This week’s news has been dominated by the federal government’s failed attempt to pass its Religious Discrimination Bill. On one level, it is a narrow issue, unlikely to be of broad interest to many Australians who are more exercised about the rising cost of living, flat wages and the pandemic.

Australia’s history has – comparatively – been fairly free of intense religious intolerance and violence. Some leaders such as NSW Liberal premier Dominic Perrotett, himself a Catholic, questioned the need for the bill at all, saying it could cause more problems than it solves.

The Age’s editorial position has been to support legislation that would outlaw discrimination against people on the basis of their religious faith. It is the missing piece of our discrimination laws that already cover sex, age, disability and race. The principle is that in a liberal democracy, it is not just the majority who rules. Individual rights – especially those of minorities – deserve to be protected. It should be unlawful to refuse to rent a house to someone based on their skin colour, or to deny someone employment because they wear a hijab.

Australia is a multi-faith community and, increasingly, Australians are saying they have no religion, which should also be respected in practice, and in law. Mostly, we all get along fairly well, but there are numerous examples of people being discriminated against because of their religion and there are signs that such intolerance is increasing. Certainly, Jewish and Muslim groups say religious hate is becoming more worrying.

Democracy is messy and the rights of some do sometimes clash with the rights of others. There were reasonable arguments on free speech grounds, for instance, that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was an overreach because it makes unlawful speech that could “insult or offend” on the basis of race. The government tried to change that a few years ago, but it fell into a culture war heap, as have its attempts to introduce religious protections this week.

We do seem to struggle with these debates. On Thursday morning, five Liberals crossed the floor just before 5am to vote with Labor and crossbenchers in support of an amendment to abolish the right of religious schools to discriminate against gay and transgender students. Prime Minister Scott Morrison had hoped to appease his moderate backbenchers by seeking a narrower amendment that would have prohibited religious schools from expelling students because they are gay, but leaving schools the right to discriminate against gay students in other ways. It did not protect transgender students at all.

Columnist Waleed Aly, as he often does, got to the heart of it this week. Labor, for instance, says that we can protect all children while ensuring religious schools can conduct themselves according to their faith. But is that true? Aly called it the “insoluble problem” at the heart of the legislation. “For all the talk of ‘balancing’ rights that surrounds this bill, there is ultimately no satisfactory balance to be struck that doesn’t violate something that someone regards as inviolable.”

That seems to me to be true. While most religious schools have no problem with gay or trans students, a few do, such as Brisbane’s Citipointe Christian College, which issued a contract insisting students denounce homosexuality and asked them to agree to specific gender roles. The contract has been withdrawn.

At some point, even the most tolerant country has to make a call. In The Age’s view, discrimination against children at school due to their sexuality or gender identity is so cruel, it cannot be tolerated. One of the purposes of the federal bill was to override laws such as Victoria’s, which prohibits faith-based schools from sacking or refusing to hire teachers or enrol students based on their sexuality or gender identity. When employing staff, religious bodies and schools can only discriminate where conformity with religious beliefs is an inherent requirement of the job.

The Age supported the Victorian laws on the basis that if schools accept government funding, they cannot violate basic principles of non-discrimination, except in the narrowest of circumstances.

Not all our readers will agree with our editorial position, and we have published a range of views. John Steenhof, the principal lawyer at the Human Rights Law Alliance, was angry with the moderate Liberals and the Labor party for scuttling laws years in the making. “How much longer must Australians continue to experience religious discrimination before our Parliament adopts protections into domestic law?”

Chief reporter Chip Le Grand’s article this weekend will explore the views of the faithful and why these laws are so important to them – it has very little to do with trans kids.

We have also published an article by federal Labor MP Stephen Jones who spoke with passion in parliament about his LGBTQI+ son Paddy, and about his fears when Paddy leaves his loving family home. “You don’t have to be the parent of an LGBTQI+ kid to know what that’s like. The fears I hold for Paddy are exactly the same as for the parents of a Muslim child who worry every time their daughter walks to the corner shop wearing a hijab.”

I want to assure you that whatever The Age’s editorial position is on an issue, we will explore different views with curiosity and respect. It’s just a pity that the mess of the debate this week has been so painful for so many.

Gay Alcorn sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive her Note from the Editor.

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article