Protecting religious freedom would be aided by diminished political influence of the Greens, writes Greg Smith.
It would be naive to believe Australia has an entirely unblemished record of religious freedom. To take one obvious example, for the first half of the 20th century social relations in this country were marred by a bitter sectarian divide between Catholics and Protestants. Until the 1960s, Catholics suffered religious discrimination, some job vacancy advertisements reading “Catholics Need Not Apply”.
That sectarian divide is now a thing of the past. However, new developments give rise for new cause for concern.
The Boycotts Divestment and Sanctions Resolution against Jewish businesses passed in December 2010 by the Marrickville Council in Sydney and, more recently, protests against Jewish businesses, in particular Max Brenner chocolate and coffee stores, are eerily reminiscent of pogroms of earlier times. The Marrickville Council resolution was championed by Greens mayor Fiona Byrne and supported by Lee Rhiannon, now a federal Greens senator.
During the 2007 parliamentary debate on human cloning, Cardinal George Pell was investigated by the NSW Upper House’s Privileges Committee for public comments to the effect that Catholic MPs voting in favour of human cloning would be acting contrary to Church teaching about the sanctity and dignity of human life and might be denied Holy Communion. He was to be investigated for contempt of parliament.
At the time, Lee Rhiannon boasted: “The President of the Upper House has agreed to my request the Privileges Committee investigate the appropriateness of Cardinal Pell’s comments.” The then member of the NSW Legislative Council made it clear her intention was to intimidate Cardinal Pell into silence in the human cloning debate, saying: “Hopefully this referral will act as a warning to Cardinal Pell that he should refrain from launching a fresh assault on upper house MPs who are yet to cast a vote on this important bill.”
In response to the inquiry, Cardinal Pell argued: “It is my submission it is essential that religious leaders, including myself, are free to express the position taken by their Church or religion on matters of public interest and debate. To prevent religious leaders from doing so has the effect of stifling religious freedom and hampers effective and open debate on matters of public interest.”
In 2008, the Victorian parliament passed legislation concerning abortion. Relevant to this discussion was section 8 of the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act, eliminating the right to conscientious objection by compelling doctors either participate in the process or recommend a doctor who would do so.
Then president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), Doug Travis, who generally supported the legislation, said in an open letter to then premier John Brumby: “The bill infringes the rights of doctors with a conscientious objection by inserting an active compulsion for a doctor to refer to another doctor whom they know does not have a conscientious objection. Respect for a conscientious objection is a fundamental principle in our democratic country and doctors expect their rights in this regard will be respected, as for any other citizen.”
The AMA’s code of ethics, of course, provides that when a personal moral judgement or religious belief prevents a doctor from recommending some form of procedure or therapy the doctor may inform the patient and decline to provide the procedure on that basis.
Senator Nick Xenophon recently announced he would introduce a private members’ bill in the Senate to, in effect, repeal section 127 of the Evidence Act, according to which a person who is a member of the clergy of any church or religious denomination is entitled to refuse to divulge to a court the contents of a religious confession made to that member of the clergy.
These examples demonstrate it is often the case, at least in Australia, that where there is an attempt to curtail the rights of religious groups, particularly Jewish or Christian ones, the Greens are not far away.
As the Greens have come to hold the balance of power in the federal Senate, and also to hold five seats in the NSW upper house, their policies and underlying philosophies have come under greater scrutiny. And that scrutiny has revealed a strong atheistic and anti-religious tendency.
In their book The Greens, Bob Brown and Peter Singer expressly reject what they refer to as the ethic of “traditional Western belief” which has “prevailed throughout virtually the entire history of Western Civilisation”. They declare there is “an alternative tradition” which puts trees and animals on a par with human dignity, and is conspicuously atheistic.
It would be fair to say if the Greens had their way, people with any religious beliefs would not have any role or say in public life. Lee Rhiannon made this plain in the Pell episode when she demanded two Christians on the Privileges Committee “leave their religious beliefs at home”.
Protection of religious freedom in Australia would be aided by the diminished political influence of the Greens. It can also be said from these examples that these threats are often mitigated by the ordinary democratic processes of our society. The disappearance of sectarianism in Australia had a number of causes, none of which related to legislative changes, such as discrimination legislation, which came later.
In the case of the Marrickville Council boycott, it was a combination of democratic forces that caused the council to reverse its position: fierce local anti-boycott campaigns leading to Fiona Byrne failing to win the seat of Marrickville in the NSW election and the actions of politicians from mainstream parties showing solidarity with the Jewish community.
Arguably, Jewish groups might have availed themselves of remedies under the Anti-Discrimination Act for race discrimination, given that “race” is defined to include “ethno- religious origin”. However, no group as far as I am aware sought any remedy under that act.
Similarly, in the NSW upper house, common sense prevailed and Cardinal Pell was cleared of contempt of the parliament.
These examples are evidence that the best form of protection for religious freedom is Australia’s system of representative and responsible democracy.
Greg Smith is the NSW attorney-general. This is an edited extract of his speech to the 13th Meeting of Experts of the International Religious Liberty Association at the University of Sydney in August.