Under the guise of protecting human rights and freedom of religion, the Australian Human Rights Commission is running a very quiet and secretive survey to ensure that our rights to religious practices are not violated.The survey which is called a “Submission” on: Freedom of religion and belief in the 21st Century aims to collect opinions and-data from the general public and produce recommendations based upon this findings to the Federal Government, which in turn will pass or attempt to pass laws “protecting” our freedom of religion.
Since the vast majority of Australians wouldn't have a clue that this survey-submission was put into place, it is more or less up to those who “know” to decide about our true freedom of expression.
And everybody will be happy? - I think not.
This secretive survey aims to curb even further our freedom of speech and in particular our freedom to criticize Islam.
To Protect And Serve .... Islam. Former Victorian Police Commissioner with her handlers during the end of Ramadan dinner 2008.
No religion is persecuted in Australia and this is just an attempt to involve the state in policing freedom of religion and is an attempt to introduce yet another piece of Sharia by stealth.
It is imperative that all AIM readers participate in this survey and sent their submission forms to the committee. Whether long or short each submission will be of help.
Here you can find all necessary details - Human Rights Australia.
Please remember the closing date for sending your submissions is 31-01-2009.
The deadline has been extended to June 9, 2009
Links to submissions already sent to AHRC by:
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (45)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Thanks Dan for alerting us to this.
I have sent copies to all my family, to church groups, to heads of Bible colleges and to other friends.
Initial thoughts for my submission:-
(we must recognize and protect our cultural heritage, and that 60% of Australians are from a Judeo Christian background, and our democracy was based on the Westminster system).
1. Faith groups must ONLY be allowed if they integrate into society and conform to MINIMUM standards for MultiCulturalism. This should be defined.
2. Apartheid practices should not be tolerated, including separate bathrooms, toilets, dining, swimming, beaches, apartment complexes, separate cemetries etc. These should be identified under MINIMUM standards for Integration.
3. Polygamy must be banned and the law enforced. A civil service MUST be held first to register the marriage before an islamic ceremony.
4. Building and location of mosques should be controlled. Mosques should not be built within a certain distance from a church (1 klm) and the mosque size should not be larger than the congregation size. Mosques should NOT be built on university campuses.
5. To preserve our heritage, no domes or minarets should be allowed and the call to prayer should be banned indefinately.
6. Churches should not be allowed to be converted into Mosques.
... work in progress...
I have sent copies to all my family, to church groups, to heads of Bible colleges and to other friends.
Initial thoughts for my submission:-
(we must recognize and protect our cultural heritage, and that 60% of Australians are from a Judeo Christian background, and our democracy was based on the Westminster system).
1. Faith groups must ONLY be allowed if they integrate into society and conform to MINIMUM standards for MultiCulturalism. This should be defined.
2. Apartheid practices should not be tolerated, including separate bathrooms, toilets, dining, swimming, beaches, apartment complexes, separate cemetries etc. These should be identified under MINIMUM standards for Integration.
3. Polygamy must be banned and the law enforced. A civil service MUST be held first to register the marriage before an islamic ceremony.
4. Building and location of mosques should be controlled. Mosques should not be built within a certain distance from a church (1 klm) and the mosque size should not be larger than the congregation size. Mosques should NOT be built on university campuses.
5. To preserve our heritage, no domes or minarets should be allowed and the call to prayer should be banned indefinately.
6. Churches should not be allowed to be converted into Mosques.
... work in progress...
1
January 03, 2009
Geoff,
All those suggestions sound great. You should include articles in your submission in relation to examples that have already occurred in Australia. ie the article recently on AIM in relation to the Muslim in WA that wanted separate apartments for Muslims. Also the call from Imams to introduce polygamy into Australia. It should also include examples of what has happened in the UK with the allowing of Sharia law. It should be stated that NO form of Sharia law ever be introduced into Australia. If they want to live by Sharia, then immigrate to a Muslim country.
I think the most important thing that should be stated in the submissions is that ALL religions should be open to debate and criticism. If we are not allowed to openly debate what is wrong with religions then it could be detrimental to our national security ie with Terrorism etc. All religions should be able to be debated and criticized. After all we are able to do this at the moment freely. It seems it is only Islam that we can not debate. After all there is a difference between debating and criticizing and inciting hatred against a religion and this should be noted.
NO religion or religious customs should be forced onto the community. For example pre schools introducing halal food. Sure it can be offered to Muslims but it should NOT be forced on all because of a minority.
We should also limit the amount of Muslims into the country for national security purposes. It should be noted in submissions that Islam is MORE than a religion that it is also a political ideology. Political ideologies have no place in the west and Muslim immigration will only cause more political agitation and social disharmony. ie cronulla riots.
I hope that I have added a few extra things.
All those suggestions sound great. You should include articles in your submission in relation to examples that have already occurred in Australia. ie the article recently on AIM in relation to the Muslim in WA that wanted separate apartments for Muslims. Also the call from Imams to introduce polygamy into Australia. It should also include examples of what has happened in the UK with the allowing of Sharia law. It should be stated that NO form of Sharia law ever be introduced into Australia. If they want to live by Sharia, then immigrate to a Muslim country.
I think the most important thing that should be stated in the submissions is that ALL religions should be open to debate and criticism. If we are not allowed to openly debate what is wrong with religions then it could be detrimental to our national security ie with Terrorism etc. All religions should be able to be debated and criticized. After all we are able to do this at the moment freely. It seems it is only Islam that we can not debate. After all there is a difference between debating and criticizing and inciting hatred against a religion and this should be noted.
NO religion or religious customs should be forced onto the community. For example pre schools introducing halal food. Sure it can be offered to Muslims but it should NOT be forced on all because of a minority.
We should also limit the amount of Muslims into the country for national security purposes. It should be noted in submissions that Islam is MORE than a religion that it is also a political ideology. Political ideologies have no place in the west and Muslim immigration will only cause more political agitation and social disharmony. ie cronulla riots.
I hope that I have added a few extra things.
2
January 03, 2009
Geoff, Eagle,
I think the best way to go about this "submission" would be to download AHR template, answer all the questions and mail it to this address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
or alternatively - download AHR form in pdf format from this address: PDF Form
Fill it in and fax it to this number:
(02) 9284 9849
I think the best way to go about this "submission" would be to download AHR template, answer all the questions and mail it to this address: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
or alternatively - download AHR form in pdf format from this address: PDF Form
Fill it in and fax it to this number:
(02) 9284 9849
3
January 04, 2009
Dan,
Yes, I will submit an electronic copy, but it may help all of us if we have a comprehensive list of references to add to our submissions.
ie. Halal food in kindergardens, Apartment complexes in WA etc.
I am building my list but it may help to pool resources.
on work in progress...
I want protection for existing cultural symbols, such as Christmas trees, Nativity displays, Easter eggs, carol singing, crosses and statues of Jesus.
If people are offended by these, they should NOT be allowed into this country.
This should be included in the MINIMUM requirement for Multiculturalism.
Yes, I will submit an electronic copy, but it may help all of us if we have a comprehensive list of references to add to our submissions.
ie. Halal food in kindergardens, Apartment complexes in WA etc.
I am building my list but it may help to pool resources.
on work in progress...
I want protection for existing cultural symbols, such as Christmas trees, Nativity displays, Easter eggs, carol singing, crosses and statues of Jesus.
If people are offended by these, they should NOT be allowed into this country.
This should be included in the MINIMUM requirement for Multiculturalism.
4
January 04, 2009
Geoff - could you manage to send around a "hit list"? There's so much to cover it would be good to have some focus.
I have read the document on the AHR website and it disturbs me greatly. There is an obvious bias to all the language with a heavy PC slant and it needs discernment.
I wonder how well received any "negative" responses will be?
I've mailed the info to as many people as I can....let's hope the AHR get swamped.
Did you see that Melbourne Imams organised "The Biggest Cry Ever for Palestine" yesterday? Crocodile tears!
I have read the document on the AHR website and it disturbs me greatly. There is an obvious bias to all the language with a heavy PC slant and it needs discernment.
I wonder how well received any "negative" responses will be?
I've mailed the info to as many people as I can....let's hope the AHR get swamped.
Did you see that Melbourne Imams organised "The Biggest Cry Ever for Palestine" yesterday? Crocodile tears!
5
January 04, 2009
Dan have sent this canvass by the AHRC to several blogs and members of the APP.
As Blue Heeler desires, let us hope that the commission gets swamped!
Seems to me that the whole protection of religion thing rests squarely with the Constitution as regards the governments role in religion...The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion...which on the face of this canvass is exactly what they intend to do by legislating in Islams favor they help establish that religion.
Any one know a good constitutional lawyer?
As Blue Heeler desires, let us hope that the commission gets swamped!
Seems to me that the whole protection of religion thing rests squarely with the Constitution as regards the governments role in religion...The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion...which on the face of this canvass is exactly what they intend to do by legislating in Islams favor they help establish that religion.
Any one know a good constitutional lawyer?
6
January 04, 2009
Dear Sir , Madam ,
Since this commission is to debate our god given right to question ,to scrutinize and to criticize then I believe these god given rights should be defended . If you believe in a higher power then you would have to admit that this higher power has gifted us with this ability and right . All religions should be able to stand up to a civililised and free debate ,right down their very foundations . No religion or belief should be exempt from a thorough and exhaustive analysis .
There has been many religions down through the ages . The ancient Incas indulged in human sacrifice , certain Hindu sects obliged widows to cast themselves onto their husband,s funeral pyres and many primitive societies were ruled by a patriarchal concoction of fear and superstition.The OT jews indulged in ethnic cleansing .Christianity certainly has a lot to answer for . Let us be thankful mankind has moved on from these many barbaric practices .
Sir ,What do you know about islam ?Did you know that within islamic scripture to question ,to criticize and to scrutinize is strictly forbidden and could in fact incur a death sentence or in islamic terms a Fatwa ? The prophet Mohammad of islam , a man that possessed not a shred or human decency in fact ordered the execution of a breast feeding woman and an elderly man who dared question and ridicule him . Mohammad ,Sir is the foundation of islam .
Look closely at any of the 53 or so islamic countries in the world and what do you see ? Do you see freedom of religion ,freedom of the press or freedom of thought ? This commission is about the future of Australia ,an Australia we will leave to our children one day .
Would you at least take a glance through the many anti islamic cyber sites set up .These sites through a level analysis of islamic scripture such as the koran ,hadith and surrur show just what a diabolical threat islam poses to the civilized world . Faithfreedom International by ex muslim Ali Sina is a good starting point .
Sincerely Matt .
Since this commission is to debate our god given right to question ,to scrutinize and to criticize then I believe these god given rights should be defended . If you believe in a higher power then you would have to admit that this higher power has gifted us with this ability and right . All religions should be able to stand up to a civililised and free debate ,right down their very foundations . No religion or belief should be exempt from a thorough and exhaustive analysis .
There has been many religions down through the ages . The ancient Incas indulged in human sacrifice , certain Hindu sects obliged widows to cast themselves onto their husband,s funeral pyres and many primitive societies were ruled by a patriarchal concoction of fear and superstition.The OT jews indulged in ethnic cleansing .Christianity certainly has a lot to answer for . Let us be thankful mankind has moved on from these many barbaric practices .
Sir ,What do you know about islam ?Did you know that within islamic scripture to question ,to criticize and to scrutinize is strictly forbidden and could in fact incur a death sentence or in islamic terms a Fatwa ? The prophet Mohammad of islam , a man that possessed not a shred or human decency in fact ordered the execution of a breast feeding woman and an elderly man who dared question and ridicule him . Mohammad ,Sir is the foundation of islam .
Look closely at any of the 53 or so islamic countries in the world and what do you see ? Do you see freedom of religion ,freedom of the press or freedom of thought ? This commission is about the future of Australia ,an Australia we will leave to our children one day .
Would you at least take a glance through the many anti islamic cyber sites set up .These sites through a level analysis of islamic scripture such as the koran ,hadith and surrur show just what a diabolical threat islam poses to the civilized world . Faithfreedom International by ex muslim Ali Sina is a good starting point .
Sincerely Matt .
7
January 04, 2009
where can i find the ahr template, the link takes me to the discussion paper. a hit list would be very good, i can mail it on to many people who don't know anything about it.
8
January 05, 2009
Mxew,
It's actually on the discussion page as a link to a MS Word document:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb/frb_2008.doc
It's actually on the discussion page as a link to a MS Word document:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb/frb_2008.doc
9
January 05, 2009
Funny how there was no Big Cry for New York after 9/11 and no Big Cry for the victims of Darfur and no Big Cry for the Bombay victims or the victims of qassam rockets and so on ad nauseum. I can only hope that the IDF really work hard to justify all this crying by the crocodile imams. These enlightened clerics who call jews "apes and pigs" and then complain how Israel is trampling on humanity. More power to the sword of Gideon! Don't pull the lion's tail, he may finally wake up! Hopefully the west will wake up too before we are overrun and defeated from within.....
10
January 05, 2009
Thanks Dan for putting this info up. We need to get as many folk as possible sending this form back. This is a chance to have our say about the creeping fascism that's penetrating our culture. Do you think Jihad Watch would post it? THere might be Aussie posters and lurkers there who would respond.
12
January 06, 2009
Hi there,
Thanks Dan Zaremba for the AHR template above. I would like to use it to reply to the “Submission” on Freedom of religion and belief in the 21st Century. Could someone who has answered the survey questions please make available their answers so the rest of us have something to help us word our own answers? The survey length and content is a bit overwhelming, so any specific suggestions on how to answer the questions would be most appreciated. Thanks.
Thanks Dan Zaremba for the AHR template above. I would like to use it to reply to the “Submission” on Freedom of religion and belief in the 21st Century. Could someone who has answered the survey questions please make available their answers so the rest of us have something to help us word our own answers? The survey length and content is a bit overwhelming, so any specific suggestions on how to answer the questions would be most appreciated. Thanks.
13
January 06, 2009
Re the Freedom of Religion Discussion Paper. The credentials of the three 'researchers' named in the papers expose the slant of the exercise and the possible outcome of the survey. Maybe a foregone conclusion? A quick search on Google shows:
Dr. Hass Dellal: An Australian of Turkish descent. That result speaks volumes.
Desmond Cahill: Professor of Intercultural Studies at RMIT University.
Gary Bouma: Professor Emeritus and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). He is Associate Priest in the Anglican Parish of St. John's, East Malvern.
Anyone with connections to the UN has no credibility whatsoever as far as I am concerned. All three are multiculturalists. Not a glowing recommendation.
Never having presented this type of submission before, I too would appreciate some direction as mention in above comments.
Red Rose.
Dr. Hass Dellal: An Australian of Turkish descent. That result speaks volumes.
Desmond Cahill: Professor of Intercultural Studies at RMIT University.
Gary Bouma: Professor Emeritus and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). He is Associate Priest in the Anglican Parish of St. John's, East Malvern.
Anyone with connections to the UN has no credibility whatsoever as far as I am concerned. All three are multiculturalists. Not a glowing recommendation.
Never having presented this type of submission before, I too would appreciate some direction as mention in above comments.
Red Rose.
14
January 07, 2009
You can read all the submissions accepted so far
here: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/...html#focus
Click on submissions.
You do not have to put your submission on their template. You can write a letter with your points of concern.
Warning: I have been told that submissions will not be accepted if the language is disrespectful!!
There were only 71 last time I looked but I have been told they are expecting many more.
My question is, how many need to received before a recommendation can be made for a change in the status quo?
I think this is referendum material.
here: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/...html#focus
Click on submissions.
You do not have to put your submission on their template. You can write a letter with your points of concern.
Warning: I have been told that submissions will not be accepted if the language is disrespectful!!
There were only 71 last time I looked but I have been told they are expecting many more.
My question is, how many need to received before a recommendation can be made for a change in the status quo?
I think this is referendum material.
15
January 09, 2009
HERE IS A LIST I KNOW THERE ARE MORE PLEASE ADD TO IT AS THEY COME TO MIND.
DEMANDS MADE ON AUSTRALIAN NON MUSLIM POPULATION.
Requests for footbaths in universities.
Muslims only segregated prayer room.
Requesting for lectures to be changed to accommodate Muslim prayer time.
Request for Muslim schools to be built in areas where there are very few Muslims living.
Halal meat only in some Francise outlets. eg. Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Halal food only in some Day Care Centres.
Male Muslim husbands demanding female doctors to examine their wives.
Sharia law courts for Muslim marriages and divorces.
Radicalization of young people in Mosques.
Saudi money funding universities in return for pro Islamic support.
A Muslim compound in Perth to the exclusion of any other religion. (Could you imagine what would happen if any other religion wanted to do the same thing?).
Muslim sensitivities towards treatment of injured Muslims and autopsies to the point of abusing health care workers and police.
THE MONETARY IMPOSTS ON AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY
Vitamin D deficiency due to their dress. A huge problem with fractures.
Childbirth becomes a problem when the woman has had FGM.
Cost of supporting the multiple wives and children of Muslim men.
I propose that the Muslim marriages performed by Imams be made available by the Imans to Australian authorities to determine how many wives a Muslim man has. Polygamy is a criminal offence in Australia. They must be made to support all their wives and children.
The added cost of security in airports, policing etc.
DEMANDS MADE ON AUSTRALIAN NON MUSLIM POPULATION.
Requests for footbaths in universities.
Muslims only segregated prayer room.
Requesting for lectures to be changed to accommodate Muslim prayer time.
Request for Muslim schools to be built in areas where there are very few Muslims living.
Halal meat only in some Francise outlets. eg. Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Halal food only in some Day Care Centres.
Male Muslim husbands demanding female doctors to examine their wives.
Sharia law courts for Muslim marriages and divorces.
Radicalization of young people in Mosques.
Saudi money funding universities in return for pro Islamic support.
A Muslim compound in Perth to the exclusion of any other religion. (Could you imagine what would happen if any other religion wanted to do the same thing?).
Muslim sensitivities towards treatment of injured Muslims and autopsies to the point of abusing health care workers and police.
THE MONETARY IMPOSTS ON AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY
Vitamin D deficiency due to their dress. A huge problem with fractures.
Childbirth becomes a problem when the woman has had FGM.
Cost of supporting the multiple wives and children of Muslim men.
I propose that the Muslim marriages performed by Imams be made available by the Imans to Australian authorities to determine how many wives a Muslim man has. Polygamy is a criminal offence in Australia. They must be made to support all their wives and children.
The added cost of security in airports, policing etc.
16
January 09, 2009
Thanks for the link to the submissions at (http://www.humanrights.gov.au/...sions.html) Jenny. I've had a quick look at them all. I'm in the process of doing my submission, but would like help with the 2nd part of the survey (Evaluation of 1998 HREOC Report on Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief). Could someone please put together a well thought out submission and post it, then let us all know? Thanks.
17
January 10, 2009
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SUBMISSIONS:
BEWARE!!!!!!!!
Factors in favour of publication
If the submission:
•Is relevant to the subject of the inquiry.
•Makes a relevant contribution to the public discussion of human rights in Australia.
•Makes a relevant contribution to the promotion of an understanding and acceptance of human rights in Australia.
•Is unlikely to cause offence to any person or if the degree of offence likely to be caused is minimal or trivial.
Factors against publication
If the submission does one or more of the following:
•May incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the grounds of race, religion or belief.
•Is likely to cause significant offence to any person.
•Is likely to have a negative effect on the promotion of understanding and acceptance of human rights in Australia.
•Is irrelevant or peripheral to the subject of the Inquiry.
•Does not make a relevant contribution to the public discussion of human rights in Australia or may have a negative impact upon such discussion (for example by being threatening or intimidating in its tone or content).
•Contains allegation/s or claim/s about a person, group or organisation that the Commission is unable to verify and/ or may have a negative impact upon the reputation of the subject of the allegation/s
BEWARE!!!!!!!!
Factors in favour of publication
If the submission:
•Is relevant to the subject of the inquiry.
•Makes a relevant contribution to the public discussion of human rights in Australia.
•Makes a relevant contribution to the promotion of an understanding and acceptance of human rights in Australia.
•Is unlikely to cause offence to any person or if the degree of offence likely to be caused is minimal or trivial.
Factors against publication
If the submission does one or more of the following:
•May incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the grounds of race, religion or belief.
•Is likely to cause significant offence to any person.
•Is likely to have a negative effect on the promotion of understanding and acceptance of human rights in Australia.
•Is irrelevant or peripheral to the subject of the Inquiry.
•Does not make a relevant contribution to the public discussion of human rights in Australia or may have a negative impact upon such discussion (for example by being threatening or intimidating in its tone or content).
•Contains allegation/s or claim/s about a person, group or organisation that the Commission is unable to verify and/ or may have a negative impact upon the reputation of the subject of the allegation/s
18
January 10, 2009
From what Jenny has pointed out in the above comment I don't see how the commission will accept any negative comments regarding Islam.
In short the commission has already countered the acceptance of any critique on the 'religion of peace'.
Time to write to your local members folks as I believe this canvas from the public on protection of religion is just an exercise in public relations. They have already made their minds up that legislation will follow.
In short the commission has already countered the acceptance of any critique on the 'religion of peace'.
Time to write to your local members folks as I believe this canvas from the public on protection of religion is just an exercise in public relations. They have already made their minds up that legislation will follow.
19
January 11, 2009
Nemesis:
My feelings exactly, you can view the submissions so far accepted here:
(http://www.humanrights.gov.au/...sions.html
My feelings exactly, you can view the submissions so far accepted here:
(http://www.humanrights.gov.au/...sions.html
20
January 12, 2009
Thanks Jenny...have seen some of those letters, I wonder if they will be considered?
I have a post over on Crusader Rabbit Blog for anyone who would wish to write to their local members on this issue rather than fill out the very rambling and confusing submission to the AHRC.
Feel free to plagarise my letter folks if you don't know what to write about.
I have a post over on Crusader Rabbit Blog for anyone who would wish to write to their local members on this issue rather than fill out the very rambling and confusing submission to the AHRC.
Feel free to plagarise my letter folks if you don't know what to write about.
21
January 12, 2009
Below is a submission by Rev. Peter Barnes. It is worth a read:
There are good reasons for rejecting the diagnosis that the problem with religion is that it discriminates, and the proposed cure that it not be allowed to discriminate any longer.
1. The whole approach is putting Australian law on a radically different basis.
Christianity teaches its followers to think in terms of right and wrong, but the Australian Human Rights Commission, naturally, thinks in terms of rights. In Christianity it is a sin to bow down to idols, to murder, to commit adultery, to steal, to be covetous or proud, and so on. The basic law is summarised in the Ten Commandments although there are apparently 613 commandments in the Old Testament altogether. The moral law of the Old Testament is, in essence, simply endorsed in the New Testament.
Hence discrimination is necessary. It is wrong to be partial in the sense that justice is perverted to favour a certain group within society (e.g. Ex.23:3; Deut.16:19; James 2:1-4). 'You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbour.' (Lev.19:15) It is wrong, for example, for a Christian shopkeeper not to serve a Muslim customer because he or she is a Muslim, or for a judge to favour an accused person because he or she is of the same religion or denomination as the judge. This is the half-truth found in the whole anti-discrimination approach to law.
Christianity teaches that there is a fundamental discrimination between truth and error, right and wrong. Every moral stance - including that adopted by the AHRC - is discriminatory. According to the Christian Bible, the prophet Elijah called on his fellow Israelites to follow Jehovah (Yahweh) or Baal, not to falter between two opinions (1 Kings 18:21). To believe in Jehovah necessarily means to assert that Baalism or any other alternative belief system is wrong. There are two ways - the way of blessing, law, growth, righteous, and life; and the way of ungodliness, declension, instability and judgment (Psalm 1). All roads do not lead to heaven. Civil liberty may be guaranteed, so far as is possible, but so is a clearly-defined system of morality and law.
But under the 'rights' approach, divorced from moral absolutes, it becomes a sin to think in terms of right and wrong. In the Christian scheme of things, the magistrate is to punish evildoers and praise those who do what is good (1 Peter 2:14). In a system governed by moral relativism, the law is supposedly morally neutral; the one real wrong left is discrimination. Such an approach becomes all-embracing. It places the law on a completely different basis to that which has traditionally been the case in the Western world. No doubt, this legislative and judicial shift reflects the wider shift in Australian society towards views of moral relativism. As we shall see, the problem is that rights and freedoms require definition; they can easily compete with one another; and there will be more dependence on lawyers than on law.
According to the utilitarian thinker, Jeremy Bentham, 'natural and imprescriptable rights' were nothing more than 'nonsense upon stilts'. He considered that 'from the law of nature come imaginary rights - a bastard brood of monsters.' It was Archimedes who declared 'Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth.' The modern rights approach, steeped in moral relativism, grants wide-ranging rights which require a foundation outside of ourselves if they are not to be open-ended and prone to abuse.
2. It is vague, naive and dangerous.
The UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief of 1981 affirms that 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.' (Article 1.1). This freedom is not absolute as it may be prescribed by laws to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others (Art.1.3). It goes on to declare: 'No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other beliefs.' (Art.2.1) Discrimination between human beings on grounds of religion or beliefs is denounced in the strongest terms as 'an affront to human dignity', 'a violation of ... human rights and fundamental freedoms', and 'an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations (Art.3). Hence all states are to take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief (Art.4.1,2).
This may sound all very edifying, noble and self-explanatory, but it is not. Would it be possible, for example, to set up a cricket competition which is restricted to members of the Catholic Church? The question is not whether this is a wonderful idea, but whether the state needs to legislate against such a thing as a moral evil. Would it be possible for a Muslim couple to employ a Muslim baby-sitter over a Christian or agnostic baby-sitter? Under a strict reading of Article 2, these two scenarios might provide work and income for lawyers with nothing useful to do.
The law may wish to interfere in a number of religious situations which are viewed as undesirable:
a. to curb the practice of suttee (widow-burning) which once was common in Hinduism;
b. to prohibit female circumcision which is enjoined in some sections of Islam;
c. to over-ride the wishes of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to allow a sick child to receive a needed blood transfusion;
d. to forbid the practice of child-sacrifice which was associated with the worship of Moloch in the ancient world.
e. to forbid the Mormon practice of polygamy, as occurred in the United States in the nineteenth century.
f. to guarantee the right to change religion - notably to ‘apostastise’ from Islam - without fearing threats to life or property.
But the law is able to interfere in such situations now, so nothing would be gained by anti-discrimination legislation.
Much, however, might be lost. What is wrong about a Muslim refusing to employ a woman whom he regards as not adequately covered up so far as her clothing is concerned? Why should a Christian publisher be forced to employ a New Ager? Such situations may prove to be paradise for lawyers and litigants, but it is difficult to see much else that is worthwhile in this kind of approach. The art of manufacturing grievances is not one to be encouraged.
So vaguely worded is the UN Declaration that it could be interpreted so as to outlaw evangelism. Indeed, this often seems to be the central thrust of such an approach. It may become an offence for a Muslim to assert that a Christian needs to believe the Qur’an as the Word of Allah, or for a Christian to assert that the Muslim needs to believe in Jesus Christ as God's eternal Son.
It should also be pointed out that freedoms compete to a certain extent. The freedom to associate with whomever one wishes necessarily means that freedom of religion cannot be absolute. A Christian Church necessarily discriminates against a Muslim in restricting its membership to those who believe in Christ, His death and resurrection. Indeed, the Baptist Church discriminates against other Christian believers by restricting membership to those who receive baptism by being immersed as adult believers. One cannot curb such discrimination without curbing freedom of association. What appears to confer rights - or recognise them - may in fact take them away.
3. There is an implicit - and sometimes explicit - attack on the truth claims of any religion.
What should we make of the cause of a homosexual living with his partner or a woman living in a de facto relationship while teaching at a Christian or a Catholic school? To orthodox Christianity, sexual relations outside marriage constitute sin; to the Australian Human Rights Commission, discrimination is sin. The alarming thing is that those with legal authority apparently wish to impose their definition of sin upon everybody else.
To make religious discrimination unlawful is to make religion unlawful or to confine it strictly to matters of private and public worship. Matters of liturgy could be decided by religious bodies; matters of faith and practice by the human rights lawyers. Prayer is removed from the public arena, but blasphemy is protected. Racial discrimination attacks what a person is inherently and unchangeably. Religious and, for that matter, sexual, discrimination deal with what a person believes and does - something that is neither inherent nor unchangeable.
4. Reliance on lawyers will enrich lawyers and take away freedoms.
There is an over-reliance on law in the human rights approach. Dr Johnson was wiser, and cautions us:
How small, of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!
The 1936 Soviet Constitution was perhaps the twentieth century's most liberal sounding constitution, but it was promulgated during the heyday of the brutal dictator Josef Stalin. While Stalin murdered his friends and his enemies in their millions, Soviet citizens were guaranteed all kinds of rights and freedoms. Small wonder that the ancient historian Tacitus made the pithy comment that 'The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.'
In 2001 the state Labor government in Victoria passed the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. This was supposedly designed to stamp out religious vilification. Instead, it led to a long, drawn-out and expensive case against two Christian pastors, Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, who had ventured to criticise the Qur’an in the context of a seminar on Christian evangelism. The most cogent criticism of this Act has come from the then Labor premier of NSW, Bob Carr, a religious agnostic, who in 2005 referred to this whole approach to law-making as ‘highly counterproductive.’ To exalt anti-discrimination as the showcase of the modern approach to law will give new meaning to Charles Dickens’ comment in Bleak House that ‘The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself.’
5. There would be interference in religion where no such interference would be tolerated in politics.
It is somewhat mystifying that there is such a desire to legislate against religious vilification but not political vilification. Also, there is a recommendation to repeal legislation criminalising fortune-telling and enchantment when there is no parallel call to curb electioneering promises, which are far more likely to be believed and produce greater angst and alienation. If political vilification were to be subject to Anti-discrimination tribunals, elections would become bland indeed.
6. The state would become the ultimate authority in matters of religion.
Freedoms are maintained as well as they can be in a fallen world if individuals and organisations are allowed to govern themselves as much as possible. To give the authority an unelected body of lawyers and their associates the right to enforce legislation against something as vague as 'discrimination' is to open the door to state coercion.
The discussion paper, Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century (HREOC, August 2008), asks ‘Do you believe there is equality of gender in faith communities?’ and ‘What do you think should be the relationship between the right to gender equality and the right to religious freedom in Australia?’ Since the HREOC has already committed itself to gender equality and religious pluralism, such a line of questioning can only lead one way. A similar point might be made with the question: ‘How can faith communities be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities?’ The question presupposes the conclusion.
In the days of the Roman Empire all gods were recognised - on broad and tolerant terms. If only the Church had agreed to Jesus' being admitted into the Roman pantheon, all would have been well. Article 5 of the UN Declaration lauds the same kind of approach: 'The child ... shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.' This is the religion of humanism - Jesus can be lord, but not Lord.
Conclusion
With a Christian approach to law, there is clarity, freedom, order, and the possibility of forgiveness and grace. With the anti-discrimination approach, there is confusion (what exactly is 'discrimination'?), the possibility of tyranny (the unelected and unaccountable Commission could be judge, jury and executioner), chaos (moral relativism will replace moral absolutes), and no possibility of forgiveness (because there is no such thing as objective sin). It is difficult to see how freedoms are going to be enhanced by giving more power to a body of human rights commissioners. As C. S. Lewis commented: 'It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.'
The cover sheet of the AHRC’s 2008 discussion paper shows a delightful long and winding road. The destination is not so clear - and there is the danger. We could be being led up a garden path.
Rev. Dr Peter Barnes
Presbyterian Church
P.O. Box 594
Revesby
NSW 2212
C. S. Lewis, ‘The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’ in T. Robert Ingram (ed), Essays on the Death Penalty, St Thomas Press, Texas, 1978, p.8.
There are good reasons for rejecting the diagnosis that the problem with religion is that it discriminates, and the proposed cure that it not be allowed to discriminate any longer.
1. The whole approach is putting Australian law on a radically different basis.
Christianity teaches its followers to think in terms of right and wrong, but the Australian Human Rights Commission, naturally, thinks in terms of rights. In Christianity it is a sin to bow down to idols, to murder, to commit adultery, to steal, to be covetous or proud, and so on. The basic law is summarised in the Ten Commandments although there are apparently 613 commandments in the Old Testament altogether. The moral law of the Old Testament is, in essence, simply endorsed in the New Testament.
Hence discrimination is necessary. It is wrong to be partial in the sense that justice is perverted to favour a certain group within society (e.g. Ex.23:3; Deut.16:19; James 2:1-4). 'You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbour.' (Lev.19:15) It is wrong, for example, for a Christian shopkeeper not to serve a Muslim customer because he or she is a Muslim, or for a judge to favour an accused person because he or she is of the same religion or denomination as the judge. This is the half-truth found in the whole anti-discrimination approach to law.
Christianity teaches that there is a fundamental discrimination between truth and error, right and wrong. Every moral stance - including that adopted by the AHRC - is discriminatory. According to the Christian Bible, the prophet Elijah called on his fellow Israelites to follow Jehovah (Yahweh) or Baal, not to falter between two opinions (1 Kings 18:21). To believe in Jehovah necessarily means to assert that Baalism or any other alternative belief system is wrong. There are two ways - the way of blessing, law, growth, righteous, and life; and the way of ungodliness, declension, instability and judgment (Psalm 1). All roads do not lead to heaven. Civil liberty may be guaranteed, so far as is possible, but so is a clearly-defined system of morality and law.
But under the 'rights' approach, divorced from moral absolutes, it becomes a sin to think in terms of right and wrong. In the Christian scheme of things, the magistrate is to punish evildoers and praise those who do what is good (1 Peter 2:14). In a system governed by moral relativism, the law is supposedly morally neutral; the one real wrong left is discrimination. Such an approach becomes all-embracing. It places the law on a completely different basis to that which has traditionally been the case in the Western world. No doubt, this legislative and judicial shift reflects the wider shift in Australian society towards views of moral relativism. As we shall see, the problem is that rights and freedoms require definition; they can easily compete with one another; and there will be more dependence on lawyers than on law.
According to the utilitarian thinker, Jeremy Bentham, 'natural and imprescriptable rights' were nothing more than 'nonsense upon stilts'. He considered that 'from the law of nature come imaginary rights - a bastard brood of monsters.' It was Archimedes who declared 'Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth.' The modern rights approach, steeped in moral relativism, grants wide-ranging rights which require a foundation outside of ourselves if they are not to be open-ended and prone to abuse.
2. It is vague, naive and dangerous.
The UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief of 1981 affirms that 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.' (Article 1.1). This freedom is not absolute as it may be prescribed by laws to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others (Art.1.3). It goes on to declare: 'No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other beliefs.' (Art.2.1) Discrimination between human beings on grounds of religion or beliefs is denounced in the strongest terms as 'an affront to human dignity', 'a violation of ... human rights and fundamental freedoms', and 'an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations (Art.3). Hence all states are to take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief (Art.4.1,2).
This may sound all very edifying, noble and self-explanatory, but it is not. Would it be possible, for example, to set up a cricket competition which is restricted to members of the Catholic Church? The question is not whether this is a wonderful idea, but whether the state needs to legislate against such a thing as a moral evil. Would it be possible for a Muslim couple to employ a Muslim baby-sitter over a Christian or agnostic baby-sitter? Under a strict reading of Article 2, these two scenarios might provide work and income for lawyers with nothing useful to do.
The law may wish to interfere in a number of religious situations which are viewed as undesirable:
a. to curb the practice of suttee (widow-burning) which once was common in Hinduism;
b. to prohibit female circumcision which is enjoined in some sections of Islam;
c. to over-ride the wishes of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to allow a sick child to receive a needed blood transfusion;
d. to forbid the practice of child-sacrifice which was associated with the worship of Moloch in the ancient world.
e. to forbid the Mormon practice of polygamy, as occurred in the United States in the nineteenth century.
f. to guarantee the right to change religion - notably to ‘apostastise’ from Islam - without fearing threats to life or property.
But the law is able to interfere in such situations now, so nothing would be gained by anti-discrimination legislation.
Much, however, might be lost. What is wrong about a Muslim refusing to employ a woman whom he regards as not adequately covered up so far as her clothing is concerned? Why should a Christian publisher be forced to employ a New Ager? Such situations may prove to be paradise for lawyers and litigants, but it is difficult to see much else that is worthwhile in this kind of approach. The art of manufacturing grievances is not one to be encouraged.
So vaguely worded is the UN Declaration that it could be interpreted so as to outlaw evangelism. Indeed, this often seems to be the central thrust of such an approach. It may become an offence for a Muslim to assert that a Christian needs to believe the Qur’an as the Word of Allah, or for a Christian to assert that the Muslim needs to believe in Jesus Christ as God's eternal Son.
It should also be pointed out that freedoms compete to a certain extent. The freedom to associate with whomever one wishes necessarily means that freedom of religion cannot be absolute. A Christian Church necessarily discriminates against a Muslim in restricting its membership to those who believe in Christ, His death and resurrection. Indeed, the Baptist Church discriminates against other Christian believers by restricting membership to those who receive baptism by being immersed as adult believers. One cannot curb such discrimination without curbing freedom of association. What appears to confer rights - or recognise them - may in fact take them away.
3. There is an implicit - and sometimes explicit - attack on the truth claims of any religion.
What should we make of the cause of a homosexual living with his partner or a woman living in a de facto relationship while teaching at a Christian or a Catholic school? To orthodox Christianity, sexual relations outside marriage constitute sin; to the Australian Human Rights Commission, discrimination is sin. The alarming thing is that those with legal authority apparently wish to impose their definition of sin upon everybody else.
To make religious discrimination unlawful is to make religion unlawful or to confine it strictly to matters of private and public worship. Matters of liturgy could be decided by religious bodies; matters of faith and practice by the human rights lawyers. Prayer is removed from the public arena, but blasphemy is protected. Racial discrimination attacks what a person is inherently and unchangeably. Religious and, for that matter, sexual, discrimination deal with what a person believes and does - something that is neither inherent nor unchangeable.
4. Reliance on lawyers will enrich lawyers and take away freedoms.
There is an over-reliance on law in the human rights approach. Dr Johnson was wiser, and cautions us:
How small, of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!
The 1936 Soviet Constitution was perhaps the twentieth century's most liberal sounding constitution, but it was promulgated during the heyday of the brutal dictator Josef Stalin. While Stalin murdered his friends and his enemies in their millions, Soviet citizens were guaranteed all kinds of rights and freedoms. Small wonder that the ancient historian Tacitus made the pithy comment that 'The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.'
In 2001 the state Labor government in Victoria passed the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. This was supposedly designed to stamp out religious vilification. Instead, it led to a long, drawn-out and expensive case against two Christian pastors, Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, who had ventured to criticise the Qur’an in the context of a seminar on Christian evangelism. The most cogent criticism of this Act has come from the then Labor premier of NSW, Bob Carr, a religious agnostic, who in 2005 referred to this whole approach to law-making as ‘highly counterproductive.’ To exalt anti-discrimination as the showcase of the modern approach to law will give new meaning to Charles Dickens’ comment in Bleak House that ‘The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself.’
5. There would be interference in religion where no such interference would be tolerated in politics.
It is somewhat mystifying that there is such a desire to legislate against religious vilification but not political vilification. Also, there is a recommendation to repeal legislation criminalising fortune-telling and enchantment when there is no parallel call to curb electioneering promises, which are far more likely to be believed and produce greater angst and alienation. If political vilification were to be subject to Anti-discrimination tribunals, elections would become bland indeed.
6. The state would become the ultimate authority in matters of religion.
Freedoms are maintained as well as they can be in a fallen world if individuals and organisations are allowed to govern themselves as much as possible. To give the authority an unelected body of lawyers and their associates the right to enforce legislation against something as vague as 'discrimination' is to open the door to state coercion.
The discussion paper, Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century (HREOC, August 2008), asks ‘Do you believe there is equality of gender in faith communities?’ and ‘What do you think should be the relationship between the right to gender equality and the right to religious freedom in Australia?’ Since the HREOC has already committed itself to gender equality and religious pluralism, such a line of questioning can only lead one way. A similar point might be made with the question: ‘How can faith communities be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities?’ The question presupposes the conclusion.
In the days of the Roman Empire all gods were recognised - on broad and tolerant terms. If only the Church had agreed to Jesus' being admitted into the Roman pantheon, all would have been well. Article 5 of the UN Declaration lauds the same kind of approach: 'The child ... shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.' This is the religion of humanism - Jesus can be lord, but not Lord.
Conclusion
With a Christian approach to law, there is clarity, freedom, order, and the possibility of forgiveness and grace. With the anti-discrimination approach, there is confusion (what exactly is 'discrimination'?), the possibility of tyranny (the unelected and unaccountable Commission could be judge, jury and executioner), chaos (moral relativism will replace moral absolutes), and no possibility of forgiveness (because there is no such thing as objective sin). It is difficult to see how freedoms are going to be enhanced by giving more power to a body of human rights commissioners. As C. S. Lewis commented: 'It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.'
The cover sheet of the AHRC’s 2008 discussion paper shows a delightful long and winding road. The destination is not so clear - and there is the danger. We could be being led up a garden path.
Rev. Dr Peter Barnes
Presbyterian Church
P.O. Box 594
Revesby
NSW 2212
C. S. Lewis, ‘The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’ in T. Robert Ingram (ed), Essays on the Death Penalty, St Thomas Press, Texas, 1978, p.8.
22
January 12, 2009
Nemesis,
The HRC office will be fed up with me by now.
I was told all submissions will be accepted but those that incite hatred won't be published. This is not what she told me on Friday. She told me that any with offensive language would not be considered, just as their list indicated they would not be.
I don't know. I think it's a crock and said I said before the decision has been made, however, that should just spur us on and not go quietly.
I am thinking of having a display stand on Thursday night shopping with a poll and asking people to fill it out then and there. If the questions were kept simple I think it would work. Got to do something.
The HRC office will be fed up with me by now.
I was told all submissions will be accepted but those that incite hatred won't be published. This is not what she told me on Friday. She told me that any with offensive language would not be considered, just as their list indicated they would not be.
I don't know. I think it's a crock and said I said before the decision has been made, however, that should just spur us on and not go quietly.
I am thinking of having a display stand on Thursday night shopping with a poll and asking people to fill it out then and there. If the questions were kept simple I think it would work. Got to do something.
23
January 12, 2009
Jenny...yes we all have to do something about this. I believe by wriing your concerns to your local member will have far more effect than filling out a paper whose outcome has already has been decided.
Rudd is now on the push for a 'Bill of Rights'
This would be another nail in the coffin of common law and would allow Judges to set precedents in law rather than our elected officials who have some accountability, unlike Judges who sit unrestrained in perpetuity.
That is a good comment by the Rev.Dr. Peter Barnes. I wonder if anyone from the commission will understand its import.
Rudd is now on the push for a 'Bill of Rights'
This would be another nail in the coffin of common law and would allow Judges to set precedents in law rather than our elected officials who have some accountability, unlike Judges who sit unrestrained in perpetuity.
That is a good comment by the Rev.Dr. Peter Barnes. I wonder if anyone from the commission will understand its import.
24
January 13, 2009
i've just read nemesis's letter and i'm going to cut and paste it directly to the minister for multicultural affairs and the attorney general. indeed, why should any religion be protected under law? the constitution does cover it nicely, thanks very much.
i've done bits a pieces on the submission, i notice the first nine questions are for individuals only, it doesn't say if one can comment, nor does it specify who can answer the next seven sections.
does this mean the panel can ignore what it chooses? can one use the words islam and muslim without the panel finding it offensive? or does one use religion and cults?
i contacted my local federal member and they hadn't even heard of it...
i've done bits a pieces on the submission, i notice the first nine questions are for individuals only, it doesn't say if one can comment, nor does it specify who can answer the next seven sections.
does this mean the panel can ignore what it chooses? can one use the words islam and muslim without the panel finding it offensive? or does one use religion and cults?
i contacted my local federal member and they hadn't even heard of it...
25
January 13, 2009
My local member is a Labor Party member, so I'm more inclined to ask the National Party people to expose what Rudd is planning. Does anyone know what the various party's stances on getting a Bill of Rights? There is another really good article outlining why we shouldn't get a Bill of Rights at http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...of-wrongs/
26
January 13, 2009
My local member had not heard anything about this either but they do now!!
27
January 14, 2009
i've completed my input. one doesn't have to answer all the q's., it seems. i can post it if you want to compare or plagerise as you will. pls inform me how to do that if agreeable.
28
January 14, 2009
mxew of seoul...thankyou for your support. The more letters we send the bigger the message!
Assault on freedom by stealth....I do believe that most MP's are on leave at this time apart from the government ministers.
That is why the AHRC has chosen this time of year to push their agenda.
On that not you can safely assume that most opposition members would not have a clue as to what the government is up to at present.
Stealth legislation indeed!
Assault on freedom by stealth....I do believe that most MP's are on leave at this time apart from the government ministers.
That is why the AHRC has chosen this time of year to push their agenda.
On that not you can safely assume that most opposition members would not have a clue as to what the government is up to at present.
Stealth legislation indeed!
29
January 14, 2009
Hi Guys,
Thank you so much for you input and for spreading the word.
For these of you interested in one extra submission (mine)- please follow THIS LINK
Please, use it only as a guide, do not send it to the commission "as is".
And please remember the deadline for the submission is 31-01-09.
Thank you so much for you input and for spreading the word.
For these of you interested in one extra submission (mine)- please follow THIS LINK
Please, use it only as a guide, do not send it to the commission "as is".
And please remember the deadline for the submission is 31-01-09.
30
January 15, 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to voice my objection to proposals for a Bill of Rights for Australia and to voice my concerns about Human Rights race discrimination commissioner Tom Calma. Mr Calma says there is evidence of a growing fundamentalist religious lobby, in areas such as same-sex relationships, stem-cell research and abortion.
"Does religious belief influence policies being determined in any country, particularly in our country?" he said.
Mr Calma says there is a balance to be struck between the freedom to practice a religion and not pushing those beliefs on the rest of society.
My concern is that Mr Calma views expressed above show that the information collected in the survey for the "Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project" will not be taken into account if people's view differ from his. He comments above show that he is using the opportunity of this survey to further his own agenda, that is to stop certain people from being able to lobby the government in relation to certain views, simply because he doesn't agree with them!
Australians already have freedom of speech and religion carefully protected through common law. Given how well the existing system works, there is very little public demand for a Bill of Rights, except by judicial and social activists and certain vocal minority groups.
A Bill of Rights would bring major changes to how legislation and policies are made. Parliaments are meant to perform these functions, not the courts. In a Bill of Rights, major policy and legislative issues are wrested from the legislature and given to the judiciary. But important and controversial social issues deserve to be properly debated by the people via their Parliamentary representatives, not by unelected judges. Judges would end up becoming legislators and policy makers, while the parliamentary process would be eroded. Law is meant to be made by Parliaments, not judges. Unelected and unaccountable judges would take the place of elected and accountable politicians under this arrangement. Thus the democratic process itself comes under threat. Courts would become politicised and activist minority groups and special interest groups would use the courts to promote an agenda at odds with the majority. People who are willing to use the mechanism of law (i.e. those will and financially able to sue) would increasingly determine the political landscape, instead of a duly elected Parliament.
As more tribunals and commissions are set up to enforce these "rights", those found to have violated the law will not be assured of trial by an impartial body (eg., trial by peers), but by activists and those with an agenda. Those sitting on our Equal Opportunities Commissions, and other quasi-judicial administrative tribunals, are often far from representative of mainstream opinion.
A Bill of Rights would lead to even further litigation and frivolous court cases. Our already litigious society does not need to become more so. As a society, we are already way too prone to threaten a lawsuit at the drop of a hat. People are too inclined to blame someone else instead of shouldering some of the responsibility themselves. Rights claims can be used to cover almost anything, with a never ending stream of new rights being discovered and demanded. A Bill of Rights would simply compound these problems. And that has been exactly the case where countries have recently adopted a Bill of Rights, such as Canada and New Zealand.
A Bill of Rights has not prevented human rights abuses in nations that have adopted them. Some of the most oppressive societies on earth, including the former Soviet Union, have had elaborate and exquisite Bill of Rights. On paper these superb constitutions have covered every imaginable right, but reality has been a different story. Thus a Bill of Rights does not guarantee of a genuine promotion of rights. Piers Akerman said that "Given the signal failure of the UN to enforce its charter of rights in any of the world's trouble spots, and the contempt with which so many nations hold their charters of rights, Australia is well short of such a bill and better off relying on its common law principles, parliamentary democracy and robust freedom of speech to protect its citizens. To do otherwise would be to disparage the nation's exceptional history which is an object of near-universal admiration."
Janet Albrechtsen asks who is behind the push and why: "Analysing calls for so-called reforms should always start with a few golden rules. Follow the money. And follow the power. Both paths lead you straight to the legal profession and to the heartland of politically driven activists. Lawyers can smell the enticing waft of money and power in the air as they push open new legal industries."
"Late last month Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council in Britain, proposed an international court on the environment to mirror the International Court of Justice in The Hague. This new international court would enforce a 'convention on the right to a healthy environment' and allow individuals and non-governmental organisations to protest against environmental injustices. 'The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going,' Hockman said.
Michael Sexton notes that some people try to distinguish between a bill of rights and a charter of rights. A bill of rights "would allow courts to declare invalid legislation that was found to contravene some aspect of the bill, and a so-called charter of rights, which would allow courts only to declare legislation inconsistent with the rights as set out in the charter. One reason there would be little difference in practice between these two schemes is that no government is likely to leave untouched a law that has been held by a judge to be contrary to human rights. In any event, however, both proposals are designed to produce the same long-term consequences."
One of the most critical people of a Bill of Rights is former NSW Premier Bob Carr. In The Rights Trap: How a Bill of Rights Could Undermine Freedom, he noted the culture of litigation and the abdication of responsibility that a bill of rights engenders is something that Australia should try and avoid at all costs.
Please ensure that Australia does not end up with a Bill of Rights. Please also ensure that the survey within the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century project is not biased tainted by prejudice.
--
Yours sincerely,
************
(Sources: http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto...66511.htm, http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...of-rights/ and http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...of-wrongs/).
I am writing to voice my objection to proposals for a Bill of Rights for Australia and to voice my concerns about Human Rights race discrimination commissioner Tom Calma. Mr Calma says there is evidence of a growing fundamentalist religious lobby, in areas such as same-sex relationships, stem-cell research and abortion.
"Does religious belief influence policies being determined in any country, particularly in our country?" he said.
Mr Calma says there is a balance to be struck between the freedom to practice a religion and not pushing those beliefs on the rest of society.
My concern is that Mr Calma views expressed above show that the information collected in the survey for the "Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project" will not be taken into account if people's view differ from his. He comments above show that he is using the opportunity of this survey to further his own agenda, that is to stop certain people from being able to lobby the government in relation to certain views, simply because he doesn't agree with them!
Australians already have freedom of speech and religion carefully protected through common law. Given how well the existing system works, there is very little public demand for a Bill of Rights, except by judicial and social activists and certain vocal minority groups.
A Bill of Rights would bring major changes to how legislation and policies are made. Parliaments are meant to perform these functions, not the courts. In a Bill of Rights, major policy and legislative issues are wrested from the legislature and given to the judiciary. But important and controversial social issues deserve to be properly debated by the people via their Parliamentary representatives, not by unelected judges. Judges would end up becoming legislators and policy makers, while the parliamentary process would be eroded. Law is meant to be made by Parliaments, not judges. Unelected and unaccountable judges would take the place of elected and accountable politicians under this arrangement. Thus the democratic process itself comes under threat. Courts would become politicised and activist minority groups and special interest groups would use the courts to promote an agenda at odds with the majority. People who are willing to use the mechanism of law (i.e. those will and financially able to sue) would increasingly determine the political landscape, instead of a duly elected Parliament.
As more tribunals and commissions are set up to enforce these "rights", those found to have violated the law will not be assured of trial by an impartial body (eg., trial by peers), but by activists and those with an agenda. Those sitting on our Equal Opportunities Commissions, and other quasi-judicial administrative tribunals, are often far from representative of mainstream opinion.
A Bill of Rights would lead to even further litigation and frivolous court cases. Our already litigious society does not need to become more so. As a society, we are already way too prone to threaten a lawsuit at the drop of a hat. People are too inclined to blame someone else instead of shouldering some of the responsibility themselves. Rights claims can be used to cover almost anything, with a never ending stream of new rights being discovered and demanded. A Bill of Rights would simply compound these problems. And that has been exactly the case where countries have recently adopted a Bill of Rights, such as Canada and New Zealand.
A Bill of Rights has not prevented human rights abuses in nations that have adopted them. Some of the most oppressive societies on earth, including the former Soviet Union, have had elaborate and exquisite Bill of Rights. On paper these superb constitutions have covered every imaginable right, but reality has been a different story. Thus a Bill of Rights does not guarantee of a genuine promotion of rights. Piers Akerman said that "Given the signal failure of the UN to enforce its charter of rights in any of the world's trouble spots, and the contempt with which so many nations hold their charters of rights, Australia is well short of such a bill and better off relying on its common law principles, parliamentary democracy and robust freedom of speech to protect its citizens. To do otherwise would be to disparage the nation's exceptional history which is an object of near-universal admiration."
Janet Albrechtsen asks who is behind the push and why: "Analysing calls for so-called reforms should always start with a few golden rules. Follow the money. And follow the power. Both paths lead you straight to the legal profession and to the heartland of politically driven activists. Lawyers can smell the enticing waft of money and power in the air as they push open new legal industries."
"Late last month Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council in Britain, proposed an international court on the environment to mirror the International Court of Justice in The Hague. This new international court would enforce a 'convention on the right to a healthy environment' and allow individuals and non-governmental organisations to protest against environmental injustices. 'The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going,' Hockman said.
Michael Sexton notes that some people try to distinguish between a bill of rights and a charter of rights. A bill of rights "would allow courts to declare invalid legislation that was found to contravene some aspect of the bill, and a so-called charter of rights, which would allow courts only to declare legislation inconsistent with the rights as set out in the charter. One reason there would be little difference in practice between these two schemes is that no government is likely to leave untouched a law that has been held by a judge to be contrary to human rights. In any event, however, both proposals are designed to produce the same long-term consequences."
One of the most critical people of a Bill of Rights is former NSW Premier Bob Carr. In The Rights Trap: How a Bill of Rights Could Undermine Freedom, he noted the culture of litigation and the abdication of responsibility that a bill of rights engenders is something that Australia should try and avoid at all costs.
Please ensure that Australia does not end up with a Bill of Rights. Please also ensure that the survey within the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century project is not biased tainted by prejudice.
--
Yours sincerely,
************
(Sources: http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto...66511.htm, http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...of-rights/ and http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...of-wrongs/).
31
January 15, 2009
Dan, I have just read your submission it's fabulous, everyone should read it.
32
January 17, 2009
Thank you Jenny. I just wrote how I feel.
My submission has been received by the AHRC and I even got their confirmation letter.
Nice.
My submission has been received by the AHRC and I even got their confirmation letter.
Nice.
33
January 17, 2009
Dan,
I too received a confirmation letter.
Did you do the questionnaire where they ask how confident you are that your submission will be considered. Interesting question??
I too received a confirmation letter.
Did you do the questionnaire where they ask how confident you are that your submission will be considered. Interesting question??
34
January 17, 2009
Geoff,
No I didn't do any questionnaire, bacause I don't think I was invited to do it.
Come to think about it I'll read their e-mail again.
No I didn't do any questionnaire, bacause I don't think I was invited to do it.
Come to think about it I'll read their e-mail again.
35
January 18, 2009
January 19, 2009
I just got my email confirming my submission has been accepted. I also did the survey.
38
January 19, 2009
I'm new and have read these blogs with interest...especially about HRC not accepting submission that incite hatred. My question is this. I've downloaded the 15 pages and the last question asks me if I think there are other issues relevant to freedom of religion. Would it be wise to mention: forcing underage girls into marriage, honour killings, female genital mutilation and death for leaving Islam as unacceptable?
39
January 19, 2009
Tracey,
Why not?
This is what happens.
Go for it.
Would it be wise to mention: forcing underage girls into marriage, honour killings, female genital mutilation and death for leaving Islam as unacceptable?
Why not?
This is what happens.
Go for it.
40
January 19, 2009
Hi Tracey,
I would also mention the things you mentioned above, and if possible, have footnotes showing examples of when these have occurred. I would be careful not to make generalisations, like saying "Mulims are forcing underage girls into marriage" but say "Some Mulims are forcing underage girls into marriage" etc. I would even say that these things are commanded in the Koran, but most Muslims don't don't do them.
PS I had a look at the submissions online, (see the link to mine at the top of this article)and most are from Christians saying they don't want a Bill of Rights and to turn over the State Vilification laws. Great work everyone. Keep it up. As long as our submissions are not rude, they have no excuse for rejecting them.
David.
I would also mention the things you mentioned above, and if possible, have footnotes showing examples of when these have occurred. I would be careful not to make generalisations, like saying "Mulims are forcing underage girls into marriage" but say "Some Mulims are forcing underage girls into marriage" etc. I would even say that these things are commanded in the Koran, but most Muslims don't don't do them.
PS I had a look at the submissions online, (see the link to mine at the top of this article)and most are from Christians saying they don't want a Bill of Rights and to turn over the State Vilification laws. Great work everyone. Keep it up. As long as our submissions are not rude, they have no excuse for rejecting them.
David.
41
January 20, 2009
read your submission dan. excellent. mine is similar. i phoned the hrc and i was told i could use the words islam and muslims as specific examples and that i could write a comment in the first nine questions. i did cut and paste from other sources. i inserted the position of the kafir in the list of filthy things in islamic law (8/10) along with a comment on sharia compliant finance as jihad with money. also on muslims claiming they're being deprived of religious rights i.e., footbaths in uni. no, this is out of religion into political islam. in 4.4 a i pointed out the extent of jihad in the koran, hadith and sira and b obligatory jihad uses every aspect of kafir society as and element of war. then that removal of aspects of freedom of speech enlarges fear and want in society. i'll email it tommorrow.
42
January 20, 2009
David,
We don't want to attack any particular individual (even: "SOME").
Let us remember that Muslims are required to believe in their tenets of faith.
It is the religion/ideology we have problems with not MUSLIMS per se for they follow what the religion tells them to follow.
When we attack individuals (e.g. extremist Muslims), we in fact excuse Islam from any wrongdoing. "It the extremists but the religion is GOOD".
In fact most of the Muslims are just victims of their "religion"
MXEW,
I think most of sensible people will come to the same conclusions without actually consulting each other.
We don't want to attack any particular individual (even: "SOME").
Let us remember that Muslims are required to believe in their tenets of faith.
It is the religion/ideology we have problems with not MUSLIMS per se for they follow what the religion tells them to follow.
When we attack individuals (e.g. extremist Muslims), we in fact excuse Islam from any wrongdoing. "It the extremists but the religion is GOOD".
In fact most of the Muslims are just victims of their "religion"
MXEW,
I think most of sensible people will come to the same conclusions without actually consulting each other.
43
January 20, 2009
Thanks David and Dan for your comments,
I thought of a way around the "Some muslims practice...." All I wrote was "I believe there is no place in Australian society for those who practice...and the four points I put in the first post.
I thought of a way around the "Some muslims practice...." All I wrote was "I believe there is no place in Australian society for those who practice...and the four points I put in the first post.
44
January 22, 2009
The deadline for FRB submissions is now 28th February 2009.
From the HRC Template, under 2.1 The Constitution
5.Would a legislated national Charter of Rights add to these freedoms of religion and belief?
Be aware that the HR Consultation Committee is embarking on an "information gathering" exercise, starting in February.
The first of the community roundtable meetings to be held as part of the charter of rights consultation gets underway in Queanbeyan, NSW on Wednesday February 11 (both day and evening meetings).
It is crucial that Christians make have an input into the consultation process and we urge supporters to attend roundtable meetings when they take place in your area. To keep an eye on the calendar of meetings or to register for the Queanbeyan event please click here.
The next cab off the rank will be Dubbo, followed by Bourke, Broken Hill, Penrith and Wagga Wagga. However dates for these meetings have not yet been announced.
Check their web site here:
http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/community.nsf/calendar
From the HRC Template, under 2.1 The Constitution
5.Would a legislated national Charter of Rights add to these freedoms of religion and belief?
Be aware that the HR Consultation Committee is embarking on an "information gathering" exercise, starting in February.
The first of the community roundtable meetings to be held as part of the charter of rights consultation gets underway in Queanbeyan, NSW on Wednesday February 11 (both day and evening meetings).
It is crucial that Christians make have an input into the consultation process and we urge supporters to attend roundtable meetings when they take place in your area. To keep an eye on the calendar of meetings or to register for the Queanbeyan event please click here.
The next cab off the rank will be Dubbo, followed by Bourke, Broken Hill, Penrith and Wagga Wagga. However dates for these meetings have not yet been announced.
Check their web site here:
http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/community.nsf/calendar
45
January 31, 2009
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
