Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-09T10:19:25.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Security and the Free Exercise Guarantee of Section 116: Time for a Judicial Interpretive Update

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Paul Babie
Paul Babie*
Affiliation:
Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article, in three parts, suggests both why and how the courts ought to reconsider, and thereby update, the approach to the free exercise guarantee of s 116. First, having briefly outlined the current interpretation of the free exercise guarantee, it suggests the necessity for an update based upon the need for liberal constitutional democracies to provide what has been referred to as ‘“constitutional space” for investigation and pursuit of truth.’ Second, it proposes a ‘judicial interpretive update’ to the interpretation of s 116, outlining a two-stage approach which, in the first stage, sets the ambit of the right and, in the second, provides for a limitations standard by which to assess infringements of the right. Finally, the article concludes that the proposed update to s 116 ensures a robust protection for free exercise in its application to Commonwealth legislation and executive action.

Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 351 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Brett G Scharffs, Charles J Russo, Matthew Stubbs, Beth Nosworthy, and Laura Grenfell for helpful guidance, conversations and suggestions; and to two anonymous reviewers for extremely perceptive and helpful comments. Thanks to Natalie Williams (LLB Adelaide, 2017) for outstanding research assistance in the preparation of this article.

References

1 James, Baldwin, ‘An Open Letter to My Sister, Angela Y. Davis’ in Angela, Y Davis, Ruchell, Magee, the Soledad Brothers and Other Political Prisoners (eds), If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance (Verso, 2016) 19, 23Google Scholar.

2 Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v Pauley, 582 US __ (2017); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, 573 US___ (2014). The United States Supreme Court also announced on 26 June that it would hear an appeal in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Co Civil Rights Comm’n, 582 US __ (2017), a case involving a baker in Colorado who refused, on free exercise grounds, to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage reception.

3 See Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v Trinity Western University (2016) 401 DLR (4th) 56 (Nova Scotia Court of Appeal); Trinity Western University v Law Society of British Columbia (2016) 405 DLR (4th) 16 (British Columbia Court of Appeal); Trinity Western University v The Law Society of Upper Canada (2016) 398 DLR (4th) 489 (Ontario Court of Appeal); Good Spirit School Division No. 204 v Christ the Teacher Roman Catholic Separate School Division, 2017 SKQB 109; Sean Fine, ‘Saskatchewan to invoke Charter clause over Catholic school funding’, The Globe and Mail, 2 May 2017 <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/saskatchewan-to-invoke-charters-notwithstanding-clause-over-catholic-school-funding/article34866278/>; while Saskatchewan announced that it would invoke the s 33 notwithstanding clause of the Canada Act 1982 (UK) c 11, sch B pt I (‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’), it will also appeal the decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, see ‘Saskatchewan's Catholic school boards to appeal ruling on funding’, The Globe and Mail, 28 April 2017 <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/sakatchewans-catholic-school-boards-to-appeal-ruling-on-funding/article34851810/>.

4 See Achbita, Centrum voor Gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v G4S Secure Solutions (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-157/15, 14 March 2017) and Bougnaoui and Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole Univers (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-188/15, 14 March 2017) <http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-03/cp170030en.pdf>.

5 Especially ss 51(xxxi), 80, 116 and 117. To this list must be added the implied right to political communication as elaborated in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 (‘Lange’). See Paul, Babie and Neville, Rochow, ‘Feels Like Déjà Vu: An Australian Bill of Rights and Religious Freedom’ [2010] Brigham Young University Law Review 821Google Scholar.

6 Such as the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

7 Indeed, the Commonwealth government itself seems to recognise that the right to freedom of religion and belief is under-protected. On 29 November 2016, the Minister for Foreign Affairs asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into and report on the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief: see Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief <http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Freedomofreligion>.

8 Nicholas, Aroney, Joel, Harrison, and Paul, Babie, ‘Religious Freedom under the Victorian Charter of Rights’ in Matthew, Groves and Colin, Campbell (eds), Australian Charters of Rights a Decade On (Federation Press, 2017)Google Scholar. The Australian Human Rights Commission also provides some protection against Commonwealth encroachments: see Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

9 Duncan, Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication fin de siècle (Harvard University Press, 1997) 180-212Google Scholar.

10 Hively v Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 853 F 3d 339, 352 (Posner J) (7th Cir, 2017).

11 (1912) 15 CLR 366.

12 See especially Richard, Ely, Unto God and Caesar: Religious Issues in the Emerging Commonwealth, 1891–1906 (Melbourne University Press, 1976).Google Scholar See also Luke, Beck, ‘The Australian Constitution's Religious Tests Clause as an Anti-Discrimination Provision’ (2016) 42 Monash University Law Review 545Google Scholar; Anthony, Gray, ‘Section 116 of the Australian Constitution and Dress Restrictions’ (2011) 16 Deakin Law Review 293Google Scholar; Michael, Hogan, ‘Separation of Church and State: Section 116 of the Australian Constitution’ (1981) 53 The Australian Quarterly 214Google Scholar; Stephen, McLeish, ‘Making Sense of Religion and the Constitution: A Fresh Start for Section 116’ (1992) 18 Monash University Law Review 207Google Scholar; Reid, Mortensen, ‘The Unfinished Experiment: A Report on Religious Freedom in Australia’ (2007) 21 Emory International Law Review 167Google Scholar; Wojciech, Sadurski, ‘Neutrality of Law Toward Religion’ (1990) 12 Sydney Law Review 420, 449Google Scholar; Gabriel, A Moens, ‘Church and State Relations in Australia and the United States: The Purpose and Effect Approaches and the Neutrality Principle’ (1996) 4 Brigham Young University Law Review 787, 803Google Scholar; Michael, Eburn, ‘Religion and the Constitution—An Illusory Freedom’ (1995) 8(2) Australian Religion Studies Review 77Google Scholar.

13 (1912) 15 CLR 366 (‘Krygger’).

14 Brett, G Scharffs, ‘Why Religious Freedom? Why the Religiously Committed, the Religiously Indifferent and Those Hostile to Religion Should Care’ (2017) 2 Brigham Young University Law Review (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

15 Hively v Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 853 F 3d 339, 352 (Posner J) (7th Cir, 2017).

16 The argument developed in this article could be supported using almost any ideo-political stance: liberal (see AC, Grayling, Liberty in the Age of Terror: A Defence of Civil Liberties and Enlightenment Values (Bloomsbury, 2009)Google Scholar), critical legal studies (see Roberto, Mangabeira Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Harvard University Press, 1986Google Scholar); The Critical Legal Studies Movement: Another Time, A Greater Task (Verso, 2015)), or Marxist (see Brad, R Roth, ‘Marxian insights for the human rights project’ in Susan, Marks (ed), International Law on the Left: Re-examining Marxist Legacies (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 220–51Google Scholar)).

17 (1943) 67 CLR 116 (‘Jehovah's Witnesses’).

18 (1997) 190 CLR 1 (Gaudron J) (‘Stolen Generations Case’).

19 Canada Act 1982 (UK) c 11, sch B pt I (‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’).

20 Andrew, Inglis Clark, Studies in Australian Constitutional Law (Charles F Maxwell, 1901) 21Google Scholar.

21 See George, Williams, Sean, Brennan and Andrew, Lynch, Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law & Theory: Commentary and Materials (The Federation Press, 6th ed, 2014) 186–213Google Scholar.

22 Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104, 171 (Deane J). See also Leslie, Zines, ‘Dead Hands or Living Tree? Stability and Change in Constitutional Law’ (2004) 25 Adelaide Law Review 3Google Scholar; Greg, Craven, ‘Heresy as Orthodoxy: Were the Founders Progressivists?’ (2003) 31 Federal Law Review 87Google Scholar.

23 (1994) 182 CLR 104.

24 Ibid 171 (Deane J). See also Williams, Brennan and Lynch, above n 21, 1259–91.

25 Baldwin, above n 1.

26 A Keith, Thompson, ‘Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech—The United States, Australia and Singapore compared: Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Speech are Inseparably Connected’ in Paul, Babie (ed), Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on Law, Regulations and Public Policy (LRPP 2017) 18–25, 18Google Scholar.

27 Scharffs, above n 14.

28 Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 US 296, 303–4 (1940).

29 W, Cole Durham Jr, and Brett, G Scharffs, Law and Religion: National, International, and Comparative Perspectives (Aspen Publishers, 2010) 165Google Scholar.

30 For such review, see Hogan, above n 12; McLeish, above n 12; Mortensen, above n 12; Moens, above n 12; Eburn, above n 12.

31 (1912) 15 CLR 366.

32 Hogan, above n 12, 219.

33 Krygger (1912) 15 CLR 366, 368.

34 Ibid 369.

35 (1943) 67 CLR 116.

36 Ibid 132.

37 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 40. See Gray, above n 12, 312.

38 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 86, citing Australia Communist Party v The Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, 273 (Kitto J).

39 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 160.

40 In a seminal piece of scholarship, Luke Beck has carefully outlined the origins and assessed the flaws of this approach to the word ‘for’: Luke, Beck, ‘The Case Against Improper Purpose as the Touchstone for Invalidity under Section 116 of the Constitution’ (2016) 44 Federal Law Review 505Google Scholar.

41 McLeish, above n 12, 210. But see Mortensen, above n 12, 172–3.

42 Hogan, above n 12, 220.

43 Gray, above n 12, 316.

44 See, eg, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Lebanese Moslem Association (1987) 17 FCR 373; Halliday v Commonwealth (2000) 45 ATR 458.

45 Moens, above n 12, 803.

46 Eburn, above n 12, 84–5.

47 See eg, Carolyn, Evans, Legal Protection of Religious Freedom in Australia (The Federation Press, 2012) 69–93Google Scholar; McLeish, above n 12; Joshua, Puls, ‘The Wall of Separation: Section 116, the First Amendment and Constitutional religious guarantees’ (1998) 26 Federal Law Review 139Google Scholar; Beck, above n 40.

48 WikiLeaks and Julian, Assange, The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire (Verso, 2016)Google Scholar. See, on the extent to which we live in a security state society, In re Unknown Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Orders (FISA Ct, 2017) <http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/APR%2025%20Order.pdf>.

49 Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, 82 FR 8977 (27 January 2017) promulgated pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub L No 82–414, 66 Stat 163, 8 USC, ch 12, § 212(f), 3 USC § 301 (1952).

50 On immigration policy in the United States, see Jennifer, M Chacón, ‘Immigration and the Bully Pulpit’ (2017) 130 Harvard Law Review Forum 243Google Scholar.

51 Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, 82 FR 8977 (27 January 2017) § 1.

52 Ibid § 2.

53 See NPR, Trump's Executive Order on Immigration, Annotated (31 January 2017) <http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated>. Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington, as well as San Francisco, sued the federal government, alleging violations of the United States Constitution's guarantees of religious freedom: Scott Malone and Dan Levine, ‘Challenges to Trump's immigration orders spread to more U.S. states’, Reuters (online), 31 January 2017 <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-sanfrancisco-idUSKBN15F2B1>. See Andrew Liptak, ‘In the last 24 hours, four federal courts have objected to Trump's actions: Here's where we stand’, The Verge (online) (29 January 2017) <http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/29/14430082/four-federal-courts-ruled-trump-immigration-ban>.

54 Washington v Trump (WD Wash, C17-0141JLR, 3 February 2017) (Robart J) (‘Trump (DC)’).

55 Washington v Trump, 847 F 3d 1151 (9th Cir, 2017) (Canby, Clifton, Friedland JJ) (‘Trump (9th Cir)’).

56 Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, 82 FR 13209 (6 March 2017), promulgated pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub L No 82–414, 66 Stat 163, 8 USC, ch 12, § 212(f), 3 USC § 301.

57 President Trump, as is well known, attempted to implement a revised travel ban Executive Order. Claims brought in Hawai’i and Maryland allege the same Constitutional violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments as the claim brought against the first travel ban Executive Order by Washington and Minnesota. Indeed, US District judges in both Hawai’i and Maryland granted temporary restraining orders on precisely the same grounds, matters which are both currently pending before the 9th and the 4th Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively: Hawai’i and Ismail Elshikh v Trump, __ F Supp 3d __ (D Haw, 2017); International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump, 241 F Supp 3d 539 (D Md, 2017); International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump, 857 F 3d 554 (4th Cir, 2017).

58 International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump, 857 F 3d 554, 572 (Gregory CJ) (4th Cir, 2017). See also ‘Dripping with a court's contempt’, The Economist (online), 26 May 2017 <http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/05/dripping-court-s-contempt?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20170526n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/ap/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatch>.

59 Hawai’i and Ismail Elshikh v Trump, 859 F 3d 741 (9th Cir, 2017).

60 The United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari and consolidated the International Refugee Assistance Project and Hawai’i cases for oral argument, directing the Clerk to set a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October Term 2017 (page 9 of the per curiam opinion). The Court also granted the Government's stay applications in respect of the preliminary injunctions, narrowing the scope of the injunctions as to §2(c) and §§6(a) and (b) of EO 13780, so as not to enforce those provisions against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States; all other foreign nationals were left subject to the provisions of EO 13780 (pages 11–12 of per curiam opinion): Trump v International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 US 2080 (2017) 13 (Per Curiam); Supreme Court of the United States, Argument Calendar (October Term 2017) (19 July 2017) <https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalOctober2017.pdf>.

61 Australian Constitution, s 51 (xix), (xxvii), (xxvi) respectively.

62 On Temporary Protection and Permanent Resident Visas see Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Government, Visa Finder <https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1?SRCHIntent=1f081595-f709-430a-befb-3ac4ec0ca99f&mode=search&sheader=pnlPopularIntent:The+visa+type+I+want+is:Refugee+and+humanitarian>. See also Gabrielle Appleby and Sangeetha Pillai, ‘What does ‘being Australian’ mean under the Constitution?’ The Conversation (online) (20 March 2015) <http://theconversation.com/what-does-being-australian-mean-under-the-constitution-38889>.

63 On the Minister's general power to do this, see Arran, Gerrard, ‘Determining Character: The Right to be Heard’ in Paul, Babie (ed), Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on Law, Regulations and Public Policy (LRPP 2017) 146–53Google Scholar.

64 Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (Cth) cl 3, schs 1, 3. See also Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (Cth) 2.

65 Claire Petrie, Bills Digest, No 51 of 2016–17, 7 December 2016.

66 Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (Cth) 2.

67 See Sangeetha, Pillai, ‘Non-Immigrants, Non-Aliens and People of the Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Citizenship Revisited’ (2013) 39 Monash University Law Review 568Google Scholar.

68 Australian Constitution s 51 (vi), (xix), (xxvii), (xxviii), (xxix).

69 Beck, above n 12, 547.

70 Mark, Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (University of California Press, 3rd ed, 2003) 7Google Scholar.

71 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1 (‘the Code’).

72 See, for instance, the orders found in Gaughan v Causevic (2016) 309 FLR 135 (Hartnett J); Gaughan v Naizmand, (Unreported, Federal Circuit Court of Australia,, Driver J, 19 October 2015).

73 Beck, above n 12, 547–51.

74 Ibid 548 (footnote omitted).

75 Re BLBS and Director-General of Security (2013) 137 ALD 196, 216–7 [111]. Beck also cites Re CXQY and Director-General of Security (2013) 62 AAR 386, 388 [1], R v Fattal [2011] VSC 681 (16 December 2011) [11], and Church of Scientology v Woodward (1979) (reported as an appendix to Church of Scientology Inc v Woodward (1982) 154 CLR 25) as examples of such determinations in both the administrative and criminal law contexts: Beck, above n 12, 548–51.

76 Jacobellis v Ohio, 378 US 184 (1964).

77 Ibid 197 (emphasis added).

78 See Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 100.1 (definition of ‘terrorist act’), 101.1.

79 For the range of approaches, see Williams, Brennan and Lynch, above n 21, 170–228.

80 Clark, above n 20, 21.

81 See Williams, Brennan and Lynch, above n 21, 186–213.

82 Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104, 171 (Deane J). See also Zines, above n 22; Craven, above n 22.

83 Hively v Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, 853 F 3d 339, 352 (Posner J) (7th Cir, 2017) (‘Hively’).

84 42 USC § 2000e–2(a).

85 Hively 853 F 3d 339, 341 (Wood CJ) (7th Cir, 2017).

86 Ibid 352 (Posner J).

87 Ibid 353 (Posner J) (emphasis added).

88 Ibid 352–3.

89 Ibid 353 (Posner J).

90 (1997) 189 CLR 520 (‘Lange’).

91 WikiLeaks and Assange, above n 49; Gore Vidal, Imperial America (Nation Books, 2004) 13–37. And on the extent to which we live in a security state society, see In re Unknown Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Orders (FISA Ct, 2017) <http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/APR%2025%20Order.pdf>.

92 Adelaide Co of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v The Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116, 132.

93 Ibid 156 (emphasis added).

94 Mortensen, above n 12, 173.

95 Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Black v The Commonwealth (1981) 146 CLR 559, 622 (‘DOGS Case’).

96 Gray, above n 12, 311.

97 DOGS Case (1981) 146 CLR 559, 622. See also 622–4.

98 Ibid 633 (reference omitted).

99 (1943) 67 CLR 116, 154 [3].

100 Ibid.

101 Lange (1997) 189 CLR 520, 567–68.

102 Stolen Generations Case (1997) 190 CLR 1, 131 (Gaudron J) (references omitted).

103 Ibid 132 (Gaudron J) (references omitted).

104 Ibid 134 (Gaudron J).

105 Williams, Brennan and Lynch, above n 21, 1327–28.

106 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Lebanese Moslem Association (1987) 17 FCR 373, 388 (Jackson J).

107 Ibid.

108 Ibid 374 (Fox J). Similarly, in Halliday v Commonwealth of Australia (2000) 45 ATR 458, 464, Sundberg J considered whether the result or effect of law prohibits free exercise of a religion.

109 See Alex, Deagon, ‘Defining the Interface of Freedom and Discrimination: Exercising Religion, Democracy and Same-Sex Marriage’ (2017) 20 International Trade and Business Law Review 239Google Scholar; Beck, above n 12.

110 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Lebanese Moslem Association (1987) 17 FCR 373, 389 (Jackson J).

111 (1943) 67 CLR 116, 124 (Latham CJ).

112 Krygger v Williams (1912) 15 CLR 366.

113 Stolen Generations Case (1997) 190 CLR 1.

114 Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 US 296, 303–4 (1940).

115 Williams, Brennan and Lynch, above n 21, 1175, citing Jehovah's Witnesses (1943) 67 CLR 116, 132 [10] (Latham CJ).

116 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, 3rd sess, 183rd plen mtg, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948). See also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 18(3):

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

117 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s 1.

118 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 September 1953), as amended by Protocol No 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 11 May 1994, ETS No 155 (entered into force 1 November 1998) and Protocol No 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 13 May 2004, CETS No 194 (entered into force 1 June 2010).

119 See also the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) s 28:

(1) Human rights may be subject only to reasonable limits set by laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

(2) In deciding whether a limit is reasonable, all relevant factors must be considered, including the following:

(a) the nature of the right affected;

(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;

(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;

(d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose;

(e) any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose the limitation seeks to achieve.

120 Sherbert v Verner, 374 US 398 (1963). See Charles J Russo, The Law of Public Education (Foundation Press, 9th ed, 2015) 11, 9–12.

121 City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center, 473 US 432, 439 (1985).

122 See Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v Kuhlmeier, 484 US 260, 273 (1988).

123 Korematsu v United States, 323 US 214 (1944).

124 Russo, above n 122.

125 Lange (1997) 189 CLR 520, 567 (citations omitted).

126 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 133–4 (Gaudron J).

127 (1943) 67 CLR 116, 131–2 (Latham CJ).

128 (1997) 190 CLR 1, 133 (Gaudron J) citing Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc v The Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116, 132 (Latham CJ).

129 Jehovah’s Witnesses (1943) 67 CLR 116, 132 (Latham CJ).

130 Ibid 131.

131 One might turn, for instance, to McCloy v New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178 and its adoption of the German approach to proportionality testing. There are difficulties, however, with this approach: see Anne Twomey, ‘Proportionality and the Constitution’ (Speech delivered at ALRC Freedoms Symposium, Federal Court, Queens Square, Sydney, 8 October 2015) >https://www.alrc.gov.au/proportionality-constitution-anne-twomey>.

132 [1986] 1 SCR 103 (‘Oakes’).

133 Ibid 138–9 (Dickson CJ) (references omitted).

134 Peter, W Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (Carswell, 2015)Google Scholar ch 38, 17.

135 Ibid ch 38, 18.

136 (1943) 67 CLR 116, 161 (Williams J).

137 Ibid.

138 See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 22: Article 18 (The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion), 48th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4 (27 September 1993) [8].

139 International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) v Trump, 857 F 3d 554, 572 (Gregory CJ) (4th Cir, 2017). And see The Economist, above n 59.

140 Hogg, above n 134, 38–18.

141 (1943) 67 CLR 116, 155 (Starke J).

142 Baldwin, above n 1.

143 Simon Benson, ‘Victorian judiciary ‘light on terrorism’’, The Australian, 13 June 2017. In order to avoid being held in contempt of court, the three Ministers issued an unreserved apology for their statements on 22 June 2017: Commonwealth Education Fund of Australia, An Executive and Judicial tussle: Is this healthy for our democracy? (23 June 2017) <http://www.cefa.org.au/ccf/executive-and-judicial-tussle-healthy-our-democracy>.

144 Grayling, above n 16, xi.