Readers may remember last month’s controversy in Victoria when it was suggested that certain exemptions religious organisations enjoy from the Equal Opportunity Act should be removed. The move drew attention to the apparent conflict between freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination.
Now comes an interesting counterpoint from the UK: the Equality and Human Rights Commission has begun legal action against the extreme-right British National Party for allegedly breaching the Race Relations Act by restricting its membership to white people. (The party tries to avoid using the term, but that is clearly what its elaborately stated restrictions are intended to achieve.)
One can try to distinguish the two cases: being denied employment is directly harmful in a way that being denied membership of a political party is not, and while it’s possible to answer the question of why gay people might want to work for the Catholic church (after all, a job is a job), it’s harder to see why black people would want to join the BNP. Nonetheless, the same basic conflict is at work in both.
Just as the Victorian proposal raised echoes of religious persecution to some, the British move is reminiscent of the many countries in which particular ethnic or religious groups have been denied political representation by the device of banning “sectional” parties. (The Kurds in Turkey are perhaps the most obvious victims of this.)
Critics of the Victorian move focused on specifically religious discrimination: Peter Costello, for example, asked “whether the law should require [churches] to employ people who are indifferent or hostile to their religion in their schools.” But that is largely a red herring. No one seriously suggests that churches should have to employ atheist priests, or that the BNP should have to admit people who oppose its racist beliefs. The real issue is about grounds for discrimination that don’t obviously relate to the organisation’s purpose, such as race, gender and sexuality.
But there lies the heart of the problem: someone has to decide what counts as a relevant ground and what doesn’t and under the model of anti-discrimination law that someone is the state.
Like censorship, anti-discrimination law requires the state to assume an omniscience that it does not possess: the ability to decide with finality what words mean, or the ability to set down which parts of an organisation’s doctrine are fundamental to it and which are disposable extras.
Now, maybe racism and sexism are such dangerous beasts that we have to entrust the state with that power for fear of the alternative. But we should be wary of taking that step without full awareness of what we are doing. Beating up on the BNP may be a popular cause, but it could also set some dangerous precedents.
I would suggest it is not hard to see why some black folk might want to join the BNP.
The gutsy ones might decide to do so, in order to cause discord and help undermine it. Others might join it in the hope of helping to change it. They might join it to spread their message of tolerance and equality and anti-racism. They might have an agenda to win individuals from out of it. (And good on them for their ideals!)
But if you really don’t want to support the British government acting to allow that (and that seems to be the direction the article takes at the end) then you would need to hold a consistent position here in Australia.
To be wary of the British and suggest they are making a mistake in fighting the racism of the BNP, but then to want religious institutions to be forced by government to employ non-religious people, is inconsistent.
Would such a person seriously suggest that the only reason people would test that law in Australia when it is passed is “because a job is a job”? Would no one try to get jobs in those religious institutions in Australia, for any of the reasons I have just outlined above for black British citizens joining the BNP?
Let’s either support both, or reject both. But I don’t think you have found a good enough distinction to support one but reject the other. Govenrment power; dangerous precendets … if you wont use these arguments in the Australian context… why use them in the British context?
“”whether the law should require [churches] to employ people who are indifferent or hostile to their religion in their schools.” But that is largely a red herring. No one seriously suggests that churches should have to employ atheist priests”
Eh? Surely the question Costello is getting at is whether church schools should have to employ atheist teachers. For mine the answer is a clear ‘no’, which is why the exemption should stay.
There’s no good reason why the churches can’t be treated in the same way as the rest of the society. They are part of society and claim all the benefits of being an established part of society. If there are instances where they take a stance on an issue, let’s hear their arguments out in the open and subject to public scrutiny, not assumed as being valid just because they claim religious status.
Why should the Westboro Baptist Church not be subject to the same laws as other people. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25067362-2,00.html
Thank goodness Charles that you still have the stamina to keep up the warnings that regrettably every generaton needs to hear repeated about trusting governments with too much power (trusting anyone with a lot of power is problematic of course). Otherwise the young articulate person, or just someone who has thought about public affairs for the first time, will come up with a bright idea and immediately decide that something must be done and of course done by the most powerful agent of deliberate and planned change, namely government. Well they will do that but they need then to come across the antidote warnings and be made to consider the implications of that attitud. You have made a contribution to the likelihood of that occurring.
Sadly society needs these groups. We need to see where the rightards reside. Keep your friends close but keep societies enemies in your sights.