It is never too late to touch the heart of another, nor is it ever in vain
Pope Benedict XVI
"I have come that they may have life and have it to the full"
John 10:10
| Submissions and Letters | |
2009
2008
2007
2006
********************************************* SUBMISSION TO THE AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ON DISCUSSION PAPER “FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF IN THE 21ST CENTURY IN AUSTRALIA” Catholic Women’s League Australia Inc. is a hands-on grass roots organisations with 7,000 members located over 600 branches with diocesan, regional, state and national structures collating the work of branches. The CWLA Objects state that the League is “to advance the cause of women, spiritually and educationally, and to provide leadership in civic and cultural arenas”. A National Secretariat was established in Canberra in 1998 to facilitate networking with member organisations, government and other groups. CWLA is a non-party political Non-Government Organisation in consultative (Roster) status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations; it is a member of the World Union of Catholic Women’s Organisations (an umbrella organisation of 90 plus groups with a mega network of more than 30 million women). As a member organisation of The World’s Union of Catholic Women’s Organisations (WUCWO) CWLA has NGO status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations with representation at Signed by Mrs. Betty Roberts OAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The world celebrated the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December 2008. The Universal Declaration recognises that ‘all humans are born free and equal in dignity and endowed with inalienable rights to freedom justice and peace’. It states that ‘the human family is endowed with reason and conscience and are expected to act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood’. The aim of ‘Freedom of Belief in the 21st Century in Australia’ seems to be to deconstruct the above statement in the belief that no text has a determinate reading and that the reader actively produces his or her own meaning from ‘free play’ within the text – CWLA does not subscribe to this belief and is well pleased with the clarity and meaning of Article 18. In 1998 the Commonwealth of Australia’s Equal Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission received submissions detailing experiences of discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion and belief and responded by proposing a Religious Freedom Act that would make discrimination on the ground of religion and belief unlawful. A few submissions argued that Australian law unnecessarily infringes the rights of people to manifest beliefs relating to polygamy and marriageable age. The Equal Opportunities Commission concluded that human rights law does not provide a clear direction for dealing with these alleged infringements and made no recommendation for change to existing law. CWLA members accept that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on the dignity and worth of the human person. These same human rights remain universal in the face of the global dimension that characterizes modern times and do not require updating. The Cardinal said the church views the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as “able to synthesize the meaning of human liberty by reconciling present-day needs with immutable principles, capable of offering guidelines founded anthropologically and juridically in response to the most profound human needs”. To respect rights they must be linked to the natural, so as to avoid that degradation that in so many of our societies is interested in questioning the ethics of life and procreation, of marriage and family life, as well as education and the formation of the young, introducing instead only an individualistic vision on which to arbitrarily construct new rights that are imprecise in content and juridical logic. For instance the fact that some families fail should not lead us to the conclusion that the family as an institution is merely optional. As Pope Benedict XV1 said on the 17th January 2009 “the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman is a vital cell of society. Because of its essential role marriage has the right to have its proper identity recognized, that is not to be confused with other forms of coexistence.” The Australian Constitution Article 116 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights amply protect our religious rights and make this enquiry unnecessary. CWLA believe that AHRC’s inquiry into freedom of religion and belief in the 21st. Century poses a very real threat to freedom of speech and religious practice as has happened in the UK. Of concern is the number of questions in the discussion paper that demonstrate bias against Christian belief. The AHRC seems to be pushing its own agenda for new federal laws dealing with religion rather than ‘igniting a deep discussion about the current state of freedom of religion and belief in Australia’ as claimed by Tom Calma, Race Discrimination Commissioner. Census figures indicate that approximately 70% of residents in Australia profess some religious belief, with a majority of those espousing Christianity in line with our Judeo Christian heritage. The tenor of this enquiry suggests a curtailment of religious freedom. It is perilous to replace belief in a deity with any brand of secular humanism. Q.1 Evaluation of the 1998 HREOC Report on Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief. CWLA is not concerned with evaluating the HREOC Report. Our concern is that the Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century discussion paper sets an agenda designed to compromise our freedoms. We are eager to share our concerns about this agenda and the possible reasons for it. INTRODUCING CWLA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE ENQUIRY Catholics are presently able to practice their faith without interference; however, practices are growing within the community that conflict with our beliefs, and to have our Christian beliefs as to the procreative act and the value of ‘human life’ referred to as “pushing those beliefs on the rest of society” is insulting and an infringement of our right to free speech. The new president of AHRC, the Hon. Catherine Branson QC, former Federal Court Judge, spoke of her experiences with asylum-seekers and of recent NSW laws pertaining to World Youth Day in Sydney. She criticised these laws as providing power to “control the behaviour of people who might annoy the Pope and other Catholics who were in Sydney”. Ms Branson said “the regulation clearly impinged on the rights of people wanting to express their views about the attitude of the Catholic Church to sex before marriage, contraception, abortion and gay and lesbian relationships”. Whereas we see isolating Pope Benedict XV1 and the immense crowds that descended on Sydney for WYD from harassment and abuse as normal procedure for the visit of a head of State. These criticisms from those whom we might expect to exercise impartiality fly in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights statement that ‘all humans are born free and equal in dignity and endowed with inalienable rights to freedom justice and peace also, the human family is endowed with reason and conscience and are expected to act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood’. We believe this pretty well establishes our right to belief and religious practice. The only injustice we perceive is ‘open season’ on Christians and ‘mind what you say’ about Muslims. Q.2 Religion and the State – the constitution, roles and responsibilities CWLA finds our freedoms adequately protected in Section 116 of the Constitution and can see no reason for this amendment. Religious belief is a matter of personal choice and individuals should be free to engage at times in heated discussion about their beliefs. According to Professor Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney, “the freedom to express views about truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil, which may offend others who have a different view on these matters is at issue”. Free speech, open dialogue and comparative analysis need to be maintained. We do not want a situation to develop here that mimics the recent incident in England where nurse Caroline Petrie was subjected to disciplinary action and suspended without pay for asking a patient whether she would like to be prayed for, even though the patient did not complain. Mrs. Petrie was summoned to a disciplinary hearing on the basis that she had failed to demonstrate a ‘personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity” by offering her prayers. North Somerset Primary Care Trust issued a statement on the 6th February saying that it recognized Mrs. Petrie had been acting in the “best interests of her patients”. That nurses did not have to “set aside their faith” in the workplace and could continue to offer high quality care for patients while remaining committed to their beliefs”. Mrs Petrie has been reinstated. The English Government is planning to tighten up rules on how far religious believers can go in communicating their faith when working in the public sector, or in receipt of public funds for charities. Sir Patrick Cormack, the Tory MP for South Staffordshire, a committed Anglican, told Parliament that the case illustrated the “utter absurdities” of political correctness – furthermore it is unacceptable because it curtails our freedom. Nor do we want children adopted by homosexuals. British grandparents aged 46 and 59, wanting to adopt their own grandchildren were ruled too old to adopt and the children were then offered for adoption by two homosexual men. For 2 years the grandparents fought for their right to care for the children, a 4 year old girl and her 5 year old brother, whose mother is a recovering heroin addict. The grandparents reluctantly agreed to the children being adopted by another couple, on the basis that they would be brought up by a loving mother and father. Several heterosexual couples were available to adopt the children, but the authorities handed them over to two homosexual men. When the devastated grandparents objected they were threatened that unless they dropped their opposition they would never see their grandchildren again on account of their negative attitude towards homosexual adoption. This is a clear example of an individual acting for the State using their belief and power to discriminate against the family. It is patently unjust and unacceptable for the state to act in this way. We believe that nobody should be discriminated against simply on the grounds of his or her sexuality. That does not mean however that homosexual life styles must be regarded as of equal value to heterosexual households when it comes to the raising of children who need a mother and father. Tolerance has grown into intolerance; and upholding human rights has turned into an onslaught upon human rights. These hapless Scottish grandparents are the latest victims of a dogma that represents an attack on justice, humanity and commonsense and we pray this doesn’t happen here. The NSW Labor Government is holding an enquiry with the aim of proposing homosexual adoption be forced on our children. It takes a mother and a father to create a child and it takes a mother and a father to raise a child. Nature daily demonstrates this fact. Attempts by the gender feminists and the new androgynists to suggest that gender is simply a social construct, and that gender is essentially malleable and fluid, is a deconstruction of reality not founded on fact. It is the biological birthright of a child to be brought up by a mother and a father. We would have homosexual adoption rejected on the grounds that we cannot have 1.6% of the population demanding their rights over a child’s birthright. The foundation stone of all government policy must be based on the recognition of male and female, their complementarity and the celebration of their differences. Q.3 Religion and the State – Practice and expression It seems to us that the government is undermining faith based essential services when it obliges these services to accept abortion, sterilisation and the use of embryonic stem cells derived from fertilised ova that are sometimes harvested from aborted baby girls. The Humanist Society of Victoria has developed a curriculum designed to deliver 30-minute lessons each week of ‘human applied ethics” to primary school students that the State government accreditation body says it intends to approve. Stephen Stuart, President of the Humanist society said “Atheistic parents will be pleased to hear that humanistic courses of ethics will soon be available in some state schools”. Our comment is that humanism may be a belief but it is not a faith based religion like Christianity, Judaism and Islam and therefore should not be taught in religious education time. If we accredit humanism then beliefs such as Witchcraft or Satanism would have an equal claim to be taught in schools. Q.4 Security issues in the aftermath of September 11 We see no necessity to further refine our freedoms because of the occasional aberration. Cults that brought about the Jonestown massacre, the killing of children in schools and the lighting of bushfires here in Australia cannot be attributed to religious beliefs and practices and can only be addressed by the rule of law. We do not believe there is a danger of religious radicalism in Australia. Q.5 The interface of religious, Political and cultural aspirations It is simply ludicrous for our human rights watchdog to question the right of religious leaders and religious institutions to form part of the administration and fabric of social services. ‘Inclusivity’ that constrains religious leaders and community involvement of religious bodies is highly suspect. There are no threats to our liberty or other violations of the clear intent of section 116 of the Constitution, why then does this document hint at restraining and limiting our religious freedom? If HREOC believe that this enquiry will lend meaning to a proposed Charter of Human Rights then they are wrong. It is clearly an attempt to replace human rights with a dishonest and shallow secular humanism. Q.6 Technology and its implications CWLA is concerned about modern technology that has the capacity to create human life in a test tube, place the fertilized ova in the womb of a surrogate and then return the child to the donor of either sperm or ova or to a totally unconnected male or female person/couple. We, along with other believers in the sanctity of life, view the casual attitude to human life with abhorrence. We fear that the health costs of an aging population may extend to a growing acceptance of Euthanasia as a cost saving exercise. We also have concerns about embryonic stem cells derived from life created in a laboratory. Embryonic stem cells have demonstrated no success and their creation involves the destruction of individual human beings. Organ donation is becoming popular and yet it is impossible to establish precisely when death occurs. We are now being asked to ‘opt out’ of organ donation and told that unless we do so our organs may be harvested. This is unacceptable as those who don’t know of this development and families that abhor it will have their loved ones harvested. We find pornography on the net unacceptable because it is a degradation of human sexual relations and destructive of a human society. Q.7 Religion cultural expression and human rights CWLA does not subscribe to the need for a Charter of Rights because we believe that our right to belief in God, the freedom to express this belief and act upon its values is already adequately protected in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice worship and observance’. IN CONCUSION Article 116 of The Australian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights amply protect our religious rights. CWLA believe that AHRC’s inquiry into freedom of religion and belief in the 21st. Century poses a very real threat to freedom of speech and religious practice as has happened in the UK. Of concern is the number of questions in the discussion paper that demonstrate bias against Christian belief and threaten freedom of speech. The AHRC seems to be pushing its own agenda for new federal laws dealing with religion rather than ‘igniting a deep discussion about the current state of freedom of religion and belief in Australia’ as Tom Calma, Race Discrimination Commissioner, claims. If the Race Discrimination Unit: Education and Partnership Section Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, act in accord with section 116 of the Australian Constitution, they will discover that no enquiry is necessary. It is perilous to replace belief in a deity with any brand of secular humanism.
|