In
March 2017, the Liberal Party attempted to change the laws with regard to 18C
of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which states:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to
do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
Had
these changes been brought about - purportedly in the name of free speech - some
people could say things that others might reasonably consider
to be disrespectful and discriminatory on the basis of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
Some
elements of the government now look to do the opposite in certain regards. They
would seek to protect religions from offense,
insult, humiliation and intimidation. Furthermore, they would seek to enable religions to discriminate against
those of different persuasions. This would be seen by the passive observer as
the height of hypocrisy.
Belief
in religions - as with ideology – are often opinionated and dynamic, but most
importantly changeable, whereas “race,
colour or national or ethnic origin” are
fixed. As such, opinions, religions and ideologies are not deserving of the
same protections as race, colour or national or ethnic origins.
The
Folau case has highlighted the difficulties that changes to Freedom of Religion
would cause. Israel Folau has ostensibly voiced his religious opinion that a
vast array of people would go to hell. This despite an agreement with his
employer that he would not voice his opinions in public. In so doing he could
alienate the very people who patronise him, including other players, audiences
and sponsors. This is not to take into account the harm that he might cause, including
the offense to the unchangeable qualities of people in the LGBTI community. The
Australian Christian Lobby was quick to defend Israel Folau.
On the other hand, Israel Folau’s father Eni of the Truth of Jesus
Christ Church, believes the "everlasting torture and doom" of hell
awaits most Christians, with Catholicism seen as "the synagogue of
Satan" and "masked devil worship". Israel Folau’s cousin Josiah wrote
to a parent who attended one of the church's services that "any devout
Catholic person IS NOT A SAVED CHRISTIAN WHATSOEVER.
"Look
at Catholic doctrine, almost 100% of it is false and is filled with lies,"
After
meeting with the headmaster, Josiah “discontinued” his employment with the
Catholic school where he was a teacher. The Australian Christian Lobby has not
come out in support of Josiah Folau. The case of Israel and Josiah both involve
people who have caused their employers discomfort. They are free to think
whatever they like. They are also free to say whatever they like. However,
there are consequences when said in the public domain.
If the
government were to stop the ability to question, criticise, nay use terminology
that the aggrieved would consider offensive or insulting - in the hope of
insulating certain types of Christianity - then they would unwittingly protect from
perceived offence and insult what many might consider to be ridiculous belief
systems including Jehovah's Witnesses, Exclusive Brethren, Scientology and
Islam. These religions – particularly in their more fundamental forms - are
just a few that run counter to reasonable, acceptable and moral behaviours as
viewed by the vast majority of Australians. Indeed, many of their practices run
counter to the intentions and laws of the land. Many of their practices run
counter to appropriate medical practice, educational enlightenment, organisational
transparency and psychological well-being.
Of
far greater concern to most Australians, were the government to enact laws
banning criticism, offense or insult of religions, the government could
unwittingly allow the Trojan horse of Islam to instigate blasphemy laws like
those in Saudi Arabia, Iran and various other countries. After all, why should
any form of Christianity be more or less protected than any other religion,
regardless of how ridiculous such religions might seem.
It is
imperative therefore that religious laws, which are already overly protective of
religious practices, not be granted any further dispensation.
