MEDIA RELEASE
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has expressed concern at comments made by Attorney-General Brian Wightman recently in Tasmanian parliament about proposed changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act.
ACL’s state director Mark Brown said Mr Wightman has mooted changes to “increase some of the protections under the act, including the prohibition of engaging in conduct which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person on the basis of certain attributes by extending this to cover the full range of attributes listed in the act including age, race, sexual orientation and disability” [1]
“ACL certainly objects to behaviour that incites hatred or ridicules another but to open the prohibition of offence to things like religious or political belief or sexual orientation is a threat to freedom of speech. Who doesn’t get offended or insulted at times by others’ differences of opinion?” Mr Brown said.
“In a country like Australia which prides itself on tolerance in a multicultural society, these changes would only undermine tolerance and robust political debate would be inhibited.
“We are concerned about the implications to freedom of speech, conscience and religion. Especially when Tasmania is set to debate numerous social issues which bring out diverse opinion and with it a potential to offend.
“Surely the government has been watching the costly and embarrassing vexatious cases in other jurisdictions like Victoria with similar laws.
“Are we going to see those who, for religious or non-religious reasons, have legitimate objections to same-sex marriage prohibited from participating in public debate because someone might take offence?
“Will people who stand up for the rights of children to have both a mum and dad be legally sanctioned because it offends some people who believe gender is not important in parenting?
“Will we see, as we saw in Victoria under its farcical religious vilification laws, costly and drawn out legal proceedings as a result of dubious complaints?
“Squashing healthy debate does not show respect and tolerance. Some would say it in fact fuels discrimination – against those who think differently. Serious thought needs to be given to how the changes proposed might affect Tasmanian society as a whole – for better or for worse,” Mr Brown said.
I remember many years ago when Mr Nile spoke about the likely impacts of these anti vilification laws. He warned that such laws would prevent open discussion and effectively we would be creating a protected group within our society above the usual scrutiny, which every other group endures. He was criticized and mocked for making such suggestion.
Exactly what he predicted has been the result of these anti vilification laws.
Anything or anybody critical of any aspect of the gay agenda is vilified and often threatened with prosecution including people who simply state their belief that children deserve a mother and father wherever possible, or that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual unions.
If homosexual advocates want to be considered mainstream they should endure the scrutinizing and criticisms that every other group does, not put themselves above it by creating farcical anti discrimination laws.
No one should face legal prosecution for stating true facts such as homosexual relationships are not as healthy as heterosexual ones.People should not be pulled into line and threatened with law suits for declaring their opinion that the Mardi Gras is a perverted, explicit and unacceptable sex show. ( See what happened to newsreader Ron Wilson and how he was forced to make amends).
Consider everyone who has been condemned for ‘homophobia’ , how many were just expressing personal opinions that homosexual advocates didn’t like?
All anti vilification laws in every state should be repealed, if we believe any more in equality , freedom of speech and democracy. Creating protected groups creates inequality and a loss of basic freedoms for the larger society.
Explain how the statement “homosexual relationships are not as healthy as heterosexual ones” is a true fact – not just your opinion, but a FACT.
John
You might start at this website – and the links – in supplying some of the FACTs you request. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html
John
and more at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Your links are mainly about helath issues to do with particular sexual acts are specific strictly to homosexual individuals.
Notwithstanding that consenting adults are free to express themselves sexually in however they see fit in the privacy of their own home, many of the sexual acts mentioned in the linked source are also practised by heterosexual couples – is it purely a certain type of sexual behaviour you wish to stamp out altogether or is it only that sexual activity when it is indulged in by homosexuals?