Freedom of Religion or Freedom to Harm?

Why Reviewing NSW’s Anti-Discrimination Laws is so Important

The NSW Government’s is in the process of reviewing it's Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. It's a well overdue spring cleaning of half century old legislation that is as out of date as wearing floral printed flairs. For decades, Australia’s legal framework has protected recognised religions from discrimination—but in doing so, it has left glaring loopholes that allow high-control groups (cults), to weaponise “freedom of religion” as a shield for abusive behaviour.

In theory and in practice, I whole heartedly believe that everyone has the right to freedom of religion as stipulated in basic human rights:

Article 18 ~ Australian Human Rights Commission

• Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

  
  

• No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

  
  

• 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.

  
  

Cults disingenuously hide behind freedom of religion. They routinely engage in vilification, coercive control, and systemic discrimination, particularly against those who question or reject their authority. Yet, because their conduct is cloaked in religious language, the harm they cause often slips through the cracks of the law. My personal interactions with David McKay, founder of the 'Kidney Cult', aka Jesus Christians, demonstrates this very well.

A Personal Case: When “Freedom of Religion” Silences Freedom of Belief

From the moment my daughter joined McKay's community, I became a target—not for anything I had done, but because of who I was: her mother and a woman of independent belief. Over the years, McKay publicly vilified me as “smothering,” dismissed me as a feminist threat, and eventually escalated to branding me a “Satanist”.

The later was not a careless insult. In Christian communities, such a label is the ultimate condemnation, marking someone as irredeemably evil. The accusation ensured that my daughter could not easily return to me without being seen as betraying God himself. It was a calculated act of discrimination that severed our relationship and inflicted deep psychological harm.

In a defamation that occurred as a direct result of McKay's slander, Judge Clayton found he'd acted with malice in making these accusations. Yet while the civil court recognised the harm, no anti-discrimination law offered me protection. The vilification of my faith, my gender, and my identity fell into a legal blind spot—because current law does not recognise smaller belief systems.

In effect, McKay’s “freedom of religion” overrode my freedom of belief and conscience.

Cults and Discrimination: A Legal Loophole

My case highlights a broader truth: cults thrive in the gaps of our legal frameworks. Their discriminatory doctrines—such as teaching that families must be hated, outsiders are evil, and mothers are dangerous—would be unthinkable if instigated by or directed toward more publicly recognised groups. Imagine if the same rhetoric were applied to Jewish, Muslim, or Catholic communities, or if any of these larger faith systems publicly demonised anyone who disagreed with them. The outrage would be immediate, and rightly so.

But when such language is cloaked as “doctrine” within a small, fringe group, the law often looks the other way. Cults exploit this inconsistency, claiming their religious freedom is under attack whenever their abuses are challenged. It becomes a superiority contest, where their interpretation of religion automatically trumps the rights of others to believe, to speak, and to live without harassment.

Reform Is Urgent

The NSW review offers a chance to close these loopholes. Key reforms must include:

• Expanding protected attributes to cover all sincerely held religious, spiritual, and philosophical beliefs, regardless of size or mainstream recognition.

  
  

• Strengthening vilification laws so they apply equally to smaller belief systems, not just dominant faiths.

  
  

• Removing religious exemptions that allow groups to justify discrimination under the guise of doctrine.

  
  

• Recognising coercive control goes hand in hand with discrimination, particularly when vilification is used to sever family bonds and isolate individuals.

  
  

• Regulating digital spaces, holding platforms accountable for hosting vilifying content that destroys lives.

  
  

Without these reforms, people like me will continue to fall through the cracks, punished not only by cult leaders but by a legal system that refuses to acknowledge our right to protection.

Balancing Rights, Not Pitting Them Against Each Other

Freedom of religion is vital. But it must be balanced with freedom of belief and conscience for all Australians. True religious liberty is not a weapon to silence dissent, nor a licence to vilify those who think differently.

It is encouraging to see NSW undertaking this long-overdue reform. When the Anti-Discrimination Act was first drafted in 1977, the social threat of cults and high-control groups was not widely understood. Today, with inquiries like the Victorian Inquiry into cults and Organised fringe groups shedding light on these harms, we have the chance to modernise the law so that no one is left unprotected simply because their belief system is small, unconventional, or unfamiliar.

For too long, victim-survivors have been silenced or sidelined in legal debates. Now, their stories are finally being heard—stories of coercive control, vilification, and discrimination that have gone unchecked for decades. Reform offers a path forward: one where the rights of all Australians are upheld, and where no group can misuse “freedom of religion” as a cover for abuse. This moment represents not only progress in the law, but a step towards justice and dignity for those who have lived in the shadows of coercive control.

References

Article 18 ~ Australian Human Rights Commission