Protecting privilege: Morrison鈥檚 religious freedoms crusade

July 21, 2019
Issue 
Pentecostal PM Scott Morrison is the poster boy of the religious privilege crusade.

It is hard to conceive that in 2019 a reactionary minority within government are legislating for religious protection laws that strengthen the rights of religious institutions to discriminate against members of the community based on sexuality.

The Scott Morrison Coalition government鈥檚 proposed legislation would not only prevent discrimination against those of faith, but would also solidify 鈥 and perhaps broaden 鈥 exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that religious institutions are already afforded.

Although the debate is framed around 鈥渞eligious freedoms鈥, it is all about the nation鈥檚 largest religion: Christianity. Those directing the debate adhere to that faith. Other religions do not really rate a mention. And its quintessential example is rugby player Israel Folau publicly condemning homosexuals.

Pentecostal Prime Minister Morrison is the poster boy of the religious privilege crusade. Back when he was treasurer, he announced that it was a priority of his to change religious protection laws. This was straight after the passing of the marriage equality bill.

Make no mistake: the campaign for greater religious protections is all about same-sex marriage. Powerful conservatives are conducting this assault on LGBTIQ communities, as they felt threatened when the nation voted to uphold the human right of marriage for all.

Majority will

co-convener Cat Rose said religious discrimination has lately 鈥渁sserted itself as the new frontier in an ongoing homophobic culture war鈥. She stressed it should be remembered that the PM was 鈥渁 key figure in the No campaign鈥.

Following the return of the Yes vote, Morrison was one of the main politicians to be made to the marriage equality legislation. When it came time to vote on the bill, he left the parliamentary chamber.

鈥淭he Liberals in general felt like the postal vote would legitimise a homophobic definition of marriage, even if it was a minority one,鈥 Rose said. 鈥淏ut with millions of people mobilising for the Yes vote, and a win that was so decisive, it ended as a huge blow against them.鈥

CAAH is organising a protest at Sydney's Taylor Square to remind those in power that the overwhelming majority of the public 鈥 including a significant number of Christians 鈥 voted in favour of LGBTIQ rights at the time of the national postal survey. And this was no aberration.

Rose put it to that the conservative politicians attempting the 鈥渞ight-wing push back鈥 should 鈥渆xpect resistance鈥 to their agenda. 鈥淲e have fought hard for equality and we will not go down easily,鈥 she made clear.

Pesky anti-discrimination laws

The religious freedoms debate emerged as the prospect of same-sex marriage drew nearer. Indeed, then-PM Malcolm Turnbull the establishment of a religious freedoms review just a week after the Yes vote.

Turnbull selected former attorney general Philip Ruddock 鈥 the 2004 amendments to the Marriage Act 1961聽that ensured same-sex marriage was outlawed 鈥 to head up the review on 鈥渨hether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion鈥.

The Ruddock review was not the first religious freedoms inquiry sparked by marriage equality. During the same month the postal vote result was announced, a parliamentary inquiry into religious freedoms established 12 months prior tabled.

The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade found that Australian religious freedom protections are limited and that a major issue is state anti-discrimination laws, 鈥渨hich do not allow for lawful differentiation of treatment by religious individuals and organisations鈥.

鈥淲hile religious exemptions within non-discrimination laws provide some protection,鈥 the report states, 鈥渢hese place religious freedom in a vulnerable position with respect to the right to non-discrimination.鈥

The right to discriminate

Religious exemption laws allow for religious institutions to disregard certain anti-discrimination laws. These exemptions exist, as well as at the federal level, where they are contained within sex and age discrimination legislation and industrial relations laws.

For example,聽聽of the federal聽Sex Discrimination Act 1984聽allows religious educational institutions to discriminate against employees and students based on 鈥渟ex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy鈥.

The Ruddock review recommended that these provisions specifically be reassessed, not with the aim of removing them, but so that the fact that 鈥渢he discrimination is founded in the precepts of the religion鈥 is made clearer and institutions make their policy on this matter publicly available.

Another made by the Ruddock review was that a Religious Discrimination Act be established that makes it 鈥渦nlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person鈥檚 鈥榬eligious belief or activity鈥欌, which is exactly what the Morrison government is up to at present.

The all-Anglo Australian review panel further suggested that while drafting the act, 鈥渃onsideration be given to providing for appropriate exceptions and exemptions, including for religious bodies, religious schools and charities鈥.

Rose said 鈥渢his bill is clearly designed as a backlash against the marriage equality campaign by Morrison and those who want to embark on culture wars鈥, adding it relies on the false premise of a 鈥渟ilent homophobic majority鈥 that the major parties propagate to push their agendas.

As part of its continuing post-election lurch to the right, federal Labor has stated its with the Coalition on religious discrimination laws, seemingly not due to any need for them, but in a scramble to secure the religious vote it has surmised it lost at the election.

But, as far as Rose is concerned, 鈥淟abor are looking for a cheap excuse as to why they lost the election.鈥 She said the success of the Yes campaign has only strengthened popular support for LGBTIQ rights and about 80% of the population want existing religious exemptions revoked.

鈥淚n this context, Labor鈥檚 support of the bill is just appalling,鈥 Rose concluded.

[A will be on August 3, 1pm, at Talyor Square, Sydney and on August 31, 1pm, at State Library, Melbourne. is a Sydney-based journalist and writer for .]

You need 麻豆传媒, and we need you!

麻豆传媒 is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.