Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

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, Jackie Butler, our then Queensland Co-ordinator,  and  I and a few members of Endeavour Forum  were the only Australians to protest  against our   country adopting this Treaty. 

While we support the principle of equal rights for men and women, CEDAW  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 women and to belittle the role of mothers as a "stereotype". 

We were criticized 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  Sex Discrimination 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  be exempted 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  withdraw such  exemptions. 

Our forebodings have been only too well realised.  Years later, the Catholic Church fought   a rear-guard action, represented by Mr. Ellicott QC  no less, in the High Court, to stop single women and lesbians having access to IVF treatment.  In a case brought by Dr. McBain, an IVF specialist, 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, Mr. Ruddock, promised, but has yet to implement,  an Amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act  to stop single women and lesbians’ access to IVF. 

One wonders why the Catholic bishops briefed - and paid - Mr. Ellicott to represent them  in the High Court action when it was he who  had signed the Treaty   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.

 *    The CEDAW committee has directed 37 pro-life governments to change their laws on abortion, even though the Treaty  does not specifically mention abortion..

 *    The CEDAW committee has criticized Ireland for allowing the Church to have too strong  a voice on public policy.

 *    The CEDAW Committee has berated Poland  for not legalizing  abortion.

 *  The CEDAW Committee criticized Belarus for celebrating Mothers' Day.  

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 Fire Ministries]  brought against the two Dannys, Christian pastors, who analysed statements in the Koran for a Christian audience,  is an example.

South Australia's   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.  (See Charles Francis article).  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.  

The South Australian Amendment also has significant implications for Anglicans  relevant  to the 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 Episcopal Church [of the USA]  to an unequivocal, wholehearted repentance marked by an end  to both all authorizations of same-sex blessings and all consents to the consecration of bishops  in a same-sex relationship". 

The Communique was a response to the controversy raging in the Anglican Church  following the consecration by  the  US  Episcopal Church  of   homosexual bishop Gene Robinson in 2003,  and the on-going  practice in some US dioceses of  blessing same-sex   unions.  Any public "repentance" for these acts  (the Communique called for a public apology)  may well be regarded 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  Grand 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,  such as Great Britain, usually considered as the homeland of fundamental liberties, would deny  at least 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  home in contemporary society that we have probably not seen this coming.” He warned  not to allow the Christian voice to be pushed “to the margins of society.”

Scotland

According to a new directive published by Scotland's National Health service, 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,   Stonewall Scotland, the publication is entitled "Fair For All - The Wider Challenge: Good Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Practice in the NHS".

Canada

In Canada  Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for "homophobic" teaching  stemming from the schools' primarily religious foundations, according to  Ottawa's homosexual news media.  In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the  province, Ottawa's Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children "only their own values."  The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual Christian teacher in the Ottawa public school  system, as saying, "All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would  say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic." 

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial  ministry of education wasn't "exerting more control" over the curriculum used by private  religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary  School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered. 

In October 2006 the Quebec government ordered private Christian schools in the province to  begin teaching sex education and Darwinism in compliance with the provincial curriculum,  threatening schools with closure if they failed to comply.  Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham, then-director of law and public policy with the Evangelical  Fellowship of Canada,    stated at the time that parents’ right to educate their children  in accordance with their religious beliefs is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and  Freedoms.  She quoted the   1986  Supreme Court ruling that although an Alberta pastor who was running a school out  of the basement of his church did have to license the school, the provincial government had to provide reasonable accommodation for religious belief:    “The province must “delicately and sensitively weigh the competing  interests so as to respect as much as possible the religious convictions as guaranteed by the  Charter”.   

In an ongoing battle over homosexual content in British Columbia  public school curriculums, parents are  struggling to gain assurance from the school board that they may withdraw their children from  pro-homosexual content in the classroom.  Homosexual activists Murray Corren and Peter Corren were granted an unprecedented say over  the development of new pro-homosexual content in the provincial curriculum, as part of  settlement in a human rights lawsuit against the province's Liberal government in June 2006.  The agreement also introduced a policy that would prevent parents from withdrawing their  children from the classroom when the material was being taught.[Source: Lifesite News, Feb 27, 2007]

The Catholic Civil Rights League is continuing efforts to ensure all 60 BC school boards acknowledge parents' rights to oversee the education of their children.

As Bishop Tartaglia said "we have probably not seen this coming".  Let us pray Australian church leaders  will see 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, but all that could end if a Federal Labor government   is  elected later this year.