Religious Freedom in Australia - Review

Dear Mr Porter MP

I recently signed a petition regarding the current review into religious freedom (Religious Discrimination Bill 2019 (Exposure Draft). I regret that I was not able to write a detailed submission before the cut-off date. However I still wish to forward some broader concerns to you regarding freedom that are relevant to this process.

I am a State Servant of 20 years standing and a professional policy analyst. I have worked as a policy adviser for Premier and Cabinet (2005), the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DSEWPAC), and currently work as the rescuer of crisis projects/processes within the Department of Justice in my State. I am also the author of an on-line training course in civics (www.3ptraining.com.au ) and maintain an active interest in a number of policy areas including defence. I am a former left wing activist now conservative writer, and have studied the ‘progressive’ movement for some years. I am also studying for ordination.

Thank you for conducting this review and giving the ‘quiet Australians’ a chance to be heard. You will recall that the Coalition Government allowed the plebiscite on redefining marriage on condition that this review would take place, and that it would adequately protect those who hold to the traditional view of marriage and sexuality. More broadly the success of the ‘yes’ vote was based on the public reassurance that no one would be made worse off if this country changed its official view on human sexuality and relationships. It follows that, if this review does not adequately protect those who hold to the traditional view of marriage and sexuality then:

• the redefinition of marriage has no legitimacy and should be reconsidered; and
• the Coalition Government lacks legitimacy.

In that context, the problem requiring resolution is that ‘anti-discrimination law’ so called, is now used as a one sided weapon by the Left to impose cultural Marxism on society, (including with respect to human sexuality). It is a consequence of the ‘long march through the institutions’ and is a form of ‘repressive tolerance’ by the Left. See further my paper on Defeating Cultural Marxism that I attach for reference. I could cite many examples but I am sure the Australian Christian Lobby and others have already supplied them in submissions.

In addressing that problem your government has two options. The first option is to try to make anti-discrimination law fair by granting broad exemptions. In my view that cannot work in practice because:

1. the relevant tribunals are controlled by cultural Marxists who will ensure that any such attempt fails; and
2. one should not have to be a member of a recognised religious group to avoid punishment for expressing an opinion; and
3. creating two classes of citizens – religious people who can avoid punishment for their beliefs and non-religious citizens who can be punished for the same beliefs – is inherently unfair; and
4. any proposal broad enough to allow genuine freedom of belief would so fundamentally undermine the existing law as to call into question the purpose of that law.

In that context I note that the current proposal in manifestly inadequate and will fail. For example:

Clause 41 (1) of the Bill does provide that statements of religious belief will not contravene Section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act. This is welcome and would have avoided Archbishop Porteous being dragged through mediation. However, Clause 41 (2) provides that any statement of belief that is likely to “vilify” another person or group of persons will not be protected by Clause 41 (1). What does “vilify” mean? Is a statement which someone feels insults or criticises (these are synonyms of vilify) them, enough to render a statement of belief discriminatory? This is a term that has caused widespread criticism of Section 17 and of Section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act as being too low a threshold for a claim of discrimination.

If the government wishes to continue with the bill then at an absolute minimum the bill must:

• allow employers to select staff whose views align with the stated mission of their organisation, whether that organisation is religious or secular
• protect members of professional associations from discrimination on the basis of their professional and/or scientific opinions and personal values (including for example refusal to refer children to gender re-assignment surgery or referring/not referring a person to an abortion provider)
• protect employees from compelled speech (e.g. gender pronouns)
• Protect employees from discrimination for expressing opinions that are not directly relevant to their employment
• protect the right of parents to choose the educational method and moral instruction of their children e.g. the right to be prior informed about sexual content in school curriculum and the right to remove their child

The second option is to largely abolish existing anti-discrimination law by means of a Federal bill of rights. This approach is not about ‘religious freedom’ but freedom.

It is about the freedom to:

• rent your property to whomever you want based on whatever criteria you choose
• employ whomever you want based on whatever criteria you choose (subject to safety and licensing requirements, and professional qualifications)
• choose the educational method and moral instruction of your children
• hold to traditional religious and cultural beliefs (including indigenous beliefs) or not
• express your beliefs and opinions without fear of lawfare by radical activists, physical intimidation, de-registration from professional bodies, retaliation by employers, and persecution by quasi-judicial tribunals, professional associations, and non-judicial boards

Essentially it is about the right and duty of adult citizens/residents to behave like responsible adults who can ‘live and let live’. In that context it is about freedom not to:

• have your children psycho-sexually abused by schools
• be punished by your employer for expressing opinions they don’t like
• be professionally de-registered for expressing scientifically accurate/professional opinions that don’t align with specific social agendas
• be punished by quasi-judicial bodies for expressing opinions that other people don’t happen to agree with; or find offensive
• be compelled to use certain loaded words and phrases (such as gender pronouns) which compel agreement with highly contested and improbable ideologies
• be compelled to agree with highly contested claims and improbable ideologies by your employer (e.g. mandatory gender quotas, ‘misgendering’ in the workplace) unless that has a direct connection with your employment

This is a very different approach to that sought by the religious lobby and will in some instances leave religious people open to discrimination by employers. It will also remove the fear and the veil and make public all the prejudices and hatreds that we as a community hold. Would that be a bad thing? Should government act like a controlling parent and make us all be nice to each-other? Should Muslims have to rent to Jews? Should Christians have to employ transgender wierdo’s in their schools? Could we actually tell the truth about one-another? Must we be compelled to pay homage to the secular gods of multiculturalism, feminism, transgenderism, Marxism, consumerism, environmentalism, nationalism, globalism, or any other ism? Should the market place of ideas not be free?

As a Christian I am used to having my views ridiculed and I am not afraid to have them challenged, or to compete in the market place of ideas, or to be wrong. I am afraid of the creeping censorship and repression currently masquerading as tolerance, and the consequential loss of our national character. This review represents a generational opportunity to turn that around.

Of the two approaches outlined I commend the latter approach. In support of this, allow me one example. Suppose the law were evenly applied. Professor Dawkins has published a book currently for sale in Australia titled “The God Delusion”. By this title he states that anyone who believes in divinity is delusional and by implication suffering from a mental condition. This insults at least four fifths of humanity including me.  For reference, in the USSR Christians were sent to mental institutions for ‘treatment’ for their delusional beliefs. It is a statement at least comparable to arguing that transgenderism is a mental illness or that homosexuality can be cured. It arguably meets the current bar for hate speech. How should Dawkins be censored? Should his books be banned in Australia? Should he be denied a visa like Milo Yiannopoulos was? Should the British government compel an apology? Should he be thrown out of his university? Should all publishers be forced to submit their titles for approval by a government board? The Left support the current regime because it supports their purposes but if the law were evenly applied they would be the first to scream about censorship and big government, and I would agree with them.

If your government lacks the moral courage to adopt the latter option and allow us to be Australians again, please consider my points on the former option.

Respectfully yours