ENDEAVOUR FORUM AD2000 ARTICLES - BABETTE FRANCIS
|
|
"EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" LEGISLATION THREATENS CHRISTAIN TEACHINGS Babette Francis In 1980 when Mr. Ellicott, Australia's Attorney General during the Fraser government, signed the "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women" (CEDAW) at the United Nations Mid-Decade for Women Conference in Copenhagen, I and afew members of Endeavour Forum were the only Australians to protest against our countryadopting this Treaty. While we support the principle of equal rights for men and women, the Treaty is written in
such vague and ambiguous terms e.g. calling on governments . "To modify the social and
cultural patterns of conduct of men and women" (Article 5) and "The elimination of any
stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women" (Article l0), that we could see inherent
dangers in a legal document whose objective was to ignore all differences between men and We were criticised by the local media, the ABC in particular said we were "behaving like vegetarians at a butcher's picnic". CEDAW was implemented in Australia through the Federal SexDiscrimination Act 1984, and we continued to express our concerns. Though we pointed out that there could be long-term implications for marriage and abortion laws, we received little support from church leaders. Catholic bishops received assurances from the Hawke government that the Church would beexempted from having to ordain women, and thereafter their concerns appeared muted. The bishops apparently did not realise that giving a government the "power" to exempt from what is a theological principle, not an employment issue, also hands governments power to withdrawthat exemption. Our forebodings have been only too well realised. Years later, the Catholic Church fought arear-guard action, represented by Mr. Ellicott QC no less, in the High Court, to stop single
women and lesbians having access to IVF treatment. A Federal court had found that single
women and lesbians could not be discriminated against on the basis of marital status, and the
High Court decided that the Catholic Church had no standing. The Federal Attorney General, One wonders why the Catholic bishops briefed - and paid - Mr. Ellicott to represent them inthe High Court action when he had signed the Treaty - despite our objections - which was now causing the Church so much angst. Our CEDAW battle is now echoing in the US where Democrats who currently control both Houses of Congress, are attempting to have their Senate ratify CEDAW. Austin Ruse, President of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute has highlighted some of the dangers: * CEDAW condemns prostitution but the UN's CEDAW committee has directed governments to legalize prostitution. In Australian states there have been further "enhancements" of equal opportunity legislation in the form of "vilification" laws, which deal not merely with discrimination in employment but also with what is said, written, taught or preached about certain groups, e.g. Muslims or homosexuals. Under Victoria's "Racial & Religious Tolerance Act" the on-going saga of the vilification case [Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the FireMinistries] brought against the two Dannys, Christian pastors, who analysed statements in theKoran for a Christian audience, is an example. South Australia's the Attorney General has proposed an Amendment to the state's Equal
Opportunity Act to prevent "victimisation" of any person on the basis, inter alia, of marital
status, pregnancy choices or homosexual behaviour. One wonders why the Churches, in
particular the Catholic Church whose teaching on these issues is quite unequivocal, have not
opposed this legislation more vigorously. If this Amendment is passed, anyone, including a Church representatives who think they are protected by "exemptions" or "exclusions" may be too optimistic. Unmeritorious proceedings can involve an innocent person in long, costly andstressful litigation before a Commissioner whose views are entirely different from traditionalChristian principles, and a victory, even if achievable, might be at enormous cost. Just ask thetwo Danny's. The South Australian Amendment also has significant implications for Anglicans relevant tothe recently concluded meeting in Tanzania of the Primates of the Anglican Church. The
Communique issued by this meeting stated: "We commend the Primates for calling the The Communique was a response to the controversy raging in the Anglican Church followingthe consecration by the US Episcopal Church of homosexual bishop Gene Robinson in2003, and the on-going practice in some US dioceses of blessing same-sex unions. Anypublic "repentance" for these acts (the Communique called for a public apology) may well beregarded as "victimisation" by homosexual individuals or groups. In Britain where the Blair government has refused to exempt the Catholic Church from the requirement to arrange adoptions of children by homosexuals, Catholic bishops supported by Anglicans, Muslims and even the Orange Lodge, say Britain is poised to overturn centuries of legal development in human rights. In comments preceding the upcoming international congress, "Conscience in Support of the Right to Life," Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said the provisions of the Equality Act that claim to defend human rights, are a “violation of liberty.” The Equality Act’s Sexual Orientation Regulations will make it illegal to deny goods or services based on sexual orientation, including adoption of children. “I think that conscientious objection is fully justified and I would be surprised if a nation, suchas Great Britain, usually considered as the homeland of fundamental liberties, would deny atleast on one occasion recognition of this objection,” Bishop Sgreccia said. Zenit Catholic news agency quoted the bishop saying, “I hope this won't take place or that, in any case, it will trigger an appeal before the Court of Human Rights.” Responding to the same legislation, the bishop of the Scottish diocese of Paisley wrote in a pastoral letter that there is “something sinister” happening in Britain. “For the first time in the modern era in this country, the Catholic Church is facing the prospect of being forced to act against her faith and against her convictions, or else face legal challenge and possible prosecution.” In a four-point manifesto, Bishop Tartaglia said the Church has no desire to unjustly discriminate against homosexual persons, but “no one has the right to be an adoptive parent,” and that Catholic adoption agencies base their decisions on the belief that children are best served by being adopted by “a mother and father who are married.” The bishop urged his flock to be prepared spiritually for persecution. “We are so much at homein contemporary society that we have probably not seen this coming.” “Affluence, prosperity, aspiration and a pervasive spirit of relativism may tempt some to set aside the principles and values of the Catholic faith and life.” He warned Catholics, however, not to allow the Christian voice to be pushed “to the margins of society.” It is not just conservatives or church leaders at risk. In February 2007 former mayor of Cambridge, John Hipkin, is demanding an apology and a retraction after being accused publicly of “heterosexism” for suggesting that more homes need to be built to accommodate families. Hipkin wondered aloud at a planning meeting whether the preference of housing developers for one and two bedroom homes was not “putting huge pressure of a contraceptive nature on this city.” Hipkin said “People presumably start off single or young marrieds and have children,don't they? Where are they going to go?” The Daily Telegraph reported that a complaint was lodged by a homosexual activist group who said that his remarks betrayed heterosexism, defined as “unintentional discrimination towards or against non-heterosexuals due to cultural bias.” Hipkin, a Liberal Democrat councillor for the university town reacted with outrage and said his comments were not “a plan to deny gays a home.” Calling the complaint a “slur on his character,” Hipkin said, “Such an allegation runs contrary to all the things I think I am. I have spent my life opposing homophobia, sexism, racism - all forms of discrimination.” Hipkin has learnt the hard way that the victimisation does not even have to be intentional In Scotland, according to a new directive published by Scotland's National Health srvice, nurses and other health care professionals should avoid using the terms ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ to refer to family relationships since the terms could be offensive to homosexual couples with children. Issued in conjunction with the country’s leading homosexual activist organization, StonewallScotland, the publication is entitled "Fair For All - The Wider Challenge: Good Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Practice in the NHS". As Bishop Tartaglia said "we have probably not seen this coming". Let us pray Australian bishops will se it coming. We are protected to some extent by the conservatism of the Howard government which does not recognise same-sex unions or overseas same-sex adoptions, butall that could end if a Federal Labor government was elected later this year.
|
|
Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN
|