National Human Rights Consultation Submission 

AGWW-7NPRAN 

Name: Geoff Doust 

Submission Text: 

Submission to Enquiry on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the
 
21st Century
 

 
Freedom of Association
 

 
Australians have always enjoyed the freedom to associate with whomever they
 
desire, and to exclude from their associations anyone who was inappropriate
 
to that association. To remove this freedom of choice on the basis of
 
discrimination or equality is to remove rights that have been fundamental
 
to the exceptional peace and harmony enjoyed by the Australian community.
 
I am strongly opposed to any law that removes the right of a person or
 
group of people to choose whom they wish to associate with – whether that
 
choice be made on the basis of gender, age, or religious belief or any
 
other criterion. People are (or should be) all equal before the law – but
 
we are not all the same. For example, it would be inappropriate for a
 
doctor of medicine to seek membership of a society of engineers. No-one
 
doubts the intellectual ability of the doctor, but he/she is not an
 
engineer! Similarly, it would be inappropriate for a man to seek
 
membership of the Mother’s Union. He may have the best interests of the
 
organisation at heart, but he is not a mother!
 

 
Freedom of Expression
 

 
Australia has enjoyed an enviable record of freedom of religious expression
 
and religious harmony. Our laws have allowed for the free pursuit of,
 
discussion of, and comment upon religious beliefs and practises of any
 
Australian citizen. However, the Victorian Racial and Religious
 
Vilification Act removed some of these freedoms - resulting in
 
unprecedented UNJUST persecution of two members of a religious group.
 
Although the accusations made against these two men were eventually
 
dismissed, they were subjected to intense emotional and financial distress
 
which could not have occurred without this law designed to protect
 
religious expression. This Act has proved that laws designed to protect
 
certain people groups from persecution and discrimination can be used just
 
for that exact purpose against others. I am strongly opposed to any law
 
that removes the right of a person or group of people to speak what they
 
believe – both publicly and in private conversation – without fear of being
 
prosecuted for their convictions.
 

 
National Human Rights Legislation
 

 
There was no need to enact legislation in Australia to align with UN
 
Treaties which were designed to provide freedom for citizens in those
 
countries where flagrant violations of human rights were (and still are)
 
occurring. Under Australian law prior to our ratification of all these UN
 
Treaties, we enjoyed ALL the freedoms that the treaties were drafted to
 
provide people with! Every Australian citizen had freedom to do and say
 
whatever he/she chose unless it caused harm to another citizen/group. If
 
any person/group was aggrieved by the statements/activities of another,
 
they could take their grievance to the justice system for a decision.
 
National Human Rights Legislation seeks to spell out what areas or grounds
 
for grievance (i.e. rights) are important or valid to the exclusion of
 
others. In fact these laws do exactly what they are supposed to curb –
 
they discriminate! A good example of the abuse of such laws/rights has
 
been provided above under “Freedom of Expression” item.
 
Such legislation is superfluous, and can be counterproductive and for these
 
reasons I am strongly opposed to it. 

Page 1 of 2 


Religion
 

 
Australians have always been free to practise their religious convictions
 
without fear of opposition or persecution. This freedom includes being
 
able to choose their employees and associates on the basis of shared
 
beliefs. This freedom of choice for both individuals and groups has
 
fostered harmony in our community, because everyone agreed that being equal
 
as persons did not equate with being the same doctrinally. To impose
 
equality as persons as a higher order right than freedom of choice on the
 
basis of conviction can only lead to disharmony, distress and eventually
 
conflict in religious organisations. This will weaken the social and
 
welfare structure of our nation.
 
%0A 

Page 2 of 2