Summary of Christian Submissions to the National Consultation on Human Rights
Some 49 Christian groups (churches, organisations, agencies) made submissions to the National Consultation on Human Rights. Most major denominations were represented by committees and / or agencies, as well as a small number of local churches. In regard to supporting a Human Rights Act / Charter (not in the Consultation’s terms of reference but a question which the majority of Consultation submissions expressed an opinion on):
14 (32%) favoured a Charter
32 (65%) opposed a Charter
3 (6%) were undecided on a Charter
Nearly half of the submissions opposing a Charter were from local churches (a total of 13). Only one of these churches are in jurisdictions (Victoria / ACT) with an existing Charter of Rights.
(Thanks to J. Sarkodee for analysis)
The Church and the Charter: What Can We Do Better? (April, 2010)
It may surprise you that in the public debate about whether Australia should give our international human rights obligations additional support domestically through a Federal Charter of Rights, church leaders have led the ‘no’ campaign. On the other hand, perhaps you feel that the adoption of a Charter is another step along the path to a more secular, more hostile environment for Christians and are glad to know that Christian leaders are helping to block the measure. Alternatively, you may have no view on a Charter of Rights, and be wondering what the fuss is all about. Wherever you come from, it is worth asking what issues have led some Christians to vocally and publicly oppose a Charter of Rights and how the Church debate on a public policy has been tracking. Behind the rhetoric and media headlines what is motivating Christians to oppose a Charter? First, there is a belief that Charters are part of a larger secularist agenda. Second, Charters raise fears among those of a conservative mindset who align Christianity with conservatism.
Charters and Secularism Concerns
Many are concerned about an increasingly ’secular’ society and secular-faith tensions have played a key role in motivating opposition to a Charter. Human rights – and Charters (or Bills) of Rights are felt by some to accelerate secularisation. In particular, it’s claimed that secularists use Charters to undermine religious freedom. The National Consultation on Human Rights found that three Victorian examples which reflect secularism concerns were frequently cited in Christian opposition to Charters: 1) religious anti-vilification laws; 2) the 2009 abortion law reform; 3) amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act.1
Whether or not there is a generic link between secularism and human rights, these specific examples offer little evidence that Charters promote secularism. The religious vilification laws under which the controversial ‘Catch the Fire Ministries’ case was run has no link to Victoria’s Charter for a simple reason: the law in question was passed 5 years before the Charter.
Objections to Charters on the basis that they neglect the rights of the unborn have been raised, as has the claim that a Charter did nothing to protect religious views in Victoria’s recent abortion law reforms. Charters do avoid issues which are internationally unable to gain consensus since they are based on international agreement among many countries. This still allows individual countries to reach their own conclusions on contested issues like abortion and euthanasia.
In Australia, for instance, it’s entirely possible for a state or federal Parliament to amend a Charter concerning abortion. In fact, this has happened. The Catholic church sought a special amendment to Victoria’s Charter excluding the Charter from having effect on abortion.2 Ironically, a couple of years later, this section (s. 48) turned out to hobble the Charter’s power to protect religious conscience (with regard to Christian medical staff objecting to abortion procedures). This so-called ‘failure’ by Victoria’s Charter was then cited as evidence for the secular nature of Charters.3 But the circumstances hardly justify this conclusion.
The most commonly cited issue identifying Charters with secularisation has been proposed amendments to Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act. What the precise link is between a Charter and the amendments is yet to be explained in detail. Consider, for instance, that reviews of equivalent legislation in jurisdictions without Charters routinely occur. Amendments of legislation which are described as ‘secularist’ are also commonplace in jurisdictions without Charters. How can we tell that a Charter is actually responsible and not other secular forces generally at work in society?
These examples from Victoria do not offer solid evidence that Charters promote secularism. This is not to deny the reality of tensions between secularist and faith communities nor the possibility that any Parliamentary law (and Charters are simply statutory laws) can be used or abused with respect to faith communities. The way Charters are interpreted and applied will depend less on the instruments than on the political consensus and institutions of the societies that apply them. For instance, the Victorian Government recently passed law and order legislation that it acknowledged was incompatible with its Charter (the Bill passed with bipartisan support). If the legislation is later tested in the courts, they may find it inconsistent with the Charter and may issue a declaration to that effect. But unless the Parliament decides otherwise, the legislation will remain in force unless and until it is amended by Parliament. Charters cannot override Parliamentary power.
Conservativism and Christianity
Besides Christians, the strongest opposition to a Charter has come from those with a conservative outlook. In the media, for example, well known conservative columnists such as Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian newspaper have opposed a Federal Charter with gusto. Conservatism has played a role in Christian opposition, as parts of the evangelical and Catholic churches resonate with a conservative mindset on social issues. Conservatives seek to preserve long-standing institutions and values. They prefer change to be by way of ‘evolution’ not ‘revolution’. Conservatively minded people regard Charters as radical and risky. For Christian conservatives, the risks are not only social and political, but also spiritual. They are concerned about advancing secularism leading to the erosion of Christian institutions. On the other hand, those with a progressive leaning are more sanguine about change generally, and tend to focus on the potential benefits it may bring, whilst downplaying the risks.
None of this pre-supposes that one or other disposition is inherently on the side of truth, justice or, indeed, God. It is to say that when, for instance, a progressive favours a Charter because changes to help the vulnerable ‘must be good’, they may be reaching a conclusion based on prior assumptions which have little to do with actual evidence about a Charter. Progressives, being favourable towards change, may too quickly discount alternative reform measures. On the other hand, conservatives may too easily treat a Charter as a “radical” reform which puts society at risk. They neglect the evidence of how our existing Charters are operating in practice. Jumping to conclusions based on prior assumptions or dispositions typifies much of the debate so far.
One way to begin severing the Gordian knot of opposing social ideologies is by pursuing a more candid and complete discussion of the issues. The Church’s critique of a Charter has yet to move beyond fears for religious protection, as a recent summary of the Church’s concerns by Professor Patrick Parkinson (a Charter critic), shows.4 I was recently speaking with one man about the debate. Though not a Christian, I’ve found him to be particularly gracious in his approach to the Church. He commented, “my difficulty with the way some Christian groups have approached this debate is that they’ve elevated one area of concern [religious protection] above every other.”
A more adequate discussion of human rights Charters should have at least four features:
First, we need to reflect on the evidence from the National Consultation on Human Rights. One Christian leader labelled the Consultation as an exercise in “transparently shallow and contrived activism”.5 This kind of rhetoric does no justice to the lengthy, detailed submissions on behalf of the disabled, poor, homeless, mentally ill, the elderly, indigenous and family support groups, among many others. It forgets that an independent committee produced the Report, one headed by the widely respected (and rather conservative) Jesuit priest, Father Frank Brennan.
Second, we need more scrutiny of examples of how Charters work. The Victorian examples discussed earlier suggest the need for as much. Myth and rumour are in wide circulation in Christian email, websites, blogs, talks and media. Flawed overseas examples are being used to stoke fear. For instance, Zimbabwe and the Soviet Union have been used to predict how an Australian Charter would work. Comparisons with such vastly different societies are misleading. The same principle applies to examples from countries like the UK and Canada. More care is needed so that examples are meaningful, based on fact and used in context.
Third, we need to discuss cases reporting benefits from Charters (I have seen none discussed by Christian groups opposing a Charter). Evidence from reviews, submissions and case studies show that families, the disabled, the mentally ill, refugees and the homeless are being aided by Charters.
Finally, the Church needs to re-assess its theology and practice in the public sphere. How do we distinguish our conservative or progressive predelictions from Christianity? When the church plays a significant role in public debate, its motives, or the appearance of motives, will be under critique by wider society. How is God calling us to respond to the social changes in faith and ethics? In Matthew 5 Jesus values tradition when he says he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets . But their fulfillment by him was, at the same time, radically challenging. Where is a conservative ‘habit of mind’ preserving the good and where should a ‘holy restlessness’ with the current structures call us to challenge them?
Polling suggests majority support for a Federal Charter of Rights (those opposed question the veracity of the polls, but the impression of support is widespread). If Church opposition is decisive in blocking a Charter, many will query on what basis the Church has stymied reform which is supported by a majority of the community. In the light of this, we had better be sure that our principles are – and are seen to be – the gospel of Jesus, the proper fulcrum point in Christian debate.
References: 1. National Consultation on Human Rights Report, p48-49. 2. Attorney-General Rob Hulls, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/23/2372460.htm (retrieved 30 Nov, 2009)s. 3. For instance, Australian Christian Lobby, speech to National Consultation, 3 July, 2009. 4. “Christian Concerns with the Charter of Rights” Sydney University Legal Studies Paper 09/72 (Sept 2009). 5. Wallace, J., “Rights Overkill Isn’t Majority View” The Australian (October 13, 2009).