Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon
SIGN THE PETITION
http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review/submissions/gerard-flood
GERARD FLOOD
The Expert Panel on Religious Freedom
C/O Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Submission
The fairness and honesty of Australia's judicial system need equal, fair and just treatment for all. Laws which coerce - unfairly in the eyes of the reasonably-minded victim - the citizen to lie in order to protect their home and family will tend to erode the citizen's respect for the telling of truth in sworn legal statements, which will exacerbate the current degradation of Australian judicial proceedings.
The rapid growth of unprosecuted perjury in Australia is a publicly recognised and serious threat to the fundamental soundness of the judicial system, which latter is a foremost governmental responsibility. This is evidenced by the volume of deliberate false affidavits and other sworn statements, many at the instigation of officers of court, and suspected or identified incidents not even subjected to any proper scrutiny.
Bearing in mind :
A. the essential role that employment widely plays in the ability of the citizen to exercise their fundamental and universal right to found a home and family, and
B. the force being applied by employer entities in many sectors on employees to overtly support a partisan view in favour of "same sex marriage", or to self-censor into silence, as publicly explicated by a large array of major corporations, and
C. the approximately 38% of citizens who may be considered to not support the moral or otherwise acceptability of "same sex marriage", as estimated from the recent national plebiscite results,
then:
it would be extremely imprudent for the standing and reputation of, and respect for, the law and for our judicial system of fairness, particularly the supreme necessity for faithful and conscientious honesty in sworn statements, if employees were to be forcefully coerced to take public positions against their own firmly held positions, to avoid illicit prejudice, adverse discipline, demotion, or dismissal.
Such coercion would tend to weaken the essential link between what the citizens privately knows or believes to be true, and what the citizen knows is essential to publicly espouse to protect their family and home. They know that this imposition is a deep injustice inflicted by an empowered but immoral legislature with a disregard for the citizen's right to express truth. In other words, an employment law without protection for them [ie conscientious objectors against publicly supporting "same sex marriage"] would militate against general respect for "telling the truth" in sworn or legal situations.
Clearly, such coercion would tend to erode the integrity of the citizen, who is coerced into choosing whether to protect the integrity of what they believe, say and do, or else to lie to protect the economic viability of the family's welfare.
The facts from case studies of employees coerced in these circumstances are freely available to you.
These cases demand your closest examination, with a view to you reasonably extrapolating how far those authorities and powers may well extend, as time and cases ensue. In disciplinary processes within employment, and also in cases brought under laws, in both processes which seem unfair to a reasonable person, where cases or suits are withdrawn, the costs to the defendant must be considered in fairness.
The ICCPR at Article 18.4 recognises and protects “the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” Australian parents must remain free to access the services of educational facilities which meet their reasonable requirements, unless Australia is to repudiate de facto its ostensible support for the ICCPR.
The current legislative situation threatens to establish a two-tiered system of freedom of speech in very many and vital, public and semi-public arenas and situations : a citizen's superior right to publicly support "any two adults marriage", and their inferior right to publicly support monogamous heterosexual marriage.
This situation is legally, morally and concretely iniquitous.
Fundamental elements of religious freedom are the legal entitlement to beliefs, responsibilities and behaviours while exercising the normal rights to founding a family and a home. In the Australian legal, political and cultural environment, the freedom of religion, includes the reasonable public expression of universal religious teaching of heterosexual marriage, universal here indicating that it is substantially supported by the three Noahide religions of Christian, Jewish and Muslim, as well as by many other community religions, eg Sikh. It is undeniably a fundamental religious obligation of many such adherents to publicly espouse their beliefs.
The legislature and the judiciary must maintain the equal treatment of the rights of all citizens to equal expression of their beliefs, whether the citizen's beliefs are shared by a considerable number of other citizens, or whether the citizen holds unique religious beliefs.
I urge the Expert Panel on Religious Freedom :
a. to recognise and advocate that religious freedom necessarily overlaps with and is not separate from freedom of speech, and
b. to recognise and advocate for the complete equality of the citizens' rights to act according to their beliefs in all circumstances of civic life, and
c. to recognise and advocate that there must accrue no legal disadvantage to any person or other entity for supporting in manifold ways the exclusive status of monogamous heterosexual marriage.
The current situation will probably result in a viable High Court challenge to the consequential unconstitutionality of restrictions on a citizen's right to freedom of political communication, unless the Parliament provides prudent and appropriate legislation to obviate the unfair, onerous and wasteful exercise of such a High Court action.
Alternatively, if the Australian governing system legally allows for the muzzling and censoring of the citizen from publicly espousing the exclusive importance of monogamous heterosexual marriage, while protecting an alternative opinion, then the citizens' respect for the fairness and utility of the Australian governing system may well suffer.
I urge the Panel to defend the right of every citizen to effectively espouse their beliefs, subject only to the established norms of non-violence.
Gerard Flood.
No comments:
Post a Comment