Author, Pat Miller, once said, “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
Paula Gerber, Professor of Human Rights Law, at Monash University, has recently stated: “…once the celebrations from Australia achieving marriage equality have subsided, the fight for LGBTI people to live free from discrimination will continue.”
So, what does Paula have in mind?
First, birth certificates should “accurately” reflect a child’s family, and not be limited to the child’s biological mother and father:
“In contrast to Canada, which allows birth certificates to record up to four parents, Australia allows only two parents to be recorded. This means that this pivotal identity document may not accurately reflect a child’s family structure.”[note]Australia has finally achieved marriage equality, but there’s a lot more to be done on LGBTI rights[/note]
Second, bans on faith-based organisations that seek to “convert” people from homosexuality:
“…the Health Complaints Commissioner does not have the power to examine faith-based organisations engaging in such practices, which limits this initiative’s effectiveness.”
Third, the removal of religious exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation. In other words, it should be illegal for Christian organisations to dismiss people who fundamentally contradict their message:
“As it stands, religious bodies are allowed to discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. The impact of such exemptions were recently illustrated when a teacher at a Baptist school in Western Australia was lawfully sacked for being gay.”
Fourth, prohibitions on surgeries to “normalise” an intersex infant’s genitalia:
“Advocates are calling for such medical interventions to be banned unless there is freely given and fully informed consent.”
Gerber also suggests that, “Australia should also lend its support to persecuted LGBTI people in other parts of the world. This includes the Asia-Pacific region where 19 countries criminalise homosexuality.” But why is that the right thing to do? If Gerber wants to reject the Bible, as a moral measure outside of our own thoughts, what is her proposed alternative?
Are “right” and “wrong” defined by culture? If so, how can one culture judge another? What business do we have imposing our culture’s moral code on other cultures? And if our culture is superior, then the notion of morality being a social construct is flawed. Ultimately, Gerber wants the world to conform to “right” and “wrong,” not as the Bible defines it, not as culture defines it, but as she defines it. So much for “human rights.”
We must remember, threats to freedom don’t come bearing shackles and chains – no one would willingly embrace that. Instead, slavery promises us liberation and protection – a sort of freedom that can only be attained by reducing the freedoms of the offenders of the day, until one day, you find you’ve actually shackled yourself.
