I first came across the Bernard Gaynor case years ago, but I have resisted writing about it. Gaynor, a conservative Catholic and prolific internet commenter, was dismissed from the Army Reserve for provocative public comments. An example was an article \u201cMalcom can\u2019t be a Cate\u201d attacking transwoman Catherine MacGregor, which is still on his website. Gaynor won in the Federal Court, lost in the Full Federal Court, and then the High Court declined him special leave to appeal. Other, arguably vexatious litigation (43, yes 43 complaints to the NSW anti-discrimination board) with a gay rights activist led to Gaynor losing his house.<\/p>\n
When I read his social media, many comments were expressed with the sort of soldierly language that most Christians would object to, and would have castigated me for publishing it.<\/p>\n
Another well-known free speech case is Jereth Kok, a doctor found guilty of professional misconduct over his social media output. One of the samples used in the case was an Eternity article I published on the subject of transgender, which argued for a biological definition of sex. I had edited that piece, taking out some of his language, but clearly supported Kok\u2019s right to free speech.<\/p>\n
And a third case is that of campaigner Kirralee Smith, who took a local website\u2019s account of a transwoman footballer and campaigned nationally about it. This was one of two trans women footballer cases for which Smith has been hit with a $95,000 fine for unlawful vilification. The fine is stayed while her case is under appeal.<\/p>\n
All three involved a Christian expressing an opinion. All three involved legal consequences. In each case, we can draw a distinction between the principle each was seeking to uphold and the sort of language they used. <\/p>\n
We can ask \u2013
1) Do we agree with what was said?
2) Do we think they had a right to say what they said?
3) Were the legal consequences proportionate?<\/p>\n
Gaynor lost his house and his place in the Army. Kok lost his profession. Smith had a huge fine. A strong case can be made that each consequence was disproportionate. In addition, Kok and Gaynor were subject to agonisingly drawn-out legal procedures.<\/p>\n
Some readers will see all three as Christian sisters and brothers punished for their beliefs. An opposite reaction will be to write them off as culture warriors. Perhaps some will give varying degrees of respect to the three \u2013 that is where this writer lands.<\/p>\n
All three are treated as heroes in the recently published inaugural Australian Christian Freedom Index (ACFI) published by The Canberra Declaration, a ministry of Australian Heart Ministries<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
These three cases are examples of where the boundary \u2013 not between an unlimited right to freedom of speech or religion \u2013 but where an undue imposition on those freedoms lies.<\/p>\n
ACFI treats them all as cases of unjustified repression of Christian speech. There is no hint in ACFI that they might have injured or wronged someone in what they posted. These are individual cases, and so it is possible to come to different views about whether their actions were problematic. Kok has acknowledged that, given his time again, he would not use the same language in some of his Facebook comments, but as far as The Other Cheek is aware, the others admit no fault.<\/p>\n
These three cases are among those given extended coverage in ACFI, but another strong component of the publication is a self-selected survey of some 10,808 responses.<\/p>\n
Some of these involve clear discrimination against people for expressing their Christian faith. <\/p>\n
\u201cAt my workplace, I was told that my necklace with a crucifix on it was disrespectful to the Muslim women I was working with. I refused to remove it. The Muslim women were allowed to wear their hijabs, so why should I have to remove my crucifix?\u201d Respondent #7,085<\/p>\n
\u201cI have been beaten many times when street preaching. On some occasions, I have required hospitalisation as a result of being attacked. I have been roughly handled by police and arrested two times.\u201d Respobdent #9,000<\/p>\n
\u201cI was studying a BA at Monash University in Melbourne. In an essay for a Psychology course, I included quotes from the Bible along with quotes from other sources. I was told that if I quoted the Bible again, I would automatically fail the subject.\u201d Respondent #1,136<\/p>\n
\u201cAn application to join the Liberal Party was rejected when our Christian ministry role was mentioned.\u201d
Respondent #2,251<\/p>\n
\u201cAs a pastor involved in prayer ministry, I am unable to minister in areas of sexuality, even when recipients desire prayer in that area.\u201d Respondent #3,400 is referring to restrictions imposed by the \u2018conversion laws\u2019 in several states.<\/p>\n
\u201cI had my roster changed and hours cut by a temporary supervisor (who\u2019d stated to other workers that she was not going to give good shifts to the \u2018Bible\u2011bashing b****\u2019). She denied it when I confronted her but could not explain the roster changes. Three months later, she put in a serious false complaint and had me unfairly dismissed. I won in court but did not want to go back to that workplace.\u201d Respondent #3,476<\/p>\n
Other responses don\u2019t appear to be as clear-cut, at least as far as this writer is concerned.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am a Religious Instruction volunteer in schools. We are not allowed to say \u201cboys and girls\u201d or talk about gender, even if asked by students.\u201d Respondent #1354<\/p>\n
Religious Instruction is the name of voluntary teaching of religion in Queensland. The coalition government in Queensland has wound back some of the inclusion policies of the previous Labor government. RI teachers, like SRE teachers in NSW, are required to teach to authorised curricula formulated by religious bodies. This writer teaches SRE at a local public school using the Sydney Anglican Connect curriculum, which means he does not cover sexuality. That means parents can know what their kids will be taught. SRE and RI volunteers can\u2019t simply freelance their own material.<\/p>\n
\u201cI work in the music and entertainment industry. It\u2019s distinctly anti\u2011Christian. In conversations when Christianity was raised, but people didn\u2019t know I was a Christian, I would routinely hear, \u201cBring back the lions.\u201d Respondent #5,303 This appears to be a case of a robust workplace environment. Can we expect non-Christians not to mock us, especially if they don\u2019t know we are Christians?<\/p>\n
However, there are other strong cases in ACFI, especially about Christians losing their jobs for expressing their faith. Perhaps the most egregious was Andrew Thorburn\u2019s. \u201cAppointed CEO of the Essendon Football Club on 3 October 2022, he resigned the following day after media scrutiny focused on his role as board chair of an Anglican church whose sermons\u2014preached by others, nearly a decade earlier\u2014 expressed biblically orthodox Christian views on sexuality.\u201d<\/p>\n
A weaker case is on the same page:. \u201cCitipointe Christian College in Brisbane issued a transparent enrolment contract in January 2022 stating its doctrinal positions on marriage and biological sex. Within days, a petition of 155,000 signatures, a ministerial referral, and political condemnation followed. The college withdrew the contract within a week, and the principal resigned.\u201d The timing is significant \u2013 at three weeks before the start of school, the college issued a new contract requiring parents to agree that homosexuality was sinful, which meant that parents would have to sign on or rapidly find a new school for their child. In this writer\u2019s opinion, this was foolish overreach by the school. The school had been enrolling families with more liberal views than the statement of faith they were suddenly being asked to sign. The political timing was also significant; then-PM Scott Morrison was forced to disagree with the school, which had undermined his attempt at passing a religious freedom bill.<\/p>\n
Two ACFI cases don\u2019t appear to fit religious freedom issues. ACFI acknowledges that the case of Dr William Bay, a medical registrar opposed to the use of MRNA vaccines and an advocate for ivermectin as a treatment of Covid \u201csits at the margins of this report: his views on vaccines and public health policy are not essential components of biblically orthodox Christian faith, though they are shared by a significant minority of Christians and were, by his own account, grounded in his faith.\u201d Bay has won a first round against APRA and had his medical registration returned.
Medical dissidents have similar free speech concerns to religious freedom cases, but are medical debates about Covid religious? Some arguments will touch on abortion, but Bay disrupted the 2022 AMA national conference, shouting, \u201cStop forcing these vaccines on people who are getting killed by them\u201d Was that a religious viewpoint?<\/p>\n
A couple of ACFI cases involve actions by churches. One of these is the second Covid case, involving Steve Forkin, who successfully appealed a conviction for breaching COVID restrictions, but had been suspended from ministry roles by his church.<\/p>\n
The case of Elizabeth Kendall is better known. She stepped down from lay ministry after the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne added a rule 6.2(y) to the Code of conduct which lists among an extensive list of \u201cunacceptable behaviours:\u201d \u201cengage in any conduct to change or suppress a child\u2019s gender identity or sexual orientation.\u201d<\/p>\n
ACFI does not note the response of other evangelicals in the Diocese that the existing rule 6.2(k)provided that leaders should not \u201cdiscuss sexual activities with a child unless it is a specific job requirement and the person is qualified or trained to discuss these matters\u201d which minimises the effect of the new rules.<\/p>\n
One clear case of conflict between the right to religious freedom for progressive individuals and for conservative religious institutions is recorded by ACFI. \u201cSt Mary\u2019s Anglican Church in Armidale informed its organist that his role was incompatible with his same-sex marriage. A coordinated petition, sustained media pressure, and an antidiscrimination complaint resulted in the church issuing a written apology.\u201d St Mary\u2019s West Armidale was a liberal church in a diocese that had turned into a conservative evangelical diocese some decades ago. ACFI\u2019s sympathy aligns, it seems with the diocese. As hinted in the William Bay quote above, ACFI leans towards \u201cbiblical orthodox faith.\u201d Perhaps this could be made clearer.<\/p>\n
If examples of conservative congregations in the Uniting Church that were forced to leave were also included, would ACFI uphold the rights of the denomination or the group that left? Several of the churches in the conservative Anglican Diocese of the Southern Cross have that history.<\/p>\n
Because of the nature of religion, the very word is derived according to Augustine from the Latin religio \u201cto bind again,\u201d which involves a body of humans, not simply individuals. This means that there is always likely a tension between the religious freedom and freedom of speech of an individual and the religious freedom of a religious community or denomination. The ACFI example of the RI teacher can be understood in this light. There is a steady flow of teachers in conservative Christian schools having committed to a conservative religious framework, later seeing themselves of accepting that they are gay and adopting a different religious outlook. Should they count in ACFI\u2019s numbers? <\/p>\n
Legal analysis<\/p>\n
Possibly ACFI\u2019s strongest evidence of restrictions on religious freedom comes from an analysis of an increasing number of restrictions on religious freedom by legislation.<\/p>\n
This includes the restrictions on one-to-one counselling and prayer on sexuality in the various state conversion laws. But other cases stand out. <\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cIn all states and territories but Tasmania, conscientious objection provides no clean exit for doctors\u2014they must still refer patients to someone willing to perform the procedure.\u201d In NSW, at least, the word \u201crefer\u201d in the formal sense of a written referral does not apply: A doctor can simply tell a patient to look at the NSW Health website. In Queensland, WA and SA, conscientious objectors must inform and refer. <\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cSafe access zones of up to 150 metres around abortion facilities now operate in every jurisdiction. Within these zones, prayer vigils, signs, counselling and public witness are all prohibited. In 2019, Tasmania used these laws to prosecute Graham Preston for his pro-life advocacy. Preston challenged the law all the way to the High Court, joined in the challenge by Victorian mother of 13, Kathy Clubb, who had also been prosecuted for handing a leaflet to someone outside a Victorian abortion clinic. The Court upheld the zones as constitutional, setting a precedent for the entire country.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cChristian families who hold biblical views on these matters [marriage and sexuality] can be prevented from fostering\u2014as Byron and Keira Hordyk were in Western Australia\u2014and must fight through costly litigation to overturn such decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cAustralia has passed no federal legislation protecting religious freedom. Successive governments have promised and failed to deliver. This absence means Christians have no protection for religious belief comparable to that available for sex, race, disability or age. Believers rely entirely on narrow exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act and similar provisions in other federal anti-discrimination laws\u2014protections that were designed for a different purpose and are ever vulnerable to reinterpretation.256 The Federal Court\u2019s 2024 decision in Tickle v Giggle, upheld on appeal in 2026, demonstrates the risk: The Court ruled that \u2018sex\u2019 under the Sex Discrimination Act is \u2018changeable and not necessarily binary,\u2019 destabilising the very categories Christian schools and organisations use to make employment and enrolment decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n
ACFI achieves its purpose of demonstrating encroachments on religious freedom in Australia. Not every case mentioned in the Index, however, will be regarded as despositive by every reader. The publisher of ACFI, the Canberra Declaration, would accept that it adopts a conservative line.<\/p>\n
This writer agrees with Professor Neil Foster\u2019s words in his endorsement of ACFI: \u201cReligious discrimination as experienced by believers in Australia needs more research, and this study will play an important part of that needed work. Like every survey it has limitations, but it is an important document reporting the experience of many believers in Australia in 2026, and should be read carefully by lawmakers and everyone interested in supporting the important human right of religious freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"I first came across the Bernard Gaynor case years ago, but I have resisted writing about it. Gaynor,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":718183,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[64,63,44],"class_list":["post-718182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-australia","tag-au","tag-australia","tag-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/718182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=718182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/718182\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/718183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=718182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=718182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=718182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}