Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-07-15 17:33:20 +02:00 | Andre | No I do not | Dangerous Precedent for All Civil Society (The Wildcard) | ||
2026-07-15 17:32:22 +02:00 | Bradley | No I do not | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | ||
2026-07-15 17:28:21 +02:00 | Adrian | No I do not | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | This is not the area for Governments control. We have other criminal laws in place that convict criminals should they break the law. | |
2026-07-15 17:25:48 +02:00 | Rene | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-07-15 17:24:32 +02:00 | Francionette | No I do not | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | ||
2026-07-15 17:21:11 +02:00 | Michele | Yes I do | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-07-15 17:09:58 +02:00 | Wendy | No I do not | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | ||
2026-07-15 17:08:11 +02:00 | Genevieve | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-07-15 16:55:17 +02:00 | Amelia | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-07-15 16:51:44 +02:00 | Kate | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | |
2026-07-15 16:51:21 +02:00 | Michele | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-07-15 16:51:05 +02:00 | Kate | No I do not | All of the above | Constitutional Violation & Conditional Rights | |
2026-07-15 16:47:46 +02:00 | John | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-07-15 16:47:12 +02:00 | Canja | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine | |
2026-07-15 16:45:26 +02:00 | Dawie | No I do not | All of the above | State Interference in Religious Ethics and Doctrine |
-
- Standardising Accountability:
Proponents argue the framework is essential to establish clear standards for internal governance, financial transparency, and ethical leadership within religious organisations to restore public trust. - Protecting the Vulnerable:
The initiative aims to safeguard marginalised communities, including the poor and those with disabilities, from exploitation and harmful “healing” practices. - Sector-Led Reform:
The Committee describes the process as a voluntary, proactive initiative “by the Church, for the Church,” allowing the sector to govern itself rather than facing direct State intervention. - Independent Oversight:
Supporters emphasise that the proposed Christian Practice Council for Ethics and Accountability (CPCEA) would be an independent body of respected religious leaders and experts, not a government department.
- Standardising Accountability:
-
- The Legislative “Mask”:
Critics contend that while the process is labeled “voluntary,” the intended outcome is a statutory council created by an Act of Parliament with the legal authority to deregister institutions. - The “Four Uns”:
Opponents argue the proposal is Unconstitutional (violating freedom of religion), Unnecessary (existing laws already cover crimes like fraud and assault), Unworkable, and Unaffordable. - Regulation of “Ethics”:
There is concern that moving beyond criminal law to regulate “unethical conduct” allows the State to intrude into subjective matters of belief, doctrine, and private conscience. - The “Wildcard” Precedent:
Critics warn that establishing a State-enabled council for religion sets a legal precedent that could be used to justify similar government oversight of all civil society sectors, including the press and NGOs.
- The Legislative “Mask”: