Freedom of religion is a right to be enjoyed by all, not just those of some member of a particular faith. It protects all those who live a life of faith and protects those whose views on faith may change over their life time. Unfortunately, however, the right to religious freedom is not fully protected in Australia. There is a growing anti-Christian sentiment in the country, which is evident in certain parts of the public and the private sectors. Increasingly, Australian Christians avoid speaking publicly about matters involving their faith because they reasonably fear, among other things, complaints to government authorities under anti-discrimination laws, and being subject to disciplinary proceedings and/or dismissal by their employers.
When the first census in Australia was taken, in 1911, 96 per cent of the population self-identified as Christian. By 2016, this figure fell to only 52 per cent and now nearly a third of Australians (30 per cent) profess to have no religion at all.
The opponents of religious expression in Australia assume that Christian beliefs are irremediably divisive, bigoted, and irrational.  It follows from this that the expression of these beliefs must be eradicated from any public debate. As a result, Christian people and organisations can now be sued for merely expressing traditional beliefs. And Christian schools are not even allowed to teach students according to a doctrinal perspective on matters of gender and sexuality, for example.
The present determination of the nation’s intellectual elites and political establishment to defend self-identifying “victim” groups has produced an undesirable confrontation between existing groups, each of which tends to deny it has any obligations to any other group. This is not about celebrating “diversity” but of regulating it and separating citizens into lines of gender, religion, ethnicity and so forth. It does so by treating society as a collection of separate groups that are dependent upon government-managed responses to diversity.
Instigated by the ruling elites hostility towards Christianity is now pervasive in every aspect of the broader Australian community. According to Michael Quinlan, dean of law at Notre Dame University, some consider that even discussing the traditional Christian – particularly the Catholic – position on, for example, sexual morality, confession, abortion, euthanasia or marriage – is hateful, bigoted and offensive and merely an excuse for protecting child abusers, covering up child sexual assault, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and discrimination akin to racism, apartheid and slavery.
In this context, the idea of “rights” has been weaponised and anti-discrimination laws are increasingly used to stifle expression of opinion, rather than simply challenge bad behaviour. This mounting intolerance poses a threat to religious freedom and the rule of law. For example, when same-sex marriage activists urge removal of anti-discrimination exemptions from religious groups committed to a traditional form of marriage, they effectively seek to impose their views and beliefs on those with whom they disagree.
It is now often argued that an unyielding attachment to Christian values inhibits the society’s progression and evolution. This sentiment has evolved and is presently used to deny the participation of Christians in public life. Michael Sexton SC, the Solicitor-General of New South Wales since 1998, describes how the nation’s political class and intellectual elites are “waging a war” on everything that might appear to be derived from a Christian perspective. These zealots, writes Sexton, have a hostility to all forms of Christian religion but especially the Catholic Church.
The regular display of animosity towards Christianity can be found even in the so-called “conservative” side of Australia’s politics. One could cite as example what has happened in Western Australia, in March 2021. The so-called right-wing part, the Liberal Party, was led in that Australian State by a 33-year-old green-left politician (Zak Kirkup) who passionately supported the LGTQI+ agenda, assisted suicide and extreme climate action. However, soon after suffering its worst-ever election wipe-out and losing its opposition status, one of the few remaining members of the Liberal Party left in the state parliament, David Honey, reportedly blamed the so-called “Christian Right” for his party’s loss. 
By seeking to marginalise or silence Christians who take their faith seriously, the modern Australian elites are basically rejecting the cultural traditions of their own liberal-democratic society. According to former High Court judge Dyson Heydon, these ruling elites are rejecting a large part of the entire life and history of the nation – because Christianity is so integrated with the national life and history that to annihilate it is to destroy that national life, which can live only in memory. Justice Heydon also explained that, among the elites is developing a hostility to religion which has not been seen in the West since the worst excesses of the French Revolution.
The colonisation of Australia began as the result of the British Parliament’s decision to establish a new penal colony overseas. A royal navy officer, Captain Arthur Phillip (1738-1814), was in charge of establishing the penal colony of New South Wales in what later became the city of Sydney. Captain Philip was determined to create such a colony within a context of the Western legal tradition steeped in Christianity. Accordingly, he gave support to the early chaplains to foster the religious life of the colony. Thanks to his insistence that there should be no slavery in a free land, and consequently no slaves, abolitionist principles were embedded from the outset, and Wilberforce’s influence was significant.
Lachlan Macquarie, Governor of New South Wales from 1810 to 1821, is said to have initiated the transformation of Australia from a dumping ground for convicts into a model British colony. He considered New South Wales was not just a land of punishment but also “a land of redemption”. Under his benign rule former convicts would be transformed into productive, law-abiding citizens. Thus he encouraged Christianity in a number of significant ways, believing that Christian principles would render the next generation dutiful and obedient to their parents and superiors, honest, faithful and useful members of society. He deemed these religious principles indispensable both for liberty and for a high material civilisation, and hoped to give satisfaction to all classes, and see them reconciled.
Sir Richard Bourke was the Governor of New South Wales from 1831 to 1837. Although Governor Bourke was a pious Anglican, he championed the interests of Roman Catholics and other religious minorities, especially Protestants. In 1836, Bourke enacted the Church Act which, among other things, de-disestablished the Church of England. From that moment on all the other Christian denominations were placed on an equal footing before the law. As noted by David Furse-Roberts, the decision to disestablish the Church of England was not so much based on a secular impulse to diminish the role of religion as it was by a desire to afford justice to the aggrieved Catholic minority and to give equal strength to the various strands of Christianity in public life. 
Held between 1891 and 1899, representatives of every British colony in Australia attended conventions which agreed on the elaboration of a federal Constitution. Upon their request, on 5th July 1900 the British Parliament passed the Constitution of Australia Bill. On that occasion, Sir John Downer, one of the Constitution’s most distinguished co-authors, stated: The Commonwealth of Australia will be, from its first stage, a Christian Commonwealth.
Statements such as this made their way directly into the Preamble of the Constitution: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth […]’. The insertion of an acknowledgment of God into the Preamble occurred in response to overwhelming public support. As law professor Helen Irving points out,
During the 1897 Convention delegates have been inundated with petitions in which the recognition of God in the Constitution was demanded. The petitions, organized nationally asked for the recognition of God as the ‘supreme ruler of the universe’; for the declaration of national prayers and national days of thanksgiving and ‘humiliation’. But, the essence of their petition was that the Constitution should include a statement of spiritual—specifically Christian—identity for the new nation.
Historians highlight the fact that the Australian Constitution originated in a socio-political environment with different branches of the Christian Church competing strongly for cultural influence. Rather than promoting a government that excluded religion, writes legal academic Dr Alex Deagon, many of the framers did not desire a secular society which rejected the public display and discourse of religion.  To the contrary, the historical and culture context of the development of section 116 of the Australian Constitution was a general endorsement of religion based only on a climate of religious tolerance but also a concern for the advancement of religion.
It is against this historical background that section 116 of the Constitution must be interpreted. This section, which the American First Amendment obviously inspired, determine that:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
This section contains a few prohibitive measures: first, the establishment of religion (in other words, the creation of an official religion); second, any requirement to engage in religious observance; third, any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; and fourth, the imposition of religious qualifications for public office. In their authoritative commentary on the Constitution, John Quick (one of the drafters of the Constitution) and Robert Garran (who played a significant role in the Australian Federation movement), elucidated the purpose and effect of the nation’s establishment clause:
By the establishment of religion is meant the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others. It is not intended to prohibit the Federal Government from recognizing religion or religious worship.
Unfortunately, the courts do not always interpret the plain meaning of section 116 correctly. In Harkianakis v Skalkos (1999), Justice Dunford of the New South Wales Supreme Court claimed that this section makes religion “irrelevant” to federal law-making and policy-formation.  A defamation case had arisen pursuant to an implied or express right of freedom of speech concerning religious matters. Justice Dunford heard the application and mistakenly assumed the defence had “no prospect of success” because he thought that section 116 excludes religion from the system of government. Of course, this is completely wrong. As noted by law professor Nicholas Aroney, to suggest that the non-establishment principle makes religious considerations entirely irrelevant to federal law-making and policy-formation is simply beyond the pale—particularly in Australia, but even in the United States.
In 1981, the High Court of Australia offered its first decision regarding the establishment clause. The case involved the validity of federal financial support for religious schools by means of a series of grants to the Australian States. The majority held that section 116 does not prohibit federal laws from assisting the practice of religion, or from providing financial support to religious schools on a non-discriminatory basis. To fall afoul of section 116, the government would have to go so far as to establish an official church or to value one denomination over the others. In his majority ruling, Justice Wilson reminded us that, if the establishment clause were to be read so broadly as to require a more ‘strict separation’ between church and state, then it is hard to see what room could be left for the operation of traditional practices such as the coronation oath and the opening prayers at several of our nation’s State and Federal Parliaments, not to mention the acknowledgment of “Almighty God” in the Preamble of the Constitution.
Religious freedom is the bedrock for every fundamental freedom, especially freedom of speech, assembly and conscience. However, the High Court has noted that not every interference with religion is constitutionally invalid but only those which are deemed to result in undue infringement of religious freedom. In Church of the New Faith (1983) the Court (Mason CJ and Brennan J) held that general laws to preserve and protect society are not defeated by a plea of religious obligation to breach them. In the same vein, in the Jehovah Witness’s case (1943), Justice Latham turned to a catalogue of “the evils and horrors” which are sometimes practised in the name of “religion”. Justice Latham stated: It is consistent with the maintenance of religious liberty for the State to restrain actions and courses of conduct which are inconsistent with the maintenance of civil government or prejudicial to the continued existence of the community.
This was also the perception of leading the Australian Framers to resist the idea of absolute religious freedom as posing unacceptable risks to the general community. During the convention debate in Adelaide, in 1898, there was even a suggestion that the Constitution should prohibit religious practices which have been regarded by large numbers of people as essentially evil and wicked.
This originalist interpretation of the Constitution is particularly relevant in the present context of radical Islam. In a case before the Federal Court, in 1987, the renewal of temporary visa to the religious leader (“imam”) of an Australian-Lebanese mosque was refused on the grounds that he was encouraging religious extremism and violence. In challenging that deportation order it was argued, inter alia, that such order violated the free exercise of religion under section 116. The Full Court rejected such argument on the basis that religious freedom is not absolute and it cannot justify the violation of other fundamental rights of the individual.
This section is a brief account of practical aspects of religious freedom in Australia or its lack thereof. There is a large number of cases involving ordinary Australians facing legal attacks by activists, public servants serving sanctions, and vulnerable children being denied foster parents because the latter are religious people. Before a few court cases are mentioned, two examples of university academics being persecuted because of their religious conviction is worth mentioning.
The first example concerns what has occurred to the renowned academic and rabbi Shimon Cowen, son of a former Governor-General of Australia, Sir Zelman Cowen OBM. He is known for his worldwide acclaimed research on the Noahide Laws, on the basis of which he has publicly opposed homosexuality, looser abortion laws and voluntary assisted dying legislation. Rabbi Cowen was summarily dismissed from his academic position at Monash University in Victoria during the same-sex marriage debate, in 2015. The Vice-Chancellor of Monash University had unilaterally committed the university to the cause of supporting same-sex marriage. Without a formal warning or any opportunity being given to him, Rabbi Cowen was dismissed by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts for allegedly using his university e-mail to simply express his opinion about homosexual marriage on the basis of his orthodox Jewish beliefs. When he appealed this decision to the Vice-Chancellor, she replied that she had authorised the Dean’s actions against him and closed the matter.
This is not an uncommon occurrence and other examples could also be given. For example, Dr Stephen Chavura was an academic at Macquarie University who had never been accused of discrimination, abuse, or inflammatory speech. An accomplished political theorist and historian, his articles are published in numerous prestigious journals and his most recent academic book is entitled Reason, Religion, and the Australian Polity: A Secular State? (Routledge, 2019). In 2017, LGBTQI+ activists publicly pressured Macquarie University to fire him because he was a director of the Macquarie Institute, a well-known Christian political training organisation. Activists claimed that Dr Chavura’s position at that organisation conflicted with the University’s official support of LGBTQI+ issues. He received no support from University governance and management. On the contrary, the sort of hostile environment and administrative pressure eventually forced him to resign from his academic position and look for another job elsewhere.
Delany v Porteous  TACD
In September 2015, a transgender person, Martine Delaney, lodged a complaint under the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act with the state Anti-Discrimination Commissioner against the Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous. This complaint concerned a booklet entitled Don’t Mess With Marriage, which stated marriage should be a heterosexual union between a man and a woman and changing the law would endanger a child's upbringing. The complaint relied primarily on s 17(1) of the Act, which provides that a person must not engage in any conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person’ on the basis of gender, race, age, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, gender identity, intersex, disability, marital status, relationship status, pregnancy, breastfeeding, parental status and family responsibilities.
As can be seen, that provision in the State legislation is about protecting people’s feelings. It makes it unlawful to merely “offend” another person and the truth cannot necessarily be used as a valid defence. Although Ms Delaney withdrew her complaint for personal reasons, Archbishop Porteous was dragged to an anti-discrimination authority for merely expressing a traditional view of the Church on marriage. This leaves all religious groups in Tasmania open to attack, and their practices and beliefs unguarded. Naturally, if people are forced to appear before an anti-discrimination commission, this is a major disincentive to make a valuable contribution to public debate across Australia.
Hordyk v Wanslea Family Services  WAEOC
Byron and Keira Hordyk are a Christian couple from Western Australia (WA). They applied to become foster carers for children between the age of 0-5 in January 2017. They said they would love and nurture any child who was placed with them, but that they could not affirm or promote a sexual identity that conflicts with their Christian values. As a consequence, Byron and Keira were rejected by the foster care agency and labelled as “unsafe” due to their traditional Christian beliefs about gender and sexuality. Because this was a clear instance of religious discrimination, they lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA). In 2019, the Equal Opportunity Commission summarily dismissed Byron and Keira’s complaint, arguing that their claim was misconceived and not substantiated.
Burns v Gaynor – Various Cases
Bernard Gaynor is a Queensland resident who has been subjected to a half-decade legal battle over his conservative internet blogging and promotion of Christian views of marriage, gender, and the family. An LGBTQI activist in New South Wales (Garry Burns) has filed over 40 complaints of discrimination and vilification (36 of them during a period of 32 months) against Gaynor for the views expressed on his blog. Defending these accusations has been deeply stressful, time consuming, and costly for Gaynor, who has been forced to sell his house and incurred over 400 thousand dollars of legal fees. Remarkably, Mr Gaynor has been unable to have complaints dismissed as vexatious harassment, despite the fact that not a single discrimination against him has even been successful.
Fleming v Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2)  SASC 26
John Fleming is a Catholic priest living in South Australia. A highly respected priest and academic of unblemished character, Fr Fleming’s career, reputation and financial security were all seriously compromised when, in 2008, a local Adelaide paper (The Sunday Mail) ran a series of uncorroborated allegations made by the journalist Nigel Hunt against him related to the historic sexual abuse of a minor.
The allegations against Fr Fleming had been previously examined and dismissed by the police in South Australia, casting extreme doubt on their veracity. He subsequently sued the Sunday Mail for defamation, and the case was heard in 2014. When the judgement finally appeared in early 2016, Fr Fleming’s defamation case was dismissed. The judge simply decided to accept as truthful the uncorroborated stories published by the newspaper against Fr Fleming.
The errors in the judgement were far too many and quite significant. Fr Fleming appealed the decision, unsuccessfully, to the South Australian Supreme Court and finally, to the High Court, where his application for special leave was rejected on grounds that no issue of general importance was involved. Apparently, judges of the nation’s highest court believe that removing the presumption of innocence and the onus of the proof in defamation cases are no longer matters of great relevance for the court to consider.
Dr Paul Collits identifies three important aspects of the Fleming case:
The anti-Catholic bias exhibited in the Fleming trial is undeniable. It reveals how Catholic priests can become “fair game” in the era of #MeTooist culture embedded in the Australian justice system. Indeed, the judge in the Fleming trial and subsequently the judicial members of the South Australian Supreme Court have fallen victims to the nation’s pervasive anti-Christian bias, overturning the presumption of innocence and holding that Catholic priests are simply not to be believed.
At the end of the day the harm done to Fr John Fleming’s reputation is both irreversible and immeasurable. Critics and enemies may continue to utter terrible calumnies knowing they have the protection of an unfair legal judgment. Following the court’s decision, the Archdiocese of Adelaide proceeded to deny Fleming the opportunity to engage in any Catholic ministry, thus denying an innocent person the basic right to continue in the exercise of his religiously-oriented profession.
There is a growing anti-Christian sentiment in Australia, especially anti-Catholic sentiment. This growing sentiment is evident in considerable parts of the public and private sectors. Increasingly, Christians avoid speaking publicly about matters involving their faith out of fear that complaints might be made to the relevant authorities. This phenomenon has been described as the “new sectarianism” – a new form of secularism where religious values and beliefs – especially Christianity – are deemed unworthy and discounted as either meaningless, irrelevant or even harmful when it comes to consideration of key social issues.
This entry provided a summary of the growing number of Australian cases where religious freedom is under threat. Vexatious claims are on the rise and they take a financial, social and emotional toll on individuals and faith communities. The stress of facing a legal claim is often punishment in itself, and most Australian do not have the profile or financial resources necessary to fight this battle.
Indeed, religious people, especially Christians, are becoming the major targets of an ongoing vilification campaign that may sometimes involve uncorroborated allegations and expansive court proceedings. Due to the present climate of anti-religoius bigotry, the ability to live according to one’s held values and beliefs is not a core freedom that everyone can necessarily enjoy in Australia.
Augusto Zimmermann LLB (Hons.), LLM cum laude, PhD (Monash) is Professor and Dean of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Perth, Western Australia. He is also Dean of Sheridan’s Faculty of Humanity and Social Sciences (HASS), and Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Australia. He is also President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), Editor-in-Chief of The Western Australian Jurist law journal, and formerly a Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, from 2012 - 2017. The Author of numerous academic publications, his books include ‘Christian Foundations of the Common Law’ (3 Volumes, Connor Court, 2018) and ‘Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity’ (Springer, 2014).
 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016 Census: Religion, 27 June 2017, https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/7E65A144540551D7CA258148000E2B85
 Peter Kurti, “Religious Liberty: A Forgotten Freedom?” [in:] Iain T. Benson, Michael Quinlan, A. Keith Thompson (eds.), Religious Freedom in Australia – A New Terra Nullius? Sydney/NSW: Shepard Press, 2019, p. 29.
 P. Kurti, Sacred & Profane: Faith and Belief in a Secular Society, Redland Bay/Qld: Connor Court, 2020, p 15.
 K. Donnelly, “Persecution of Christians Being Taken to Extremes”, The Australian, 24 April 2019, at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/persecution-of-christians-being-taken-to-extremes/news-story/038ad2176b1ce5cf2fa94ad4bf7430bf
 M. Quinlan, “An Unholy Patchwork Quilt: The Inadequacy of Protections of Freedom of Religious in Australia”, [in:] I.T. Benson, M. Quinlan, A. K Thompson (eds.), Religious Freedom in Australia – A New Terra Nullius?, Sydney/NSW: Shepard Press, 2019, p. 45.
 Ib.., p. 49.
 Michael Sexton, “Revisionists Drive Old Dixie Down Again”, The Australian, 21 August 2018, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/opinion/revisionists-drive-old-dixie-down-again/news-story/8972a2300f26a645672503deefc91eff
 B. Thompson, “Liberal Survivor Puts Spotlight on Right-Wing Churches”, Australian Financial Review, 15 March 2021, at https://www.afr.com/politics/liberal-survivor-puts-spotlight-on-right-wing-churchers-20/
 S. Burke, “Limp Green Libs Wiped Out”, Politicom, 14 March 2021, at https://politicom.com.au/tragic-green-libs-wiped-out/
 D. Heydon, “Liberalism Built on Christian Principles is Lost on Modern Elites”, The Australian, 4 November 2017, at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/liberalism-built-on-christian-principles-is-lost-on-modern-elites/news-story/174b51227ac4a32c550c352e1ede8021
 D. Heydon, “Religion “Toleration” in Modern Australia: The Tyranny of Relativism”. Inaugural PM Glynn Lecture on Religion, Law and Public Life, Australian Catholic University, Adelaide, October 2017, pp 8-9.
 D. Furse-Roberts, “Edmund Burke’s Enduring Legacy in Australian Politics”, Quadrant Magazine, Volume LXII, Number 7-8, July-August 2018, p 13.
 K. Windschuttle, The Break-Up of Australia: The Real Agenda Behind Aboriginal Recognition, Sydney/NSW: Quadrant Books, 2016, p 297.
 N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain made the Modern World, London/UK: Penguin Books, 2003, p 105.
 M. Clarke, A History of Australia, Melbourne University Press, 1997, pp 280-81.
 Ib., p 10.
 Furse-Roberts, op. cit. n.13, p 13.
 Ib., p 14.
 Quoted from C. Stringer, Discovering Australia’s Christian Heritage, Brisbane/Qld: Col Stringer Ministries, 2000, p.103.
 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (Cth) Preamble.
 R.G. Ely, Unto God and Caesar: Religious Issues in the Emerging Commonwealth 1891-1906, Melbourne/Vic: Melbourne University Press, 2004, p 21.
 H. Irving, To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australia’s Constitution, Cambridge/UK, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p 166.
 G. Blainey, A Shorter History of Australia (New York/NY: Random House, 1994), Chapter 11.
 A. Deagon, ‘Secularism as a Religion: Questioning the Future of the ‘Secular’ State’, The Western Australian Jurist, Volume 8, 2017, p 59.
 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (Cth) s 116.
 J. Quick and R. R. Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Sydney/NSW: Angus & Robertson, 1901, p 952.
 Harkianakis v Skalkos (1999) 47 NSWLR 302.
 Ib., pp 301-02
 Attorney-General (Vic) (ex rel Black) v. Commonwealth (1981) 146 CLR 559 (‘DOGS Case’).
 Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc. v Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116, p 131 (Latham CJ).
 Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax (Vic) (1983) 154 CLR 120, p 136. (per Mason CJ and Brennan J); see also Kruger v Commonwealth of Australia, (1997) 190 CLR 1, p. 160 (Gummow J).
 Blackshield, Tony Blackshield, “Religion and Australian Constitutional Law”, [in:] Peter Radan, Denise Meyerson and Rosalind F Croucher (eds.), Law and Religion: God, the State and the Common Law, London/UK: Routledge, 2005, p 88.
 Ib., p 91.
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Lebanese Moslem Association and Others (1987) 17 FCR 580, p 373.
 ‘Rabbi Shimon Cowen’, AustraliaWatch, at https://australiawatch.com.au/rabbi-shimon/
 A. Shanahan, “Discrimination Police Indulging In Gay Abandon”, The Australian, 15 October 2011, https://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/discrimination-police-indulging-in-gay-abandon/news-story/c1457f01388bc4f3b1fe0a1a974f82fd
 K. Hedley, “Couple Who Believe It’s a Sin to be Gay Fight for Right to be Foster Carers”, WAToday, 6 February 2020, https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/couple-who-believe-it-s-a-sin-to-be-gay-fight-for-right-to-be-foster-carers-20200205-p53y3c.html
 See, e.g.; Burns v Gaynor (No 2)  NSWDC 552; Burns v Gaynor  NSWDC 358; Burns v Gaynor  NSWDC 283; Burns v Gaynor  NSWDC 24; Burns v Gaynor  NSWCATAD 211; Burns v Gaynor  NSWCATAD 77; Burns v Gaynor  NSWCATAD 24.
 A. Zimmermann, “The State of Freedom of Speech in Australia: Universities, the Media, and Society in General”, [in:] Grzegorz Blicharz (ed.), Freedom of Speech: A Comparative Law Perspective, Warsaw 2019, p. 242.
 J. Steenhof, Australian Cases: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, Canberra/ACT: Human Rights Law Alliance, May 2020, p 10.
 Fleming v Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2)  SASC 26  (Gray J)
 “The application for special leave to appeal does not raise a question of general importance. None of the applicant's proposed appeal grounds enjoys sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. Special leave should be refused with costs.” – John Fleming v Advertiser News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd & ANOR  HCASL 16 A44/2016
 P. Collits, “The Crucifixion of John Fleming”, The Freedoms Project, 18 May 2020, https://thefreedomsproject.com/item/522-the-crucifixion-of-john-fleming
 A. K. Thompson, “Should Public Reason Developed Under U.S. Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Apply to Australia?” The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review, Volume 17, 2015, p. 108.
 P. Kurti, The Tyranny of Tolerance: Threats to Religious Liberty in Australia, Redland Bay/Qld: Connor Court, 2017, p 165.
 Steenhof, op cit. n.43, p 4.