Discriminatory ‘sword’ may spill Coalition blood

When it comes to Morrison’s religious discrimination bill, key details keep being conveniently omitted.

Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews. Picture: NCA Newswire/Gary Ramage

“No one should be discriminated against because of the beliefs and the thoughts they hold because of religious matters or other matters.” This was Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews this week, talking about the religious discrimination bill and making a statement that pretty much no one in the country could disagree with.

Australians are an accepting lot. The vast majority will stand up for the rights of people to practise their religion, free from discrimination, harassment or other disadvantage. No one sensible wants to see anyone attacked for their faith, and for this reason the idea of special legislation to protect people of faith enjoys wide support.

The problem is, of course, that unfortunately things are not that simple, and the minister’s statement above does not accurately describe the government’s intentions. When it comes to the religious discrimination bill, key details keep being conveniently omitted, glossed over or talked about using tricky language.

With its draft law, the Morrison government didn’t just design a shield for people of faith to use as protection from attack, they also designed a sword with which to ­attack others, and sought to remove the shield of legal protection that those others currently hold under state laws.

The government wrapped the shield, the sword and the dismantling of protections all together in one package and presented that up to the parliament. Only the most deluded magical thinker could believe this would end well.

The sword I refer to is the “statement of belief” clause in the bill. This was included, if you believe the government’s argument, simply because a person who holds a religious belief should be able to make statements about that belief.

Again, this proposition is impossible for any reasonable person to oppose. Of course people of faith should be able to make statements about their beliefs. But, again, things are not that simple.

If accuracy is important, then the question we have to consider is this: should Australians with religious beliefs be granted individual and special legal exemption above all other Australians to make discriminatory statements about others – statements that are ordinarily outlawed and have been for some time?

With its draft law, the Morrison government didn’t just design a shield for people of faith to use as protection from attack, they also designed a sword with which to ­attack others. Picture: NCA NewsWire / David Crosling

To think of it another way, let us consider the question in reverse. Should someone who enjoys legal protection from discrimination have that legal protection evaporate if the person who is making the statement claims they are religious?

It is around this conundrum that the vast majority of the community parts ways with key sections of the religious lobby and the government. Indeed, the government itself has split on this issue.

Australians will stand up for the rights of people of faith to have their shield, but they will not stand up for the rights of people of faith to have their sword and use it with impunity.

People of faith want to be protected from discrimination and that is a reasonable expectation. However, according to some religious groups – not many – the people of faith they represent want protection from discrimination for themselves, along with the special right to discriminate against others. Further, they perceive not being allowed to discriminate against others as discrimination against themselves.

They want a shield and a sword, and if they are not allowed to use the sword they see this as persecution on religious grounds.

There is no logic to this argument and no reason to this position. There is no convincing either. Nevertheless, the government entertained the demands and tried to express them within legislation. In doing so, it has put itself into a bind and the full ramifications are yet to be seen.

The religious discrimination issue could turn out to be the Morrison government’s Work Choices moment. A few unwise words in an otherwise good document could cause long-term reputational damage. History shows that Australians will not tolerate a winding back of protections and a loss of conditions.

Whatever happens going forward, the impression the wider community has been given about the government and what it has been trying to do is negative.

There is draft legislation and then there is the perception of the draft legislation. Both the document and the debate this week should be considered in the context of the perception that the ­Coalition is generally intolerant of the rainbow community.

To further complicate matters, the Morrison government agreed to alter the Sex Discrimination Act to smooth the passage of its bill. Bizarre public debates followed over who could be expelled from religious schools, further muddying the waters.

No doubt the past week has been a confronting and harmful time for those affected. It must feel awful to have your place in the world argued over in the public space. Most Australians, including people of faith, do not want ­anyone – and especially children – to feel unwanted, unwelcome, discriminated against or harassed in any way.