Victoria, religious freedom and those that don't get it

In 2010 the Labor government of Victoria instigated legislation to prevent religious institutions from discriminating against employees on religious grounds where those employees were not employed to perform religious duties. The new Liberal state government plans to take these laws out before they are enacted.

Part of the reasoning put forth for the roll back is that these laws are an attack on religious freedom. To set the context here are some highlights from an article by David Marr.

Australia's religious organisations fight for the right to discriminate, writes David Marr.
February 14, 2011 Brisbane Times
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/faiths-rule-on-sex-from-staffroom-to-bedroom-20110214-1asj0.html

Who the faiths employ in their pulpits is their own affair. If they want to tear themselves apart over the ordination of women or homosexuals, they are answerable only to themselves. But ever since anti-discrimination laws first appeared 30 or 40 years ago, the faiths have fought for exemptions to allow them to employ only the sexually virtuous in their welfare agencies, hospitals and schools.

Services are denied. Promotions are blocked. Individuals are picked off. Applications are rebuffed. Jobs are lost.

It is not a boutique issue. The faiths are big employers. Indeed, the Catholic Church is one of the biggest private employers in Australia and claims the right to vet the sexual morals even of the gardeners in hospital grounds. It says: "Catholic agencies must be free in employing staff and accepting volunteers to prefer practising and faithful Catholics even in support roles, and not just in roles directly concerned with pastoral work or the teaching of religion."

"A Liberal-Nationals Coalition government will restore the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association in relation to faith-based schools and other organisations by removing the inherent requirements test which Labor has imposed," the new Attorney-General of Victoria, Robert Clark, told the Herald.

Also on this topic by Melissa Fyfe in The Age

Religious groups to regain bias rights
Melissa Fyfe
February 13, 2011 The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/religious-groups-to-regain-bias-rights-20110212-1ardw.html

Attorney-General Robert Clark is drawing up amendments, to be introduced to Parliament in May or June, to curb Victoria's anti-discrimination laws as part of the Coalition's election promises to conservative religious groups.

The amendments will scrap Labor's reforms, which take effect in August, that give wider investigative powers to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and restrict the rights of faith-based organisations to refuse employment and services to people they believe may undermine their beliefs.

The Attorney-General said Labor's reforms must be wound back because they were a direct attack on faith-based schools and parents who wanted a religious education for their children. "We made very clear election commitments and so the issues have been well canvassed," he said.

"The 2010 legislation is a far-reaching attack on the freedom of faith-based organisations and freedom of religion and belief. The amendments will restore tolerance and a sense of the fair go. Faith-based organisations and political organisations should be free to engage staff that uphold their values."

... Rob Ward, the Victorian director of the Australian Christian Lobby, now says the group is keen to see the end of the Labor reforms. He said the mindset of the commission was "troubling". "While we've had a good relationship with commissioner Helen Szoke, they don't seem to be favourably inclined towards freedom of religion and association."

So not only a director of the Australian Christian Lobby but the Victorian Attorney-General see this as a question of freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion and concience is one of the basic rights and is on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

To understand why this is important you could look to European history. From the 15th Century, the time of the Spanish Inquisition, to the 16th Century and the height of Calvinism, religious orthodoxy was law (although they were different orthodoxies in question from time to time). Blasphemers, Apostates and Heretics (real or simply accused) were tortured and killed or had their property and lively hood taken away. This effected some millions of people.

In that period of darkness and oppression a few started the discussion of liberty which innevitably led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in modern times.

Lest you think the descriptions of those dark times in Europe are exagerated take a look around at the theocracies that exist today in the modern world, and the states that give sway to belligerent faiths that prosecute heretics, apostates and blasphemers with punishment or death.

Those opposing freedom of religion and conscience, preferring all to bow down to their one religion as "the truth", do not rest. Where the law of the land does not allow them to impose obedience they try to get around rights by insisting on rights they do not have.

First they claim the right not to be criticised as being a right to religious freedom. There is no such right. Blasphemy laws suppress the right to free speech. If a faith cannot stand up to criticism it is not a strong faith. Criticism is not physical force, and is not suppression. Knowledge is aided by criticism and the right to free speech.

Secondly they claim the right to be appart and not to have to encounter other faiths and so on. If they can find a place to do that, and stick their fingers in their ears going la la la, fine. That does not give them the right to include others in their enclave unwillingly, such as children who have a right to enjoy a proper education and exposure to the society they live in.

Thirdly they claim a right to withold employment or service from those that do not pass religious orthodoxy tests, or moral tests. This is a direct contravention of article 18 of the charter of human rights. The people seeking employment with or services from such groups are covered by that right and their lack of conformity with the religious groups doctrines is not imposing anything on the religious group, thus preserving that groups article 18 rights as well.

We can perhaps forgive Rob Ward, director of the Australian Christian Lobby, for thinking that oppressing employees religious freedom is an act of religious freedom. He is, after all, representing a group that want no truck with religious freedom, they want conformity with their beliefs.

What can we say though about Attorney-General Robert Clark? This man and the government of which he is a part, is meant to be acting on behalf of the people of Victoria, a secular state with a vast mixture of beliefs and concerns. He should be upholding religious freedom and the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet he does not seem to know what religious freedom is, taking the side of the lobbyists for conformity.

When the people of Victoria voted the Baillieu government in there were probably many reasons, most economic or a simple dislike for the encumbents. I don't believe they gave the Baillieu government a mandate for this change. I would say to the people of Victoria that you need to make the government aware that you don't agree with their stand.