- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 12 October 2005
Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Tolerance) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 38 of 52
| Next Item »
Page: 18400
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 22 September 2005.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [5.01 p.m.]: In the brief time available to me to speak in this debate I remind members that on the previous occasion when this bill was debated I indicated my opposition to this bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Peter Breen. I have with me a copy of the letter written on 29 September 2005 by the Hon. Peter Breen to Mr Samir Haq Yosofzai of the Nepean's Arabic Community Language School. The Hon. Peter Breen acknowledges in the letter that he is not familiar with the Koran and stated:
The Reverend Fred Nile in his contribution makes the claim "that the Koran contains the statement that any person who believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God is a corrupt or perverted unbeliever. I am not too familiar with the Koran and I have been unable to locate such a statement."
The Hon. Peter Breen went on to state, "If you can counter what Mr Nile had to say about the Koran, this would be most helpful." According to Mr Sameer Habashy, who telephoned the Christian Democratic Party, the Hon. Peter Breen also stated in a telephone conversation with Mr Habashy that he needed all the help that he could get to defeat Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. [Time expired.]
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.02 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Tolerance) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Peter Breen. The stated object of the bill is to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to promote religious tolerance. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Hon. Peter Breen. He is a thoughtful and compassionate man who is guided by good intentions. However, in respect to the bill that he has introduced, he is tragically and overwhelmingly wrong. His bill is flawed in its content, and misguided in its name, and will have the opposite effect of its intended outcome.
In his second reading speech the Hon. Peter Breen said, "The protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual is of paramount importance to governments." He stated a principle that I hope all members of this Parliament wholeheartedly and emphatically endorse. Two fundamental rights and freedoms are the right of free speech and the right to freedom of religion. The bill infringes both those freedoms. It will create far greater problems and conflicts than the problems and conflicts it purports to seek to resolve. It will destroy rights, not uphold them. If this bill is passed, it will stand as one of the most divisive, freedom-destroying and iniquitous pieces of legislation that this Parliament could possibly pass.
The distinction between laws prohibiting racial vilification, in contrast to religious vilification, is very clear. Racial vilification laws are directed against vilification of persons because of their ethnicity, nationality or place of birth—factors that are predetermined and over which the person has no control—whereas religious vilification laws are directed against those who criticise or vilify a person's religious belief or practices. The distinction between criticism and vilification is blurred and a matter of personal interpretation. Freedom of speech and freedom of religious thought and practice are well established and longstanding. On the other hand there is no inherent right, nor should there be, for a person's religious or political beliefs to be quarantined from criticism, condemnation or even vilification. The bill is a disaster in the making, just as similar legislation that was passed in Victoria in 2001 has turned out to be a disaster. Many who originally supported the introduction of the Victorian legislation were well intentioned, just as the Hon. Peter Breen is well intentioned.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile makes a very appropriate comment. However, the Victorian experience shows that good intentions do not necessarily lead to a good reality. As a result of a series of frivolous, ludicrous, spiteful and malicious claims that have been lodged pursuant to Victoria's religious vilification laws, quite understandably opposition has reached a crescendo. Not only are the means to bring about the claimed objects of the Victorian legislation flawed, but more importantly the ultimate objects are flawed and wrong in principle because those objects are an assault on religious freedom.
Originally the Victorian parliamentary Liberal Party supported the Victorian bill on the solemn assurance of the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, that the law would "reasonably and in good faith" protect people who genuinely practised their religion. The Victorian Liberal Party now vehemently opposes that law because the assurance of Premier Bracks has proved to be worthless. Most Victorian Christian denominations now oppose the Victorian law, including some who originally supported it in the mistaken belief that it would have a positive effect on religious harmony and religious tolerance. Prominent personalities of many non-Christian religious faith traditions have likewise joined this growing opposition, as have leading academic and legal authorities.
Melbourne's Anglican Archbishop, Peter Watson, has admitted that the church did not look closely enough at the legislation when it was passed in 2001. He has also said that we do not need "the law of the land intruding into places where it has no proper role". Likewise said Melbourne Catholic Archbishop, who has joined in the opposition to the laws. As I have indicated, opposition to religious vilification laws has also come from non-Christian religious quarters. In the Melbourne newspaper the Age of 4 June 2004, an early supporter of the Victorian legislation, Amir Butler, the Executive Director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, in an article headed "Why I've Changed my mind on Vilification Laws" wrote:
Peter Costello was quite correct in his National Day of Thanksgiving address to describe Victoria's anti-vilification legislation as "bad law".
As someone who once supported their introduction and is a member of one of the minority groups they purport to protect, I can say with some confidence that these laws have served only to undermine the very religious freedom they intended to protect …
It is obvious that criticism of one's religion is likely to offend, but just as Muslims should be entitled to aggressively criticise other faiths, likewise those same faiths should be afforded the right to voice their concerns about Islam.
The idea that such speech—regardless of how wrong-headed or offensive it might appear—must be banned to protect these religious communities is a furphy: Discrimination on the basis of religion was already outlawed: Incitement to commit violence was already illegal and slander was already covered by existing legal instruments.
He encapsulated opposition to religious vilification laws when he said:
All these anti-vilification laws have achieved is to provide a legalistic weapon by which religious groups can silence their ideological opponents rather than engaging in debate and discussion.
I heartily concur with those comments of Amir Butler. The truth is that the more the Australian community hears about religious vilification laws and their ramifications the more the opposition to such laws is rapidly growing. I believe that the many thousands who have signed petitions presented to this House opposing religious vilification laws represent a true reflection of public opinion. Labor governments in Western Australia and South Australia have wisely decided not to go down the religious vilification law road. Some months ago the former Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, made it clear that whilst he was Premier no such laws would be imposed upon the people of our State. In his column in the Sunday Telegraph of 3 July 2005, in referring to the proposal to introduce a religious vilification law in New South Wales, Cardinal Pell said:
Such a law would undermine the freedom it seeks to protect, would be counterproductive and end up curtailing free speech as well as deepening the rifts between religious groups.
In reference to the Victorian legislation he said:
Many people in Victoria predicted that the religious vilification legislation proposed there would be abused by attempts to curb religious freedom and provoke situations which the law is ill-equipped to solve.
In speaking on behalf of the Anglican Church in New South Wales, Bishop Forsyth of South Sydney said:
Although those who promote religious vilification laws have good intentions, in practice such laws are more of a threat to religious freedom than a help to it.
If anyone remains in doubt about the divisiveness and danger of religious vilification laws I recommend that they read a comprehensive paper entitled "Enforcing Tolerance: Vilification Laws and Religious Freedom in Australia", presented by Patrick Parkinson, Professor of Law at the University of Sydney, to the Eleventh Annual International Law and Religion symposium held in the United States of America in October 2004. He concluded his very scholarly and detailed analysis of religious vilification laws and their operation by stating:
Religious vilification laws have proven to be controversial and divisive. There has been much opposition to them from people of faith and integrity who are law-abiding citizens. There is a real question as to whom they are designed to protect and whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Other laws protect people of faith from threats and falsehoods, including the criminal law. The collateral damage to religious freedom from vilification laws is considerable. It is time for a rethink.
I was impressed also by a paper prepared by Reverend Rod Benson, Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Sydney's Morling College, entitled "Education not Legislation: A critique of the Breen Bill", dated 9 May 2005. In his paper, Reverend Benson conducted a detailed analysis of the key provisions of the bill and came to the view that in some important instances the protection afforded to freedom of speech is actually less than that provided under the Victorian legislation. In other instances he finds the terminology to be so vague that it would be an invitation to what may be called a proactive or interventionist judge to virtually interpret the legislation in any way whatsoever.
This bill needs to be defeated and it needs to be defeated decisively. It needs to be defeated because it is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It needs to be defeated because it will create division and mistrust within our community. It needs to be defeated because it will inhibit people from speaking freely for fear of prosecution or incurring horrendous financial expense to defend themselves should proceedings be brought against them. The bill needs to be defeated because reasonable public discussion on religious issues will be curtailed because of the threats of vexatious or malicious litigants. The bill does not sit comfortably with our democratic rights and values. The bill does not sit comfortably with the Australian ethos. The bill takes political and religious correctness to new heights of madness, and that is why the bill should be defeated.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:16 : Update this page