By Terence Mills
The Prime Minister has called for a review of religious protections mainly, the cynical may say, to get the marriage equality legislation through without turning the Marriage Act into a version of War and Peace or more appropriately perhaps, the Ten Commandments. He outlined his reasons as being:
“Any reforms to protect religious freedom at large should be undertaken carefully. There is a high risk of unintended consequences when Parliament attempts to legislate protections for basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom of religion. The Government is particularly concerned to prevent uncertainties caused by generally worded Bill of Rights-style declarations. This will be a timely expert stocktake to inform consideration of any necessary legislative reforms. Protection of the right to freedom of religion is a very important right. And how we manage that within the context of difficult human rights obligations, which can sometimes be formalised in a way which takes it beyond the power of the parliament, you need to get the balance right”.
Oddly, he then appointed Philip Ruddock to lead this “expert panel”, together with the recently appointed President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, former Federal Court judge the Hon Annabelle Bennett AO SC and priest and human rights lawyer, Fr Frank Brennan SJ AO. The expert panel have been asked to report back by 31 March 2018.
Philip Ruddock is an odd choice if you are looking for objectivity as it was he who in June 2004, introduced the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 into the House of Representatives in his former role as Attorney-General (and Yes it was passed by both major parties). The resulting Act formally added the definition of marriage in Australia as “as a union of a man and a woman”, and also ensured that same-sex marriages entered into under the law of another country would not be recognised in Australia. So, it was he who brought about the mayhem that we have finally brought to a conclusion by the legislative amendments passed in the House of Representatives last week: is Philip really the best man for the job?
But perhaps the PM is not looking for objectivity and he is just hand–feeding the conservative Right of his party as has been his practice since coming to office. Mr Ruddock said “the task would pose significant challenges, but that the group would endeavour to come up with an appropriate response for the Government.” To echo the thoughts of that well known political commentator of the 1960’s, Mandy Rice Davies – whose mate Christine Keeler passed away just last week: He would say that, wouldn’t he?
The questions that occur to me are more focused on protections from religion which seem, in this country well overdue. Should it, for example, be permissible for a religious school receiving over 80% of its funding from the public-purse to sack a teacher who makes it known or is revealed as being gay or lesbian and in a relationship with another man or woman?
Should the right to freedom of speech and communication permit religious proselytisers to knock on your door uninvited and attempt to convert you to their religious beliefs and doctrines or should your right to privacy out-trump their rights to religious freedom? Perhaps an opt-in approach would serve us better where we can call them, as we would a plumber, should we have need of their services? Philip will no doubt reflect on that.
Should we as a society allow baby boys to be genitally mutilated as part of a religious ritual with no clinical or medical imperative, without first having obtained the informed consent of the child when he reaches adulthood – we do after all have laws protecting young girls from such practices? Why is it that religious groups rejoice in the creations of their God and then, when fresh from the womb, they grab a razor-blade and try to improve on His works?
And, of course, the big question of the day: should a whole raft of businesses ranging from bakers to florists to dress hire people have the freedom to enquire into and discriminate against you in accordance with your gender preference when they are deciding whether to serve you or not?
I have no doubt that Mr Ruddock will take all these matters into account as he attempts to guide us into becoming a more enlightened, tolerant and wholesome society. What do you think?
