In the toxic debate around the religious discrimination bill, it’s often hard to work out who actually supports it — other than Scott Morrison. A number of groups are concerned about protections for discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people, and many minority religions fear they will be discriminated against on the grounds of religious differences.
Here’s a wrap-up of where major religious bodies stand.
Against
Hindu Council of Australia
The council spoke alongside Equality Australia yesterday to oppose the bill. It said the bill would allow Hindus “to be fired from their jobs because of their faith” by businesses, schools and hospitals that “claim to be inspired by religious ethos”. In a statement, it claimed the bill “adversely affects minority religions”.
Uniting Church
The church’s assembly said it was disappointed inquiries into the bill supported the passage with “only minor and technical amendments”. Reverend Sharon Hollis, president of the assembly, said: “The reports do not address our concerns that some provisions in the bill could embolden discrimination in the wider community and give implicit permission for discriminatory or demeaning statements and actions.” It urged that the bill not be rushed through.
Buddhist councils
In a submission endorsed by the Federation of Australian Buddhist Councils, the Buddhist Council of NSW said it did not support the bill in its current form due to the negative effect on minority religions and minority groups (including LGBTIQ+ people), the entrenchment of religious discrimination in secular society, and the creation of “social disharmony through offensive and humiliating statements that target specific groups”.
Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia
The federation was quick to stress that multiculturalism should not be at the centre of the debate. Its CEO Mohammad Al-Khafaji tweeted yesterday that “our communities didn’t ask for the religious discrimination bill” and asked that multiculturalism not be brought into the discussion before dencouncing all forms of discrimination.
“This bill undermines social cohesion and multiculturalism,” he said. “So many of us came to Australia to seek refuge and protection from discrimination based on religion. This bill will allow people to discriminate lawfully against many of us based on religion. It’s triggering.”
In favour
Australian Christian Lobby
The ACL has been one of the loudest voices in support of the bill. In submissions to the inquiry on the bill, it said it would push for its enactment with some minor amendments. Namely it was hoping for personal speech protections for employees’ statements of religion made outside work, and requirements for reasonable adjustments to religious beliefs. It also submitted that the Sex Discrimination Act should not be changed.
However, even the ACL isn’t happy with how things are unfolding. Political director Wendy Francis said yesterday that the ACL would not support a bill that was “hastily amended” nor a bill that “reduces the rights of religious Australians”.
Australian National Imams Council
The council submitted its support for the bill and its “criticality in addressing a fundamental deficiency in the protective laws which operate in the pluralistic society of modern-day Australia”, and pointed to a climate of “increasing anti-Muslim and anti-religious sentiment”. It did not mention potential discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people.
Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council
In its submission to the inquiry, the council said “the Jewish community continues to enjoy full freedoms in Australia and AIJAC firmly hopes the religious discrimination bill and related bills will protect these freedoms for Australian Jews in the future”. It did not comment on the potential for discrimination against other groups including LGBTIQ+ people.
“the Jewish community continues to enjoy full freedoms in Australia”
So there is no problem to be fixed?
“and AIJAC firmly hopes the religious discrimination bill and related bills will protect these freedoms for Australian Jews in the future”
Protect the freedoms they have and are not under threat?
Re your headline, you mean “yea or nay”.
I doubt that (m)any on staff would understand the difference.
Yay for dumbing down, nuance is otiose.