The Australian Law Reform Commission has now released a Consultation Paper for its current reference on “Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws”. The paper, while formally acknowledging the importance of religious freedom and parental rights, will be a serious disappointment to those involved in religious schools and colleges. It effectively recommends the removal of protections enjoyed by religious educational institutions which have been designed to safeguard the ability of these organisations to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs. The “fences” protecting these bodies from being forced to conform to majority views on sexual behaviour and identity (and hence losing their distinctiveness as religious bodies) are to be knocked down, the ALRC says. But the paper offers no convincing reasons for this wholesale demolition of a structure which has served the diversity and plurality of the Australian community for many years. Rather than supporting “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”, the paper’s recommendations would require a compulsory uniformity which would undermine the reasons for the existence of faith-based educational institutions.
The reference to “fences” is an allusion to a well-known passage from G K Chesterton. It may be helpful to quote it in full:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.G K Chesterton “The Thing: Why I am a Catholic” (1929), ch 4 “The Drift from Domesticity”.
Chesterton of course says it better, but the principle is this: proposals for reform which involve removing some barrier which seems to “lie in the way” of progress, need to understand why the barrier was erected first, what danger it was guarding against, and then explain why that danger is no longer a problem. In the case of the ALRC proposals, I don’t see the evidence that these issues have been properly addressed.
READ ON BELOW>>>
Removing fences: the ALRC Consultation Paper on Religious Educational Institutions and Discrimination Laws – Law and Religion Australia
Removing fences: the ALRC Consultation Paper on Religious Educational Institutions and Discrimination Laws – Law and Religion Australia
