Little noted in the general hilarity that greeted Senator Sprog Paterson’s now abandoned religious freedom bill — nothing says belief in rule of law like presenting an unconstitutional bill to parliament — is that it was another example of the IPA trying to strengthen rather than weaken the claim of 18C/D/E and similar laws to legitimacy. This is a direct result of Paterson et al’s cowardice over these matters.
How does the absurd spectacle of a libertarian presenting a bill to micro-regulate social behaviour come about? Because we have strong anti-discrimination laws embedded in our legal and social fabric, and Paterson’s bill suspends their operation in certain cases.
The obvious, simpler and consistently liberal/libertarian thing to do would be to campaign for the removal of discrimination laws altogether, and affirm the right of property owner to refuse entry or service to whomever they wish.
But, of course, that would open the floodgates of racism and refused service by shops etc, and be abhorrent to Australians, and reveal the inconvenient fact that Australians are social liberals, who support state intervention in public life. So instead a law that seeks to adjudicate on every conceivable situation on offence to belief is proposed — a law which is formally similar to 18C’s notion of material offence and insult.
So, under Paterson’s bill, a bakery seeking protection from a discrimination lawsuit would have to argue that a same-sex couple’s requests crossed a threshold — wording on a cake, involvement in the service, etc — that triggered religious protection. The protection doesn’t trigger, as far as I can tell, if someone comes in and buys 12 quiches for something the baker suspects might be a same-sex wedding.
Thus, Paterson’s bill would invoke the spirit of 18C, and the same sort of tribunal process — judicial rulings on the meaning of social behaviour (usually, but not always, words) by interpreting the behaviour in question. I can’t see how that is not a capitulation by the IPA to the 18C principle.
Straya, where the libertarians fight statism with yet more statism. Solid work, Sprog.
27 thoughts on “Paterson’s ‘religious freedom’ bill was typical IPA twaddle”
Saugoof
November 17, 2017 at 1:25 pmWhy do those freedom warriors always fight for the right to discriminate and punch down rather than for the right to not be discriminated against?
Mr Denmore
November 17, 2017 at 1:43 pmBecause they’re not liberals but fascist authoritarians
rhwombat
November 17, 2017 at 1:49 pmIf the animated toilet brush that is Paterson were not extant, it would be necessary to invent him.
Peter Rosier
November 17, 2017 at 2:00 pmI say that if we are going to protect religious freedoms and rights – not such a bad thing in itself – why the hell don’t we protect all rights – with a Bill of Rights. I can see Herr Paterson voting for that, can’t you?
mikeb
November 17, 2017 at 2:29 pmWhy do these people always look like they were expelled from the “Hitlerjugend” for being too radical?
zut alors
November 17, 2017 at 2:56 pmComment of the day, Mikeb.
Venise Alstergren
November 18, 2017 at 11:49 amThat’s a bit brilliant Mikeb. I would hate to meet James Paterson in person lest he be singing “Tomorrow Belongs to me.”
AR
November 17, 2017 at 3:33 pmUnlike the unlovable Senator Leyenholm, who claims to be an ad reductio libertarian, the IPA whelps (Freedom Boy Tim, Chrissie Berg et al) have no working concept of rationality when it comes to the IPA aims – they just mouth the lines.
No brain, no shame.
Karen
November 17, 2017 at 3:53 pmThis arian Paterson guy looks like he’s straight out of the Hitler Youth. Where’s his brown shirt?
Venise Alstergren
November 18, 2017 at 11:57 amAnd why is he sulking?
Charlie Chaplin
November 17, 2017 at 4:19 pmWill the ROC send the AFP to the IPA to investigate its donors, please? Will the AEC investigate its partisan bias? Can we have a Royal Commission into its charitable status, please, because I’m fed up with financing it?
Zarathrusta
November 19, 2017 at 10:55 pmYes, if these people want freedom from the state, they should first have freedom from the state’s money.
Steve777
November 17, 2017 at 5:35 pmI found it a bit puzzling that an IPA type like Paterson would be so keen on cumbersome legislation to allow businesses to discriminate. Basically, the IPA, its members and supporters, don’t want to pay tax and don’t want to be regulated.
The ‘regulation’ bit is the key. I would expect that they believe that matters like discrimination would be a matter for the individuals concerned and that they would have no opinion on same sex marriage. Indeed, for some, it would provide business opportunities.
However, many business people would like to be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason or none, or at least not be regulated in the matter. They want to get rid of anti-discrimination legislation. This was probably an attempt to get a start on rolling it back.
Dion Giles
November 17, 2017 at 7:13 pmIf Parliament is to go on after this to debate religious freedom, let it turn its attention to the squandering of taxpayers’ money – in what is supposed to be a secular democracy – on a range of privileges for religion starting with religious prayers in the Houses of Parliament and dwelling on the subsidising of schools for religious indoctrination (a form of child abuse), chaplaincy programmes, and the inclusion of church authorities in national and State decision-making. Let the pollies focus on the fact that religious freedom means freedom FROM religion.
Peter Wileman
November 17, 2017 at 7:31 pmIt’s amazing that a large number of rather odd people voted this clown into a position of life long entitlement. But then again, we also have Abbott.
brian crooks
November 18, 2017 at 2:04 pmremember,most of germany loved hitler ( for a while)
mikeb
November 20, 2017 at 9:01 amTrue. My mother thought he was great because he gave them some money (something like a kids bank account with a token amount in it). Of course they were only peasants & had no idea what was going on in the real world.