Australia to introduce Sharia law

If the rumours are true, the Federal Government is being pushed to introduce aspects of Sharia Law into Australia.

Essentially, this is where people disregard or replace civil law and adhere only to religious tenets according to belief.

It then becomes the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on religion.

In Australia we don’t have the imposition of Islamic law on our parliaments, but we do have the push from Christianism which presents itself as ‘religious freedom’.

The decade-long campaign for marriage equality has created a backlash from some conservative Christians who are not used to having their privileges challenged or removed.

In response, they are calling for special protections, creating the perception that this will operate like Sharia law; giving Christian beliefs greater legal authority than parliamentary laws.

This will be as worrying for many people of faith as it is for others. It will reflect badly on all people of faith despite the vast majority respecting our democratic values and institutions.

Conservative Christians believe that marriage is holy sacrament ordained by God and that they alone have the right to define how marriage will exist under Commonwealth law, as well as how it will be administered.

This is despite the fact that 75 per cent of Australians do not get married in churches, mosques or synagogues. Three quarters of all marriages in Australia are secular events conducted by civil celebrants. This number grows each year, as does the number of Australians declaring they have ‘no religion’ on the five-yearly census. In fact, the ‘no religion’ demographic is likely to be the largest one presenting at the next census results.

Even so, right wing Christians are lobbying hard for their version of religious law to be injected into any changes to the Marriage Act that will allow for same-sex nuptials.

First, they want it to apply to any public servants who might have to issue marriage licenses from the various Marriage Registry offices around the country. This will mean that any public servant who has ‘religious objections’ to homosexual people, can be excused from assisting them.

This extraordinary situation comes straight from Kentucky in the USA, where the culture war over gay marriage exploded in 2015. County Clerk, Kim Davis, became a hero to the religious right when as a marriage registrar in a government office she refused to issue marriage certificates to gay couples because of her ‘personal religious belief’.

This issue split US voters and continues to cause social disharmony, litigation and administrative acrimony. Oddly, some Coalition MPs seem keen to import this religious fundamentalism from the southern states of the USA and incorporate it into Australian legislation. Suddenly the separation between church and state is over and religious lore can take precedence.

Remember: Kim Davis is not a priest, vicar or chaplain; she is a public servant with a duty of care. It’s the same for any Australian in a similar position. Public servants should not be allowed to pick and choose who they will and won’t help based on personal religious belief.

Who’s next? Will single mothers, interracial couples, Jews, Muslims, people who eat shellfish, drink alcohol, wear a hidjab, support blood transfusions or work on Sundays also be rejected by public servants who find that these things offend their religious beliefs?

The answer to this is no, because despite being described as ‘religious belief’ the proposed law is in fact only quarantined to discriminating against homosexuals. It’s not blanket religious freedom, it’s specifically a denial of freedom for same-sex couples. 

Second, the Christianists want religious lore to apply to any civil celebrant who, for personal religious reasons, objects to homosexual people.

Again, let’s be clear. We’re not talking about priests, imams and rabbis here, they already have understandable exemptions. Affirmed and ordained ministers cannot be compelled to marry anyone against the beliefs and tenets of their faith. This is already law.

However, priests, imams and rabbis are performing a religious sacrament, a civil celebrant is not.

A marriage celebrant has chosen to perform a de facto administrative role for the commonwealth. In this regard they are like Justices of the Peace, who undertake community service under the rules and guidance of the government.

A civil celebrant who opposes gay couples because of their ‘personal religious belief’ should not have that prejudice supported by law, any more than a JP could turn away LGBTI people seeking their administrative help on a personal matter.

And let’s be honest, no same-sex couples will insist that a marriage celebrant who opposes gay marriage perform their ceremony. No-one wants that. It does not need to be prescribed in law, the free market will sort it out and gay couples will find a friendly celebrant with whom to do business. There are more than 8,000 in Australia. 

In November last year, Muslim prisoner Milad Bin Ahmad-Shah Al-Ahmadzai refused to stand in court or recognise the Judge, citing his ‘religious belief.’

There was no sympathy for him across Australia, with everyone demanding he recognise Australian laws and values. Ironically, many people making this demand were among the strongest supporters of religious freedom from Australian law on marriage.  They want to pick and choose when ‘religious belief’ trumps civil law and who can exercise it.

They argue all prisoners must recognise judges under the law, but public servants don’t have to recognise homosexuals under the law. Their take on ‘religious freedom’ is ad hoc and inconsistent.    

My point is this: if we go down the path of cementing a Christianist form of ‘Sharia Law’ in Australia, it will unleash a culture war that will last for decades. The religious lobby will push for more and more exemptions and greater coverage across all commonwealth legislation. The secular lobby will demand the separation of church and state.

Underneath it all will be the bedrock fact that this isn’t about religious freedom and never was. It’s about anti-gay discrimination.    

Our parliament must stand firm against privileging belief over reason and recasting religious persecution as religious freedom.