The first iteration of Scott Morrison’s religious “freedom” law was met with a less than enthusiastic response from the constituency for which it had been invented: the churches.
While the business community had begun scratching its collective head about how it would be allowed to deal with the future Folaus and whether Friday night drinks would have to be cancelled forever, the churches were incandescent.
They believed they had been promised an absolute, unqualified entrenchment of their freedom. You know, the one already explicitly present in every existing piece of federal and state anti-discrimination legislation. The freedom, the right, to discriminate at their pleasure.
The government’s first attempt wasn’t good enough. The churches’ freedoms hadn’t been clearly enough spelled out. So, draft number two has now come out, with extra red meat for the faithful.
The changes mostly revolve around the critical question (for the churches) of how far their freedom to discriminate will extend. This addresses a problem that only exists, ironically, because of the creation of the religious freedom bill. Under the existing law, religious organisations have blanket exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
The problem is that enacting a prohibition on discrimination against the freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) by words and actions, directly conflicts with the freedom of religious bodies to discriminate on exactly that basis.
Anyway, the government has come down again, and even harder, on the side of institutional religion, to make it crystal clear that the churches’ rights trump our personal rights in all fields, including in relation to religious faith.
Religious, um, business
The right for churches to hire and fire explicitly for religious affiliation has been extended now to religious hospitals, aged care facilities and accommodation providers (such as church camp sites), as well as religious charities even in their operations that are solely and fully commercial.
All of these entities will be able to give preference to employees on the basis of their religion, and will have complete exemption from the law prohibiting religious discrimination in relation to all their activities. So, yes, St Perdita’s Hospital can refuse to hire a Muslim nurse because she’s a Muslim, prohibit her from wearing a hijab at work, and sack her if she refuses.
The only hurdle it has to meet is that these rules exist “to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents” of its religion. So, if you’re worried that your Christian patients in your Christian hospital might find a hijab-wearing nurse a bit confronting, no problem. She’s out.
Can the Catholic camping ground or conference centre give booking preference to Catholic groups and individuals? Yes it can.
What about the Christian baker?
He’s still out in the cold. The freedom to discriminate has not been extended to businesses of faith, as opposed to businesses in which faith holds an equity stake. Refusal to bake for gay weddings remains unlawful, unless the baker takes the cloth. Then, totally doable.
LGBTQI kids?
It’s still legal for religious schools to discriminate against LGBTIQ staff and students. Cool cool.
Conscientious objection
This is the other big change. There was a lot of confusion about whether the earlier draft would allow doctors and other health providers to refuse treatment to individuals on the basis of their own religious beliefs
The amended version seeks to clarify that this category of freedom to discriminate will relate only to the procedure, not the patient. A doctor can refuse to perform abortions altogether, but can’t refuse to treat pregnant women as a class.
That’s great but, as has been pointed out, if the only pharmacist in Gunnedah has a personal religious thing about contraception, then tough luck for the locals. His or her religious susceptibilities take precedence over the community’s access to a basic health facility. Of course, if the local pathologist is a Jehovah’s Witness, that’s a whole other thing again.
Why are we doing this to ourselves?
In fairness, we’re not. The general population did not want this unnecessary exercise in self-defeating law-making. The religious freedom review did not identify a need for it. Only two groups in the country have any interest in this law at all: religious organisations and the Christian wing of the Liberal Party.
They’re doing it to us. Our personal religious freedom to believe or not believe whatever we like is fully protected already by the constitution, balanced sensibly against the right of others (including employers) to not have to be subjected to our expressions of those beliefs when they interfere with peaceful and respectful co-existence. Where that line is uncertain (it wasn’t in Folau’s case, but whatever), the courts are already equipped to find it.
This bill was and now is even more obviously about one thing only: extending and embedding the power of the churches to do whatever the hell they like to whoever the hell they hate, immune from legal consequence, while continuing to happily take the benefits of their exemption from having to pay tax and the subsidies their businesses receive from the rest of us who do.
It’s a fit-up.
Can the alleged government force this legislation upon us? Is it within the bounds of the Constitution Of Australia, which is a secular Country.
If the Churches and Religions are losing relevance, is it the alleged governments role to create relevance for them?
Is this an attempt to take Australia back to the times when Churches held sway on what people did, when they did it, and the fear of God be upon you for non compliance?
Further, are the Religious now allowed to carry on their long held practice of child abuse, irrespective of the findings of the recent Royal Commission. There would seem little anyone could do to prevent that from ever happening.
Time, Australia, its time.
Yep, it’s time to kick this so-called government out, and then ban all religions for causing more harm to humans throughout history, if not for man made religions the world would be living in peace, and no government that by law is meant to be secular – we fought to make it so – should force the wants of any religion upon the electorate. Seems we’re now being governed, or not, by the pharisees.
Please don’t even think about banning religions. You really need to look at human history to see what such banning accomplishes. It won’t be what you expect it to be and we’d all be in for a world of pain. It’s best just to ridicule them into obsolescence.
Possibly the quickest way to curtail such excessive religious zeal is to tax ALL religious institutions on their various incomes etc UNLESS they comply with the usual charity categories and fulfill all reporting requirements.
I am reminded of how The Housemaids Tale began.
A great article Michael. This is a carve out exempting organised institutional religions from complying with secular law, ie. human rights and anti-discrimination. Can we expect more carve outs in future, eg. the stoning of adulterers and fornicators, or child genital mutilation?
There is just no logic or rational reason why they should be exempted from anti-discrimination laws. It doesn’t stop their religious beliefs, and to the extent it might impact their practices, it only does so when it has a negative impact on another person.
Why should we as a civil society allow an organisation like a religion to be nasty to people (but not a baker)?
All religions are human made, and there just is no reason why, if being nasty to others is a current practice of the religion (as would seem to be the case as evidenced by support for this legislation), that the religion can’t be made better for contemporary society by human made amendments to comply with secular law. How can not being nasty be bad?
I also am deeply offended by this attempt of religions to entrench advantage to their followers in civil society. As a high school student my grades in literature were always mediocre in part to an expectation that all students would recognise christian biblical references in the texts which I never understood. Similarly, in the Scouting movement a leader wanted to veto my Queens Scout award because he noticed I wouldn’t recite the christian lords prayer, an issue that was only resolved by the strange (religious) logic that other leaders were aware of my charity work with a christian associated charity and therefore I must be a ‘believer’ even though I said I was not.
Perhaps, if the religions really want apartheid, they should get it. It would be fairer than what is proposed.
Perhaps, secular schools, hospitals etc ie. public schools & hospitals should be able to discriminate against people of faith, and secular funding ie. government money, should only go to secular bodies.
The proponents of this Bill, which gives the right to discriminate against others, seem to lack a sense of Christian charity.
Have reghard to the opposite.
Secular society is grossly underrated. By virtue of its focus on unity and inclusion, it has long demonstrated its capacity to complete replace religious dogma. Secular empowerment is unlike religion a unifying force between quite different groups, because it has the socialist element of ensuring a good safety net for all, since in the secular world all are equal.
Effective political leadership could do a lot to resolve economic, social and religious tensions. Inclusive histories of Australia plus the dumping of an Anzac Mythology intended to promote Imperial fawning would fit the modern Australia far more well. Government tax and transfer policies (both direct and indirect) have after all until the victory of the religionist bigots largely prevented income inequality from worsening.
Government social welfare benefits for those ostracised from their community is crucial to allowing them genuine independence when it matters. Secular democracy needs to provide practical support for those looking to rely on it, just as religious organisations keep their believers by supporting them when necessary.
As a “Jedi Knight” I take issue with the Atheists who dislike us because we take away from their numbers in the census.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
So, no plebiscite? Let us all have a say.
So, still no tax payable? If Religion wants the right to discriminate, taxpayers rightfully want them all to pay tax.
Great to see this National Religious Emergency is at the forefront of our Government. By the way, where is our Prime Minister at the moment?