Skip to main content

Australia’s problem with religious discrimination

Posted 
While many assume that the liberal democracies of the West are the strongest bastions of religious freedom in the world, the evidence simply does not support this claim. (burroblando / iStock / Getty Images)

In a recent article, I drew attention to an important international study which shows that religious discrimination is on the rise throughout the world, that Western democracies are not the paragons of religious freedom we assume them to be, and that Australia is no exception to these trends.

As I pointed out in that article, these findings cut across the theory that, despite all the fuss, religious freedom faces no significant threats in Western democracies like Australia, and there is no urgent need for the Australian Parliament to enact a Religious Discrimination Act.

The study was undertaken by Jonathan Fox, the Yehuda Avner Professor of Religion and Politics at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv. His analysis is based on the most detailed and comprehensive data set on religious discrimination yet compiled.

Want the best of Religion & Ethics delivered to your mailbox?

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Your information is being handled in accordance with the ABC Privacy Collection Statement.

Fundamental to Fox’s analysis is the distinction he draws between government-based and socially-based religious discrimination. Fox defines government religious discrimination as restrictions imposed by governments or their agents on the religious practices or institutions of religious minorities that are not imposed on the majority religion. Social religious discrimination he defines as actions taken against religious minorities by members of the country’s religious majority who do not represent the government.

These definitions constitute both the strengths and limitations of Fox’s study. His interest is in the treatment of religious minorities, not the treatment of religion in general. This means that government policies that seek to repress religion in general — such as those adopted by extremist secularist regimes, like North Korea and now increasingly China — are not the focus of his study. Nonetheless, the data he has accumulated and analysed demonstrates that discrimination against religious minorities can be motivated, not only by religious ideologies, but also by secular ones.

What is a religious minority? According to Fox, it depends on the perceptions of the religious minority and the majority society in which they are placed. Many religious minorities are subgroups of a broader religious tradition, such as minority Protestants in a Catholic-majority country or minority Shi’i Muslims in a Sunni-majority country. With the growth of atheism and agnosticism, there are now many countries in which people of all religious faiths are minorities in what is effectively a secular-majority country.

Fox’s data set is very fine-grained. It records the treatment of 771 religious minorities in 183 countries over the period 1990 to 2014, and it distinguishes 35 types of government-based religious discrimination. These include restrictions on the construction of religious buildings, controls on the ownership or dissemination of religious literature, prohibitions on clergy providing chaplaincy services in prisons, and much else besides.

Fox found that in 162 countries government-based religious discrimination was perpetrated against 574 of the minorities at some point during the study period. And during the 25 years covered by the study, the prevalence of all these types of government discrimination has increased globally by almost 25 per cent. However, the prevalence of government discrimination varies considerably from country to country. Muslim-majority countries are the most likely to impose government restrictions on religious practices, while Orthodox-majority countries are the most likely to impose restrictions on religious institutions and religious clergy. Hindu minorities are the most likely to suffer from restrictions on religious conversion, while Christian minorities are most likely to suffer restrictions on the establishment and operation of religious schools.

Fox’s data set also identifies 27 types of socially-based religious discrimination. These include discrimination in employment, vandalism of places of worship, harassment on public transport and outright violence. Jews are the minority most likely to suffer from these sorts of discrimination, but religious minorities of all kinds are subjected to it in particular countries. From 1990 to 2014, the prevalence of social discrimination has increased globally by almost 30 per cent. Outright violence, which is the most shocking form of social discrimination and yet the most prevalent, has tragically increased by over 50 per cent.

Fox writes that while many assume that the liberal democracies of the West are the strongest bastions of religious freedom in the world, the evidence simply does not support this claim. He points out that secularised Western democracies such as France, Germany, and Switzerland engage in more government-based religious discrimination than many countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America — particularly Christian-majority countries in these regions. And, startlingly, this is the case whether these Christian-majority countries in the developing world are democratic or not.

Fox singles out Australia as a clear example of the recent rise of socially-based discrimination against religious minorities in Western democracies, especially against Jews and Muslims. Jews, in particular, have been the victims of literally hundreds of instances of vandalism, harassment and threats of violence reported each year. Last November, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry warned of a steep rise in antisemitic incidents in Australia.

Fox wants to discover the underlying causes of religious discrimination. He observes that this is very difficult because there are multiple crosscutting factors which manifest differently from one country to another. In Western democracies, he identifies several causes. Some of these are specific to Muslims and Jews, such as fear of Islamic terrorism and outright antisemitism. Others affect all religions generally. Increasingly, particular religious groups are being singled out as cults: Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Hassidic Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Pentecostals. Belgium, France, and Germany all have explicit anti-cult policies. Secularist policies are also increasingly being adopted by Western governments which place religious believers under mounting restrictions and regulations — including controls on religious dress or restrictions on religious speech.

It is important, Fox says, to identify which types of states are most likely to engage in religious discrimination and which minorities in those states are most likely to be subjected to it. Muslim majority states on average engage in the highest levels of government-based religious discrimination. A snapshot of the data in 2014 suggests that, in Muslim majority states, 70.1 per cent of minorities experience restrictions on religious practices and 60.8 per cent experience restrictions on conversion and proselytising. However, there is also a wide diversity. There is a cluster of Muslim majority states in West Africa that are among the most tolerant in the world.

Among Christian majority states, the data suggests it is important to distinguish between Christian Orthodox majority states and the others. Orthodox majority states are the second most likely type of state to engage in government-based religious discrimination. In such states, 54.7 per cent of minorities experienced restrictions on religious practices while 45.3 per cent experienced restrictions on conversion and proselytising. Protestant and Catholic majority states are much less likely impose such restrictions. In those countries, the figures are 22.9 and 16.0 per cent respectively for restrictions on religious practices, and 5.7 per cent and 2.0 per cent for restrictions on conversion and proselytizing. Fox speculates one cause of this may be developments in particular strands of Protestant and Catholic thought that are strongly supportive of religious freedom.

Comparing countries according to majority religion displays some important patterns. But Fox is also interested in the underlying causes of religious discrimination. Among those causes, religious ideology is often a major factor, alongside cultural chauvinism and nationalism. But Fox points out that secular ideologies can also be significant causes, as well as anti-cult policies and perceptions that religions pose a threat to the regime. This is especially so in Communist countries that are officially atheist — such as China, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam. But, as Fox’s data demonstrates, these tendencies also exist in many Western democracies. As Fox puts it, “thou shalt have no other gods before me” is still practised by many governments across the world. But to be clear, the “god” who will tolerate no competition is “often a secular one, or the state itself.”

Fox argues it is important to distinguish between types of secularism. Some secular states are relatively neutral and tolerant towards religion. But others are anti-religious and have a strong tendency to restrict religions, sometimes very repressively. However, these two types of secularism don’t come in neat packages. There is a sliding scale and every Western democracy exhibits characteristics of both. Many democratic states with officially neutral religious policies and maintain high levels of separation of religion and state may still be influenced by secular ideologies. And these can motivate the state to be intolerant of religious practices and religious speech.

For these and other reasons, there is more government-based religious discrimination in secular Western democracies than in many of their Asian, African, and Latin American counterparts. Indeed, for many of these countries — like the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan — there was no evidence of government based religious discrimination whatsoever.

On the whole, Fox concludes, democracies engage in less government based religious discrimination than non-democracies. But, contrary to expectations, his data suggests that Western liberal democracies engage in more religious discrimination than non-Western democracies. As Fox points out, while liberal ideology generally supports religious freedom it also supports secularism, and some proponents of secularist beliefs are unwilling to be tolerant of those who do not share their beliefs.

Fox’s analysis helps to explain why the threats to religious freedom in Australia are very real. Elements of anti-religious hostility are already present in this country and manifest from time to time — most often in socially-based religious discrimination such as harassment, vandalism, and threats of violence. Indeed, levels of socially-based discrimination, especially against Jews, are higher in Australia than in Canada, the UK, and many other Western democracies. As Fox shows, government-based discrimination can develop, even in secular societies, particularly when a religious minority is seen as a threat or its practices are deemed incompatible with the dominant ideology.

Fox’s research highlights why better protection of religious freedom is needed in Australia, to help address these issues in a principled manner, premised on the standards articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As the Ruddock Panel report on religious freedom pointed out, in New South Wales statutory protection against religious discrimination is limited. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 protects against discrimination on the basis of “race,” which is defined to include “ethno-religious” origin. This means some people of faith are protected, but many others are not. A bill to address this — by extending the protections to “religious beliefs” and “religious activities” — has been introduced into the NSW Parliament and a Joint Select Committee of the Parliament has been established to receive public submissions. At a federal level, the Morrison government has released two exposure drafts of a federal Religious Discrimination Bill. While these have rightly been the subject of critical scrutiny, progressing these bills into law is something that should not be allowed to fall off the to-do list because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Religious discrimination is a reality throughout the world, including in Australia. If there was ever a time when it was possible to be complacent about religious freedom in this country, that is certainly no longer the case. Professor Jonathan Fox’s work warns us that religious discrimination is a reality that is not going away anytime soon.

Nicholas Aroney is Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Queensland. He was a member of the Expert Panel of the Religious Freedom Review, appointed by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and chaired by the Hon. Philip Ruddock.

Posted