ENDEAVOUR FORUM - SUMISSIONS
|
|
HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL 2012 Endeavour Forum is an association dedicated to supporting family values in the context of situations facing families. In contrast to feminism, we maintain that men and women are equal but different. Such a position is consistent with reality and natural science. We also strongly support inalienable rights to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the right of parents, as primary educators, to choose the type of education to be given to their children (UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR), Article 26.
We oppose usurpation of parental rights by the state. On this basis we strongly oppose the Bill in toto. It is factually an antithesis of claims made
to protect “rights” and “equality”. A threat to freedom of speech and other cherished democratic rights is blatant. Yet another gross flaw is a new definition of “discrimination” as “any unfavourable treatment”, which “may offend another person”, a definition which is wide open to any interpretation, including “offence” taken by a political (or other) opinion with which another person may disagree. A right not to be offended does not exist. A right to freedom of speech, however, is recognised in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 19, in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as in Australian law. A law of defamation and laws prohibiting incitement to violence provide an adequate safeguard. It is clear that offensive behaviour consists of outright insult, death threats, obscenity, and other unacceptable behaviour. Political correctness has befuddled the issue, defining offensive as “anything that may offend another person”. Any expression of an opinion is likely to be offensive to someone who disagrees. Equality before the law requires equal rights for every citizen, irrespective of whether he or she is a member of the majority or of any minority group. Segregation of “protected” groups, who are to receive special “rights”, which violate authentic rights of the general community, is iniquitous. It is also insultingly condescending to a “protected” group. For example indigenous Australians have a right to full integration with all other citizens, without a fallacious assumption that they require “protection”, i.e. control, by the government. Despite huge taxpayer funding of projects, purportedly to assist Aboriginal people, their plight continues to deteriorate. It is incomprehensible that such legislation as the proposed Bill could be seriously contemplated. In fact it is a prescription for a totalitarian police state. It would also be a minefield for litigation. So much for a “streamlined complaints process”! The proposed Bill would “simplify” everything for the plaintiff, while placing insurmountable obstacles in the way of justice for the defendant. So much for “equality”! New proposed category of anti-discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity (a) Sexual orientation. A key factor of its defeat was that SSM would place freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and parental rights in jeopardy. This is based on irrefutable evidence that these rights and freedoms have been forfeit wherever such legislation, by any term, has been introduced. Any citizen may be coerced, under pain of legal penalty, to participate in same-sex “weddings”, whether as a celebrant (religious or secular), or in any other role, such as caterer. Every citizen has an indisputable right to live without interference and/or harassment. Same-sex couples are free to do so. They also receive the same welfare benefits as heterosexuals. Moreover they are free to celebrate a commitment ceremony at a social level, with the assistance of “gay friendly” caterers. No one is coerced into participation or acknowledgement. Australia is a free country, in which we agree to disagree. If draconian legislation, such as the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012, is imposed, however, we will no longer be free. Families will be unable to live without intimidation and harassment. Parents will lose an inalienable right to raise their children in accordance with deeply held principles, religious or otherwise. Proposed exemptions for religious entities would be meaningless and worthless. Such “exemption” would be temporary, to be reviewed after three years, and probably would then be withdrawn. More significantly, every person, religious or otherwise, has a right to freedom of conscience, and therefore any such granting of “exemptions” would be manifestly inadequate. Studies have demonstrated that those who claim to be homosexual constitute between 2% and 3% of the population. Of this small minority, only a very small percentage support same-sex “marriage”, or “anti-discrimination” laws. Richard Waghorne, a homosexual who opposes SSM, has written that “I have watched with growing irritation as principled opponents of gay marriage have put up with a stream of abuse for explaining their position. Public figures who try to do so routinely have to contend with a charge that they are bigoted or homophobic”. Melanie Phillips, a UK columnist, who attempted to protect school children from compulsory homosexual material in the curriculum, has reported that she has been subjected to vicious outpouring of hate and incitement to violence, including death threats. She added “the total inability of those who subjected me to such abuse to realise that they are, in fact, spewing out the very hatred, intolerance and incitement to violence of which they are accusing others would be hilarious were it not so terrifying” There are many further instances which may well cause us to reflect who is in need of protection from intimidation and harassment? Police state activities are evident in Toronto where a government-funded “registry of homophobic acts” was launched earlier this year. A definition of “homophobic” was “any negative word or act toward a homosexual or homosexuality in general”. Any who suppose that homophobia refers to harassment or intimidation of homosexuals should think again. The term “homophobia” in fact refers to conscientious objection to a practice of homosexuality. (b) Gender diversity Behaviour which has been described as perversity is now being redefined as diversity. If “sexual diversity” is accepted as a protected attribute , there can be no legal guarantee of any limit being placed on such types of “diversity”. Any form of depravity may be included. Role of the Australian Human Rights Commission It is a cause for grave concern that this non-elected bureaucracy is to be given yet more power. The Commission would be sole arbiter of whether or not a complaint may be dismissed, and the sole arbiter of whether or not an exemption would be granted. In fact the Commission would virtually be made adjudicator to determine who must not be offended under pain of legal penalty, and who may be offended with impunity. It is ludicrous to suggest that it would be in the interests of small businesses to subject themselves to a code of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It is strongly recommended that an “exposure draft” of the Bill be rejected, and that no further Anti-Discrimination legislation be introduced. Thank you for an opportunity to participate.
|
|
Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN
|