In Part 1 of this series, I discussed the motivations behind, and the core problem with attempts to secure religious people from discrimination in the manner of the Religious Discrimination Bill, 2019. To summarize, the key protection being instituted is not a protection against discrimination, but rather grants to religious people only, exceptional privileges when it comes to disseminating their views. In this post, I will look at fundamental flaws in the particular implementation of the law related to the definitions used in the bill. These flaws have far reaching implications, including a potential for it to become mandatory for the courts to determine what is, and what is not reasonable doctrine or practice in a religion. In that eventuality, the government, through the courts, will be mandating what is, and is not permissible to believe in any given religion, ie, the exact reverse of freedom of religion.
