Commenting on the final form of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism bill, Christian legal think tank Freedom For Faith commented: “We are very glad to see that the Government removed the most controversial section – the crime of ‘publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred.'”
Examining the details of the bill and the effect of the changes makes it clear that a significant curtailment of religious liberty has been avoided with the dropping of the serious vilification section of the bill.
“The faith leaders’ letter to the Prime Minister, was a significant turning point, and was covered by a wide range of news outlets from all parts of the political spectrum, like the ABC, Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, Age, SBS, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, and Financial Review.” Freedom For Faith’s Executive Director Mike Southon wrote.
The Other Cheek posted the full text of the letter here. It included a rejection of a proposed new criminal offence of ‘Serious Racial Vilification’ (section80.2BF), and agreed with the position of the NSW Law Reform Commission that such an offence ‘would introduce imprecision and subjectivity into the criminal law’ and that ‘this ambiguity makes hatred an inappropriate standard for the criminal law.”
As Freedom For Faith reported, that section was removed. Commenting on that change, Southon added: “By presenting a unified front, you showed that religious freedom is not just a fringe issue, but major faith leaders and regular members were all deeply concerned.
“Despite Equality Australia’s strong campaign in support of passing – and expanding – this law, the Government have listened to your voice.”
Jewish Community organisations and the LGBTQ peak bodies had supported the “Serious Racial Vilification” clause. Christian and Muslim organisations had argued for its removal.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry – the peak council for the Jewish Community argued “The serious vilification offence should extend protection for other inherent attributes such as sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, illness, disability, or personal association with a person who is identified by reference to any of the above attributes.”
Equality Australia submitted: “The protection of only race and related characteristics under this offence sends a concerning message that other forms of hatred are of lesser weight or importance, and creates the perception of two tiers of justice for communities that are vulnerable to hatred but cannot rely on s 80.2BF. This divisive approach may be in itself damaging to social cohesion.
“Given our hope that this provision will be expanded to include additional attributes, and our desire to ensure the law effectively protects people on the basis of race (particularly because of the experiences of antisemitism and other forms of racism experienced by members of our communities), we offer the following suggestions for improvement…”
Those suggestions included tightening an exemption for the serious vilification offence that provided “a
defence to this offence where the person is quoting from or otherwise referencing a religious text in the context of religious teaching or discussion.” to define referencing.
“While we appreciate the intention behind this defence may be to protect freedom of religion and recognise that some historical religious texts may contain outdated language, including that which would otherwise be discriminatory under modern Australian laws, we are concerned about the potential for misinterpretation or an overly broad interpretation.
“The exemption applies not only to direct quotations from religious texts, but also to conduct that ‘otherwise references’ a religious text. The issue lies in there being various meanings of the verb to ‘reference’; one of which is to mention or allude to something, and another being to cite a passage. We understand from the explanatory memorandum that in fact the second meaning is what is intended. This is not clear enough from the wording of the draft Bill and we suggest that defining the term ‘reference’ in line with how it is described in the explanatory memorandum would reduce this ambiguity.”
Quoting from the Equality Australia submission at length makes it clear that if adopted, sermons taking a conservative view on sexuality could have been captured, significantly circumscribing religious liberty.
All submissions to the inquiry are available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/CASHEBILL26/Submissions
The religious leaders’ letter was dominated by evangelical voices – although more could have been added – and other religions, including peak councils of Buddhism, Islam, and even Scientology. However the Melbourne Anglican archbishop Ric Thorpe, and the Anglican Primate Mark Short of Canberra Goulburn were not included owing to pressure of time, the Other Cheek understands.
That may explain another significant omission from the letter, a signatory from the Australian Christian Lobby(ACL). A submission from the ACL presented a strong religious freedom focus, including opposition to the Serious Racial Vilification provision. While the religious leaders’ letter provided a focus on making one particular change, the ACL submission was a more general opposition to the bill on free speech grounds. However, it is clear that the traditional role of the ACL in presenting a (mostly) united front of Christian leaders had been superseded by FFF taking this role. To a roll call of Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Orthodox, the letter added non-Christian bodies that were outside the old “traditional’ role of the ACL.
The ACL moved away from operating so closely with religious leaders during the Martyn Iles period, where it movedmore towards an evangelistic body. It has returned towards a political body, but a major Christian lobbying effort in this instance can be seen to have been directed by FFF.
More of the story will be told in an upcoming episode of The Pastor’s Heart podcast with an interview of the main signatory of the religious leaders’ letter, Bishop Michael Stead.
Image Credit: Andrea Schaffer / Wikimedia
I find the use of “won” in the title of this article greatly offensive.
The issue is not about winning or losing.
The issue is about how we all can live together in a society where all are valued, loved and respected for who they are. That is the fundamental message from Jesus’ life with us.
How would you write a headline that indicated the outcome?