Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Privileging prejudice: the threat and opportunity posed by the movement for 'religious freedom'

By Rodney Croome - posted Wednesday, 5 June 2019


With the help of sections of the media, the No campaign made Catholic Archbishop, Julian Porteous, an innocent victim of a hate speech complaint despite a ruling that there was substance to the complaint, despite him having to do no more than attend a conciliation session, and despite the complaint being dropped.

The No campaign relentlessly attacked Safe Schools for promoting "gender fluidity" despite clear evidence young transgender people are some of the most vulnerable members of the community, and despite the Safe Schools program improving educational outcomes.

The No campaign relentlessly pushed for "religious freedom" protections in marriage equality legislation allowing same-sex couples to be discriminated against ands refused services.

Advertisement

This push that was partly successful when Parliament agreed to allow civil celebrants with religious beliefs and commercial services with links to a faith, to refuse services to same-sex couples.

At the time, it was assumed the No case's postal survey strategy of focusing on religious freedom was about diverting attention from the main issue, which they singularly failed to do.

But if, as it now seems, their goal was to set up a new religious freedom narrative to roll-back LGBTI rights after marriage equality was achieved, the postal survey was a win for them.

A setback for the "religious freedom" movement came with last year's release of the report of the religious freedom inquiry set up by Malcolm Turnbull after the postal survey and chaired by Philip Ruddock.

It found there is no actual threat to religious freedom in Australia. By highlighting existing anti-discrimination exemptions for faith-linked organisations, the Ruddock report also sparked a push to remove exemptions in national discrimination law that allow faith-linked schools to expel LGBTI students and sack LGBTI teachers.

Outrage at such exemptions should come as no surprise. Successive polls, including one by YouGov in May last year, have shown around 80% of Australians oppose exemptions allowing LGBTI students and teachers to be discriminated against by faith-based schools.

Advertisement

But the strategy of the religious freedom movement, and the broader religious right, is no longer to win over the majority of Australians.

It has retreated from its former claim to represent "the silent majority" and now focusses on "the silenced minority".

The "religious freedom election" and a Religious Freedom Act

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Rodney Croome is a spokesperson for Equality Tasmania and national advocacy group, just.equal. He who was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003 for his LGBTI advocacy.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Rodney Croome

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy