A continent in itself, Australia is a federal, parliamentary democracy. With a population in excess of 25.9 million, and a total area of 7,692,024 km2, it is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world.
According to the 2021 Census, 44% of those who responded were Christian, 39% were non-religious. Other religious groups included: Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims, who represented a further 10% of respondents to the question.
| Constitution and government |
Education and children’s rights |
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals |
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution and government
Education and children’s rights
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Countries: Belgium, Brazil, Central African Republic, Congo, Republic of the, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Taiwan, Ukraine
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Croatia, Egypt, Eswatini, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
No formal discrimination in education
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Republic of the, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Russia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, Timor-Leste (East Timor), United States of America, Uruguay
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
Countries: Comoros, Ethiopia, Gambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Czech Republic, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxembourg, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovenia, Sweden, Taiwan, Uruguay, Venezuela
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Countries: Bahamas, Belgium, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Iceland, Jamaica, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, United States of America
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious
This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.
May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief
Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
Countries: Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Eritrea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
There is systematic religious privilege
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Moldova, Nepal, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Zambia, Zimbabwe
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Countries: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kosovo, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Countries: Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Italy, Kiribati, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Spain, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Nigeria, Oman, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Turkey
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Countries: Bangladesh, Barbados, Colombia, Egypt, Georgia, Ghana, Guyana, Iraq, Malaysia, Poland, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, China, Eritrea, Iran, Kuwait, Mauritania, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
Countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Countries: Andorra, Armenia, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Republic of the, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar (Burma), Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state
State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.
Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Official symbolic deference to religion
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Finland, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety
This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.
Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Sri Lanka, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Oman, Palestine, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Countries: Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Haiti, Jamaica, Malaysia, Nigeria, Palestine, Philippines, Singapore, Turkey
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Countries: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Moldova, Montenegro, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Congo, Republic of the, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, North Korea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Serbia, Singapore, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam
State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
There is an established church or state religion
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Finland, Georgia, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Countries: Cameroon, Dominica, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Cambodia, Chad, China, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Switzerland, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Countries: Afghanistan, Egypt, Hungary, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Grenada, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Cyprus, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Oman, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
Countries: Argentina, Burundi, Canada, Eritrea, Haiti, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Tonga
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Religious groups control some public or social services
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Denmark, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Countries: Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Samoa, Sweden, Switzerland
Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
Countries: Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, United Arab Emirates
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.
Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Eswatini, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Egypt, Eritrea, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Senegal, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan
| Systemic Discrimination |
| Mostly Satisfactory |
| Free and Equal |
Constitution and government
The Australian Constitution (Section 116) bars the federal government from making any law that imposes a state religion or religious observance, prohibits the free exercise of religion or sets a religious test for a federal public office. The section only applies to legislation made by the Commonwealth and does not impose restrictions on the states of Australia. Only Tasmania has a similar provision in its Constitution. The High Court has never ruled a legislative provision to be in contravention of Section 116.
There is no charter of general rights at the national level. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is protected under common law as well as in international instruments to which Australia is a State Party, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Favoring Christianity
Although the government is officially secular, it continues to favor Christianity for many public ceremonies. For example, each session of parliament begins with a joint recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Various groups campaign against that practice, and have had successes at a local government level, giving some cause for optimism in the State of Victoria.
Religious institutions in general also enjoy long-standing privileges in being exempt from paying tax and from complying with laws, such as the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act against discrimination and Australian Charities & Not-for-profits Commission Act for transparent governance.
Individuals who suffer discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief have recourse under federal discrimination laws or through the court system and bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Federal laws that protect freedom of religion include the Racial Discrimination Act, the Human Rights Commission Act and the Fair Work Act 2009. Public service employees who believe they are denied a promotion on religious grounds can appeal to the public service merit protection commissioner.
In 2019, a ‘religious discrimination’ bill was proposed that would prohibit “discrimination in certain areas of public life on the ground of religious belief or activity”. Many groups, including anti-discrimination commissions throughout the country, opposed it. While the coalition government set out to develop a second version, that too was strongly opposed and despite passing with amendments in the lower house, it was never brought to the Senate for debate before the 2022 election changed the government. The new Australian Labor Party (ALP) government has said it will prepare a revised bill that removes some of the contentious areas where state-based anti-discrimination laws were overridden.
Education and children’s rights
The state governments permit religious education in public schools, generally taught by volunteers using approved curricula, to varying degrees. Public schools in New South Wales provide secular ethics classes as an alternative for students who do not attend religious instruction classes. In other states, there is no secular alternative to religious education, but non-religious students may opt out of the class.
In 2023, the Federal government expanded its former National School Chaplaincy Program, which provided financial support for government and non-government school communities to conduct chaplaincy services. The current incarnation of the program, renamed the National Student Wellbeing Program, no longer requires chaplains to be religious. The program emphasizes that wellbeing officers and chaplains must not proselytize and must “respect, accept and be sensitive to other views, values and beliefs.” Nevertheless, provision of chaplains is mostly managed through contracts with religiously-dominated organizations who appear to prefer religious candidates.
Funding inequality between public and private schools
Both the Australian federal government and state and territory governments provide funding for private schools, the great majority of which are faith-based. Catholic schools are reported to receive up to 75% of their funding from government funds.
The federal government provides the largest part of the funding for private schools while the state or territory governments provide the largest part for the government-owned public schools.
Inequitable funding of private schools by the State results in better resourced private schools attracting families who can afford the fees away from public schools to private schools.
Family, community and society
An analysis of 2016 census data and other academic surveys suggests that religious belief is on the decline in Australia with 62% of the population reporting that they did not belong to a religious organization. 71% of Australians indicated that religion was not personally important. Further, 80% of marriages are now conducted in civil ceremonies.
A December 2022 report released by the Rationalist Society of Australia indicates that there is little to no correlation between religious conservatism and conservative social values in Australia. The majority of religious conservatives support abortion, assisted dying and LGBTI+ rights, according to the data. However, there is a correlation between religious conservatism and a denial of climate change.
Abortion
Abortion has now been decriminalized across most of Australia. Most recently, it was decriminalized in Southern Australia in 2021. In December 2022, the Human Rights Law Centre called on the government of Western Australia to fully decriminalize abortion. It is the only State not to have fully decriminalized abortion.
In 2022, Western Australia’s government announced that it planned to progress legislative amendments to repeal the criminal offense of abortion. However, it will still remain an offense for an unqualified person to perform or assist with an abortion.
Assisted dying
Assisted dying is permitted in all States of Australia. The December 2022 repeal of the Andrews Law (1997) paved the way for the territory governments to legislate on euthanasia after a 25-year ban.
Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values
Although the Constitution does not enshrine a bill of rights, the rights to freedom of expression and association are protected by virtue of Australia being a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In practice, there is a free press and citizens enjoy a culture that generally respects freedom of expression.
As in many parts of the world, the polarization and claims of discrimination or being silenced have increased on both sides of several topics. For instance, there was strong debate about the right of a high profile sports person to publicly declare that “homosexuals (among others) are bound for hell”. The person’s contract was canceled and a court case ensued where they claimed religious discrimination as the statement was part of their religious belief. The case was settled before trial, avoiding the setting of a legal precedent.
According to Human Rights Watch’s 2023 World Report:
“In April, the state of New South Wales introduced new laws and penalties specifically targeting climate protesters, punishing them with hefty fines and up to two years prison for protesting without permission. […] New anti-protest laws passed in the states of Victoria and Tasmania also invoke severe penalties for non-violent protest.”
‘Blasphemy’ laws in the states
While there is no Commonwealth crime of ‘blasphemy’ or blasphemous libel, Tasmania has Criminal Code offenses for both, and similar crimes may yet exist in common law in other states.
The English common law offenses of ‘blasphemy’ and blasphemous libel with unlimited penalties were received into the law of the Australian colonies and territories at establishment, and became offenses in the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia when the federation was formed in 1901. They may yet exist wherever they have not been specifically abolished.
With the introduction of criminal codes, both offenses were definitively abolished and not replaced with code laws in Queensland in 1899, and in Western Australia in 1913. The Australian Capital Territory abolished blasphemous libel, but not ‘blasphemy’, in 1983. The Commonwealth of Australia abolished both offenses in 1995, but this abolition does not impact on state and territory law. Tasmania abolished both common law offenses in 1924 and replaced them with code offenses. New South Wales has not abolished the common law offenses and in the Crimes Act 1900 specifically recognises the existence of the common law offense of blasphemous libel.
Consequently, the common law offenses of ‘blasphemy’ and blasphemous libel may yet exist in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and the Northern territory, and the common law offense of ‘blasphemy’ in the Capital Territory. Code offenses of ‘blasphemy’ and blasphemous libel exist in Tasmania.
Religious “vilification” laws
The federal government and several states have passed laws outlawing “racial vilification” and the states of Tasmania, Queensland and Victoria have extended those laws to also outlaw “religious vilification”. There is debate about the extent to which these laws only proscribe incitement to hatred, or whether they may be used to suppress non-inciting speech about religious beliefs and practices.
The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act passed by Victoria in 2001 (Section 8) states: “A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.” “Ridicule”, even if “severe”, may set a low bar for “vilification”.
The Victorian Human Rights Commission asserts that “being critical of a religion” or “behaviour that offends people of a particular race or religion, but does not encourage others to hate, disrespect or abuse racial or religious groups” are examples of behaviour which are “not likely” to fall under the scope of racial or religious vilification.
Racial and religious “vilification” laws have been used a number of times, sometimes in circumstances that have drawn mixed reactions, with opponents saying that with regard to the religious sections of these laws, they may restrict free expression about religious beliefs that should not be classed as “incitement to hatred.”
