• News
  • Lifestyle
    • Recipes
    • Video
    • Lotto Results
    • Technology
  • Entertainment
  • Travel
  • Sport
  • Expat Life
  • Move to Australia
Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Australian Times News
  • News
  • Lifestyle
    • Recipes
    • Video
    • Lotto Results
    • Technology
  • Entertainment
  • Travel
  • Sport
  • Expat Life
  • Move to Australia
No Result
View All Result
  • News
  • Lifestyle
    • Recipes
    • Video
    • Lotto Results
    • Technology
  • Entertainment
  • Travel
  • Sport
  • Expat Life
  • Move to Australia
No Result
View All Result
Australian Times News
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Government’s religious discrimination bill enshrines the right to harm others in the name of faith

OPINION & ANALYSIS: The bill turns discrimination protection on its head. It doesn’t merely protect a person from being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, it allows a person to actively discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The Conversation by The Conversation
10-02-2020 12:15
in News
Bianca de Marchi/AAP

Bianca de Marchi/AAP

Submissions on the second version Christian Porter’s religious discrimination bill are closed, and we await the verdict.

The first version of the bill was widely criticised for going too far, or not far enough. In a flawed law reform process, Porter has paid little attention to those who said the first version went too far. And for those critics, the second version is much the same as the first.

The bill is in many respects an unremarkable anti-discrimination law. It is a copy-and-paste of the Sex, Disability and Age Discrimination Acts, reflecting both religious and secular support for protecting people who are discriminated against because of their religion.

But in at least one respect, the bill is unique, not just in Australia but, it seems, anywhere in the western world.

How hurtful speech is permitted in the draft

The bill turns discrimination protection on its head. It doesn’t merely protect a person from being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, it allows a person to actively discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs.

This is not the usual “right to be treated the same” that our other discrimination laws guarantee. It is a right to mistreat others. It is a right to cause harm, in the name of “religious freedom”. And it is not a right some religious organisations even want.

The problematic part of the bill is clause 42 (clause 41 in the first draft), which allows a person to say or write an honestly held religious belief, even if it is contrary to federal, state and territory anti-discrimination laws.

AlsoRead...

Newly arrived refugees collect water at an Oxfam tap stand in Africa. Photo: Anna Ridout/Oxfam

Boom for billionaires as poor suffer most in pandemic

26 January 2021
Australian death records underestimate the association between heat and mortality

As heatwaves become more extreme, which jobs are riskiest?

25 January 2021

Imagine if a person were to express a view based on their race, sex, ability or age in a way that was discriminatory. For instance, a person saying to a co-worker, “I believe my race (or sex, ability or age) makes me superior to you.”

That is unlawful discriminatory conduct under existing laws. But under the draft religious discrimination bill, such a statement would be permitted for a religious belief, unless the statement is malicious, likely to “harass, threaten, seriously intimidate or vilify”, or could reasonably lead to a “serious offence”.

That “unless” leaves a lot of scope for discrimination. Let’s say an employer or service worker says something about an employee or customer that is based on their religious views, but is upsetting, hurtful or demeaning to the other person.

This might not be a “serious offence” as defined by the religious discrimination bill and, thanks to clause 42, the employee or customer would not be protected from this conduct by any other anti-discrimination law in Australia.

How it might work in practice

In a submission, members of the Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group provided examples of behaviour the bill encourages, with impunity:

  • an employer telling a transgender employee their identity is against the laws of God
  • a childcare provider saying to a single mother she is evil for depriving her child of a father
  • a teacher telling a student with a disability that his or her disability is a trial imposed by God
  • a waiter in a café saying to a gay couple, “I will pray for your sins”.

In each of these examples, what is said would be unlawful discrimination, except the bill trumps the ordinary operation of existing discrimination laws.

Rather than keeping the expression of religious belief within established bounds of civil, non-discriminatory speech, the bill explicitly promotes its unconstrained expression. This will lead to harm.

For example, ACON’s submission to the Ruddock inquiry into religious freedom gave powerful examples of people who already avoid seeking health services for fear of being stigmatised by pejorative comments.

Religious discrimination against other religions

Because the bill applies equally to all religions, the freedom to make statements of religious belief will also be a free-for-all.

A person of one religious belief will be free to disparage, demean and humiliate a person of another religious belief, even within the same faith: Hindus against Christians, Buddhists against Muslims, Orthodox Jews against progressive Jews, Catholics against Anglicans, or Shia against Sunni Muslims.

And “all religions” is a wide category. Under the High Court’s test in the 1983 Scientology case, some forms of satanism, for example, could qualify as a religious belief for the purposes of this bill.

The bill would, for instance, allow a satanist hairdresser to say, very publicly, what they think about the crucifix around a customer’s neck.

The Noosa Temple of Satan has made a submission to the attorney-general’s inquiry saying it would take full advantage of its rights under the law.

Clause 42 of the religious discrimination bill is not law reform; it is an abuse of the power of law. It is itself discriminatory, and it is harmful.

Porter’s third attempt cannot be taken seriously if it persists with this perverse approach to religious freedom.


By Simon Rice, Professor of Law; Director of Professional and Community Engagement, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tags: politicsreligion
DMCA.com Protection Status

SUBSCRIBE to our NEWSLETTER

Terms and Conditions

CURRENCY ZONE

Australian Forex

Don't Miss

SET FOR LIFE UK Lotto Results – Monday 25 January 2021

by Sonja Baartman
25 January 2021
Set For Life UK Lotto Results
Set For Life

Set For Life, £10,000 every month for 30 years

Read more

Three reasons why it is better to use compatible ink

by Alan Aldridge
25 January 2021
Three reasons why it is better to use compatible ink
Technology

Have you been considering compatible ink for a while but don’t know whether it is a better alternative to genuine...

Read more

Who is Alejandro Betancourt?

by Alan Aldridge
25 January 2021
Who is Alejandro Betancourt?
Lifestyle

Alejandro Betancourt is one of Venezuela's leading entrepreneurs, representing the country on the global stage in business. But who exactly...

Read more

COVID has brought Auslan into the spotlight, but it would be wrong to treat the language as a hobby or fad

by The Conversation
25 January 2021
Auslan is the first language of many Deaf Australians
News

The Deaf Society and Deaf Services reports enrolments in Auslan courses have risen by more than 400% since the pandemic...

Read more

Monday & Wednesday Lotto Results for Monday, 25 January 2021

by Sonja Baartman
25 January 2021
Monday & Wednesday Lotto Results
The Lott

There's big money on the line Monday & Wednesday, $4 million! Here are your Monday & Wednesday Lotto results for...

Read more

Low-paid British workers more than twice as likely to lose jobs

by Mike Simpson
25 January 2021
Image by Shutterbug75 from Pixabay
News

New study shows how the Covid-19 pandemic is ‘dramatically exacerbating inequalities in the world of work’ in the UK.

Read more

It’s not just cricket: Australia Day isn’t the commercial winner it used to be

by The Conversation
25 January 2021
Identity commerce
News

Australia Day used to be an obvious and uncontroversial occasion for brands to endear themselves to Australian consumers. No longer.

Read more
Load More

Copyright © Blue Sky Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
australiantimes.co.uk is a division of Blue Sky Publications Ltd. Reproduction without permission prohibited. DMCA.com Protection Status

  • About us
  • Write for Us
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • T&Cs, Privacy and GDPR
No Result
View All Result
  • News
  • Lifestyle
    • Recipes
    • Video
    • Lotto Results
    • Technology
  • Entertainment
  • Travel
  • Sport
  • Expat Life
  • Move to Australia

Copyright © Blue Sky Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
australiantimes.co.uk is a division of Blue Sky Publications Ltd. Reproduction without permission prohibited. DMCA.com Protection Status