: <i>Penny
v. Hanson</i> (Vagrancy Act 1824)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1895: <i>Lee or
Smith v. Neilson</i> (Vagrancy Act 1824)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1899: <i>Regina v. Entwistle</i> (Vagrancy Act 1824)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1904: <i>R v. Stephenson</i> (Witchcraft Act 1735<i>)</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1918: <i>Davis v Curry </i>(Vagrancy Act 1824)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1921: <i>Stonehouse
v. Masson</i> (Vagrancy Act 1824)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1939: Bessy Birch (Witchcraft Act
1735) (unreported, in Hayward)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1944: <i>Rex v.
Duncan (</i>Witchcraft Act 1735)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1948: <i>Farmer
v. Mill</i> (Vagrancy Act 1824)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1950: Charles Botham (Witchcraft Act 1735)
(unreported, in Hayward)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">1951: <i>Fraudulent
Mediums Act 1951</i> “any person who (a)
with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to
exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or (b)
in purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise such powers as
aforesaid, uses any fraudulent device, shall be guilty of an offence. (2) A
person shall not be convicted of an offence under the foregoing subsection
unless it is proved that he acted for reward; and for the purposes of this
section a person shall be deemed to act for reward if any money is paid, or
other valuable thing given, in respect of what he does, whether to him or to
any other person.” (Penalty: summary conviction: fine up to fifty pounds
and/or imprisonment upon to four months; conviction on indictment: fine up to
500 pounds and/or imprisonment up to two years)
(verified repealed by <i>Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008</i>)</span><br />
<span lang="EN-AU" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: white; font-family: times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: black;">1981: R. v. Martin (<i>Vagrancy Act, 1824)</i></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-AU" style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="background-color: black; color: white; font-size: large;">2008:
<i>Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008</i> (general consumer protection statute against
fraudulent or misleading behaviour)</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-19166096016740999112015-06-28T08:07:00.002-04:002015-06-28T08:07:34.126-04:00Posting HiatusI think the time has come to say that this blog probably won't be updated further, except for occasional special postings about publications and so forth. One only has to look at the yearly list to see that the number of posts have steadily declined on this blog since it began five years ago. Unfortunately, a blog that I had plenty of time to update while a graduate student has become quite hard to maintain now that I work full time, and I'm trying to put the energy of reading and writing about law and religion issues into publishable formats (articles and books) rather than blog posts. Still, I'm happy with the content of the posts and the number of hits they received, so everything will stay in its current place. For those of you who have been reading along, many thanks!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-80843740247756202382015-02-22T19:04:00.000-05:002015-02-22T19:04:03.928-05:00Two Discussions of my WorkMuch has been happening on the front of anti-blasphemy law campaigning in recent months, and it's very exciting. I'm also very far behind on blogging! For now, links to a couple of articles on abolishing Canada's blasphemy laws that include a discussion of my work:<br />
<br />
Jacob Gershman, "Charlie Hebdo Attack Spurs Effort to Abolish Canada's Blasphemy Law" <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-attack-spurs-effort-to-abolish-canadas-blasphemy-law/">Wall Street Journal LawBlog</a> (Jan. 8, 2015).<br />
<br />
Thomas Walkom, "Canadian Blasphemy Trial a Warning Against Smugness" <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/16/canadian-blasphemy-trial-a-warning-against-smugness-walkom.html">Toronto Star</a> (Jan. 16, 2015).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-78588184167915632052014-11-06T19:04:00.002-05:002014-11-06T19:04:51.979-05:00Christian Couple Burned Alive by Mob in Pakistan After Alleged Desecration of Koran<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/05/world/asia/pakistan-couple-slain/index.html?hpt=hp_c2">CNN</a> reports that a Christian couple in Pakistan were surrounded by a mob, beaten, and then thrown alive into a nearby kiln to die. The mob formed after rumors spread that the couple had desecrated the Koran, which led to announcements through mosque loudspeakers. No evidence has been found that a Koran was desecrated. Police have arrested 40 in connection with the murders.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-44348722228574630382014-11-06T18:59:00.001-05:002014-11-06T18:59:21.126-05:00Pussy Riot Member Fails in AppealA member of the punk band Pussy Riot has had her appeal turned down by Russia's Constitutional Court, according to <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/conviction-of-pussy-riot-band-member.html">Religion Clause Blog</a>. Nadezhda Tolonnikova had earlier been convicted of disorderly conduct after a performance at a cathedral in Moscow. She had appealed to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the conviction violated her freedom of expression, placed the internal rules of religious groups ahead of public law principles, and more.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-6743113361235436342014-11-06T18:54:00.000-05:002014-11-06T18:54:00.071-05:00Ireland to Have Referendum on Removing Blasphemy Prohibition from ConstitutionAccording to <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/ireland-will-have-vote-on-removing.html">Religion Clause Blog</a>, the government of Ireland has agreed to hold a referendum on the question of whether the Irish Constitution's prohibition on blasphemy should be removed. No date has been set for the referendum, nor is it known whether the blasphemy prohibition will be replaced with a prohibition on religious hatred.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-60838441487365294452014-11-06T18:50:00.001-05:002014-11-06T18:50:45.496-05:00Professor of Islamic Studies Assassinated Over Blasphemy Allegations in PakistanIn the continuation of a long-going trend in Pakistan, assassins have murdered an individual accused of blasphemy. Last month, the <a href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/jp/islamic-studies-professor-accused-of-blasphemy-is-assassinated-in-pakistan">Chronicle of Higher Education</a> reported that Muhammad Shakil Auj, Dean of Islamic Studies at a university in Karachi, was murdered by unidentified gunmen. Auj was known as moderate in his views, and had previously reported being accused of blasphemy by co-workers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-45429427271961951162014-07-28T20:27:00.004-04:002014-07-28T20:27:39.132-04:00Egyptian Teacher Gets 6 Month Sentence for Alleged Insults to Islam<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/egyptian-appeals-court-imposes-jail.html">Religion Clause</a> has a post about a Coptic Christian elementary school teacher in Egypt who was sentenced to six months in jail for allegedly insulting Mohammed by saying that a late Coptic Pope was better than him. An appeal is likely.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-6020969280842611802014-06-25T21:09:00.001-04:002014-06-25T21:09:54.118-04:00Who's Winning: Freedom of Religion or Theocracy?<i>Below is a column submitted to newspapers based upon my article <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2077274">Religion and New Constitutions: Recent Trends of Harmony and Divergence</a>:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><b>Who’s Winning: Freedom of Religion
or Theocracy?</b></span></i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">In
historical perspective, the spread of freedom of religion over the past century
is frankly startling. Country after
country has embraced constitutionalism, usually with a full bill of rights
attached. The UN Declaration of Human
Rights and other international agreements have continued and accelerated this
trend. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Yet, every
trend can give rise to resistance. It
should be no surprise that religious fundamentalism is on the rise in many
countries with the goal of explicitly aligning church and state. Fundamentalism is not limited to any one
faith, although Islamist movements have received the most media attention. The formal recognition of Islam in the new constitutions
of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, dismayed many who assumed that Western
influence would lead to officially secular governments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Where then
does the world stand? Is freedom of
religion still on the rise or has theocracy turned back the tide? As Larry Catá Backer phrases it, “is there
now arising a theocratic constitutionalism in opposition to and competing with
conventional constitutionalism for a place as one set, or the supreme set, of
organizing principles for states?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">There are
many ways to answer this question. A
common method in the scholarly literature is primarily anecdotal in nature and
involves a discussion of one or more prominent examples including Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt. This
method usefully provides extensive detail on the history and textual provisions
of particular constitutions; however, because it is anecdotal in nature, it is
dangerous to generalize global trends from such a small sample of data.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">In a recent
article in the <i>McGeorge Law Review</i>, I
approached the issue through another method: studying every new constitution
adopted by a country around the world since the year 2000. The study sorted
references to religion in new constitutions in the following ways: Preambular
or Ceremonial; Establishment of Religion; Religious Freedom; Separation of
Religion and State; Equal Protection of Religion. Most constitutions had references in multiple
categories. By examining how each
constitution dealt with the topic of religion, I was able to reach some
tentative conclusions about the freedom versus theocracy question. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">The results
are fascinating. Of the forty new constitutions
studied, all but two included an explicit guarantee of religious freedom. All but five guaranteed non-discrimination on
the basis of religion. Perhaps most
surprisingly, over half included a provision directly separating church and state
or designating the government as “secular.”
Countries as diverse as Hungary, Niger, and Ecuador included
anti-establishment provisions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">In
contrast, although many constitutions included religious references in
preambles and other symbolic provisions, only eleven of the forty erected an
official state religion. The majority of
these were predominantly Islamic countries (Iraq and Afghanistan included), but
two were Buddhist establishments (Thailand and Bhutan) and one country
established multiple religions (Myanmar).
However, nine of those eleven constitutions with establishment
provisions simultaneously guaranteed religious freedom. How that conjunction works in practice is an
interesting question that would require further, country-by-country research.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Formal
constitutions aren’t everything, of course, and should never be taken as a
substitute for the “on-the-ground” political reality in a particular country. The surge of ISIS in Iraq is a good example. As one indicator of global trends, however,
the fact that most drafters of new constitutions chose to embrace freedom of
religion and secularism over establishment should be encouraging to those of us
who believe in the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">Jeremy Patrick is a Lecturer in the
University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-50001276200591699712014-06-24T00:13:00.001-04:002014-06-24T00:13:51.059-04:00Reflections on Williams II<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The High
Court’s recent decision in the second <i>Williams</i>
case is widely seen as a defeat for the Commonwealth. The Court invalidated, for the second time,
the federal government’s school chaplaincy program. As many predicted at the time it was passed (just
days after the first <i>Williams</i>
decision was handed down), Parliament’s 2012 emergency legislation, the <i>Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act</i>
(FFLAA), was not enough to save the program.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In perhaps
the most important respect, however, the Commonwealth won as it lost. The High Court focused with laser-beam like
precision on the chaplaincy aspect of the legislation and did not invalidate
any other aspect of the FFLAA. That
means the 400+ other programs supported by it remain valid unless and until an
individual plaintiff with standing challenges, one at a time, the
constitutionality of the programs. The
Commonwealth would likely succeed on defending many of those programs given the
High Court’s relatively liberal interpretation of the heads of legislative
power in the Constitution; and even those programs that probably are not
constitutional will not actually be struck down due to the lack of a
challenge. If one looks at the
Commonwealth’s actions from a cynical perspective, the always-dubious emergency
legislation bought two more years of chaplaincy and the potential for the vast
majority of its other programs to remain in operation even if theoretically
unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The simple
truth is that the “loser pays” system in Australia makes it extremely rare for
individuals to bring constitutional claims: the risk of owing tens or hundreds
of thousands of dollars in legal fees is often too much for anyone besides
unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to take. Citizen-activists like Ronald Williams (and,
earlier, Bryan Pape) are thus the exception.
They should be applauded for their courage and willingness to further a
vision of what the Constitution demands, even if we may disagree with them on
the legal or political merits of their challenges. In an ideal world, the High Court would make
it easier for citizen-activists to bring constitutional claims by relaxing
strict rules of standing and Parliament would encourage these attempts to
enforce the rule of law by legislating, as the U.S. does in civil rights
claims, that a non-vexatious plaintiff will never pay the government’s legal
costs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">What will
happen to chaplaincy itself? As the High
Court has stated that there is no plausible head of power to support it, no
future federal legislation can directly fund it. The possibility often floated is for the
Commonwealth to use the Section 96 grants power to channel money to the states
on the condition that they use that money for chaplaincy. At first glance this seems like an easy
workaround, but in truth it may create major complications and changes to how
the chaplaincy program functions. States
would gain the power to negotiate over the terms, and it would be State
administrative bureaucracies overseeing the spending. Some states traditionally hostile to
chaplaincy, like New South Wales, might refuse the money altogether. Others might insist, despite the current
federal government’s wishes, that the money be available for both religious and
secular chaplains. Perhaps one of the
most intriguing possibilities is that state agencies could bypass the evangelical
chaplaincy service providers that have gained an effective monopoly in states
like Queensland. If this occurs, the
proportion of chaplains who are Christian (currently 99.5%) could become closer
to that of the Australian population (61%); a clear win for religious diversity
and pluralism in Australia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The long-term effects of
the <i>Williams</i> pair of cases remain to
be seen. Although it is clear that most
forms of executive spending require independent legislative support, the
precise scope of this general rule remains unclear and the government is sure
to test it through a variety of clever schemes.
The disparity in reasoning in <i>Williams
I</i> itself is problematic in understanding the boundaries imposed on
executive spending: for example, much was made in that case on the role of the
Senate and deliberative democracy, but all of that discussion vanished completely in <i>Williams II</i>. To my mind, the
only safe bet is that the <i>Williams</i>
cases will linger over Commonwealth spending like a dark and cryptic shadow for
years to come.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-17571762525597496572014-06-12T20:30:00.001-04:002014-06-12T20:30:34.383-04:00Satanic "Black Mass" Stirs Controversy at Harvard<a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/05/25/harvards_black_mass_fiasco_a_squandered_opportunity_for_debate_partner/">Salon</a> had a good commentary a few weeks ago on the controversy that erupted when the <a href="http://www.thesatanictemple.com/">Satanic Temple</a>, a national organization, planned to perform a historical re-enactment of a "Black Mass" to one of Harvard Extension School's student clubs. According to organizers, the event was intended to include an educational lecture on historical views on Satanism and the intentional use of blasphemy to resist dominant religions. After a public outcry that included condemnation by Harvard's president and protests by Catholic organizations, the event was moved off-campus due to concerns that the venue could not hold everyone who planned to attend.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-61924806871588289482014-06-12T20:12:00.003-04:002014-06-12T20:12:59.717-04:00Ahmadis, Vigilante Justice, and Blasphemy in PakistanOn May 16th of this year, <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com.au/">Religion Clause Blog</a> had a post that provides yet another example of vigilante justice and the problems faced by the minority Ahmadi faith in Pakistan. After some Ahamadis asked a shopkeeper to remove a sticker that they felt was offensive to their religion, the shopkeeper had them arrested for blasphemy. A teenage boy then entered the police station and shot one of them dead.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-82252445372441090522014-06-12T20:09:00.002-04:002014-06-12T20:09:48.499-04:00Tattoo of Buddha Gets British Tourist Deported from Sri LankaCatching up on some older stories today. In April, <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com.au/">Religion Clause Blog</a> had a post about a British tourist who was deported from Sri Lanka because she had a tattoo of Buddha on her arm and was "hurting the religious feelings" of those who saw it, including two taxi drivers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-605632730829863382014-04-30T20:09:00.003-04:002014-04-30T20:09:36.292-04:00Ontario Allows Students to Opt Out of All Religious Activities in Catholic SchoolsAn interesting column in the <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/04/09/ontario_catholic_schools_grapple_with_courts_noreligion_ruling_walkom.html">Toronto Star</a> last week discussed the recent ruling by an Ontario trial court that a student attending a publicly-funded Catholic school could opt out of <i>all</i> religious activities. The ruling was based on an interpretation of the province's <i>Education Act</i>. The school argued that the student should be required to attend Catholic services held in the school's auditorium and other religious activities, even as it reluctantly allowed the student to opt out of religious instruction courses. The case is an important one for the future of publicly-funded Catholic schools in Ontario, which have long been a site of controversy. The judgement will presumably be appealed.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-29407407826547627032014-04-30T19:59:00.003-04:002014-04-30T19:59:49.035-04:00Death Sentence for "Blasphemous" Christian Couple in PakistanPakistan continues to be a hotbed of blasphemy prosecutions. A few weeks ago, <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/christian-couple-sentenced-to-death-for.html">Religion Clause Blog</a> posted about a Christian couple charged with sending blasphemous text messages. The couple were convicted and sentenced to death, even though they asserted that the phone the texts were sent from had been missing for a month and that the texts were written in a language they could not speak or write. An appeal is planned.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-64084807340669333232014-04-17T01:08:00.001-04:002014-04-17T01:08:41.449-04:00Is Section 116 a "right" or merely a "limitation on . . . legislative power"?I wrote the following as a footnote to a paper on witchcraft, fortune-telling, and what I call "the new spirituality." After the footnote got longer and longer, I realised I needed to excise it and change the text to avoid the dispute entirely. Still, I think it's an important topic and one I hope to revisit in the future.<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
One can quibble about whether Section 116, the Australian Constitution’s provision regarding religious freedom, should be labelled a “right.” See, e.g., Kruger v. Commonwealth, (1997) 190 CLR 1, 124-25 (per Gaudron, J.) (“It makes no sense to speak of a constitutional right to religious freedom in a context in which the Constitution clearly postulates that the States may enact laws in derogation of that right. It follows, in my view, that s. 116 must be construed as no more than a limitation on Commonwealth legislative power . . . it cannot be construed as impliedly conferring an independent or free-standing right”). However, styling Section 116’s religious freedom guarantee as a “limitation on . . . legislative power” rather than a “right” is illogical. The wording of Section 116 (“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for . . . prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”) and the wording of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) are both expressed as direct restraints on legislative power, but the latter has always been understood to confer an individual right to relief. Further, Justice Gaudron’s reference to Section 116 not restraining the States is irrelevant to whether Section 116 is a “right” or not; rights always prohibit some actors from doing something, but not other actors from doing the same thing. The First Amendment was held not to restrict state action until the twentieth century; the rights in American state constitutions do not limit the Federal government; domestic constitutional rights instruments rarely, if ever, provide relief against the actions of foreign governments; few rights documents (the Quebec Charter excepted) provide claims for relief from non-governmental actors at all. In Australia, as in every jurisdiction that has the equivalent of a “standing” doctrine, a claim for relief will always be brought by a particular organisation or association who asserts that its religious beliefs or actions have been burdened. It thus makes little sense to talk about a restraint on interference with the free exercise of religion in the absence of an acknowledgement that without individuals (and the associations) they form, there is no exercise of religion to be prohibited in the first place. Indeed, styling a constitutional provision as a “right” versus a “legislative prohibition” likely goes more to what remedy should be made (invalidation of a statute or a “constitutional exception”) than whether a claim for relief should be allowed at all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-26580973294071983712014-04-09T20:32:00.004-04:002014-04-09T20:32:51.025-04:00"The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality"<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYUeoi4xbozbIVK0jpF4nR0g9i6m15OQO9jgxkHDvq_sQHD5B2_8Dge9TfIu371T5jCKCpbSmj6VOSPYRiF1q6wFF97duZcRsuDKd3wSTSMo0KxFt-HZ1I5aH8A3LGEIYEqzejXL9Mb2Q/s1600/Spiritual+Revolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYUeoi4xbozbIVK0jpF4nR0g9i6m15OQO9jgxkHDvq_sQHD5B2_8Dge9TfIu371T5jCKCpbSmj6VOSPYRiF1q6wFF97duZcRsuDKd3wSTSMo0KxFt-HZ1I5aH8A3LGEIYEqzejXL9Mb2Q/s1600/Spiritual+Revolution.jpg" /></a>Paul Heelas & Linda Woodhead, <i style="font-weight: bold;">The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality</i> (Blackwell, 2005).<br />
<br />
This is a very interesting book, written by scholars of religion, on the topic of whether traditional religion is giving way to those who consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (known as SBNRs in the literature). SBNRs, often associated with the New Age movement, might associate with a stunningly wide-variety of practices and beliefs: yoga, crystal magic, homeopathy, tarot, holistic medicine, and more. As Heelas & Woodhead note, "Even a cursory glance around the local bookshop or a stroll around the shopping centre leaves little doubt that Christianity has a new competitor in 'the spiritual marketplace'" (p. 1)<br />
<br />
Helpfully, Heelas & Woodhead fit the rise of SBNRs into a broader social context: that of the rise of subjectivism in general. Subjectivism is a turn towards individualism, and "has to do with states of mind, memories, emotions, passions, sensations, bodily experiences, dreams, feelings, inner conscience, and sentiments" (p. 4). The rise of subjectivism can be noted in everything from self-help books to motivational speakers and more, and has a key element that "[t]he subjectivities of each individual become a, if not the, unique source of significance, meaning and authority". (p. 4) The authors contrast this "subjective-life" with "life-as" culture, which emphasizes external authority, hierarchy, and role-recognition. Traditional religion is strongly related to "life-as" culture, whilst the new move towards spirituality is strongly related to "subjective-life" culture.<br />
<br />
In order to gauge the relative strength and future trends of traditional religion versus the new spirituality, Heelas & Woodhead study what they call the "congregational domain" (traditional religion) versus the "holistic milieu" (SBNRs) in a single small English town (Kendal) of about 27,000 people. Through an extensive, multiyear project, the authors and their team of researchers gauged the extent of activities taking place in the congregational domain and the holistic milieu. They reached some very interesting conclusions. First, and contrary to my own perception, they found very little overlap between participants in the two areas: only 4% of participants in the congregational domain also participated in the holistic milieu (p. 31-32), and only 16% of persons active in the holistic milieu were regular churchgoers (p. 48 n.10). I found this surprising based on other material I've read which argues that a "cafeteria" spirituality is common, where many people, including regular churchgoers, have picked from the menu of New Age beliefs. "In Kendal at least, such a post-modern condition is scarcely in evidence. Instead, the congregational domain and holistic milieu constitute two largely separate and distinct worlds." (p. 32) Second, the authors were able to assess the regular strength of each area: they found that participants in the congregational domain outnumbered those in the holistic milieu by about 5-1. No overwhelming "spiritual revolution" has taken place yet. Third, however, they found that trends clearly favour the holistic milieu--not only has there been a dramatic rise in the area in just the past few decades, but there has been a slow but gradual decline in the congregational domain. Further, the holistic milieu has gained extensive visibility in general culture, as seen by books, classes at gyms, newspaper columns, etc. It's quite conceivable that in just a few decades, participants in the holistic milieu will exceed those in the congregational domain.<br />
<br />
There's a lot of other good material in the book, and I highly recommend it. The law review article I'm working on now is about what the rise of the "holistic milieu" means for our understanding of religious freedom.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-48662067297258042902014-04-07T20:06:00.000-04:002014-04-07T20:06:08.802-04:00"Noah" Banned as BlasphemousCatching up on some old news, <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-high-budget-noah-movie-banned-by.html">Religion Clause Blog</a> has a brief post about the recent movie <i>Noah</i> being banned in Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates for offending Islam.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-79336728918553103502014-03-25T20:03:00.000-04:002014-03-25T20:03:02.046-04:00Comic Book Banned in MalaysiaA story combining two of my favourite things: comic books and blasphemy! The always-useful <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2014/03/malaysia-bans-comic-book-that-refers-to.html">Religion Clause Blog</a> reports that Malaysia has banned an issue of a comic book titled "Ultraman the Ultra Power" (a title I've never heard of) because of a line connecting the titular super hero to Allah. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-5891103014059830522014-03-25T19:54:00.002-04:002014-03-25T19:54:51.394-04:00Forthcoming Article in University of Queensland Law JournalI'm happy to report that the <a href="http://www.law.uq.edu.au/uqlj">University of Queensland Law Journal</a> will publish my article <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2344599"><i>Religion, Secularism, and the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program</i></a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-50115718731248039412014-03-12T20:24:00.001-04:002014-03-12T20:24:50.341-04:00"To Ban or Not to Ban Blasphemous Videos"<b>Evelyn M. Aswad, <i>To Ban or Not to Ban Blasphemous Videos</i>, 44 Georgetown Journal of International Law 1313 (2013).</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNUfzE1AlKG0KPbXMgdOVJj0URhgm6sIcQ_vlgn5WV-sYFULhiBGJz3EP_8jPGUou7fMT76VvogqfYXvoNtNxUP3vtdem4_K3arbF3AdxcBraSgi7hy2dUZ8w7PeiSKMByelGvKhj77sU/s1600/Georgetown+Journal+of+International+Law.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNUfzE1AlKG0KPbXMgdOVJj0URhgm6sIcQ_vlgn5WV-sYFULhiBGJz3EP_8jPGUou7fMT76VvogqfYXvoNtNxUP3vtdem4_K3arbF3AdxcBraSgi7hy2dUZ8w7PeiSKMByelGvKhj77sU/s1600/Georgetown+Journal+of+International+Law.jpg" /></a>This article discusses the worldwide outcry over the <i>Innocence of Muslims </i>video and the calls by many outside (and some inside) the United States to ban it. Aswad's goal, specifically, is to examine the <i>International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</i> (to which the U.S. is a signatory) to determine whether that document requires members to suppress material like the video. The key provision at issue is Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, which states that "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." The U.S. filed a reservation to this section when it signed the ICCPR, stating that it would not suppress material protected by the First Amendment. <br />
<br />
To my mind, this answers the question of any legal obligation the U.S. might have at international law, but Aswad takes the analysis a step further and argues that, even without a reservation, the Convention does not require suppression. Through a textual analysis of the provision, she argues that Article 20(2) is focussed on <i>advocacy</i> of religious hatred that constitutes incitement, and that "[i]t would not constitute 'advocacy' for a speaker adhering to religion X to simply criticize, question, mischaracterize or ridicule religion Y without the intent to promote hatred against members of religion Y." (p. 1319) Thus, in order for Article 20(2) to require the suppression of the <i>Innocence of Muslims</i> video, Aswad concludes that evidence would have to be adduced that its maker had<br />
the intent of promoting hatred towards Muslims. Further, she argues that the use of the word "incitement" in Article 20(2) is rather vague, as it does not disclose the degree of proximity needed between the act in question and the result which the section hopes to prevent (p. 1319-20).<br />
<br />
Another interesting aspect of this short paper is a summary of the drafting history of Article 20. Aswad concludes that "the point of Article 20(2) was to prohibit expression where the speaker intended for his or her speech to cause hate in listeners who would agree with the hateful message and therefore engage in harmful acts toward the targeted group. There is no indication in the negotiating history that Article 20 was intended to prohibit speech about a targeted group that would offend the feelings of members of that group." (p. 1322).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43380926053130234.post-76354473393793707972014-03-04T18:48:00.000-05:002014-03-04T18:48:06.500-05:00Scooped: Two New Articles on Fortune-Telling and Religious FreedomTwo new articles on fortune-telling and religious freedom have appeared on SSRN (thanks to Religion Clause Blog for the pointer. First, Nicole Jones has written <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2395415">Did Fortune Tellers See this Coming? Spiritual Counseling, Professional Speech, and the First Amendment</a>. Second, Mark Movsesian has written <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2399470">Defining Religion in American Law: Psychic Sophie and the Rise of the Nones</a>.<br />
<br />
These comes as I'm in the middle of writing my own article on fortune-telling, witchcraft, and religious freedom, so in some ways I've been scooped. But I plan to continue forward, as I've been collecting materials on the topic for several years and I'm sure my article will take a different approach than these two (in part, because I'll be incorporating Canadian and Australian materials). I've decided to finish my first draft and then read the new articles and discuss them in a new section.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1