G'day Rowland,

here is what I would consider a well thought reply to the proposed Bill by my fellow Presbyter Rev Dr Clarnette. It's not a summary per se, but it's reflective of our position overall on this bill.

Regards Darren Middleton

RACIAL & RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE BILL\ Comment on the proposed Bracks Government, Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill 2000. By Dr Dallas Clarnette, The Presbyterian Church, Benalla, P.O. Box 877, Benalla 3671

My comments will first address some preliminary observations, second, refer to the explanatory material; third, focus on the proposed bill itself, and fourth, present an alternative to a legislative process.

[1] Preliminary Observations 1.1 It must be said at the outset that that there is no place in any healthy society for anyone to engage in abusive, slanderous and vilifying behaviour, for any reason. This is a particularly Christian and Biblical position. And despite what some churches have done at times, there is no Christian or Biblical basis for racism. The first Biblical answer to racism is found in the Ten Commandments. The sixth commandment forbids murder. But Jesus Christ shows that this commandment has implications far deeper than just the act of murder. Jesus says: "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgement". The New Testament shows that anyone is a man's brother in the ethical sense. As racism displays anger and resentment towards another, it is prohibited by the Christian revelation. However the problem for society is how behaviour of this sort may be best prevented without creating a situation worse than the problem being attacked. This bill will not prove to be the answer. It will create more problems than is desirable. In attempting to provide the means where racial and religious intolerance is effectively addressed, it does so in such a way that society would be subjected to a climate of thought control. Legitimate freedom of speech would be its greatest casualty. The penchant of some governments to mandate politically-correct comment is akin to ideological tyranny and wholly obnoxious.

1.2 This type of bill purports to address certain activities, but the focus is not so much on deeds, as thoughts and words. Its aim is patently clear: "thought-control", and thus alien to our democratic way of life.

1.3 Furthermore, this Bill addresses symptoms and not causes. One could hope that the Government could show more creativity, vision and intellectual integrity in seeking to address social conditions. For example, because Australia has always been recognised as a tolerant society, the Government might begin by asking, if Australia is now an intolerant society as this Bill implies, what has brought about the change - and what government policies have caused this? An examination of these things might suggest that it is a matter of priority for government/s to reverse some government policies.

1.4 The Bill raises serious concerns about its philosophical presuppositions. Attempts to eradicate all discrimination and prejudice, while perhaps laudable, are really only idealistic. Man, by nature must discriminate and does so in order to the preservation of certain values. His right to do so is a matter of natural justice. Certainly he should exercise discrimination with discretion and without harm to another. Indeed in a society which claims to be democratic, where the majority share a common set of values, the majority view should prevail. In this instance, it appears that this Bill is designed to serve the interests of minorities. If in addressing, legislatively the interests of a minority, especially a vociferous minority, the values and freedoms of the majority are prejudiced, then the Bill should fail.

Furthermore, this Bill deriving from and expressing non-Christian thinking, has no ethical basis whatsoever upon which to determine the "right thing," the "wrong thing, to define the problem accurately or to come up with an answer. As one writer has said, "Recent non-Christian attempts in the networks and educational institutions to raise the nation's social consciousness about racism are ultimately hollow forms of moral breastbeating, since unbelievers have no legitimate nonarbitrary ethical standard by which to condemn racist prejudice. The non-Christians worldview must logically and horribly embrace racism."

Again, the Bill reveals a confused understanding of wrong. The Bible distinguishes between sins and crimes. Crimes are a subset of sins. It has never been the custom for civil authorities to punish sins which are not crimes. For example, it has not been customary for the state to punish someone for sexually desiring another who is not his or her spouse. This is sinful behaviour; it is not criminal. It is also sinful to hate another but it is not a crime to do so. This Bill shows how the state wishes to blur the line between sins and crimes. It is a sign of confusion; it is happening because the more the absolute principles of law and order established by the Christian revelation are ignored and rejected, the more "right" is determined by those who have either power or numbers or both. This is no basis upon which to erect social relations.

1.5 This Bill is a species of government inspired thought-control and is a reprehensible policy for any government to pursue. It appears to be prejudicial to the liberties of people and especially freedom of speech. It would be better for the government to appeal to the better instincts of people in various ways, than resort to this approach.

1.6 Indeed it could be argued that a sign of a healthy society is its ability to (a) handle unpleasant situations in life; and (b) to be personally responsible not to engage in any behaviour prejudicial to the dignity of others. After all, a society operates best when its citizens recognise their own responsibility to be more important than asserting their rights.

1.7 There is no need for this legislation. The Model Bill recognises that existing criminal law provides for people seeking redress when they feel aggrieved. If this is so, why the need for a specific bill touching this one issue? And if this is so, does the Government intend to introduce legislation covering other situations not provided for except through criminal law process? If not, why in this instance?

[2] The Explanatory Document: 1st, While the Glossary is helpful at times, it also begs some questions. The "reasonable observer test" is anything but reasonable. It does not and cannot guarantee an objective test at all, being vested in an individual. That makes it highly probable that the outcome would be decided on the basis of a person's subjective presuppositions and prejudices. This is where a jury would be better placed to adjudicate any proceedings. Whatever the outcome of any tribunal, anyone could call in question the reasonableness of the observer or observer involved in the proceedings. Juries represent more justly a definite degree of objectivity.

2nd, some gross generalisations mar this document. To start with we read that "serious harm is inflicted on people by racial and religious vilification. One must ask, What is "serious harm?" How is it quantified? And by whom? Please, where is the proof of "serious harm" occurring? And what sort of harm is referred to? That there are instances of gross injustice should not be denied. Such are inevitable in the best of societies. But is this to be quantified in terms called "endemic?"

3rd, the Bill alleges claims made by Jewish, Arabic, and Muslim interests alleging experiences of some form of vilification. What is curious is the absence of any reference to the vilification of Christianity in this country? Is this intentional? Does this silence imply that Christians and Christianity are not already being vilified? Has the government not investigated this aspect? If not, why not? Is the government not interested in preserving and protecting our national heritage and Australia's only legal religion, Christianity? This Bill purports to address Racial and Religious intolerance but has not apparently taken the trouble to discover the extent of religious intolerance displayed towards Christians. Why is this?

I believe evidence exists to prove the vilification of Christians to be worse than any one other single people. Consider for example how TV often lampoons the church and Christian faith; how homosexuals have heaped abuse on catholic clergy and nuns; how the press is for ever expressing prejudicial attitudes towards Christianity, and not always by what is said, but by what is not allowed to be reported.

4th, that intention should be regarded as irrelevant in determining a case is unacceptable. Intention is important in determining a degree of culpability. Not to take this into consideration is a serious departure from long standing legal procedure.

5th., the reference to "changing community standards" is another cause for concern. Such a principle can never be the frame of reference by which social relations are determined, simply because they are always changing. Australian society has been based on the only logical frame of reference - the transcendent law of God. This has given stability to our society; it is that which is more responsible than anything else for the tolerant ethos for which Australia is known around the world. To posit the idea that the tried and tested ethical system handed down to us from earlier generations should be discarded is quite dangerous. This is ethics according to the ballot box. It assumes that man is the master of his own destiny. Worse still it rests on a completely relativistic basis which can change at any time. However, Australian law is predicated on the basis of presuppositions that posit the existence of God-given principles for a sane and healthy society. It is arguable that the further Victoria moves away from its foundational Christian basis, the faster will be its descent into ethical confusion.

One must question the reasons for bringing this proposal forward. Is it because of the multiplicity of faiths, ethnic origins and language groups? Such a situation, of course has been created, quite irresponsibly, by governments who have never obtained the consent of Australians for the trend toward multiculturalism. Inevitably a multi-cultural society jeopardises the homogeneity and harmony of a community, especially when it has enjoyed a high degree of social felicity for so long. This is not to oppose multi-racism. Australia has always been multi-racial; multi-culturalism is quite another thing. It is the blending of mutually exclusive religions, cultures, which when brought together have the potential for serious conflict. Witness Fiji, Indonesia, the United Kingdom. For this reason Malaysia and other countries have a tight immigration policy. One must therefore ask, Are Australian politicians really interested in social harmony here?

It is arguable that the causes of any alleged intolerance lies largely with the governments which have pursued multi-cultural policies without the people 's consent. It is up to government to address those factors without resorting to further infringements on the liberties of all Australians.

[3] The Draft Proposals Part 2, Prohibited Conduct 1. Exemptions listed are quite inadequate. As such it is an attack on freedom of speech, especially in educational and religious institutions, church worship and preaching and study groups, camps, summer schools and other places.

2. The exemptions are totally unacceptable, in that the door is left wide open for great offense to be caused to religious interests. For example, the display some time ago of a so-called "artistic" work called Piss Christ, would be protected under the Bill's exemption. So too, the performance of the play Corpus Christi which is both disgusting, factually wrong and blasphemous.

3. Where this Bill touches questions of religion it infringes s. 116 of the Australian Constitution, which states that nothing can be done to "prohibit the free exercise of any religion". This Bill could very well be used to prohibit the free exercise of religion and would therefore be in breach of the Constitution.

[4] The better way. This Bill is the product of an increasingly irreligious worldview. But when men do not believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; rather they believe in anything. If such an attitude is at all focussed it becomes a belief in man - man and his ability to correct the ills of society. Yet society continues to reveal deteriorating standards and attitudes in every department of life.

It used not to be this way. But then, once, religion enjoyed more respect and support. Our schools were places where religious instruction was actively encouraged by the government and where as a result, hope and purpose were inculcated in children. It is time, that Governments paid close attention to the good to be achieved by the official encouragement of religion. This is not to say that the government should establish any one church as the official church. It is to say that the government should discourage peoples and groups, especially in the media for denigrating Christianity - I specify this, for the media does not attack Islam, Buddhism or other religions, only Christianity - from casting aspersions on religion in genera and Christianity in particular. It could also mandate that schools study as a matter of course, the contents of the Bible, as has been required of schools in Brazil

If we believe that a society operates best with hope and faith, then the government should seek to facilitate a revival of a sense of purpose and hope in the hearts of our young.

And if the government is interested also in the economic prosperity of the state, then it should so also. Those who are possessed of faith, hope and love are always the best assets any state can boast of.