1997
1997.1. Suicide Prevention
Submitted 13 March 1997 to the Victorian Suicide Prevention Task Force.
Published: Victorian Humanist, April 1997: 4.
With our submission on Suicide Prevention we supplied relevant publications and listed several quoted sources.
Main points in our submission were:
• As youth suicide occurs across a broad range of socioeconomic levels, it appears that the alarming rise in frequency in recent years is due to structural, cultural and social changes in the community.
• Peer role models such as pop stars shape values and attitudes of adolescents. In this emotional maturity, experience and wisdom are lacking.
• The nuclear family offers less support and security than the extended family did in the past.
• The current promotion of individualism is a further alienating factor. “Every man for himself” is a daunting view of life for a young person.
• The high rate of unemployment among the young creates hopelessness and despair.
• Identified risks and precipitating factors: unstable/disfunctional family situations, prolonged unemployment, substance abuse, loss of a significant person, depression, mental illness, availability of means e.g.guns.
• Availability of a firearm regarded as a major factor in impulsive suicide, hence higher rates in rural areas.
• Inadequate care of psychiatric patients after closure of their institutions
• We listed the following measures to minimise the rates of suicide: education (targeted and general) toward better identification of individuals at risk; media to avoid highlighting suicides of celebrities in view of the copy-cat behaviour, and to desist from featuring negative, anti-social messages; the government should restore trained counsellors in schools, provide psychiatric after-care, continue “dole” payments to genuine work seekers, promote inclusive, community values rather than the individual ethos, and set up a centre to gather data and co-ordinate appropriate prevention.
––––––––––
1997. The Right to Believe.
Submitted 27 June 1997 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Published: (Preamble)Victorian Humanist, July 1997: 4.
The Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission has distributed a Discussion Paper (DP), Free to Believe: The right to freedom of religion and belief in Australia. Both the HSV and Council of Australian Humanist Societies have prepared submissions, setting out ways in which Humanists are pushed to the margins while religious groups still have centre stage in Australian communities.
The DP examines Australia’s compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (the Declaration).
In discussing the Declaration the DP notes that “‘religion” and ‘belief’ should have meanings at least as broad as they have in the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) which is a binding treaty and of higher status in international law.” In the ICCPR “religion” and “belief” are given a much deeper meaning: “Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions.”
Recognition of this by the DP document is recorded in last paragraph, on page 21: “The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion therefore entails the right to hold any thoughts or convictions – ‘religion’ constituting one form of belief while ‘thought’ and ‘conscience’ may encompass a wide range of beliefs not necessarily based on religious precepts.”
However, the rest of the DP has not been able to sustain this wider perspective as elucidated in Chapter 4. Thus the general thrust of the DP document is concerned to protect freedom of “religion” rather more than freedom of “thought” and/or “conscience”. This is illustrated by the Preface of the DP, which highlights religion: e.g. the Declaration, “the most comprehensive international statement of the right to freedom of religion.”
There are two factors contributing to the DP’s bias towards religion. First, the exclusive reliance on the Census as its only source of statistics on religious adherents, which as Humanists know asks a question, “What is the person’s religious denomination?”, which inflates the number of in each religion. Second, the deeply established cultural understanding of religion as a belief and other points of view as non-belief therefore outside the parameters of discussions on belief.
Published: (Submission) Victorian Humanist, Aug. 1997: 4.
To the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission in response to [the] discussion paper, Free to Believe: The right to freedom of religion and belief in Australia, we made the following points:
General
We value personal freedoms highly but believe that competing interests should be resolved for the benefit of the group as a whole.
Religious practices with potentially harmful consequences should be curtailed by law. Some religions uphold gender inequality, isolate children and so deny participation in the wider community. The acceptance of diversity must not extend to practices that are a relic of past brutalities. To deem some attitudes and practices as no longer acceptable constitutes the civilising process. In this, some individuals or minority groups could be perceived as oppressed. In an organised, civilised society there can be few totally unmitigated freedoms.
Specific points
1. Education
Religion is a set of beliefs often disputed by others and often a source of violent conflict. The teaching of denominational religions should not be at public expense: those who wish such instructions should form private groups for that purpose and bear the cost.
Education should be entirely secular. If religion is included in a school curriculum, it would only be appropriate as a comparative study of religions. Segregation on religious grounds should not be assisted by the State.
2. Tax exemptions & benefits for churches
We regret that, in our modem, secular society, discriminations instituted by ancient communities based on irrational beliefs are still respected.
3. The law of blasphemy
It is a relic of religious persecution, a penalty on opinion and is inequitable: it does not protect the often vilified atheists, pagans and infidels. Criticism of political beliefs and allegiances is rightly permitted and unrestrained. Freedom of religion should not include freedom from criticism. We urge that this archaic law be abolished as advised by The Legal and Constitutional Committee of Victoria (Discussion Paper No. 3, Freedom of Expression in Victoria): “Abolition by statue of the common law of blasphemy”.
4. Religions in the Census
We regard the National Census as a grossly inadequate means of assessing the prevalence of religious adherence and practice in this country. Denomination is often registered as family tradition of the past in [the] absence of any contemporary use or attendance at services. Yet grants and benefits to churches are allotted on the basis of this assessment. We urge that more accurate surveys of religious practice be used, or the question deleted from the Census as in the UK.
5. The all-male jury case
We enclose a report on a case where women jurors were rejected on the grounds of the defendant’s religious beliefs. “As a Christian man, it’s against my religious beliefs to be judged by women as is specified many times throughout the Bible and that it was man’s God-given right to judge,” said the defendant. (The judge complied, the HSV complained.)
––––––––––
1997.3. South Australia’s Voluntary Euthanasia Bill
Submitted 2 September 1997 to the Select Committee on the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill, Parliament of South Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Nov. 1997: 4.
In support of the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill presented to the S.A. Parliament by the Hon. Anne Levy we submitted the following main points:
• Modern technology deprives the terminally ill of a speedy release from distress and loss of dignity.
• The rights of the many who wish to have their life prolonged are and should be respected; the rights of the few who seek assistance in ending their life during terminal illness should be equally granted and respected. Such need is documented by the many botched attempts at suicide.
• The autonomy of the person was acknowledged in law when suicide was decriminalised and further, when the refusal of medical treatment was legalised. This growing respect for the person’s autonomy and freedom of choice is a mark of a maturing society no longer governed by ancient dogma.
• Voluntary Euthanasia was the subject of extensive public debates and surveys. Public opinion shows overwhelming support for medical assistance in dying.
• The practice of medical assistance occurs frequently at present according to doctors and nurses. In this clandestine mode there is potential for abuse. The process should be open to scrutiny and be performed by experienced, accredited and accountable medical practitioners.
• The current legislation puts the caring physician in breach of the law. It also maintains the potential for misconduct.
• The small number of terminally ill patients in whom pain or distress cannot be eased by palliative means should have the option of seeking medical assistance in dying. To deny this option is inhumane.
––––––––––
1997.4. Native Title (Wik).
Submitted 30 September 1997 to the Joint Committee on Native Title, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Nov. 1997: 4.
Native Title Amendment Bill
To the joint Committee on Native Title, Federal Parliament:
• We support this Act and its principles; improvements to it should affirm and protect this title rather than put it at risk of extinguishment.
• Coexistence in land use is a practical and civilised approach to land use. To reduce this is a further denial of human rights.
• The need to prove continuing association with the land is most unfair in view of the frequent forceful removal of families, tribes and children from many pastoral properties where they and their ancestors lived for generations.
• Proposed upgrading of land from leasehold to freehold will effectively extinguish native title. It is racially and socially discriminatory and will cause international condemnation.
• It is crucial that native title be the sole Federal responsibility and protected at this level. Powers given to the States will ensure large scale extinguishment.
• Proposed additional land use on pastoral and freehold leases should be scrutinised for its environmental and ecological impact.
• Local agreements on indigenous land should be protected by law.
1997.5. Aboriginal Reconciliation
Submitted 5 October 1997 to the Prime Minister (Mr J. Howard), the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Straights Islander Affairs, Australia (Sen. J. Heron), and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Nov. 1997: 4.
1997 – The Year of Aboriginal Reconciliation brought: the scapegoating campaign, mostly by the One Nation Party; the threat of de-facto extinguishment of native title; funding cuts to the urgently needed social programs; [and] the government’s reluctance to fully support the processes of reconciliation.
We urge leaders of all parties to condemn abuse of the freedom of speech.
Indigenous people qualify for special services and assistance after many years of dispossession and damage by policies and practices such as the removal from traditional land and separation of children from their families. Along with people handicapped by other means the Aboriginals should be the subject of positive discrimination.
We belief the Wik judgement gives a minimal requirement by indigenous Australians to maintain their special connection and relationship with their land and sea. Shared use of land is practice in many ways, e.g. miner’s right to prospect on pastoral leases, drover’s rights to graze and water cattle, etc. The 10-point plan of amendments to the Wik decision diminishes right to land use for one group of people. This augurs poorly for the process of reconciliation.
Of foremost importance is the recognition and understanding of Aboriginal cultural values. They differ from those of non-indigenous Australians but command respect, e.g. non-acquisitiveness, the sharing of goods, primacy of the extended family, the management of natural resources, etc. The resolution of problems arising from these cultural differences must be based on tolerance, understanding, civility so far lacking in our approach.
• Reconciliation and its principles have widespread support in the community, as shown by surveys and many well-attended public meetings. The opposition stems from vested interests on the land and from racial intolerance.
• Funding must be assured for this process; past injustices and maltreatment acknowledged; [and] a formal apology by the Federal Government should be made on behalf of all of us.
• The rights of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders must be recognised and enshrined in the Australian Constitution in order to protect them by the rule of law.
––––––––––
1997.6. Constitutional Convention (Republic, Constitution)
Submitted 5 December 1997 to the Constitutional Convention (? and the Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet)
Published: Victorian Humanist, March 1998: 3.
To the Constitutional Convention we made the following main points:
* We regret the narrow scope of the terms of reference.
* Australia should become a republic by the year 2001 with an Australian Head of State nominated by a bipartisan parliamentary majority.
* Any power vested in hereditary monarchy is at variance with democracy.
* The convention should consider long overdue changes to our constitution:
1. The preamble should state core values of this nation: egalitarianism, tolerance of diversity, fairness and equity, and our aims to be decent, civil, and compassionate society where justice and harmony prevail.
2. A charter of citizens’ rights, freedoms and obligations as well as those of groups with special needs (children, the indigenous, the handicapped, etc.) should be enshrined in this statute.
3. There should be an acknowledgement of the accountability of government to the people and an affirmation of equal opportunities and gender equality in education, health and employment
* Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions; we believe these rights should be enshrined in our Constitution so that they are protected by law.
* The present Constitution is mostly about States’ rights and does not meet the needs of a modern democracy.
* The statutes of a nation reflect the degree of civilisation it has achieved.
––––––––––
[End of 1997]
