Ayahuasca and Freedom of Religion in Australia
In the panel "Ayahuasca and Freedom of Religion in Australia," from the EGA Garden State's Conference, experts Dr. Amar Dhall, Manny Satija, and Torsten Wiedemann explored the legal and constitutional complexities surrounding the sacramental use of ayahuasca in Australia. This discussion built on the insights from their contributions to the book Religious Freedom and the Global Regulation of Ayahuasca, where they co-authored the chapter on Australia. The panelists focused on constitutional arguments for religious freedom, drawing comparisons with other jurisdictions where ayahuasca use has been legalised for religious purposes under specific conditions.
Amar Dhall began by addressing the broader legal framework around religious freedom in Australia, with a focus on Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. He noted that while some countries have successfully invoked constitutional protections for religious ayahuasca use, Australia’s legal landscape presents unique challenges. The Constitution’s wording is highly specific, requiring that laws must explicitly prohibit religious practice to be contested under this section. Dhall emphasized that no successful legal challenges have yet been made in Australia on these grounds, largely due to the narrow interpretation of religious freedom in the courts.
Manny Satija provided an overview of international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Australia has signed. He explained that while Article 18 of the ICCPR protects religious freedom, these protections are not automatically enforceable in Australian courts without corresponding domestic legislation. Satija also touched on the complexities of state-based Human Rights Acts in Victoria and Queensland, which offer some protections but are limited in their ability to enforce religious freedom when it comes to the use of entheogens like ayahuasca.
Torsten Wiedemann added to the discussion by detailing the intricate drug laws that regulate ayahuasca’s key components, DMT and harmala alkaloids, at both federal and state levels. He highlighted the challenges that arise from the fragmented nature of these laws, noting that past legal strategies to reschedule ayahuasca components have failed due to incomplete approaches. Wiedemann pointed out that many lay people misunderstand the legal process and the specific hurdles that need to be overcome, which has led to widespread misinformation in the fight for psychedelic legalisation.
The panelists collectively emphasized the need for a careful, well-researched approach when considering legal challenges to the prohibition of ayahuasca in Australia. Dhall and Satija noted that successful arguments for religious freedom in other countries often rely on a clear and demonstrable connection between the religious practice and the entheogenic substance. In Australia, the legal definition of religion, drawn from precedent cases, requires belief in a supernatural being and a structured set of practices, which complicates the argument for ayahuasca use as a protected religious practice.
While the panel acknowledged the challenges ahead, they also pointed to potential paths forward. Legislative reform, particularly around decriminalization, was highlighted as the most viable route for change in the short term. Wiedemann stressed the importance of educating the public and policymakers about the medicinal and spiritual benefits of entheogens, which could help to reshape the legal landscape over time.
The discussion concluded with a focus on the long-term cultural and legal shifts necessary for progress. The panelists urged continued advocacy and education, suggesting that as Australia emerges from its colonial legal frameworks, there may be more room for meaningful reform.
This Panel covers all this and much more, Click Here to view this important conversation.
