Religious Freedom
| About this Item |
Subjects | Civil Liberties; Religions and Sects |
Speakers | Breen The Hon Peter |
Business | Adjournment |
Page: 14972
The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.37 p.m.]: I take the opportunity this evening to respond to the contributions of my colleagues the Hon. Eric Roozendaal and the Hon. David Clarke, who spoke about religious tolerance during the adjournment debate. The 2001 census revealed that 75 per cent of Australians identify with a religion, with 70 per cent following the monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. More than 100 different religions were identified in the census as being religious beliefs in Australia. So, contrary to popular opinion, we live in a religious society.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal was correct when he said that freedom of speech is a hard-won universal right that comes with responsibility. Universal rights and freedoms include the right to speak freely but not the right to vilify and incite hatred towards any individual or group of citizens based on perceived differences. The purpose of any anti-discrimination legislation is to protect minorities and to remind citizens of our collective responsibility to exhibit tolerance and compassion towards each other. All rights and freedoms are derived from the dignity of the person, and human dignity is to be found in religious beliefs and practices no less than in age, gender, race or sexual preference.
The Hon. David Clarke seems to have overlooked the fact that most anti-discrimination laws are in place to protect minorities. The honourable member is clearly not part of a minority in any capacity that I am aware of and, as a Christian, he is certainly not part of a minority faith in Australia. I am sure that he would feel quite differently about religious vilification laws if he were part of a religious minority. The Hon. David Clarke proposed a distinction between racial and religious vilification. It appears that the honourable member supports racial vilification laws because race is something that people cannot change—something intrinsic and unalterable. On the other hand, he describes religious vilification as targeting:
... expressions of opposition to other religious beliefs and practices in contrast to one's own.
Religious vilification laws do not target expressions of opposition to other religions; they target vilification. In his efforts to draw a distinction between religious and racial vilification, the Hon. David Clarke begs the question of vilification. Religious vilification laws permit offensive statements about another religious group as long as they are made reasonably and in good faith, pursuant to genuine discussion or debate, and do not incite hatred. I am not aware of religious vilification laws that persecute or criminalise people's religious thoughts, as suggested by the Hon. David Clarke. On the contrary, such laws actually protect people's religious thoughts by prohibiting their vilification. The Hon. David Clarke's race-versus-religion argument intrigues me because it proceeds on the basis that to vilify someone based on their beliefs or their choices is somehow acceptable.
I do not consider my own religious beliefs to be a matter of choice, and the teaching of the Catholic Church is that faith is a gift from God. Most Christians receive the gift with infant baptism so there is no exercise of choice. Furthermore, a choice cannot become a standard by which we define our protection under the law. It is unlawful to discriminate on the ground of gender, but what if someone surgically alters their gender? Does that mean because they have chosen their gender they are no longer afforded protection under the law?
In any discussion of religious vilification laws, the case under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 arises. Those who defend the actions of the people involved in this vilification claim they did no more than quote from the Qur'an and discuss terrorism. However, this was not the case. At various times throughout a seminar in 2002 Pastors Scot and Nalliah stated that Muslims are liars and demons, that they plan to use violence to overrun western democracies including Australia, and that if that happened they would rape and murder Christians. Pastor Scot also said that the true Muslims are the terrorists, that it is impossible to separate Islam from terrorism, and that the prophet Muhammad was a paedophile.
Like the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, I am appalled that anyone would defend those statements under the guise of freedom of speech. The 2002 seminar was not a religious debate, it was not educational and it served no purpose other than to incite fear and hatred. It was pure vilification and an abuse of our responsibility towards our hard-won freedom of speech. The Hon. David Clarke seems to think that because Pastors Scot and Nalliah are themselves from ethnic backgrounds they cannot be held accountable for vilification. This is woolly thinking by the honourable member. Just because a person is part of a racial minority does not make it more acceptable for that person to commit vilification.
Religious tolerance legislation is in line with other Australian States. Whilst the Hon. David Clarke mentioned that South Australia and Western Australia have not yet decided to pursue religious vilification laws, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania have all passed legislation outlawing the vilification of people on the basis of religious belief. I also understand that in its 2004 Federal election campaign the Australian Labor Party promised to prohibit vilification on the grounds of race, religion and sexuality. Religious tolerance legislation will not restrict freedom of speech and it will not curtail vigorous religious debate or even controversial points of view. The only change will be to make it unlawful to incite hatred, and that is a positive development in my opinion.