Scott's trampling on the principle of religious freedom

In much the same way as Isaac  Newton described an existing reality when he developed his description of the (physical) Law of Gravity, I consider that most, if not all, written materials (laws, conventions, declarations, etc) on human rights are actually recognising something that already exists. 

Nevertheless, in judicial systems, such written documents are significant. In the case of freedom of religion, one of the (if not the)  earliest known documents enshrining the principle of freedom of religion (and other rights) is the Cyrus Cylinder, prepared at the orders of Cyrus the Great around two and a half millennia ago. 

Judicial systems, however, tend to favour documents from their current era, and thus we can look at the unenforceable but greatly respected Universal  Declaration of Human  Rights, where Article 18 states: 

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance", 

and the enforceable International  Covenant on Civil and Political  Rights (which Australia signed on 18^th December, 1972, ratified on 13^th August, 1980, and came into force in our legal system on 13^th November, 1980), where Article 18 states: 

"1. 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.

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

3. 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.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.". 

Scott's actions in "laying  on the  hands" etc without people's prior consent is a breach of both the principle and the enforceable legalities of the principle of religious freedom. 

Not only is he unfit to be our Prime Minister, he is, in my opinion, in breach of Australian law by breaching Article 18 (2) of the ICCPR.