1999
1999.1. Freedom of Religion and Belief
Submitted 25 June 1999 to the Human Rights Subcommittee, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, July 1999: 7.
In response to a call for submissions on Australia’s Efforts to Promote and Protect Freedom of Religion and Belief we made the following points:
• Though civil and personal freedoms are a hallmark of democracy, they can rarely be total and unmitigated in a complex, multicultural society.
• Australians can be proud of their record of tolerance of a wide variety of religions. Violent religion-based conflicts are common in places without a monolythic belief system,
• Some of the organised churches promulgate intolerance towards other faiths and it is the interdenominational conflict that weakens our national cohesion.
• The non-believers, a growing section of the community, do not discriminate on religious grounds, but are subject to discrimination. There are tax exemptions and benefits enjoyed by the churches but nor available to secular associations. This and the proposed imposition of a GAT [sic: GST] tax on civil celebrants’ services but not on these same services performed by the clergy (weddings, naming ceremonies, funerals) is an institutionalised discrimination against non-believers.
• The teaching of religion in a secular state [can] only be justified in the context of comparative religions — an unbiased study of beliefs. It would engender understanding, tolerance and respect.
• The present system of instruction in sectarian beliefs in State Schools defies the notion of a secular state and promotes divisiveness. The state is not obliged to cater for the various spiritual needs of its citizens. Those who wish to have specific religious instruction for their children should make private arrangements for that purpose and bear the cost
• Some religious tenets and practices have harmful, even devastating, effects, and this capacity must be curtailed by the law. Practices no longer acceptable in a civilised society must not be protected under the freedom of religion.
• The law of blasphemy should be repealed: it protects only the Christian God and in that it is inequitable. Criticism of religious tenets should be allowed when expressed without personal abuse.
• Freedom from religion should be enshrined in legislation as recommended by the Human Rights Commissioner in his 1998 Article 18 report. Non-theistic and atheistic beliefs should be protected from discrimination in the proposed Religious Freedom Act
• It is paramount that these freedoms are governed by Federal and State legislation. Such Federal statute should follow the precepts of the International Covenants of Rights: Human, Civil, Political, and the 1991 Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Religious Discrimination and Intolerance.
• Such national legislation would foster respect and tolerance against the inherent divisiveness of various denominations.
––––––––––
1999.2. The Independence and Integrity of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Submitted 27 July 1999 to the Office of the Prime Minister, Australia (? and the A.B.C.)
Published: Victorian Humanist, Aug. 1999: 3.
The Independence and Integrity of the ABC
We write on this subject with a sense of urgency, in the light of current disclosures of unethical broadcasting practices, of undisclosed vested interests and commercial deals, of “opinions for sale” and of selective and censored reports. The Australian public is ill-served indeed, by those sections of the media which condone such practices. It is imperative, therefore, that the ABC is assisted to maintain its absolute political and commercial independence, its integrity, and be able to continue to set high standards in its programs. We make the following points:
Credibility
We are concerned about the level of cynicism engendered, particularly among the young who are likely to grow up unable to trust any source of facts or opinions as genuine and who will be convinced that all media can be bought by wealthy sponsors or be pressured by incumbent governments, State or Federal. The loss of trust is a grave loss.
Independence
Government of all persuasions have resented critical comments voiced on the ABC regarding their policies in the past. And so it is at present. Such visible independence from political interests is the hallmark of democracy and for that reason must be maintained at all costs. Thus appointments to the Board of the ABC must not involve an office bearer of a political party. We suggest the following persons as candidates who would command respect, be trusted to behave impartially and with integrity, and whose expertise as commentators will enrich the ABC:
Patricia Edgar, Robert Mann, Eva Cox, Ian McPhee, Pamela Bone, Peter Garrett, Janet McCalman, Steve Vizard, David Malouf, Henry Reynolds, Dr Roberta Sykes.
Funding
The ABC has to report, interpret and promote debate on all aspects of the increasingly complex world around us. This needs to be done in depth and with high quality, given the rising level of education and sophistication of audiences. And we do not live by information alone: arts programs — drama, comedy, ballet, concerts — the enriching and civilising aspects of life, should be of exemplary standard and untainted by commercials.
We do not believe high quality programs can be achieved on a depleted budget and therefore we urge that government funding be restored to its 1995 level Were funding obtained by privatisation of any of the ABC components and/or sponsorships of programs, as suggested recently, our public broadcaster will lose its credibility worldwide and Australian audiences will be deprived of their one independent source of information, opinion and democratic forum.
––––––––––
1999.3. Inquiry into Human Cloning
Submitted 30 September 1999 to the House of Representatives Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Oct. 1999: 5.
To the Inquiry into Human Cloning by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs we made the following main points:
• Ethical problems arising from modern biotechnology should be debated and resolved on the basis of secular morality: caring for the needs, interests and benefits of sentient beings.
• The early embryo is not a sentient being, a person or a moral agent.
• Invaluable knowledge of clinical and therapeutic benefit is derived from research on this cluster of cells. We believe there is a moral obligation to promote such research. The present legislation seriously impedes this aim.
• We support the present ban on reproductive cloning of human beings out of concern for the safety of this procedure but not on the notion of human dignity. Sense of dignity derives from love and respect received from parents, peers and community. In some cultures it is a social construct accorded to aristocracy, denied to such as untouchables.
• We regard genetic determinism as fallacy. Humans and other complex organisms are not just a sum of their genes: environmental enrichment or lack of it is a vital determinant. The individuals cloned by nature — identical twins — have unique personalities [and] are not deprived of dignity as a rule or denied the right to exist.
• We regard Recommendation 2 [as] too restrictive and strongly support the statements on human stem cloning by the Australian Academy of Science, the AMA and Prof. Loane Skene of the Law School, University of Melbourne.
• The notion that therapeutic cell cloning threatens human uniqueness, dignity and individuality is based on profound misconceptions.
• We suggest that the UK regulatory system used here on a federal scale would resolve problems with different state laws.
• We most strongly support Recommendation 4 to promote informed community debate on the potential therapeutic benefits and risks of the cell cloning techniques.
• We urge that frozen embryos no longer required for implantation, rather than discarded, be used for research up to day 14 of development, as is done in the UK and in other countries.
ADDENDUM 1.
From the Victorian Humanist, April 2000: 4.
Report Back
A public Forum was held [on] 1 March 2000 on the Inquiry into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Human Cloning.
Humanist representatives were called to give further comments, subsequent to an HSV submission on this subject. HSV representatives, Halina Strnad and Dr. Alan McPhate, joined a group of scientists, theologians, ethicists and legal expert for a day-long investigation and questioning by members of the parliamentary committee. Chaired by Mr Kevin Andrews, MP, proceedings are recorded in Hansard and on Internet http://www.aph.gov.au. The Parliamentary database is http://search.aph.gov.au.
ADDENDUM 2.
From the Victorian Humanist, March 2002: 3.
Feedback
As a result of our submission to the Inquiry into Human Cloning we were called before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, chaired by Kevin Andrews MP, to answer questions and make additional comments.
We were greatly outnumbered by representatives of religious organisations and our support for stem cell cloning (but not human cloning) was in stark contrast to the views of the majority of participants. The AMA and the Academy of Science were on our side.
The recently issued report of this enquiry quotes HSV statements verbatim or in summary on several occasions, showing a secular, rational encroachment into the territory of the faiths.
––––––––––
1999.5. Welfare Reform
Submitted 10 December 1999 to the Department of Family and Community Services, Australia.
Published: Victorian Humanist, Feb. 2000: 7.
This debate is welcome and needs detailed attention and analysis because of the profound consequences of the issues involved.
These reforms must not widen the growing disparity between the rich and the poor as occurs in other countries.
It is the treatment of the weak and disadvantaged that defines the degree of civilisation we have reached.
One of the main precepts of Humanism has been to foster a society where all can reach their full potential.
Reduction of welfare expenditure would be detrimental in absence of increase availability of jobs. Concept of incentives to find work while there are nine or ten applicants for each position is puzzling.
We wholly support increased access to education and training, but sympathise with graduates of such programs who try to find non-existing jobs.
The current case-management system shows poor results so far. Jobs are retained for only short periods.
We therefore urge that attention and resources be directed to the creation of more employment. Methods such as disincentives for overtime, a shorter working week, creation of large capital works, e.g. in interstate transport, recycling industries, land reclamation, etc.
We have always supported the nexus between rights and obligations and therefore the concept of mutual or reciprocal obligations. But such attitude is valid only when applied equally to all. We have the “work for the dole” programs along with legitimate tax havens for high income earners who are avoiding their obligations to the wider society whose infrastructures they use to create their wealth.
Community development should be fostered by grants for self-help, not-for-profit and local government projects.
Of particular concern are the young who are homeless due to disintegrating, abusive or destitute families and have to fend for them[selves]. Welfare measures geared to prevent chronic homelessness are cost-effective given the high incidence of illness and prison sentences in the group.
The proposal to reduce the cut-off point for dependent children of single parents to below the current age of 16 is a detrimental aspect of the reform.
A narrow focus on fiscal policy can result in more inequalities and costly consequences in the long term.
––––––––––
[End of 1999]
