The Victorian Government wants to define ministrey roles for Christians
THIS IS THE ARTICLE:
Mr PAKULA (Attorney-General) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Religious Exceptions) Bill 2016 (the bill). In my opinion, the bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview
The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of a specified attribute of a person in certain areas of public life, such as employment, education and the provision of goods and services. The EO act also sets out 'exceptions' to discrimination, which recognise that discrimination may be justified in certain circumstances.
Sections 82 and 83 of the EO act currently provide for exceptions for the conduct of religious bodies and schools in all areas covered by the act.
The bill modifies the application of these exceptions in the area of employment by reinstating an 'inherent requirements test' for a religious body or school that wishes to rely on a religious defence to discriminate in this area. The modified exceptions provide that the EO act's prohibitions on discrimination will not apply to anything done in relation to the employment of a person by a religious body or school where conformity with the body or school's religious doctrines, beliefs or principles is an inherent requirement of the job, and, because of a particular personal attribute, the person does not meet that inherent requirement.
The purpose of reinstating the inherent requirements test is to better balance a person's right to equality and to be free from discrimination with the need to protect the right to freedom of religion and belief. This is to ensure that both of these rights can be appropriately recognised and enjoyed.
Human rights issues
Relevant human rights
There are two rights recognised by the charter that are relevant to the bill: the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8) and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14).
Recognition and equality before the law
Section 8 of the charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. It also provides that every person is equal before the law, is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination, and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.
The value underpinning section 8 is personal dignity. To treat somebody differently because of a specified attribute, rather than on the basis of their individual worth and merit, can undermine personal autonomy and self-realisation.
The exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination in the EO act, including the religious exceptions, act as a defence to discrimination and prevent relief from being sought in relation to conduct that would otherwise be unlawful. As such, the exceptions limit the right to equality protected by the charter and should be reasonable and demonstrably justified.
Freedom of religion and belief
Section 14 of the charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. This right includes the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of the person's choice, and the freedom to demonstrate the religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.
The purpose of the religious exceptions in sections 82 and 83 of the EO act is to protect the right to freedom of religion and belief, and, in particular, the freedom to demonstrate a religion or belief in practice and teaching, as part of a community. This protection is important in a pluralistic society that values freedom of religion.
These current religious exceptions carefully set out the scope of the protection afforded to the freedom of religion and belief, including by defining the persons or bodies that can rely on the exceptions, and limiting the attributes that are relevant to the exceptions to those that might conflict with core beliefs and values held by religious bodies and schools.
By reinstating the inherent requirements test, the bill further qualifies the scope of the religious exceptions in the area of employment.
HERE IS THE LEFT AGENDA AND THE LIE
The charter makes it clear that only human beings have human rights. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the bill limits any human rights of religious bodies and schools, as employing organisations rather than human persons. In any case, to the extent to which the bill, in reinstating an inherent requirements test, might limit any such rights, I am of the view that any limit of the right to freedom of religion of a religious body or school must be appropriately balanced against the right of job applicants and employees to be free from discrimination.
So why are Christian organization only being targetted? Can a Green supporter get a job at the Liberal party? Can a pro-abortionist feminist who believes in abortion up to birth - be given the right to teach at a Catholic or Christian school and promote her immorality?
Balancing the rights
The bill's reinstatement of the inherent requirements test in sections 82 and 83 of the EO act modifies the existing balance between the right to equality and the right to freedom of religion and belief. As noted above, both rights are important and both are recognised under the charter.
The bill's reinstatement of the inherent requirements test in sections 82 and 83 of the EO act modifies the existing balance between the right to equality and the right to freedom of religion and belief. As noted above, both rights are important and both are recognised under the charter.
Well, they are not both recognized at the Government is seeking to interpret Christian faith and ministry and limit then interpret roles according to their own ideology. This is not balance but simple abuse hiding behind words and a gay agenda.
As the Victorian Court of Appeal held in Christian Youth Camps Ltd v. Cobaw Community Health Services Ltd [2014] VSCA 75, the balancing of these rights does not involve the privileging of one right over the other, but a recognition that the rights coexist. It is up to Parliament to decide how best to balance these rights.
As the Victorian Court of Appeal held in Christian Youth Camps Ltd v. Cobaw Community Health Services Ltd [2014] VSCA 75, the balancing of these rights does not involve the privileging of one right over the other, but a recognition that the rights coexist. It is up to Parliament to decide how best to balance these rights.
This is an illogical statement as the Christian campsite was fined for not letting a gay propaganda group use its facility. The judge looked at some websites and decided theologically because some churches state homosexuality was a sin and other Christian sites did not mention the sin of homosexuality, therefore it is not a big deal, therefore the Brethren Church was wrong is refusing this gay group. Since when does a judge make such a stupid argument? There was no balance of rights at all. This is the Sate inferring with the church.
The inherent requirements test imposes a stronger requirement on religious bodies and schools to demonstrate the necessary religious basis for discrimination on religious grounds. However, it will continue to allow a religious body or school to discriminate in employment in appropriate circumstances, namely where conformity with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of the particular religion is an inherent requirement of the relevant position.
The inherent requirements test takes into account the nature of the religious body or school, and the religious doctrines, beliefs and principles in accordance with which the body or school is conducted.
However, the defence will only be available where conformity with religious doctrines, beliefs or principles is an inherent requirement of the employment in question, and, because of a particular personal attribute, an employee or job applicant does not meet that inherent requirement. This approach ensures that there is a direct relationship, and a necessary connection, between the religious doctrines, beliefs or principles of the body or school, and the need to discriminate in employment because of those religious doctrines, beliefs or principles.
And whose opinion will decide this? Because the church takes its position from the Reformation, in that any believers whatever they do is unto God. In other words a farmer is serving God as an expression of his or her faith and is honoring God. The cleaner at a school likewise has chosen a Christian schools as an expression of their faith. It is not up to the secular state to determine ministry.
The inherent requirements test imposes a stronger requirement on religious bodies and schools to demonstrate the necessary religious basis for discrimination on religious grounds. However, it will continue to allow a religious body or school to discriminate in employment in appropriate circumstances, namely where conformity with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of the particular religion is an inherent requirement of the relevant position.
The inherent requirements test takes into account the nature of the religious body or school, and the religious doctrines, beliefs and principles in accordance with which the body or school is conducted.
However, the defence will only be available where conformity with religious doctrines, beliefs or principles is an inherent requirement of the employment in question, and, because of a particular personal attribute, an employee or job applicant does not meet that inherent requirement. This approach ensures that there is a direct relationship, and a necessary connection, between the religious doctrines, beliefs or principles of the body or school, and the need to discriminate in employment because of those religious doctrines, beliefs or principles.
And whose opinion will decide this? Because the church takes its position from the Reformation, in that any believers whatever they do is unto God. In other words a farmer is serving God as an expression of his or her faith and is honoring God. The cleaner at a school likewise has chosen a Christian schools as an expression of their faith. It is not up to the secular state to determine ministry.
HERES THE DANGER RIGHT HERE- READ IT CLOSELY. IT IS SAYING AN ACTIVE HOMOSEXUAL CAN BE A MATHS TEACHER EVEN THOUGH THEIR OPPOSES THE SCHOOL DOCTRINE.
Further, the test will only apply in relation to personal attributes of an employee or job applicant that are likely to conflict with religious doctrines, beliefs or principles, namely: having a different religious belief to the body or school or no religious belief, or the person's sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity.
There are inevitably different views about how to balance sections 8 and 14 of the charter. In my view, the approach adopted by the bill — that is, the reinstatement of the inherent requirements test — is the least restrictive means available to achieve the objective of striking the appropriate balance between the rights to equality and freedom of religion.
While continuing to recognise that religious bodies and schools have an important role as an expression of freedom of religion practised in community, the inherent requirements test ensures that the large number of people employed, or seeking to be employed, by these organisations are better protected from discrimination. It is therefore an approach that allows both the right to equality and the right to religious freedom to be appropriately recognised and enjoyed.
The Hon. Martin Pakula, MP
Attorney-General
There are inevitably different views about how to balance sections 8 and 14 of the charter. In my view, the approach adopted by the bill — that is, the reinstatement of the inherent requirements test — is the least restrictive means available to achieve the objective of striking the appropriate balance between the rights to equality and freedom of religion.
While continuing to recognise that religious bodies and schools have an important role as an expression of freedom of religion practised in community, the inherent requirements test ensures that the large number of people employed, or seeking to be employed, by these organisations are better protected from discrimination. It is therefore an approach that allows both the right to equality and the right to religious freedom to be appropriately recognised and enjoyed.
The Hon. Martin Pakula, MP
Attorney-General
