Imagine the Australian Parliament enacted the Bill An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State. The Federal Government views the Act as a declaration of Australia's "particular attachment to State laicity" embodied in section 116 of the Constitution and an affirmation that "the state is a lay state". Laicity is the constitutional principle of secularism, and a lay state refers to the strict separation of religion from state governance. The Bill prohibits public servants in positions of authority, such as lawyers, teachers, and police from wearing religious symbols at their place of work. 

Advance the arguments for/against the Bill, critically discussing these arguments through the basic tenets of liberalism and legal regulation of morality (e.g. liberty, equality, the 'no harm' principle, Hart-Devlin Debate, utilitarianism versus deontological approach to rights etc.)apply two of these concepts.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Sure lets explore this nuanced discussion through two main tenets of liberalism liberty and equality FOR Liberty From one perspective the proposed act ... View the full answer