Despite the ethical issues of financing lobby groups, there is something more ominous about this promise from the Brumby Government. As part of the package they have agreed to “strengthen laws against homophobic harassment”. This promise might seem innocuous enough; however, the ramifications are very significant.

The term “homophobic harassment” law really means a form of ‘vilification’ law based on sexual orientation. Vilification laws for homosexuality were discussed in Victoria when the, then, Bracks Government was fashioning the 2001 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act - at that time, sexuality vilification laws were rejected by the government.

So what does ‘homophobic harassment’ mean?

The government hasn’t specified what it means, but we do know what homosexual groups are advising the government to do. The Victorian government has already established two advisory committees on homosexual issues – to advise the Health Minister and the Attorney General. These Committees are made up of homosexuals and people who are supportive of the homosexual cause. The two Committees formed a ‘Joint Working Group’ and wrote a report on Homophobic harassment’ for the Attorney General - called With Respect The Report goes to great lengths to define what ‘harassment’ means - which can include “spreading rumours, outings, words of abuse, denigration or contempt”. From their report, they recommended that harassment should have a wide interpretation and that anything that “offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person” should be construed as harassment.

The distinct problem with such a definition is that it is too concerned with the effect of the action upon a person and has no regard as to the intentions of the offender. Any number of things can offend or insult another person. Suddenly an individual is muzzled because what they say about homosexuality may be construed as offensive. Such laws are not necessarily limited to comments about an ‘individual’ but can apply to comments about homosexuality itself, if the person thinks they are ‘offended’ by the statements. We have seen similar legal arguments in cases brought under the racial and Religious Tolerance Act as to whether criticism of the ‘religion’ is covered by the RRTA. Such a definition of ‘homophobic harassment’ undermines ideals such as freedom of speech, opinion and, most importantly, religion.

The With Respect Report deliberately goes out of its way to prohibit religions from having any position regarding homosexuality. The Report states that harassment can occur “on toilet walls or tabloid newspapers or Facebook and SMS, in schoolyard taunts or calculated sermons…”. This effectively disallows ministers from speaking the truth under sufferance of being accused of ‘homophobic harassment’. What is more, it places constraints upon any doctrinal teachings on the matter of homosexuality.

If, for instance, someone was to quote “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27) they would immediately feel the wrath of the law if someone felt that they were offended by the apostle Paul’s letter.

It should be hoped that such a verse would be used in a constructive manner in highlighting the wider context of men turning away from God as well as homosexuality itself, however, the proposed idea of “homosexual harassment” does not cater for someone’s intentions. A minister could be well-meaning but still be capable of “harassment” and, if the Joint Working Group had its way, breaking the law.

AMBIT CLAIM BY HOMOSEXUAL GROUPS

This proposal regarding ‘homophobic harassment’ laws by the homosexual community in the ‘With Respect’ Report is an AMBIT CLAIM – in other words they are asking for everything they want – knowing that the government might not give them everything they are asking for. The government might decide not to include the words ‘insult or offend’ but still legislate on the matter of ‘inciting hatred or contempt’.

That’s EXACTLY what the Labor government did with the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. The initial proposal included the ‘offend or insult’ clauses as well as ‘inciting hatred’ etc. When some groups complained about the inclusion of ‘offend or insult’, the government backed off and removed those – but still passed the legislation banning ‘inciting hatred’ etc. That made the government look good – as if they were listening to the people… but we still got a BAD law!

We oppose any form of vilification law, or ‘homophobic harassment law’ because it undermines free speech and freedom of religion.

EXCEPTIONS

The ‘With Respect’ Report proposes that there should be some exceptions. These include “statements made in good faith for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes; or in the public interest”. The Report specifically recommends that there should be NO exception for religion or religious organisations – though they do say that ‘if’ an exception is to be considered by the government it should ONLY be for “religious instruction”

Again, the Joint Working Group is putting in an ‘ambit claim’ – if the government agrees with them, the groups will effectively shut down religious objections. However, if the government does give some ‘exception’ for religion they know that groups will have to ‘justify’ their ‘exceptions’ at the Equal Opportunity Commission and in the Tribunal.

We need to remember what happened in the debate on the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. Many Christian organisations said ‘give us an exception’ for religious discussion and otherwise supported the proposed law. So that’s what the government did – but exceptions are not worth much at all. If you have a complaint against you, you have to PROVE why the exception should apply. As ‘Catch the Fire and Daniel Scot found out, and as Christian Youth Camps found out recently, there is no guarantee that the exception will apply!

Political ramifications in this election

If the Brumby Government is re-elected they have promised to “strengthen laws against homophobic harassment”. For such a short line on a press release this has large ramifications! The Victorian Labor Government is participating in their own type of discrimination and is prepared to make these proposals in order to gain the Greens’ support, as well as support from people who may otherwise vote for the Greens, in order to win the State election. The GLBTI community only makes up a very small minority of voters. It is to their sympathisers that the Brumby Government is pandering. We should love homosexuals like we love any other person. However, we should never compromise on the truth of the gospel in order to appease anyone’s sinful nature. And we should be very aware of what the political parties are REALLY proposing before we vote in the Victorian election on November 27.