A religion expert has rejected claims that the Australian government's religious discrimination bill would lead to a "torrent of abuse", saying instead that his opponents' concerns were rather about generating fear and the result of cultural biases. against religion.
The comments come after LGBTQIA + groups, business groups, and various MPs. warned of what they said were the "dangerous" implications of allowing religious people to make "statements of faith" in an attempt to eliminate the religious discrimination bill introduced by the Morrison government.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that several hypothetical scenarios has been raised by critics, including a child care provider who tells a single mother that childbirth out of wedlock is bad, a boss who tells a gay employee that they would go to hell for their sexuality, or a doctor who tells a patient that his disability is retribution for his sin.
However, Denis Dragovic, a published scholar in religion and society and a senior honorary fellow at the University of Melbourne, argued that such hypotheticals would "undermine confidence" in the bill because "real-world situations do not exist."
"There are no examples of this happening in state jurisdictions where there are no sanctions against it," he said in a submission to Parliament. "The accumulated fear that this bill will lead to a torrent of abuse is wrong."
"The debate surrounding this bill has been poorly served by misleading statements, hypothetical examples not based on reality, and a misunderstanding of religion," he said.
Even if such scenarios were to take place, it would not violate existing laws in Australia's major jurisdictions, and the bill has "extensive safeguards" including that any statement of faith is made with good intentions, he noted.
โIt is important to contextualize the dreaded damage to Lgbt community, which is getting smaller, in relation to the increasing risk for people of faith and the cost that this has for society โ, he said.
Hypothetical cherry picking
Dragovic noted that the protections in the bill apply equally to those who profess a "statement of non-belief" that discriminates against religious people.
โThe following equally plausible scenario will be protected by the proposed law: a child care provider could tell a single mother that instilling a child in a faith is wrong, a doctor could tell a patient that her disability is a punishment for believing in religion, a boss or a colleague could tell a religious employee that they will go to hell for their beliefs, โhe said.
Dragovic said the second set of hypotheses is "more likely to occur," but noted that few would speak out to protect religious believers from such views. He argued that this is "noteworthy and representative of the current cultural bias against religion."
"The same approach of identifying dark what-if scenarios to undermine proposed protections could have been applied to other anti-discrimination laws," he said.
Bill a 'modest contribution'
In response to criticism of the bill, the government removed some of the contentious provisions on the ability of doctors to refuse certain procedures and the Folau clause that required medium and large companies to demonstrate that a person's statement of beliefs leads financial damage before taking action. .
The government has also agreed to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to protect gay students from discrimination in religious schools. The bill, however, still faced stiff resistance.
Constitutional law expert George William said that "as a matter of principle," prioritizing religious discourse over other forms of expression was "deeply problematic in a secular nation."
He also described the legislation as "full of shades of gray, unclear terms and doubts about its scope."
"Unfortunately, this bill will add significantly to this problem, including due to its problematic interactions with other federal and state anti-discrimination laws," he said.
Although this is the case, the bill is a "modest contribution" that enshrines Australia's obligations to international human rights, Dragovic said, noting that society "must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the Okay".
"Progressively contributing to the body of legislated rights is better than waiting for a full Bill of Rights," he said.
The best way to moderate people's behavior, Dragovic suggested, is "to allow some ideas, even if they are not welcome, to be expressed and to let society provide a firm hand."
"As a society, we must accept that not all speech can or should be monitored," he said.
