Religious people have rights too — even in Victoria
|
As a basic rule, if businesses and organisations want to cripple themselves by not hiring the best talent, they shouldn’t have too. Over the weekend the Victorian Attorney General, Rob Hulls, announced a compromise plan for his proposed amendments to the state’s Equal Opportunity Act. Hulls’ plan is to scrap the exemptions that stop the government telling private organisations what they can do, with private money on private property. Hulls’ original target was the exemptions that allowed private men’s clubs to exclude women members. He’s trotted out a predictable press release on the need to scrap the men’s clubs’ exemptions every slow news January since the Labor government was elected in 1999. They’re an almost embarrassingly easy target — few people sympathise with the woes of Melbourne Club members. But in proposing to scrap all exemptions, Hulls angered more than those who enjoy exclusivity at the Paris end of Collins Street. Currently religious organisations are allowed to freely discriminate against pagans, gays and lesbians and single mothers because they don’t conform to their faith. And scrapping that opportunity has angered religious groups because of the prospect they’re going to be told Adam’s partner, Steve, should be allowed to teach Bible class. So Hulls has compromised and allowed religions to discriminate against non-believers, gays and single mums, but has made sure they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, disabilities etc. Understandably gay groups are furious. But in their outrage they’re missing a central point — religious people have rights too. And that includes freely practicing their religious faith. And the rights of religious people aren’t being protected when they’re told who they can hire. The biggest loser from discrimination isn’t the person who is discriminated against, it is the discriminator. If Catholic schools are excluding the best talent from teaching their kids the biggest losers aren’t the potential employees — it’s the school for having weaker teachers, parents for paying for, and the children for receiving sub-standard education. Few argue with the basic principle that we should have a society free of discrimination, but that is not what Hulls’ reforms will achieve. If people really want to discriminate, they will. But in doing so they’ll sell themselves short, and should suffer the consequences. Tim Wilson is Director of the IP and Free Trade Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs. |
|
|
|
20 Comments
Hang on, isn’t the taxpayer partly funding these schools? If faith schools want to cut themselves off from dealing with gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths, then surely they can’t expect a secular society to keep funding them with taxpayer’s money partly derived from those same gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths? Or will we now be eligible for a refund? And while we’re at it, could we dispense with the lie that religious instruction provides the pretense of a moral code? This simply proves what intolerance, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and patriarchal narcissism quite apart from weird beliefs in imaginary friends is encouraged in our faith schools. Julia Gillard could include these wonderful qualities in her school signs so parents will know how their kids will turn out.
Well said Michael Harvey!!!! I read this article, scrolled down to pen a response and found that it had already been said!
Are you intending to communicate with us, or is this some sort of test?
“As a basic rule, if businesses and organisations want to cripple themselves by not hiring the best talent, they shouldn’t have too.”
Good lord. What does this sentence mean? If they want to cripple themselves…they shouldn’t have to. Huh? And surely anyone who can sign themselves ‘Director’ knows the difference between ‘too’ and ‘to’?
OK, so there are only three subbies left in Australia and Crikey is a seat-of-its-pants, get-the-dirt-on-the-cheap outfit. Let the articles gradually descend into incomprehensible gibberish if you must, but can we at least expect basic literacy in the first line?
Having no religion I don’t care much about upsetting anti-gay or other prejudices just because they are supported by someone’s religion. However, I wish people like Michael Harvey wouldn’t fall for the prevalent failure to distinguish between schools and families when it comes to financinig of schools. His is the same fallacy which would have us believe there are “wealthy schools” as if there were any - or, at any rate, more than one or two in Australia - schools with serious endowments like major American private schools (and don’t forget that swimming pools cost a lot in maintenance - they are more liabilities than assets for a school).
So, consider the reality that some subsidies are paid which prevents parents who choose religious or other private schools instead of the state system not to be too disadvantaged financially by that choice. I wonder where Michael Harvey’s reasoning could lead. Perhaps, because the taxpayer supports old age pensioners and other recipients of social welfare they can reasonably be held to some high standards that we might like our benevolent and wise government to impose (albeit through highly imperfect human instruments). If I am going to contribute towards the health care of old codgers (actually other old codgers) shouldn’t I be able to say that their cigarettes ought to be confiscated and personal trainers sent round at 6.30 each morning to get them shuffling the streets for half an hour?
If faith schools want to cut themselves off from dealing with gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths, then surely they can’t expect a secular society to keep funding them with taxpayer’s money partly derived from those same gays, divorcees, atheists and people of other faiths?
Michael I agree with this statement.
Julius- His is the same fallacy which would have us believe there are “wealthy schools” as if there were any - or, at any rate, more than one or two in Australia - schools with serious endowments like major American private schools (and don’t forget that swimming pools cost a lot in maintenance - they are more liabilities than assets for a school).
Julius, I believe you are arguing apples and oranges. The rich schools are to be compared with the poor public schools that receive the same funding not American institutions.
“So, consider the reality that some subsidies are paid which prevents parents who choose religious or other private schools instead of the state system not to be too disadvantaged financially by that choice.”
This sounds like middle class welfare as wouldn’t everybody choose to send their kids to these rich schools if they could? The choice is affected by means, if you dont have them then bad luck.
“If I am going to contribute towards the health care of old codgers (actually other old codgers) shouldn’t I be able to say that their cigarettes ought to be confiscated and personal trainers sent round at 6.30 each morning to get them shuffling the streets for half an hour?”
No, we get to elect a government to administer the taxes we pay. If we don’t like it we elect somebody else. I personally despise the private health insurance rebate, but as my fellow Australians elected somebody who has this as their policy then I have to accept it, just as you do.
What happens if an employer was to say I dont want to hire you because you take too much paternity leave due to your religious faith preventing you from using contraceptive? Would this be ok?
As for these old codgers.
We hopefully all get old one day.
“If I am going to contribute towards the health care of old codgers (actually other old codgers) shouldn’t I be able to say that their cigarettes ought to be confiscated and personal trainers sent round at 6.30 each morning to get them shuffling the streets for half an hour?”
You mean like CentreLink do with the unemployed, as far as requiring then to apply for a certain number of jobs, attend interviews, do training courses, go to useless third-party companies to find jobs?
That’s a bit of a tangent to the article - I don’t understand why clubs shouldn’t be able to operate as they wish. There’ll no doubt be unintended consequences if they do this, guys wanting to join Fernwood etc.
’ … religious people have rights too. And that includes freely practicing their religious faith.’ Paedophiles, murderers and rapists have rights too but that doesn’t stop us from interfering when they assert a ‘right’ to rape and murder. We don’t allow religious people to own slaves or have several wives just because the Bible/Q’ran says they can. When groups of people want to practice anti-social behaviour, the state usually steps in and prevents it. What Victoria has done is institutionalise religious taboos into secular law. Religion provides thge wellsprings of homophobia. Now the state says it’s OK.
And like Michael Harvey, I’d like the tax benefits allowed to religious bodied to be reduced by the proportion coming from gay tax payers.
Pat of Noosa
“The biggest loser from discrimination isn’t the person who is discriminated against, it is the discriminator.”
Are you kidding?
The Catholic Church has done oh so terribly in it’s centuries of preaching hatred against gay people .Yes, definitely, they’re the biggest loser. While of course the gay people who have suffered torment, ostracism, even execution - well, clearly that has done a them a whole load of good.
Your example of Catholic schools being the bigger loser for their discriminaton: they still exist, they still are funded, they suffer no real negative consequence. The gay teacher, however, who is unable to obtain employment …
*sigh*
The only thing better than being told you’re not being discriminated against, is being told that the discrimination doesn’t hurt you. Builds character, I guess?
Not one thought to date, that “single mums” could also be women whose relationship has broken down or finished?Or do you really mean, women who’ve never been married but have had a child/children? Does this include the fathers? Of course not! And aren’t they just too cocky and lucky - nobody knows how many kids they’ve fathered, and the cries over terminations etc never extends to them then either?
I believe, discrimination on the grounds of sex - being a woman, and obviously physically able to be recognised as pregnant should also be included - it’s unjust and sexist.
Wow! When will this sexism stop?
A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Private schools win special cash bonuses’ (August 29-30 ‘09) “draws attention the schools there were overpaid”. It goes ahead and lists the schools, mostly Catholic Schools in NSW, that due to an unfair practice of the Howard govt will receive $2.6 BILLION to maintain the funding . For example, “Loreto Kirribilli will receive an estimated $13.5 million MORE than its $6.4 million entitlement under the formula, according to a Greens analysis of Senate figures”. The story goes on and lists other such examples. I personally believe that it’s outrageous. Why should a family on a low income pay taxes for their kids to attend the local state school, and also supports these obscenely wealthy private schools? Don’t give me the nonsense, of how the wealthy save the state system by sending their kids to wealthy and well equipped private ones. Those poorer parents don’t have freedom of choice - they can’t afford to pay the private fees? When many state schools have to have fetes and other fundraising activities, just to purchase essentials like library books etc, I think this is obscene. Then, they want to turn around and use a very discriminatory and unchristian method of employing staff. A damned cheek!
JULIUS - “If I am going to contribute towards the health care of old codgers (actually other old codgers) shouldn’t I be able to say that their cigarettes ought to be confiscated and personal trainers sent round at 6.30 each morning to get them shuffling the streets for half an hour?” Yes, when the ‘relationship police’ check out how many kids men have fathered, and force them to be sterilized after 2 or 3? Or, when their name appears on a birth certificate as the father of a ‘sinlge mums’ child (or given up by the child’s mother) he’s also prevented from teaching in these sexist, bigoted schools?
It’s disturbing, and very sad, that in 2009 we still need laws to prevent people, mainly women from being discriminated against via judgemental and unjust means! Incidently, I wouldn’t want to join the Melbourne Club. Being around wealthy, opportunistic, chauvinistic males is not my idea of fun - there’s enough of them out on the street every day, without being around them during recreation!
Oooops! that should read” that due to an unfair practice of the Howard govt will receive $2.6 BILLION to maintain the funding” of Catholic and Independent schools ABOVE THEIR ENTITLEMENTS. In otherwords, ‘gifts’ from the hardworking lower paid workers to the already wealthy? Obscene!
“But in their outrage they’re missing a central point — religious people have rights too. And that includes freely practicing their religious faith.”
Oh, that’s fine then. And what if my “faith” requires me to sacrifice first born boys at midnight? Surely I should have that right, and b*gger the boys (probably literally in the case of some religions)? You want a less extreme example? OK, what if my “faith” tells me not to employ black people? Oh no, no, no - that’s prohibited! Of course if my “faith” tells me not to employ gay people - go right ahead!!
Give me a break.
No Michael, we do not “miss a central point”. We REJECT it. Religious people may have a right to “practice their religious faith” but ONLY if that does not infringe my right to live in a civilised, fair, equal and secular society.
He’s trotted out a predictable press release… every slow news January since… 1999.
A position at the IPA is a strong possibility for Hulls after politics then?
Crikey, could articles penned by members of the IPA pleased be labelled as such at the start of the article.
Surely the ‘bigger point’ is that once again this idiotic minority group of homophobic misogynists has flexed its pathetic but unbelievably well supported muscles and tragically once again has got away with it.
Never mind being a taxpayer and be legally forced to prop up this insanity, when you consider the influence on just about every facet of life these loonies have, from sitting on morality and ethics committee’s at ALL our universities to uber-loons like Fielding dictating what gets spent where in trade offs for schools spouting his brand of insidious hatred to bloody five year olds and the its possible to get really angry.
Just BTW, I think I read somewhere recently that children’s sexual orientation is pretty well determined by the time they are 14. If that is the case are these nutbags throwing boys who choose to wear pink or girls with cropped hair out of school or is their parents money as good as the rest of us??
I’ve read, that until 12 weeks gestation, girl and boy foetuses are the same. So when is it decided what your sexual orientation is? Prior to birth? After? I believe that gays and lesbians can no more change their sexual orientation any more than I, a straight woman can. This leaves the all important question, ‘why do some religious ‘groups’ take the stance they do’? And doesn’t the good book have something to say about judging others? I find this just one of the huge contradictions of the CC and others. I find them hateful, bigoted and unchristian! I don’t ‘tolerate’ other people for any of the reasons the churches do, I ACCEPT them for who they are - human beings!
As a woman brought up in the Catholic Church in the 1950’s I’ve seen through it as the misogynist revolting warped group of wealthy sleezy men, dictating to others how miserable they should be, and tell us we should offer it up(as well as their dollars on the ‘plate’)for our alleged sins. If people wish to follow this or any other religion, go for it, but like smokers(who also protest that they have rights) don’t ‘blow your smoke in my face’ while doing it! I suppose the Exlusive Brethren got an exemption too! They terrorise young kids into retracting their assertions of sexual abuse, and defy family court rulings, and get away with it! Nice bunch of religious zealots - all!
I’m with Jossy. I always get to the end of their nonsense articles and think, “Oh, right, IPA.”
Was labor’s conversion to “State Aid” in the 60s the start of the downward slope from horny handed sons (sic!) of toil, the cream of the working class, to the seat shining, time serving scum of the middle class?
Why is not religious indocrination of children considerd to be psycholgical abuse? And, following a recent self serving enquiry into (male) circumcision, why are (EDIT) allowed to mutilate the sons when every, soi-disant, thinking person throws up their hands in horror at female genital mutilation?
Loathe as I am to agree with anything written by an IPA hack, hate is usually highly corrosive of the hater. Not to say it’s any fun for the hated but that just shows how dumb bigots, happoy to cut off own their noses to hurt others.
If religious groups act as private clubs then they must be taxed as private clubs . Local government taxes on property should apply to all church property .
I say allow them the freedom to discriminate, and then suffer the ridicule they deserve from true freedom-lovers… Hmmm but has that approach worked in the past? I fear not… Discriminatory groups such as the church are equipped with powerful propaganda machines, capable of silencing liberty-lovers who draw attention to their discriminatory policies, and swaying politicians. This is a tough one.
“I’d like the tax benefits allowed to religious bodied to be reduced by the proportion coming from gay tax payers.”
And atheists.