A Commonwealth Religious Discrimination Act for Australia?

There have been a number of attempts to create a constitutional bill of rights in Australia, but all have failed. The most recent exploration of the idea of a constitutional bill of rights by the Rudd government in 2010 stalled because of church opposition. Yet Australia has embraced international norms outlawing racial and sexual discrimination passed as ordinary legislation using the Commonwealth’s external affairs power. This paper discusses whether religious freedom is a norm sufficiently well established in international law that it could also be passed as ordinary legislation in Australia. It then investigates what an Australian religious freedom law might look like and whether it could be crafted so as to allay the church opposition which has shut down previous attempts to create a constitutional bill of rights

Near-Infrared Broad-Line Profiles In Low-Redshift QSOs

We present near-infrared and optical spectrophotometry of six low-redshift QSOs. The integrated Pa-alpha/H-alpha-ratios cluster near the value 0.1, with one exception having a larger ratio consistent with other evidence of reddening. At least two of the Pa-alpha/H-alpha-profile ratios decrease with observed velocity. We discuss some implications for the dynamics of the broad-line region and this ratio's usefulness as a reddening indicator. We also present a spectrum of the He I-lambda-10830, Pa-lambda-blend of 1226 + 023. The He I/H-alpha-profile ratio shows marginal evidence for decreasing with observed velocity, which is consistent with the interpretation for the Pa-alpha/H-alpha-profile ratios.NSF 84-14652McDonald Observator

The habeas corpus protection of Joseph Smith from Missouri arrest requisitions

This is the first of two articles discussing Missouri’s requisitions to extradite Joseph Smith to face criminal charges and the Prophet’s recourse to English habeas corpus practice to defend himself. In this article, the author presents research rejecting the suggestion that the habeas corpus powers of the Nauvoo City Council were irregular and explains why the idea that the Nauvoo Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction to consider interstate habeas corpus matters is anachronistic. In the second article, the author analyzes the conduct of Missouri Governor Thomas Reynolds in relation to the requisitions for Joseph Smith’s extradition. Even by the standards of the day, given what he knew, his conduct was unethical

BURNS V CORBETT: WHAT IF THE HIGH COURT HAD DECIDED THE IMPLIED FREEDOM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION ISSUE?

Because the Commonwealth has never fulfilled its promise to domesticate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR), human rights in Australia remain an uncertain blend of federal and state anti-discrimination statutes, common law rights and constitutional implications. The litigation surrounding Tess Corbett’s media interview in Hamilton, Victoria when she was campaigning as a candidate in the 2013 federal election, highlights that uncertainty. Should her statements have been protected because the voters in Wannon, Victoria needed to know her views so as to vote in an informed way, or did New South Wales’ interest in stamping out the vilification of gay people justify a law in that state that burdened Ms Corbett’s expression? While the New South Wales Court of Appeal and the High Court eventually agreed that the New South Wales’ tribunals involved had no jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, the underlying anti-discrimination v freedom of political communication issue was not resolved despite many hearings. This article considers how that question might have been resolved since the New South Wales Court of Appeal in the Sunol case in 2012 seem to have preferred the views of the minority in the High Court in Coleman v Powerin 2004

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech - The United States, Australia and Singapore compared

Freedom of Religion (more correctly, freedom of conscience, belief and religion under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR)), and Freedom of Speech have been logically tied together since human beings were sentient creatures. The two rights are inseparably connected by logic, since one cannot speak freely unless one has the freedom of conscience to think out something to say. For this reason, the two rights were combined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution in 1789 and that joinder has cemented the connection ever since even though the extrapolation of the two rights has seen them separated in modern human rights instruments. That latter-day separation in the interests of more complete expression however, seems to have disconnected the two rights in the minds of modern philosophers, legislators and judges

Should We Reform the Jury? An Australian Perspective

Jury trials are a necessary part of American and Australian jurisprudence. However, critics question whether both jurisdictions should consider eliminating or reforming jury trials. High-profile jury cases in Australia and the United States elicit criticism regarding the ongoing relevance of the institution. Jury trials function differently in both countries and hold different levels of public trust in the institution. Despite the criticisms of jury trials, neither country has engaged in serious conversations to abolition this ancient institution. This article discusses the trials of Lindy Chamberlain and Cardinal George Pell, placing the use of criminal jury trial in their ancient English historical perspective demonstrating the evolutionary nature of criminal jury trials. Despite the recognized importance of citizen participation in the criminal justice system, there have been constant changes to the jury trial as Anglo-American societies try to mitigate unjust results in criminal jury trials. Some injustices seem to flow from media involvement for or against the accused. Judges may make an active effort to protect juries and by proxy defendants. Jury trials are the preferred Anglo-American means of deciding criminal cases since jurors are viewed as a democratic representation of society. However, does that mean the decisions of jury trials should be treated as inviolable? Due to issues of mistrial by actions of the jury, appeals against their verdicts have been allowed in Australia since 1912; however, appellate judges have been reluctant to upset jury verdicts. This article addresses whether jury practice should be reformed to reduce verdicts that convict the innocent and how the jury process should be reformed. This article’s primary recommendation is that jury panels receive additional education before they begin criminal trials

Who Was Sherem?

The Book of Mormon’s first anti-Christ, Sherem, “came among” the Nephites before their first generation was ended. Because he was an eloquent believer in the Law of Moses, there has been a variety of surmise as to his background. Was he a Lamanite, or a Jaredite or Mulekite trader? Was his presence among the separated Nephites evidence of early interaction between the Nephites and other civilisations in Nephite lands from the time of their first arrival? This short article reviews the various suggestions about Sherem’s identity and suggests he was most likely a descendant of the original Lehite party but that his identity was purposely suppressed so as not to give him more credibility than he deserved

Missourian efforts to extradite Joseph Smith and the ethics of Governor Thomas Reynolds of Missouri

This is the second of two articles discussing Missouri’s requisitions to extradite Joseph Smith to face criminal charges and the Prophet’s recourse to English habeas corpus practice to defend himself. In the first article, the author discussed the English nature of pre-Civil War habeas corpus practice in America and the anachronistic modern idea that the Nauvoo Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction to consider interstate habeas corpus matters. In this article, he analyzes the conduct of Governor Thomas Reynolds in the matter of Missouri’s requisitions for the extradition of Joseph Smith in light of 1840s legal ethics in America. That analysis follows the discovery that Governor Reynolds had dismissed the underlying 1838 charges against Joseph Smith when he was a Missouri Supreme Court judge. It also responds to the revelation that Missouri reissued indictments based on the same underlying facts in June 1843 despite the existence of a double-jeopardy provision in the Missouri Constitution of 1820