Discriminationism Self-Destructs By Chris Knight
We have seen concern, and quiet murmurs issued by conservatives, about parliament’s complete failure to protect religious freedom. Indeed, “our” politicians saw fit to vote down all amendments that would have protected religious freedom. Even proverbial blind Freddy could have seen this coming, yet the 62 percenters went along with a “Yes” vote with no guarantee of any protections.
“The same-sex marriage debate in Australia has exposed a sectarian politics reminiscent of the skirmishes between Protestants and Catholics over freedom of conscience that plagued Australia up to World War II.
People may disagree on the justice or injustice of fining bakers for not baking same-sex wedding cakes, forcing adoption agencies to shut down for catering only to mother-father clients, or forcing people to answer to anti-discrimination and human rights tribunals for non-abusive, non-incendiary speech, but no one can deny that this is happening, as experience in the US, Canada, Britain and Australia shows.
And it is this climate of soft persecution that makes Smith’s bill an incredibly irresponsible piece of legislation. The bill’s and many MPs’ Pollyanna-ish attitude to real-world challenges against freedom of speech and conscience is both a betrayal of the principles of classical liberalism and a betrayal of Australian religious institutions and individuals.”
Yes, all true, but that is what they do, and we saw it with the gutless behaviour over section 18 C. It is just the start because the Labor Party, who will roll the Libs at the next election, as the sheeple vote against Mal, and they will take politically correct laws to new levels. All freedoms are set to disappear, and Australia will become more oppressive than communist China. At least the laws of China are devised to protect society, but our laws target the dispossessed majority-minority.
Look on the bright side; there is a remote possibility that all of this will self-destruct:
“The comprehensive list of amendments proposed by Liberals James Paterson, Andrew Hastie, Scott Morrison, Alex Hawke, Andrew Broad and Michael Sukkar were very narrow in scope, protecting the integrity of institutions such as churches, schools and freedom of speech and conscience for individuals and parents. Rejection of the religious liberty amendments as a mere licence to discriminate reveals a worrying misunderstanding of some necessary conditions of a free society.
For example, how long will a political party exist without the right to discriminate in favour of potential candidates and staffers who adhere to the principles of that party? The same goes for a trade union, Get Up!, a church, a charity, and a school.
Lobby groups, the media, political parties, businesses, educational institutions, and charities make up civil society — that free, voluntary sphere that seeks to have a positive influence on government and other people’s lives. Without the right to discriminate in employment this sphere disappears and the social needs that it meets are taken up by the state. Liberals should be especially concerned with this.
The point should be clear: some rights to discriminate are valid because they are anchored to the preservation of social goods and ideals that constitute a free society. When business owners exercise conscientious objections to participating in same-sex marriages either through catering or photographing the event, they are not restricting the liberties of anyone else, and no one is being forced to use their services.”
The philosophy of anti-discrimination is thus an incoherent position, and if taken to its illogical conclusion, is likely to be self-undermining.
Comments