аЯрЁБс>ўџ <>ўџџџ;џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС%` №ПЗbjbj"x"x 70@@ЗџџџџџџЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄИ||||,ЈИFфШШШШШЃ Ѓ Ѓ ХЧЧЧЧЧЧ$*h’xыЄс Ѓ Ѓ с с ыЄЄШШлAAAс ЄШЄШХAс ХAAЄЄAШМ Pр!N0Ъ|ы "AХ0FA  м A ЄA„Ѓ ц‰ ЄA- „Б 0Ѓ Ѓ Ѓ ыыщ XЃ Ѓ Ѓ Fс с с с ИИИФ|ИИИ|ИИИЄЄЄЄЄЄџџџџ  Submission on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century in Australia to the КкСЯЧщБЈеО by Life Ministries Inc Introduction Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century in Australia builds upon HREOC’s earlier report Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief produced over a decade ago. This discussion paper considers the implications of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1996 (ICCPR). Life Ministries Inc. is a non-denominational Christian ministry that has been serving the Christian community since 1981. Life Ministries addresses a range of moral and theological issues from a Christian perspective. Life Ministries produces Life News, a bi-monthly newsletter that informs Christians on a wide range of topics. Life Ministries also produces pamphlets dealing with various issues of concern, Life Booklets and current issues papers. These publications are sent to hundreds of churches and thousands of families throughout Western Australia. Life Ministries has a deep interest in matters relating to religious freedom and belief, and has printed articles on this topic on several occasions. This submission addresses some of the issues raised in the discussion paper. Evaluation of 1998 HREOC Report on Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief The discussion paper lists the major issues identified in the Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief report as “religious expression, discrimination on the ground of religion or belief and incitement to religious hatred.” It asks: “What has been the impact of the report and what changes in the social climate have occurred since 1998?” The impact has been negative, and in no small degree. Instead of protecting religious freedom in Australia, very real threats to religious freedom in Australia now come from anti-discrimination and religious vilification legislation. In Victoria a prolonged case under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 costing hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in relation to a religious seminar on Islam was only quashed after years of litigation. The financial and emotional burden imposed on the Christian pastors represents a full-fledged attack on the freedom of religion. It would be no exaggeration to conclude that the Victorian legislation has imposed severe restrictions on religious freedom and even on freedom of speech, rather than upholding it. Furthermore, adverse decisions against the Wesley Mission relating to the application of two homosexual men to act as foster parents in NSW illustrates the point that if religious bodies with to escape prosecution, they must abandon their long held moral convictions and act against their own consciences. In Victoria a complaint from a homosexual support group that wanted to use a Christian Brethren campsite has not been thrown out, but is going to be heard. The proposed Act, rather than protecting religious freedom, is likely to contribute significantly to the loss of freedom of religion. The Commission has already proposed that “the rights to religious freedom and to gender equality must be appropriately balanced in accordance with human rights principles”. And the question asked in Submission Template to the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century in Australia asks, “Should religious organisations (including schools, hospitals and other service delivery agencies) exclude people from employment because of their sexuality or their sex and gender identity?” It also asks, “How can faith communities be inclusive of people of diverse sexualities?” These questions alarm religious groups that for thousands of years have taught and embraced what has been commonly referred to as traditional family values (i.e. monogamous heterosexual marriage), and which foster these values in their places of worship and education. Instead of attempting to force sexual standards that are viewed as immoral (not to mention socially harmful) upon these religious organisations, their views should be respected. It appears that the Commission views the alleged rights of persons of diverse sexualities as a greater right than the right of religious groups to hold to certain long-held moral views and to maintain those views within their spheres. In addition, the report recommends the inclusion in the proposed Act of a proscription of “the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination”. This inclusion will not contribute to religious freedom; it will greatly harm it as demonstrated by a similar provision in Victorian law that has led to attacks on the freedom of religion. In answer to a question on the Australian Constitution, “Is this section of the Constitution an adequate protection of freedom of religion and belief?”, our belief is that the 45 words contained in Constitution are entirely adequate, have provided more than adequate protection for a century, and are a far better protection to religious freedom in Australia than what is being proposed in this paper. In answer to another question on the Constitution, “Would a legislated national Charter of Rights add to these freedoms of religion and belief?”, again we answer no. The Constitution is more than sufficient. A Charter of Rights will, in our estimation, contribute to a loss of freedoms. Conclusion Therefore, the enactment of a Religious Freedom Act, as proposed by the Commission’s 1998 report should not be supported. Instead, the freedom of religion in Australia should be protected by providing comprehensive exemptions to all religious bodies from anti-discrimination and equal opportunity provisions. These exemptions should also be granted to individuals in relation to acts done in compliance with their religious beliefs and principles.  PWz{~‘’“”–žЋъ 9 A ыгЛгЛгІЛ‘г|І|ІjZM=Mh_KhCQQ6]aJnH tH h_KhCQQaJnH tH h_KhCQQ6\aJnH tH "hъnhCQQ5CJ\aJnH tH (hCQQ5CJOJQJ\^JaJnH tH (hYxє5CJ$OJQJ\^JaJ$nH tH (h *5CJOJQJ\^JaJnH tH .hYxєhYxє5CJOJQJ\^JaJnH tH .hYxєhYxє5CJ$OJQJ\^JaJ$nH tH (h *5CJ$OJQJ\^JaJ$nH tH  /PWz{~’“”•–—˜™š›œžЋп Є ёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёёуууdhЄx7$8$H$gd_K$Є№7$8$H$a$gdYxєЗ§A B Z k › О П е о п т   h в л j n Ѓ У я ё   ? } Ї №ужуЦ№ЦуЦуЙужуЋужžжужуŒwbwжRh_Khщ*"6]aJnH tH (hъnh‹0д56CJ\]aJnH tH (hъnhщ*"56CJ\]aJnH tH "hъnhщ*"5CJ\aJnH tH h_Kh_KaJnH tH h_KhCQQ6aJnH tH h_Kh‹0дaJnH tH h_KhCQQ6]aJnH tH h_Khщ*"aJnH tH h_KhCQQaJnH tH h_KhCQQ5\aJnH tH Є ё ? ”фЯ8ЪъѕЕЖЗёёёёёёёёёёёч $Є№a$gdYxєdhЄx7$8$H$gd_K Ї Ј !(*+ij’“”Щ48~šжLS0С]Ѕтуфх–Ѓю№ Ый$№у№ужуЩужуЩуМЏМЏЅ›Ѕ›‘›Ѕ›ЅЏЩ›Џ›Џ„wiw„w„h_KhxQH*aJnH tH h_KhxQaJnH tH h_KhŽ\BaJnH tH h0AПaJnH tH hVЪaJnH tH hlaJnH tH h_KhO`бaJnH tH h_KhS ŸaJnH tH h_Kh2aJnH tH h_Kh‹0дaJnH tH h_Khщ*"aJnH tH h_Kh‹0д6]aJnH tH &$%1P`ш2u}Ÿф‡‘ЁЄЮЯЋГџ89(0:[шщъєѕnUmѓцйцЬйЬцЬйѓЬцПцйцйВЅВ˜ВŽВŽйПŽПйŽйqcВПh0AПhhМ5aJnH tH hъnh0AП5CJaJnH tH hъn5CJaJnH tH h0AПaJnH tH h_Khѕ,іaJnH tH h_KhO`бaJnH tH h_KhhМaJnH tH h_Kh2aJnH tH h_KhS ŸaJnH tH h_KhxQaJnH tH h_KhŽ\BaJnH tH h_KhRAаaJnH tH &mДЕЖЗѓцйЬhYxєh‰E3OJQJ^Jh_Kh`uaJnH tH h_KhhМaJnH tH h_KhS ŸaJnH tH 50P:pYxєАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %ААаАа а†œ<@ёџ< NormalCJ_HmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontViѓџГV  Table Normal :V і4ж4ж laі (kєџС(No List З0џџџџ /PWz{~’“”•–—˜™š›œžЋпЄё?”ф Я8ЪъѕЕЖЙ˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€A Ї $mЗЄ ЗЗ№8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№џџ&’юќй '’юФf (’ю„E )’юФз *’юLо +’юЄk ,’юe -’ю$V .’юдПд /’юE!0’ю”% 1’ю