You can always tell when a government is worried about a piece of legislation. It’s invariably released on a Friday or, if it’s really troublesome, during the summer school holidays. This year was no different, with the Gillard Government unveiling its long-awaited draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill. Now, this Bill was never going to please everyone. It is, of course, the great irony of anti-discrimination policy that someone always ends up feeling like they’ve been discriminated against. Whether it’s the tattooed-neck brigade complaining that you caarn’t even say wot you fink wivout bein’ called racist or men feeling oppressed by breastfeeding women, every action has a reaction.
Ban public breastfeeding! I don’t like the way those babies are looking at my head.
I genuinely don’t envy policy writers in this space. In fact, I always think back to that classic line from the TV series, Yes, Minister. Jim Hacker is asked what the government’s position is on abortion. He replies, “Our position is not to have a position.” Not only is human rights and anti-discrimination a no-win space politically, but it is a logical vortex: how do we enshrine policy that fosters plurality and, yet, is protective and enforceable? One point on for a right answer, one point off for a wrong answer.
In this muddle and melee, one thing has always been privileged above all others, religion. The new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill continues this history through provisions that allow religious organisations to lawfully discriminate against people they might consider “sinners”. The most discussed implication of this provision is the right of Christian-based organisations to refuse employment to gays and unmarried pregnant women and mothers. There would, of course, be many other examples of lawful discrimination targets and the exercise of such a right to discriminate would not be limited to Christian groups. In fact, when it comes to faith, we’re quite indiscriminate in giving away our right to discriminate.
The point of this piece is not to get bogged down in the detail of this specific piece of complex draft legislation (indeed, I feel the pain of its authors), but to ask the question: why should religion be gifted this prized position? In a secular society, why does religion serve as the weight against which all other rights are measured and balanced?
He’s not the messiah, but he does have the right to sack you if you’re unwed and get pregnant.
Religion is, at best, a system of belief in something that may or may not be true. There is a necessary uncertainty in religion. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not evidence-based spirituality. Therein lays both the beauty and the graft of religion. And, yet, we have chosen to use such a contested concept as a justification for discrimination and to allow belief to triumph over reality. That I believe you to be sinful or incapable, according to a doctrine that may or may not be valid, is sufficient, regardless of your actual ethics, values or capability. My right to believe you sinful – founded on criteria devoid of evidence – is more important than your right to live free from discrimination. This is the essence of prejudice. But, somehow, we will allow the infliction of real social and economic harm for one group, rather than create cognitive dissonance for another. Yet, as far I can tell, an atheist cannot discriminate against someone for holding religious beliefs. So the equation only works in one direction. God botherers must clearly have a far more acute sensitivity to challenges to their values than atheists. Strange for people of such conviction.
Once we assign primacy to religious values, we are confronted then with the problem of defining “good religion” versus “bad religion”. Where do we draw the line? Sacking a man for committing adultery: good religion or bad religion? Sacking a woman for refusing to cover her head: good religion or bad religion? This is the inherent problem of applying religious values as some kind of foundation point: all religions contain such a vast array of interpretations as to make them unworkable. You would think that policy makers may have learnt something from the past 2,000 odd years of human conflict. Thus, at some point, we still need to define what is acceptable, or at least tolerable, to our society. Which begs the question: if we can articulate such principles, why the need to confer primacy on religious values in the first place?
Indeed, with regard to human rights, the ultimate test should be that the protection for any ideology or group does not exceed the protection from that ideology or group. Our new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill fails to recognise this balance.
The reason for this imbalance in favour of religious values is political, of course. Despite their mask of piety and “higher calling”, religious organisations are not above grubby politicking. This is why we see a Gillard Government that in one breath is chastising its Opposition Party for being led by a misogynist with 1950s values, while on the other hand enshrines the right of certain organisations to discriminate against single mothers, gays and anyone else an ancient fairytale tells them is sinful. Atheists, however, will once again have to turn the other cheek ... [fades to static]
No comments:
Post a Comment