For a government that desperately needs to convince voters it is actually focused on their needs rather than internal Liberal party feuds, the sight of Scott Morrison on a far-right talk show promising to introduce new religious discrimination laws should be very worrying.
It’s bad enough that the prime minister of the country skipped cabinet to grace Sky News’ after-dark goonfest, occupying a spot sometimes graced by frolicking fascists, but his apparent obsession with the issue of religious freedom signals a man with priorities other than the concerns of ordinary voters.
Voters are concerned about stagnant wages, especially in the private sector where workers have been going backwards. They’re concerned about health services. About housing. About whether their kids will have a lower standard of living than they will. But for Morrison the priority is “preventative regulation and legislation to ensure your religious freedom in this country”.
Note the term “preventative”. Morrison actually admits that none of the problems he wants to regulate against actually happen in Australia. Prevention is, apparently, the best policy — albeit not in relation to climate change, which the government has no policy of any kind on, preventive or otherwise. And not in relation to wider rights protection beyond religion, such as via a bill of rights.
What Morrison doesn’t admit is that existing anti-discrimination laws indulge religious institutions to an extraordinary degree already, allowing institutions to discriminate against and punish people for who they are and what lifestyle choices they make, in a manner entirely unacceptable in ordinary business and workplaces.
[Ostentatious religion could make a bad situation worse for ScoMo]
Morrison’s bizarre views on the need for preventive religious freedom protection might be related to his own faith. More likely, however, is that he is keen to shore up his support within the right of the Liberal Party — the sort of people who actually watch Sky’s goosestepping parade, and who have the sense of victimhood of powerful white people terrified that their privilege is under threat. But this focus on the concerns of a small minority comes with an opportunity cost in an electorate convinced the Liberals — and, for that matter, all politicians — don’t serve the interests of ordinary voters but of the influential, the connected, the political donors.
Morrison also professes to be concerned about freedom of speech: “Issues of freedom of speech, I’ve seen where they’ve gone over the last 10 years. I’m not quite sure I’m pleased with the trajectory.”
Well, Prime Minister, you’re in luck, because you could strike a big blow for freedom of speech this very minute. Pick up the phone, call your Attorney-General and tell him to revoke his approval for the vexatious and malicious prosecution of Witness K and Bernard Collaery for the “crime” of embarrassing the Howard government, Alexander Downer and ASIS, and doing so entirely legally.
That would demonstrate that you believe in freedom of speech even when you don’t like what’s being said, even when it’s embarrassing, even when it reveals your own side behaved badly.
But perhaps Morrison, like pretty much every free speech supporter on the right, only likes free speech when people like him want to use it to criticise people they don’t like.
But Bernard, this is why the far-right replaced Turnbull in the first place.
And Morrison was always part of the far-right set (the idea of Morrison as a moderate or deserving a clean slate, where do journos get this stuff, had they ever heard him speak?). He was temporarily banished from the table for helping roll Tony Abbott, but he did that to gain the Treasury Portfolio and the best possible position from which to launch an eventual leadership challenge himself, not out of some conversion to Turnbullism.
Renewing the culture war on religion, on “safe schools”, on unions etc etc, these are the answers to why Morrison is Prime Minister and why he wants to be Prime Minister.
It will be interesting if the RC into aged care comes up with cases of religious aged care facilities, running on government money, discriminating against people because of the religious organisation own views. For example Catholic ran aged care facilities might not allow unmarried couples, let alone same sex couples, to share a room, even if they had been together for years. I don’t mind religious freedom, believe in any god or gods you like, but I care very much about freedom from religion, if an organisation takes money from the government it should provide the services the government is paying for to anyone who is qualified to receive those services. We, the tax payers, should not be paying for discrimination.
Good point Mick.
Tell you what, Scummo, you Tongues-talking loon, when churches pay taxes or no longer receive tax-payer funds of any kind, only then should they get a say in *our* secular democracy, or by exempt from *our* secular laws. Instead of trying to allow them to discriminate against gay people, why not get them to obey our laws in regards to reporting sex offenders?
I’ve only just seen this post; perhaps it was embargoed but it does possess similar sentiments to other posts. It occurs to me that you may have undertaken a bit more reading than the others so hence my reply is directed to your post.
Firstly *our* secular democracy contains all-sorts – and that written by an atheist. Secondly, there is a very real sentiment, much more evident in the USA and India than in Oz, that would argue that you have the cart in front of the horse. “They” argue that on particular matters there is only “one true way”. Its not a matter of logic or even fairness but of belief.
Extending the theme the more acute elements morph into fundamentalist theology and besotted Hindus are no more rational than besotted Jews or Muslims or Christians. Their entire objection is with modernity in any of is manifestations. You (and others) may elect to be dismissive but you you fail yourself miserably when you pretend that the perspective against modernity may be safely ignored.
Writing as you (and others do) has had no effect in recent decades; if anything such statements encourage the religious Right in their convictions against the decadent. Tactics require other approaches.
Years ago there was Richard (the Lionheart) and his Crusades – fast forward 850 odd years and now we have to put up with what lies at the core of this Dick and his crusade?
Ha klewso, a crusade to shout look over there and try to keep the god botherers happy at the same time. Gotta give the bloke an e for effort.
I think you will find that the 1st Crusade had more to do with Urban II than Richard I. Population had increased over the 11th century and there were a lot of young blades all over Europe wondering just what to do. Recovering the Holy Land seemed to be a good idea at the time – closely followed by the Children’s Crusade.
“his”
Theft, lust for power and probably sex with just a touch of genuine psychosis hiding behind the facade of godly righteousness were all in the mix. Not much has changed really.
True enough. The Crusaders obtained some practice on the way by pillaging Jewish communities.
the imbicilic morrison, the dumb as shit Abbott, and the moronic dutton and joyce are self explanitory as to why the coalition is collapsing, these bastards are that dumb they cannot work out why the voters are deserting them in droves, egged on by the redneck shock jocks and news limited they leap lemming like over the political cliff.