In 2009, the Synod of the Diocese passed a resolution concerning people with disability. It requested parishes and organizations in the Diocese to develop and implement a plan to remove obstacles that prevent people with disability from hearing the gospel and sharing in Christian fellowship. (The resolution appears in full below).

This request seems very hard. Ministry staff are so busy just keeping a church healthy. The idea of them coordinating something new in this area can seem completely daunting to them. But in partnership with the Diocesan Secretariat, the SIE is trying to make it easier for churches to think about making some changes.

We are hoping it might even become enjoyable. For what a glorious adornment of the gospel it would be, if people with disability found their local church to be an oasis in an otherwise hard world. ‘Driving by a church, a ramp is a welcome mat,’ said a wheelchair user. All churches can be like that.

Over the next few days, rectors in the Diocese of Sydney will receive a request to participate in an online questionnaire. It asks a raft of questions about how accessible your church property and practices are for people with disability, and ranges across several areas. Its purpose is simple: we want to take a ‘snapshot’ of what Sydney Anglican churches are currently like for people with disability. We would love the 2010 Synod to hear how churches are changing in this area! It all begins with these few questions.

If you attend an Anglican church in Sydney, you might like to offer to help your Rector complete this questionnaire. It can be completed by any church member who knows about their parish’s physical facilities, methods of communication and main programs. Your rector might prefer to do it himself; your church wardens, who look after church plant and equipment, might be better placed to do it; but it can do no harm to offer.

Whoever answers it might find themselves answering ‘no’ a lot. But we don’t want anyone to feel guilty or downhearted, and we are not trying to make anyone squirm. Some fixes may be easier than everybody thinks. The questionnaire also offers the opportunity for a free consultation to help churches identify the simplest and best changes, to make your church into that oasis. (The closing date for the questionnaire is Friday 2 July 2010.)

We also want to alert you to these two other ways you can rethink your church’s approach to people with disability.

• An amazing conference will take place in Drummoyne, NSW, on July 5–9:
  Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for the Church: Ministering with People with Disabilities –
  the Inclusion of the Excluded. Several speakers will address a variety of theoretical and practical considerations (For further information, call (02) 9819 8888, email jim.harrison@wi.edu.au or visit www.wi.edu.au.)

• At Synod, we introduced the Luke14 initiative. It can help you with good Bible study material and with tips on how to change a church. Check it out: www.luke14.cbm.org.au

One final point. There is not some discrete class called ‘the disabled’, and this initiative is not about how ‘we’ can help ‘them’. Jesus’ churches do not work that way. There are only people, each of whom need Jesus to save us and change us. People with disability simply want the opportunity to be a member of a church, to learn with you, and to contribute their gifts and skills for building others up.

Let’s begin to make that possible, for each of them.

-          Andrew Cameron (for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sydney Anglican Synod Resolution 34/09: People with a disability

Synod, mindful that meeting together in Christ, we learn of receiving our bodies as given by God; we continue to discover practices of love towards all people in their particular circumstances; we discern with them how to ‘carry each other’s burdens’ (Gal. 6:2); and we each learn together how to ‘carry our own load’ (Gal 6:5), therefore –

(a)      recognises that for people with disabilities, their families and carers, daily life can be practically, financially, socially and emotionally more difficult than it is for most people,

(b)      notes that there are many obstacles for people with disabilities, their families and carers, which prevent them hearing the gospel and sharing in Christian fellowship, which we have not always considered,

(c)      requests that all parishes and organisations in the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church develop and implement a plan to remove those obstacles that currently prevent people affected by disability from hearing the gospel and sharing in Christian fellowship, and

(d)      requests Sydney Anglicans and the Diocese in particular to continue to advocate for Government policy that promotes the wellbeing and interests of people with disabilities and their families and carers.

Links:

• Social Issues briefing #083, ‘Who has a disability?’ Online: http://www.sie.sydney.anglican.asn.au/briefings/who_has_a_disability
• Luke 14 Resources for Disability Inclusive Christian Communities (CBM Australia)
  www.Luke14.cbm.org.au. (Also follow the link to their free resources.)

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply. To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues.

Conditions of use:

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, authors, and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to andrew.cameron@moore.edu.au.

‘Driving by a church, a ramp is a welcome mat.’ (Wheelchair user)

Not so long ago, I visited an Anglican church in Sydney’s northwest. As visiting speaker for the day I was shown around and invited to their communal dinner.

I was interested to meet several ‘disabled’ people there. (I will return to those inverted commas later.) They had various difficulties I do not normally see, and needed some help; but participating in the dinner they spoke and were spoken to as naturally as anyone else. Their wheelchairs were part of the furniture, like my own chair. So were the ramps and rails throughout the building. It was church as usual—just another meeting of God’s people.

I was surprised in three ways by this scenario. First, it was so unremarkable. These members were not regarded awkwardly. They were not patronised. No one spoke at them loudly. They were folk at church, like me. Second, I was surprised (and annoyed) at my surprise. Why did I notice them so much, and why was the normalcy of the scene so interesting to me? Clearly, there was something odd in my perception, and in my experience of church until then.

My third surprise? I will return to that when I get to those inverted commas ...

‘I do not expect to get access to the pyramids or Uluru, but I do want to get into all the library and all of the community centre.’

‘The gym offered a separate class for kids with disabilities. I asked one of the teachers whether it would be possible for my daughter to attend one of the mainstream classes. She frowned and looked concerned, and said that was why they created the separate class. I said she was perfectly capable of joining in with the other girls. She said “well that’s OK for your daughter but if we let her in we will have to let everyone else in…”’

These excerpts are from submissions to Shut Out: the experience of people with disabilities and their families in Australia. This report arose from a government commissioned consultation on the lived experiences of people with disabilities. More than 2,500 people attended consultations around the country to tell their stories, and over 750 submissions were received.

Reading it arouses anger. Enormous barriers still prevent many people from participating in community life. People with disabilities do not enjoy full participation in society—but not just because of the physical aspect of their disability. The absence of ramps, rails and appropriate toilets is not the only problem. The main problem is the failure to perceive and accept these people as people.

After the Shut Out report, there are growing calls (led by the Hon. Bill Shorten) for a National Disability Insurance Scheme (www.ndis.org.au). Such a scheme would function along the lines of Medicare: compulsory contributions from all would enable anyone who has or acquires a serious disability to be financially assisted. Such a scheme would better enable those with disability to find solutions, rather than being at the mercy of the current ad-hoc, patchy and inadequate arrangements.

But an insurance scheme won’t fix everything. It cannot change community attitudes. Churches are usually characterized as welcoming and caring places, and many churches like the Anglican church mentioned above are oases of sorts. But unfortunately, many more church communities and church spaces are not yet very inclusive, and many with disabilities are inadvertently ‘shut out’ of church life. In Australia today, twenty percent of people are living with a disability of some kind. But think about your own church: does the number of people there with a disability reflect that wider figure?

‘For many years people with disabilities found themselves shut in—hidden away in large institutions. Now, many people with disabilities find themselves shut out—shut out of buildings, homes, schools, businesses, sports and community groups. They find themselves shut out of our way of life.’ [- from the report.]

The Anglican Church in Sydney is now committed to connecting with the many different people around us. Those with disability are one such group, but it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out why so few of this unseen group are found in churches.

It can be physically too hard to get to church, or to get into the building or the toilets. The format of services can be difficult for someone with chronic pain, or with a visual or hearing impairment. Small group meetings are impossible for families who have a family member with an intellectual disability or behavioural problems. Embarrassment keeps people away from church; or when they come, some feel superficially accepted but never really integrated into church life. An unintended message heard by people with a disability is that they ought to be grateful for our help, or for ‘accommodating’ them in some special way.

Admitting these problems can be difficult, and we can find ourselves responding with guilt, hopelessness and even some anger at having to face these things. Overstressed clergy groan inwardly at having to address yet another aspect of church life. Wardens shake their heads at the compliance issues, the monetary cost, and the endless hassle of pushing through changes to church plant and equipment. The rest of us quake inwardly at our clumsy responses to disabilities.

Nevertheless, Jesus himself seems to feel quite strongly about this matter. Triggered by the local religion’s contempt for a disabled man, Jesus erupts into a series of parables that throw the boundaries way beyond that man’s particular case.

‘When you give a lunch or a dinner, don't invite your friends, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, and you would be repaid. On the contrary, when you host a banquet, invite those who are poor, maimed, lame, or blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’ [Luke 14:12-14, csb]

His confronting language about ‘repayment’ points to how seriously God expects us to include the vulnerable and the frail, as people. Jesus utterly subverts our standard ways of seeing people, as if we matter in virtue of our ‘productivity’, our ‘social skills’ or our ‘success’. God will have no part of those who only associate on such terms. ‘When you give a lunch or a dinner, don’t invite your friends, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors’—Jesus hosts no ‘homogenous unit’ banquets, and ‘pro-life’ churches have no choice other than to follow him in this.

For churches are already full of the ‘disabled’—if only we could see that. This was my third surprise: why did I think of those others as any more ‘disabled’ than I? I will also face ill health, accident, old age; one day I will need care; and more importantly, my ‘productivity’, ‘social skill’ and ‘success’ mean nothing as I stand before God in need of salvation. My functional body masks my broken heart and my lost soul. Breaking bread alongside those with visible disability, I learnt with them what God always knows: that we are all utterly dependent upon him, through the death of his Son for a totally ‘disabled’ humanity. Because and only because of him, churches are communities of broken people who know the hope of eternity. Churches are not service providers, or social clubs. They are people in relationship with God, and with each other in Christ.

As I write, the annual Synod of the Anglican Diocese is in session. On the Synod’s agenda is an initiative to enable churches to start, or start again, at including everyone. Delegates will be introduced to and given free material from a magnificently helpful group. They have put together a set of Luke 14 resources designed to enable ‘Disability Inclusive Christian Communities’. The writers of this material have literally trawled the globe for the best of the best, to help churches in the following ways:

• Church Wardens—those practical men and women in Anglican churches who just want to know what to do next—will be delighted with the Accessible Church Manual on how to fix church buildings. It includes all the latest Australian Standards guidelines and expectations; it shows the exact slope needed on a ramp, the exact dimensions needed in a toilet, and everything practical that rectors and ministry staff can only marvel in wonder at.
• Ministers—those thoughtful shepherds who seek change in how we believe, think, feel and live—will be assisted by Church Bar None, a set of Bible studies with well-produced DVD visuals that constructively and helpfully edge people into the Bible’s account of disability. (Those trained at a certain college where this writer works tend not to believe that pre-prepared Bible studies can be useful. I promise: this material is an exception.) The material can be tailored for a particular church; there is a wealth of helpful input here.
• Members—those faithful people who come regularly and want to help but often don’t know how—will find a wealth of tips and tactics, such as the list of Welcomer’s Tips for people with various kinds of disability.  This material will lead us out of our awkwardness and clumsiness, into sensible ways of receiving others as people like us. It will show us how to ‘connect’ with disabled others before, during and after church.

For if we are all ‘disabled’, then maybe the physically disabled have a thing or two to teach us about following Jesus. Synod will see Table Talk, a six-minute video profiling members of churches across the land. They move us to tears, and fill us with hope. One of them, Steven, strikes the viewer as pretty different at first. But we learn of his ‘bizarre’ sense of humour; we quickly pick up how to hear his speech; then he looks to camera and says, ‘I offer what everyone else has to offer: themselves.’

Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Links:

• Luke 14 Resources for Disability Inclusive Christian Communities (CBM Australia)
  www.Luke14.cbm.org.au. (Also follow the link to their free resources.)
• ‘Shut Out’: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/pubs/policy/community_consult/Documents/NDS_report.pdf
• Catriona Corbett, ‘Caring for our disabled children’: www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/relationships/caring_for_our_disabled_children
• National Disability Insurance Scheme: www.ndis.org.au

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply.

To access this occasional free briefing, use RSS at www.sie.org.au; or to receive it by email, ask us at social.issues@moore.edu.au or do it yourself at http://lists.moore.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/social-issues .

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.

– Jesus (Luke 4:18-19)

This may surprise you – but many consider it a bit cheeky to use Luke 4:18 in a discussion about prisoners.

But let us dream a crazy dream for a moment. Wouldn’t it be amazing if in jails across Australia, every prisoner could be freed in Jesus’ way? Imagine them all discovering ‘the Lord’s favour’. Imagine them becoming ‘free’ in the deepest sense: free of what drove them to crime; free to be loved by God; freed in turn to love him and to serve others. Imagine them finding the kind of inner freedom that meant they did not need to be jailed any more.

It is cheeky, though, to borrow Jesus’ words because the kinds of ‘prisoner’ he spoke of were not exactly the same as modern prisoners. He spoke of people like John the Baptist – those thrown into dungeons by despots who did not like to be challenged. In contrast, we imprison people in an attempt to justly punish them for crime. Our prisons were invented as an attempt to punish more mercifully than in days past (when people were flogged, deported, or killed).

So technically, prisoners in the New Testament are not quite the same as ours. When the author to the Hebrews says ‘Remember the prisoners, as though you were in prison with them, and the mistreated, as though you yourselves were suffering bodily,’ (Heb. 13:3), these people were likely imprisoned because their talk about Jesus inconvenienced someone (e.g. Acts 16:2-24; Rom. 16:7; Col. 4:3; 2 Tim. 1:8). They were more like what we would call ‘political prisoners’ – probably including even those prisoners Jesus mentions in his famously hard word about failing to help them (Matt. 35:31-46). These prisoners were more like the kind of prisoner Jesus himself became.

But Christian people, including chaplains and those who work with prison ministries such as Karios (www.kairos.org.au) or Prison Fellowship Australia (www.pfi.org.au), cannot but help respond to modern prisoners. Even if we include more people under the category ‘prisoner’ than was originally meant by Jesus or by the author of Hebrews, there are two strong reasons for applying Hebrews 13:3 to modern prisoners.

First, the modern prison was invented to be a merciful judgment. It appeared at a time and place when people had realised the implication of our being forgiven by God. To be spared of wrath and granted mercy rubs off on human affairs: we learn to deal kindly with those who don’t deserve it. (Jesus argues as much when he condemns human vengefulness in Matt. 18:21-35). Even the magistrate will be judged; this moderates his judgment. Not all the early prison reformers were Christian, but they emerged from a culture shaped by this Christian gospel.

Second, the modern prison was invented as a way to promote and continue engagement between the community and the criminal. Prisons were placed in and near towns, and their industries contributed to the good of towns. The logic of prison practise advised the criminal that he does not exist to serve himself alone. Offenders remain members of that network of relationships called ‘society’. They exist to belong, to participate, and to contribute within society; and we are at our best as a society when we work towards offenders rejoining us.

But we are at our worst when we despise and ostracise prisoners and hold them in contempt. Prison ministries see how prisons tell offenders that society has harshly rejected them. Of course, many dedicated people within correctional systems treat people well; the systems and their workers are not necessarily wrong. But prisons easily become the kind of place that communicates a message from the wider community to a prisoner, as if we hate them and think they have no place among us. But people committed to Jesus disagree. Prison ministries offer grace, and help ex-offenders reintegrate into society. With Jesus, they seek to set prisoners free.

At the time of writing, the fate of convicted paedophile Dennis Ferguson highlights these issues. No community wants this man living among them. Talk-back radio programs have even aired demands for his relocation alone in the desert, or for his execution. But despite his heinous crimes, such ultra-vengeful ‘justice’ diminishes our society. When resettling those who have done time for crimes against children, governments should morally and practically consider how to prevent their access to any children. Yet even offenders against children need access to human society, and some degree of mercy.

At a recent conference in Sydney, Our prisons—Human Rights, Mental Health & Privatisation (www.icj-aust.org.au), participants were asked to reconsider various aspects of imprisonment as currently practised in Australia and NSW. The content was dense and sobering. Speakers included the Minister of the NSW Department of Corrective Services; academic researchers on prison populations; and activists on behalf of prisoners and their families. The issues are complex, and this listener was quite out of his depth. But one theme kept re-emerging throughout the day, and it deserves our close attention.

The NSW prison population continues to grow inexorably. But the vast majority of it consists of people incarcerated for short amounts of time. Of an overall ‘snapshot’ population of just over 10,000, over 2,000 people are on remand; and an annual ‘flow-through’ rate of 45,000-50,000 highlights just how many people have quite short sentences – some 50% with terms of less than six months.

Unfortunately, many of these ‘short-termers’ are poor, indigenous, female, of low IQ, intellectually disabled, mentally ill, or some combination of the above – with substance abuse often acting as a ‘multiplier’ of their other problems. These people have often experienced extreme childhood neglect, and have learnt very few skills for coping with life (e.g. reading or budgeting). They are best regarded as people with ‘complex needs’. Unfortunately, many men and women in this category arrive at a point in their lives where prison is the only life they are equipped to handle. It provides them with a roof, a bed, and meals; they develop coping strategies to deal with life on the inside. They don’t particularly like it, because after all, prison life is designed to be a form of punishment. But on release they are not equipped to live in other environments, and recidivism is partly driven by a tragic fear of the world beyond prison.

‘Once upon a time’ people like these might have been supported and enabled by a close-knit community, such as a village. But in our kind of society, we have collectively become clueless about how to help people with their complex needs. Over time, this society has drifted into using prison as what one speaker called a ‘therapeutic punishing institution’ for such people. Prisons now double as geographically remote complexes used as a social ‘too-hard basket’ for extremely needy people. (This comment should not be taken the wrong way: there are certainly bad and hardened people in prisons who definitely belong there.)

People with complex needs enter the system due to some low-level crime – and incredibly, for some this is the first time that their mental illness or intellectual disability is noticed by alert observers. Many keep cycling through the system due to an inability or failure to keep various parole conditions. They do not particularly like prison. Like us, they would prefer the security of a home, a job, a sense of belonging and an ability to belong. But they cannot find a way out.

What can Christians do to reach out to these people? It is clear that their complex needs are way beyond what one person or most churches could handle. But at the conference, the suggestion was made that such people can be well-served when clusters of ‘joined up’ services equip them to rejoin society. Workers in government and government-backed services are expert at creating the ‘community-embedded’ settings that so enable people.

For example, many community services begin relationships with prisoners in jail, and continue these relationships via post-release support services. (Anglicare chaplains have long promoted such arrangements.) On release from prison, a person might be housed in a ‘group home’ that has several trained case-workers on hand. With medical, psychiatric and educational help, these people can acquire skills they never received as children, and re-engage with society as contributors alongside us. (A Victorian program along these lines is getting good results.)

Such programs are expensive: several government or government-backed workers are needed to assist each person with complex needs. Programs also need to be long-term – not a strength in our society, which tends to ‘restructure’ (and pull funding) on community programs every few years.

Yet ironically, even this expensive community-embedded help is far cheaper than the cost of our prisons. The $160 million being spent on a new jail in Nowra, and the equivalent annual budget to run it, could keep community services like these running for decades. Even more ironically, such community services contribute strongly to what our society longs for when it builds a jail: an orderly, stable, settled, more crime-free society.

Unfortunately, there is a twist-in-the-tail to this style of thinking. Cassandra Shayler, Director of the Californian prison reform organisation Justice Now, describes how that U.S. state indentified some 4,500 prisoners with complex needs who did not belong in jail. But proposals for new ‘community-based’ facilities for them ‘morphed’ into the building of several new prisons. Shayler: ‘sometimes reformers’ rhetoric gets taken up and co-opted by the Department of Corrections. ... What it really results in is further expansion and entrenchment of the system that we already have.’ (ABC Radio, The Law Report 15/9/09.)

It is hard for correctional departments to hand over people and budgets to communities. It is also hard for politicians to support community services, because for anyone not in the field these services seem hidden, hard to understand, and suspiciously ‘soft on crime’. One way or another, people with complex needs find themselves back under the authority of those whose primary task is to punish.

Yet Christians can do something quite straightforward. Politicians need the grass-roots support that says: ‘community-embedded services are a better use of our money than large jails.’ Politicians need permission and courage to pursue and fund the idea.

Interestingly, a representative of the NSW Parliamentary Liberal Party stated at the conference that his party would not participate in a ‘law and order auction’ at the next election. That is, they would not ‘beat their chests’ for yet harsher sentencing and more jails. They are acutely aware that something new needs to be done to reduce prison populations and recidivism.

Now, then, would be the ideal time for Christians to propose new services for people with complex needs; to plead for their generous long-term funding; and to argue that such services must remain embedded in communities.

Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Sources/Further Reading:

ABC Radio, The Law Report, 15/9/09: www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2009/2685211.htm

Archbishop Peter Jensen, ‘So many jailed, and the key of compassion thrown away,’ SMH May 14, 2007:
www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/so-many-jailed-key-of-compassion-thrown-away/2007/05/13/1178994996065.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Oliver M.T. O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgment: The Bampton Lectures, 2003. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

International Commission of Jurists Australia, ‘MEDIA RELEASE: Prisons Conference Report.’ www.icj-aust.org.au

Karios Prison Ministry Australia: www.kairos.org.au

Prison Fellowship Australia: www.pfi.org.au

Anglicare chaplaincy services: www.anglicare.org.au/our-services/chaplaincy

NSW Department of Corrective Services: www.dcs.nsw.gov.au

Note: This paper is intended to assist discussion and may be corrected or revised in future. Short responses to social.issues@moore.edu.au are very welcome, but the SIE cannot guarantee a reply..

Conditions of use:

1. You may forward this paper to others, as long as you forward it in full.

2. You may freely publish it (e.g. in a church newspaper) as long as it is published in full, not for profit, and including the ‘Note’ paragraph. (You don’t have to include these ‘conditions’.)

3. Media and academic publishers should cite this paper according to their professional standards. We would appreciate audiences being directed to www.sie.org.au.

4. Not-for-profit publishers may use the ideas in this paper without acknowledgement; but if quoting it directly, please cite title, authors, and the web link www.sie.org.au.

5. Permission may be given for use in publications for profit. Please send details of your proposal to lisa.watts@moore.edu.au.

Australia is ageing. There are more older Australian now than ever before, and their numbers are rising. Does this prospect excite you, or worry you?

It seems to worry our government. An ageing populace creates many implications for public policy, and the purpose of this briefing is to touch upon some of these, particularly in relation to work. We will look at the work of those in aged care, and the work options (or not) for those who age.

But ‘Australia is ageing’ can become a statement open to new and intriguing possibilities. The Christian church knows something of these, as suggested by U.S. theologian Stanley Hauerwas (above). Each italicised section outlines some statistics and government responses, and we will then observe something that Christians know to be true about the aged. In this way, we will have a small ‘thought experiment’ about how ageing Australia could have some hidden bonuses.

1. Overview. It is easy to fall into the trap of viewing older people as one homogenous group, but in fact the statistics tell a different story. (For some ‘snapshots’ of our ageing population, see the appendix to this briefing). One common misconception about the aged according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is not supported by the data, is that the vast majority of older people are a burden on the community and are being ‘looked after’.

They report that the “overwhelming majority of older people live in private dwellings – only 6% live in non-private dwellings, which include aged care homes and hospitals. Even among those aged 85 years and over, 74% live in private dwellings. Almost one quarter of men aged 65-69 participate in the workforce, along with 13% of women in same age group. Despite having relatively low average levels of income, 24% of all older Australians were providing direct or indirect financial support for adult children or other relatives living outside the household”. Also, “Older Australians actively contribute to family and community life. Almost half of people aged 65-74 years (48%) provide unpaid assistance to someone outside their household, one-third (33%) provide volunteer services through an organization ...  and two thirds are in social and support groups”.

Christians continually see older people upholding churches and other communities through acts of service, with generosity, and by conversations that convey wisdom and build relationships. What if our society construed ageing in a new way? Rather than presenting ‘retirement’ as the opportunity for an endless holiday, what if we looked forward to our retirement as that new stage of life where we are freed to help others in a variety of new ways? (Many Christians think of their retirement as an ongoing opportunity for ‘ministry’—that is, for building up friends and neighbours in the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ and of others.)

2. The aged care workforce. According to a report from the Productivity Commission, the evidence suggests that:

“... over the next 40 years there will be difficulties in securing an adequate supply of personnel with the necessary skills to support the delivery of aged care services. There is already a shortage of nurses in general, and of aged care workers in particular. On average, the age profile of the residential care workforce is markedly older than the health and community care workforce and the Australian labour force as a whole. Over the coming decades, the sector will need to replace a growing number of retiring workers”.

One of the biggest problems for employers in attracting and retaining staff is the low remuneration compared to other sectors.

Aged care also relies heavily on informal carers. However the availability of these carers is expected to decline over coming decades while demand increases, thus contributing to a large shortfall. Volunteers also play an important role in supporting the aged. It is expected that the potential pool of volunteers will more than double by 2050 but the aged care sector is likely to face increasing competition from other community activities.

Christian theology teaches that interdependence is our normal condition in human society. What if our society sought to banish all conceptions of care as merely a  ‘burden’ on carers? What if we vigorously resisted the notion that the ‘resources’ for care are ‘scarce’? What if this community affirmed the interdependence seen in aged care as an honourable condition, both to the carer and the cared, which clearly embodies the way humanity is to be with and for one another? What if we honoured these carers by paying the more and by speaking more highly of them?

3. Employment and older Australians. A recent report by National Seniors states that “painting a picture of mature age employment and unemployment isn’t simple or straightforward – the reality is often disguised”. For example:

• Early retirement implies a voluntary outcome when it can actually be due to involuntary workforce exit;
• Self-employment may be a response to difficulty finding employment;
• Working part-time may be due to insufficient full-time employment opportunities;
• Older people who are not employed are much more likely than younger people to be classified as ‘not in the labour force’ rather than ‘unemployed’.

Within this complexity, one thing stands out: older people are not participating fully in the labour market, and the reasons for this lower participation rate are disguised by underemployment and hidden unemployment.

Although mature age unemployment has been falling in recent years, it is set to rise significantly in the wake of the global recession. People 55 and over are likely to remain unemployed for three times longer than younger people. Barriers to mature age employment include:

• Discrimination on the basis of age;
• Lack of appropriate skills and training as skill requirements change, and limited opportunities to upgrade skills;
• Personal circumstances related to health and disability issues associated with the ageing process, and care giving responsibilities; and
• Government income support policies that limit access to training and education for older workers and act as disincentives to combining part-time paid employment with income support, including the age pension.

Consider the role of information technology in the life of this group. While some 75% of 45-54yr olds use this technology, the number decreases to 60% of 55-64yr olds, then to 40% of 65-74 yr olds, then 18% of 75-84yr olds and 6% of those over 85. If we imagine that an older person is only ‘useful’ in a workforce to the extent that they can use this technology, then it constitutes a significant barrier to their employment.

According to the Bible, older people are often the repository of ‘wisdom’ and ‘maturity’. What if older people were not thought of simply as another ‘useful’ or ‘useless’ unit of labour, when compared to a technology-using or physically active younger person? What would it look like for employers to re-imagine the role of older workers? What could an organisation become, if older workers were set free to mentor younger workers? What if they were always invited to tell of the history of an organisation? What if we continued to learn from each older person all the past mistakes and successes that they remember taking place in their field?

4. Pension age rise to 67. In justifying the Government’s decision to raise the pension age in the May 2009 budget, Treasurer Wayne Swan said a decision was needed to keep pensions sustainable. "Currently we have five workers in Australia for every person aged 65 and over and by 2050, that will be 2½ … Life expectancy has increased by 23 years since the age pension came in … twice as many people are going on it for twice as long."

Many commentators agree that the move to raise the pension age along the lines of other OECD countries was necessary. But some are concerned about the effect on blue collar workers and the physical demands of working longer, and about the effect on older people who have difficulty remaining fully employed and would then have to rely on lower income supports for longer.

Should people access their superannuation only at aged pension age? Those in favour say it would be more equitable to do so; those against argue that earlier access to superannuation enables flexibility about when to retire.  Whether to raise the age at which people can access their superannuation will be a fiercely debated question when considered by Government later this year.

A Christian theology of politics entrusts judgments about justice and the common good to our leaders, who must learn and weigh much complex data. Christians hope and pray that they will have wisdom to arbitrate well. What would it look like to urge and encourage our leaders in this difficult task? How may we resist these issues of superannuation and pension age becoming reduced merely to each individual’s self-interest?

5. Further implications. We have caught the barest glimpse of some matters facing the nation when it comes to the aged. Interestingly, Christian churches are well placed to offer helpful contributions to these issues, even if we do not know about the technical details:

a)     A community of people in Christ is the natural venue to find a pool of willing, caring people who may be well-suited to aged care. We value this work, speak highly of it, and sometimes direct people to it (e.g. in the Anglican case, as many of our members work in Anglicare’s Chesalon and in Anglican Retirement Villages). How may churches better honour those who do this work and enable them to do it better? How might churches encourage others to engage in this kind of care?

b)     A community of people in Christ includes many employers. These people are often already very thoughtful about the welfare of those in their workplaces. What is their view of older people? Can these employers lead our society in reimagining new roles for the aged—roles that do not rely on physical strength or technical prowess, but which honour and learn from our elders’ wisdom and memory?

c)      A community of people in Christ knows what it is to care for the needy. Are our churches aware of the financial vulnerability of older people (particularly those living alone, relying on the pension and living in rental accommodation)? How is this awareness expressed? How can it be better expressed?

d)     A community of people in Christ naturally honours the contributions made by all members of this body, irrespective of their age. We already know and see many older people who contribute to the vibrant life of Christian churches. How may we ‘export’ this blessing to local communities?

e)     A community of people in Christ mourns death, and the debilitating aspects of ageing, as an alien intrusion in God’s good world. Its mature elders have internalised this truth, often knowing true hope and joy in Christ despite ageing bodies. How may this good news be taken to other older people in our communities, who are only able to think despairingly in terms of their ‘uselessness’, and who have been forced to regard themselves only as a ‘burden’ on others? How may they discover, with us, the joyful hope of Jesus’ resurrection?

Sources/Further Reading:

ABS, ‘A Picture of a nation’
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/CDB02459C40E51EDCA25754C0013B914?OpenDocument

ABS, ‘Population Ageing in NSW’
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/DF3D1F54634E7D27CA257521000D7AF8?OpenDocument

ABS, ‘Age Matters’
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4914.0.55.001

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ‘Older Australia at a Glance’
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10402

Misha Schubert, ‘Push to lock up superannuation savings until 67,’ SMH 14/5/2009
http://business.theage.com.au/business/federal-budget/push-to-lock-up-superannuation-savings-until-age-67-20090513-b39y.html?page=-1

Productivity Commission, ‘Trends in Aged Care Services: Some implications’
http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commissionresearch/aged-care-trends

Lyn Arnold, ‘Which Aged care problem?’ Adelaide Review/APO 30/7/09
http://apo.org.au/commentary/which-aged-care-problem

National Seniors, ‘Experience Works: The Mature Age Employment Challenge’
http://www.nationalseniors.com.au/ebiz/content/wsc.aspx?ID=84

Professor Peter Whiteford (UNSW Social Policy Research Centre), interview on Life Matters, ABC radio 26/5/2009
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2580265.htm

Hauerwas, Stanley. In good company: the Church as polis. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, p. 185

I have paid the ultimate price. I have to live with myself. I have to look at myself and know it was my choice—I did it ... The worst part of the pain is there’s no one to share it with ... not a day goes by when I don’t think about it. I can’t believe I did it, I wish I could change everything and go back ... [mother of 4]

The lady who met me [at the local family planning service] treated me as rudely as anyone could treat someone, there was no caring or concern in her manner. No options were presented to me. She said I was stupid to get pregnant and as I was eighteen and at university she ‘presumed I wanted an abortion’. I remember asking about the difference between a local and general anaesthetic and she said ‘have [a] local as then you will know it happened and never make this mistake again.’ I asked her at the time about other options, and she said ‘Do you want to finish uni?’; I said ‘Of course’ and she replied ‘Well you can’t have a child’ ... I don’t remember making the decision, just that this is what I was expected to do ... it seemed there would be no support and no future for me if I were to have the child.’ [‘Katarina’]

The doctor and nurse ... didn’t prepare me for the horror of termination ... I thought my uterus was being sucked out ... I could hear them saying it was a healthy nine-week-old foetus and everything was intact. [‘Melody’]

When the Victorian Bill to decriminalise abortion passed into law, the Parliament applauded.

The Social Issues Executive has written against abortion on several occasions (see links below to briefings #002, #019, #032, and #040; and to the booklet Abortion: a Christian response). In a society where abortion is so common and enjoys such extensive legal and political protection, we suggested that Christian resistance might aim to create a child- and woman-friendly culture, where pregnant women under adverse circumstances really can become mothers. We wanted to see churches become ‘oases of welcome’ for women and their babies.

But we have to admit that our suggestion remained merely theoretical. We did find another organisation, Women’s Forum Australia (WFA), also working for practical changes to our culture which would help women avoid unwanted abortion. WFA is an independent women’s think tank that conducts research, education and public policy development about a range of issues that affect women. WFA brings together women from diverse backgrounds, and works across the usual political and religious divides, to advocate for life affirming, pro-woman alternatives to abortion which would enhance women’s freedom to have their babies. Melinda Tankard Reist, a director of WFA, compiled the stories above in a collection of eighteen personal accounts of Australian women suffering after abortion.

When she shared some of these accounts recently at Sydney’s Moore College, a remarkable thing happened. One of the students saw a way forward that is best expressed in his words:

‘It was only when I heard the horror of these women’s stories that it hit me: if I claim to be Christian, if I claim to love those created in God’s image, my faith can’t just sit in my head in an ethics lecture. I can’t be merely theoretical. If I am going to take seriously the call from Jesus to love the weak and vulnerable, then when an opportunity arises to do something about this, surely those whose lives have been transformed by Jesus should be the ones to act!

‘God has provided us with a fantastic opportunity to love and care for women who are thinking about or who have aborted, and for their unborn children. This generous government that our great God put in place has decided to boost the economy. On December 8th, those who receive Family Tax Benefit A will be given $1000 per child. Christians could support a myriad of ministries with this money—but imagine what a unified front could do!

‘Imagine we gave just half of the money the government gives us, and put it towards the unborn. If families at Moore College have, say, three hundred children between them, that’s $150,000. That could make a difference!’—Rowan Hilsden

Reactions among the college community were immediate:

• ‘I’d been in a conversation with some U.S. friends at church,’ said first-year student Tessa. ‘They asked me what Christian evangelicals were planning to do in light of the growing epidemic of abortions in Australia. I confessed that we expressed our sadness, but did not actually act in any way. They were shocked, and I was ashamed. So when this opportunity arose, I felt compelled to finally take some action.’
• For Katrina, ‘I think it’s so important that we are seen to be making a positive contribution to support these women and babies, and not just heard to be negative and guilt-provoking. What better use of this grant could there be?’
• ‘When I first heard this plan,’ said Ali, ‘my first thought was that finally the church is doing something proactive about the abortion issue. It’s an opportunity to tell the world that we will no longer be silent.’
• ‘Abortion is having a deep impact upon our population,’ said Thora. ‘Christians need to be those who welcome babies and care for women in distress, and this opportunity is a tangible way to show love. It’s never too late.’

A plan is now emerging from the student body, and it is remarkable. These low-income earning students are choosing generosity over consumption. They hope to achieve three goals:

1. To support and grow Anglicare’s Carramar Early Interventions, a safe-house and support program that cares for young pregnant women in adverse circumstances who want to keep their child.
2. To support Women’s Forum Australia, the pioneering independent organization that is committed to ‘inspiring a woman-friendly culture.’ WFA has repeatedly challenged the prevailing abortion culture at many levels.
3. To produce a high quality TV-style ad campaign in conjunction with Anglicare, Anglican Media and appropriate partners. It will showcase interviews with women who have had abortions and who want to speak out. Distributed via the internet, it will point pregnant women to a website with links to quality counseling services across Australia, and with evidence-based information on abortion and its alternatives.

Money will be collected by Anglicare, and in consultation with a student oversight group, will be divided between these three causes. The purpose of this briefing is to invite you to contribute with these students, and to invite other Christians to follow:

To make your contribution phone Anglicare on 132622 and quote ‘Free money for new lives’ or go to www.freemoneyfornewlives.com.au.

But isn’t this money given to be spent upon ourselves? Isn’t it to ‘boost the economy’? What if we have already ‘emotionally spent’ it? Of course, even to give half away still leaves us with half-more. There will be plenty left to spend; and the half given will also boost the economy. (Indeed charitable organisations will need a ‘boost’ most of all, since this sector is extremely sensitive to economic downturn.)

But more important personal issues are at stake. When Archbishop Jensen observed that ‘we are experiencing a significant economic downturn’, he went on to ask: ‘What sort of people will we be now?’ At around the same time, Jensen admitted on Sydney radio that his first impulse at the economic news was to worry. But then he remembered that his Lord commanded generosity, even in hard times. As he continued before the recent Synod in Sydney:

[I]t would have been better to invest in the great biblical virtues, faith, hope and love. In abundance or in want, these are better for human beings to aspire to. I hope that we have not forgotten them, for we are going to need them. Faith that God is in control; confidence in his future as being that which fulfils human existence; love from him, that makes us generous to others. These are the qualities we are now going to need more than ever as a community, as a nation. If Australia does better than others in the crisis, we will bear an even greater responsibility for the poor of the earth.

It seems that God has begun blessing Australia by giving his love to a bunch of students. On December 8th, they will give half of Prime Minister Rudd’s economic rescue money for a different kind of rescue.

At Sydney’s recent Synod, a strong motion concerning abortion (see appendix below) called for ‘social changes’ to ‘reduce the number of abortions’. The students’ collection will be our Christian community’s first serious practical expression of this call.

If you receive this free money, we invite you to join with them (and even if you don’t receive it, you are most welcome to make a contribution). Let us become those who meet economic crisis with generosity for the poor of the earth—in this case, the unborn and their mothers.

Sources/Further Reading:

‘Free money for new lives’: http://www.freemoneyfornewlives.com.au

Anglicare Carramar Early Interventions: http://www.anglicare.org.au/our-services/child-youth-and-family-services/carramar-early-interventions.

Women’s Forum Australia: http://www.womensforumaustralia.org.

Dr. Peter F. Jensen, 2008 Synod Presidential Address, Wesley Centre October 13th 2008; online: http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/mission/missionthinking/the_2008_presidential_address.

Social Issues: http://sie.moore.edu.au.

• Click ‘Briefings’ for briefings #002, #019, #032, #040
• Click ‘Reports’ for the booklet Abortion: a Christian response (Printed versions of this booklet can be purchased through http://www.moorebooks.com.au.)

Melinda Tankard Reist, Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief After Abortion. Sydney: Duffy and Snellgrove, 2000. (Quotations from pp 13, 27-28 and 35. Names changed by the author. Can be purchased through http://www.womensforumaustralia.org, click on ‘shop’.)

‘Vic abortion bill passes lower house,’ SMH September 12 2008; online: http://news.smh.com.au/national/vic-abortion-bill-passes-lower-house-20080912-4eux.html.

‘Here's what you get with Kevin Rudd's rescue package,’ Daily Telegraph October 15, 2008; online: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24498946‐5015795,00.html.

Appendix:

48th Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney

Extract from Synod Proceedings for 21 October 2008

Motions: 34/08: Abortion

Noting recent renewed debate about abortion around Australia, this Synod –

1. affirms pregnancy and childbirth are part of God’s good plan for humankind,
2. affirms pregnancy is the privilege and responsibility of both the mother and the father of the unborn person,
3. affirms the sanctity of life, even of the unborn child,
4. supports legislative and social changes which would reduce the number of abortions in Australia, and
5. encourages and applauds health professionals who, for reasons of conscience, do not promote, aid or assist in ending the life of the unborn, except where the mother’s life is gravely at risk,
6. recognises the need of those who have knowingly participated in ending the life of the unborn, especially women who have had abortions, to hear the wonderful news of forgiveness in the death and resurrection of Christ,
7. encourages all Christians equally to make known Jesus’ love for all unborn human life and judgement of those who end it, and his offer of forgiveness for those who have done so.

Synod requests that the content of this motion be forwarded to the following persons—the Prime Minister, the Federal Opposition Leader, Senator Guy Barnett of Tasmania, the NSW Premier and Leader of the Opposition and the bishops of each of the Anglican dioceses of Australia.

(Canon Sandy Grant 21/10/2008)

Andrew is a lecturer at Moore Theological College, Newtown NSW, and chairman of the Social Issues Executive of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. He is also part of an ‘oversight committee’ that is coordinating some initial responses to the AHRC. ‘At this stage, the opinions expressed in the presentation are mine alone; however I think my views broadly reflect some existing Diocesan policies.’ – Andrew Cameron

Contents of this presentation:

1. AHRC Project overview
   1. What is the AHRC?
   2. What does the project seek to do/achieve?
   3. What is the project’s timeline?
   4. What is the UN backdrop?
2. Seven areas under review in the Project
3. ‘Big Picture’ questions
   1. ‘Rights’ or not
   2. Nature of religion and belief?
   3. Individual versus communal?
   4. Nature and extent of ‘public manifestation’?
   5. Uses of law in society?
4. Areas of concern?
   1. Relationship to a Federal ‘charter of rights’
   2. Anti‐religious vilification law (and evangelism)?
   3. Changes to anti‐discrimination exemptions?
   4. Attack on ‘Christian Heritage’?
5. Recommendations for action
   1. Check out the project at www.humanrights.gov.au and see Briefing #079
   2. Be alert not alarmed
   3. Use the process: make a brief submission by 31/01/09?
   4. Stay tuned & note 2010/11 in your diary!

If you are new to the areas I will cover in this presentation, it will all seem a bit daunting at first. The Australian Human Rights Commission is set to examine a very wide range of issues relating to religion and belief, all of which have been simmering away in our culture for hundreds, even thousands, of years. That does mean it can take some time to digest what is going on, and to find it all a bit hard at first is quite normal! If you feel that way, you are not stupid; that is just a normal part of finding our way into something complex. The good news is that we all have a few years ahead during which we can learn about the issues and start to form an opinion. This presentation is intended as a start to that journey.

I won’t go through the biblical basis for freedom, or the theological reasons for freedom of religion. Of course I think those discussions are hugely important; indeed, freedom in the modern West has been forged through a history of Christendom, about which there is now a high degree of cultural amnesia! But for the moment I just want to fill you in on what is happening as I understand it.

1. Project overview

a) What is the AHRC?

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC, formerly HREOC) is a body formed by Commonwealth statute. It describes itself as ‘Australia’s national, independent statutory authority which administers Commonwealth human rights laws’ (discussion paper p. 5). Its task is to examine international human rights agreements, and to make recommendations to Federal Government accordingly.

The organisation has always taken time to use a focus‐group style of listening to community concerns. In its various reports, it will often quote stories, opinions and experiences of ordinary Australian at length. In this way it gives a ‘sounding’ of the thoughts and opinions of everyday people who are vocal enough to articulate their views. This is an important role, and should be valued.

However AHRC admits that these stories are often unverified, and it acknowledges that it is often in the business of communicating some community perceptions to government. AHRC recommendations would therefore always need to be weighed against other evidence, and against other legal and social input. That is often what Government and members of parliament often find themselves doing after the AHRC has spoken.

b) What does the project seek to do/achieve?

The AHRC has begun what it calls the ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project’. In September it launched a discussion paper outlining this Project. It can be found via a link toward the middle of the web page overviewing the Project:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/partnerships/projects/freedom_religion.html

As the AHRC tells it, this project comes out of a ‘National Action Plan to Build on Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security’. It has commissioned three researchers from the Australian Multicultural Foundation to conduct the project and prepare its report. It will build on earlier reports:

• Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief (HREOC 1998)
• Religion, Cultural Diversity and Safeguarding Australia (DIMEA 2004)
• Two other reports (2003, 2007) studying the experience of Muslim people will also be relevant.

But why bother with this Project?

Because ‘freedom of religion’ is a U.N.‐recognised human right. The project seeks to map the state-of-play for freedom of religion and belief in Australia. It seeks to find out about the experiences and place in civil society of every religious belief (including ‘secular belief’), and especially that of Muslim communities. It will seek to remedy what it takes to be any infringements of the right to freedom of belief, or any instances where some religious belief and practice is infringing some other ‘fundamental human right’. The Project is an example of the AHRC doing its human‐rights related job, this time in reference to ‘religious rights’.

c) What is the project’s timeline?

• The researchers are taking written submissions from the community until 31 Jan 2009 (and I encourage you to send them something if you have something to say).
• They will consult around the nation with citizens, including religious leaders, during 2008‐2010.
• A final report will be presented to Government during 2010.
• The report and any recommendations would probably coincide with a second‐term Labor government, or a new conservative government.

d) What is the UN backdrop?

Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR) Article 18: (based on UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948, also Article 18):

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

There are a few points to note from this U.N. backdrop:

• ‘Religion or belief’: the reference to ‘or belief’ is a deliberate expansion of the concept of ‘freedom of religion, to allow for the rights of those who do not profess to religious belief and/or who profess to non‐religious beliefs.
• ‘Either individually or in community’: There is a clear provision for assembly with like‐ minded others (including intra‐family, point 4). (This community provision is amplified in a later 'Declaration on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief', UN Resolution 36/55, Art. 6. However U.N. Declarations are not binding in the same way that Covenants bind signatories.)
• ‘In public or private, to manifest’ religion: There is ongoing controversy over extent of ‘manifest’: see point 3, where religion made ‘manifest’ may not infringe others’ ‘fundamental rights and freedoms’.

Also in the ICCPR, Art. 2.3a states that ‘Each State Party to the present Covenant undertake to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms ... violated shall have an effective remedy...’

From where the UN sits, that usually means that laws should be enacted to protect people’s rights. Since Australia is a ‘states party’, and since the AHRC is set up to tell Government when it thinks Australia is falling foul of this Covenant, it follows that the AHRC often recommends new legislation to cover what it thinks are gaps in the protection of our rights. As we will see, it has consistently proposed new laws in relation to religion and belief.

Seven areas under review in the Project

I will now go through the Project in a bit more detail to outline what the researchers want to look at.

1) Evaluation of the relevance and impact of the 1998 HREOC report, Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief (the recommendations of which are reproduced on pp. 11‐13 of the discussion paper, including the recommendation for a federal ‘Religious Freedom Act’).

This report and its recommendations did not make much headway under the Howard government; but if I were on the AHRC, I wouldn’t want it to go to waste either! There is some acknowledgement that things have changed since it was drafted, and the AHRC wants to hear opinions about whether it still remains relevant. There is also a degree of complexity here, since the terrain covered in Article 18 overlaps with the six areas following ...

2) Assessment of the adequacy of the Australian Constitution’s Section 116 to protect freedom of religion, especially in the absence of a Charter of Rights.

This is the part of our Constitution which prevents our Government from showing favouritism to any one religion, while apparently allowing Government to work with all religions to an extent. Some think there are inadequacies with the protections given by this section of the Constitution. Some think that a new Charter of Rights would be a good way to remediate these inadequacies.

3) Investigation of interactions between religion and the delivery of services (e.g. in education and human services [i.e. welfare]).

There are a number of partnerships in place between government and faith‐based schools, hospitals and care organisations. Of course these are a perennial source of debate for many reasons, often surrounding privileges for and restrictions upon these organisations when taxpayer money is involved. Suffice to say that this section of the Project will set a number of hares running.

4) Consideration of the impacts upon religious freedom of September 11 2001.

This is the point where the AHRC is quite overt about their special intention to examine how Islamic communities are travelling. A previous report in relation to Islam highlighted many stories after 9/11 where Muslim people felt marginalised, vilified and misunderstood. The ARHC is looking for ways to help these communities without necessarily encouraging any sort of extremism.

5) Examination of how religious belief affects political and cultural aspirations (e.g. for gender equality, or in relation to civic responsibility).

7) Scrutiny of instances where religious freedom seems directly to contradict ‘fundamental human rights’ (e.g. for disabled people, or in relation to sexuality).

I find it easiest to take these sections together. This is where the project seeks to examine whether someone’s human rights are being infringed by someone else’s claim to religious freedom. There are several ways in which this might occur. For example, one question in the discussion paper very helpfully highlights the way disabled people simply might not have access to religious meetings or worship, which should obviously be quickly addressed.

But a more controversial reason for this discussion has to do with exemptions to anti‐discrimination law. That is, religious organisations have wide‐ranging freedoms in relation to their employment and other practices, which in other circumstances would be regarded as prohibited forms of discrimination. Some think that these exemptions are necessary for true religious freedom. Others think they are an inappropriate infringement of fundamental human rights. The AHRC’s project seeks to reopen this matter for debate (and in other contexts, influential officers of AHRC/HREOC have advocated against exemptions as they now stand).

6) Consideration of whether media practices and emerging technologies affect religious freedom.

This interesting section is mainly concerned to discover if media organisations are doing any religious groups a disservice.

3. ‘Big Picture’ questions

The Project and its UN backdrop raises some ‘big picture’ questions for me, which I will now pause to note.

a) Rights or not?

A most basic ‘big picture’ question is whether or not ‘rights’ are a fruitful category in which to frame public and social policy.

Now from the perspective of the AHRC and of people who work in human rights law, my comment seems bizarre. After all, the protection of rights seems to be such a helpful way into protecting the little people from the State, and for arbitrating between people’s claims.

At the launch of this project Tom Calma, the AHRC’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, described human rights as ‘both a system of laws and a body of ethics’. But I am not so sure: I think rights are used to list some goods that are worth defending, but I’m not sure they have what it takes to be a whole ‘system’ or ‘body’ of thought.

But the AHRC is tasked to think in terms of rights, so there is not much point questioning their whole reason for being. The matter will however come up in the context of a different discussion, which the Federal Government intends to pursue with the community, about whether or not Australia should enact a Federal Charter of Rights.

b) Nature of religion and belief?

The terms ‘religion’ and ‘belief’ are so broad that the Project has to cover enormous breadth. Because ‘freedom of religion’ also has to encompass ‘freedom of non‐religion’, it then has to take into consideration all sorts of beliefs and opinions in the culture. In various documents the AHRC has had a go at defining ‘religion and belief’ and I am not saying that the attempt shouldn’t be made. I am simply noting that it is very ambitious to conduct a study of so many kinds of thought that have been embedded in human history for so long. It is hard to see how even an army of researchers could do the matter justice!

c) Individual versus communal?

That previous point may seem a bit harsh. After all, there is no harm in trying to talk about the place of complex ideas in a society. But in the discussion paper, religion is spoken of in a way that is contestable in one particular area. I’ll just make a general claim here without giving examples; you’ll have a look at the discussion paper and see if you agree.

It seems that religion is considered primarily to be a matter for individual choice, rather than a communal affair. Religious people often meet together in organised groups, and traditionally the ‘freedom of religion’ has also been a defence of the life and identity of these groups. This concern is reflected in the UN Convention when it mentions the place of religious communities, and when it allows the religious education of children. But I could argue that some questions for discussion are prejudiced in favour or individual rights at the expense of the life of religious communities.

d) The nature and extent of ‘public manifestation’?

We saw that the UN covenant affirms that it is proper to ‘to manifest’ religion ‘in public’. But there are limits: the State also has to protect ‘public safety’, ‘order’, and ‘health’. We might be able to imagine some conflicts between religious freedom and those other areas, but to date, those limitations generally seem workable.

But it begins to get endlessly murky at the other two limits: the limitation upon freedom of religion in order to protect ‘morals’ or ‘the fundamental rights and freedoms of others’.

Now I am not exactly sure what is meant by ‘morals’, but I can see plenty of room for endless disagreement over the State’s estimate of a ‘moral’ over a religion’s estimate of a ‘moral’.

I can also imagine plenty of instances when a religious community is in conflict with the wider community over what constitutes a ‘fundamental human right’.

The upshot of all this is that the nature and extent of acceptable ‘public manifestations’ of religion is far from clear. I am told by one legal expert that on the whole, international jurisprudence invariably tends to judge the right to ‘public manifestation’ as the lesser right.

This problem area is much bigger than the AHRC of course. From where I sit, I cannot help wondering if they too have been saddled with some unclear thinking at the UN level.

e) Uses of law in society?

I noted that in accordance with the UN, the AHRC tends to recommend new law as a solution of choice. Don’t get me wrong; they often have much longer lists of very sensible solutions for how a diverse society can learn to live well with each other. But to show you what I mean, here is the main reason for their proposal to introduce religious anti‐vilification law (from the 1998 report):

‘[L]aws are expressions of the values which the community considers important. Australian society abhors violence or intolerance for any reason. Equally as abhorrent is the incitement to violence on the basis of race, religion or belief. The implementation of legislation proscribing such behaviour would be a positive expression of community distaste for and disapproval of this type of behaviour. It is also required by international law.’ (Article 18, p137)

There is a specific question, which I am still learning the answer to, of whether existing laws against violence obviates the need for specific laws against religious vilification. But that’s not the point here. I simply want you to notice two things.

Firstly, law is needed to articulate a community’s ethics. (A former president of HREOC once said that she thinks laws should lead the community rather than merely follow the community.)

Secondly, we are told that we need a new law because international law tells us so. But I’m not convinced that this is a good reason for a new law. As one legal thinker puts it,

‘Where ... governments impose standards of behaviour through law on a reluctant population, they risk more than they gain. ... [T]he legislation undermines belief in a shared community of interest between governors and governed. ... Legislation defines legality and illegality, but legitimacy is something different. ...It is the legitimacy of law, and not its constitutional legality, which matters most for stable and harmonious societies.’ (Patrick Parkinson)

To my mind the AHRC has not always adequately demonstrated the need for new laws. Yet new law can be a tempting shortcut for the legislation‐factories that our parliaments have become. They can be a cheap, easy policy fix. They can make it seem that something is getting done; they look good on the world stage; but they may or may not have anything to do with actual conditions in society.

4. Areas of concern that Christians have already signalled

The Project touches on some areas that conservative Christians are usually edgy about. Here are that mains ones:

a) Relationship to ‘rights’ and a Federal ‘charter of rights’?

It is hard to know exactly what the interaction will be between this Project, and the discussion of a Federal Charter of Rights (in which the AHRC will also play a part). Those who have doubts about the value or ‘rights’ in law, will also have some doubts about this project.

b) Anti‐religious vilification law and evangelism?

The AHRC has repeatedly recommended Federal laws to prohibit religious vilification. Christians are quick to worry that this will put the brakes on criticising other religions as false. To be fair, those who propose these laws want to make it possible to discuss the truth of falsehood of religion and religions. However in practice, I don’t know if that will prove as easy as they hope. The law may distinguish between inciting hatred of persons and criticising their beliefs. In practise though, strong condemnation of a belief system can end up feeling and looking like an attack upon the believer.

This is a complex area that I find myself thinking about a lot lately, so I won’t say too much more. I am not a fan of this kind of law, and I can think of many strong arguments against it. At the same time, it may be helpful to have a law to state the ‘outer limits’ of free of expression. But I find this hard to think about and am currently trying to understand lawyer‐thinking about this area.

c) Changes to anti‐discrimination exemptions?

I’ve already mentioned those above.

d) An attack on ‘Christian heritage’?

Some Christians argue that Australia is a ‘Christian country’ since it was founded on Christian principles and grew from British Christian stock. As a result, any attempt to shift the national status‐ quo away from Christianity and toward some other religion or belief, is wrong. For these Christians, the AHRC’s project is likely to be considered an attack on our ‘Christian heritage’.

Yet many Australians deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ, do not profess to follow him, and know nothing of repentance and forgiveness before God. Hence evangelicals tend not to call Australia ‘a Christian country’, because that would mask the way this generation of Christians needs to show other Australians how Christ is good news for them.

For the purposes of the AHRC project, then, I think it is best to say that Australia ‘is not a Christian country, but is not a blank slate either’. Australia needs to find a way to share cultural space between people of different beliefs, while never pretending away the depth of its Christian roots. It follows that any attempt to banish public manifestations of Christianity is a silly denial of our past. (Of course neither should we attempt to banish public manifestations of other beliefs.)

5. Recommendations for action

a) Check out the project:

• See further http://www.humanrights.gov.au/partnerships/projects/freedom_religion.html (alternative address http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb).
• At the bottom of this main page, see also the related set of enquiries with discussion papers and calls for submissions: e.g. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb/hw/index.html.
• See also Social Issues Briefing #079

b) Be alert, not alarmed.

There is enough time for us to make our voices heard, and to develop wide, considered responses to this Project and its outcomes.

c) Use the process!

Why not make a brief submission by 31/01/09. (See the AHRC discussion paper for details on how to submit.) We are being ask for an option now! It will not do to say nothing at this stage, and then get upset when the process is nearly complete.

d) Stay tuned

Note 2010/11 in your diary! That will when the final AHRC report comes in, and when any recommendations to Government are considered by Government. The Social Issues Executive will be keeping track of the matter as it unfolds.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. [Galatians 5:1]

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC; formerly HREOC) is a body formed by Commonwealth statute. Its task is to examine international human rights agreements, and to make recommendations to Federal Government accordingly.

The AHRC has begun a ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project’, since ‘freedom of religion’ is a U.N.-recognised human right. This new and wide-ranging project will map the state-of-play for freedom of religion and belief in Australia. Details follow in an appendix to this briefing; but broadly, the project seeks to address the experiences and place in civil society of every religious belief (including ‘secular belief’), and especially that of Muslim communities.

‘Freedom’, and freedom of religious belief, are extremely important to Christians for many reasons. Jesus the liberator. When Jesus introduces himself as a liberator, his first hearers are offended [John 8:31-36]. They do not believe they need the release from sin to ‘sonship’ that he offers. But he insists that this truth ‘will set you free,’ and early Christians are mesmerised by it. Christ, writes one, gives ‘the glorious freedom of the children of God’ [Rom. 8:31] through the Spirit [Rom. 8:2, 2 Cor. 3:17].

Because Christ has cut the link between our performance and our acceptability to God, every human attempt to condemn now has no weight [1 Cor. 10:29, Gal. 5:1]. Also, moral action is no longer ‘junked up’ with our need to impress God (as if our puny morality ever could impress the Holy One). So we are freed to act for the good of the other—free now to ‘love’ them for their own sake [Gal. 5:13; cf. Rom. 6:18,22]. It becomes clear that the Bible's moral sections are a ‘law of liberty’ [Jas. 1:25, 2:12]—a kind of ‘roadmap’ that frees us to love well.

This freedom with God and for others enables us to discern false ‘freedoms’, such as the freedom that seems free because it brings pleasure. Freedom for pleasure is lost and barren on its own, and only finds its proper ‘home’ within the freedom to love others, and within freedom before God. [Cf. 2 Pet. 2:19.]

Living free

‘Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,’ says the apostle Peter [1 Pet. 2:13]. ‘Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.’ [1 Pet. 2:16]. How can he say both ‘be subject’ and ‘live free’? The two ideas seem totally contradictory.

But when we are owned by the Lord, a strange paradox follows. Human authorities often reflect Christ's rule, even if only roughly, and we can go along with that as ‘subjects’. But when the authority stops resembling Christ, we can live free as the ‘servants of God’. (We can fool ourselves, though, nobly claiming freedom as a ‘cover-up’ for the evil. Such self-deception simply fails to love others, and is another false ‘freedom’.)

All this theology shaped our democratic traditions. It gave an ‘exalted’ view of each person: each could stand apart from society on the basis of their ‘conscience’. As a result, no State can stand between a person and God. Each is free to know God (which may result in some denying God). Each is free to find what God wants for them, and to assemble with like-minded others. We can begin to see how the New Testament's ‘spiritual’ freedom became a ‘freedom of conscience’ that in turn shaped many social freedoms.

Australian freedom of belief

The project is a comprehensive review:

• based on public submissions (closing 31 January 2009), and ...
• extensive input from the community by means of focus groups and by discussion with religious leaders (during 2009 in NSW), all for ...
• a detailed report due for release in 2010, which may well ...
• recommend legislative changes.

The AHRC wants a cohesive civil society that sustains freedom of belief. But the AHRC thinks that freedoms within a cohesive pluralist society are not easily realised. Some Muslim community grievances will figure prominently in their investigation. They note that for other religious people, religious beliefs and human rights mix ‘like oil and water’ (as Tom Calma puts it). They realise that no one's ‘right’ is ever absolute, and that the best way to maintain ‘freedom’ without obliterating someone's ‘right’ will require careful negotiation.

Some Christians are concerned about the AHRC's Project. There may be good reasons for these concerns. For example, at some points the discussion paper hints of a challenge to important Christian freedoms. Also, the value of a Federal charter of rights, of existing ‘religious exemptions’ to anti-discrimination law, and of new religious anti-vilification laws, will emerge as topics for consideration; and conservative Christians are traditionally edgy about these matters. But we should presume no malice or ill-will, since Christian citizens are invited to participate in the process.

We should also note that the AHRC is an advisory body only. Its recommendations can influence legislative change, but legislation is finally changed by the Parliament. The ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief Project’ does not necessarily reflect a sudden change in government policy. We cannot predict what effect, if any, the final report will have on law and government policy.

At this stage, the Social Issues Executive views the Project as an opportunity to state Anglican evangelical concerns in an orderly way, and to lay the foundation for long-term dialogue with government. (We view the process as an opportunity to offer a ‘defence’ for the excellence of Christian belief, and for the rationale of Christian practice, a bit like early Christian apologists once did in ancient Rome.)

An attack on ‘Christian heritage’?

This section deserves a briefing on its own, but a quick comment is better than none.

Some Christians argue that Australia is a ‘Christian country’ since it was founded on Christian principles and grew from British Christian stock. As a result, any attempt to shift the national status-quo away from Christianity and toward some other religion or belief, is wrong. For these Christians, the AHRC's project is likely to be considered an attack on our ‘Christian heritage’.

It is undeniably correct to highlight the many ways Christianity informed and shaped our early colonies and Federation (even if a radically anti-Christian strand of the Enlightenment was also part of our national story). The nation would be foolish to ignore how this significant Christian component of our history has affected our institutions.

Yet many Australians deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ, do not profess to follow him, and know nothing of repentance and forgiveness before God. Hence evangelical Christians cannot in good conscience call Australia ‘a Christian country’. To do so would mask the way this generation of Christians needs to show other Australians how Christ is good news for them.

For the purposes of the AHRC project, then, the SIE will argue that Australia ‘is not a Christian country, but is not a blank slate either’. Australia needs to find a way to share cultural space between people of different beliefs, while never pretending away the depth of its Christian roots. It follows that any attempt to banish public manifestations of Christianity is a silly denial of our past. (Of course neither should we attempt to banish public manifestations of other beliefs.)

What next?

• Read the AHRC discussion paper (see link in appendix below).
• Stay tuned: the SIE is taking an active interest as the Project unfolds.
• If you tend toward paranoia, don't panic. If you are a bit lazy, don't be complacent. Start reading and thinking in two or three of the areas raised by the AHRC discussion paper.
• Write a submission to the AHRC. After all, they want to find out about people's experiences of freedom (or not) of religion and belief. Be polite but direct; tell any stories that are relevant; and stick to what you know.

Appendix: further details on the Project

1. A discussion paper explains this project and invites submissions from the community. It is available at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/partnerships/projects/freedom_religion.html.
2. Speakers at the launch of the discussion paper included:
   • Tom Calma (Race Discrimination Commissioner);
   • Laurie Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services); and
   • Dr Hass Dellal (executive Director, Australian Multicultural Foundation).

   Their speeches are available at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/launch.html.

3. The project has seven broad terms of reference (reworded here for simplicity):
   1. Evaluation of the relevance and impact of the 1998 HREOC report, Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief (the recommendations of which are reproduced on pp. 11-13 of the discussion paper).
   2. Assessment of the adequacy of the Australian Constitution's Section 116 to protect freedom of religion, especially in the absence of a Charter of Rights.
   3. Investigation of interactions between religion and the delivery of services (e.g. in education and human services [i.e. welfare]).
   4. Consideration of the impacts upon religious freedom of September 11 2001.
   5. Examination of how religious belief affects political and cultural aspirations (e.g. for gender equality, or in relation to civic responsibility).
   6. Consideration of whether media practices and emerging technologies affect religious freedom.
   7. Scrutiny of instances where religious freedom seems directly to contradict ‘fundamental human rights’ (e.g. for disabled people, or in relation to sexuality).

Fifty-one wide-ranging questions are posed under these seven headings.

Submissions may also raise and comment on areas not mentioned in the discussion paper.

For the purposes of a current Federal inquiry into Better Support for Carers, the definition of a carer is an individual ‘providing unpaid support for others with ongoing needs due to a long-term medical condition, a mental illness, a disability or frailty’.

It is worth pausing to imagine just who we mean here. Think of the parents who care for a child or an adult with Down's syndrome, or with some complicated set of profound physical and intellectual disabilities. Think of the man or woman whose partner is incapacitated with emphysema, kidney disease or cancer. Think of the single or married son or daughter of a very old and frail person. Every waking moment, people like these consider and serve the needs of the other. In many cases, they have been doing so for decades.

Recent figures from an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey found there were over 2.5 million carers in Australia, including more than 470,000 primary carers. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare anticipates there will be more than 600,000 primary carers by 2013, with 70% likely to be women. Access Economics (2005) estimated the annual value of informal care in Australia ranged from $4.9 billion or $30.5 billion (in 2005 dollars), depending on the methodology used. Carers NSW tell us that the median gross personal income for a primary carer is $237 per week versus $397 for the general population. 11.5% of the Indigenous population are carers. Young people are carers too - 3.6% of all people under 18, and 5.2% of all people under 25 are carers.

We can be very glad that this society does not support abandoning people with disabilities to street begging, or killing off the elderly and frail, or allowing the very ill to expire alone in some corner. But the problem with this fine sentiment is what we fail to see. In some ways our society does allow these practices to occur, and when they don't occur it is precisely because there are carers who care.

The Federal inquiry (by the Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth) has had an overwhelming response with nearly 1200 submissions. If you needed convincing that carers need better support, you can read the submissions yourself. You won't need to read very far to be convinced, for carers are often in very dire straits, and are not well cared for themselves. In a study into carers' perspectives on caring, some of their common concerns were:

• The Carer's Allowance is inadequate.
• More quality respite services are desperately needed. (‘Respite services’ mean that the carer gets a break while some paid person takes over the task of care, e.g. for a day a week.) Carers will choose no respite over substandard respite—which goes to show how much they love the person they are caring for.
• There is a lack of suitable and supported accommodation available for loved ones when the carer is no longer able to meet their needs.
• The important work carers do is not noticed by society, and carers feel undervalued.
• The sacrifices involved in being a carer, along with the additional expenses it entails, often result in serious financial insecurity (e.g. minimal superannuation savings for the carer's own retirement).
• The carer is time-poor due to their 24/7 caring responsibilities. They usually do not get to participate in a wider social life very much at all.
• They are often anxious about their future, and for the person in their care.
• The carer's own health, wellbeing and relationships often suffer. Health outcomes for carers are among the poorest in Australia.

Many suggestions are emerging from the inquiry, although who will bear the brunt of funding these initiatives is another question. For example carers would benefit from carer's leave' and ‘palliative care leave’ (as opposed to them having to use annual leave); but such leave would clearly affect an employer's budget. Or in order to improve the quality of respite care, better recruiting, training and working conditions of paid carers is needed; but how this would be funded, and whether by government or by non-government organisations, is unclear. The Government has already made some progress in this area. But it will be complex and challenging for our leaders to keep coming up with the best ways to ensure that everyone has access to the highest quality services, and that the notion of ‘choice’ that we all value so much will not elude people with disabilities or their carers.

And it is inherent to care that it cannot be made economically profitable, and nor should we attempt to make it so, for a good society recognises that the whole point of an economy is to sustain care in all its forms. The purpose of money is for relationships, and these relationships of care will cost money and cannot be made to make money. There is nothing wrong with that: we honour the person being cared for by saying ‘you are worth it, and as a society, we will spend our money on you.’

Political solutions

It is right at this point that the Christian political voice becomes very relevant. The inquiry has yet to table its report to Parliament. Every politician will be sympathetic to the needs of carers—but when the hard decisions about funding programs need to be made, they will need the support of the public. This is not a popular, trendy issue that attracts the support of celebrities and the average person in the street. It is all too easily eclipsed by discussions about interest rates, fuel prices or salary caps in football.

So, Christians can begin a groundswell of support for our MPs to generously allocate public money to the needs of carers. MPs will need a mandate to boldly argue for increased spending. If we are to have ‘a caring society’, there aren't too many more important matters of public policy than this one.

The matter might be worth a letter or visit to your MP. It might also be that you are willing to help him or her argue that the comfortable middle class accept a smaller piece of the pie next budget in the interests of sharing resources with those who need it most. For example: could family allowances be reduced for some? Or, could a voluntary tax levy be introduced to create a ‘caring fund’?

‘Ecclesial’ solutions

Carers need more than a government to support them. Many non-government, community and Church organisations already deliver services to people with disabilities and their carers. For example Anglicare plays an important role as a service provider, and speaks with great authority on our behalf about the pressing needs of this sector.

But an ‘ecclesial’ solution to the problem also springs from the life of local church communities. Carers need more than an Anglicare to care for them. After reading this briefing, could you begin a constructive conversation within your church about the needs of carers? Could a ‘caring for carers’ group be formed, where a few people gather to support carers? You could start out by finding answers to the following questions:

1. Has anyone taken a ‘local census’ of carers lately?
   • Who are the carers that come to your church?
   • Who are the carers for whom it is getting harder to be at church, due to the demands of care?
   • Do we know of other carers in our neighbourhood?
2. In each case, what would they list as their main needs, difficulties and concerns? (This would require someone to visit and ask them, and then quietly listen to their responses.)
3. Are any of these problems true for them?
   • They have had to leave the workforce because of inflexible work arrangements.
   • They are neglecting their own health.
   • They are starved of social interaction.
   • They are in financial difficulty, or have some pressing one-off expense.
4. Within the household of someone with a disability, are siblings carrying extra responsibilities and strain that has gone unnoticed? What are their needs?
5. Would a carer accept any of the following, if done properly, from church folk?
   • A low-stress social event at the carer's house (where others cater and clean up).
   • Some regular spiritual support (e.g. prayer and bible study) at the carer's house.
   • Someone with the proper gifts and skills being trained for short periods of respite care.
   • A collection for some pressing one-off financial need.
   • A knowledgeable helper who can assist the carer to access government services.

Now in writing these suggestions we realise that many people in churches are usually pushing themselves hard already. It is not our intention to trigger guilt about another ‘to do’ agenda. The idea might not be for everyone. But there are probably people in every church who could help carers, whose gifts and skills are untapped, who have difficulty forming connections with carers, but who would really like to try helping if they could.

Also, it seems important to care for carers when we consider the way conservative Christian communities are usually opposed to abortion and euthanasia. These are matters of moral importance for the whole of our society—but it is the carers who bear the brunt of the decision to honour life. The ill can only be tended with love, or broken people welcomed into life, because someone is willing to care for them.

So when Christian communities declare the good of life, the declaration only carries real meaning when it is embodied in some practice; and ongoing practical care for carers is something well within the capacities of a local church community.

It will be important for Christians to go to the carers and find out their needs, rather than waiting for them to come to us at church. It will also be important for Christians to only offer help in response to what a carer says they need (rather than what we imagine they need). It will be very important only to offer what can be offered competently and without compromising the dignity of the person in need of care.

The report from the inquiry, and our society's responses to its recommendations, will be an important moment for the Australian community. But people in churches do not have to wait until then. Now we can be vocal; and we can go to our carers, and try to care.

‘Share with the saints in their needs; pursue hospitality.’ [Romans 12:13]

Sources/Further Reading:

Edwards, B. et al, (2008) ‘The nature and impact of caring for family members with a disability in Australia’, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Research Report, No. 16. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport16/report16pdf/rr16.pdf.

Holland, K. (2007), Carers' perspectives on caring: A qualitative analysis of open-ended responses to the Carer Health and Wellbeing Index survey, for Carers Australia. http://www.carersaustralia.com.au/images/stories/Carers%20health%20andWellbeing%20Qualitative%20Research%20UofC%20March%202008.pdf.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth—Inquiry into ‘Better Support for Carers’: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fchy/carers/index.htm.

SANE research bulletin, Family Carers and Mental Illness, July 2007: http://www.sane.org/images/stories/information/research/0707_info_rb5.pdf.

Carers NSW—http://www.carersnsw.asn.au.

‘Now, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.’

[Nuclear physicist Robert J. Oppenheimer after the first nuclear weapons test, quoting from the Bhagavad‐Gita.]

‘The nuclear bomb is the most anti‐democratic, anti‐national, anti‐human, outright evil thing that man has ever made. If you are religious, then remember that this bomb is Man's challenge to God. It's worded quite simply: We have the power to destroy everything that You have created ... If you are not religious, then look at it this way. This world of ours is four thousand, six hundred million years old. It could end in an afternoon.’ [Indian author Arundhati Roy]

As we approach the anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seems fitting to move into unusual terrain and spend some time thinking about the place of nuclear weapons in today's world.

Initially, most of us would question whether there is anything to even discuss. Surely there is a consensus against the use of nuclear weapons. We all recognise their unique destructive capacity and their inability to discriminate between civilians and combatants.

Yet such bombs effectively brought an end to the ongoing devastation and huge loss of life during the Pacific war; and so for some, nuclear weapons are a tragic necessity in a fallen world. One of the main arguments for maintaining nuclear arsenals is that they now continue to act as a deterrent.

So who has nuclear weapons?

At the height of the Cold War there were 68,000 nuclear weapons. There are reportedly 27,000 nuclear weapons in existence at present. Thousands of these are said to be kept on hair trigger alert, ready to be used within minutes; and most are much more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Countries known to possess nuclear weapons include:

USA:	10,000
France:	350
Russia:	15,000
UK:	200
China:	130
India:	50
Pakistan:	50
Israel:	75-200
North Korea:	10

Is the argument from deterrence valid?

In his Among the Dead Cities, U.K. philosopher A.C Grayling revisits the war-torn days before Hiroshima. For the atomic bombings did not seem surprising at the time. It interested people that a new type of weapon was used; but the strategy of destroying entire cities had already been in place for some years. Indeed, the loss of life in the Japanese cities was far exceeded by losses in Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin.

Grayling convincingly argues that this kind of mass destruction was immoral by the standards of the time, was born mainly of a desire for vengeance, was obviously strategically ineffective, and did not deter the enemy nor reduce their morale. He does not condemn the air crews involved, and he does not dispute the evils of Nazism and Japanese militarism. Nevertheless, he believes that the time has come to admit serious moral failures in political leadership that authorised and promoted this wartime practice. It follows that if we reject carpet bombing as always having been immoral, then so always are weapons of nuclear mass-destruction. (Of course Grayling's views stir enormous controversy, especially among those with memories of how horrific the war was and of what seemed necessary at the time.)

Grayling is no friend of Christianity; yet his argument echoes a long tradition of Christian thought about ‘just war’. Far from justifying war, this body of thought seeks to limit and curb warfare. Amongst its tenets are that war should not be prosecuted if there is no hope of success; that the means of war should be proportionate to the goal of a just peace; and that war may only be prosecuted against direct combatants, not whole populations. Carpet-bombing completely fails the last two of these tests, and a strategic nuclear war is likely to fail them all.

In a high profile opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, former US Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger (among others) joined together to publicly support nuclear disarmament, pointing out the failures of nuclear deterrence. Elsewhere, the Medical Association for the Prevention of War argues that nuclear deterrence ‘is predicated on a willingness to incinerate millions of civilians and cause indiscriminate and persistent harm. By definition, this is immoral and incompatible with any civilized, humane, ethical or faith underpinnings. It is anathema to peace.’

There can be no ‘just’ or peaceful outcome in a nuclear war, only the complete destruction of society. On this basis alone, Christians have warrant to denounce strategic nuclear war and its weaponry as absolutely and always evil. Is the nuclear annihilation of our enemy, or the risk of exposing our own society to it, preferable to invasion or domination by the enemy? To think so may be the worst kind of idolatry of our ideology or ‘lifestyle’. Lieutenant Calley declared of Mei Lai that ‘we had to destroy the village (that is, kill all its inhabitants) in order to save it (from Communism).’ The advocate of nuclear weapons seems to be saying ‘we have to be willing to destroy the nation—theirs and ours—in order to save ours.’ But no ideology or ‘lifestyle’ is worth that kind of defence.

What about regulation?

Currently, there exists an international treaty framework for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. (We have outlined some details in an appendix to this briefing.) But many commentators argue that the integrity of the regime is currently quite flawed and very fragile. Two factors undermine the non-proliferation regime:

1. There are inescapable links between civil and military operations. The expansion of nuclear fuel cycle capabilities around the world, although regulated by the non-proliferation treaty, promotes a ‘cascade’ of proliferation.
2. There is a stalemate between nuclear weapon states which want non-proliferation first, and non-nuclear weapon states which want disarmament first.

This kind of treaty-making comes from a time when only major states-actors had the means to create nuclear weapons. But with the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear ‘know-how’, such a time is passing. While this regulatory framework remains very necessary, it may not suffice to prevent nuclear conflict, for ‘as we have seen with the examples of Iraq, North Korea and Iran, even the suspicion of nuclear weapons possession invokes fear and mistrust, which leads to instability between nations’ (ICAN). Indeed, Iran's recent development of an enrichment plant is within the terms on the non-proliferation treaty.

What is the alternative?

A swelling chorus of voices argue that nuclear weapons have outlived their use-by date. If states do not have them, then states cannot use them; and if states are not making them, then terrorists probably will not be able to make them very easily either. Various ways forward are therefore proposed by which the international community can wean itself off its fear-based addiction to these weapons.

But could it be possible to envisage a scenario where nuclear weapons are altogether abolished? Surely such an idea is mere utopian dreaming. Surely ‘geopolitical realism’ dictates that since these weapons are possible, they will always be useable.

There are parallels in this discussion to campaigns against landmines and cluster-bombs, where it is becoming increasingly ‘thinkable’ to avoid their manufacture and use. In a broken world, these weapons may well reappear; yet there may also come a time when the military commander who employs these means of warfare is denounced by all as dishonourable, even criminal. Something like this is already the case with weapons of chemical warfare. The ‘geopolitical realist’ argument only becomes true when enough people fail to say ‘no’.

What does this have to do with me?

Like other global problems such as world poverty, terrorism and climate change there is sometimes a disconnection between what needs to be done at an international or governmental level, and how this could possibly relate to each of us as individual citizens and as Christians. But two factors bring the issue closer to home:

1. Australia is a major player in the nuclear fuel chain with over one third of the world's known uranium reserves. We currently export uranium to France, USA and the UK, all of whom are (in the terms of the non-proliferation treaty) ‘nuclear weapons states’. In 2006 the previous Government signed agreements paving the way for exports to China, and in 2007 signalled interest in selling uranium to India and Russia. Russia and China are treaty ‘nuclear weapons states’, but their safety compliance is far from assured. India is not even a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.
2. With the announcement in June that the Australian Government will establish a Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission to be headed by Gareth Evans, Australia will play a key leadership role in revamping the non-proliferation treaty in the lead up to its five-yearly review in 2010.

Your response to this issue could then include any of the following:

• joining an anti-nuclear campaign group;
• asking your local member of parliament for [bipartisan] opposition to nuclear proliferation;
• approaching your mayor to establish a nuclear free zone (not a ‘solution’ as much as a symbolic awareness-raising exercise); or
• opposing the building of nuclear reactors (on the basis that increased nuclear technology and expertise may contribute to weapons proliferation).

We realise that some of our readers won't agree with all these suggestions. So even simply to take the time reading and considering the arguments in our ‘Sources’ section below would be a good start.

A challenge to God?

The U.S. President who authorised Hiroshoma and Nagasaki, Harry Truman, exulted that humanity was witnessing ‘the harnessing of the basic power of the universe’. This ominous turn of phrase shows how nuclear war confronts us with the very best and worst of humanity: our ingenuity, and our capacity to destroy.

Are nuclear weapons the ultimate challenge to God? Not exactly, for even armed with such power, puny humans can never succeed in dislodging the final power of God both to direct history and to justly judge the makers and users of these weapons. Christians accept the wisdom of the bible that humanity cannot control its ultimate destiny, and may delude itself in thinking that we control the fate of the planet.

However as we humbly accept our limitations, under God we can nevertheless advocate for a world that is safe and just and where money is spent on feeding people rather than producing nuclear weapons. Christians look forward to a new heaven and earth that will be established for all eternity. But it does not follow that we must meekly stand by and accept the arguments of those willing to slaughter and burn millions on the planet as we now know it.

Appendix: The Regulatory Framework for Non-Proliferation

The international community has put in place a non-proliferation regime that is meant to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and to provide a framework for disarmament by the nuclear weapons states. The key platform of this regime is the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty opened for signature on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970. There are currently 189 states party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons. Australia became a party to the NPT in January 1973.

The NPT recognizes two forms of state:

• Nuclear Weapons States (NWS)—USA, Russia, UK, China, France
• Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS)—the other 184 signatories to the NPT.

Only four nations are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

The treaty takes the form of a three-way bargain between these states.

1. the NNWS (in articles I and II) agree not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons.
2. The NWS (in article VI) pledge to work to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
3. Article IV allows for the use of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes and provides for international trade in nuclear materials and technology, subject to Articles I and II. (Illusion of Protection).

The NPT also defines the responsibilities of NNWS to apply International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards to all nuclear activities carried out within their territories (Article III). Australia signed the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA in July 1974.

Sources/Further Reading:

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN): http://www.icanw.org.

Medical Association for Prevention of War: http://www.mapw.org.au.

‘Understanding the Nuclear NPT’: http://www.mapw.org.au/files/downloads/NPT_booklet_Sept07_print.pdf.

A.C. Grayling, Among the Dead Cities: was the Allied bombing of civilians in WWII a necessity or a crime? London: Bloomsbury, 2006.

‘India lends support to ending nuclear arms race,’ ABC Radio National, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/programguide/stories/200806/s2271005.htm.

Rory Medcalf, ‘India's Disarmament Drive, an idea worth pursuing,’ The Australian, 12 May, 2008. http://www.lowyinstitute.com/Program_IntSecurity.asp.

Australian Uranium Association briefing papers: http://www.uic.com.au.

Ian Lowe, ‘Reaction Time: climate change and the nuclear option,’ Quarterly Essay, issue 27, 2007.

George P. Shultz et al, ‘Toward a Nuclear free world,’ Wall Street Journal 15 Jan 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036422673589947.html.

World Council of Churches minute on the elimination of nuclear arms, 2006. http://www.wcc-assembly.info/en/theme-issues/assembly-documents/1-statements-documents-adopted/international-affairs/report-from-the-public-issues-committee/nuclear-arms.html.

[The worldwide Anglican crisis] ‘is clearly about homosexuality and “the visceral fear” it engenders. “Absent that match, and the tinder does not catch fire.”’ [David Marr, citing Jim Naughton]

It is difficult to write this briefing about homosexuality. The difficulty is not because of the inevitable conflict that arises when we touch upon a ‘white-hot’ issue within our community. Rather, the problem is that to do so inevitably singles out homosexuals.

For many years, they have fought to be treated as no more nor less than anyone else in our society. Inevitably then, when a Christian leader disagrees with some homosexual claims, it becomes easy to denounce Christians as being ‘obsessed’ with this matter out of all proportion.

The standard account is that we do so out of the ‘visceral fear’ that homosexuality engenders. In other words, we do so because we are homophobes.

This briefing is a little different, for several reasons.

First, I will take the unusual step of writing from a first-person perspective. I am one voice in an ongoing discussion within a Christian community. I have not consulted anyone in St Andrew’s House; and although I work at Moore College, I have not felt the need to ‘run it by’ anyone here either.

Second, I am acutely aware of the existential experiences that make this issue white-hot. I do not raise it lightly. I have begun to see how much it matters for homosexual people and for those who love them.

Third, this briefing will include an edited version of a briefing numbered #075, which was emailed to our subscribers but was a bit too complicated to release on the web.

Hopefully this version will be simpler, and will include some extra comments.

But why raise the matter at all? Am I singling out homosexuals in a way that indicates I am homophobic? I think the answer is ‘no’. I can point to the following datum as evidence. We have released over eighty briefings since 2004 (never mind our numbering system!). Only four (#072 & #074-#076) have directly addressed homosexuality, and these have appeared in response to political initiatives by others:

• In Australia, the Labor party is more positive about promoting social change. Australia’s current nation-wide reign of Labor governments, then, has offered a rare window of opportunity for proponents of same-sex law reform (cf. #074).
• In the Anglican setting, some North American Episcopalians (i.e. Anglicans, from the Diocese of New Hampshire) have ‘risked all’ by ordaining a homosexual bishop (Gene Robinson). Several years later, many Anglican bishops have avoided the usual worldwide gathering at Lambeth in London to meet separately in Jerusalem (cf. #072).

On my local scene, Sydney journalist David Marr has written a lengthy piece in the Sydney Morning Herald’s influential Good Weekend, which reflects negatively on Archbishop Peter Jensen’s decision to go to Jerusalem instead of Lambeth.

But so what? Although our briefings haven’t majored on homosexuality and have reacted to the initiatives of others, I could easily still be homophobic. Marr quotes a North American Episcopalian’s analysis that at the root of the global Anglican crisis is ‘the visceral fear’ that homosexuality engenders. He believes that this fear drives conservative Anglican opposition to homosexuality, despite the claim that the matter is about biblical authority. Analogously then, a briefing such as this one may also evidence homophobia.

Those of us branded as ‘homophobic’ do not immediately recognise the charge. It is initially puzzling to us. Through an accident of history, the very socially conservative Moore College community in which I live finds itself next to an avowedly gay community in Newtown. As my son and I walked down the street a few years ago, we saw two beautiful men dressed in silver, one as a silver fairy and the other with what could only be described as a silver loincloth. They made us giggle, which I think was the intended effect. They spoke kindly to us, and I felt no threat. We felt no reason to fear. There was nothing ‘visceral’ for us in the moment.

But it was obvious that these silver men lived very differently to us. The party invitation that they were handing out made that much clear! So on reflection, of course, it becomes clear that the term ‘homophobia’ was coined by analogy with ‘xenophobia’ (the irrational fear of strangers). Homophobia is used to denote a fear of homosexual difference, and the fear that such difference might damage society if expressed. In addition, homosexual people have every reason to suspect that such fear is driving the kind of anger that motivates the beatings that homosexuals do receive. It is quite reasonable, then, to suspect that fear lurks behind opposition.

However I want to suggest that the term is not really that helpful. Of course it does have handy political uses. I am accused of homophobia; I reply ‘but I am not!’ Therefore according to the well-known theorist in political rhetoric, George Lakoff, in that moment of reply I lose the argument. By resisting the label, I actually give the game away to my accuser. In the odd ways of modern political discourse, to resist a definition actually makes it stick all the harder. To protest that I am not-a-homophobe (or not-a-anything-else) somehow proves that really, I am.

My accuser’s terms of engagement have won the day.

But in this briefing, I am not very interested in that game-play. I want to get at something much deeper and more important, and I want to get at it for the sake of people who often suffer terribly as gays. For I want to suggest that the term ‘homophobia’ masks and obscures the real situation.

This ‘real situation’ is that our community harbours two different kinds of opposition to homosexual people. I may be oversimplifying, but I would portray these different opponents as follows:

1. There truly are homosexual-haters. ‘Homophobic’ is not a strong enough description of these people. Just as there are misanthropes (people-haters) and misogynists (women haters), there are ‘mishomists’—an admittedly silly new word that cannot possibly catch on. But those who despise homosexuals enough to taunt, beat and kill them need a name of their own. I don’t know the extent to which these people are driven by fear; but the point at issue is that they certainly hate.
2. There are those who wish to accept homosexual people without agreeing with them on everything. They may be good at it, or very clumsy. They may be adept at it, or awkward. But the point is that they see themselves as having no reason to fear or despise homosexual people. They simply disagree with some of what they think and do; yet they want to find ways to accept and relate across that difference. Such a position has been called ‘critical tolerance’ (a stance that can apply to ‘disagreement within acceptance’ on any matter at all).

I class myself in the second group. I feel that to describe me as a ‘homophobe’ simply misses the mark. It does not engage with who I think I am. Of course, people who identify themselves as gay well understand what it is like for others not to engage with who they think they are. Indeed, a very great argument is to be had over whether I can ‘accept them without agreeing with them’, since for some people, to question homosexuality is also to reject them. To ‘accept’ them necessarily includes agreement with their gay self-identity and its reasons.

It is very hard to settle the complex matter of ‘identity’ here. But I offer the notion of ‘critical tolerance’ as possibly a ray of hope. For it grieves me to think of all that could go wrong, and has gone wrong, between homosexuals and people like myself. I want therefore to share now a discussion that is being had within our Christian community over the nature of our response to homosexual people.

The Social Issues Executive has been asked to suggest what might govern a Diocesan response to various new legal initiatives that concern same-sex couples. Here is a summary of what we have suggested. The suggestions are premised on the idea of ‘critical tolerance’. We begin with four ‘channel markers’ that do not answer every question, but which offer a path within which to evaluate legal proposals:

1. We support and encourage people to care for each other. Christians do not oppose care and support between people! We support all changes to the law that promote and support relationships of care. Where relationship registers recognise such care, they are welcomed—and should include other caring relationships (e.g. for elderly siblings or for disabled family members etc.).

2. The needs of children take priority over the wants of adults. When same-sex couples are main carers of children, we support them in that role (just as we support single parents). We do so without prejudice to the children concerned. We realise that our opposition to homosexual lifestyle should never take the form of challenging or compromising the security of children for whom these carers are the most significant adults they know.  [What about State arbitrated adoptions and fostering (e.g. of ‘wards of the state’)? Quite small numbers of children are involved in this question. In early 2006, we looked at the ‘evidence’ about whether children do better with mixed-sex parents over same-sex parents; but the matter is so shrill and politicised that everyone’s ‘evidence’ seemed to be heavily skewed by their presuppositions and ideology. Meanwhile, this interminable argument over whose evidence is ‘right’ was not helping children. So we reckon that in the meantime, States should take a ‘safe bet’ about what kids need. States must act for the best interests of each child, not for the ‘rights’ of applicants. We think that a stable, loving, harmonious married couple is the ‘safest bet’ for a child’s best interests, since having a mother and a father has so often just worked for so many people. (But ironically, this view also makes me grateful when gay carers take in disabled children that no one else, and no married couple, wants.)]

3. Marriage is not ‘reinventable’. As the UK Christian ethicist Jonathon Chaplin puts it, the question of who may be ‘married’ ‘cannot be reduced to whether another extension of individual rights is merited in this case. Rather, participants in the debate must confront the question whether marriage, and family, have an enduring structural character that must be reckoned with before courts or legislators rush to judgement on the so-called “rights” question’. In other words, the lifelong, sexually exclusive, open- to-children thing that men and women keep doing will keep happening and will keep needing a name, whether or not we decide to reserve the term ‘marriage’ for it.

4. We seek a society that graciously allows cultural space for marriage. In a study of the Bible’s account of family, we found that despite all the changes to family evident across 3000+ years of biblical history, and despite the very serious family problems that keep reappearing throughout, a constant was the valuable social role of a married couple to bear and raise children. We think the Bible is the word of God; but even if it is taken only an expression of ancient wisdom, it suggests that a society needs to do all it can to produce and keep a large proportion of families where stable, loving, harmonious married couples are open to bearing and raising children. (Of course a ‘good’ society must also accept, support and care for families that are not like that.)

   We honour this activity by calling it ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ and by indulging it with some ‘positive discrimination’. Hence marriage ceremonies and registration should remain for the married. The daily realities of personal freedom for homosexual people would not be compromised by conceding this cultural space to marriage.

   (None of this view should be taken as sidelining single people. In other contexts, I argue that single people have been badly ripped-off, and that the biblical authors honour their lives even if church culture and secular culture do not. Nor am I sidelining those married people who long for children but have not yet received any. Despite their sadness, such couples are deeply and truly married, and are also a ‘family’.)

These, then, were the four channel markers we suggested for evaluating new legal proposals.

But I thought it was also very important to add three other points, for I think that these have been long overlooked in discussions among Christians:

5. Christians seek to love homosexuals meaningfully. In a politicised environment where the stakes seem high, we can easily seem to despise homosexuals. But:
   • We stand with them against the kinds of hatred and violence that is reported by their community.
   • As people who bear God’s image, their networks of relationships—particularly where real care is given and received—deserve our respect.
   • We may need to find new ways to ‘connect’ with homosexuals, if Christ’s loving offer of forgiven relationship is to be real and tangible for them.

   We could ask God to lead us in his own love toward homosexuals in our community. We might ask God how to love in a way that touches their hearts while we follow Christ faithfully.

6. We call everyone to faithful marriage or chaste singleness. We are for a vision of community life where sexual expression is not always necessary for contented lives together. Our sexual ethic is not intended to single out gay people, or divorced and remarried people, or people in defacto heterosexual relationships. We simply believe that faithful marriage and chaste singleness are the way we may find joy together. Our churches are an ongoing ‘experiment’ in living out these complementary styles of life together.

   We need to address corrupted views of marriage, such as that it need not be lifelong, or that sexually exclusivity is only for those couples who choose it, or that openness to receiving children is an optional extra for the married. Such ethically ‘voluntarist’ views, where marriage is only what we choose it to be, have set the cultural conditions under which same-sex ‘marriage’ now seems reasonable and appropriate. We also need to address the corrupted views of singleness which assume sexual expression to be central to a good human existence. Of course all are created to have sexual thoughts and feelings; but it does not follow that these must be expressed in order to live well.

   (We have written other briefings about marriage and singleness. We will eventually post them to the web to make them more accessible.)

7. We ask the homosexual community for cultural and political detente. We are two communities who will never agree. We are stuck with each other in Australian society. Each community battles for hearts and minds; each has its articles of faith; and we both have the capacity to hurt each other terribly. Neither community will disappear any time soon. The tensions we experience have to be addressed the way liberal democracies traditionally navigate profound disagreements of conscience: through free speech and freedom of assembly. By all means let us continue to try persuading each other, but at the same time, let us also seek to live well alongside each other in a civil society that we can all share, in ‘critical tolerance’, where we accept one another even while disagreeing.

I think there is a lot more to be talked about. For example,

• It seems to me that some Christians adopt a tone that suggests they hate gays. I think they should repent of that hatred. I think the Christian community needs to start challenging the bitter, angry, hostile modes of speech about homosexuals that do emanate from some Christian mouths (not just about homosexuals, by the way). But this repentance does not entail agreeing with everything that a homosexual person believes.
• It seems to me that some homosexuals are doing something very close to what religions do. They have a powerful set of beliefs about what it is to be truly human. They proselytise; they seek to wins hearts and minds; and they work toward a world where everyone believes as they do about homosexuality. All of this is very similar to what I do about Jesus Christ. So it seems to me that our leaders need to hear some gay claims as ‘religious’ in nature, and therefore beyond the rightful domain of law and politics.
• It seems to me that both conservative Christians and the proponents of homosexual life are not always very thought out about the nature of human desire. Clearly, to live as a homosexual goes a bit deeper than to ‘make a choice’ as some Christians lazily like to put it (in strong agreement with the fourth-century heretic Pelagius). But also clearly, none of our desires are as immutable and hard-wired as we each— like to imagine—gay people included. I am not implying ‘look you gay people—you can learn to be straight!’

Rather, I am saying that we all live together in a culture that is very shallow when it comes to talking and thinking about our desires and their expression. We could dig deeper. From where I sit, the Bible is far more helpful on the nature of our desire (and not just our sexual desires) than anyone has recently realised.

But these big issues deserve fuller exploration elsewhere. For the moment, I simply suggest that we need to find new ways of talking and living together. For many conservative Christians, it is wrong to be in a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. For many homosexuals, it is wrong to question people doing so. For those who identify themselves as gay and Christian, the disagreement can cause pain and anger. For everyone else, it can be hard to know how to respond. This complex state of affairs will exist within our society for some time. We need to find new terms of debate if we are to live well together.

In this society, same-sex relationships are so politically charged that it has become easier to avoid discussing our disagreements. But conflict is not always bad. Done well, it reveals what really matters to each of us. We can be introduced to new ways of thinking and living that may surprise us at first, and may even delight us later. We can grow in the art of accepting each other, even while we disagree.

Sources/Further Reading:

David Marr, ‘The Great Schism,’ SMH Good Weekend June 7 2008, pp. 24-26.

Archbishop Jensen, ‘Pray for unity’

1. Introduction. The 2020 Summit has raised the profile of a human rights framework for the Federal legislature. The new government may introduce plans to develop such a framework. This possibility has triggered what will become sprawling and complex community debate.

If Christians can discern the main issues, we will have much to contribute to the debate. This paper is offered as a first step in that process. The SIE is thankful to the Archbishop and Standing Committee for the opportunity to participate.

2. Cautionary notes. We understand that due to time constraints, some members of the Committee may be unable to read the entire paper. However we urge that at least the following cautionary points be noted:

1. Complex issues that deserve close study are at stake.
2. A church’s task is primarily to speak theologically (see para. 38)
3. More will need to be said than simply that ‘rights talk is unhelpful’ (see para. 43).
4. ‘Rights talk’ is a ‘lingua franca’ for ethics, and must be challenged with care (para. 7).
5. ‘Rights talk’ does not always involve an evasion of ‘responsibilities’ (see para. 8).
6. Rejection of human rights law carries some risks (see paras 7, 44, 46).
7. Familiarity with competing legal models is essential to an informed response (see para. 45).
8. Ongoing monitoring and reflection will be required (para. 49).

3. The contents of this paper are as follows (paragraphs):

I. The difficulties of rights language (4‐8)
Some semantic complexities surrounding the discussion of human rights.

II. Overlap of Bible, ‘rights’ and ‘human rights’ (10‐17)
Texts and themes in the Bible that conceptually resemble modern discourse.

III. A short history of rights-discourse (18‐28)
A sketch of the evolution of ‘rights’ and two significant ‘atheological moments’.

IV. Common objections to a human rights framework (29‐38)
Standard non‐theological objections to an Australian human rights framework.

V. Towards a Christian response (39‐49)
Provisional suggestions for a considered Christian response.

Appendix: UN instruments (50‐55)
A glimpse of some important UN documents.

I. The difficulties of rights-language.

4. Context. We offer some provisional definitions (para. 4), but discourse about ‘rights’ and ‘human rights’ contains complexities that need to be noted. This section also observes some of these complexities.

5. Definitions. For purposes of this paper, we offer the following working definitions (acknowledging that disagreements can be found in each case):

‘Right’: a ‘moral claim’; a form of entitlement asserted by or for someone.

‘Differential right’: a right applicable to a particular person (but not necessarily to all people).

‘Universal right’: a right applicable to all people everywhere.

‘Human rights’: a legal and moral specification of, and a discourse about, universal rights.

‘Bill of rights’, ‘charter of rights’ (often used synonymously): legal instruments that list and protect human rights.

‘Human rights framework’: a general term to describe the application of human rights as a controlling element in a legal system, but without specifying the actual legal model used (e.g. via either a ‘constitutional’ or ‘statutory’ arrangement).

6. General ‘rights’ and ‘human rights’. Modern ‘rights’ discourse encompasses a huge semantic range and the term is used in a variety of senses.

‘Human rights’ discourse is a subset of rights discourse. It seeks to describe, protect and uphold rights common to all people everywhere (although the normative specification of rights, and the assessments of universality, are disputed.) There is a massive literature on human rights.

A ‘right of reply’ or a ‘consumer right’ are examples of rights that are not necessarily ‘human rights’, because they are ‘differential’ rights pertaining to particular people and circumstances.

7. A ‘lingua franca’ for ethics. Philosophical disputes about the validity of ‘rights talk’ may not be very helpful in popular or public discussion. Rightly or wrongly, the wider community assumes that ‘rights’ are valid as a general concept. It is generally held that the concept of a ‘right’ is not in need of discussion. It follows that those who question the validity of rights discourse are likely to be misunderstood or misrepresented.

Indeed ‘rights’ and ‘human rights’ have become a widespread language for the discussion of ethics itself. It follows that those who are ‘against rights’ or ‘against human rights’ can be misheard or misrepresented as being in favour of unethical behaviour.

There may be some value in questioning the limitations of rights discourse and in observing its abuses, but the matter will need to be approached with care. The political goal of such questioning would also need careful consideration.

8. Rights versus responsibilities? A common objection to rights discourse (see para. 30) can imply that rights are contrary to responsibilities. It should be noted that rights theorists often try to take account of this point, and that rights discourse is arguably ‘maturing’ in this respect. For example: it is recognised that no ‘right’ in a civil society may be ‘infinitely’ asserted against another person or against another right; and that in reality, a right is only defended in a civil society when other parties undertake the responsibility to defend it.

Of course we also note that it is quite proper to observe that a right usually entails a responsibility. This important insight seeks to defend civil society, where care for each other (‘responsibilities’) obviates the need to bicker over the special interests (‘rights’) of the self. However, that insight may not be a strong defeater of a human rights legislative framework. The specification of human rights, and a framework for their defence, may presume and uphold reciprocal social responsibilities without formally specifying them.

9. Conceptual spheres. Human rights language is used in different conceptual spheres. For example, two important U.N. ‘covenants’ concern different aspects of the relationship of a State to its citizens. (Each covenant is briefly described in the Appendix, below.)

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) limits government intrusions into people’s lives.
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) lists various human aspirations that governments should assist people to achieve.

The logic and philosophy of these two broad spheres is quite different.

II. Overlap of Bible, ‘rights’ and ‘human rights’.

10. Context. Christians are rightly suspicious of ethical claims to ‘know good and evil’ without reference to God. Yet Christians also affirm some secular ethical discussion. We may do so for the good of a neighbour, to explain the Christian worldview, or to commend the gospel.

Likewise, human rights discourse can present itself as an exercise in godless human autonomy. But it offers opportunities to protect neighbours, to explain a Christian worldview, and for gospel engagement. This is so because rights‐discourse overlaps with biblical concepts and with a Christian theology of ethics.

11. Biblical language equivalents? The biblical languages have no direct equivalent to our modern ‘right’ or ‘human rights’. The large semantic and conceptual range of rights discourse also complicates our discernment of where it overlaps with biblical language and concepts.

12. ‘Rights’ in English bibles. Modern translators use English ‘rights’ for a variety of Hebrew and Greek terms. It is not found in the KJV (although ‘the right of’ often appears there), and RSV uses the term with less frequency than NIV. This gradually increasing frequency in newer translations parallels its emergence as the ‘lingua franca’ of modern ethics. Intentionally or not, these translational choices implicitly endorse modern conceptions of rights.

13. Biblical ‘differential rights’. Of the verses where English ‘rights’ is employed, some refer to what we could perhaps call ‘differential rights’, including the inheritance due to a firstborn, the particularity of care of due to a spouse, and the authority pertaining to the office of king or apostle. (RSV: Exod. 21:10; 1 Co. 7:3; 9:15. NIV: Exod. 21:9‐10; Deut. 21:16; 1 Chr. 5:1‐2; 1 Co. 9:4‐5, 15, 18; Gal. 4:5; Heb. 12:16.) Arguably, some of these translational decisions may camouflage important nuances in the biblical logic of justice and authority. (For example, the NIV use of ‘right’ in Rev. 2:7 and 3:21 shifts the emphasis away from the gracious authority of the Lord Jesus toward an implication that ‘righteous’ people may claim certain rewards.)

14. Biblical ‘human rights’. Another cluster of such verses evinces the discussion of universal ‘human rights’, where ‘rights’ translates a cluster of Hebrew terms for the ‘just judgements‘ due to weak and vulnerable people. (RSV: 1 Sam. 10:25; Prov. 29:7; 31:5, 8f; Jer. 5:28. NIV: Job 36:6; Ps. 82:3; Prov. 31:5, 8‐9; Eccl. 5:8; Isa. 10:2; Jer. 5:28; Lam. 3:35.) One translation even goes so far as to use the modern phrase ‘human rights’ (New Jerusalem Bible: Lam. 3:35).

15. Creation and rights. But most Christian discussions of human rights do not begin with such translational choices. They point to the biblical anthropology introduced in Genesis 1‐2 and continued throughout the Bible. According to this view, the first parents of humanity are created in the image of God and as co‐equal vice‐regents over the planet. It follows that no human may treat another as less precious than themselves before God (cf. Gen. 4:10f; 9:6). It also follows that humanity is to be treated with even greater care than that due to the created order. Both entailments are seen in subsequent biblical law and ethics. The concept of ‘human dignity’ evolved as an expression of both these entailments. The concept of ‘human rights’ is a legal expression of human dignity, based in part upon these biblical beginnings. It is now ‘shorthand’ for how we may not treat anyone as intrinsically inferior to ourselves.

Although this argument has much to commend it, we should also pause to observe the sovereign role of God in biblical morality. Any moral order that is evident in the creation derives ultimately from the character of God, and so any ‘rights’ that people have are contingent upon God’s goodness in creation. Even human life itself is not ‘sacrosanct’ in Scripture, since God is at liberty to withdraw it, and occasionally authorises others to do so. A thoroughly scriptural account of the ‘rights and wrongs of rights’ will need to take this authority of God into account.

A key question becomes: may we endorse the ‘shorthand’ without compromising God’s name?

16. Equality and rights. Human rights become problematic when applied to the inequalities between people. But this problem is actually the continuation an older disagreement over the nature of ‘equality’ and its relationship to ‘justice’.

It can be argued that the Bible expresses justice by strict equality in extreme situations, such as impending death, dire social exclusion, or when facing legal judgment. But in the normal orderly conduct of society, justice is expressed as appropriate responses to differences between people (e.g. differences of office, of giftedness, or of work performed). Justice then determines what response (e.g. honour, recognition, or payment) the difference calls forth.

The task of judgment becomes to discern when strict equality of action toward all is required, or when the appropriate response to each person’s particular situation is required. Human rights discourse will require the same task of discernment.

Some argue that human rights discourse is well‐suited to bring justice in extreme situations, such as dire social exclusion (e.g. extreme poverty), at legal trials, or when death threatens (e.g. extreme ill‐health or during natural disasters). But others argue that human rights discourse lacks nuance, because it conflates the ‘justice as equality’ that is needed in extreme situations with the ‘justice as appropriate response’ that is needed in recognition of human differences.

(The reception and implementation of the UN’s ICCPR has been less controversial than that of the ICESCR. Perhaps that is because very broadly speaking, the ICCPR is mainly concerned to avoid or remedy extreme situations, whereas the ICESCR promotes many aspirations and institutions to enhance the normal orderly conduct of a society.)

17. Tyranny and rights. Modern human rights frameworks also seek to defend against government tyranny. Several Old Testament references routinely limit the actions of Israelite kings, particularly in comparison to contemporaneous ancient near‐eastern despots; and after Christ’s victory over all other authorities (1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21; Phil. 2:9; Col. 2:10), the power of rulers is consistently whittled away.

Yet conservative Christians have often been reluctant to assert that the Bible endorses the limitation of tyrants. This view is based upon debatable readings of Matthew 22:21, Romans 13:1‐17 and 1 Peter 2:13‐17, and upon the observation that neither Jesus nor Paul nor the prophets of the exile espoused revolution.

However it can equally be argued that democratic traditions grew from Christ’s exaltation to glory. Freedom of conscience, speech and assembly arose as the churches responded to Christ’s Word and Spirit. Temperate legal judgments arose as judges received and imitated the merciful judgment of God in Christ. Under Christian theological influence over two millennia, Western culture was blessed by new ‘standards of governance’ revealed in Christ.

There can be no return to despotism since Christ has shown the nature of true rule. These new expectations upon rulers continue to be exported in an increasingly globalised world. Hence it can be argued that Christians have good reason to support human rights initiatives against the incursions of tyranny—while always objecting to the attempted erasure of Jesus Christ as the Source and Sovereign of proper rule.

III. A short history of rights-discourse.

18. Context. But what explanation can be given for these overlaps of modern ‘rights’ with biblical concepts and with theological ethics? Perhaps ‘rights’ are wholly alien to Christian thought, and the overlaps only accidental. Or, perhaps there is some organic link between modern ‘rights’ and historic Christian thought. This section attempts to arbitrate between those possibilities. It is denser, yet is worth persevering with for reasons that will be explained below.

19. A Western emphasis. According to C. Taylor, all cultures somehow indicate that human beings command respect (although the circle drawn around those to be respected does vary). But peculiar to the modern West is the formulation of this principle in terms of a ‘right’, understood as “a legal privilege which is seen as a quasi‐possession of the agent to whom it is attributed.” How did this formulation evolve in the West?

20. A complex story summarised. In brief, ‘what is right’ morphed over time into ‘my right’, moving the emphasis of justice away from an objective moral order toward the subjective claims of individuals (and later, communities). But various accounts are given of the history of these ideas. The following rough sketch camouflages a great deal of academic dispute.

21. Origin: ‘natural law’. In early medieval thought, God institutes and then reveals a ‘natural law’: that is, an objective moral order that people are ‘under’ and to which we submit (either joyously or rebelliously). This natural moral order confers various benefits upon each of us.

22. Transition: ‘natural right’. For later medieval thinkers, under ‘natural law’ we each acquire a subjective power to act lawfully (‘my right’). “At first such rights were seen as differential possessions: some people had the right to participate in certain assemblies, or to give counsel, or to collect tolls on this river, and so on.” (C. Taylor)

23. Turmoil: historical events. Historians also observe that thought about human rights was not limited to the quiet halls of philosophers. The struggle over the Magna Carta, or the brief against Charles I and his trial and execution under the rule of Cromwell’s Parliament, are often hailed as milestones in the development of rights. The development of rights discourse is but one aspect of an ongoing social negotiation about the complexities of ‘restraining wickedness and vice’, including that of rulers who sought to evade the rule of Christ over them.

24. Flowering: rights and contract. “The revolution in natural law theory in the seventeenth century partly consisted in using this language of rights to express ... universal moral norms” (C. Taylor). In this early modern period, such language made it possible to describe society in terms of the ‘natural rights’ due to each citizen, with law understood as a system of ‘social contracts’ to protect those rights. But importantly, at this stage the controlling concept of ‘natural law’ had not been lost. Therefore the content of early modern rights (e.g. to ‘life’, ‘liberty’ and property) could command a general consensus.

25. Eclipse: alternative approaches. But ‘natural law’ by now included no reference to divine revelation. Its determination therefore became increasingly controversial. Hence concepts of ‘natural law’ and ‘natural rights’ fell into disfavour, and by the mid‐nineteenth century, English law was criticised for its evident injustices and its many inconsistencies. Two alternative systems of moral and legal philosophy—Kant’s duty‐based ‘categorical imperative’, and Mill’s consequentialist ‘utilitarianism’—fought for pre‐eminence; but these systems, though rivals, both jettisoned ‘natural law’ and privileged the power of human rationality to determine the good. Both approaches dominated ethics, law and politics until well into the twentieth century.

26. Revival: a response to brutality and hubris. In an attempt to curb twentieth‐century excesses and atrocities committed first by Spanish communists and later by Nazi fascists, Roman Catholic moral thought reintroduced the language of rights. It appeared in pre‐war defences of private property and of basic human units such as the family, and in response to the executions of priests during the Spanish Civil War. In the post‐war ‘human rights revolution’ (and under the influence of Catholic intellectual Jacques Maritain), it was the most available language for responding to the oppression, imprisonment and murder of millions. It was this milieu that gave rise to the UN’s important 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, two subsequent Covenants and several other UN legal instruments (see Appendix).

But the concept of any ‘natural law’, which had been jettisoned in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was not revived.

27. Globalisation: an international human rights framework. The last three decades have seen a coordinated effort to enable national legislatures to govern according to the ‘spirit’ of international human rights agreements. The debate to be had concerning our own Federal legislature should be regarded in this context.

Since the Australian Government is already signatory to several international human rights instruments, human rights activists argue that it should be no problem, in principle, to interrogate our laws for their congruence with these instruments.

28. Tension: contrasting traditions of law. The recent development of rights discourse has occurred largely in a European context. Broadly speaking, law in the European tradition is more overtly ‘aspirational’. It helps to state and shape the kind of moral community to which a society aspires.

In contrast, Austral‐Anglo‐American legal tradition is more sceptical and adversarial. It sets out the basic minimums of action and behaviour that a community member must observe. But statements of the society’s moral aspirations are left to other social institutions (e.g. churches).

Over several decades, Australian legal education has increasingly paid attention to the European tradition. It is unsurprising, then, that some tension over human rights has become evident both within and beyond our legal profession.

Underlying the human rights discussion is a deeper philosophical point at issue: the extent to which the law should intentionally express and overtly set out a community’s moral aspirations.

IV. Common objections to a human rights framework

29. Context. The following objections to a human rights framework often appear in media reports and general Christian discussion. We will not systematically evaluate the objections here, although some comments about them follow in paragraphs 36‐38.

30. The sufficiency of common law. This objection argues that eight centuries of English common law tradition is already ‘a vast bill of rights’ (C. Francis), which has already developed in such a way as to protect basic human rights most admirably. The burden of proof is therefore transferred to anyone who would argue that this tradition needs augmentation by a human rights framework.

31. Elevation of an activist judiciary over the parliament. According to the third objection, law conducted within a human rights framework licenses the judiciary to rule the Parliament. The current separation of powers means that our parliaments make laws that our judges interpret. But a ‘charter of rights’ would enable unelected judges to preside over elected representatives, and the separation of powers would be compromised.

32. Erosion of citizen responsibilities and ‘civil society’. This objection concerns the rise of rights discourse in general. If a ‘right’ is correctly understood to be a moral claim or an assertion of entitlement, then a rise in rights discourse turns citizens into claimants upon each other rather than contributors to society. Such an emphasis erodes relationships of trust and cooperation by downplaying the responsibilities that citizens have toward each other. A human rights legislative framework, it is concluded, will only serve to accelerate this cultural trend.

33. A ‘lawyers’ picnic’. This colloquial objection pictures a consequence of the previous two scenarios. Only the legal industry profits as an ever‐increasing number of human transactions are subjected to the logic of rights‐claims, and special interests are given legal privilege in a way that damages social cohesion.

34. The spectre of novel rights. A fifth objection claims that a human rights framework will be leveraged by special interest groups for ‘socially progressive’ liberal agendas. [Behind this objection is a wider ‘culture war’, where defenders of traditional ‘family’ (children raised by a married man and woman) oppose and are opposed by proponents of diverse ‘families’ (domestic groupings that include same‐sex couples, de‐facto couples, single parents etc.).]

35. Unproven results. Opponents of human rights frameworks ask whether there is evidence to suggest that the most vulnerable groups (such as children, indigenous people and the poor) have been advanced by human rights frameworks. They often point to dysfunctional or tyrannical regimes where human rights law is ostensibly in effect. (The discussion is complicated by disputes over evidence, or by other confounding factors within the polities concerned.)

36. Comment (A): Human rights are well‐intentioned. The ‘restraint of wickedness and vice’ is a centuries‐old social project, and arguments for and against a human rights framework are another stage in society’s negotiations about this complex task. Any government involvement deserves an assumption of goodwill and some degree of respect, even where we disagree.

37. Comment (B): These objections have been seriously addressed. Human rights activists believe they can answer each objection. Their replies deserve study and evaluation. Various legal models aim to regulate the judiciary’s relationship to parliament (para. 45). Indeed activists are motivated by a belief that the sovereignty of parliament, the expression of the people’s will, the accountability of modern governments, or the adequacy of law are already highly compromised. They point (e.g.) to the denial of habeas corpus under anti‐terror laws; to the Federal Executive’s accrual of power; or at a State level, to some vulnerabilities in private property ownership.

38. Comment (C): These objections are not overtly theological. The objections concern the practical prudence of a human rights framework. Of course Christians may express considered opinions about what is likely to work for the public good. But our prior task is to discern and express those theological truths that are known to us as disciples of Christ. Some care, then, will be needed to distinguish comments that have theological warrant from other comments.

V. Toward a Christian response.

39. Context. The objections we have seen are not theological as such. But distinctively Christian objections to human rights often conflict with distinctively Christian affirmations of human rights. We need to consider, then, what might account for this disagreement among Christians.

The account above (paras 21‐26) produces two somewhat contradictory conclusions. These two conclusions explain Christian disagreements.

More optimistically, they may even offer ‘channel markers’ for a Christian response.

40. Two contradictory conclusions. The historical account above (paras 21‐26) includes two significant ‘atheological moments’:

1. when ‘natural law’ drifts free from divine revelation; and
2. when ‘natural law’ itself is discarded.

The theologically informed origins of the account, and these two ‘atheological moments’, result in somewhat contradictory conclusions:

• On the one hand, rights language is no longer controlled by an objective moral order or by any divine revelation. Rights discourse can therefore ‘malfunction’. It can be used to press for special interests without reference to wider concepts of justice, and can be asserted against other claims in ways that are difficult to arbitrate.

  (Similar problems can occur within existing justice systems, and can be construed as a difficulty inherent to administering justice in a complex and fallen world.)

  ... For these reasons many Christians cannot endorse ‘human rights’.

• On the other hand, a Christian theology of ethics defends human life and various familial and communal interactions. These defences are expressed in the Bible, match the God‐given natural moral order, and have been ‘repackaged’ as ‘human rights’—a spectacularly successful popular reassertion of some key elements of the moral order.

  (Similar praise could be given to some features of existing justice systems, since under the providence of God all justice systems eventually approximate something of his natural moral order.)

  ... For these reasons many Christians cannot oppose ‘human rights’.

Clearly then, careful thought will be needed about what to endorse and what to oppose!

41. Christian disagreement. These two conclusions may explain why Christians are polarised over the value or dangers of an Australian human rights framework. ‘Some Christians have denied the whole concept of human rights, believing that we only have responsibilities and duties towards one another. Others are concerned that the notion of human rights is becoming so dominant that human responsibilities are diminishing. Yet others believe that the modern notion of human rights contains within it an essential Christian component which it is the duty of the church to preserve and the mission of the church to propagate’ (J. Stott). Evangelical Christians are similarly divided, and we have seen these disagreements emerge within SIE discussion.

42. A Christian response within ‘channel markers’. There are good reasons to think that Christians can support a human rights framework if it enhances the normal orderly conduct of society; or if it protects from tyranny; or if it brings equality to the extreme situations of legal trial, social exclusion and the protection of human life (although we should immediately note the absurd exception, at this point, of the unborn in modern Western jurisdictions). A careful Christian response might endorse those expressions of human rights that defend what Catholics call ‘human dignity’ and what Protestants call ‘moral absolutes’.

But Christians also remain very conscious that the introduction of human rights provisions can give rise to unhelpful bickering over special interests at the expense of civil society, since the society is not able to agree about a common good, based in a natural moral order that has been given by God and revealed in the incarnate and enscripturated Word.

43. Terms of debate. Conservative Christians tend to question the validity of rights discourse in general. But the forthcoming debate will be about the extent to which Australian laws should be checked against an internationally agreed framework of human rights. The terms of the debate will not be an abstract discussion of the validity of ‘rights’ in general, and Christian comment will need at least to demonstrate an understanding of these terms of debate.

44. Risks of conservatism. In view of the difficulties, some may prefer simply to oppose all and every attempt to introduce a human rights framework. However, such an approach can too easily be portrayed as a protection of special Christian interests at the expense of human dignity and the common good. Also, this strategy will be hard‐pressed to resist the rising tide of community expectation that good law should at least make some reference to human rights.

45. Legal intricacies. Versions of both the ‘constitutional’ and the (more flexible) ‘statutory’ model may be proposed for an Australian human rights framework. All serious proponents distance themselves from the U.S. model (which is governed by a ‘constitutional’ Bill, with Amendments, of very general rights). Each model has different strengths and weaknesses (and examples are outlined in a companion SIE paper). The final legal expression of human rights, and the legal sanctions to be employed, will materially affect a Christian response. Therefore, an abstract general position on human rights will unfortunately not suffice. Familiarity with the legal models will be essential to an informed comment.

(In a sense, human rights proponents seek better legal ‘tools’ to work with. We may do legal practitioners a service by assisting in the construction of human rights ‘tools’. Or, if we have good grounds to oppose a human rights framework, we may do a similar service by identifying the legal problems in need of solution and then suggesting better ‘tools’.)

46. The specification stage. When a human rights framework is under development, there comes a ‘horse trading’ stage when a particular set of rights is settled. That is, the law needs to specify a particular set of rights to be approved at law, and perhaps defended by the law (depending on the legal model used). Human rights proponents remain optimistic that societies can navigate this stage. But for others it is a ‘deal breaker’, because they fear the prospect of a legal regime where their ‘right’ is not protected.

Christians often express concerns along these lines. For example, the evangelical Christian may fear that their ‘human right’ of free speech and free assembly will be eclipsed by the gay person’s ‘human right’ of social tolerance and equal opportunity. Christians may fear such ‘deal breakers’ enough to completely oppose a human rights framework from the outset. But if a human rights framework then goes ahead, such an initial strategy may later marginalise the Christian contribution (especially if we have only been pleading for special Christian interests).

Proper Christian thinking will seek to lift the debate to the set of rights that best promote the common good.

47. Intention versus performance. It is premature to judge whether any proposed changes will be effective in their intent. In brief, some argue that human rights legislative frameworks do not demonstrably improve human lives. Others argue that the use of human rights in a legislative context is maturing, and that political experience and legal expertise have refined the application of human rights frameworks.

Each such argument will need consideration on its merits, and is dependent in part upon the specific legal models under consideration.

48. Further detail. In the interests of brevity and clarity, this paper has deliberately avoided too much detail at some points. The SIE will be glad to supply further detail on any matters raised (or not raised) here.

49. Future directions. Our suggestion is that a working group be convened to gain clarity on what legal frameworks are proposed; what list(s) of protected human rights are proposed; what a Christian position on each of these proposed protections might be; what views of justice are operative and are supportable; and whether the proposed frameworks are likely to improve human lives.

Appendix: UN instruments

50. Context. A human rights framework for the Australian legislature would be designed in observance of international human rights instruments to which Australia is a signatory. The following paragraphs introduce the three main UN human rights instruments. Although there are others, this glimpse offers some content in a discussion that can become lost in abstraction.

51. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR (1948) (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) makes no attempt to define a ‘right’ in abstract. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” asserts its first article. “They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Recognition and knowledge of “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” according to the preamble. The motivation of the document is therefore to advance freedom, justice and peace through the knowledge and recognition of rights. A cluster of positive and negative rights are then listed.

52. Variance in magnitude. The UDHR enumerates as ‘rights’ matters that vary in magnitude:

• Some are ‘weighty’: e.g. rights to life, liberty, security; equal and just treatment before the law; freedom of movement; nationality; marriage and procreation; property ownership; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly and association; and participation in government.
• Others are less ‘weighty’: e.g. rights to social security, fair work and pay, and adequate standards of living; special care for mothers and children; education; cultural participation; and even the right to “periodic holidays with pay” and rights for “the free development of ... personality”.

Subsequent legal instruments have tried to deal with this variance in magnitude, and some argue that a maturation in the legal practice of human rights can be observed.

53. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICCPR (1966) (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm) deals with rights to live without tyrannical interference to participate in the democratic process, including:

• freedom of speech and religion;
• the right to vote;
• freedom from unfair arrest and detention and the right to a fair trial; and
• freedom of association and the right to join trade unions.

54. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The ICESCR (1966) (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm) deals with a State’s responsibility to promote the accessibility of basic living standards, including:

• food security, housing, work, social security, education and health; and
• fair wages and safe working conditions.

55. Other UN instruments. Several other international human rights instruments now exist. Considerable legal and technical expertise is required to navigate and apply them. (See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law.)

The intention of this briefing is not to explore the biblical and theological case that brings conservative Christians to their conclusion. That enquiry is important for every generation. But our purpose here is to introduce a position currently under consideration by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the group that governs the Diocese when the Synod is in recess.

The Social Issues Executive was asked to suggest what might be entailed in a Christian response to same‐sex relationships. Our suggestions are set out in a document reproduced on the following pages, called ‘Toward a diocesan policy on same sex relationships’. Clergy in the Diocese have already received a section of this paper, and as a result the section is being circulated more widely. The following document shows this section in its context.

For example, a wider perspective on same‐sex relationships is taken on pg. 4, where as conservative Christians we make some suggestions about ‘living together’ in society alongside same‐sex couples. We suggest that although our disagreements will not go away quickly, we can keep trying to find a way to ‘live together’ civilly and carefully.

We would also like to observe a few qualifying points.

1. The needs of the original (very busy) audience means that the document will seem too abrupt at some points. This abruptness was only intended to make the document briefer, and so we apologise in advance if it offends.
2. It sometimes states conclusions based on arguments made elsewhere. We are currently working on making the relevant written pieces more accessible.
3. Everything we write is offered as a discussion‐starter for the Christian community and interested others. We don't pretend to be infallible. We try to carefully consider feedback.

In this society, same‐sex relationships are so politically charged that it has become easier to avoid discussing our disagreements. But conflict is not always bad. Done well, it reveals what really matters to each of us. We can be introduced to new ways of thinking and living that may surprise us at first, and may even delight us later. We can grow in the art of accepting each other, even while we disagree.

We offer the attached document in that spirit.

Toward a diocesan policy on same sex relationships

The SIE has brought together this brief paper to assist the Standing Committee to discuss policy responses to various legal initiatives in relation to same‐sex relationships. We thank the Standing Committee for the opportunity to contribute, and as always, will be glad to supply further detail where necessary. We will assume an agreed Christian theology of sexual ethics. The paper proceeds as follows (paragraphs):

1. Four ‘channel markers’ for policy development (1‐4).
2. Three suggestions for our ongoing mission (5‐7).
3. Recent developments in Australian legislatures (8‐15).
4. Four ‘channel markers’ for policy development.

I. Four ‘channel markers’ for policy development.

We propose that any responses to proposed changes in law and Government policy should proceed within the following parameters.

• We support and encourage people to care for each other. It is not part of our mission to oppose care and support between people. For the purposes of civic order, we are not interested in sexual expression at that point. We support all changes to the law that promote and support relationships of care. Where relationship registers recognise such care, they are welcomed. Of course it follows that we would oppose any changes to the law that privileged same sex relationships over other caring relationships (e.g. for elderly siblings or disabled family members etc.).

• The needs of children take priority over the wants of adults. On the one hand, to the extent that same‐sex couples have taken up roles as main carers of children, we support them in that role (just as we support single parents). We do so without prejudice to the children concerned. We realise that our opposition to homosexual lifestyle should never take the form of challenging or compromising the security of children for whom these carers are the most significant adults they know.

  On the other hand, where children are in need of care and the State must decide the child's care arrangements, the State must observe the most conservative possible estimate of best care. This judgment is to be made in the interests of each child, not each applicant. The State's most conservative best estimate should be that a stable, loving, harmonious married couple offer the best conditions for a child's care. (The position of the SIE in relations to adoption law in NSW is explained in its Submission to the NSW Department of Community Services Review of the Adoption Act 2000, June 2006.)

• Marriage is not ‘reinventable’. The question of who may be ‘married’ ‘cannot be reduced to whether another extension of individual rights is merited in this case. Rather, participants in the debate must confront the question whether marriage, and family, have an enduring structural character that must be reckoned with before courts or legislators rush to judgement on the so‐called “rights” question’ (J. Chaplin).

  If the state chooses to ‘reinvent’ marriage for the sake of an individual's rights, then there is no real limit to what may be called ‘marriage’. Supposed expansions of the class ‘married’ will simply cheapen the currency of the term—and the law will eventually have to find another way to recognise lifetime male‐female couples who welcome children.

  The Archbishop has already publicly argued this point. (See http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23661803-7583,00.html%3Ffrom%3Dpublic_rss.)

• We seek a society that graciously allows cultural space for marriage. A ‘good’ society must accept, support and care for families without a ‘nuclear’ core, but something seems to have gone wrong in a society that does not naturally produce and keep a large proportion of such families. A society needs to do all it can to produce and keep a large proportion of families where stable, loving, harmonious married couples are open to bearing and raising children.

  ‘Marriage’ names men and women who give themselves to this excellent task. Use of the term reflects a form ‘positive discrimination’, which has traditionally been accorded to those who embark upon that task. We ask all in our society to continue to honour marriage in this way. Daily realities of gay liberty and equity would not be compromised by conceding this cultural space to marriage. Hence marriage ceremonies and registration should remain for the married.

  We note in this respect the legally expedient redefinition of ‘spouse’ to include members of same sex and de facto couples. We recognised that this expediency has been used to encompass a variety of care relationships within existing legislation. However we remain concerned that this solution compromises and confuses the proper privilege that society has traditionally accorded to marriage.

II. Three suggestions for our ongoing mission.

The previous four paragraphs concern our public response to various proposals. The next three suggestions concern our wider mission over the next decades.

5. Christians seek to love homosexuals meaningfully. In a politicised environment where the stakes seem high, we can easily seem to despise homosexuals. But to the contrary:

   • We stand with them against the kinds of hatred and violence that is reported by their community.
   • As people who bear God's image, their networks of relationships—particularly where real care is given and received—deserve our respect.
   • We may need to find new ways to ‘connect’ with homosexuals, if Christ's loving offer of forgiveness is to be real and tangible for them.
   • We could ask God to lead us in his own love toward those who self‐identify as gay. We might ask God how to love in a way that touches their hearts while we follow Christ faithfully.

6. We call everyone to faithful marriage or chaste singleness. We are for a vision of community life where sexual expression is not always necessary for contented lives together. Our sexual ethic is not intended to single out gay people, or divorced and remarried people, or people in defacto heterosexual relationships. We simply believe that faithful marriage and chaste singleness are the way we may find joy together. Our churches are an ongoing ‘experiment’ in living out these complementary styles of life together.

   We need to address corrupted views of marriage, such as that it need not be lifelong, or that sexually exclusivity is only for those couples who choose it, or that openness to receiving children is an optional extra for the married. Such ethically ‘voluntarist’ views, where marriage is only what we choose it to be, have set the cultural conditions under which same sex ‘marriage’ now seems reasonable and appropriate.

   We also need to address the corrupted views of singleness which assume sexual expression to be central to a good human existence. Of course all are created to have sexual thoughts and feelings; but it does not follow that these must be expressed in order to live well.

7. We ask the homosexual community for cultural and political detente. We are two communities who will never agree. We are stuck with each other in Australian society. Each community battles for hearts and minds; each has its articles of faith; and we both have the capacity to hurt each other terribly. Neither community will disappear any time soon. The tensions we experience have to be addressed the way liberal democracies traditionally navigate profound disagreements of conscience: through free speech and freedom of assembly. By all means let us continue to try persuading each other, but at the same time, let us also seek to live well alongside each other in a civil society that we can all share, in ‘critical tolerance’, where we accept one another even while disagreeing.

III. Recent developments in Australian legislatures.

The next paragraphs summarise the current ‘state of play’ in the nation's legislatures.

8. Same‐sex Entitlements. In 2007 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) released their report Same‐Sex: Same Entitlements—Final Report. The report was the result of a 2006 National Inquiry into discrimination against same‐sex couples in the area of work related and financial entitlements. HREOC identified 58 federal laws which denied same‐sex couples and their children basic financial and work‐related entitlements available to opposite‐sex couples and their children. These covered areas such as superannuation, workers' compensation, aged care, immigration and health care subsidies. The report recommended that changing the definitions describing de facto relationships in relevant federal laws could help end daily discrimination suffered by more than 20,000 same‐sex couples in Australia. (See http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/index.html.)

   The new Federal Attorney‐General Robert McLelland, initiated his own departmental inquiry and found that there are in fact 100 laws that are discriminatory against same‐sex couples. He has announced that the Government will introduce legislation in the July sitting of parliament to redress this situation. We await the details about this Bill and will need to pay particular attention to whether changing the definition gives away more entitlements than the stated intention, particularly in the area of children.

9. Same‐sex Relationship Registers. Both the Liberal and Labor party supported the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act 1961, which explicitly defined marriage as a ‘voluntary lifelong union of a man and a woman’, also making it clear that marriages of same sex couples overseas would not be legally recognised in Australia. While remaining opposed to civil union between same‐sex couples, the current Federal Attorney‐General is however supportive of national consistency between state based relationship registers.

   A key difference between a relationship register and a civil union is that a register is primarily an administrative arrangement, whereas a civil union has features of a marriage, such as a ceremony. This is the case with the UK Civil Partnerships Act 2004. Some of the benefits of registering a relationship and having a certificate of registration, are that it enables couples to prove their legal right to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner and have access to some state based health care, superannuation schemes and other financial entitlements.

10. Tasmania. In 2003 the Tasmanian parliament passed the Tasmanian Relationships Act to allow for two types of personal relationships that can be registered. These are:

    1. “a significant relationship” (which could include heterosexual or homosexual relationships between two adult people); and
    2. “a caring relationship” (based on a relationship of domestic support and personal care). (See http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/bdm/relationships.)

    At the end of 2007 there were approximately 100 relationships registered. All but one, were in the ‘significant relationship’ category, a quarter were opposite‐sex couples and the remainder were same‐sex couples (approximately half male/male and female/female).

11. Victoria. In April, 2008 the Victorian parliament voted in favour of a relationship register similar to the Tasmanian register. (See http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/04/09/Relationships_registry_may_soon_be_Victorian_law.)

12. ACT. In recognition that the Federal Government would use its powers to overturn any legislation that promoted gay marriage (as the Howard Government did in 2006 when it overturned the Civil Unions Bill), the ACT passed legislation on 8 May, 2008 to provide legal recognition for same‐sex couples in the form of a relationships register. (See http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=3752&section=52&title=media&id=52.)

13. City councils. There are also relationship registers based in some city councils (e.g. Melbourne and Sydney).

14. NSW legislation. A recently released NSW Law Reform Commission Report (no. 113) discusses legal issues in relation to parenting and property rights of de facto and same‐sex couples. (See http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_r113toc.) The NSW Attorney‐General has adopted some of its recommendations, and introduced into the Legislative Council on 7 May, 2008 the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships Bill) 2008. This Bill will be debated when the NSW Parliament resumes on 3 June, 2008. (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/131a07fa4b8a041cca256e610012de17/6190e964d5cf2f57ca257441001d330c!OpenDocument.)

15. Numbers of people affected. We note that the 2001 census recorded 20,000 same sex couples (0.5% of all couples) of whom 11,000 were gay male couples and 9,000 were lesbian couples. Twenty per cent of lesbian and five per cent of male same sex relationships were reported to have children in the household. Nearly 9,000 same‐sex couples lived in New South Wales, and nearly 7,000 of them in Sydney.

Further responses will hinge upon details of the Federal Attorney‐General's Bill; and scrutiny of the NSW Bill (and its intentions) will be required. We are willing to assist the Diocesan legal team as they evaluate these Bills and draft responses.

[T]he Government does not condone a legal structure that perpetuates [a] sense of social isolation, particularly when it is directed towards same‐sex parents doing the sometimes joyous, sometimes difficult but always important task of raising the next generation of Australians. Same‐sex parents are entitled to our support in the same way that all parents, regardless of their relationships status, are so entitled. [The Hon. John Hatzistergos (NSW Attorney General)]

In early May NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos introduced the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Bill 2008 into the Legislative Council of the NSW parliament. (This NSW State Bill is not to be confused with a recent Federal Bill introduced by the Federal Attorney General, Senator Robert McClelland; see link below.) John Hatzistergos described how the Amendment Bill is a further step in a long process of NSW legislative reform.

The object of the Bill is to amend certain Acts, Regulations and other instruments to extend the meaning of de facto relationships to include same-sex partners. The Bill is complex and will require closer evaluation, but there appears to be a mix of amendments that will give same sex partners certain benefits and obligations.

The intention of this briefing is to describe and respond to just one specific amendment within this Bill. Our briefing should be read in conjunction with a second briefing, also sent today, which outlines a Christian response to same-sex couples more generally. It includes four ‘channel markers’ that have guided our response to the Bill.

We remain committed to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the optimal care of a child includes the experience of being mothered and fathered. However, we accept that there is a need to address inconsistencies and discrimination within the law towards same-sex couples that deny them certain financial and work related benefits, and which set up administrative obstacles that hinder same-sex parents and carers in the provision of best care for children.

In a second reading speech, John Hatzistergos explained that the Bill responds to ‘many representations made to the Government by same-sex parents about their feelings of social exclusion in their role as parents.’ A child raised by two women (or more uncommonly, by two men) often has needs that are hindered when one carer cannot prove that she is the child’s legitimate carer.

The Bill’s many aspects are quite complex for the legally untrained. But an area of initial concern is a proposed amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995, which will make it possible for the Registrar to:

• add information to the child’s birth registration about the identity of a woman who is presumed to be a parent, in the circumstances set out in those amendments to the Status of Children Act 1996, as the de facto partner of the birth mother of the child, and
• where relevant, remove information that purports to identify a person as the father of the child.

In other words, if the Amendment is adopted, a child’s birth mother will be able to apply for a second woman’s name to appear where a father’s name would once have appeared. In this way, society would presume and accept that the second woman is functionally the child’s other parent.

But it should be well noted: the Attorney General emphasised that this provision would only extend to children conceived through artificial reproductive technologies, and not through sexual intercourse. The Government’s argument is that the amendment is a logical extension of current rules, where the original owner of a sperm or ovum does not necessary appear as ‘father’ or ‘mother’ on a birth certificate.

It is of concern that information on a child’s birth registration may be changed to identify social parents rather than genetic parents. Many questions about family relationships arise from fertilisation procedures, and perhaps we are missing something. But at face value, the amendment appears to privilege parents and carers instead of the child, who may eventually be denied the possibility of knowing the truth about their genetic origins. We realise it is expedient to modify a birth certificate as a straightforward route to recognising another carer. But the amendment compounds what might be an existing mistake, insofar as birth certificates already do not always name a biological parent.

For many years birth certificates have been the historical repository of our genetic lineage. Blank spaces where a father’s name should appear, are tragic exceptions, not the norm. To shift the meaning of the birth certificate away from a child’s biological lineage seems to pretend that their biological origins are unimportant. What may seem expedient for best care of a child now, may not turn out to be so in future.

We believe the Government should rethink the proposal to use birth certificates to this end. It will need to explore other tools for this task, such as ‘parenting orders’; or, it will need to wrestle with the difficult complexities of adoption law.

If you would like to view the bill or read the explanatory memoranda, they can be found online at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/6190E964D5CF2F57CA257441001D330C.

The Bill is likely to be debated in the Legislative Council soon after it resumes on 3rd June, 2008 and if passed will then go to the Legislative Assembly.

If you would like to contact your local member to raise concerns or discuss the Bill, their contact details can be found at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3Home.

Sources/Further Reading:

Law Reform Commission Report at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_r113toc.

Parliamentary Research Service, “Legal Recognition of Same Sex Relationships” http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/LegalRecognitionofSame-SexRelationships.

Speech by NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/6190e964d5cf2f57ca257441001d330c/$FILE/Miscellaneous%20Acts%20Amendment%20(Same%20Sex%20Relationships)%20Bill.pdf.

The recent Federal Bill: Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/ems/Linked/28050805.pdf.

Awarding the Olympic Games to the most populous country in the world will open up one fifth of mankind to Olympism. We believe that China will change by opening the country to the scrutiny of the world through the 25,000 media who will attend the Games. The Olympic Games are a force for good. They are a catalyst for change, not a panacea for all ills.

[IOC President Jacques Rogge]

As the opening of the Olympic Games on 8 August approaches, world attention is on China, and this attention is persistently on issues other than sport. Human rights abuses and environmental concerns are top of the list. But it is not only human rights groups, politicians and celebrities who are speaking out. Some religious leaders too are calling for boycotts, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa, and quite independently, a group of US Jewish leaders over concerns about Tibet, arms sales to Iran, Syria and Hamas, and China's commercial relationship with Sudan. All of this begs the question: should Christians be more active on these moral issues?

Let us begin by making a few assertions:

• Sport can never be separated from politics or moral issues. Every human endeavour takes place within the moral universe in which we live.
• Uncoordinated randomly applied boycotts are invariably unsuccessful and often only result in temporary change if at all.
• There is a tension between celebrating the Olympic movement as a force for good in the world, and the desire to use the Olympics as a platform for raising moral issues.
• Every country hosting the Olympics uses it as a vehicle to promote a good image of their country, and wants the world to see it in the best possible light.
• Human rights abuses, environmental destruction, questionable foreign policy decisions and dubious international trade relationships occur in every country.

Background to the 2008 Beijing Olympics

In order to win the bid to host the summer Olympics by the Olympic International Committee (IOC), and prior to the IOC vote, China and the other candidate countries had first to satisfy a number of technical assessment criteria. It was finally announced in July 2001 that China had won the 2008 games. But the decision was always going to be controversial, and even prior to the announcement, questions were being raised questioning China's suitability to host the games in view of its record on human rights. For example, the European parliament resolved to invite:

the International Olympic Committee to establish guidelines to include respect for human rights and democratic principles to be applied as a general rule to host countries of Olympic Games, and ... nvites the International Olympic Committee to reconsider Beijing's candidacy when the authorities of the PRC have made a fundamental change in their policy on human rights, and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law ...