Anthony Albanese has threatened to shelve his authorities’s promised non secular discrimination invoice, Peter Dutton is accusing him of breaking one other election dedication, and Dennis Shanahan is thundering in The Australian that this indicators the outbreak of one other tradition conflict.
Thrilling stuff, though you’d be excused for not having a clue what they’re all occurring about. Spiritual freedom, discrimination, vilification, hate speech, anti-doxxing, all the thrill phrases are within the combine. What really is occurring?
First, just a little background. Our story begins with the arrival of marriage equality in 2017. Australia’s conservative church buildings had been lower than happy. Their much-touted fears for Christian cake-bakers morphed into a wider declare to victimhood: now, establishments and folks of religion had been liable to being discriminated in opposition to by the ascendant forces of woke liberalism.
Thus the decision started for authorized safety in opposition to discrimination on the idea of non secular religion, similar to the prevailing protected attributes together with gender, race, age and incapacity.
Largely, the occupants of Parliament have gone with the movement on that one, with virtually no consideration paid to how we’ve survived for thus lengthy with out such a legislation and no precise proof that non secular discrimination is a factor that occurs to any materials extent.
It’s necessary to tell apart between vilification (hate speech and abuse) and discrimination. There was a gentle rise in racist abuse because the Overton Window of racism has widened in recent times, together with antisemitism and Islamophobia. Whether or not folks of these faiths are being subjected to discriminatory remedy at work or as prospects — due to their non secular religion, not their “race” (which is already unlawful) — is a totally completely different query.
Unsurprisingly, Scott Morrison was a giant fan of this form of laws, and tried to make it his signature reform as prime minister. He failed, presenting however then pulling his non secular discrimination invoice in 2022 with out placing it to a vote, after 5 of his personal occasion colleagues threatened to cross the ground and vote in opposition to it.
The difficulty was what he’d promised as a quid professional quo: amendments to the prevailing blanket exemptions given to spiritual organisations (together with colleges) from all the different anti-discrimination legal guidelines. Particularly, the exemption that permits non secular colleges to sack academics or expel college students due to their sexual identification. For Morrison, extending this safety to trans youngsters was a bridge too far.
There have been different issues, particularly a proposed new exemption for “statements of perception” that will permit folks to make discriminatory statements on the idea of religion, even when such statements had been instantly hurtful (for instance, telling an LGBTQIA+ particular person to their face that they’re an unnatural abomination with a one-way ticket to everlasting purgatory).
Albanese picked up the mess, promising to deliver again a non secular discrimination invoice, together with correctly balanced protections for marginalised teams to search out the correct dividing line between religion and hurt.
He’s come a cropper too, predictably sufficient. The politics of it are contemptible, as a result of each side are being disingenuous. No person’s seen the invoice but, so Dutton has trigger to say that he can’t take up Albanese’s demand for bipartisan help simply but. Nonetheless, that Dutton will find yourself opposing no matter the federal government presents will not be doubtful, no matter its content material.
For its half, the federal government is unnecessarily complicated issues by chucking its two new Gaza-driven obsessions — hate speech and anti-doxxing legal guidelines — into the identical dialog, claiming it’s all one large package deal of reforms designed to make us safer. It’s not. These are distinct points, appropriately thought-about with draft invoice in hand and a cautious eye to unintended penalties.
On the backside of this mess is an irreconcilable distinction: between the mandatory implication of non secular “freedom”, being the liberty to discriminate in opposition to others when that’s what one’s religion dictates; and the best of everybody to dwell an equal existence free from discrimination on the idea of attributes they didn’t invent.
The outdated authorized compromise was an uncomfortable one; the church buildings had been allowed to discriminate, principally in opposition to LGBTQIA+ folks and girls, however in opposition to different teams as properly, on the idea of religion. Their religion was not, nonetheless, elevated to the standing of a protected human proper.
One of many key causes in precept for this was the issue of defining religion, provided that it’s in fact infinitely variable and essentially contains its personal absence.
That’s all been forgotten within the rush to do what the drafters of our structure would have resisted: make religion a proper. They did give it some thought; the structure contains an specific prohibition on legal guidelines that impinge freedom of faith, the purpose being that non secular perception is a private matter, such that its train shouldn’t be restrained however the state ought to keep away from giving authorized safety to its proselytisation.
Legislating a prohibition on discrimination in opposition to folks due to their faith is easy, however there isn’t any case for it.
Eradicating the exemptions non secular organisations get pleasure from to discriminate in opposition to others is something however easy, as a result of no one agrees on the place the road ought to be drawn. That’s amply demonstrated by the willingness of some church leaders to die on the hill of being allowed to proceed demonising probably the most oppressed minority within the nation: trans youngsters.
If non secular religion/perception was solely that — a private code held to oneself — there’d be no downside. Its outward expression, by phrases or deed, could be illegal if that causes discriminatory hurt to others. Nonetheless, to faux that will deny the fact that, for many non secular folks, expression of their religion is inherent to its holding. For some, it’s important.
So it’s a minefield. I think our elected representatives have given little severe thought to what they’re messing with right here. Till we see the draft payments, we will’t guess whether or not their newest effort will make issues higher and even worse.
Ought to we be legislating in opposition to non secular discrimination? Tell us your ideas by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please embody your full identify to be thought-about for publication. We reserve the best to edit for size and readability.