An idea should be able to be subjected to criticism

I have been a long time listener of 3RRR and was thinking back to the halcyon days in the 80’s and early 90’s and the programs I used to listen to. I would wake up on a Saturday and Sunday and listen to shows like ‘Punter to Punter’, ‘Danger Low Brow’, ‘The Coodabeen Champions’, and ‘The Liar’s Club’.

The ‘Liar’s Club’ was a show that looked sceptically at all sorts of pseudoscientific claims, including crystals, tarot cards, psychic readings and so forth. Sadly this show was pulled off the air because, the presenters claim, of a complaint by the Church of Scientology. It claimed that the show vilified their religion. Go here to read about this case. This was the first time that the Australian Broadcasting Authority upheld a breach of the code of conduct relating to religious vilification.

I've searched throught the Australian Broadcasting Authority annual reports to see how many cases related to religious vilification and how many breaches were found since 1993.

Compliants: 21 Breaches found: 6

Here is a list of the breaches:
3RRR Melbourne Program: The Liars Club
5EBI Adelaide Greek language program demeaning a group on the basis of religion.
TCN9 'Today program' The complainant alleged that a segment on witchcraft misrepresented Zoroastrians by branding followers of the religion in the same category as witches. Found guilty.
2NVR Nambucca Valley 'Program: As I See It' The ABA received a complaint alleging that the program ‘As I See It’, broadcast anti-Jewish material that stereotyped, incited, vilified and perpetuated hatred against Zionists, Israel and Jews. Guilty.
ABC TV 'Backberner' Segment that purported to mock Cat Stevens vilified on the basis of religion. Guilty of dengrating Muslims and reinforced stereotypes of Muslims.
Channel 31 Sydney 'Focus Talkshow' Practitioners of Falun Gong alleged that the program were unfairly presented, instigated hatred towards the spiritual group, and vilified on grounds of religion. They were found guilty of unfair representation.

This is less than one breach every 2 years.

I agree that you should be held to account if you make vicious and defamatory statements and you have no evidence to back up your statements. However, vilification should not be used if you are critical of an idea. Religious beliefs are, in a sense, ideas and an idea should be subjected to critical investigation. Critical examination forces the claimant to produce rational evidence to back up the claim. Just because it falls under the umbrella of a religion should not give it immunity from critical examination.

How is religion defined in Australia? The High Court ruled the following in a 1983 case involving the Church of Scientology.
"We therefore hold that, for the purposes of the law, the criteria for religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion."

However "The law's protection in this context is not directed to safe-guarding the tenets of each religion - it is accorded to preserve the dignity and freedom of persons to adhere to the religion of their choice."

So you should be able to comment on the tenets and question the basis of their beliefs without fear of prosecution.

Another thought, since religious institutions are exempt from certain laws, taxation for example, you should create some dodgy belief in a supernatural principle, write a book of laws, and set it up so you don't have to pay tax. Not that I think religions should be exempt from these laws.