Applying the “calculus” of negligence spelled out in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, this paper aims to show that the reasonable person will carefully investigate the claims of Jesus Christ:
The Calculus of Christianity- breakfast seminar Oct 30
For those who are in or can make it to Newcastle, I am speaking at a breakfast seminar on Wednesday Oct 30 (7:30-8:30 am) in the Newcastle CBD (Nuspace, the Uni city campus) x703. The topic is “The Calculus of Christianity”! Here is what it is about:
Both professionally and personally, we are constantly making calculations around risk. What would happen if we were to extend those calculations to the claims of Jesus Christ? Join us at our next Newcastle City Legal as Torts Lecturer Assoc. Prof. Neil Foster uses Wyong Shire Council v Shirt to do just that.
What would a “reasonable person” (for local purposes, the user of the Newcastle Light Rail!) make of the claims of Jesus, and how should they respond?
Registrations here. All welcome, but would be especially good to see local lawyers and anyone else interested in the law!
Christian sexual ethics and the abuse of adolescents: Lessons from the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle
I encourage everyone interested in law and religion issues to read this challenging piece published on the Australian Broadcasting Commission website from Emeritus Professor Patrick Parkinson: “Christian sexual ethics and the abuse of adolescents: Lessons from the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle” (24 September 2024). Professor Parkinson provides some comments on the excellent recent review of the horrific child abuse perpetrated by some clerics in Newcastle published by Anne Manne, Crimes of the Cross (Black Inc, 2024). Both the article and the book itself are crucial reading for church leaders, who need to be aware of the terrible things done under cover of the Christian faith.
An important insight that Professor Parkinson brings is that the gradual departure of some in the church from Biblical standards of sexual morality has been one of the factors contributing both to the abuse of children but also to the unwillingness of those in the church to take action to prevent it. He comments:
I suspect that the abandonment of traditional Christian sexual ethics without a theologically informed replacement created an environment where the sexual abuse of adolescents became more likely in Newcastle; and this remains a continuing vulnerability for churches that depart from traditional Christian sexual ethics or that allow this to occur in a subterranean way.
I commend the article, and Ms Manne’s book, as important reading.
Tickle v Giggle: Sex and Gender Identity
In his decision in Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960 (23 August 2024) Bromwich J in the Federal Court of Australia found that the company Giggle had been guilty of indirect gender identity discrimination when its director, Sall Grover (who was also sued), had removed Roxy Tickle from her women-only social media app. Roxanne Tickle (“the applicant”), as Bromwich J noted:
was of the male sex at the time of birth, but is now recognised by an official updated Queensland birth certificate, issued under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 (Qld) (Qld BDM Registration Act), as being of the female sex. This followed from, and was predicated on, sexual reassignment surgery, being the term used in the Qld BDM Registration Act.. (at [3])
I commented on earlier stages of this litigation in a previous post. The question as to whether sex as a legal category is changeable, and the implications of this for discrimination law, are of great concern to many concerned with protection of traditional female-only spaces. It is a question which raises concerns for religious folk, many of whom see sex as a biological category determined at conception and ordained by God. Hence a review of the decision seems justified on this blog concerned with law and religion, although I note that none of the participants in the case professed any religious reasons for their views. The view that sex is determined by fundamental biological facts is shared by many, on both religious and scientific grounds.
In short, I think this decision is incorrect as a matter of law, and the implications of the decision are bad for society as a whole, and women in particular. I hope it will be overturned on appeal.
Academic conference on Theology and Jurisprudence, 2025- call for papers
On behalf of the organisers, I am happy to post (for academic, and academically inclined, readers!) a call for papers for a symposium to be held in Queensland in February 2025.
5th Annual Theology and Jurisprudence Symposium
School of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point Campus
Friday 14 February 2025
THEME:
This annual symposium focuses on the relationship between theology and jurisprudence. Jurisprudence typically purports to provide a non-theistic account of ‘law’. However, foundational to many theories of law is some kind of theology. Natural law, of course, is deeply influenced by its theological articulation through Thomas Aquinas and even modern ‘secular’ theories of natural law retain vestiges of this influence. The main proponents of legal positivism (such as Thomas Hobbes and John Austin) often engaged with different aspects of Christian theology. Moreover, theological influences on legal theory are not limited to Christianity; jurisprudential viewpoints around the world have been shaped by a broad range of theological traditions. The tendency of jurisprudence to ground itself in some kind of theology is not surprising given its need for an ontological foundation for legal authority. This symposium aims to consider jurisprudence from a variety of theological standpoints and critically examine the reliance of diverse theories of law on theological perspectives.
CALL FOR PAPERS:
We invite papers that consider the prevailing theological assumptions of legal theories; unpack the different streams of jurisprudence from a theological perspective; explore how theology tends to define and undergird theories of law; or consider any other issues which engage both theology and jurisprudence. Presenters are required to submit written papers (which can be works-in-progress) for distribution to the other symposium participants by 1 February 2025. Presenters will be allocated to panels, and each panellist will be asked to introduce and comment on another panellist’s paper to start the discussion. The finalised papers may be considered for publication in a special journal issue or edited book.
SUBMISSIONS:Abstracts of 100-200 words should be submitted by email to Associate Professor Alex Deagon (alex.deagon@qut.edu.au) no later than 1 November 2024. Successful applicants will be notified by the end of November. There is no conference fee for the symposium, but participants will need to fund their own transport and accommodation.
More details are to be found here:
FREEDOM24 conference August 5
Freedom for Faith is hosting the FREEDOM24 Conference 9am-4pm on Monday August 5th at Village Church Annandale in Sydney. I highly recommend this conference!
Livestream tickets are free, to maximise access for those who cannot attend in person.
FREEDOM24 conference will develop your understanding of threats to religious freedom in Australia from historical, theological and policy perspectives.
Historian Sarah Irving-Stonebraker will examine the history of religious freedom, while John McClean of Christ College will share a theological perspective on how the church is to respond to legal threats to ministry. We will also have a number of experts unpack the major religious freedom concerns in Australia, as well as implications and paths forward for advocacy.
Issues examined will include:
- Federal Religious Discrimination Bill
- Faith-based schools and the Sex Discrimination Act
- NSW Conversion Practices Act
- NSW “Equality” Bill
- Queensland Anti-Discrimination and “Respect at Work” Bill
Get tickets at fff.org.au/f24.
Hate Speech – Vilification Laws and Threats to Religious Speech
I have presented a paper today surveying Australia laws on “hate speech” and “vilification”, as they have an impact on religious free speech. The paper can be downloaded here:
Australian Journal of Law and Religion vol 4- Theology and Jurisprudence
It is good to see the online publication of Volume 4 of the Australian Journal of Law and Religion. This is a special issue on “Theology and Jurisprudence”. The table of contents:
Volume 4, 2024
The Catholic Modernity of Pope Benedict XVI: Healthy Secularity and Christian Jurisprudence Zachary R. Calo 1
Natural Law with and without God Jonathan Crowe 17
Christian Natural Law and a Foundation for Religious Freedom: Love, the True, and the Good Alex Deagon 34
The Secularisation of Conscience: A Natural Law Critique Constance Youngwon Lee 57
Kierkegaard’s Works of Love: From Benedict’s Rule to More’s Utopia Joshua Neoh 75
Corporations, Compelled Speech, and the Common Good Lukas Opacic 84
Christianity and Law in the Enlightenment John Witte Jr. with Harold J. Berman 101
All articles can be downloaded for free from: https://ausjlr.com/issue-archive/
Church liability for clergy abuse
The High Court of Australia recently heard an appeal in a case involving an allegation that a Bishop in the Roman Catholic church can be held vicariously liable for an act of child abuse committed by a member of the clergy. The case is Bird v DP (a pseudonym) and I have previously mentioned the earlier stages of the proceedings here and here.
I have written a note outlining the arguments being made and offering my view on what I think should be the outcome of the appeal, which can be downloaded here. Here is the summary of the note:
In Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) the High Court will address two important questions about the civil liability of institutions for child sexual abuse perpetrated by representatives of the institution. The case involves a claim against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Ballarat as liable for child abuse committed in 1971 by Father Coffey, a priest working for the diocese. The trial judge and the Victorian Court of Appeal have ruled that while Coffey was not an employee, the diocese is nevertheless vicariously liable for the abuse. This involves an extension of the ‘stage 1’ issue of vicarious liability (the question as to which legal relationships allow attribution ofliability) which is being challenged in the appeal. The High Court has also been asked in a notice of contention to consider whether, if the Court of Appeal was wrong on the vicarious liability issue, liability might alternatively be sheeted home to the diocese under the principle of non-delegable duty (NDD). This would require the High Court to overturn its previous decision in NSW v Lepore on the point that the NDD doctrine cannot be applied to intentional torts. This article argues that the appeal should be allowed, the notice of contention upheld, and Lepore be overruled on this issue.
Religious Freedom and the NSW Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024
I have prepared a paper exploring the operation of the NSW Conversion Practices Ban Act 2024 in relation to the freedom of churches and other religious groups to continue to provide teaching and guidance based on the tenets of their faith. The Act has received assent but will not commence operation until 3 April 2025.
Overall, the Act contains much better protections for religious freedom and the welfare of vulnerable children and young people than similar legislation elsewhere. But there are some areas where it is not clear, and it will require careful consideration by religious groups, as well those interested in so-called “gender transition” issues even from a non-religious background.
The paper can be downloaded here:
Law and Religion Australia 