ࡱ> LNK%` (bjbj"x"x 7<@@%VVVVVVVj 8 , j#"@@@@@@L#N#N#N#N#N#N#$$h#'Dr#Vy@@yyr#VV@@#ydV@V@L#yL#hVV> @ s# |jL##0#zg'Yg' > > Vg'V @>~,$@@@r#r#7^@@@#yyyyjjj jjj jjjVVVVVV Submission to Human Rights Commission inquiry into protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and or gender identity Introduction We are concerned that those conducting the inquiry will be so wedded to a certain ideology or world view that they will be unable to countenance different world views. The Commission must recognize that others in society have equally valid but different value systems and perception of trends occurring in society and their consequences. The tone of the discussion paper indicates that the outcome of the inquiry has already been decided. This lack of impartiality seems to indicate that the Commission has become captive to a homosexual agenda. If the inquiry is self-serving for sectional interests over other interests then we suggest the Commission would be failing in its duty to the Australian people. We do not criticize the homosexual lobby for attempting to change public opinion. All groups in a free democratic country such as Australia are entitled to that freedom. Government instrumentalities such as the Commission however, should be more rational and not simply acquiesce to the demands of a lobby group but examine issues from a basis of principles and the effects on society in an unbiased way. Basic assumptions by the Commission The discussion paper starts with the assumption that those practicing homosexuality and those with gender identity issues are deserving of special protection without ever establishing such a case. The Commission appears to share the delusion of the general population brought about by those who practice homosexuality, taking their identity from their practices. The result is that criticism of their practices is taken as criticism of them as people. The world is replete with distortions arising from people not being separated from their belief system or practices. Rationality for this inquiry The lack of objective analysis is disturbing. It seems anyone who questions the homosexual agenda is shrilly labeled homophobic or bigoted. Name-calling is not a persuasive argument. This reaction is an insult to the intelligence and the principles of free speech. We find the term homophobic very offensive because we are not afraid of those practicing homosexuality and indeed have several friends who call themselves homosexual and lesbian. Just because a sector of society attracts criticism doesnt make it an issue for the anti-discrimination act. Politicians, used car salesmen and lawyers get abused also, should they receive special protection also? Offence goes both ways. What about those in society who are offended by the actions of some who practice homosexuality; those who find their actions as totally abhorrent? Should not their views be given equal weight? Is the subject a discrimination issue at all? What is the case for special protection? Race, gender, age, or disability are legitimate areas where anti-discrimination provisions can need to apply because they are innate characteristics over which an individual has no personal control. On the other hand there are many choices that individuals make during their life that are, and should be, either applauded, tolerated or condemned by society. There is no logical reason to make sexual preference choices and behaviour free from discrimination particularly when that choice is reversible in many cases. Choice is not sacred To be human is to discriminate. We discriminate many times a day from the minor, such as colour of our clothes, to major such as to the moral code we adopt. We are particularly concerned at (a) the trend to extend anti-discrimination protection to matters of personal choice, and (b) to make insult or criticism a criminal act - and give both the status of a right. The tone of the discussion paper is that the listed groups are victims and so should be protected. The level of abuse has not been quantified and is possibly overstated to embellish the victim status. The homosexual lobby wants to make the life choice (their literature) of their supporters above reproach. It is true that some homosexual people suffer abuse emotionally and physically and that is to be utterly deplored. That alone however is not grounds for anti-discrimination legislation. There are many other individuals and groups in our society who unfortunately also suffer physical and emotional abuse. Vilification A particular worrying trend in Australia and internationally is anti-vilification and so-called hate speech legislation. Hate is being interpreted to mean any form of criticism, however mild, with or without potential for offence. Of course hatred, vindictive verbal attacks, and deliberate offensive slurs are to be deplored. We should never treat other humans in such a manner but this is not an area for legislation. Furthermore it fails to appreciate that we humans are capable of hating an action but loving a person as every parent knows. The actions of any one section of society should not be above reproach or truthful criticism nor should any group be protected from being offended by anothers views. Criticism or lack of approval does not equate to hate. We point out that those groups in society who oppose the affirmation of homosexuality on the basis of principle or moral grounds are not the ones who show hatred or give physical and verbal abuse to those practicing homosexuality. Anti-vilification legislation which is directed at this group is therefore aimed at the wrong target. Anti-vilification legislation is a tool of totalitarianism. It has no place in an Australian society. If there is unjust criticism, then treat that situation with more appropriate instruments. There are many instances throughout society where hate arises and its control is not a legislative matter. Anti-discrimination provisions are being hijacked to silence valid criticism and prevent exposure of actions of selected in-groups enjoying political favour. The Human Rights Commission should have no part of such tactics. They are intrinsically unjust. Morality Homosexuality has been practiced for a long time but not approved of by any civilization, religion or society in history as far as we can gather, so on what basis could the Commission declare something that was always wrong to be now right? Moral issues are difficult for governments to deal with and the catchcry you cant legislate morality is quite incorrect as governments do that all the time in one way or another. Moral issues should never be decided by focus groups or opinion polls. Morals are based on value systems and it is at that level that debate should occur. On one hand, the homosexual lobby may be claiming that they are a disadvantaged and persecuted minority, often offended, and denied basic human rights of equality. On the other, there is a sector of society who view homosexual practices as repugnant and indeed Islam and all Bible-following Christian denominations regard the practices as a very serious sin. In our society, people are free to commit all sorts of sin. It is not the role of government to declare that something that was once a sin to no longer be a sin and vice versa. Nor is the role of government to tell people how to think or feel. Far better to promote moral codes and have conduct and behaviour flow from them. We provide one example to illustrate but there would be many more. Some vegetarians feel repugnance or strong revulsion at the activities of meat eaters. Some would even regard the killing of animals for food as a sin. Governments do not legislate to prohibit vegetarians feeling repugnance or revulsion for the activities of meat eaters so why is it that some State governments have passed legislation to prohibit citizens feeling and expressing repugnance or revulsion for the activities of homosexuals? There is some unjustified favoured treatment here. Each individual is free to choose their own ideology and we deeply resent the vilification-type legislation. The current inquiry should be abandoned and no report made to Parliament.     PAGE  PAGE 3 J v B b I k m v  4 5 L S T    ) ܿܣܛܗxpk hjQ>*hW[hW[>* hM/hW[hhh h9h ^hnNhghAchgB*phh{B*phhWphhYhPkhnhjQB*phh}B*phh}h}>*B*phh!<B*phh5CJaJhW5CJaJh*5CJaJ* l m   * + ijKL`avgd ^ugd>8gdnNgd*$a$gd$a$gd~' () * ` ~ ':KlmhijA1KL#%;0Y"4ƾۺﮪߢ󞢺󺲺hh-vhh)+hvhENhL%h>8huoh[h ^uh ^uhAc>* h ^u>*h ^uh ^u>*hW[hh=hVhhMYhhWphWsh$#hW[h}>*94`aguvM !VWXeM}m5Sϼ۬ۥۉۄhLw& hn5hQMhh>8hVhWshB1h>* hvhnhBuhn>*hW[hW[>*hh hI hEN hrXhrXhrXhvh#hnhPkh} h$#>*h}h}>*hYhh ^u/vWXemn D"E"##$$'gdgd -gd"gdgdrXgdngdnN Z!_!!E"""########$$b$n$$$$%+%t%v%Q&&& ''''/'?'A'D''''''''''''''ÿÿǿǻǷǷdzϯϫӷӷߧh]Kjh]KUhah+h_hqnWhtVJh3ht&hh);qh9h h -h9hLhQMhAchdah#hhgh?h"h3h3>*:''''''''''''''' ( ( ( (( &`#$gdGYogdgd -'''''''(((( ( ( ( ((hah%|d0JmHnHuh/ h/0Jjh/0JUh]K5 01h:p ^/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListJ^J * Normal (Web)dd[$\$OJQJ4@4  ^Header  !.)@.  ^ Page Number <lm*+ijK L  ` a v WXemnDE  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0X00@0X00@0X00@0X00@0@0@0@0@0@0X00T  0000 $$$$$') 4'(v'( (  '!!GLGGčG   B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace |  o }   333Jmv**`~hiiAJ K % ; ! 4 _ a XXlZ_E    3j:*i*:h=QD,$>[4HFod.L808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.*i*3jQ$>[FodߠY        ߠY                                   M@_;M@s=KddKi*?e#kgtxI '&' h Yw J Lv yy$#*]g2#!R#|8$L%~%t&Lw&*++)+0, -P.(/ 2(4D7m9(:@b=XM? D GlItVJ^@Kq'L.LQMENnNWOPjQ1%Qm89~Q3?Y"9;uo Cnh=@ԫ @UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana"1h f&IFVV!4d 2qHX ?2 Kate Schuetze      Oh+'0  4 @ L Xdlt| Normal.dotKate Schuetze3Microsoft Office Word@G@_(@@&ߟ՜.+,0 hp|   V'  Title  !"#$%&()*+,-./0123456789:<=>?@ABDEFGHIJMRoot Entry F%OData 1Table''WordDocument7<SummaryInformation(;DocumentSummaryInformation8CCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q