Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Culise]

Can't say to how it works in Australia, but in the US priests can actually be compelled to discuss contents of a confession. It's not a thing that happens often, but it is legally possible.

Really, there's no such thing as an actual privileged conversation- under the right legal circumstances, they all break down.

Interesting. What circumstances is that permitted under?  I'm not an expert, but my understanding was always that all fifty states have passed laws upholding confessional privilege, though some of them may get a bit fuzzy on the details, and attempts to overturn or bypass this have rather consistently been struck down by higher courts due to violation of the First Amendment.

[Jimmy]

The thing is, while there's no First Amendment right in Australia, you do have the right to remain silent if arrested and interviewed, notwithstanding cases where you're legally obliged to provide law enforcement officers with details such as your name and address.

I can see cases where a person is legally compelled to answer questions that might potentially self-incriminate (for example, as an accessory to child abuse) or face conviction for a crime of remaining silent as being a possible slippery slope of justice. I have to admit I was pretty appalled by the so-called anti-bikie laws in Queensland, for example, that gave police the right to arrest any gathering of persons numbering three or more without any other real criteria attached. One doesn't need to look far to see that law on the books as being a pretty easy source of abuse of power.

[Culise]

Can't say to how it works in Australia, but in the US priests can actually be compelled to discuss contents of a confession. It's not a thing that happens often, but it is legally possible.

Really, there's no such thing as an actual privileged conversation- under the right legal circumstances, they all break down.

Interesting. What circumstances is that permitted under?  I'm not an expert, but my understanding was always that all fifty states have passed laws upholding confessional privilege, though some of them may get a bit fuzzy on the details, and attempts to overturn or bypass this have rather consistently been struck down by higher courts due to violation of the First Amendment.

Stuff like mandatory reporting laws for suspected child abuse or neglect, or the federal government- the RFRA allows for the federal government to, should they demonstrate compelling interest, infringe on religious rights. To quote Wikipedia:

The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest." Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues. The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.

Now, usually this law is used for the opposite- it is used to demonstrate that particular prosecution or legislation infringes on religious rights without demonstrating sufficient government interest and minimal restriction. However, it does carve out the fact that there is, in fact, a means to get around religious law. Again, to quote Wikipedia:

The RFRA applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."

Hence, federal crimes can be prosecuted using evidence otherwise regarded as a violation of religious rights if demonstrated compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of doing so.

Ah, thank you for the elaboration.  It is interesting to learn of the other side of that law's (and its state cousins') applications.

[Reudh]

The catholic church has announced that it will not comply with the new law that obliges priests to report child abuse to the authorities when it is told to them during confession.
Inb4 catholic church is banned in Australia, and all catholics deported to small islands off the coast.

Bit hard when nearly 30% of the country is Catholic. It's our biggest denomination.

[martinuzz]

You could always hire CHina to make some extra islands 

[Reelya]

Or the sea level can rise and all of Australia becomes islands.

But seriously, we already have Tasmania, we can send them all there. There are 6 million Catholics in Australia, 25% of the 24 million people, and Tasmania is 1/3rd the size of New York State. They would just need to boost Hobart to 4 million people and spread the other 2 million among the regional cities in Tasmania, and presto, you've got a little New York, especially considering that many of our Catholics are of Irish descent.

[Loud Whispers]

Sounds like Australia needs a prison colony

Maybe they can become a moebius strip and deport Australians to Australia

[Criptfeind]

Or the sea level can rise and all of Australia becomes islands.

I don't think you need sea level rise to do that.

[Reelya]

The new PM is in hot water because he said a long running drought is good because it drove the bottom-performing 10% of farmers out of business. So I guess he's saying droughts are good because it's the free market in action?

[Yoink]

But seriously, we already have Tasmania, we can send them all there.

...Isn't Tasmania basically wall-to-wall mutant cannibals, black metal fans and *shudder* artists?

[Loud Whispers]

The new PM is in hot water because he said a long running drought is good because it drove the bottom-performing 10% of farmers out of business. So I guess he's saying droughts are good because it's the free market in action?

I fear politic's focus on the economy may have gotten so ludicrous that the literal starvation of voters is seen as secondary if it promotes the invisible hand of free market efficiency

[wobbly]

The new PM is in hot water because he said a long running drought is good because it drove the bottom-performing 10% of farmers out of business. So I guess he's saying droughts are good because it's the free market in action?

He should of mixed the comments with fatman Scoop would of been much classier.

[scriver]

How the fuck did I miss that. That's fucking insane.

[Jimmy]

Ah, the privilege of the powerful, that they think their role is of greater value and import than those of the primary industries.

We'll see how long that stays true when people get hungry. They say civilization is twenty-four hours and two meals from barbarism.

[wobbly]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-16/morrison-regrets-senators-backing-anti-white-racism-support/10381038

So Christian Porter was saying this was the right decision yesterday, but today? Apparently the coalition always intended to vote against, Christian Porter doesn't even read the actual motions & all the helpless robots sitting seats in the senate were forced to press the wrong button against their will.

Edit:Fixed Link