neilfoster

Wedding Venue Owners Fined for Declining Same Sex Wedding

In the latest in what seems like a long series of religious freedom cases involving Christian small business owners in the “wedding industry”, a New York couple, the Giffords, have been fined $13,000 for declining to make their venue available for a same sex wedding ceremony, and a New York State appeal court has now upheld the verdict: see Gifford v McCarthy (NY Sup Ct Appellate Divn, 3rd Dept; 14 Jan 2016; matter no 520410) (the case is also referred to as Gifford v Erwin).

Facts of the case

The Giffords run Liberty Farm in Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County. A large barn has been used as a venue for weddings, where they provide all the services needed except a celebrant. As reported by the Gifford’s lawyers, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF):

On Sept. 25, 2012, Melisa McCarthy called Cynthia, inquiring about the use of the farm for her upcoming same-sex ceremony. Because of her Christian faith’s teachings on marriage, Cynthia politely made it clear to McCarthy that she and her husband don’t host and coordinate same-sex ceremonies but left open the invitation to visit the farm to consider it as a potential reception site. Instead, McCarthy and her partner filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights. After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination,” it fined them $10,000 plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage.

A New York statute, the Human Rights Law, declares it to be an “unlawful discriminatory practice” for any “owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, because of the . . . sexual orientation . . . of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof” (Executive Law § 296 [2] [a]).

Was the booking declined on the basis of sexual orientation?

The Giffords argued that they had not declined the booking “because of the sexual orientation” of the parties, but because as Christians they could not support the celebration of a same sex “marriage”, believing it to be contrary to God’s word in the Bible. In other words, their refusal was on the basis of the message of celebration that would be conveyed by the event, in which they would have to be intimately involved as hosts of the venue.

The ADF draw a helpful analogy to a different set of facts. As they note, the

law does not require the Giffords to coordinate or host every event that a person…requests. For example, if the infamous Westboro Baptist group asked the Giffords to host an event that would express their false message that God hates people in same-sex relationships, the Giffords would not be discriminating based on religion if they declined the event because they did not want to host expression that violates their belief that God loves everyone…. The statute does not require that they treat all messages equal.

Note that this case, like others of its nature, is not about a right to decline to provide services to gay people because of some form of unreasoned hatred. Instead, the question of whether a service provider whose work is essentially artistic and creative, should be required to use their skills to provide support for, and celebration of, a message that they find clashes with their deep religious commitments.

But the court rejected this argument. Peters PJ, with whom the other judges concurred, said (at pp 6-7):

Such attempts to distinguish between a protected status and conduct closely correlated with that status have been soundly rejected (see Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of the Law v Martinez, 561 US 661, 689 [2010]; Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 575 [2003]; Bob Jones Univ. v United States, 461 US 574, 605 [1983]). The act of entering into a same-sex marriage is “conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation” and, for purposes of the Human Rights Law, we hold that there is “no basis for distinguishing between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on someone’s conduct of publicly committing to a person of the same sex” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d 53, 62 [Sup Ct NM 2013], cert denied ___ US ___, 134 S Ct 1787 [2014]; accord Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., ___ P3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 4760453, *6, 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *15-18 [2015]). Accordingly, petitioners discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation when they refused to host the McCarthys’ wedding on the premises. (emphasis added)

Readers of past blog posts here will recall some of these cases. In a general post on the “wedding industry” cases I mentioned the Elane Photography decision cited above, which was one of the first where a State Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a Christian wedding business (there a photographer) was guilty of sexual orientation discrimination by declining to offer their services to a same sex wedding. In that post I mentioned the decision in State of Washington v Arlene’s Flowers Inc, Ingersoll & Freed v Arlene’s Flowers Inc (Ekstrom J, Nos 13-2-00871-5, 13-2-00953-3; 18 Feb 2015), involving a florist. The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision noted above involved refusal to create a wedding cake celebrating a same sex marriage, as did the decision in  Re Klein dba Sweetcakes by Melissa and anor (Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, State of Oregon; Case Nos 44-14, 45-14; 21 April 2015) mentioned in this post. Outside the US, in Northern Ireland the Ashers Bakery case mentioned in this post is still before the courts- an appeal is to be heard from February 3.

A common theme in all these decisions is the view that a decision not to provide artistic and creative support for a same sex wedding must amount to discrimination against the persons involved on the basis of their sexual orientation. This is a view which I have suggested is wrong, and in a previous post about an Australian decision, “Sexual orientation and sexual behaviour: can they be distinguished?” I noted that there is at least one court ruling that supports my view. In Bunning v Centacare[2015] FCCA 280 (11 February 2015) the judge commented at para [39] that

“sexual orientation”, as the term is used in s. 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), covers only that which it expressly covers, i.e., the state of being. It does not cover behaviours.

I have also noted previously one US decision recognising the difference, in  Hands on Originals, Inc v Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission (Fayette Circuit Court, Civil Branch, 3rd Div, Ky; Civil Action No 14-CI-04474; James D Ishmael Jr, J; 27 April 2015), where a T-shirt printer escaped liability for declining to print a shirt with a message supporting “gay pride”.

The forthcoming Ashers Bakery case may provide the best opportunity for a superior court to clearly distinguish between support for a “message” and discrimination against a person themselves; the cake in that case was not going to be used at a wedding, but simply as a political statement, and may provide a good chance for the appeal court to stress the distinction between these things.

A religious freedom defence?

To return to the Gifford decision, having found the act of declining to offer their premises amounted to sexual orientation discrimination, the court went on to consider whether the Giffords, whose reason for not wanting to make the premises available related to their religious commitments about the nature of marriage, could rely on a defence based on religious freedom.

Unfortunately the discussion of this point followed the pattern familiar from most of the previous decisions. A claim that the discrimination law amounted to a breach of the Gifford’s “free exercise of religion” guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, was rejected on the basis of the currently accepted Supreme Court orthodoxy of Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v Smith, 494 US 872, 879 (1990), holding that:

a generally applicable and otherwise valid enactment, which is not intended to regulate religious conduct or beliefs but which may incidentally burden the free exercise of religion, is not deemed to violate the First Amendment (quoted at p 8 of Gifford)

The local New York version of “free exercise” was held to require a “balancing” of interests, and given the “strong” protection against discrimination under NY law, the court found that the interests of the Giffords were not strong enough. They retained the right to “believe” what they will! A generous concession, but not of course what religious freedom calls for. “SDHR’s determination does not require them to participate in the marriage of a same-sex couple”, Peters PJ said; though since their normal practice was to be heavily involved in all aspects of the ceremony and reception except for the actual celebration, her Honour does not quite explain how this was supposed to work.

A free speech defence?

The court also briefly addressed a “free speech” argument derived from the other limb of the First Amendment, the Giffords having argued that compelling them to host and organise a same sex wedding required them to impliedly assert their support for the institution. As the court summarised their point (at p 10):

petitioners maintain that wedding ceremonies are “inherently expressive event[s]” and that, by hosting a same-sex ceremony on the farm, the Giffords would effectively be communicating and endorsing messages about marriage that are antithetical to their religious views on the issue.

An argument I think that has a lot of weight. Clearly the very point of a wedding ceremony is the “celebration” (in the broad sense) of the relationship by the guests. But according to Peter PJ (at pp 10-11):

reasonable observers would not perceive the Giffords’ provision of a venue and services for a same-sex wedding ceremony as an endorsement of same-sex marriage…the conduct allegedly compelled is not sufficiently expressive so as to trigger First Amendment protections.

What “reasonable observers” would perceive does not seem to have been the subject of evidence; the court presumably takes “judicial notice” of the perceptions of “reasonable” members of the New York public in the relevant part of the State.

How might the matter be decided in Australia?

Interestingly there have been no reported cases of this sort arising in Australia yet. In theory such a case might be brought. There are laws at both State and Federal levels prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in provision of services, and the balancing provisions explicitly recognising religious freedom interests are mostly confined to “religious organisations” such as churches and church schools, and do not directly extend to believers conducting a small business generally.

In fact there is one major Australian decision dealing with a somewhat related issue, the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Christian Youth Camps Limited v Cobaw Community Health Services Limited [2014] VSCA 75 discussed here and in papers linked from that post. While that case involved the provision of camping services rather than wedding services, there are a number of similarities: the event in question was clearly conveying a message contrary to the religious beliefs of the business owner (the camp was avowedly about “normalising” homosexual activity), and the business owner was said (by the court) not to be a religious organisation. Sadly the same logic used in many of the US decisions noted above was adopted by the majority of the court: refusal of the booking on the basis of support for homosexuality was held to amount to discrimination against the persons involved. There was not even a plausible religious freedom argument involved, as in Australia the protection of s 116 of the Constitution only applies to Federal laws, not to State laws; and at the relevant time the Victorian Charter of Rights which includes at least a nominal religious freedom right was not in force.

Given the increased recognition in recent years of an implied “freedom of political speech” in the Commonwealth Constitution, it is possible that free speech arguments might be made. One could argue, for example, that the question of expressing support, or not, for the institution of same sex marriage is very much a hot “political” topic in Australia at the moment, and that a law which imposed expression of a particular view on the matter contravened the Constitutional prohibition on impairment of free speech on such matters. However, this is so far an untested area in Australia.

For reasons canvassed in my previous papers I believe the Cobaw decision was deeply flawed; unfortunately the High Court of Australia declined to consider its correctness when invited to do so. In my view if a “wedding industry” case were to arise in Australia the principles in Cobaw ought to be reconsidered, and the important value of religious freedom given much more weight than it has been so far, either in Australia or the United States.

neilfoster

Prohibiting Offensive Sermons

A recent decision in Northern Ireland, where an evangelical preacher was acquitted after being criminally charged in relation to a sermon attacking Islam, raises a number of important issues about free speech in a religious setting. 

Continue reading

neilfoster

2015 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog. Interesting to see how it has gone in the first year! Thanks to those who have been regular readers and referrers. I do plan to keep on posting in 2016.  All the best for the New Year!

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 24,000 times in 2015. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 9 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

neilfoster

Free speech and religious freedom even for ADF members

The Federal Court has recently handed down a very important decision on free speech, with connections to religious freedom, in Gaynor v Chief of the Defence Force (No 3) [2015] FCA 1370 (4 December 2015). It encouragingly reaffirms the right of Australians, including members of the Defence Force, to be able to speak their minds, even when their views are not popular.

The plaintiff, Major Bernard Gaynor, may be described as a “controversial” figure. He has a distinguished record of service in the Australian Regular Army (including time in Iraq and Afghanistan). In recent years he transferred to the Army Reserve and was promoted to Major in 2013. He has been a political candidate. He is also known for objecting to, among other things, support provided by the ADF to the Gay and Lesbian Mardis Gras, and for strong views on how Australia should deal with the threat of Islamic violent extremism.

Continue reading

neilfoster

Multiculturalism and Accommodation of Religious Difference: A Colloquium

My friend and colleague Professor Rex Ahdar from the University of Otago, NZ (and one of the common law world’s leading Law and Religion scholars) is organising a colloquium on “Multiculturalism and Accommodation of Religious Difference” to be held in QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND on Wednesday, 3 February 2016. More details and the official “call for papers” can be found here. To quote the handout:

Scholars in the areas of multiculturalism, pluralism, ethnic studies, demography, religious freedom, human rights and related disciplines are cordially invited to submit an abstract (maximum of 200 words) for a paper to be given at this colloquium of experts.

There is also limited space for participants who do not wish to present a paper, but who wish, nonetheless, to contribute to the lively discussion at this unique event under the auspices of the Faculty of Law, University of Otago

Should be a great day!

neilfoster

First they came for the Catholics…

The proposed action for sexual orientation vilification against a Roman Catholic bishop for teaching what the Roman Catholic church believes about marriage, which I noted at an early stage in a previous post, is now becoming broader.

I have an opinion piece today on the issues in the online version of Eternity, “Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission finds all Catholic Bishops might have a “case to answer”” (Nov 13, 2015). I had originally prepared these comments based on previous reports that the anti-discrimination claim was being made simply against Archbishop Julian Porteus, from Hobart, but I have now added a few additional remarks by way of introduction about the announcement today that the action is apparently now being taken against other Roman Catholic bishops around Australia. I encourage readers to click on the link to the Eternity article before reading the rest of this blog post.

For those who are interested in the legal background to whether a discrimination claim under one Australian State’s law can be enforced against people in another State, see Burns v Gaynor [2015] NSWCATAD 211 (14 Oct 2015), a case which raised related issues (in that it dealt with alleged “homosexual vilification” of a person who had not been named but was making a claim simply as someone of a homosexual orientation). There the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal held that a person who posted material on a computer in Queensland could not be held liable for a “public act” under NSW discrimination law. Similar logic would suggest that the Tasmanian law is intended to refer to conduct engaged in, in Tasmania, rather than outside that jurisdiction.

Continue reading

neilfoster

Legal rights of same sex couples and married couples: an “urban myth”?

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald , “It’s an urban myth that same-sex couples and married heterosexuals have equal legal rights” (Nov 8, 2015; Tracey Spicer) suggests that there are large gaps between the legal rights of same sex couples and those of married couple. It reports a sad sequence of events, where one member of a same sex couple committed suicide, and in the aftermath the funeral took place at the directions of the deceased person’s parents, rather than as their partner wished. The article goes on to use this set of events as an argument for recognition of same sex marriage.

The case used in the article, however, seems on closer investigation not to make this point. The claim that equality of legal relationships is an “urban myth” proves to be wrong. The Tasmanian legislation relevant to this case means that this gentleman, as a member of a same sex couple, had prior rights as next of kin which should already have been recognised as superior to those of the deceased person’s mother, even without being formally “married”.

Tasmania has a “registration” system for relationships already. If the couple were committed to each other in a long term relationship they could, of course, already have been registered. Their situation was in that respect similar to that of a heterosexual “de facto” couple who chose not to marry. But even without registration the law would give the remaining partner important rights.

Under the Tasmanian Coroners Act 1995 s 3A a “spouse” has seniority of rights as a “next of kin” over a parent. Under that Act “spouse” means “other party to a significant relationship, within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003″ (“RA 2003”). The RA 2003 s 4 says that a “significant relationship” can include a same sex couple, even if their relationship is not “registered” (though of course registration makes it easier to prove.)

So, what happened in this case? We don’t know from this report, which seems more concerned to make a political point than to be precise about the facts (and note at the end of the article, that the reporter’s trip to Tasmania was partly sponsored by the lobby group “Australian Marriage Equality”.) It may be that the relevant police or officials weren’t aware of the law, or it may be that this “spouse” didn’t make the situation clear. Some official may have behaved badly. But that happens all the time, sadly. As far as the law is concerned, no change in the law is needed to have given this gentleman seniority in “next of kin” arrangements.

The truth is that to call equality of general rights between same sex couples and married couples a “myth” is to denigrate the hard work done by those lobbying for protections for same sex couples over many decades. All Australian jurisdictions over the last 20 years have amended their laws to provide equality of legislative rights to same sex couples in almost all areas. The Commonwealth Parliament alone enacted a suite of such changes to over 80 laws in the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-General Law Reform) Act 2008 (Cth). There may be one or two minor areas where there is differential treatment in law, but this example from Tasmania does not seem to be one of them. It does not provide a convincing argument for changing the law of marriage.

neilfoster

Abortion “buffer zones”, free speech and religious freedom

Governments around Australia are showing a sudden enthusiasm for introducing restricted “zones” around clinics offering abortions, in order to prevent protestors from operating in those areas. Tasmania has introduced such legislation, in the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 (Tas), s 9. An “access zone” under that law is 150 metres around a clinic, and within that area “prohibited behaviour” is defined as follows:

(a) in relation to a person, besetting, harassing, intimidating, interfering with, threatening, hindering, obstructing or impeding that person; or

(b) a protest in relation to terminations that is able to be seen or heard by a person accessing, or attempting to access, premises at which terminations are provided; or

(c) footpath interference in relation to terminations; or

(d) intentionally recording, by any means, a person accessing or attempting to access premises at which terminations are provided without that person’s consent; or

(e) any other prescribed behaviour.

This is a very wide prohibition, covering not only violent or abusive behaviour (which of course would already be prohibited by the general law), but also making it unlawful to simply quietly hand out leaflets in a “protest” which can be said to be “in relation to” terminations, or indeed to wear a “protesting” T-shirt, however mild and inoffensive, while standing on the other side of the road from a clinic.

Similar legislation has also recently been enacted in the ACT, with the passage on 29 October 2015 through the Legislative Assembly of the Health (Patient Privacy) Amendment Act 2015 (ACT) (“HPPA”), although that legislation will apparently not commence for 6 months. In that case the “protected area” set out in s 86 of the amended Health Act 1993 is defined under s 86(2)(a) as 50 metres, which is at least somewhat more reasonable than the broad Tasmanian legislation. Under the HPPA amendments, however, the “prohibited behaviour” is even more extensively defined than in Tasmania:

prohibited behaviour, in a protected area around an approved medical facility, means any of the following:

(a) the harassment, hindering, intimidation, interference with, threatening or obstruction of a person, including by the capturing of visual data of the person, in the protected period that is intended to stop the person from—

(i)  entering the approved medical facility; or

(ii)  having or providing an abortion in the approved medical facility;

(b) an act that—

(i) can be seen or heard by anyone in the protected period; and

(ii) is intended to stop a person from—

(A) entering the approved medical facility; or

(B) having or providing an abortion in the approved medical facility; or

(c) a protest, by any means, in the protected period in relation to the provision of abortions in the approved medical facility.

Again, no violence or harassment in any verbal or physical sense need occur; anything that can be called a “protest”, or any “act” which is intended to discourage a person from having an abortion, is made unlawful.

Similar proposals have been mooted, though not yet enacted, in Victoria: see “Victoria to introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics“, SBS, 2 Sept 2015.

Of course the arguments in favour of protecting women who are visiting clinics to have an abortion, from undue harassment, are very powerful. Any such procedure is already incredibly stressful. If this were any other medical procedure, there would be very little reason to allow protests designed to discourage patients from attending, to take place outside medical offices . Protests could, of course, take place outside Parliament House (as proponents of these laws have urged.) This would all be persuasive if abortion were merely, as a recent editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia put it, just like “other medical procedures”. (See De Costa & Douglas, “Abortion Law in Australia: it’s time for national consistency and decriminalisation” (2 Nov 2015) 203/9 MJA 349-350, at 350).

But abortion is, with respect to those who think otherwise, not just another medical procedure. Many religious believers take the view that a human being, a person in the image of God, is present in the womb from the moment of conception. But agree with that view or not, there seems no doubt that, on purely objective biological grounds, what is present in the womb of a pregnant woman is a human life. A termination at the very least prevents that human life flourishing into a human being. However the operation is described, it is not “just another medical procedure”.

Those who wish to mount a quiet prayer vigil, or to offer counselling, outside abortion clinics do not do so, then, simply to “protest” the fact of the operation taking place, or because they believe the procedure is wrong and ought not to be carried out in the vast bulk of cases. They do so because they believe these things, but also because they believe that a human life is at stake in each procedure, and should be preserved.

Not all believers, even those who share the view that a full person is present from conception, take the view that vigils or “protests” outside abortion clinics are a wise or loving way to further the aim of stopping abortions. But some do. In general, our law places a strong value on the right of people to make public statements about their beliefs, where they are not directly attacking or threatening others. In addition, however, the law of Australia, and international law, protects religious freedom, and arguably not only the free speech rights of protestors, but also in many cases their religious freedom rights, are under threat from, or being impaired by, the “exclusion zone” laws.

I recently posted a guest blog by Professor Michael Quinlan on some of these issues, which summarised the approach in a recent US Supreme Court decision, McCullen et al v Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts et al 573 US (2014), which overturned as invalid a law forbidding protests within 35 feet of an abortion clinic. The US Supreme Court, of course, has a long history of reading the First Amendment “free speech” clause of the US Bill of Rights very broadly. I want to comment briefly here on how the laws mentioned above may be treated if challenged under Australian law.

Freedom of speech arguments

In light of the US decision, and others like it, the most obvious challenge to an Australian “protest-free zone” law would be under free speech principles. In this country, though, we do not have an explicit Constitutional free speech right. (It should be noted that in Victoria, where such a “protest-free zone” is now being proposed, there is a State-based “Charter of Rights” in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), section 15 of which protects “freedom of expression”. But the precise operation of this provision is still in some doubt- see, for example, the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Kerrison v Melbourne City Council [2014] FCAFC 130 (3 October 2014)- and since the broader Federal right is applicable across the whole of Australia, that is what will be considered here. It is ironical, however, that two of the three jurisdictions which have implemented or indicated an intention to implement these “exclusion zones”, Victoria and the ACT, are the two jurisdictions in Australia which contain explicit human rights protection, including protection of freedom of expression.)

(In an earlier version of this blog post I omitted to mention that s 48 of the Victorian Charter explicitly says that nothing in the Charter affects “any law applicable to abortion”. While it seems likely that the original purpose of this provision was to avoid the Charter being used to make arguments about the “right to life” of an unborn child, it is possible that a “protest free zone” law relating to abortion clinics may be regarded as “applicable to abortion” and hence immune from challenge under the Charter. But this would not prevent the arguments made here about freedom of speech under Commonwealth law from being applicable. Thanks to Professor Quinlan for bringing this to my attention.)

While we do not have explicit Federal free speech protection in Australia, then, we do have an “implied freedom of political communication” which was discerned to be an implication of the Constitution by the High Court in a series of decisions culminating in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25;  (1997) 189 CLR 520. The most recent decision on this implied freedom is McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34 (7 October 2015), where a majority of the Court (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ) spelled out the currently authoritative approach to dealing with these issues, in the following important (though lengthy) quote:

[2] …[T]he question whether an impugned law infringes the freedom requires application of the following propositions derived from previous decisions of this Court and particularly Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation[1] and Coleman v Power[2]:

A. The freedom under the Australian Constitution is a qualified limitation on legislative power implied in order to ensure that the people of the Commonwealth may “exercise a free and informed choice as electors.”[3] It is not an absolute freedom. It may be subject to legislative restrictions serving a legitimate purpose compatible with the system of representative government for which the Constitution provides, where the extent of the burden can be justified as suitable, necessary and adequate, having regard to the purpose of those restrictions.

B. The question whether a law exceeds the implied limitation depends upon the answers to the following questions, reflecting those propounded in Lange as modified in Coleman v Power:

(1) Does the law effectively burden the freedom in its terms, operation or effect?

If “no”, then the law does not exceed the implied limitation and the enquiry as to validity ends.

(2) If “yes” to question 1, are the purpose of the law and the means adopted to achieve that purpose legitimate, in the sense that they are compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government[4]? This question reflects what is referred to in these reasons as “compatibility testing”.

The answer to that question will be in the affirmative if the purpose of the law and the means adopted are identified and are compatible with the constitutionally prescribed system in the sense that they do not adversely impinge upon the functioning of the system of representative government.

If the answer to question 2 is “no”, then the law exceeds the implied limitation and the enquiry as to validity ends.

(3) If “yes” to question 2, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance that legitimate object[5]? This question involves what is referred to in these reasons as “proportionality testing” to determine whether the restriction which the provision imposes on the freedom is justified.

The proportionality test involves consideration of the extent of the burden effected by the impugned provision on the freedom. There are three stages to the test – these are the enquiries as to whether the law is justified as suitable, necessary and adequate in its balance in the following senses:

suitable — as having a rational connection to the purpose of the provision[6];

necessary — in the sense that there is no obvious and compelling alternative, reasonably practicable means of achieving the same purpose which has a less restrictive effect on the freedom;

adequate in its balance — a criterion requiring a value judgment, consistently with the limits of the judicial function, describing the balance between the importance of the purpose served by the restrictive measure and the extent of the restriction it imposes on the freedom.

If the measure does not meet these criteria of proportionality testing, then the answer to question 3 will be “no” and the measure will exceed the implied limitation on legislative power.

Clearly there are many decisions ahead which will need to clarify the precise operation of these tests. But we can start by asking the question whether a 150 metre “exclusion zone” around abortion clinics is compatible with this implied limitation on the legislative power of Australian Parliaments (such as the Parliament of Tasmania).

  1. Does the law burden “political speech”? It seems fairly clear that it does. The topic of abortion is certainly a public policy issue of great contention in Australia, and from time to time different political parties have had different views on the issues.
  2. It seems likely that one could say that the purpose of the law is a legitimate one, in the sense that it aims to protect vulnerable citizens (women seeking terminations) from a harm they may suffer (being offended or feeling harassed in exercising a choice to have a termination). Perhaps one might raise a serious question about whether the “means adopted” to achieve this end are compatible with the “ordinary political processes” in Australia- we do not usually forbid public demonstrations because of the content of the material being communicated by the demonstrators. But let us assume for the moment that a 150 metre exclusion zone might just pass the test of a legitimate “means” of achieving an end.
  3. In the “proportionality” test, however, it seems strongly arguable that a wide zone of this sort will fail the test. Yes, the means adopted may be “suitable” in that they will presumably lessen the distress of those seeking terminations. But are the means adopted “necessary” in the sense that there is “no obvious and compelling alternative, reasonably practicable means of achieving the same purpose which has a less restrictive effect on the freedom”? In order to achieve the laudable aim of protecting women from violent and harassing protestors, is it necessary to also prohibit those who may simply stand quietly handing out leaflets or praying? And in particular, is there a proper balance “between the importance of the purpose served by the restrictive measure and the extent of the restriction it imposes on the freedom”? A complete ban on certain speech content is usually regarded as the clearest example of an unjustified interference with free speech. In a previous decision dealing with public preaching, Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide [2013] HCA 3 (27 February 2013), the High Court made it clear that a ban on such activities which was based on the content of what was said (rather than on traffic considerations, for example) would be invalid.

It should be noted in this context, then, that this is not simply a “free speech” case. Many who wish to protest or counsel outside abortion clinics do so on the basis of deeply held religious beliefs.

Freedom of Religion

Arguably this is another feature of the protests being held outside abortion clinics which should inform the decision of a court as to the nature of the “rights” being interfered with. Of course it has to be said that in the States, the restriction on Commonwealth legislation impairing the “free exercise” of religion imposed by s 116 of the Constitution is not binding. But in the ACT, as a Territory not a State, where one “protest zone” law has just been passed, it seems fairly clear that s 116 will be applicable, and may have a serious impact on the validity of such a law. (For discussion of the former doubts that were expressed as to whether s 116 was binding on the Territories, as opposed to the States, see my paper on “Religious Freedom in Australia” at p 8.)

In addition, as noted previously, both Victoria and the ACT have “Charters of Rights”, which include protection for religious freedom. And in Tasmania, the little-known s 46 of that State’s Constitution Act 1934 also provides explicit protection for religious freedom.

All of these religious freedom rights are, of course, subject to balancing with other rights. But at the very least the weight of both free speech rights, and religious freedom rights, especially when combined in a case like this, ought to give Parliaments cause to think very carefully before enacting geographically wide, and substantively broad, limitations on the rights of those citizens who believe they are not only helping pregnant women, but also saving the lives of their children, by polite offers of counselling and assistance outside clinics.

Finally, it is worth noting that this view, that wide “protest free zones” like that in Tasmania are probably constitutionally invalid, is also shared by one of the most recent other academic commentaries on the issue. Eleanor Jones, in “Implementing Protest-Free Zones around Abortion Clinics in Australia” (2014) 36 Sydney Law Review 169-184, expresses clear doubts about the validity of such laws, while apparently supporting their policy. She says:

Protests outside abortion clinics are poised to become the next example of political communication that is objectionable to a majority of Australians, but nonetheless protected from regulation by the freedom of political communication (at 170)…

the prospective constitutionality of the RHATA is uncertain (at 174)…

It is therefore unlikely that the provisions of the RHATA would survive in their entirety (at 182)…

there is little evidence to suggest that these protests are so frequent and unruly that access to abortion clinics is currently being disrupted to the extent that so wide an exclusion zone is necessary. (at 183)

It is true that Jones also suggests that a much narrower exclusion zone might be constitutionally valid (at one point she notes that the US Supreme Court has upheld as legitimate an exclusion zone of 4.5 metres – see p 171 n 16). But even this suggestion is made tentatively. There is real doubt here.

This makes the comments in this editorial from the Medical Journal of Australia, then, very misleading. In that opinion piece, noted previously, the authors, who are aiming to describe the law of Australia on the matter, state very clearly:

Constitutional law scholars generally agree that the Tasmanian provision can withstand any High Court challenge.

Their authority for this proposition? The article by Jones. I trust that the quotes provided above are enough to show that the claim that is made here is, to be frank, quite wrong. Jones casts serious doubts on the validity of the Tasmanian provision. The authors of the MJA piece also mis-state the operation of the test dealing with the implied freedom of political speech, referring to a “two-step” test, whereas the Jones article (written of course prior to McCloy but still valid on this point) notes that it is a “three stage test” (at 174).

Given these errors, it is perhaps not surprising to find others in that article, We are told that access of women to clinics is “often hindered by verbal and sometimes physical harassment”. Yet Jones, as noted above, suggests that this is not really a major problem in Australia. The editorial then asserts that attempts to curtail protests have failed because of the implied rights to freedom of political communication. No evidence is presented that this doctrine has so far been invoked in these cases, but if it had the so-called “solution” to the problem provided by the Tasmanian legislation would be useless, given that the Tasmanian Parliament, like all in Australia, are obliged to recognise this right.

In short, the enthusiasm expressed by the authors of the MJA editorial for the Tasmanian laws (an enthusiasm which, it seems fairly clear, would not be shared by all medical practitioners in Australia) is misplaced. It is to be hoped that Australian Parliaments pay much more careful attention in future to the rights of citizens who are wanting to exercise the freedoms of speech and religion our community regards as vital.

neilfoster

Prayer groups, schools and “radicalisation”

The NSW Government is understandably concerned at what appear to be revelations of violent Islamic-State inspired teaching in public schools. The October 2 shooting of police employee Curtis Cheng at the hands of a 15-year-old schoolboy, Farad Jabar, while shouting Islamic slogans and having just visited the Parramatta mosque, has shocked the public. Other pupils from the same school, Arthur Phillip High School, are under suspicion. Another former pupil of the same school is in custody, apparently suspected of encouraging the act.

These events have sadly seemed to confirm the concerns that were raised earlier this year when a student from another school, Epping Boys High, was being investigated for preaching violent extremism.

There can be no doubt that the Government needs to be rightly concerned about student groups where violence is being preached and encouraged. But there are serious dangers to religious freedom emerging in some of the suggested solutions being offered.

A number of recent opinion pieces suggest that “prayer groups” in general need greater monitoring. Some, such as an article by Greens member of Parliament John Kaye, are urging the Government in effect to ban all religious groups meeting in public schools:

Dr Kaye said: “If radicalisation of Moslem students is occurring in NSW public schools, it is because proselytising Christian groups have protected their right to run lunchtime religious meetings.

“The real blame lies with successive NSW governments that have failed to stand up to the push to turn public schools into recruiting grounds for aggressive religions of all types.

In short, opponents of Christian involvement in schools are exploiting the opportunities presented by violent Islamist preaching to further their agenda to attack all religions.

Hopefully the Government will be able to resist the simplistic equation presented in the form: 1. This violence is inspired by Islam. 2. Islam is a religion. 3. We should deal with the violence by banning all religion. In other words, to spell out more clearly the obvious non sequitur:

  1. A (Islam) has led to B (violence.)
  2. A is a member of the class R (religions.)
  3. Therefore all members of the class R lead to B and should be banned.

Or, to give another example:

  1. A (a music group) performs B (disco music.)
  2. A is a member of the class M, music groups.
  3. Therefore all music groups, M, perform disco music and should be banned.

As much as one might agree with proposition 3 as applied to disco groups, it clearly is not true as applied to all music groups!

Of course distinguishing between music groups requires something of a knowledge of the principles of music, and a willingness to say that some music is good, and some is bad. That may take courage in a world which is theoretically committed to the proposition that all music is the same! But we know in practice that this is just not the real world.

An article making the same point, though thankfully with no reference to disco music, was published recently by Michael Jensen. He puts it this way:

[I]n its rush to look tolerant and even-handed, the liberal commentariat has worked itself into a lather of confusion. It cannot name the thing right in front of its face. The truth is this: in contemporary Australia, it is Islam, and only Islam, that has the problem with radicalisation. Not the Sikhs, not the Jews, not the Buddhists, not the Christians, not the Greenpeace youth group that meets down the road.

That is not to say that these groups have never had a problem with radical extremism, historically. But the problem presenting us today is quite a specific one.

Of course, the numbers even within the Islamic community that are radicalised are still tiny. Picking on or vilifying Islamic Australians in retaliation for the violence committed by a small group within it is totally out of order, and likely to be counter-productive.

But by speaking in vague terms about “extremism” and “radicalisation” and introducing laws and processes to which all religious and ideological groups have to submit, we are risking the very freedoms that we are trying to preserve.

To say that any limitations must now be imposed on “Christian, Buddhist or Jedi”, as one recent opinion piece suggests, just makes no sense at all. There is a problem within the Islamic community, a problem which is now being clearly acknowledged by leaders of the community. But this problem will not be solved by forbidding all prayer by students at schools.

Such a move would be a completely disproportionate over-reaction to a problem within a specific community. Australia is a party to, and supporter of, international instruments which provide clear protection for the religious freedom of its citizens. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 18, declares that the right to religious freedom is a fundamental human right. Religious freedom, if it means anything, means the ability to gather together with others and practice one’s religion. Of course there are sensible limits that need to be placed on this freedom where a religious gathering is suspected of encouraging religiously-inspired violence. But to introduce a blanket ban on groups of students getting together at lunchtime to discuss their faith, especially where there is no evidence except in the Islamic community that such is happening, would be a serious interference with religious faith for no good reason.

Indeed, it may in fact be doubted that even in relation to Islamic groups, a complete ban is sensible. One article reports:

the Friday prayers that were being held at Arthur Phillip High School, which Jabar had attended, had been suspended in September, a move that possibly influenced Jabar to go to the Parramatta mosque to pray.

In other words, perhaps the fact that the group was not operating meant that religious counsel was sought from other sources where worse advice was received. This is speculation, of course; but it seems reasonable to suppose that a group which is meeting at a school, perhaps with the assistance of a trusted member of the religious community and under occasional surveillance by teachers, may serve to curb some of the more violent teaching that can be found elsewhere.

Further, it seems likely that the guidelines being promulgated in NSW schools at the moment may already go further than is necessary to deal with the problems. It has been reported that schools have been told that prayer groups can only be allowed to operate under these conditions:

parental permission must be obtained, activities must be monitored, and no proselytising.

While the first two conditions are not ideal, they may be necessary in the present circumstances. But the final is odd. The word “proselytising” needs detailed discussion on its own, but what is odd is that there has been no suggestion in the concerns about “radicalisation” that the Islamic prayer groups are trying to persuade Baptists or Hindus to become Muslims, which seems to be one of the popular senses of the word. This ban seems more closely linked to a general “secularist” agenda, than to problems of possibly violent Islamic prayer groups.

On general religious freedom grounds, it is clear that in international law the right to manifest one’s religion includes a right to respectfully encourage others to agree with one’s religious beliefs. Justice Kirby put in this way in NABD of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 29; (2005) 216 ALR 1; (2005) 79 ALJR 1142 (26 May 2005), citing a decision of the European Court of Human Rights:

[121]…In Kokkinakis v Greece[1], that Court affirmed that religious freedom includes the freedom:

“[T]o manifest one’s religion … not only exercisable in community with others, ‘in public’ and within the circle of those whose faith one shares, but can also be asserted ‘alone’ and ‘in private’; furthermore, it includes in principle the right to try to convince one’s neighbour … through ‘teaching’, failing which … ‘freedom to change [one’s] religion or belief’ … would be likely to remain a dead-letter.”

[1]      (1993) 17 EHRR 397 at 418.

The right to respectfully persuade, of course, is not a right to “ram one’s views down another’s throat”. But the danger in a prohibition on “proselytising” is that banning the second may be thought to imply banning the first. When we are addressing the question of what one school student may say to another, in discussion of their religious views, it surely is far too intrusive to suggest that there can never be a conversation which politely commends the truth of one’s views to another person.

In conclusion, there are justified concerns about the preaching of violence against non-believers among some Islamic groups (not all such groups, of course) at high schools. Energies should be directed towards those sort of groups where such discussions have led to actual violence. But nothing would be surer to generate an “underground” group, attractive because of its very “banned” nature and hence unable to be monitored or guided, than a blanket ban on prayer groups at schools. Support for religious freedom at schools, and the free and open discussion of religious issues, will send the signal to students of support for religious freedom in the community at large, and will itself be another way of undermining an ideology which seeks to impose its will by threats of violence on religious grounds.

neilfoster

Religious Freedom conference presentation- video available

It seems that our “Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World” went well. I certainly enjoyed the day and was very grateful for the top class speakers we had. For those who are interested, the video of my presentation on the day is now available. The paper which goes along with the talk can be downloaded here. It was entitled “How should religious marriage celebrants respond if same sex marriage is introduced in Australia?” Regular readers of this blog will notice that it combines some discussion from previous blog posts on the issue, but also adds some extra material setting the scene at the beginning.