
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”
Tracey Ellery
November 17, 2017 at 9:21 pmGuy
Too funny, but patently obvious to even them I suspect.
I just don’t know how they do it with s straight face, because I just had a much needed therapeutic laugh.
Duncan Gilbey
November 17, 2017 at 9:25 pmAccording to Wilipedia, Paterson “worked as a special adviser for Senator Mitch Fifield…as an intern for U.S. congressman Lincoln Díaz-Balart….as a writer for the Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI)… as editor of the IPA Review … director of communications and development … and deputy executive director” (the last 2 positions both in the IPA).
What else could be expect but a ‘religious freedom bill’ from someone with such a resume of bullshit?
Draco Houston
November 17, 2017 at 9:52 pmI hadn’t considered this angle. I thought it was damn weird that they thought people could carve an outside to capitalism based on faith and belief, lol. I think the best part was Kevin Andrews saying that to let this happen they need to allow Muslim discrimination against Jewish customers. It was like the bloke just tumbled down a slippery slope before our eyes.
klewso
November 18, 2017 at 3:05 am“Rango”?
brian crooks
November 18, 2017 at 2:02 pmput a square helmet and jackboots on paterson and you could give him the lead role in any movie on 1930`s germany, he looks and sounds like he`s just wating for the fuhrers orders on the polish border aka sept 1939, wonder if his ancestors were in the same panzer division as abetz and cormann`s were, seig heil.
PaulM
November 18, 2017 at 4:46 pmUnlikely, seeing that Cormann’s family were Belgian.
Dion Giles
November 20, 2017 at 12:42 pmThat wouldn’t stop them.
Tracey Ellery
November 18, 2017 at 2:22 pmI intensily dislike Patterson’s opinions, but do we really need to rely on attacking him for his looks? Surely we can, and should do better than that.
What’s next, too big a nose, too effeminate, not feminine enough, too fat, too skinny, too Asian, too white etc etc.
Sent from my iPhone
PDGFD1
November 19, 2017 at 11:50 amHmm… a bill that apparently the ACL drafted for him.
Strange bedfellows – very strange.
Standby for more of this kind of ‘coalition’ given Matteo Canavanale (*) appeared at the ACL National Conference this weekend – and claimed on ABC news Friday night that he’s going to make sure christians aren’t a “persecuted minority” (the irony is clearly wasted on him and his ‘audience’)
(*) Corgi What’s-his-name as well – but given he’s been the poster boy for the ACL for a while now, no surprise there.
kmart
November 20, 2017 at 1:12 pmChristians – simultaneously a persecuted minority, and the silent majority. A bit of Escherian logic.