Scott Morrison might be resigned to his religious discrimination bill going to a Senate committee — even a joint committee — and therefore not being passed before the election, but be in no doubt it is personally important to him. Not for anything to do with religion or his faith, though. It is a core part of his reelection strategy of appealing to discontented right-wingers and manufacturing a narrative around freedom versus government.
Morrison’s “freedom” narrative is the rebadging of an existing right-wing strategy from the United States which has served Donald Trump, the Republicans and even more extreme elements very well: convincing socially privileged, powerful, usually white, usually male people that they are the victims of a powerful progressive agenda aimed at harming them in favour of “minorities”, aka most of the population — women, people of colour, LGBTIQ people, people with disabilities.
It’s a variant of a long-standing conservative tactic of using cultural, racial and social issues to distract people from structural causes of inequality and economic discontent, which has been successful for over a century. These days it is no longer clothed in the language of the pre-civil rights south, but uses more modern baggage — the anti-Semitic “cultural Marxism” trope, the “critical race theory” fiction, the myth of a feminist assault on men, the warnings that religion is under threat from secular (or, in the US, where such adjectives are taken seriously, “satanic”) forces on the left.
As that list shows, this is a tactic that in its current form is fully imported from the US, where aggressive religious groups have far more effectively suppressed basic freedoms than in Australia, but far more aggressively portrayed themselves as victims while doing so.
Trump weaponised this tactic so successfully vast numbers of religious Americans were prepared to overlook his deeply irreligious behaviour and support him, as he cultivated an image as the saviour of Christian America, prepared to teargas Black Lives Matter protesters to “defend” a Washington church he could pose in front of.
At the core of the Trump/heaven-sent concept was the lie that religious freedom in the US was under attack. Morrison trades on the same lie here, that there is some kind of threat to religious freedom.
There is no restriction on or threat to religious freedom in Australia; indeed, albeit to a lesser degree than in the US, religion occupies a privileged place in society, ranging from enjoying billions of dollars in tax concessions to public funding for religious education and exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. And religious people are overrepresented on both sides of politics compared with the Australian population.
Morrison’s bill would further strengthen this position of privilege, overriding state laws aimed at ensuring non-discrimination in employment and protecting offensive speech on religious grounds. As in the US, legislation aimed at protecting religion from attack in fact strengthens its already privileged position.
The legal consequences of the government’s bill, however, are less important than the message Morrison wants to send with it. It’s the same message he is sending when he tells extremists and those making death threats to politicians that he “understands their frustration”, when he says it’s time for governments to pull back from telling people what to do (while running the biggest government since World War II and the highest-taxing since the Howard years) and that he’s all about freedom in contrast to Labor.
That message is that people with considerable privilege and power — tax-protected churches which broke sexual assault laws and community norms for generations with impunity, Pentecostalist church groups operating like corporations and exploiting their ties to the top of politics, religious lobby groups with entry rights to the ministerial wing of Parliament House despite a track record of vilifying and demonising LGBTIQ people — are the real victims in Australia. That they are under assault from a tide of secularism that is destroying not merely the freedom of religious Australians but civilisation itself.
The other deep lie within the government’s bill is that this purported exercise in freedom in fact curbs freedom (similar to the way the government’s response to terrorists who “hate us for our freedom” is to curb our freedom). Freedom of employment free of discrimination for LGBTIQ people, for women; freedom from abuse and bigotry for anyone who happens to trigger a religious person’s hostile instincts, freedom for professional groups to set standards of conduct for their memberships.
Direct from the Trump playbook, this is about selling victimhood to some of the most powerful in Australian society, and selling the God-sent Morrison as the saviour — capitalise it or not, as you like — who will protect them.
It’s worked well elsewhere. Don’t discount it working here.
Truly excellent article. Concise and understandable.
When he writes well, he writes very well!
I want to endorse Jamie’s comment 110%!!!
Without putting too fine a point on it Bernard, we need you, yes, I mean YOU, in the Lodge in Canberra. If that were to be the case then this country would be a far, far better and fairer place.
Just a short rejoinder to your comment that,
” ….. freedom from abuse and bigotry for anyone who happens to trigger a religious person’s hostile instincts,....”
When some religious crank (I will not mention any names in particular) says that I will “go to hell” (or makes some similar remark) because of my atheism and the derogatory comments I make about religion in general, then I have to tell you, I feel really good. I wear that criticism like a ‘badge of honor’. I realize that I have made a mark. If I was a homosexual then I would feel just as chuffed at the criticism.
I must say in fairness that there are many quite polite, humble and decent religious believers. I have met many and I can get on with them very well. I have even met some who I would trust with my life. (I can assure you though that the current Prime Minister does not fit into that category.)
None of the latter kind in the Coalition.
My darling husband was very upset to discover that “Atheism”is described as a religion in our constitution.
Yes, one of Australia’s only constitutionally protected rights is the right to worship or not, whatever rows your boat for you.
Which begs the question, what else, exactly, is required by this latest Smirko maneuver for the ACL?
Yes, the rare commentator who starts from the bleeding obvious, that god squad is already drowning in special LibLab privileges and freebies built up over many decades, and scarcely needs any more.
They’re insatiable, the more you give them, the more they’ll want. Will their protected “statements of belief” ever be sensible and unifying? Nah, they’ll always nasty and divisive, targeting women, LGTBTQ, and the vulnerable.
Agreed. Superb summation.
when Bernard unravels what is humming in the background that we don’t understand, he hits bullseye every time. What he has unpicked and verbalized to us is the truth. Lets walk together for truth and not what this government dishes up which is a veil for extremism and divisiveness. I hate this government, bail them up, cart them away and feed them to the pigs!
The idea that wealthy, middle-aged white Christian Australian males are ‘victims’ is laughable – and more so when they claim religious persecution. This foolish bill should be shelved, never to emerge again. Who is being cruel to Christians? They benefit hugely from tax dodges and subsidies for their schools. Why do churches not have to pay taxes?
Yes indeed!! The tax free status is appalling I’m sure most people are not aware of this. All Churches? Religious institutions should have to provide an annual report on their affairs, including, schools, charitable work, real estate and other assets. Charities should probably be tax free but other areas should pay at least some tax. Private schools do not pay council rates; another scandal.
To ensure that the charitable status of churches is actually used for charitable purposes, it would be sensible to remove their blanket charitable status, and replace with a tax deduction for activities and projects that actually meet a dictionary definition of “charity”.
All true, unfortunately. Another aspect of the same assault is the attempt to shut down sections of the media that might expose the lies and propaganda that sustain it. (The free speech his party supports so loudly is the freedom to say anything you like if they agree with it.) Senator James McGrath, fresh from his recent assualt on voting, is today throwing all he’s got at the ABC. Again. He’s outraged that, in his words, the ABC is on a ‘quest to wokify the world’. Whatever that means. Like the US Republicans, the strategy of the Liberals is to stupify the voters.
Rat! I am still trying to work out the woke theory and now ” workify” I need subscribe to Websters dictionary.
And I though ancient egyptian hyroglyphics was diffucult!
It is such a stupid, meaningless term- Senator mongrel McGrath should be asked to actually explain what he means by it!
At a guess:
wokify v. To convert to traditional Chinese cooking techniques using a large deep round-bottomed pot of iron or pressed steel over an intense source of heat (origin unknown)
I’m not sure why McGrath thinks the ABC is pushing wokification (is this a word?) or indeed why he is so worried about it, though of course Chinese cooking might not suit everyone. No doubt Peter Dutton, for one, has views.
I thought it was a McGraft of the English language – “a manipulation to suit a conservative chancer’s dogma”?
Then again, he might watch too much ‘Star Wars’ – and has trouble spelling? Those Wookiees can be very persuasive, for some.
I have to ask my young adult, politically active son what ‘woke’ means and after his explanation, am none the wiser. Maybe I’m just thick….but then, I have never, ever voted Liberal, so maybe I’m not so thick after all.
Old fella, I woke this morning that was a bonus.
If Rats version of wokify is righr, then yeah the Libs/Nats are always cooking something up.
Hyroglyphics are easier, they have pictures.
Trouble is, because they’re bound by the ideology of the selfish, the ingredients are always wrong and the end result is burnt turds.
That’ll be the James McGrath who lost his position on the UK’s Johnson election team for racist statements?
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. If Morrison can cheat, lie, scam his way back in then people of this country are to stupid to see, maybe god botherers and right wing nut jobs will bow before there messiah. Any clear thinking RATIONAL.thinker will see past this sad excuse of an individual.
As i said at the beginning, ” you can put lipstick on a pig”
Which end of the pig do they have in mind?
Pig’s arse to everything that comes out of the PM’s mouth.
I think the iggest problem with some oters is that they will vote for a party because their parents did and they always have, theres no thinking involved,no analysing, no research, just make your mark same as always and let others do the work of thinking about policies, lies, rorting and favours for votes.
Biggest, though iggest might work 😉
Thanks for the article Bernard. I like that you’ve cottoned onto the fact that this whole act seems to serve zero purpose. Are there actual tangible examples of
Christiansreligious people being oppressed in this country? I know there are a few here and there but they feel far and few between and our current human right laws seem to deal with them well enough.All of this also emphasises the absolute need for a bill of rights in Australia.