Victorian Inquiry into Cults
Religious Freedom at Risk in Victorian Inquiry into Cults and Coercive Control
A new submission by Freedom for Faith warns that the Victorian Government’s inquiry into cults, coercive control, and high-demand groups may pose serious risks to religious freedom if not carefully scoped and defined. While commending the inquiry’s aim to protect individuals from abuse, the submission emphasises that poorly drafted laws could stigmatise or even criminalise legitimate religious practices.
Key Threats to Religious Freedom:
1. Expanding the Definition of “Cult”
The submission expresses deep concern that the definition of “cult” could be broadened to include mainstream or high-commitment religious groups. Many religious traditions involve strong moral teachings, exclusive truth claims, and structured communal life—traits which, if misunderstood, could be misclassified as coercive or harmful. The use of vague or subjective criteria risks conflating devotion with abuse.
2. Misuse of “Coercive Control”
The term “coercive control” lacks a consistent legal definition in Victoria, increasing the risk of overreach. The submission highlights that coercion involves manipulation or threats that impair a person’s autonomy—not the presence of strong beliefs or disciplined lifestyles. Religious teachings on sacrifice, salvation, or exclusivity do not meet the legal threshold for coercive control when participation is voluntary and individuals are free to leave.
3. Lists of Religious Behaviours Mislabelled as Cultic Tactics
The inquiry’s guidance note outlines recruitment tactics—such as offering belonging, promoting spiritual transformation, or hosting social events—which are common in many religions and non-religious organisations alike. These risk being interpreted as cult indicators. Freedom for Faith’s submission warns that such associations could lead to innocent religious communities being unfairly scrutinised or regulated.
4. Pressure from Media and Advocacy Groups
The submission documents how popular media and some advocacy voices have framed evangelical Christianity and other faiths as inherently coercive. We have warned that this narrative could push the inquiry to equate religious devotion with psychological harm, leading to policy that undermines freedom of religion, belief, and association.
5. International Law and Human Rights Obligations
Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Australia is bound to protect freedom of religion, including the right to manifest beliefs in worship, teaching, and practice. This right is non-derogable—even in times of crisis—and cannot be overridden by vague claims of public discomfort or ideological disagreement. Any restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and evidence-based.
6. Distinguishing Belief from Abuse
The submission stresses that belief in divine judgment, exclusive salvation, or calls to moral discipline are not coercive if freely chosen and open to scrutiny. Coercion arises only when individuals are denied the freedom to question or leave without reprisal. Religion becomes abusive only when accompanied by manipulation, threats, or entrapment—not when it is sincerely believed and voluntarily embraced.
