ALRC Recommendations on Religious Discrimination Must Be Rejected
Recommendations by the Australian Law Reform Commission on Religious Discrimination represent an egregious attack on people of faith in our country and must be rejected.
How dare the ALRC suggest the State dictate to religious people which views on human sexuality are acceptable, and which are not?
Who died and made the ALRC the Pope?
How dare the ALRC encourage politicians to interfere in the staffing of religious organisations, dictating who they can and cannot employ.
Against Basic Rights
These recommendations represent a massive overreach by the State. But they are worse than that. They are a full-frontal attack on fundamental human rights.
If people are not free to follow their own conscience when it comes to sexuality and gender, then they are not free at all.
And if people are not free to associate with those with whom they share common values and ethics, then in what sense does freedom of association exist at all?
If Senators value freedom of religion and freedom of association, then they will agree with me that the ALRC report 142 must be condemned and rejected.
The Liberal Party’s own statement of beliefs declares their support for – and I quote – “the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association”.
Their statement of beliefs declares these things to be the most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy.
Well, the ALRC recommendations don’t just undermine these most basic of freedoms — they crucify them!
Discriminatory Mockery
If a Christian school cannot insist that its own staff are practising Christians, then in what sense does that school remain Christian?
Would the Greens pre-select an SUV-driving oil company executive as their candidate? Of course not.
Would the unions appoint a free-market libertarian with a background in entrepreneurship as their shop steward? Not a chance.
Would the Australian Pride Network choose a hetero-sexual Pentecostal who insists there are only two genders, to work as their LGBTQIA plus liaison manager? We all know the answer to that one.
So riddle me this. Why are religious organisations singled out for special treatment by the ALRC?
This is not a trick question, and it does not require Senators to spend hours deliberating.
Failing Families
One-third of Australian families send their children to religious schools because they value the ethos, ethics and values being taught.
The ALRC report would make it illegal for religious schools to uphold their ethics and values.
The ALRC recommendations, if enacted, would effectively neuter religious schools and deny a huge proportion of the Australian community their preferred choice in education.
This is wrong. And it must be rejected.
Everyone in this chamber has a set of beliefs that frame the way in which we see the world.
When governments start insisting that they can frame people’s worldviews, especially on such deeply held and personal beliefs as sexuality, gender, and marriage, then everyone is in danger.
Who’s Next?
Today, it is the Christian worldview that is under attack. It is an incredibly naïve person who cheers the interference of government in Christian schooling because they don’t like Christians.
Instead, they should be asking, if the government can involve itself in the belief system of Christian organisations, what organisation will be next? Where, if anywhere, will the line between state-imposed belief and personal values be drawn?
If the ALRC’s recommendations are not condemned, then we are green-lighting the government to involve itself in anyone’s worldview and in anyone’s associations.
I don’t want to live in a world like that.
Join me in condemning and rejecting the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report, and in so doing, safeguarding the rights of all Australians to believe and to freely associate as they choose.
I ask the Liberal Party and all other decent and fair-minded Senators to join me in condemning the ALRC Report 142.
___
Photo by Ksenia Chernaya.
2 Comments
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
14 January 2025
2.9 MINS
Australia’s virtue signalling High Commissioner to the United Kingdom is doing a backflip, after a massive backlash. Stephen Smith, whose taxpayer-funded income is in the six-figure range, declared on Thursday that he would not be attending a key Australia Day function.
-
14 January 2025
3.2 MINS
A landmark health meeting will be presented with shocking figures on the number of people with severe psychiatric conditions who are receiving few or no services in the community, as ministers come together to formulate a national response to the nation’s growing mental health crisis.
14 January 2025
4.2 MINS
It is this sustaining hope, envisioning glory to come, that allows us to continue amidst the sin and cruelty that darken our age and sometimes our own relationships closer to home. It empowers us to bear fruit as peacemakers, life givers, lovers of the poor, sick and suffering.
14 January 2025
6.2 MINS
With a number of people dead and thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, the massive fires fuelled by strong winds in Los Angeles have been utterly devastating. The sad truth is this: California leaders and authorities were clearly quite unprepared for these fires.
14 January 2025
5.6 MINS
You probably wouldn’t know it by the legislation they pass and the debates they have, but Capitol Hill is one of the most religious places on earth.
-
13 January 2025
3.5 MINS
Errol Musk is predicating Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) will one day be Prime Minister. Elon’s estranged and controversial father aired the not-so-batty point in an interview shared to X by The Times Radio on Tuesday.
-
13 January 2025
7.6 MINS
Depending on which echo chamber you get your news from, last week Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took steps to either save democracy, or to end it. Zuckerberg announced several changes to Meta’s moderation approach, including replacing third-party fact-checkers with a user-driven Community Notes model.
We should never have joined the UN which has promoted all these evil ideas , an Industry headed by Ombudsmen for this and that , and, if we object and demand our rights (including the free exercise of our religion ) we can be dragged through courts, be heavily fined and even jailed. The UN has more plans for us — universal-Digital ID and more mass vaccination, etc. The UN was an idea of Far Left individuals like F.D. Roosevelt who was instrumental in the Tehran and Yalta Conferences which decided to gift Eastern Europe to Stalin and Communism. I have just read an interesting book about the the young king of Yugoslavia who was living in London , and, who had been promised reinstatement to his throne at the end of WW2 with Allied support,but, was suddenly told that unless he make a radio speech urging all Yugoslavs to join Tito’s Communist Partisans , he would be deported to Africa ! He complied and we saw the result— Communism with its poverty and everybody owning nothing , sharing a room or two in a house or in an ugl,y highrise building of 11 stories with no lift whilst the Communist Party members lived in luxury and owned more than one house , cars, jewellery,etc . Be vigilant , not gullible that these changes to law are to protect the equal human rights of a group of marginalised people. Don’t trust government ! This is not Australia of the 1950s when politicians were Statesmen who governed for the good of Australians and the Nation !
Click on the link at the end of the article ALRC Report 142 to find that the full title of the report is:-
Maximising the Realisation of Human Rights: Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws (ALRC Report 142)
Is this doublespeak for “We want everyone to think that this is for the best and in everyone’s best interest but it is the only way we can introduce control over the dissenters(Christians)”.
This will certainly not maximise the realisation of human rights, rather, it will take away the rights Christian schools have to retain their difference.
On one hand people want diversity, on the other hand diversity is shut down when it does not look or agree with their version of diversity. The view seems to be if it is not woke it is not diverse. I prefer the old adage “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.
George Orwell was so prophetic in his book 1984. It appears that only the date was wrong.