The Brumby Labor government has passed a new Equal Opportunity Bill, which attacks religious freedom, while a new Hate Crimes Inquiry plans to restrict free speech and religious freedom.

Government hypocrisy – political parties exempt, but not churches.

Hypocritically, politicians are able to require that their employees are members of their political party, but ministers of religion are not be able to automatically require that their employees are members of their own faith, or prefer that employees are broadly of the same belief. The new Victorian Equal Opportunity Act exempts political parties but not churches.

Employment contracts can be challenged?

Tens of thousands of children attend schools where there has been a tradition of favouring teachers who share the religious and ethical values of the school. However, under the new law current employment contracts of church-based organisations – which often specify that administrators, playgroup or kindergarten coordinators, finance officers or site managers must be of the organization’s faith or prefer employees with sympathetic beliefs – may be illegal and open to challenge in the courts.

"Inherent requirements" rule targets churches

Under previous legislation, schools used to be able to choose employees who reflect the school’s culture, taking into account personal moral values, religious beliefs and life style.

Under the new Equal Opportunity Act, a religious institution can be required to justify to a court that an "inherent requirement" of a job requires that a person be in "conformity with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of the religion" of that institution.

Incredibly, the secular courts will have to decide on a case by case basis:

• What is "the religion" of the organisation", (which may be relatively straightforward for a Catholic body, but for many broader Christian agencies it could be quite difficult);
  
  
• What are the "doctrines, beliefs or principles" of that "religion" as they apply to "religious belief or activity, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity" of a person applying for a position (which again may be easy for Catholic bodies, but difficult for broader based Christian organisations); and then,
  
  
• Whether these faith-related attributes are an "inherent requirement" of a particular job.
  
  

The general public has reason to be alarmed at the new law, because of the fear that the "inherent requirement" test will be interpreted in a very secular narrow way by the courts.

Consider the British case of Ms Christian Ladele, a Christian registrar with the Islington town council, who faced court under similar UK legislation. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, ruled that for the Islington Council to require that Ms Ladele officiate at same-sex civil partnership registrations "did not impinge on her religious beliefs: she remained free to hold those beliefs, and free to worship as she wished." Lord Neuberger decided that Ms Ladele's Christian view of marriage was "not a core part of her religion, and [the council’s] requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished."

For Christian organisations, all work is done "to the glory of God". Hence, they employ people of faith so that the whole organisation can corporately serve God because. For them, it impossible to use "inherent requirements" to distinguish between specifically religious job and other jobs. All jobs reflect the beliefs of a Christian organizations. Many secular judges and politicians cannot understand this perspective because their religious worldview cannot comprehend it.

Victoria’s new law gives the courts grounds to prevent schools and other religious organisations from dismissing or denying employment to people who are actively opposed to the religious beliefs of the institution.

Equal Opportunity Commission given new power to investigate religious organizations

The new legislation gives the Equal Opportunity Commission extensive new powers for investigating suspected "systematic discrimination," even if no complaint has been made.

Further, accused persons or church organisations will be required to provide documents in evidence to the Commission and to attend Commission hearings into their organisation.

"Harassment" is defined as "conduct that offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules" a GLBTI person. The test as to whether the offence has been committed is not the "intent of the offender", but whether a "reasonable" person would have anticipated that the victim would be so offended, humiliated insulted or ridiculed.

There would be no need to prove any element of harm through incitement to hatred or violence, in contrast to "hate speech" or "harassment" offences in other countries.

Other Western countries with Hate Crimes require proof of intent to do harm, incitement to hatred or violence, or actual harm. For example, other countries require proof that:

• "Incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace…" (Canada); or
  
  
• Statements were specifically directed to "excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons on the grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origin" (New Zealand); or
  
  
• Statements intentionally "cause a person harassment, alarm or distress" (UK); or
  
  
• Statements were "intended or likely to stir up hatred" (Ireland).

However, in Victoria the proposal is that a person could be prosecuted simply for expressing an opinion that another person deems to be offensive, even if there was no intention of causing offence.

This proposal does not allow for the Christian distinction between the person and the behaviour (i.e. hate the sin, but love the sinner). If legislated, it would mean that publicly saying or teaching that intimate sexual acts between persons of the same sex are immoral/unchaste, which is Christian teaching, could constitute an offence if a GBLTI person felt offended or insulted.

It is obvious this would impose serious limitations on the teaching of Christian morality and on public discussion of sexual morality. This constitutes a serious denial of freedom of speech and specifically freedom of religion. It is also a denial of the right of Christian parents to have their children instructed in Christian precepts of sexual morality.

People should be protected from violence against them simply because they belong to a particular group, ethnic, racial, religious, sexual orientation or disability. But the proposal put forward in With Respect would curtail freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, thought and religion without there being any intention or action or conduct to incite violence against or hatred of another or cause harm.

Defend your freedom of speech and religion – join free2believe.org.au