There is an old saying that says, “For from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.” There is another one that says, “Each tree is recognised by its own fruit”. Similar ones note that truth is good, even if ratbags say it (my paraphrase). But that is often followed up by, “But watch how they live – if they teach truth but live as ratbags (that technical term again), don’t be a chump. Don’t follow them off the cliff.” (more paraphrasing)

If we apply these kinds of principles to the current NSW parliament, I think we are starting to see a clear pattern. The words can sound good – think of the apology about the late response to ideological hatred that was expressed through one group of Australians hoping for death to other groups to which other Australians belonged. Think about those leaders who gave personal commitments to religious freedom. Think of reassurances that were given about protecting the freedom of conscience for those unwilling to abort the unborn. All these words seem to come from good hearts, and indeed, the current Premier is sometimes lauded for such well-crafted presentations.

But then we look at the fruit. If we work our way backwards, time-wise, the Premier not so long ago promised that he would not vote or support a bill extending compulsory involvement in abortion (see Mark Powell’s article here). Yet between March and May, this bill was introduced to NSW Parliament almost immediately after the Federal election, without any opportunity for further discussion. It seems this was an attempted deception – or an attempted cover for cowardice. Why cowardice? Perhaps the politicians knew what the backlash might be. Notably, as a response and at very short notice, thousands of people did gather one evening to voice their concerns. Thousands. Not your motley rent-a-crowd of yellers and screamers. They were people listening to impassioned speeches by well-qualified leaders, and who spontaneously burst into song. 

So, under such pressure, with some of the crowd present in the chamber, some last-minute amendments were made to protect some freedom of conscience and religion with reference to abortion. But not all – it appears nurses will still be compelled to be involved in abortions, even if it is against their conscience.

Notice that this is a freedom of conscience and religion issue. Why then can’t we have an ongoing discussion at these levels? That is the starting point for considering the whole issue of abortion. For example, certain feminists believe the unborn baby is like an appendix, for them to do with as they want. That is labelled ‘freedom over their own body.’ The trouble is, others of us understand the unborn child to be a discreet human being, and again for some, from the moment of conception.

This debate is philosophical, not biological. It is about our theoretical anthropological assumptions, not our scientific method. But it seems that, just like with issues of sexual identity, not only do the so-called progressives want the freedom to do what they want, they insist on taking away the freedom of others to raise concerns about the ideas themselves, or about personal and professional practice. 

I remember asking one politician why there was this apparent fear of open discussion and debate on both ‘sides’ of politics. His comment was enlightening: “The feminists have them by the (you know what).”

Is this why these politicians proposed this bill suddenly after the Federal election? Because they did, action groups had to send out hasty emails alerting concerned citizens about what was about to go down – and then attend in thousands at NSW parliament house. 

Note that this is not the current State government’s first time at such apparent avoidance. I remember writing to the Premier and his Attorney General asking for the philosophical or scientific basis for allowing people to change their gender to the opposite of their birth sex by filling in a form. I asked whether that meant they could then have access to sex-assigned places (like women’s change rooms). I further asked that if they allowed recognised gender to be separated from biological sex, would they allow people to identify as a different species (as has happened in some schools). I then asked that if they would not, on what basis is that different to what they have allowed? 

Of course, these are again deeper philosophical questions that reflect our core assumptions about who we are as people. The response was reasonably predictable – nothing, apart from an early one which had that most pitiful excuse: “Everyone else is doing it.” I hear that from children trying to get out of trouble. I do not expect to hear it from elected professional politicians and their well-paid minders.

Both of these developments challenge what it means to be human. As one James Packer said (not the media one – the Oxford one), “True humanism is a quest for full realization of the possibilities of our humanity.” What I see in these developments is a lessening of our humanity. There is less compassion and charity, not more. These changes are moves back to the eugenics of the 1900s, and the infanticide of nearly all ancient societies. And permitting such transience in sexual functioning will add to the declining support of families, socially and economically. The sociological mapping has demonstrated for some time that such weakening of families leads to weakening of the social centre (think of Putnam’s Bowling Alone).

Such a weakening of the social centre is also fed by the allowance of so-called freedom of speech of those preachers who, based on what we have seen on our TV screens, can celebrate the evil of the brutal torture and murder of another distinct group, and then publicly speak to the hope that there will be more.

That is so far away from JS Mills’ understanding of liberty. He would have called it barbarism. He even went as far to say: “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” (On Liberty, p. 119) Is encouraging harm to another identifiable group being a nuisance? Is blocking the entrance to an elected official’s office a nuisance? If it is not, then this government is presiding over a society becoming less safe, and that is making us more like animals to be herded, monitored and controlled, instead of us living in our fuller humanity. Yes, that is called a COVID-19-type response.

What a disappointment. What a shattering reality. It seems we have a current State government that can find good-hearted words but who is opening doors to 1984 in the 2020s – or is it, in combination with their national colleagues, an attempt to lull us into the Brave New World of intense personal comfort? Fed by the illusion of self-satisfaction, will we grow more distant from genuine intimacy because we lack a higher vision of communal life based in the transcendent Creator? Such an elevated desire for a preferred future calls us to serve each other because it is not about us as individuals. It is about us, together, living as we are made to live.