Social Issues briefing #102, 03/05/2013.

[UPDATE: The Bill described in this briefing failed. Karin Sowada's excellent post outlines the details.]

On Thursday 2^nd May 2013, the NSW Greens MLC, Cate Faehrmann, introduced to the NSW Parliament’s upper house a bill to make assisted suicide legal in this State, under certain conditions. It is a private members’ bill, which she has given a speech to commend. MLCs will likely debate it again next Thursday 9^th May.

The Bill will make it lawful for persons with a terminal illness who are resident in NSW to receive assistance in certain circumstances if they wish to end their life. That is, it will legalise a form of euthanasia in NSW. The NSW Greens previously proposed euthanasia legislation in 2010, which ultimately failed in the Parliament.

Although this Bill proposes various ‘safeguards’, we don’t believe the basics have changed. Euthanasia is not and never will be a ‘safe’ way to conduct health ‘care’. Our arguments and comments on this topic, arising from previous debates, are collected here: www.sie.org.au/about/euthanasia.

If you agree that this Bill, though well-intentioned, is ultimately a bad idea, please make your voice heard. You could draw from any of the material mentioned below, but please try to put it on your own words, as an expression of your own convictions. Cutting and pasting impresses no one in politics. Respectful, heartfelt entreaty does make a difference.

Remember how it works:  the Bill must first be passed by the NSW Legislative Council, before it can progress to the Legislative Assembly (the house where you are represented by your NSW local member).

Therefore if you wish to influence the debate, you would first contact Members of the Legislative Council (the NSW Parliament’s equivalent of Federal Senators). They are not the same as your local NSW lower-house member (your MLA).

Contact details for all members of the Legislative Council can be obtained via www.parliament.nsw.gov.au. Correspondence can also be mailed via:

                [Name of Member of the Legislative Council],
                c/o Parliament of New South Wales,
                Macquarie Street,
                SYDNEY NSW 2000.

You are allowed to contact one, some or all of these people.

But we also strongly encourage you to make this issue known to your local NSW MLA, in the event that the Bill progresses to the lower house.

Over the page, you’ll find Dr Megan Best’s response to euthanasia in general and to this Bill in particular. Dr Best, a member of the Social Issues Executive, outlines why the Bill should be opposed. She is a bioethicist and medical doctor who specialises in palliative care.      - Andrew Cameron

Notes on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2013
from Dr Megan Best

We call on the State Government of NSW to vote against this bill.  We believe that a civilized society should not deal with the problem of sick and suffering persons by killing them or allowing them to kill themselves, but by relieving their distress and making the required support available.  Furthermore we believe that such a path would lead to vulnerable patients being persuaded to request assisted death when it is not what they really want.

Advances in palliative care make assisted death unnecessary.

• Advances in palliative care have improved the symptom control of patients at the end of life and where expertly used, suffering is minimal. ^[1] The World Health Organisation recommends early introduction of palliative care for patients with terminally illness and not as a last resort.^[2] 
• Where suffering is due to existential and not physical causes, pastoral or psychological support and not death is the appropriate response.^[3]
• There is a myth that use of pain-relieving medications such as morphine shortens life.  This promotes the impression that palliative care already promotes euthanasia.  This suggestion is untrue and current research suggests that in fact adequate doses of morphine and other pain-relieving medications increase survival.^[4]  Our community would be less concerned about care at the end of life if they knew more about it.
• Furthermore, in those places where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal, pain is not a common reason for requesting these interventions.  Psychosocial concerns such as fear of loneliness and fear of the future are more common.^[5]
• Current government initiatives promoting advance care planning (which is common in palliative care settings) can alleviate many fears for the future for chronically or terminally unwell patients.^[6]
• While many healthy people in the population may believe that they would like to have access to assisted dying at the end of life^[7], the number of people with advanced illness who request it in Australia is very low, and even lower (less than 1%) once palliative care is introduced.^[8]

Legislation of assisted dying is dangerous

• Patients with advanced illness are known to change their mind about treatment over time.  This means that a patient who may request assisted dying at one stage may change their mind if given more time, thus ending their life prematurely.^[9]
• This bill does not specifically guard against patients with clinical depression from requesting assisted dying.  Depression is known to be associated with a desire to die, and is a treatable disease. Research shows that sometimes when patients expressed their fears at the end of life it was misinterpreted by healthcare providers as a request for euthanasia when it was really intended to be a cry for help.^[10]  The incidence of depression in cancer patients may be as high as 45%.^[11] This is known to be a problem in other jurisdictions despite so-called ‘safeguards’.^[12]
• Suicide rates in our community are already a cause of concern.  Legislation allowing assisted death promote the idea that death is an acceptable way to solve problems in life, increases knowledge of suicide techniques and makes an increased amount of lethal substances available within the community.^[13]
• The availability of assisted death as an option for vulnerable patients may be sufficient to cause them to request it even if they do not want it, because they do not want to be a burden on their families.
• In those jurisdictions where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal, extension of legislation beyond those who do or can consent, who are not terminally ill, or are minors has followed.^[14] Although we do accept that some small number of individuals will want to exert their autonomy (the right to choose the timing and manner of their own death), we believe the role of the government is to protect the vulnerable who would be at risk if this bill is passed. This is the conclusion of government-sponsored enquiries in England, Canada, USA and Australia. ^[15]

We do not suggest that our current care of the living and dying in our community is perfect.  However, rather than the legislation of euthanasia or assisted suicide we call on the government to:

• Improve resources for palliative care so that terminally ill patients in our community have the comfort they need at the end of life to minimize suffering.  Patients need access to palliative care, not just awareness that it exists.  Currently there are many populations in Australia with inadequate access to palliative care, including the very old, the very young, patients with a non-cancer diagnosis, private patients, nursing home residents, patients in rural and remote settings, and non-English speaking patients.^[16]
• Government support for the disabled in our community should be improved so that those who require assistance to do the activities of daily living are able to live a dignified and meaningful life.
• Our community needs to be educated regarding the benefits of aging well so that age alone is not seen as a reason to give up on life.

We call on our government to affirm the value of every human life and not give up on our weaker citizens in terms of supporting them in their most vulnerable moments.

My concerns about this legislation

•  Part 1(3) ‘Terminal illness’ is defined as one which will result in the death of the patient.  There is no mention of a patient’s prognosis in relation to meeting the eligibility criteria.  A condition such as diabetes may have a natural history of decades before leading to premature death.  Is  such a patient eligible for assisted death once diagnosed?  Currently any chronic disease, even one which can be managed in such a way as to prolong life, satisfies the conditions of the bill.
• Part 2. 7(1)(d) While patients are required to have severe pain and suffering and informed of options, there is no requirement that they be accessed and the options exhausted before proceeding on the assisted death pathway.  Also the primary medical practitioner merely has to have experience of palliative care (2.7(3)) and may not be up to date with what is available.
• 2.7(1)(i)(ii) The secondary medical practitioner does not have to have specialized knowledge of the disease involved, merely experience of it and the amount of experience is not defined.  This could mean the secondary medical practitioner is not a medical specialist in the required field and may not be up to date with latest research.
• 2 .7 (1)(g)(h) The psychiatry review is to assess decision-making capacity only.  Clinical depression is known to influence decision-making regarding desire for death and is a treatable illness.  This also should be assessed.
• 2.7 (2) There are no ‘medical standards’ regarding the killing of patients.  Therefore clause Part 7(2) is meaningless.
• In jurisdictions where the only reporting of assisted death is through the doctor involved, it has been impossible to keep track of the exact number of cases occurring.^[17] It has also been impossible to study the motivation for requests in a meaningful way.  If the use of such legislation is to be intended to improve the lot of dying and suffering patients, reporting should include information supplied directly by the patient involved, i.e. before death.^[18] 
• Also for safety of the community, a record should be kept of prescriptions for lethal substances and when and by whom they are filled.  When a patient withdraws consent (2.9) the lethal substance should be obtained from the patient by the doctor and returned to the pharmacy.

-          Dr Megan Best
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

[1] World Health Organization. (1996). Cancer pain relief (2nd ed.). Geneva: WHO.

[2] Sepulveda C, Marlin A, Yoshida T, Ullrich A. (2002) Palliative Care: the World Health Organisation’s global perspective. Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 24(2): pp.91-96.

[3] Roy FDJ, Rapin C-H et al. (1994). Regarding euthanasia. European Journal of Palliative Care, 1(1), 1-4.

[4] Good PD et al. (2005). Effects of opioids and sedatives on survival in an Australian inpatient palliative care population. Intern Med J, 35, 512–517.

[5] Hudson P et al. (2006). Desire for hastened death in patients with advanced disease and the evidence base of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Palliative Medicine, 20, 693-701.

[6] Respecting Patient Choices. www.respectingpatientchoices.org.au.

[7] News poll (2009) Voluntary Euthanasia Study. Prepared for Dying with Dignity NSW.

[8] Glare, P. A. (1995). "The euthanasia controversy.  Decision-making in extreme cases." MJA 163: 558.

[9] Chochinov H et al. (1999). Will to live in the terminally ill. Lancet, 354, 816–19.

[10] Hudson, ibid.

[11] Passik SD, McDonald MV, Dugan Jr WM, Edgerton S, Roth AJ. (1997). Depression in Cancer Patients: Recognition and Treatment. Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health eJournal, 2(3).

[12] Ganzini L, Goy ER, Dobscha SK. (2008). Prevalence of depression and anxiety in patients requesting physicians’ aid in dying: cross sectional survey.  BMJ, 337, a1682.

[13] Journal Of Forensic Science 2011

[14] Medische Beslissingen Rond Het Levenseinde – Rapport van de Commissie Onderzoek Medische Praktijk insake Euthanasie. The Hague, The Netherlands: Sdu Uitgeverij, 1991; Sheldon T. (1994). Dutch argue that mental torment justifies euthanasia. BMJ;308:431-432; Dutch News.nl. 09-02-2010. Tired of life? Group calls for assisted suicide; Verhagen, E,Sauer PJJ. (2005). The Groningen Protocol — Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns. NEJM 352(10): 959-962; H Jochemsen Euthanasia in Holland: an ethical critique of the new law; Jochemsen H,Keown J. (1999). Voluntary euthanasia under control? Further empirical evidence from the Netherlands. Journal of Medical Ethics 1999;25: 16-2 1; Hendon H, Foley K. Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective. Michigan Law Review. 2008;106.

[15] U K Select Committee on Medical Ethics, House of Lords. (1994). (Unanimous); New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the Medical Context, (1994). (Unanimous); Senate of Canada, (1995) Of Life and Death; Community Development Committee, Parliament of Tasmania, The Need for Legislation on Voluntary Euthanasia, (1998). (Unanimous); Social Development Committee, Parliament of South Australia. Report of the Inquiry into the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996. (1999).

[16] Palliative Care Australia. (2009). EOL, 1(2). 

[17] Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, Mortier F, Deliens L. (2010). Reporting of euthanasia in medical practice in Flanders, Belgium: cross sectional analysis of reported and unreported Cases. BMJ 2010;341:c5174.

[18] Hendon H, Foley K. Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective. Michigan Law Review. 2008;106.

Social Issues briefing #101, 29/06/2012.

A recent case in the High Court of Australia has been closely watched by everyone interested in the relationship between government and religions. In this briefing, we’ll explain it and offer some comments. But first, some background.

The court: You’ll recall that the High Court is Australia’s top court. Its main task is to rule on matters of legal principle. Most people’s familiarity with the High Court begins and ends with Darren Kerrigan’s famous fictional win in The Castle, where the Court ruled on a matter of constitutional interpretation. The recent case was also about how the Constitution should be interpreted.

The Constitution: The Australian Constitution is not a document of great literary flair. But it’s been pretty well thought through to do its job. Two sections of it are relevant to this case. Section 116 (s 116), towards the end, governs the relationship between the Commonwealth government and religions (and the part underlined was relevant for this case):

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Oddly, most Australians think that this Section is the same as the U. S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which many think erects a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state. Actually, the First Amendment mentions no such ‘wall’: that came as a later interpretation. It reads that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’.

Both clauses are about ‘establishment’, and oppose the introduction of a State church, as was found historically in various European nation states. It’s unlikely that either clause intended to prohibit partnerships between government and religious people who are helping the community. Our clause, written later, also adds the word ‘any’. Some think this insertion makes the emphasis different, so that while our Commonwealth must avoid favoritism of ‘any’ one particular religion, it is not at all prohibited from partnering with religions in general.

A previous High Court decision allowed for Government funding of religious schools: as long as there is no favoritism toward ‘any’ one denomination of school, our Commonwealth forms helpful partnerships with community-minded religious people who educate children. Our Constitutional framers, and its High Court interpreters, never felt the need absolutely to ‘separate’ Commonwealth governance from church ministries done for the common good.

The other relevant Section for this case related to the Commonwealth’s ‘executive power’, that is, it’s authority to do powerful things to rule us. Section 61 says:

The executive power of the Commonwealth … extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and the laws of the Commonwealth.

Well get to what that means below.

The issue: The case arose from the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP). This scheme was introduced by the Howard Government in 2007, and offers schools up to $20,000 per year to introduce or extend chaplaincy services. About 2700 schools have received funding under the program to date. The Gillard government has promised to extend the scheme to up to 1000 further schools. Scripture Union Queensland (SUQ) entered into a Funding Agreement with the Federal Government to provide chaplaincy services at State schools in Queensland.

The services being provided included assisting the School and Community “in supporting the spiritual wellbeing of students” and “being approachable by all students, staff and members of the school community of all religious affiliations”. It’s another example of partnerships between the Commonwealth and religious people. Agreements with various chaplains are not ‘establishing any religion’.

Crucially, the funding for the Chaplaincy program was not provided under legislation, but under a series of funding arrangements administered by the Commonwealth, as an expression of its ‘executive power’. That’s been normal practice in a variety of Commonwealth Government funded activities.

The SUQ case: Mr Ron Williams’ children attended a Queensland State school where SUQ provided chaplaincy services as per the Agreement.

It seems clear that Mr Williams was motivated by the secularist quest for what he calls “freedom from religion” (see further below). Therefore he challenged the chaplaincy program on two grounds—firstly, that it effectively imposed a religious test on a Commonwealth officer; and second, that it exceeded Commonwealth funding powers.

On 20 June 2012, a majority of the High Court held found the agreement was invalid. They did so on the basis of Mr Williams’ second challenge (funding powers), but not its first (the religious test on Commonwealth officers).

The Court unanimously rejected the part of Mr Williams’ challenge that was based on s 116. Mr Williams contended that the definition of ‘school chaplain’ imposed a test for that office and that the position of a school chaplain was an “office… under the Commonwealth” due to the relationship between the Government and SUQ. The High Court held that the school chaplain did not hold office under the Commonwealth as they were engaged by SUQ, an external organisation. Therefore the Commonwealth did not enter into contractual or other obligations with the chaplains.

But a majority of the High Court held that the Funding Agreement and payments made to SUQ were invalid because they were beyond the executive power of the Commonwealth. In simple terms, the High Court found that the Commonwealth lacked the power to fund chaplains via executive action without accompanying legislation. The Commonwealth had argued that the payments were supported by the executive power granted by s 61 of the Constitution. S 61 provides that the executive powers of the Commonwealth “extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth”.

A majority of the court found that, in the absence of the statutory authority, s 61 did not empower the Commonwealth to enter into the Funding Agreement or to make the payments in question. In particular, the High Court found that the Commonwealth’s executive power does not include a power to do what only the Parliament can authorise the Executive to do, such as entering into agreements or contracts. The key result of this judgement has less to do with chaplaincy or any notion of religious freedom and far more to do with administrative process. Any government expenditure that lacks authorising legislation, or doesn’t flow via the States, is now potentially problematic.

Government reaction: The Attorney General Nicola Roxon has stated the Government’s intention to continue funding the chaplaincy program, and says that the government remains “committed” to it. The response is appropriate precisely because the High Court decision doesn’t change the basic principle of government partnership with community-minded religious citizens. Queensland premier Campbell Newman expressed a similar kind of support for the chaplaincy program: “I want the chamber to know that this government is 100% behind the chaplaincy program because it’s good for kids at school and it’s good for families”. The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has also expressed bi-partisan report, reminding Australians that the Liberal Party “invented the program”: “We want it to continue… Let’s have a look at the decision and see what the government has in mind. I think it would be a real pity if this program wasn’t able to continue.”

In response to the High Court’s procedural concerns, Ms Roxon added that it would consider different ways to ensure funding for the program.

But the finding potentially affects all sorts of direct Commonwealth funding. George Williams, a leading Australian constitutional lawyer, has described these implications as “massive”. The judgment may impact on any other programs where Commonwealth funds have been allocated in the absence of legislation authorising the Commonwealth to do so—programs such as various arts grants, the local government Roads Recovery program and the direct funding of private schools.

Obviously, scrutiny over Parliamentary spending is a good thing, but the government needs to work out how to retain efficiency in its systems of parliamentary funding. This High Court decision means that the government will more frequently need Parliamentary authorization of its spending, via legislation. More Commonwealth programs will require the support of independent MPs, crossbenchers, and the Senate. Christians, who try to have great respect for those who lead us (see e.g. 1 Peter 2:12–17), have every reason to consider that a great outcome.

Secularist reaction: By ‘secularist’ we mean those who want no religious expressions that are not privately conducted and paid for. Mr Williams, by his own admission, took the case to the High Court to ensure “a level playing field within the public school system for our children that has freedom of religion and freedom from religion”. Hence the decision has been reported as secularist win for “freedom from religions”.

That’s an odd spin, to put it mildly. At best, it’s a technical win for secularists, and not a very big one. The decision does not put at risk the on-going partnerships between the Commonwealth and its religious citizens. It opens these partnerships to parliamentary scrutiny, which we welcome.

Secularist reaction reveals the way some people just cannot seem to ‘play nicely’ with the many religious people they must share society with. For example in this shrill piece, Catherine Byrne wants the decision to have implications for religious instruction in State schools. She thinks that these ‘infringe both children’s rights and church-state separation’, and are a kind of ‘religious intrusion’.

We’ve been through this (and here). ‘Church-state separation’ is a meaningless slogan in this context: Special Religious Education is very carefully set up to impose nothing on anyone. It does not establish any religion. Byrne objects that NSCP money can be used to by those who teach SRE. But that’s not really very relevant: it’s up to a school principal to judge whether a chaplain remains “approachable by all students, staff and members of the school community of all religious affiliations”.

Of course secularists’ children are always free to opt out; nothing is imposed on them. There are ample Commonwealth services serving their needs too, so there is no injustice here. It’s time for secularists to accept that they share Australian cultural space with religious people, and that their various partnerships with government are not going away any time soon. Let the Parliament arbitrate which of these partnerships remain worthwhile.

Our reaction: We think the judgement rejected all the significant aspects of Mr Williams’ “religious freedom” challenge. We think it’s probably an affirmation of the careful way that Australian society effects a partnership between government and community-minded religious people.

Of course, the Commonwealth cannot ‘impose’ any religious observance. In Christian theology, trusting Jesus is a kind of miracle that no human could ever successfully ‘impose upon’ another (see e.g. Romans 8:5–7). Therefore it’s important for Christians in receipt of taxpayers’ money to conduct themselves with care. No one should expect them to hide their Christian identity, or to be silent about it. But they’ll need to remain ‘approachable’ to all others, whatever they believe. On-going partnerships between Christians and others must always be community minded: we’ll seek for their good at many levels. If this finding reminds Christian chaplains who receive NSCP money to be careful and courteous in the face of community concerns about what they do, that can’t be a bad result either.

-          Andrew Cameron and Rebecca Belzer
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Sources/Further Reading:

Andrew Cameron, John Anderson and Kevin Rudd, ‘“Church and State”: The New College Lectures 2005,’  http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/sydney/2005-church-state

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 (20 June 2012) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/23.html

Summary of the judgment:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hca23-2012-06-20.pdf

Dan Harrison and Bianca Hall, ‘Chaplains safe despite High Court ruling: Roxon’, SMH June 20, 2012. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/chaplains-safe-despite-high-court-ruling-roxon-20120620-20n2d.html.

Queensland Parliament Hansard, (Hon Campbell Newman on chaplaincy program), 20 June 2012, 803, available at www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/Hansard/2012/2012_06_20_DAILY.pdf 

In this briefing, we take the time to look back at some of our more unusual topics and most popular briefings. We’ve chosen ten of our favourites. Please click on the link to read the briefing, but we’ve included a brief summary of each.

We hope you enjoy reading through these earlier briefings on key issues over the past 8 years. And please take some time to browse through our other briefings (all available at www.sie.org.au/briefings).

How to be discriminating about anti-discrimination

Social Issues Briefing #004, April 2004, Andrew Cameron and Tracy Gordon

Anti-discrimination legislation and the exemptions contained within it have divided public debate for many years. On the face of it, exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation seem sinister: why should some people be allowed to discriminate? But exemptions can make sense, if they reflect differences among us that should be recognised and upheld.

In 2004, a NSW Private Member’s Bill sought to change NSW anti-discrimination law to give independent schools and some religious organisations less say over who works for them. This briefing was written to provide a preliminary response to this bill, as well as to consider some of the complex issues surrounding anti-discrimination exemptions. Interestingly, this matter is in the news again as the Federal government works to consolidate its body of anti-discrimination law, a process that some have use to call for the repeal of all religious exemptions.

(On the semi-related matter of religious vilification law, we also like #044, ‘Wise Leadership to an Important Goal’; but note #086, ‘The limits of freedom’.)

Lost in Space

Social Issues Briefing #014, June 2004, Andrew Cameron and Tracy Gordon

On June 8 2004, Venus began a rare four-hour passage across the face of the sun. (It’s happening again on June 6 2012!) Half the world watched. There was something spectacularly humbling about the transit, dwarfing the usual human sense of power and control. Nature was dictating the terms of this event. Space is vast and impersonal, yet draws people upward to explore and discover. This briefing considers the meaning of space exploration for many people – that exploring seems to be more about us and what it is to be human, than it is about what is being explored and a celebration of God’s cosmos. For others, space exploration seems to have become almost a spiritual search: pretending God to be dead, we search for the company of some older, wiser alien. There is a wonder to the unknown that is worth searching out; but Christians know that earth is where the real action is. Earth is the good home, given to us by God, so that our quest can be completed on a new earth, under a new heaven, in the enjoyment of God and of another in God.

Why ‘social issues’?

Social Issues Briefing #018, July 2004, Andrew Cameron and Tracy Gordon

Join us to consider the ‘theory of social issues’. What is a ‘social issue’? Christians seek to live lives of praise under the sovereignty of God, guided by his Word. Yet we are still forgiven sinners who have old habits of thinking, and who have a long way to go to become wise about living in a broken, fallen and sinful world. There are hundreds of matters of everyday life that are hard to think about wisely – business, money, society and politics, sexuality, families and divorce, power and obedience, war, birth and death, animals, ecology, the environment. These areas lead to all sorts of questions which provoke public debate.

These social issues are not unrelated to the gospel, but neither do they embody it. As we think about social issues, we seek responses and solutions, in light of the Christian gospel. This is a difficult task. Read on in this briefing to think more about what new ways forward can be found as we consider various social issues in a complex world.

Weakness and the Olympic Spirit

Social Issues Briefing #023, August 2004, Andrew Cameron and Tracy Gordon

Few Australians would have forgotten what happened in the final of the Women’s 2000m Olympic Rowing event in 2004. The eight member Australian crew started well, a gold medal in sight. But with 650 metres before the finish line, Sally Robbins collapsed, later saying she was paralysed with fatigue and anxiety, and could not continue. Australia finished last. What dominated the media over the coming days and months was the vitriolic reaction from some team members, and even other commentators speaking without personal knowledge of the situation. It seemed that if the failure was a physical one, it could be excused; but if it was a ‘mental’ failure, a defect of her ‘will’ – well, Sally deserved everything that was given to her.

This way of seeing things typifies the idolisation of the will that is central to modern Western thought. It avoids the knowledge we have in the good news of Jesus: that all of us are weak, powerless and helpless, whether physically, mentally or morally. There can be a dark side to the ‘Olympic Spirit’ – the attempt to so exalt human power over weakness that no room is left for grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, care or support.

The fate of the ugly duckling – Beauty Part 1, and The fate of the beautiful swan – Beauty Part 2

Social Issues Briefings #41 and #42, May 2005, Tracy Gordon and Andrew Cameron

There is a modern creation myth: that pretty people represent a premium genetic legacy, and so deserve top care. It’s a perfect match for a society that imagines one’s place in society rests upon what merits one can bring to it. The Christian gospel is the only coherent way to rescue humanity from the darkness of this alternative myth-making, and from our seemingly ‘natural’ tendency to gravitate towards the beautiful. The good news of the gospel continues as we learn that “the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart”. Our God, who looks to the ‘heart’ and who makes people in his image, frees his people to love beyond looks.

But is there a problem with beauty? Should beautiful people seek to become plain? Responding rightly to God’s good world will mean there is an appropriate place for receiving beauty – even other people’s beauty – with thanks. And yet – we can’t do this. For many people and women in particular, such thanksgiving is an outright absurdity and an impossible dream. The Christian community can become light in a culture lost in obsessional idolatry of beauty. Christian rules of engagement with beauty will be different to what is prevalent elsewhere in the world. These two briefings expand more on these issues, and offer us a new way of thinking about beauty.

Nguyen Tuong Van and punishment by death

Social Issues Briefing #46, October 2005, Andrew Cameron

On Friday December 2, 2005, Nguyen Tuong Van was hung at Changi prison in Singapore for a drug-trafficking offence – a sentence many considered too severe, including many who concede a place for capital punishment.

But Christians exhibit deep division over capital punishment. For some, the need of a life for a life is stitched into the ‘justice-fabric’ of the universe. For others, the death of Christ is the life taken to requite for the world’s horrible evils. How should we decide between these two views? Perhaps, rather than choosing one, we can find a way to make sense of both of them. When they judge, our justice system and governments face this same paradox: that people are precious enough to need serious judgments against criminals, but also precious enough that we have to think carefully about the fate of the criminal. This briefing considers capital punishment in more detail.

On the Twelfth Day of Christmas…

Social Issues Briefing #47, December 2005, Andrew Cameron

Do spare a thought for the loved one of this song. On a true reading of the light-hearted tune, by early January, he or she will own 12 or 13 partridges, 22 turtle doves, 30 French hens, 36 calling birds, 42 laying geese, 42 swimming swans, hundreds of cattle, dozens of people drumming, lording, piping, milking and generally being ‘ladies’, and 40 gold rings. And this is before even thinking about the space required for that many maids to milk cattle all day and the milk produced, the food required to feed hundreds of people and thousands of animals, the need to separate highly excitable lords and ladies, the inevitable conflicts between drummers and pipers… well, the list just goes on. And you thought finding space for the new kitchen appliance you received for Christmas was hard!

Is the song a lesson on the hidden dangers of our gift-giving, or a celebration of God’s outrageous abundance? Read the briefing for a giggle, and to find out more.

The peak oil society

Social Issues Briefing #65, June 2007, Andrew Cameron

Assume we have passed the point where half the planetary oil has been used. With billions of people now using oil, the remaining half will last nowhere near as long as the 150 years it took to use the first half. The first signs of trouble are inexorably rising oil prices, slowly at first and then accelerating. Food prices follow. As various suppliers are forced out of the market, some lines become harder to get. At first, it’s just exotic delicacies, but as staples slowly become available, we begin to worry. Expanding the scenario takes in air and car travel, clothing, tools, food distribution, government paralysis as confusion increases. This scenario is not high on many people’s radars, but might become a topic of conversation in the near future.

Is it possible to tell a different story from the complex discussions about technology, biofuels, resource distribution and government policy? Can we tell the world about a theological story that brings hope? Read this briefing to discover this story – about human interdependency and churches that show what is possible when people love each other well.

The Queen and the humanity of marriage

Social Issues Briefing #070, November 2007, Andrew Cameron

In 2007, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip celebrated their Diamond Wedding anniversary. Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth were married in a culture that celebrated and set before them the three purposes of marriage as understood in scripture: steadfast, lifelong companionship and support, the proper home for sexual love and openness to welcoming children. Yet over the past six decades, they have also experienced the dark side of marriage – both in the very public dissolution of the marriages of their children and (we may safely presume) in the privacy of their own marriage. We know that the Bible, whilst celebrating and honouring marriage, is equally frank about the path that all married couples stumble through in a fallen world marred by sin and selfishness. This briefing considers why it is good for society to positively discriminate in favour of marriage, and how communities can also remain in deep fellowship with those who are single, widowed, separated or divorced.

The Work of Ageing

Social Issues Briefing #081, August 2009, Lisa Watts and Andrew Cameron

‘When we are old it is too late to learn how to grow old. We must be taught how to live well when we are young if we are to know how to live well when we are old…This will require the church to find ways to avoid isolating the young, the not-so-young and the elderly from one another’ (Stanley Hauerwas, In Good Company, p. 185)

Australia is ageing. There are more older Australians now than ever before, and their numbers are rising. Does this prospect excite you, or does it worry you? It seems to worry our government. The statement ‘Australia is ageing’ can be a statement open to new and intriguing possibilities. This briefing explores what government responses, as well as what Christians know about the aged, and finally considers how an ageing Australia could have some hidden bonuses.

-          Rebecca Belzer and Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Sources/Further Reading:

The Social Issues Executive, www.sie.org.au

In our first briefing, we updated readers on the current state of play at the level of state governance. You can read this briefing here (or see link under ‘Further Reading’).

In this briefing, we have attempted to distil some of the arguments made for and against ethics classes. This is a complex issue that continues to divide Christians. We think faithful Christians could argue either for or against ethics classes. We hope this briefing orients you to the various arguments.

We usually appreciate feedback, but we won’t respond to strong opinions offered for or against SEE classes. We would be glad to hear of any errors of fact.

The trial of ethics classes in 2010 and their subsequent introduction to those students not attending SRE in 2011 was accompanied by a cacophony of voices, some exuberant and relieved, some angry or anxious, others merely confused. Much commentary has continued since then. In this briefing, we’ll address the main arguments for and against ethics classes operating in the same timeslot as scripture classes. We’ll also take the opportunity to consider briefly the current operational requirements of SRE, and let you know about the opportunity to make a submission into the current inquiry into ethics classes.

The groups of parents supporting ethics classes are often described as ‘non-religious parents’ while those against ethics classes are grouped as ‘faith parents’. It is worth noting that such groupings are not accurate, since some who support ethics classes are ‘parents of faith’ (and maybe some who don’t, aren’t). Not all faith groups have the resources to provide scripture as required. This means that many parents of faith who would like to have their child attend scripture do not have their preferred option available. Other parents who have described themselves as religious prefer to instruct their children in religion at home, and have welcomed ethics classes as a beneficial addition to the curriculum.

Arguments made against ethics classes operating at the same time as scripture

Many have been concerned about the introduction of ethics classes in NSW government schools. The arguments made against ethics classes are varied. Current concerns tend to fall into four broad categories, which we discuss below: historic justice or fairness; course content; procedural and operational concerns; and the benefits of SRE.

Let us set aside a different complaint. Some (include an author of this briefing!) disliked the way the ethics course was introduced. Little information was provided about the substance of the course; there was no transparent consultative process first; and there were some anomalies in how the Department of Education handled the matter. However now that the ethics course has been introduced, to restate these concerns looks like sour grapes. Indeed with a public inquiry now in operation (details later in this briefing), we have an opportunity to explain any related concerns.

Arguments against #1: the historical justice of giving SRE a special place

Scripture classes have been operating in Australia for over 120 years as an outcome of a historical agreement for Government to provide schooling once provided by churches. As such, SRE reflects an important element of our heritage. They provide children with an opportunity to learn about the Bible, the historical person of Jesus and the ethic that has underpinned modern Australian society. No serious historian doubts the formative influence that Jesus and Christianity have had on the legal, cultural and political development of Western civilisation. Attending Christian SRE classes particularly helps provide the children of non-religious parents with an understanding of a historically important aspect of Australian culture. Australians live by many pieces of Biblical wisdom, such as ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘look after your neighbour’. SRE classes help children to realise that some ‘life creeds’ actually come from Jesus.

Arguments against #2: Lack of clarity over what the ethics classes are about

Many people (particularly Christians and other faith groups) are concerned about the ideology underpinning the course. Every ethical system brings with it suppositions about how the world works and what criteria people use to judge their (and others) actions within it. Framers of the SEE course say that the emphasis is not on providing a particular answer to any question, but rather on helping students to think in an ethical way; but opponents think that asking children to think about these issues in a moral vacuum can be difficult for them.

In its response to the Parliamentary Inquiry on 14 November 2011, the Christian Democratic Party framed its objections as follows:

‘The push for SEE has been ideologically driven without applying due diligence with regard to the objectives, curriculum and implementation of the course… NSW children in State primary schools are being taught a course that hasn’t had a defined objective, published curriculum or appropriate implementation. It is a course that has been marketed to parents as merely a secular alternative to religious instruction in the teaching of social values and issues. This isn’t the case. The ‘Special Education in Ethics’ is a philosophical course that presents children with complex social situations, asks them what action they would take and why. There are no right and wrong answers… it has ignored concern that a failure to provide stated objectives and outcomes is facilitating moral relativism not instruction. It has ignored modern science with regard to the development of the adolescent brain and the cognitive ability of children to tackle complex social issues, issues that can prove divisive even for adults”.

Arguments against #3: implementation and the rule of law

There is a cluster of procedural or operational concerns. As we explained in our first briefing, the practical result of s.33A of the Education Act 1990 is that for children to swap from SRE to SEE, parents must first formally seek exemption from SRE in writing. A place in any available ethics classes will only be offered once the written application has been confirmed. It is important to note that most schools are doing a great job of implementing ethics classes as required by the legislation. But it appears that some schools are proceeding incorrectly:

• Not opting out of SRE first: There are reports of parents being offered SEE, or of children being accepted into SEE classes, without the school having received any written request to first exempt the children from SRE. (However, while parents should only be offered a place in ethics classes after they have indicated that they wish to withdraw their child from SRE, the implementation guidelines for ethics classes expect that all parents will be notified that ethics classes are available at the school.)
• Minimum class numbers: SEE classes require a minimum of 8 children to go ahead. In some schools, this requirement of a minimum number of children is reportedly leading to some children who attended SRE being swapped into SEE classes without parents first opting out of SRE classes in the required manner. (Some suggest that removing the minimum requirement will better protect SRE classes from erosion.)
• Greater promotion of SEE classes: Examples include emails or newsletters being sent out to all parents giving details about the new ethics classes, and advertising for SEE volunteer teachers in the weekly newsletters. (However, Principals are required to assist SEE coordinators and teachers as necessary, and to inform all parents of children in the relevant year groups when ethics classes are available. Criticising Principals for supporting ethics classes ‘too strongly’ is a tricky business!)

To be fair, some operational issues may be teething problems that subside as ethics classes become more settled 

Arguments against #4: SRE children should be able to attend SEE as well

This concern approaches SEE from a fundamentally different angle. Essentially it argues that if SEE classes are beneficial for children (as the St James Ethics Centre and the NSW government believes they are), then all children should have the opportunity to attend them. Parents should not be forced to choose between two good options run at the same time. Two counter arguments are generally put forward to this claim. Firstly, if SEE classes were removed from the SRE timeslot and taught in the general curriculum, the original problem of children not being adequately cared for during the SRE timeslot would still exist. Secondly, Dr Simon Longstaff of the St James Ethics Centre argues that SEE was developed as the natural complement to the elements of SRE that discuss ethics and moral decision making. (SRE Providers reply that Christian SRE does not deal with ethics but the person of Jesus Christ, and argue that the true complement to SRE is GRE, or General Religious Education.)

To summarise: key complaints pertain to the bypassing of an historical agreement and partnership between church and government, with loss of possible SRE benefits to some children; the worldview adopted by the SEE course; operational marginalisation of SRE; and lost of possible SEE benefits to some children.

There are other arguments against SEE that should only be used with caution. Some claim that ethics classes teachers aren’t adequately trained; or that SEE syllabi are without proper transparency and oversight; or that the ethics classes should be subject to further government review. But each claim could be equally levelled at SRE provision.

Arguments made for ethics classes for non-SRE children

The movement for ethics classes officially started a decade ago, when a group of parents at a NSW public school approached Dr Simon Longstaff, the Director of the St James Ethics Centre to create a secular ethics course for the non-scripture children at their school. In 2003, after a survey of the Federation of P&C Associations in NSW, broad support was shown across NSW for some form of ethics course to be provided as an alternative to scripture classes in NSW. Finally, a trial was run in 10 schools in 2010, concluding with the course being introduced in 2011 to year 5 and 6 students. Throughout this time, parents have claimed that it is unfair that children not attending scripture classes have no meaningful alternative. They argue that all children should be taught useful lessons during all available school hours. Other arguments made question why anyone other than the children and parents involved should be included in the decision around what non-Scripture children should be doing during this time. Still others have decided that whilst they were originally opposed to ethics classes, it would be more harmful for children now to remove them, and they should continue to avoid disruption. In detail:

Arguments for #1: the procedural justice of treating all kids similarly

Under the old rules, students were unable to take part in any activity that competed with SRE, and were expected to be involved in completing homework, reading and private study. The key argument, presented by almost all in favour of ethics classes, is that it is not enough for children to simply be ‘supervised’ or instructed to do their homework while other students are being taught SRE. Parents who have chosen to withdraw their child from SRE argue that an alternative beneficial option should be available to their children. A child spending time reading in the library may be worthwhile. But there are accounts of children being ‘supervised’ by watching the same video each week for a term, and unconfirmed reports of children being sent out to collect rubbish during this time. (The DET guidelines for employing children not attending SRE are currently being revised, and will be available on the DEC Curriculum Support website soon.)

Arguments for #2: the freedom of non-SRE children’s parents to choose

Proponents of ethics classes express confusion about why opponents care what children do, once these children have been withdrawn from scripture classes. Vocal attempts to stop ethics classes seem to ‘interfere’ with what their children do during the SRE timeslot. This argument essentially says, ‘if you don’t like SEE, don’t do it, but don’t tell my kids not to do it’. These arguments resort to rights language. Do churches that have a ‘right’ to provide SRE, or do parents have the ‘right’ to choose? This kind of rights language is generally unhelpful, focusing us on ranking rights. Rather, we can respect the historic reasons for SRE, and also try to cater to those who object to it.

Arguments for #3: a change of mind

Some Christians and others who originally opposed the introduction of ethics classes have now acknowledged that they are less concerned than previously, and are content to allow the current status quo to continue. Initial figures suggest that has SEE classes have not significantly affected SRE class numbers. It would be more disruptive for children to cancel the ethics classes now than for them to continue.

An inquiry into the Education Amendment (Ethics Classes Repeal) Bill 2011

An inquiry was established in November 2011 to report on the Education Amendment (Ethics Classes Repeal) Bill 2011. The terms of reference of the inquiry ask the Committee to inquire into and report on the “stated objectives, curriculum, implementation, effectiveness and other related matters pertaining to the current operation of ‘special education in ethics’ being conducted in State schools, and whether the Education Amendment (Ethics) Act 2010 should be repealed”. The submissions and the oral evidence may take the inquiry beyond these terms. 

Submissions must be made by 24 February. Anyone is welcome to make a submission, which can be submitted online or sent to:            

The Director

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2

Parliament House

Macquarie St

Sydney NSW 2000

Further thoughts

Rightly or wrongly, modern schooling goes well beyond ‘reading, writing and arithmetic’. Education in Australia has always provided a platform for children to be exposed to a suite of issues that develop the whole person. In our schools, we teach children about physical exercise, society and culture. We encourage children to learn to act, play music and debate. We teach them to draw, create, and to make speeches. Some may remember ‘Healthy Harold’, the giraffe who visits schools as part of Life Education Australia, to help children make good choices for a healthy life. Teaching children about religion remains an important facet of the broad education we value for children in NSW. Christians who disagree with SEE can, perhaps, extend the same latitude to it.

Rather than being fearful of the challenges being presented by ethics classes, Christians can embrace the opportunity to provide well-trained teachers to clearly explain the message of the gospel to children. SRE in NSW is a fantastic opportunity and privilege for churches, and plays an important part in helping us share the knowledge of Jesus. It’s important to do it very well.

Over recent years, the Sydney Diocese has taken considerable action to raise the qualifications of SRE teachers – a courageous move not without some criticism by those who feared that higher training requirements might reduce the number of willing and able teachers. Those authorised to deliver SRE on behalf of the Diocese are all required to undertake Safe Ministry Training every three years, as well as undertaking the Christian Education Accreditation provided by Anglican Youthworks. This is a 2 day training course. Zac Veron, the CEO of Youthworks, commends the course, saying that “SRE accreditation will help protect SRE by ensuring that every teacher authorised by the Anglican Church to teach is fully equipped for week-to-week ministry with young people … making the most of the wonderful opportunity to invest in the state of our children’s spiritual future”. Anglican Youthworks estimates that almost 60% of teachers have already done the accreditation (over 2000 teachers across the Sydney Diocese).

Finally, as the discussion continues, we must continue to speak out of love and concern for the good of others, remembering that we have the words of eternal life to share. Let us also continue to provide high quality SRE lessons that clearly make Jesus’ call to follow him.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long briefing. We hope it has been helpful for you in clarifying your thoughts on SRE and SEE classes in NSW. Can we exhort you to pray, asking God to uphold the place, and quality, of scripture in NSW schools?

In November 2011, the NSW Government commenced a review into the ethics classes, aiming to report on the current operation of ethics classes in light of their objectives, curriculum, implementation and effectiveness.

This is the first of two briefings on the ethics and scripture debate. Our purpose here is to update readers on the current state of play. We are not addressing the issues that have divided many NSW people into bitter ‘ethics’ or ‘scripture’ camps. We simply want you to know how things stand, at the level of State governance. We will attempt to understand and distil some of the arguments for and against ethics classes in the second briefing.

We usually appreciate feedback, but we won’t respond to strong opinions offered for or against SEE classes. We would be glad to hear of any errors of fact in what follows.

In December 2010, the Education Amendment (Ethics) Act 2010 passed into law, instigated by the then-NSW Labor Government. This Act amended the Education Act 1990. The amendment allows an alternative course of Special Education in Ethics (SEE) to be provided to students whose parents have opted out of their child receiving Special Religious Education (SRE).

What did the Education Act say about SRE before the amendment?

The original position on SRE in the Education Act can be found in section 32 and 33. Section 32 provides for the religious education of children of any religious persuasion in every government school. The total number of hours of religious education for each child may not exceed the number of school weeks in the year. The Act stipulates these further requirements:

-          The SRE must be given by a member of the clergy, or by a teacher authorised by the relevant religious body,

-          The times at which SRE is given must be made by an agreement between the school principal and the local authorised teacher of SRE, and

-          Children attending SRE are to be separated from other children at the school whilst SRE is taught.

Education Act Section 33 adds a parental right of objection. No child at a government school is required to receive any general or special religious education if the child’s parent objects. (General religious education is included in the secular instruction that children are to receive in government schools. It is distinct from ‘dogmatic or polemical theology’.)

What was the effect of the amendment?

The 2010 Amendment inserts Section 33A into the Education Act. It allows for SEE as a secular alternative to SRE at government schools. A child attends SEE classes by means of this process:

-          The child’s parent objects to the child receiving special religious education (as per Section 33, above).

-          The child is entitled to receive SEE only if:

• it is reasonably practical for SEE classes to be made available to the child at the school, and
• the parent has specifically requested the child to receive SEE.

(See below for the exact wording of sections 32–33A.)

In other words, for a child to receive SEE, a parent must (a) withdraw the child from SRE, then (b) enrol him or her into SEE. (Potentially then, some students may do neither.) The practical result of s. 33A is that for children to swap from SRE to SEE, parents must first formally seek exemption from SRE in writing. A place in any available ethics classes will only be offered once the written application has been confirmed. A minimum of 8 and a maximum of 22 students are allowed for each SEE class.

What are SEE classes and how are they offered?

The Department of Education has provided some guidelines for principals around the introduction of ethics classes. These state that Principals should assist SEE coordinators and teachers to become familiar with the school, and provide the coordinators with lists of students attending ethics classes. All parents of children in Years 5 and 6 are to be informed when ethics classes are available. The composition of classes is to be determined by the Principal, and those students who had opted out of SRE during 2010 and prior are to be given priority access to an SEE class.

Primary Ethics was founded by the St James Ethics Centre in November 2010, and is responsible for all aspects of the SEE delivery. Primary Ethics seeks to provide age-appropriate education in philosophical ethics. It provided a curriculum for students in years 5-6 during 2011. Their website states that a curriculum framework spanning kindergarten to Year 6 (K-6) has been developed, and classes for K-4 will be rolled out progressively to lower grades over the years ahead.

What numbers are involved?

The number of students in NSW who attend scripture, who ‘opt out’ and who attend ethics classes, is not officially recorded. The figure of 25% (approximately 100,000 NSW children) who ‘opt out’ has been frequently quoted during 2010 and 2011, but is usually cited as ‘anecdotal evidence’.

In the 9 months to September 2011, Primary Ethics reports having recruited 400 volunteers with 210 teachers delivering ethics classes to approximately 3100 students in 150 schools. By 22 November 2011, 3500 students in NSW were attending ethics classes organised by Primary Ethics. The organisation plans to build a network of over 4000 local community-based volunteers who will coordinate ethics classes at individual schools. It also seeks to recruit, select and support suitable teachers to deliver weekly SEE.

What is the Inquiry into ethics classes?

At the end of 2011—the close of the first full year of ethics classes—The Hon. Rev. Fred Nile MLC (of the Christian Democrats) requested an inquiry into the operation ethics classes. A Parliamentary Inquiry has been set up to consider whether the amendment act should be repealed.

Its terms of reference request the Committee to inquire into and report on the stated objectives, curriculum, implementation, effectiveness and other matters pertaining to the current operation of SEE. It is also to consider whether the Education Amendment (Ethics) Act 2010 should be repealed by means of the Education Amendment (Ethics Classes Repeal) Bill 2011 (although Liberal Premier Barry O’Farrell has stated that his government has no intention to repeal the amendment).

It is expected that this Inquiry will provide official numbers of children attending both scripture and ethics classes, as well as children who are under supervision because they do neither. The committee will accept submissions until 24 February 2012, and must report to the Parliament by 4 June 2012.

What else has happened?

At the same time as announcing the enquiry, the NSW Minister for Education announced that the guidelines for delivering SRE need to be strengthened.

At present, only a maximum period (of 1 hour per week) is specified by the legislation. That means that both scripture and ethics classes can be forced to run in ever-shrinking time slots. The minister announced that the plans to strengthen SRE  ‘…will include a minimum time of 30 minutes of meaningful teaching time per week in primary schools’. (The exact operational details of any new arrangements may take a different form.)

-          Rebecca Belzer and Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

From the EDUCATION ACT 1990:

32 Special religious education

(1) In every government school, time is to be allowed for the religious education of children of any religious persuasion, but the total number of hours so allowed in a year is not to exceed, for each child, the number of school weeks in the year.

(2) The religious education to be given to children of any religious persuasion is to be given by a member of the clergy or other religious teacher of that persuasion authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs.

(3) The religious education to be given is in every case to be the religious education authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs.

(4) The times at which religious education is to be given to children of a particular religious persuasion are to be fixed by agreement between the principal of the school and the local member of the clergy or other religious teacher of that persuasion.

(5) Children attending a religious education class are to be separated from other children at the school while the class is held.

(6) If the relevant member of the clergy or other religious teacher fails to attend the school at the appointed time, the children are to be appropriately cared for at the school during the period set aside for religious education.

33 Objection to religious education

No child at a government school is to be required to receive any general religious education or special religious education if the parent of the child objects to the child’s receiving that education.

33A Special education in ethics as secular alternative to special religious education

(1) Special education in ethics is allowed as a secular alternative to special religious education at government schools.

(2) If the parent of a child objects to the child receiving special religious education, the child is entitled to receive special education in ethics, but only if:

(a) it is reasonably practicable for special education in ethics to be made available to the child at the government school, and

(b) the parent requests that the child receive special education in ethics.

(3) A government school cannot be directed (by the Minister or otherwise) not to make special education in ethics available at the school.

Sources/Further Reading:

Guidelines for principals around SEE by the Department of Education, http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/ethics/index.htm

St James Ethics Centre, http://www.ethics.org.au/

Primary Ethics, www.primaryethics.com.au.

Education Amendment (Ethics Classes Repeal) Bill 2011 (Inquiry), http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/3312B8C2F2E89AD2CA2579480000E930

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.

Social Issues briefing #097, 24/06/2011.

The recent reality-TV series Go Back To Where You Came From was the highest-rating SBS show for the year. It takes six Australians back up the line to the stops on a refugee’s journey, all the way back to where they came from.

Robert Martin is a graduate of Moore College and now the Melbourne Director of the City Bible Forum. In this special ‘guest authored’ briefing, he reflects on some time he spent with his family on Christmas Island.

Robert’s time among the detainees was another unique experience of ‘going back’, at least a little way, into the world of the refugee. It’s a personal view that will help you to picture some of what happens.

It’s a bit longer than usual, because I’ve included his interesting travelogue to help you picture the place. But if you want to cut to the chase, skip the section on ‘the island’. Go to ‘the refugees’, or ‘detention’, where Robert makes some interesting comments about the quality of immigration detention.

It should be read in the context of our other briefings on the issue: see links to the right.

- Andrew Cameron

___________________________________________________________________________

‘Christmas Island.’ ‘Stop the Boats.’ ‘Illegal immigration.’ ‘Queue jumper.’  ‘Border protection.’ It fascinates me how asylum seekers stimulate such strong emotions.

I had the privilege of spending two months on Christmas Island in 2009–10. I was there with my family as a visiting pastor to the Christmas Island Christian Fellowship. But I also went into the Christmas Island detention centre and met some ‘boat people’ from Sri Lanka first hand. Christmas Island changed me – I learnt a lot, and came home with some very different opinions.

The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as ‘any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality ... is unable ... or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country’. A number of the people we met on Christmas Island certainly satisfied this definition. They had fled Sri Lanka for their lives.

One guy I met shared that he’d been shot when his workplace was targeted by the majority group. The bullet miraculously avoided his kidney, and he survived. His friend died in the shooting. It was hard to know what to say to someone who’d claimed to be shot. But when he lifted his shirt and showed me the gunshot wound, it made the persecution he’d experienced very real.

The same guy also told me of how he had been tortured with knives and electric wires on his arms. Again, he lifted his shirt sleeve and I saw the scars.

Another man recounted how he’d been beaten and his boss kidnapped. He feared for his life. These people firmly believe that if they went back to Sri Lanka, they’d be killed.

As I sat listening to these horrendous stories I asked, ‘but why do they want to kill you?’ The answer was simple: ‘because we’re Tamil. In Sri Lanka, there are no human rights.’

These stories made the asylum seeker debate far less academic for me. These people had suffered, and I’d seen their scars. They had a well-founded fear persecution for reasons of race. It turns out that the Australian Government agrees. Most asylum seekers on Christmas Island end up classified as refugees.

I now find it astonishing when people living thousands of kilometres away, without any first-hand knowledge of such turmoil, make sweeping claims like ‘these people aren’t really refugees’. If some aren’t, the ones I met sure were.

Politicians, the media and the general public also seem confused by the distinction between ‘illegal immigration’ and ‘refugee movement’. Even if people enter Australia unconventionally and unlawfully, if they are found to be refugees then they are not ‘illegal immigrants’. As the UNHCR puts it:

Refugees may not be able to obtain the necessary documents when trying to escape and may have no choice but to resort to illegal means of escape. Therefore although the only means of escape for some may be illegal entry and/or the use of false documentation, if the person has a well-founded fear of persecution they should be viewed as a refugee and not labelled an ‘illegal immigrant’.

Many on Christmas Island have entered Australia without proper documentation, but they aren’t automatically illegal immigrants. I asked the Sri Lankan guys I met ‘why didn’t just buy a plane ticket and come to Australia like everyone else?’ They just laughed and said they couldn’t get the proper documentation. These guys were stuck. They couldn’t enter Australia legally under any circumstance. There was just no ‘queue’ to ‘jump’.

The notion of a ‘queue’ is ambiguous. There is no orderly line for refugees. Many asylum seekers come from countries where there is no UNHCR office and no Australian embassy, for example Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if they do find their way to a refugee camp in Indonesia, they find several thousand others waiting before them. Yet the average number of refugees repatriated from Indonesia to Australia each year for the last few years has been around 50. If that’s a ‘queue’, then it’s a very long and slow moving one. It often takes refugees six, seven, ten or twelve years to be repatriated.

Conditions in such refugee camps are often appalling. The camps are overcrowded with terrible sanitation and unsafe drinking water. The water has been described as contaminated with faeces and fungus. This long, slow wait in third world squalor is what creates the market for people smugglers.

‘Queue jumping’ and ‘people smuggling’ are a ‘retrieval ethic’ for these people. They do whatever they can to retrieve something good in a messy situation. If we were in a burning stadium with our family, and the door let out one person in a hundred, we would do whatever we could to get our family out over the wall. That is effectively what the people I met on Christmas Island did.

The island. Christmas Island itself is a unique place. It has an amazing, precious and fragile natural environment, and a fascinating local culture. It is part of Australia’s Indian Ocean territories and located in the middle of nowhere, 1,400km off the north western coast of Australia and 2,600km north-west of Perth. The closest land mass to Christmas Island is Indonesia, some 300km north.

Captain William Mynors of the Royal Navy named the island in 1643 when they passed by on Christmas Day. The first recorded landing was in 1688 when a crew from the British buccaneer vessel, Cygnet, captained by William Dampier landed searching for water and timber. The first extensive exploration was conducted in 1887 when a group of explorers found rock specimens of virtually pure phosphate. This discovery led to the creation of an extensive phosphate mining industry on the island. Indeed, phosphate mining remains the largest industry on the island today.

But the island is not small. It has around 80km of coastline and covers 135 square kilometres. The highest point is Murray Hill, 361m above sea level. Cars are almost essential. The coastline is dominated by sheer cliffs; there are few good beaches. The best one, Dolly Beach, requires a 4WD to get to the carpark and then a 45 minute walk to the beach.

The permanent population on the island is around 1,500 people. There is no indigenous population and the current population comprises Chinese, European and Malay people. This brings an interesting mix of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. There are several Buddhist temples dotted over the island, including one at the end of the street we were living in. There’s also a mosque where we heard the call to prayer at various times during the day. On Christmas Island we often felt we were living in Asia.

We loved the relaxed and friendly lifestyle on the Island. There is virtually no crime. We had one of the local police officers around for dinner, and he told us that the main criminal activity on the island was traffic offences. (People still speed, even when your longest trip anywhere is 20 minutes!)

Christmas Island’s ecosystem is unique. It has so many unique species of flora and fauna that some have described it as the ‘Galapagos of the Indian Ocean’. I often felt I was living in Jurassic Park. The island has high, rocky rainforest covered cliffs with frigate birds, which resemble Pterodactyls, soaring around.

The most famous of Christmas Island fauna is the red crabs. There are an estimated 60 million of these eight legged creatures on the island and the annual red crab migration is one of the wonders of the natural world. Famed documentary maker Sir David Attenborough described the crab migration as one of his ten greatest wildlife experiences.

Our arrival coincided with the end of the red crab migration. We saw thousands of crabs scuttling around near the beach carrying their eggs. They were waiting for dawn where they would spawn, where they’d do a little dance and drop their eggs into the ocean. However with two small children we didn’t have the energy to get up at 4am to get to the beach to witness the spawning. Nevertheless we did see the thousands upon thousands of crabs returning to their homes in the rainforest. This meant the closure of many roads on the island. It was a truly remarkable sight.

Our children loved the crabs, particularly our one year old, Aoife. She would chase them and squeal with delight whenever they came near. Unfortunately I have to confess myself a red crab killer. The crabs are everywhere, even on the roads. As a driver I tried my best, but sometimes they are impossible to miss. My wife Di described the sound of running over a red crab as being similar to popping a chip packet.

One personal highlight of my time on Christmas Island was crawling out of bed at 5am one morning to go fishing. Before Christmas Island, the largest fish I’d ever caught was a tiny leatherjacket in Sydney Harbour. All that changed on Christmas Island, when I caught a 9.2kg Wahoo. I’d always thought fishing was a waste of a good sit. But I’ve never used so many muscles of my body at once, trying to reel in this fish.

The Christians. The Christmas Island Christian Fellowship is a small Christian community who meet in a local community hall. My role was as visiting pastor at the invitation of this independent, nondenominational Christian fellowship. It was an unpaid job, but they paid our airfares and some living allowance. (Airfares from Sydney cost about the same as a return trip to Europe.)

We loved the Christian fellowship. It was a group of around thirty adults of varying backgrounds – Australians, Chinese Malaysians and even some from mainland China. Some had been Christians for a long time, and others only a very short time. It was remarkable that in this remote place with no paid pastor, people were still coming to know Jesus. It was also quite a challenge to preach via a Mandarin translator.

Some asked if we could stay longer. I already had a job lined up, so we couldn’t accept. But we were touched, and would seriously have considered it.

The refugees. I initially wondered how I would make inroads into the main detention centre, but God kindly made access a lot easier. We became friends with a guard at the centre, who liked many of the asylum seekers. He introduced us to two enthusiastic Sri Lankan Christians, Ravi and Sam. Ravi had been a pastor in Sri Lanka. He gathered a number of Christians in the centre for prayer and worship every morning.

Every Sunday Ravi, Sam and about ten other refugees also joined us for church in the community hall. For some, their understanding of English was quite limited, but they all enjoyed the excursion. In fact the detention centre activities officer said it was amazing how many asylum seekers found God when there was an opportunity for an excursion! Anyway, these guys were a real sight when they arrived in their little minibus. They poured out and greeted us with real respect and enthusiasm. This was our first real encounter with refugees on Christmas Island. Di noticed that they all wore what she assumed were government issued Dunlop volleys. These guys were very committed to Jesus, and enjoyed singing their Tamil songs loudly, even though none of them could keep a tune.

We held a Christmas morning service inside the immigration detention centre. About forty were present. Again, my sermon was translated, this time into Tamil. It was a real privilege and opportunity to preach the truth of Christmas and the truth of Jesus in this environment. The service, like most things on Christmas Island, was a little strange. The piece of paper with the printed Bible readings had a Santa face as the background. There were lots of Santa faces all around the room. It was a Christmas Island Christmas Day I would never forget.

I ran twice-weekly Bible studies with the Sri Lankans in their ‘prayer room’, a small air-conditioned room in the activities wing of the detention centre. We read through the first nine chapters of Mark, and I was struck by how enthusiastic and hungry these guys were for reading the Bible. In all my years of leading small groups I have never encountered a group as dedicated and who applied themselves to the scriptures as much as this group. I saw them learning more and more about Jesus Christ. After a while the once-intimidating security protocols for entering the detention centre became routine. One security guard referred to me as ‘the padre’.

It was Ravi who told me about being shot and tortured.  He went on to share about his harrowing trip across the ocean from Malaysia to Australia. He paid an agent, better known to us as a people smuggler, $US9,000 to get onto a boat. The first boat he was on caught fire. After surviving being shot, Ravi said Jesus saved his life again as his trouser leg caught fire. Ravi was saved but the boat was disabled. They were stranded in the middle of the ocean for ten days, with no land in sight. Ravi said rats the size of your forearm crawled over him as he tried to sleep. They were even circled by pirates, who threatened to come back the next day and finish them off. Fortunately a new ship arrived and they were able to proceed to Christmas Island.

Ravi was safe and happy on Christmas Island. His refugee claim had been accepted and I eventually heard that he obtained his visa, and is now safely resettled in Perth.

Sam was younger than Ravi but had been on Christmas Island longer. He actually received his visa when we were there. (Sam went on to appear on an episode Jennie Brockie’s SBS TV’s Insight, ‘Stopping the Boats’.) He told me how he was beaten and imprisoned for three years. When was working in a shop, the shop owner was kidnapped and Sam feared for his life. At one point he spent a month in one room, because he was too scared to go outside. Sam fled to Malaysia, where he paid an agent to take him on a boat to Australia.

Others told me about their family members, kidnapped and held to ransom for $US250,000. They could have stayed in Sri Lanka by paying bribes to those in power, but that was hardly a sustainable way of life, so they fled.

Detention. So, how does detention on Christmas Island compare to the Indonesian camps people could have been in?

I’m one of the few people to have been inside the Christmas Island detention centre and who is not a government employee. I’m therefore free to make public comment. As I reflect on my time on Christmas Island, I find myself frustrated at all the misinformation and confusion in the debate over refugees. I’ve summarised some of those confusions above.

But it should also be noted that I no longer agree when refugee advocates claim the detention centre on the Island is inhumane. The detainees in Christmas Island are not mistreated. They have access to a wide range of services. They are safe, and are well looked after.

The immigration detention centre is actually an excellent facility. It’s a cross between a prison and a weekend away venue. There are high fences, a centralised security system, cameras and double-barrel locks. Everywhere is steel and concrete. Yet the venue is well equipped for the comfort and leisure of the detainees. There are tennis courts, a gym, Internet facilities, a kiosk, televisions and a library. The rooms are well equipped, and they have access to TVs, fridges and microwaves.

The big issues for those detained are boredom and uncertainty. Boredom, because there is only so much time you can spend in the gym and playing cricket. (Imagine staying at a weekend away for six months!) Their anxiety is due to uncertainty over whether they will be given a visa or not. It’s the single biggest issue those in detention worry about.

Furthermore, the concept of detention is ambiguous. When we imagine detention, we imagine the main Christmas Island detention facility: high barbed wire electric fences, guards, and sniffer dogs.

Yet no women or children are housed in the main detention facility. They are housed in different centres, on the other side of the island. These places have no bars or fences. Children can play in the local playground, go swimming at the local pool and attend school where their needs are met.

We also met a Sri Lankan family in ‘community detention’, which I hadn’t heard of before. Here a family lives and moves around the island freely. Their children played with our children, and their mother volunteered in the op-shop. This form of ‘detention’ seemed very humane and reasonable, and makes a blanket condemnation of ‘detention’ misleading.

We went to Christmas Island fully expecting to find the refugees mistreated and fully expecting to discover detention centres as evil places, yet we found this not to be the case. To be sure, there are difficulties with detention and life on Christmas Island. But simply to say that detention is wrong, is simplistic.

Of course the refugees themselves are not perfect either. The guard we mentioned finds some of them quite demanding. They will break things just to get a new one. It’s frustrating for the guards, and demonstrates that needy, desperate people aren’t necessarily good people. That said, I remember the constant boredom and anxiety that they experience. It wouldn’t bring out the best in any of us.

They also have mixed motives in coming to Australia, seen in ‘secondary movement’. A refugee may flee their country to seek the protection of one immediately bordering them. Yet some of these refugees see this flight as an opportunity to seek a more beneficial ‘economic migration’ to another country that affords greater protection and opportunity. Why seek asylum in another developing country when you could come to Australia? This ‘opportunism’ irritates many Australians – but of course we should be flattered by it. Who wouldn’t want to come to Australia?

Responding as a Christian. I know that Christians don’t all agree on this issue. But it looks a lot different up close. It now seems obvious to me, as a follower of Jesus, how I should respond. And although it may sound clichéd, if I am to be shaped by Jesus then I think the best place to look is the obvious place: his parable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37).

Jesus tells this parable after explaining that the essence of the law revolves around loving God and loving our neighbour. So someone plays the lawyer game, asking ‘who is my neighbour?’ Jesus then talks about upstanding religious people leaving a vulnerable man on the road to die.

We’re not told their motivation for not helping. I’m sure they had very reasonable justifications. The Samaritan, in contrast, provides compassionate hospitality and care to someone he wouldn’t have otherwise spoken to (for Jews and Samaritans had a strained relationship at best).

Jesus is saying that love to a neighbour takes the form of costly hospitality, generosity and compassion, to people you wouldn’t otherwise speak to. The Samaritan gave up time and money to set the conditions under which the other man could live.

If this story is to mean anything, I reckon Jesus would have a view about our responding to vulnerable refugees who are fleeing danger and persecution. I reckon Jesus’ stance is diametrically opposed to the common selfish objections of modern Australia, a country which is rich and wealthy, but not particularly welcoming, compassionate or generous. The excuses our nation provides might sound like the excuses used to abandon the man in need. Yet Jesus was quite straightforward about how to respond, and why.

‘Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?’ asked Jesus. The expert in the law replied, ‘The one who had mercy on him’. Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise’.

Robert Martin,
Melbourne Director of the City Bible Forum
www.citybibleforum.org/melbourne

Postscript from Andrew: Obviously, there remain several important policy discussions about how best to handle refugees. But Robert reminds me that the end of those discussions hinges on the beginning: whether or not we care very much about the people at the centre of it.

Sources/Further Reading:

UNHCR figures on Australia’s low 2010 response to refugees and asylum seekers:
Refugee Council of Australia, ‘UN refugee figures show asylum fears unfounded,’ media release 20 June 2011. Online:
http://refugeecouncil.org.au/news/releases/110620_Global_Trends.pdf

UNHCR frequently asked questions (includes basic distinctions between ‘economic migrants’, ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’). Online:
http://www.unhcr.org.my/Resources-@-Frequently_Asked_Questions(FAQs).aspx

Andrew Cameron, ‘it’s official: Australia is unfair,’ ABC The Drum 9 June 2011. Online:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2751386.html.
(A response to proposed changes to the Migration Act.)

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.

‘Alcohol takes souls.’
(Hosea 4:11, paraphrased)

A surprising coalition. What do the Police Association,^[1] the NSW Council of Churches,^[2] Anglicare Sydney,^[3] the NSW Nurses Association,^[4] surgeons^[5] and doctors^[6] all have in common?

In an effort to reduce alcohol related violence, these groups have asked the NSW Government to trial earlier closing times for licensed premises in NSW.

Binge-fuelled street violence is on the rise around Australia.^[7] But the O’Farrell Liberal Government and the Australian Hotels Association oppose a widespread trial of earlier closing times for licensed premises.

Yet recent trials of 3am closing times for licensed premises in the Newcastle CBD produced significant reductions in the frequency and intensity of alcohol related violence. The top Sydney venues for alcohol related violence are already required to abide by tougher licensing provisions, so the Government’s resistance to a broader trial of 3am closing is hard to understand.

This briefing is to inform you of the serious concerns about alcohol related violence that are emerging across our  community. It also argues why earlier closing times for licensed premises offers a way forward, helping to make our communities safer and healthier.

What’s it to Christians? In the past, Christians typically sought social and policy reforms to alcohol abuse. Earlier generations came up with initiatives to help individuals, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and the ‘temperance’ movement. But they were also political activists. They argued for tough liquor licensing provisions, and opposed policies for extended trading hours. The pejorative term ‘wowser’ was often used to attack their social interventions, and they generally lost the battle.

Today, evangelical Christians have largely vacated this political space. But this political quietism is not only a response to our grandparents being called ‘wowsers’. It has been more generally justified by appeals to ‘two kingdom’ theology: that churches should look after church business, and that ‘rulers’ should look after State business. (‘Two kingdoms’ theology is a contestable reading of Matt. 22:16–21 and Rom. 13:1–7.) It has been justified by appeals to evangelism, as if this core activity is the only worthy form of social engagement by Christians. It is justified by the view that people who don’t have the Spirit of God can be expected to display ‘drunkenness’, a fruit of the flesh (Gal. 5:19–21), and no law will stop that.

But a coalition of citizens who demand our respect and support now occupies the political space that Christians vacated. With an element of real desperation, police, nurses, doctors and criminologists have joined forces. Now, they are called ‘wowsers’.[8] They see and suffer from street behaviour that few Christians go near. There is a significant opportunity for Christians to re-engage the community by affirming and supporting those who provide valuable public services, while also seeking the welfare of people damaged by alcohol related violence.

The quotation from Hosea (above) reflects the hard-hitting Hebrew original. Alcohol abuse reduces us. It takes away our inner self. It robs us of our heart, our soul. It corrodes us at our core. It ruins our personhood. Christian social engagement will continue to show those who party hard, and who have developed an addiction to alcohol, that twenty or thirty drinks per night cannot replace reconciled relationships of love with God and with others.

But there is also a place to restrain the extreme damage that extreme drinkers do to police, paramedics, themselves and one another. Police, doctors and nurses need our support.

And our political leaders need some serious confrontation.

Main advocacy reforms. According to their Last Drinks campaign, what police and others want is simple:

Police Officers, Doctors, Nurses and Ambulance Officers are sick of dealing with the effects of alcohol-related violence. … The hotel industry's mantra of personal responsibility is not working. Experience has shown, however, that stronger restrictions on late night trading at pubs and clubs does make a difference.[9]

Doctors, nurses, ambulance officers and police are, quite simply, sick and fearful of dealing with the effects of intoxicated patrons of licensed premises late at night and in the early hours of the morning.  They are abused, intimidated, threatened, assaulted and injured in the course of their duties.  They attend to the seriously injured, are forced to struggle to restrain both male and female intoxicated violent offenders who are no longer in control of themselves …  Our members are also forced to have to remove vomit, urine and excrement from intoxicated persons and off themselves, their clothing, equipment, vehicles and holding areas.[10]

The Last Drinks coalition asks for five simple measures:

• after 10pm, prohibit the sale of shots and other high-alcohol drinks;
• 1am lockout for all NSW hotels (a lockout escorts intoxicated people off the premises and does not allow them to re-enter);
• extend 3am closing across NSW;
• licensed venues adopt other management policies; and
• the impact of these measures on violent crime be carefully studied after a twelve month trial.

The need for change: Sydney CBD. In December 2008 a number of licensing restrictions were placed on the top 50 licensed premises for assaults in the Sydney Central Business District (CBD). These changes were in response to an upward trend in assaults between midnight and 5am. The restrictions included 2am lockouts and several other ‘brakes’ on alcohol service.

There was a marked decline in the incidence of alcohol related violence after these changes. The data is ambiguous as to what caused the decline,^[11] but the results are consistent with other studies showing that liquor licensing restrictions help reduce alcohol-related violence.^[12]

What has become clear though, is the extraordinary prevalence of assaults around licensed premises. 37 percent of assaults occurred within 20 metres of licensed premises and 57 percent occurred within 50 metres.[13]

This is a great deal of violence in a very small perimeter. The Last Drinks proposals would likely reduce it. (A lower density of licensed premises would also reduce the number of intoxicated persons congregating in local areas.)

Alcohol related violence: cost to the community. The necessity for change is well justified in public policy terms.

The Australian Institute of Criminology^[14] identifies alcohol-related violence as a major social and economic cost to the community. Conservative estimates from 2008 put the total cost of alcohol related crime in Australia at $1.6 billion.[15]

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) estimated the cost of policing alcohol-related activity in NSW in 2005 was $50 million. That would pay the salaries of 1000 full-time constables.[16]

But these dollar amounts are only a proxy measure for the real costs. We sometimes use this kind of economic talk to stay a little distant from human costs that no amount of money can repay. There is little data on the cost of alcohol related violence to the NSW Health system, but the 2010 report of the NSW Chief Health Officer estimates that alcohol caused more than 1,220 deaths and 48,000 hospitalisations in NSW.[17]

A success: Newcastle’s trial of earlier closing hours. The Newcastle City Council’s trial of earlier closing hours for licensed premises in the Newcastle CBD has been evaluated by the University of Newcastle,^[18] with clear and positive outcomes.

• In 2008 licensed premises in the Newcastle CBD started ceasing alcohol service at 3am, and closing at 3.30am, in response to community pressure to reduce alcohol related violence.
• Alcohol related violence dropped by 37% as a result of the earlier closing times (measured in comparison to pubs at nearby Hamilton, which did not close earlier).
• Both the severity and incidence of alcohol related violence was reduced, relieving pressure on police and health services.

The resistance: hotels and government. Prior to the 2011 NSW election, both Barry O’Farrell and then-Premier Kristina Keneally acknowledged the effectiveness of the Newcastle initiatives. Yet they refused to apply the model more broadly across Sydney and NSW.

Both argued that local solutions were needed, in consultation with local communities. For example, licensed premises around Manly have recently volunteered to trial earlier closing times. Both politicians thought that local communities could similarly convince local publicans to voluntarily adopt earlier closing times.

This emphasis on voluntary agreement suits the Australian Hotels Association (AHA), which has denounced as “draconian and nanny-state”[19] the calls to expand the Newcastle model across all licensed premises.

Since being elected to Government, Barry O’Farrell has maintained that the Liberal Coalition Government will not support trials of earlier closing times for licensed premises, saying that local solutions should be negotiated.

This agreement with the AHA position is entirely puzzling. Consider:

• Very few people will be inconvenienced by a 3am closing time. Some people may move on to bottle shops, but many will simply go home. Note that some venues already close earlier than 3am and so will be unaffected. For venues now open until 5am, the change is minimal.
• It is hard to imagine that hotel revenues will be seriously affected by the loss of business at that late hour. However if revenues at that hour are high enough to be seriously affected, then we would need to ask how rigorously  these establishments are observing government-mandated Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) rules in the early morning.
• At a strategic level, a Liberal government should be more likely to see that a healthy community makes a healthy economy.

Speak up. Write to the NSW Premier:

The Hon Barry O’Farrell MP
Premier
Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower
1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000

and to your local State MP (find who at www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/find-your-local-mp.htm) and ask the NSW Government to trial earlier closing times for all licensed premises. Local communities should also be consulted and educated in how to deal with intoxicated persons.

A letter triggers a formal response and is more effective than email.

Angus Belling and Andrew Cameron
for the Social Issues Executive, Diocese of Sydney

Addendum

A relevant story appeared on the same day as our briefing. (Sean Nicholls, ‘O’Farrell lets clubs off drink controls,’ SMH June 21, 2011.)

It outlines a policy targeting violent licensed venues. If these venues break the conditions of their liquor licence up to six times over three years, the licence will be cancelled for at least 12 months, and the licensee permanently banned.

But oddly, the policy will not apply to clubs, some of which are associated with high levels of violence. The story then details a special deal between the Liberal government and clubs, and notes the high levels of club donations that went to the Party prior to the recent election.

If true, the story is concerning. Remember that clubs are the main venue for ‘electronic gaming machines’ (EGMs, i.e. pokies), and that the Liberal government will resist Federal initiatives to set loss limits on these machines. (See Rebecca Belzer and Andrew Cameron, ‘Tackling poker machines head on,’ Social Issues briefing #091, 29 April 2011.)

Endnotes/further reading

[1] Scott Weber, ‘Last orders for drunken aggression,’ SMH November 9, 2010; Clementine Cuneo, ‘Generation Binge: top cop's fears over drink-until-you-drop culture,’ The Daily Telegraph December 14, 2010; Clementine Cuneo, ‘Surgeons join police to change culture of binge drinking ahead of weekend blitz,’ The Daily Telegraph December 14, 2010.

[2] NSW Council of Churches Media Release, ‘Churches back police call to curb booze-fuelled violence,’ 24 January 2011.

[3] Peter Kell, ‘Engage the Future,’ Sydney Anglicans March 30, 2011.

[4] NSW Nurses Association Media Release, ‘Nurses Call For Measures On Alcohol Related Crime,’ 2 April, 2010.

[5] Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Media Release, ‘Alcohol related injury the focus of Trauma Week,’ November 17, 2010.

[6] E.g. Yen F. Tai, John B. Saunders and David S. Celermajer, ‘Collateral damage from alcohol abuse: the enormous costs to Australia,’ MJA 1998; 168: 6-7.

[7] Stephen Lunn, ‘Nights of drunken rages,’ The Australian May 14, 2011.

[8] Scott Weber, ‘Who are you calling a wowser Kristina?’ The Punch 2 April 2011.

[9] Last Drinks campaign, http://www.keepourcops.org.au.

[10] Last Drinks main report, p. 6. ** This document is a most helpful ‘next step’. **

[11] Steve Moffatt, Amanda Mason, Chloe Borzycki and Don Weatherburn, Liquor licensing enforcement and assaults on licensed premises, NSW Bureau of Crime, Bureau Brief Issue paper no. 40 October 2009.

[12] Steve Moffatt and Don Weatherburn, Trends in assaults after midnight, NSW Bureau of Crime Bureau Brief Issue paper no. 59 April 2011.

[13] Melissa Burgess and Steve Moffatt, The association between alcohol outlet density and assaults on and around licensed premises, BOSCAR Crime And Justice Bulletin No. 147 January 2011 p. 1.

[14] Australian Institute of Criminology portals: http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/drugs_alcohol.aspx and http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/violence/alcohol%20and%20drug%20related%20violence.aspx .
See also media release, ‘Study finds that alcohol leads to weekend assaults,’ 4 May 2011.

[15] Australian Bureau of Criminology, Key issues in alcohol-related violence, December 2009.

[16] NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and National Drug Research Institute, Estimating the short-term cost of police time spent dealing with alcohol-related crime in NSW, 2007.

[17] Available in various formats at http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/publichealth/chorep/index.asp.

[18] Ian Kirkwood, ‘Fights down as pubs shut early,’ Newcastle Herald, 16 Sep, 2010, reporting on work of Associate Professor Kypros Kypri and team published in the international scientific journal, Addiction. See also BOSCAR, The impact of restricted alcohol availability on alcohol-related violence in Newcastle, December 2009.

[19] Sally Fielke, spokesperson AHA, ABC Radio AM, 16 September 2010.

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.

Social Issues briefing #095, 09/06/2011.

Over the past few months it has been my privilege to contribute to Kel Richards’ Sunday night program on radio 2CH. Today’s briefing is from Kel. He shows how your Christian thinking can reach others, with surprising ease. And, he asks you to join his show. Give it a go this weekend! – Andrew C

Carbon tax … live animal exports … refugees held in detention centres (or shipped to Malaysia) … Muslim billboards in Sydney … chaplains in schools … gay marriage … hotly debated issues in our society – but as a journalist glued to the media, I am not hearing Christian voices contributing to the wider discussion.

Are we waiting for denominational leaders to speak for us? Are we talking to each on Christian blogs and websites and in Christian magazines, but not to the wider society?

We can do better! Christian voices can (and should) be heard! But how? The letters pages of newspapers sometimes appear to reflect the editorial slant of the paper. They are hard to get into at the best of times. I want thoughtful, articulate, opinionated Christians to think about another medium: open line radio.

Open line radio reaches tens of thousands of our fellow Australians. Open line radio presenters are constantly looking for callers who will make “good radio” (well expressed, well thought-out opinions). Presenters of these programs may have their own slant, but callers of every point of view are welcome – as long as they’re interesting. (I’ve spent years producing and presenting these programs. I know that all I and my colleagues want are callers who are “good talent”.)

Open line radio is hungry for content. It churns through more opinions every hour than the newspaper letters page does in a week. And open line radio is open for Christians to become public voices to the wider community – instead of staying silent, or talking to each other, or waiting for a denominational leader to say something.

When you hear an issue in the news and you think “That’s wrong,” say so! When you hear an idea in the news and think “That’s good – that should be encouraged,” say so!

Here’s how to get on to an open line program (and have an impact):

• Listen (for a little while at least) to the program you want to get on to.
• Think about your message – have a clear reason for calling.
• Don’t write out a script of what you want to say.
• Do jot down a few bullet points to help you remember what you want to say.
• Can you summarise your message in a slogan? If you can, jot it down – repeat it several times during your call.
• Be gracious to the producer – and explain what you want to say briefly and clearly.
• Be gracious to the presenter – and get straight to the point.

And here’s how to practice your open line technique: call my Sunday night program on 2CH between 10pm and midnight any Sunday night. You’ll get to air, you’ll get a sympathetic hearing, and you’ll polish your open line technique.

Here’s the number to call any Sunday night 1300-13-1170. Talk through what you want to say with my producer. She’ll help you sharpen your arguments before you go on the air.

Call me on a Sunday night. Develop your skills. Then become a part of the wider public debate on as many shows as possible. Become a Christian voice heard by thousands.

-  Kel Richards, Radio 2CH

Social Issues briefing #094, 06/05/2011.

[Postscript: as you’d expect, this briefing received some push-back, which I was thankful for and interested in. I thought about updating it in light of that feedback and later writing, but have decided to let it stand as-is. It’s surprising how quickly we moved on; but the briefing remains an important snapshot that captured important issues we were all thinking and feeling in the moment. – AJC 09/06/2011]

Don’t gloat when your enemy falls, and don’t let your heart rejoice when he stumbles,  or the LORD will see, be displeased, and turn His wrath away from him.

Don’t worry because of evildoers, and don’t envy the wicked. For the evil have no future; the lamp of the wicked will be put out.

(Proverbs 24:17–20, hcsb) 

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. … Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

… The authorities that exist have been established by God. …The one in authority is God’s servant to do you good [and] an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Rom. 12:17, 19, 21; 13:1b, 4,  niv)

A Christian is glad that God knows how to hold Osama bin Laden to account for his crimes. A Christian weeps to think of anyone, even bin Laden, in hell. This response of sadness and gladness at the settled judgment of God, is the same bittersweet mix we feel at Easter.

But we feel real moral confusion in this case. If we know the infinitude of loss in the families of those whom bin Laden killed, justice has been done – a sense of satisfaction that goes to the heart of our longing for the justice of God. For ten years now, families and communities have cried out for vindication. President Obama’s “we got him” spoke, for a moment, to that longing.

Yet rejoicing in the streets at bin Laden’s death was unseemly. It was not the biblical authors’ kind of relief in God’s good judgment. Rather, it reflected the kind of vengefulness that Paul speaks of, which leaves no room for God’s wrath, hates the enemy, and is overcome by evil (Rom. 12: 19–21). As a Vatican spokesman put it:

“Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.”

On witnessing the spectacle of partying in the streets, my friend alluded to words George Lucas put on the lips of Padmé Amidala (played by Natalie Portman): “So this is how liberty dies … with thunderous cries of ‘U – S – A! U – S – A!’”

But is that assessment correct? Or did the United States’ effect God’s justice, as his ‘servant’? The discussion about whether this U. S. action was just, pivots on a few considerations.

1. Is the ‘war on terror’ really a war, or is it a series of police actions against criminals?
2. Did bin Laden die as a military commander in a war? Or was it an arrest gone wrong?
3. U. S. servicemen were acting on a ‘capture or kill’ order. But was there any intention to capture and try Osama bin Laden?

There is much we don’t and cannot know. But the questions remain important, because the U. S. government is entrusted with weapons of deadly force only so that justice might be done. Since bin Laden has murdered so many (and unless we disagree with capital punishment), most will think that justice was done in outcome. But was justice done and seen to be done in the process?

War can only be justified, if at all, as a kind of ‘rough justice’. As the U. K. theologian and ethicist Oliver O’Donovan puts it, normal processes of justice are like ‘surgery performed under clinical conditions in a hospital’; whereas justice in war is like ‘an emergency operation, performed in a remote mountain hut with a penknife’ (The Just War Revisited, p. 18). We should always prefer and work toward the former; but sometimes, we must with melancholy settle for the latter.

O’Donovan further observes (The Ways of Judgment, chs. 1–2) that human justice is always ‘imperfectible’. It cannot reach into the heart of the offender and cause him to repent. It cannot turn back upon him what he truly deserves. It cannot restore the endless losses of the heart that victims have suffered. Justice cannot always be conducted with the best of processes: we need to prepare arrests in secret, prosecute charges with imperfect evidence, and navigate the political fallout from the supporters of the accused.

But good justice values even a criminal. To practice justice well is to assert that human life is precious, even if the criminal pretends it is not. For justice to be seen to be done, it requires due process, a proper accounting of the evidence, and the willingness to operate in a way quite different to the methods of the offender. In this regard the U. S. did well to try Saddam Hussein for war crimes. Even if the process was compromised at points, it had some transparency.

The problem with construing the ‘war on terror’ as a war has been that war licenses ever looser standards of rough justice. It then becomes hard to return from these, because the society involved becomes calloused against the value of their opponents, and against the value of human life in general. (This point is well explored in relation to bin Laden in the four opinion pieces, listed below.)

So, does the U. S. action meet even the most minimal account of imperfect justice? It is important to put aside the consequentialist reasoning used to defend the U. S. action. These justifications argue that quick ‘justice’ sidestepped the inevitable quagmire of Islamist support and violence for Osama. (Consequentialists never attend to the flip side of their consequentialism: in this case, that we will likely reap the whirlwind from disaffected admirers of bin Laden, who suspect that Western ‘justice’ is corrupt.) Worse, the improvement in Obama’s political fortunes, or even the ‘restoration’ of America’s image, has been used to justify the killing. If these considerations justify the action, then there is no such thing as ‘justice’ and we should stop talking as if there is.

Even if bin Laden was a dangerous combatant in a war, the history of ‘just’ warfare has drawn the line at killing combatants because we can. In ‘just’ warfare, we only kill combatants when they pose a clear and present danger. Perhaps bin Laden did so, with a suicide vest, or an AK-47 near at hand. We don’t know from this distance, and no one can really second-guess the servicemen in the room.

According to Leon Pannetta, the current director of the CIA, U. S. Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the President. But ‘the authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered, and didn’t appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him. To be frank, I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything.’

If there was no real intention to capture bin Laden, and if the raid was effectively an extra-judicial assassination rather than an arrest gone wrong, then U. S. governance is on very dangerous terrain.

The rule of law was once the secular West’s quiet euphemism for the subservience owed by governments to the rule of Christ. Cavalier rejection of the rule of law reflects a titanic pretension in human governance. If the U. S. now sanctions extra judicial assassination, it subscribes to only one ordering moral principle: U. S. interest. That in turn means that the United States Government has reduced ‘human rights’ to a nationalist hermeneutic, where the humans with rights are the citizens of the U. S. and its client states. If so, the U. S. embodies a post-Christian turn from the rule of law to the rule of might, and would no longer be remotely a ‘Christian nation’ but a nation little different to ancient Rome – whom Christians had to come against, with the gospel.

The most powerful collective on earth must be interested to demonstrate that for justice to be done, it also must be seen to be done, through due processes of law. If the last ten years has hardened this nation as a people, and has cheapened their valuing of human life, then the time has come time has come for Christians within and beyond the U. S. to help this nation think again.

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

Further Reading

O’Donovan, Oliver M.T.:
 The Ways of Judgment: The Bampton Lectures, 2003. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, chs. 1–2.
The Just War Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, chs. 6–7 .

Geoffrey Robertson, ‘Bin Laden’s summary execution maketh the man, martyr and myth’, 4 May 2011, available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/bin-ladens-summary-execution-maketh-the-man-martyr-and-myth-20110503-1e6md.html

Cynthia Banham, ‘Operation Get Osama signals loss of values’, 6 May 2011, available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/operation-get-osama-signals-loss-of-values-20110505-1e9xq.html

Gideon Boas and Pascale Chifflet, ‘Order for execution was illegal’, 5 May 2011, available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/order-for-execution-was-illegal-20110504-1e8bp.html

Moira Rayner, ‘The murder of Osama bin Laden,’ Eureka Street 3 May 2011, available at http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=26146

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, author(s), 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 social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues briefing #093, 29/04/2011.

Some may recall that I mysteriously disappeared at the end of 2008 to work on something called the ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief project’. It’s quite odd when people go off to work on something, only to hear nothing further. This briefing completes that story.

The following paragraphs have been kindly supplied by the Diocesan Secretary, Robert Wicks, and are a modified version of his report to the Standing Committee of the Diocese. (If you want to cut to the chase, go straight to paragraph 7.)

1. On 17 September 2008 the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) launched the ‘Freedom of religion and belief project’ (FRB). The FRB’s terms of reference were to address the experiences and place in civil society of every religious and secular belief. However the initial impetus for the FRB was a concern about the treatment of Muslims within the broader Australian community, exemptions to anti-discrimination law and the value of religious anti-vilification law.
2. At its meeting on 22 September 2008, the Standing Committee endorsed the formation of an oversight committee comprising the Rev Dr Andrew Cameron, Mr Robert Wicks and Bishop Robert Forsyth (chair) to co-ordinate the initial response of the Diocese to the FRB. The Oversight Committee prepared a submission to FRB on behalf of the Standing Committee and co-ordinated the preparation of a 9 related submissions from various organisations and individuals within the Diocese. These were lodged with the FRB as separate but related submissions under cover of a letter from the Archbishop on 25 February 2009.
3. By the closing date for submissions on 28 February 2009, the FRB had received almost 2,000 submissions.
4. On 19 May 2009 the Oversight Committee hosted a Sydney stakeholders’ meeting between the AHRC researchers, Professors Des Cahill and Gary Bouma, and a number of denominational/organisational representatives from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the Baptist Union of New South Wales, the Sydney Roman Catholic Diocese, Wesley Mission and the Australian Association of Christian Schools.
5. The initial expectation was that the final FRB report would be released in early 2010. However the report was ultimately launched in Canberra on 21 March 2011. Robert Wicks attended the launch, and also a pre-launch briefing at the offices of the Australian Christian Lobby given by Mr Graeme Innes, the Race Discrimination and Disability Commissioner who launched the report. Bishop Forsyth and Dr Cameron were unable to attend.
6. The initial concern was that the report would include recommendations which, if implemented, would detrimentally impact religious freedom in Australia.
7. In the end, the report did not include any recommendations. Instead it sought to capture the conversation around religion and belief in Australia. Despite the relatively high representation of non-Christian faiths during the consultation process, it is fair to say that the report itself clearly articulates the views of conservative Christianity. To that extent the outcome of the FRB is pleasing. Also pleasing is the interaction in the report with the submissions made on behalf of the Standing Committee and other agencies within the Diocese. The report is a useful snapshot of several discussions about religion in Australia, including its various interactions with the State. However, the project’s initial ambitions, the volume of responses, and the length of time that has passed since it was launched, might reasonably have been expected to deliver more data. The relative brevity of the report and its eclectic method of summarizing various discussions is somewhat anticlimactic.
8. Mr Innes indicated in his pre-launch briefing that, in view the AHRC’s current priority being human rights education, the AHRC did not have the capacity to pursue any of the matters raised in the report at this time. However the report would be made available to Government departments to take into account as they develop policy.
9. The approach taken by those responsible for preparing the report should be seen as a positive outcome for the Christian community. However there remains a need to be vigilant in the area of religious freedom. In particular there remains a considerable threat to freedom of religion across the western world, mainly arising from a new ideology about “equality”. There is therefore a need to keep fine tuning the intellectual arguments to counter this ideology and to make sure that these arguments are heard in the public square.

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

Sources and Further Reading

Freedom of religion and belief in 21^st Century Australia, A research report prepared for the Australian Human Rights Commission, 2011, available for download at

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/frb/index.html

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.

It was a surprise for many Australians to hear news reports this week that a national Anglican body was recommending to ‘dump’ the ‘baby bonus’, a lump-sum payment of several thousand dollars made to mothers of newborns. This briefing tells the story behind the story.

The latest ‘official’ position of the Anglican Church of Australia only calls upon Government to ‘consider carefully any incentive aimed specifically and primarily at increasing Australia’s population while continuing to support low-income families.’ (The relevant motion is reproduced at the end of this briefing.)

The body that made the news was the Public Affairs Commission (PAC) of the General Synod of Anglican Church of Australia. This is a ‘think tank’ of a dozen people, from across Australia’s various Anglican churches, which advises General Synod on national social issues. It is like a national version of what the Social Issues Executive does for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. (I am also a member of the PAC.)

The news story arises from a PAC submission to a Commonwealth Government enquiry on sustainable population. The PAC’s submission included a supporting paper offered by the twelve members of the PAC. It also included the ‘official’ stance of the General Synod, above, but went further. The General Synod did not specifically endorse the submission, because Anglicanism is actually a sprawling democracy. It is common practice for various Anglican bodies to make their own submissions to government. (See our Briefing #093 for an example where in a different context, ten Sydney Anglican bodies made submissions.)

The PAC submission calls for debate on the drivers of Australian population growth. It does not revise orthodox Christian thought about reproduction, but proposes the ‘removal of public incentives aimed at increasing the birth rate and replacing them with support for improvements in the capacity of parents to be fully attentive to their babies, e.g. by increasing paid maternal and paternal leave’ (p. 17; see also the summary on p. 18). The comment is made in the context of a much wider discussion: for example, the submission also called for wider systems of support for families with young children, and noted the need to have a compassionate attitude toward humanitarian entrants to Australia’s system of immigration.

The comment about the baby bonus only questions a public policy which may distort ‘natural’ population growth, and which is not necessarily the best way to support children and parenting. It need not be taken as ‘anti-family’ to question this particular public policy, if there are other and better ways to support families. For example, better provisions for maternity and paternity leave may be more helpful for a child than a lump sum payment at the beginning of his or her life, since such payments can easily be spent on other things, rather than on the child’s ongoing needs.

Of course, the more substantial discussion is about whether population growth is a problem; and Christians disagree about the state of the natural environment and our response to it. Many Christians think that population growth is no problem, and defend its link to economic growth. (I question such views in a more technical article.) However, even if population needs to be ‘sustainable’, it remains very important not to make it so at the expense of children and the unborn. That is, no Christian position on population can drift into the anti-human stance that abortion and severe reproduction controls are the answers. We can think much more creatively about how to uphold both the created order and the good of humanity.

Not all Christians may agree with the General Synod’s stance on care for the environment, or with the PAC paper’s stance on population. But the PAC has not drifted into an anti-human or anti-reproduction stance. Its proposal about the ‘baby bonus’ need not be taken as such.

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

Caring for the Creation
(Motion 89/10, General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, 21 September 2010)

That this General Synod of The Anglican Church of Australia gives thanks to Almighty God for the gracious gift of human life and for the privilege of being divine image bearers.

Synod acknowledges:

a)       that all human life comes from God, irrespective of age, gender, race, or ability, and that God does not delight in the death of any he has made, and notes:

b)      Resolution I.8 of the Lambeth Conference 1998, which
(i) reaffirms the Biblical vision of Creation according to which the divine spirit is present in Creation and human beings have responsibility to make personal and corporate sacrifices for the common good of all Creation; and
(ii)  recognizes that unless human beings take responsibility for caring for the earth, the consequences will be catastrophic because of: overpopulation, unsustainable levels of consumption by the rich, poor quality and shortage of water, air pollution, eroded and impoverished soil, forest destruction, and animal extinction.

c)       the encouragement in Resolution 14.15 of the Anglican Consultative Council in May 2009 for Provinces ‘to advocate sustainable restorative economies with national governments, the United Nations through the Anglican Observers Office, and local constituencies’.

And requests

1. Australian Anglican Dioceses and individuals to:
   (i)  Grow in understanding of global and national environmental challenges, and the role of human population growth in contributing to them.
   (ii) Use resources including those identified by the General Synod’s Public Affairs Commission and Environment Working Group to assist in developing integrated views of issues and potential responses, and take action to reduce our impacts.
   (iii) Contribute thoughtfully and prayerfully to public debate about how to
   - achieve justice not only for current Australians but for our descendants,
   - nurture and protect, nurture and protect life on this fragile land with all its beauty and
     diversity life on this fragile land with all its beauty and diversity,
   - share in a world of finite resources, showing love for our neighbours, particularly those
     who live in the two-thirds world,
   (iv) Remain confident in the gospel of Jesus Christ to address environmental challenges as it calls people to turn from human selfishness and greed.
   (v) Prayerfully consider and reduce their levels of consumption.
   (vi) Explore ways to ensure that every child is welcomed and has the opportunity to reach his/her full potential.
2. The Australian Government to:
   (i) Recognise the role of population growth and unsustainable levels of consumption by the affluent in contributing to global and national environmental challenges, and avoid any reliance on continuing population growth to maintain economic growth.
   (ii) Determine a sustainable population policy for Australia which is fair and just.
   (iii) Consider carefully any incentive aimed specifically and primarily at increasing Australia’s population while continuing to support low-income families and sustainable immigration.
   (iv) Support agricultural research both to care for our land and to preserve our ability to produce food.
   (v) Contribute more generously to improving the welfare of people in the least developed nations, and other life in their environments, in particular by including support for family planning and women’s reproductive health programmes with aid for development, in ways that respect the cultures of those people and take account of Christian values including respect for the sanctity of all human life.
3. The reporting of the outcome of this Motion to the United Nations Anglican Observers’ Office.

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, author(s), 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 social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues briefing #091, 29/04/2011.

“Ilona Roberts, 67 was furious when she discovered her 95-year-old mother, Mandy, had been withdrawing $200 a day at the local club and spending it on poker machines. How could staff not have noticed the frail woman with dementia sitting at the poker machine daily and losing her life savings? How could they have let it happen?

… Piles of ATM receipts were the first clue that her mother, a self-funded retiree, had emptied her small bank accounts, and was now draining her term deposits to fund daily visits to the nearby club. “Mum used to say ‘I’d never put in more than $20 or $30’, but then I’d see $200 going each day. She lost track”, Ms Roberts said. When it came time to move into an aged care facility, her previously ‘well off’ mother didn’t have the funds. “She’d done over $100,000…”

Compare this story with the story of Tweed Heads Twin Town Services Club. Last year, they received $36.7 million in revenue from poker machines, whilst donating only $946,000 in cash gifts or service. And all this despite being a ‘not-for-profit’ club. Further, thanks to a legal loophole, the services they ‘donated’ or claimed as ‘community contributions’ can include services for the exclusive use of club members. Things like buildings, and bars, and beer taps – hardly what we would expect when we think of ‘charitable gifts’.

This contradiction is jarring. These stories sound like a re-written version of David vs Goliath, where Goliath wins.

But now, a unique political opportunity for Federal independent MPs has presented an opportunity to reform a small but extremely damaging section of the gambling industry – poker machines.

What is the current situation?

Gambling is a big industry in Australia. The most recent report released by the Australasian Gambling Council, A Database on Australia’s Gambling Industry 2009-10, estimated that during 2008-09 there were just under 200,000 gaming machines in Australia, with 96,000 of them in NSW. Australia ranks eighth on a global index of poker machines per country. If NSW were listed in this index as a country, it would rank ninth, just behind Australia, Germany and Italy, and above Canada. In 2008, over $10 billion was spent on gaming machines alone in Australia.

Given the saturation of gambling (and particularly poker machines) in Australian society, it is no surprise to learn from the recent report on gambling by the Productivity Commission that there are between 80,000 and 160,000 problem gamblers in Australia, and between 230,000 and 350,000 people at moderate risk. These people at moderate risk still experience harm resulting from their gambling, and are at risk of progressing to problem gambling. One of the findings from the Productivity Commission report was that ‘gambling can have adverse health, emotional and financial impacts on many more people than those categorised as ‘problem gamblers’. This shows the wide network of people affected by gambling.

These problem gamblers contribute around 40% of total gaming machine losses (and the Productivity Commission suggested that the real figure contributed by problem gamblers could be as high as 60% of total poker spending). This means that a small percentage of poker machine users are possibly losing up to half or even more of the total revenue being collected by poker machines. A submission by Clubs Australia to the Productivity Commission admitted that clubs are reaping $800 million each year from problem gamblers. The Productivity Commission suggested that the real figure is probably double this.

The gambling industry tells us that poker machines are simply for recreation, and that they provide responsible Australians with harmless fun. A ‘night on the pokies’ has even been compared with a ‘night out’ at the movies with dinner. But this line is hard to sustain when you consider the facts about poker machines. These facts tell us that:

• in NSW, you can load a machine with up to $10,000 at a time;
• Australian law permits poker machines to consume $1200 each hour, and each spin can have up to $10 bet on it (with 20 spins or more possible each minute); and
• poker machines are carefully designed to be as seductive and addictive as possible. The common feeling of ‘I know I’m losing, but I’m sure that I’ll hit the big one if I just play one more time’ is no coincidence – the machines are designed to break a user’s resolve and keep the gaming machine user pressing the button until there is nothing left to put in.

When you consider these things, it’s hard to compare playing poker machines with a dinner for two, movie tickets and popcorn for $100.

The other side of the current situation is the revenue that gambling brings to governments through various taxes. Our governments are now too dependent on tax revenue. In NSW and Victoria, gambling revenue provided $1.6 billion in 2008-9, approximately 9% of total state revenue in NSW and 13% in Victoria. A very large percentage of this $1.6 billion comes from losses made by poker machine users. Any reform of the gambling industry that reduces tax revenue for cash-strapped state governments will not be popular with those governments, despite the savings that will slowly come through as the negative and costly flow on effects from gambling addiction start to ease.

What is being proposed?

The government’s proposal (or more specifically, the proposal initiated by MP Andrew Wilkie) is to require poker machine users to set their maximum loss as a limit before they start playing gaming machines. Once this limit has been reached, the user would be locked out of playing any poker machines in Australia until the specified time period has ended. This ‘precommitment’ gives control back to poker machine users by forcing them to consider how much they are willing to lose before sitting in front of machines in environments where both machine and environment has been carefully designed to be seductive and addictive.

These changes are not going to stop people from using poker machines, and they won’t even stop people from losing a lot of money on poker machines. But they will mean that people can’t deceive themselves over the amounts of money they are losing on poker machines.

The gaming and clubs industry are vehemently opposing these changes, because they know that 40% (and possibly up to 60%) of their revenue from poker machines comes from problem gamblers. Clubs Australia and the gaming industry is a very powerful force in Australia, and they have launched a $20 million campaign to stop the proposed reforms. Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has recently been quoted accusing the industry of trying to buy opinions in the debate over the proposed reforms. ‘Democracy is on trial here by powerful lobby groups.’ A smear campaign against Mr Wilkie has also been started virally, coincidentally at the same time as the advertising campaign by Clubs Australia.

Introducing any reforms to an industry that is such a river of gold for the few will always be difficult. But technical experts say that the reforms can be fairly easily implemented. They are also hugely desirable from a social perspective. The proposed changes need to be implemented: every year that these reforms are delayed will mean more of those casual gamblers ‘at moderate risk’ will move into being problem gamblers, causing possibly irreversible damage to themselves, their spouses, children, families and jobs. The Productivity Commission conservatively suggests they be implemented before 2016. Andrew Wilkie wants to see them mandated well before that.

Some people (maybe even you) argue that it’s pointless to regulate gambling in such a way. ‘If people want to throw away their money, it’s not the Government’s role to stop them’. Or, ‘the Government has no right to make it difficult for me to responsibly enjoy a flutter on the pokies every once in a while’. These arguments would be fair, if it wasn’t for the huge numbers of innocent victims that suffer due to uncontrolled use of poker machines. We can’t ignore the hurt and misery that gambling addiction spreads in communities – to spouses, children, wider family and friends, employers and employees.

Mr Wilkie’s intransigent resolve to lessen the damage that poker machines cause is a significant opportunity for Australians to stand alongside him and say ‘no’ to the destructiveness of addiction to gambling on poker machines, and ‘yes’ to new ways forward for local clubs to become places of fun and friendly community networks to develop and grow.

How can we have better dreams for our community?

In this area, Christians are often cast as ‘naysayers’, ‘wowsers’ and ‘prohibitionists’. But we have so much to offer our society about how to care well for each other, and what it looks like to create safe communities of families and friends. So let’s also think about how we can dream bigger, and say ‘yes’ to healthier and happier communities. For example, wouldn’t it be an achievement if local clubs could become family-friendly places for friends to meet together, share a meal, and become more involved in a network of community relationships and events? As Christians, we have much to offer those around us about what it looks like to create spaces that meet our needs for friendship, social activities and support. If clubs fear losing relevance when poker machine usage drops, let’s suggest other possibilities about how they could better use their premises.

What else can we do?

In the face of a powerful lobby group like Clubs Australia and the wider gambling industry, we need to make the most of what we have: thousands of people who care deeply about people and want to stop unnecessary harm caused by gambling addiction. For Anglicare Sydney’s CEO Peter Kell, ‘Now more than ever it seems that the Prime Minister is trying to engage the Church. Imagine if tens of thousands of Christian people wrote to the PM, offering their support for the pre-commitment gaming reforms. Imagine if thousands of churches prayed for better care for those addicted to poker machines. There is real power and influence to wield. And all of Australia will benefit.’

These are wonderful things to imagine, and do.

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

Sources and Further Reading

Australasian Gaming Council, Database on Australia’s Gambling Industries 09/10, available at www.austgamingcouncil.org.au

Australian Government Productivity Commission, Gambling Inquiry Report, available at http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report

Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform – Inquiry into Pre-Commitment, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/gamblingreform_ctte/precommitment_scheme/index/htm

Poker Machine Reform fact sheet by Senator Nick Xenophon, http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/itsabigfatlie/

Costello, Tim, ‘Clubs are addicted to a jackpot they refuse to relinquish’, SMH April 14, 2011.

Kell, Peter, ‘Dirty Rotten Lies’, available on Sydneyanglicans.net at http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/dirty_rotten_lies/

Needham, Kirsty, ‘Frail mother, 95, with dementia allowed to whittle away life savings’, SMH April 12, 2011.

O’Malley, Nick, ‘Clubs hitting the jackpot and keeping most of the booty’, SMH April 16, 2011.

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.

Social Issues briefing #090, 9/02/2011.

It is always difficult to address same-sex issues without being sidelined as homophobic or out-of-date, or without appearing to unfairly single out those people who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. In all such conflicts, Christians need to own the glaring failures we carry in ourselves, and the inadequacies we bring to our churches.

But we can accept homosexual people without agreeing with them on everything. As a debate about extending marriage to same-sex relationships gathers pace, we may disagree with the proposal respectfully and carefully. We can continue to work at doing so well, even when the disagreement has been badly handled in the past.

We have never intended for these briefings to become dominated by a limited set of conservative ‘hot button’ issues. We don’t particularly want to keep addressing them. But a response is in order when someone else proposes to change to the law.

In this case, recent media and political discussion in Australia means that we are compelled to carefully restate our opposition to proposals for same-sex relationships to be given the title ‘marriage’, which is now reserved in Australian law to ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’ (Marriage Act 1961, §§ 5, 46).

The current situation

Prime Minister Gillard has indicated that her government has no intention to alter these words. Consistent with this undertaking, there doesn’t appear to be any plans by the Government to bring or support a Bill to legalise same-sex unions as marriage. This concurs with current ALP policy, which has been upheld at ALP National Conferences in the past.

However, it has been reported by journalist Paul Osborne that ‘Labor's national conference had been brought forward six months to December 2011 in order to debate gay marriage and separate it from the election cycle’.

In the meantime, a resolution was recently passed by the House of Representatives requesting parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the so-called ‘issue of marriage equality’. Here it is:

Motion resolved by the Commonwealth House of Representatives
(18 November 2010):

‘This house:

(1)    notes that there is:

a)              a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and

b)             widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and

(2)    calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.’

Depending on parliamentarians attempts to ‘gauge their constituents’ views’, and on the outcome of the ALP National Conference, it is possible that legislation could be introduced under this Labor Government to change the current definition of ‘marriage’ in the Marriage Act 1961.

The ‘story’ of marriage

The Parliamentary motion above loads the dice in favour of same-sex marriage by calling it ‘the issue of marriage equality’, because everyone likes ‘equality’. This focus upon equality, and an underlying presumption in favour of personal autonomy, tends to dominate our discussions of marriage. Where a proposal is thought to extend equality and personal autonomy, it is hard for other considerations to seem important.

Same-sex couples currently enjoy equitable treatment in all aspects relevant to de facto couple status. The current ability in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT to register same-sex partnerships on a relationships register provides public recognition and affirmation of their relationships.

The push for same-sex marriage is therefore now largely ideological, because same-sex couples are not disadvantaged without it (unless we accept that it is homophobic not to give homosexual people further recognition).

No one is done a real injustice when we positively honour and uphold marriage as currently understood. We currently honour those who are united in lifelong, opposite sex, faithful and procreative relationships by calling them ‘married’. In a liberal democracy, others can form other types of relationships; but ‘marriage’ is a term of honour reserved for a particular kind of relationship.

Until recently, a marriage was understood to be a gender complementary, sexually exclusive, procreative and child-oriented lifelong relationship. The deep story of how it came to be so is complex. On the one hand, some aspects of marriage seemed obvious where societies sought a stable environment in which to raise children. But other aspects of it (such as lifelong, one-to-one faithfulness) arose from, or were at least amplified by, the Judeo-Christian revelation of a faithful God who bound himself to one people – a revolutionary concept in ancient contexts that were much given to polygamy.

But over the years, successive Western societies have seen each element of marriage become open to renegotiation by couples:

• Historically, marriage was regarded as procreative and child-oriented. Marriage was understood as a stable environment for the raising of children in a secure relationship with a mother and a father. But the prevalence of contraception and abortion – and right and proper efforts to uphold the children of single parents – have reduced children to a kind of after-market marital option. Child-rearing is no longer regarded as basic to marriage. (This comment should not be taken to reflect badly upon the involuntarily childless. In Christian thought, the absence of children in a marriage does not imply a ‘lesser’ marriage. Christian thinkers have consistently opposed claims for divorce, often levelled by a man against a woman, based on childlessness.)
• Marriage was regarded as lifelong – an expression of the kind of faithfulness God extended to ancient Israel. In this milieu, divorce was reserved for the most severe cases of breakdown and hardship. A general expectation of lifelong faithfulness often had the effect of motivating struggling couples to resolve conflict, and so to heal and grow their relationship. But a progressive expansion in what is regarded as ‘breakdown’ and ‘hardship’ has eroded marriage’s lifelong claim. We often now regard marriage as lasting only ‘as long as it works’ or ‘as long as we love each other’. In short, lifelong faithfulness is no longer seriously regarded as essential to marriage.
• Marriage has generally been regarded as sexually exclusive. This element of it remains somewhat intact, except when those who propound ‘open’ marriages, or who conduct affairs, often now only receive a snigger. There is no real reason to expect that sexual exclusivity will remain a defining feature of Western marriage.
• Marriage was historically regarded as gender complementary. The logic of this complementarity was partly that men and women actually do ‘complement’ one other in mysterious and difficult to quantify ways; and partly that children do best in the presence of a loving mother and a loving father, who bring to the child an ongoing experience of differently gendered adults. But Western society has recently decided that gender difference is unimportant, as reflected (among other things) in adoption law that permits same-sex parenting. The decision to sideline gender difference in marriage will extend this trend, and strip away the final historical distinctive of marriage.

Each time one of these elements of marriage is removed, Western society crosses a kind of Rubicon. When gender difference is also removed, there is no reason to exclude any imagined candidate for ‘marriage’. In the United States, legalisation of gay marriage has led to calls for polygamy to be legalised, since polygamy can also be based on loving, consensual relationships. In December 2010, it was reported in Swiss and British newspapers that the upper house of the Swiss parliament is considering a law decriminalising incest (sex between consenting family members), saying that the laws are now ‘obsolete’ (since procreation is optional). Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, was reported as saying that there was nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they are related. On this logic, there remains little basis to exclude ‘marriage’ for minors, or between groups of friends, or for any combination where consent can be demonstrated.

The point here is simply to observe the inevitable logic of post-Christian society. Christians should not be too shocked by each of these erosions. In a way, they are to be expected. Christians don’t have any radical new arguments other than to continue to praise this particular and special relationship – that lifelong, opposite sex, faithful, procreative adventure we currently call ‘marriage’.

It follows that we will also continue to ask our neighbours: ‘are you so sure that each element of marriage – lifelong sexually exclusivity, child-oriented procreativity and gender complementarity – is unimportant?’ The environmental movement has helpfully reminded us of how foolish it is to evade our relationship to the natural environment. Likewise, Christians regard these elements of marriage as naturally inherent to our humanity, so that a society only fools itself when it attempts to pretend them away.

Interestingly, a French decision in January 2011 seems to echo some of this thinking. The French Constitutional Council (often considered to act as France’s supreme court) upheld the legislature’s refusal to name same-sex relationships as marriage. It held that France’s parliament has the freedom to retain marriage as currently understood. The case was brought by lesbian partners Corinne Cestino and Sophie Hasslauer, who wanted France to follow other EU states. (The European Court of Human Rights had previously said that countries are free to legislate on the issue; and Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Sweden legislated for marriage between same-sex partners after it was legalised in the Netherlands in 2001.)

The Council ruled that a refusal of same-sex marriage does not violate the French constitution. French lawmakers, it said, had agreed that the “difference in situations between same-sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights”. In June 2006, the European Court ruled that the region’s human rights convention “did not oblige a state to grant a same-sex couple access to marriage” as marriage has “deep-rooted social and cultural connotations”.

In other words, this ruling acknowledges that no one is disadvantaged when a society retains a distinctive name for these lifelong, opposite sex, faithful and procreative relationships. In Western history, Christian insights that each element is important have sprung from the Bible, and have been confirmed in social experience by creating (generally) safe zones for extraordinary relationships of care, particularly for children.

Lifelong, gender complementary, sexually exclusive, procreative and child-oriented marriage may be difficult, but it remains important. We need more laws that are friendly to it as-is, not laws that will further corrode it. In contrast, ‘marriage equality’ simply demands that all who want to be called ‘married’ should be given what they want. But such a move will effectively destroy marriage as a meaningful element of our common life.

Where to from here?

The good news is that whatever our society decides to do, Christians will continue to inhabit lives either of celibate singleness, or of that lifelong, gender complementary, sexually exclusive, procreative and child-oriented thing we now call ‘marriage’. Given enough decades, others will want it back. But if other relationships are denoted as ‘marriage’, there will be some social friction along the way.

In response to the Parliamentary motion above, the best course of action is to continue to respectfully engage with our political representatives by:

• calmly and thoughtfully responding to the 18 November motion (in a way which does not accuse the Federal government of planning to legislate for same-sex marriage);
• expressing opposition to same-sex marriage being legalised in Australia; and
• explaining why marriage, as currently understood, needs to be upheld and protected in Australia.

Also, the Australian Christian Lobby has launched a campaign called man+wife4life!, calling on politicians to respect and defend the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act. You may like to sign their petition in support of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman (www.makeastand.org.au/campaign/index.php?campaign_id=39).

We have also listed some recommended reading relating to marriage in general, rather than specifically about same-sex marriage. It will help you engage by promoting and praising the positive framework for marriage, rather than simply by opposing the proposals we disagree with.

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

Sources and Further Reading

Social Issues Executive briefings and booklet:

#011: ‘The dreams and realities of marriage’, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/the_dreams_and_realities_of_marriage

#012: ‘What makes a marriage’, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/what_makes_a_marriage

#070: ‘The Queen and the humanity of marriage’,
http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/the_queen_and_the_humanity_of_marriage

#072: ‘The churches and sexual wholeness together’, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/the_churches_and_sexual_wholeness_together

#075: ‘Living together: conservative Christians and same sex relationships’,
http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/living_together_conservative_christians_and_same_sex_relationships

#076: ‘Beyond homophobia, toward new terms of debate’, SIE briefing,
http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/beyond_homophobia_toward_new_terms_of_debate

Family: A Christian Approach, http://www.sie.org.au/pdf/reports/SIE_Family-a_Christian_approach.pdf.

Ash, Christopher, Marriage: Sex in the service of God. Leicester, IVP, 2003.

Hall, Allan, ‘Switzerland considers repealing incest laws’, Telegraph 17 December 2010,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

Hughes, Selwyn, Marriage as God intended. Kingsway Publications Ltd, 1984.

Kostenberger, Andreas J, God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Crossway, 2004.

Osborne, Paul, ‘Bitar to stay on as ALP national secretary’, ninemsn 19 November 2010. Online: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8144236/bitar-to-stay-on-as-alp-national-secretary.

Roberts, Christopher Chenault. Creation and covenant: the significance of sexual difference in the moral theology of marriage. New York: T&T Clark International, 2007.

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, author(s), 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 social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues Briefing #089, 3/02/2011

Christians always have an edgy time of it in discussions of media that includes explicit sex, violence and abuse, or when we hear ads on the radio for a sex exhibition while driving the kids to school, or watch a movie depicting realistic violence that we weren’t expecting. On the one hand, we’ve become convinced that as superficially attractive as these things are, they corrode us at a deeper level. It seems obvious to Christians that we become easily addicted and shaped by whatever we fill our eyes and heads with. The apostle Peter once spoke of people becoming ‘slaves’ to whatever masters them (2 Peter 2:19), and that when Christians separate themselves from these inputs, others ‘are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery,’ (1 Pet. 4:4). This kind of conflict seems to keep repeating itself in every society Christians participate in.

But on the other hand, censorship and classification schemes will always be fraught with difficulty. We know that to curtail free expression in a free society could very easily be co-opted to shut down expressions of the gospel. So we find ourselves in a society that prides itself on being liberal, progressive and democratic, yet that is riddled with tensions and contradictions in this area. An extreme case is represented by the many who want the freedom and latitude, as adults, to view and listen to whatever they choose, even if it might be seen as offensive by others. Yet Australian society does draw the line at images of child pornography, or of extreme violence. So a broad consensus about our current system of classification has arisen, in order to protect our children from harm and to provide everyone with the ability to make informed decisions about what they watch.

Classification schemes can be difficult to understand and hard to find. Yet they are important because they have such a significant impact on the issues we have raised above. They affect the content that we and our children see on TV, at the movies, and use on the internet and our mobile phones. They are necessary in order to help us make informed decisions about what shows and movies to watch by giving us information about the levels of violence, sex and nudity that will be seen.

Details of the Senate inquiry into the classification scheme

Why are we talking about these things?

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is having an inquiry into the Australian film and literature classification scheme, and anyone can make a submission. You can find out more about the inquiry (at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/classification_board/index.htm), and a copy of the Terms of Reference is attached at the end of this email. This inquiry provides us with a great opportunity to speak into this debate, and remind those who are making decisions about the importance of a comprehensive and robust scheme to provide protection for our children (and ourselves) from viewing offensive content.

The Terms of Reference are, frankly, a bit daunting. But we don’t want you to be fazed. At very least, we suggest that you respectfully share with the Senators any experiences where you think the classification system has failed you, exposing your or your children to something that you did not want to see (or – less likely! – preventing access to something you think important). If you are clever, you can link this to one of the points of the terms of reference (below). If you are not, just say that you are addressing ‘any other matter’ (point ‘o’) – or that you find it all a bit complex but that you still want to say something. For it is important that our Senators have people’s real experiences to work with, and these often have some clout. It is then up to them to determine how laws and bureaucracies need to be adapted to address them.

If you do want to go into it in more detail, you don’t have to address every point. You can even just discuss one of the points raised that you have a particular concern about. Here are some of the Terms of Reference that may be of particular interest (and that you could address with a personal story of your experience):

(g)         the classification of films, including explicit sex or scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity as R18+;

(i)           the application of the National Classification Scheme to music videos;

(k)          the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in preventing the sexualisation of children and the objectification of women in all media, including advertising;

(m)        the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in dealing with new technologies and new media, including mobile phone applications, which have the capacity to deliver content to children, young people and adults;

(o)         any other matter, with the exception of the introduction of a R18+ classification for computer games which has been the subject of a current consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department.

You will note that many of the Terms of Reference refer to the National Classification Scheme. Information about this Scheme is available at:

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Classificationpolicy_NationalClassificationScheme.

Even though the wording of the inquiry is very technical, a submission could be as simple as a brief paragraph explaining about an experience you have had with our classification system, such as:

-          Describing a time where the given classification was inappropriate (for example, a movie rated PG that was not appropriate for your child to watch with you);

-          Describing a situation where you were uncomfortable with the content that could be viewed in a particular context (for example, an inappropriate ad on the radio at a time school-aged children would be listening, or a billboard on the side of a busy road near a school, or clothing lines sold in stores); or

-          Outlining your concerns over new technologies that are not being adequately covered by the classification scheme (for example, being able to easily access pornographic games and material on mobile phone handsets).

-          Outlining any concerns over how easy or clear it is the challenge or question the content of public media.

Bear in mind that our society has a preoccupation with ‘evidence based policy’. The principle of basing policies on evidence is very important. But in this case, it is notoriously hard to decide what constitutes ‘evidence of harm’. In the absence of any clear evidence of harm, policy tends to drift in the most liberal direction possible. It might be worth challenging this cavalier attitude. Perhaps ‘wisdom’ is as important as clear ‘evidence’: if we have a hunch that some explicit messages are corrosive, they are hunches worth listening to. This kind of approach amplifies the need for you to send the Senators your own experiences.

How to make a submission

The committee has invited written submissions to the inquiry by 4 March 2011. Submissions can be emailed to legcon.sec@aph.gov.au, or sent to:

Committee Secretary

Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee

PO Box 6100

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Australia

All submissions must include the author’s full name, phone number and postal address on a separate covering letter or email. As always, it’s important to be polite, factual and brief.

While writing a submission like this can often be time consuming and feel pointless, submissions from concerned community members hold a lot of weight, and will always be properly considered by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (a committee of the Senate responsible for the inquiry).

-          Andrew Cameron and Rebecca Belzer

for the Social Issues Executive, Anglican Diocese of Sydney

Classification inquiry - Terms of Reference

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is inquiring into the Australian film and literature classification scheme, with particular reference to:

a)       the use of serial classifications for publications;

b)      the desirability of national standards for the display of restricted publications and films;

c)       the enforcement system, including call-in notices, referrals to state and territory law enforcement agencies and follow-up of such referrals;

d)      the interaction between the National Classification Scheme and customs regulations;

e)       the application of the National Classification Scheme to works of art and the role or artistic merit in classification decisions;

f)        the impact of X18+ films, including their role in the sexual abuse of children;

g)       the classification of films, including explicit sex or scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity as R18+;

h)      the possibility of including outdoor advertising, such as billboards, in the National Classification Scheme;

i)        the application of the National Classification Scheme to music videos;

j)        the effectiveness of the ‘ARIA/AMRA Labelling Code of Practice for Recorded Music Product Containing Potentially Offensive Lyrics and/or Themes’;

k)      the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in preventing the sexualisation of children and the objectification of women in all media, including advertising;

l)        the interaction between the National Classification Scheme and the role of the Australian Communications and Media Authority in supervising broadcast standards for television and Internet content;

m)    the effectiveness of the National Classification Scheme in dealing with new technologies and new media, including mobile phone applications, which have the capacity to deliver content to children, young people and adults;

n)      the Government’s reviews of the Refused Classification (RC) category; and

o)      any other matter, with the exception of the introduction of a R18+ classification for computer games which has been the subject of a current consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department.

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, author(s), 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 social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Social Issues briefing #088, 15/12/2010.

Bills attempting to legalise euthanasia have failed to pass in Western Australia and South Australia, and a similar Bill has not yet proceeded in NSW. This is a clear signal that, contrary to the figures quoted by those in favour of euthanasia, many Australians are not comfortable with the notion of doctors assisting their patients to die, regardless of the so called ‘safeguards’.

In Western Australia, the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010 was defeated by 24 votes to 11 on 22 September 2010. A similar bill in South Australia was also defeated.

In NSW, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2010 to legalize voluntary euthanasia in NSW, was not debated in the NSW Legislative Council. There will not be another opportunity to debate the bill prior to the election on 26 March 2011. Ms Cate Faehrmann, who introduced the NSW Bill, conceded on 25 November 2010 that the bill would not be able to be passed by the current parliament, but signalled her intention to bring it again to the next parliament as the opportunity arises.

In the Senate of the Australian Parliament, the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia) Bill 2010 was introduced by Senator Bob Brown. This Bill was seeking to overturn the prohibition on legalizing voluntary euthanasia in the Northern Territory, the ACT and Norfolk Island. This Bill has not yet been properly debated or voted on, although that may occur sometime in the new year.

Many politicians consider this Bill as an issue of territory rights and self-determination, rather than primarily about euthanasia. It is technically correct that this Bill affects the processes of governance in the Territories. In substance though, it is overtly motivated by the desire for euthanasia to become law in the Territories. This outcome is extremely concerning for Christians and others who oppose euthanasia, as it is easily possible to imagine a scenario where euthanasia becomes legal in the ACT.

It is reasonable to assume that if euthanasia became legal in any state or territory in Australia, similar legislation would have to be passed federally or in all other states, in order to avoid ‘death tourism’ – travel by euthanasia candidates to the places where it is legal.

Some thoughts on our attempts to engage with euthanasia

When Ms Faehrmann conceded that the NSW bill would not be debated, she referred to the ‘rigid ideology’ of those who oppose euthanasia:

‘It seems to me that rigid ideology drives the position of some in this debate, rather than a willingness to consider, debate and talk through public policy outcomes… We should not be scared of making our own laws [on euthanasia] even if other jurisdictions have chosen to do it slightly differently. But it is that idea that goes to the heart of the anti-voluntary euthanasia campaign. It is based on a philosophy that the views of one group in society should be imposed on all’ (emphasis ours).

The argument that conservatives seek to ‘impose their views on others’ is frequently raised when controversial changes are proposed and debated. Of course, all legal changes ‘impose’ something on someone.

But Ms Faehrmann’s frustration is understandable. She thinks it straightforward that people should be given what they want, when they want it. On this issue, she is an individualist. Supporting everyone’s right to choose sounds attractive, and proponents of euthanasia cannot understand why we resist such choice in this area.

However as a representative of the Greens party, she would willingly impose her values on others if they were logging, killing whales, or dumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – and often quite rightly so. In these cases, she would have a deep regard for our common life together. A lot of what we do cannot be reduced to individual wants and choices. Those who oppose euthanasia think that the way we treat each other at the end of life is precisely such an area.

Christian opposition to euthanasia arises from a desire to find the best way to care for those around us. In the Bible, Jesus models an attitude of concern for our neighbour, over and above concern for ourselves. Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with choosing what we each like. But society also needs networks of relationships and love. The care (and funding for care) that we give to each other at the end of life is such a delicate network of care. To propel individual choice to the centre of this care will corrode and eventually destroy it.

If voluntary euthanasia caused even one person to feel isolated, pressured and ultimately coerced into giving up their life, we have begun to stop caring. So, we continue to gently and lovingly explain that rather than a society where individuals stand on their ‘rights’, we want a society that cares for each other.

Where to from here?

It can be disconcerting to take a stand on a political issue, by writing a letter to a politician or signing a petition against euthanasia, then to be left wondering about what happened. Hopefully, you can see that if you took some action, your efforts were not in vain.

We want to thank those who gave some time to this political debate. In NSW, petitions against euthanasia were tabled in the NSW Legislative Council on 10 out of 15 possible sitting days in October, November and December. We should not underestimate the significance of petitions, letters and visits to political representatives. These probably did have some effect on the outcomes in WA, SA and NSW. The Federal outcome is yet to be determined.

It is likely that this issue will arise again in 2011, both at Commonwealth and State levels. It is important not to be disheartened by these ongoing attempts to legalize the killing of the sick. We want to show an alternative way. We don’t have to abandon others in their sometimes desperate final days. There are better ways to help them.

-          Rebecca Belzer

(for the Social Issues Executive,

Anglican Diocese of Sydney)

Sources/further reading

Andrew Cameron, ‘Euthanazing fear: why it won’t work’, Social Issues briefing #087, 14/12/2010, http://www.sie.org.au/briefings/euthanizing_fear_why_it_wont_work/

Cate Faehrmann, ‘Euthanasia’, Adjournment Speech to NSW Legislative Council, 25 Nov 2010, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20101125058

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, author(s), 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 social.issues@moore.edu.au.

Euthanasia is not a treatment for despair and loneliness. Provision of holistic care by a skilled interdisciplinary team of health professionals enables patients and families to acknowledge and attend to distress within themselves and their relationships. The time before death offers unique opportunities for psycho-spiritual growth and allows for healing even without a cure. … Voluntary euthanasia … would not have assisted us in our care for our patients.

– Thirteen West Australian palliative care specialists

As proposals for voluntary euthanasia gain momentum, a miasma of fear surrounds them – fear of pain; fear of decline; fear of dependence; fear of abandonment; fear of death. Our community is in slavery to this fear of death, yet seems to believe that we can bypass, short-circuit and cheat these fears by taking a pill. Many Christians are deeply saddened that so many do not know the One who came to ‘destroy the one holding the power of death’ and to ‘free those who were held in slavery all their lives by the fear of death.’ (Heb. 2:14–15 … words not just about meeting God, but written and heard by those who knew the suffering, pain and decline of death much more intimately than do we.)

Such fear is also tragically ignorant of current end-of-life care practices in modern Australia.

First: many think laws for voluntary euthanasia are for burdensome treatments to be stopped, or for life-support to be switched off, when people are about to die. But these are already best-practice: good end of life care does not keep people lingering on endlessly. The N.S.W. Department of Health, for example, has published excellent end-of-life guidelines: no life is unnecessarily prolonged, no one is subjected to burdensome or futile treatments, and people are allowed to die with great dignity.

As journalist Paul Kelly puts it, ‘most people think that turning off life-support machines and discontinuing life-preserving treatment is euthanasia. In fact, this is nothing to do with euthanasia. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of euthanasia. If a family turns off a life-support machine, the patient dies because of their illness, not because of the doctor. But if the doctor gives a lethal injection, then the patient is killed. This is a fine yet critical distinction.’ (The pro-euthanasia lobby offers clever philosophical arguments to erase this distinction. They trade on the grey-zone between death and life. But these arguments are sophistry: we do something different when we end a life, as compared to waiting on an unpreventable death.)

Second: thousands of people around the country are working long and hard, right now, to make people comfortable and to help them die well. We call this ‘palliative care’. But in a society so shielded from death, most of us know nothing about it. In the recent Western Australian debate, thirteen palliative care specialists wrote ‘We share many of the goals of those who support euthanasia,’ they wrote, meaning that they agree when patients want to cease pointless treatments, or want to die well at home. These specialists can then control symptoms sometimes by use of ‘deep sedation’ that ‘is both ethical and legal.’

They also observe that contrary to popular opinion, people request death mainly due to despair and loneliness, not pain. ‘Euthanasia is not a treatment for despair and loneliness.’ They write beautifully of what they do instead. ‘Provision of holistic care by a skilled interdisciplinary team of health professionals enables patients and families to acknowledge and attend to distress within themselves and their relationships. The time before death offers unique opportunities for psycho-spiritual growth and allows for healing even without a cure.’ They conclude that a law enabling voluntary euthanasia ‘would not have assisted us in care for our patients.’ These people are experts on dying. Their judgment deserves our trust.

But a euthanizing culture will eventually sweep away infrastructures like this. The option to euthanize will corrode political will to continue funding end-of-life care, let alone to increase it (as is needed). It will erode funding for research and provision of pain management, mental health initiatives and good aged care. The willingness to euthanize will eventually make it become ‘irresponsible’ for anyone to want any kind of taxpayer-funded care. We will not see these effects next year, or in ten years. But if voluntary euthanasia is legalized, those of us dying in forty years will die in a very different environment than our parents and grandparents did. Australia really will become a fearful place to die.

To address these concerns, the Social Issues Executive has put a motion before the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, which is currently in session. It may be amended after discussion, but now reads as follows:

This Synod, in response to the Greens’ notice of motion to introduce into the NSW Parliament a Bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia and the Greens’ Bill in Federal Parliament to overturn Commonwealth prohibitions against euthanasia legislation in the Territories –
1.     notes that when adequate palliative care, symptom control and psychosocial support is available and accessible, only a tiny minority of those accessing such support express a preference for euthanasia;
2.     observes that the outcome of legalised voluntary euthanasia will include the insertion of mistrust into patient-carer and patient-relative relationships, a creeping expansion of candidates for euthanasia, and reduced funding for terminal care;
3.     notes that recent reports of community support for euthanasia fail adequately to distinguish the deliberate killing of people from the morally acceptable practice of not prolonging life with burdensome treatment; and
4.     notes that most supporters for euthanasia are young and healthy, but that euthanasia legislation is not well supported among people with disability and by people who are old, infirm or vulnerable.

Accordingly, this Synod –
(a) reaffirms that all human life is precious in God’s sight, and that the Bible’s clear prohibition of killing innocent humans has the positive effect of creating communities that love and care for others at their weakest and move vulnerable;
(b) reiterates its opposition to voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide;
(c)  calls upon the Premier and the Prime Minister to oppose these initiatives;
(d) calls on the NSW State and Federal parliamentarians to request referral of these bills to parliamentary committees, and to inform themselves of the alternatives to euthanasia and of its negative consequences in jurisdictions that have adopted it; and
(e) calls on these governments to increase funding to pain management and palliative care services.

For those around Sydney, the SIE is also organising the following meeting at Moore College. The panel of presenters will be Dr Megan Best, Andrew Ford, Michael Jensen and Karin Sowada, chaired by Andrew Cameron. We will advocate a definite position against proposals for voluntary euthanasia, but there will be time for questions, clarification and some discussion.

Voluntary euthanasia: why it sounds good but goes bad.

7.45 for 8.00pm to 9.30pm, Tuesday 26th October 2010
Knox Lecture Theatre, Moore Theological College
15 King Street, Newtown

Parking is limited; please consider car-pooling;
or use one of these buses (all require pre-paid tickets) –
MetroBus 30 from George St, City South; or any 422 – 428 bus
from Circular Quay Stand A, Castlereagh St City, or Central Stand A.

Alight at Darlington (the stop after the Sydney Uni overbridge and Wentworth Building). As soon as bus leaves Sydney Uni Wentworth Building, press button to stop at next stop (outside Darlington Conference Centre). Walk to traffic lights (Sydney Uni Regiment) and cross; turn left; proceed past another bus shelter and the red brick Moore College building on your right. Entry to 15 King St is further along King St, just beyond a short row of terrace houses, on your right.

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

Sources/further reading

Thirteen palliative care specialists, ‘Why we will not kill our patients,’ The West Australian, 25/10/2010, p. 46.

Margaret O'Connor (President of Palliative Care Australia), ‘Care allows a dignified death,’ The Australian, 12/10/2010, p. 12.
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/care-allows-a-dignified-death/story-e6frg6zo-1225937348840

Andrew Cameron, ‘Euthanasia question needs wider discussion,’ SMH, 8/10/2010. www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/euthanasia-question-needs-wider-discussion-20101007-169kx.html

Angela Shanahan, ‘Right-to-die polls no basis for radical change,’ The Australian, 2/10/2010.
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/right-to-die-polls-no-basis-for-radical-change/story-e6frg6zo-1225932745264

Niki Savva, ‘Fight for life to the last breath,’ The Australian, 5/10/2010.
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fight-for-life-to-the-last-breath/story-e6frg6zo-1225934039989

Michael Jensen, ‘Who is euthanasia really for? A letter from a loving son.’ ThePunch.com 27/9/2010. www.thepunch.com.au/articles/who-is-euthanasia-really-for-a-letter-from-a-loving-son

Paul Kelly, ‘Brown's euthanasia bill a perilous test for Gillard,’ The Australian 29/9/2010.
www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/browns-euthanasia-bill-a-perilous-test-for-gillard/story-e6frgd0x-1225931193178

Andrew Cameron et. al., ‘Euthanasia and the abandonment of life,’ Social Issues briefing #057, 02/02/2007. www.sie.org.au/briefings/euthanasia_and_the_abandonment_of_life

'We are not convinced that backing down is the right thing … Islam is of the Devil.'
- Pastor Terry Jones as at Sept. 8^th; quoted by Reuters

'For although I am free from all people, I have made myself a slave to all, in order to win more people. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews … To the weak I became weak, in order to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some.'
- The apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 9:19–22, HCSB

'We have agreed to cancel our event on Saturday. Americans don’t want the mosque there and of course Muslims don’t want us to burn Korans.'
- Pastor Terry Jones as at Sept. 10^th; quoted by SMH

This briefing began life as a statement against Pastor Terry Jones' planned September 11 Koran-burning. He has now decided not to go ahead. Some elements of his reasoning are questionable, but his public re-evaluation deserves commendation. Despite Jones’ change of mind, the episode remains an interesting test-case in the ‘freedom’ of free speech, and in how Christians believe freedom should be used.

It would be hard to find anyone more convinced about Christianity than the apostle Paul. It would also be hard to find anyone more trenchant about the origins of other religious practices. For Paul, one ancient religious practice – the offering of food to an idol – is not quaintly misled. While denying that these idols have any real power, he insists that there is more going on than meets the eye: ‘what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God’ (1 Cor. 10:20, hcsb).

Indeed Paul is probably the source of Pastor Terry Jones’ view that ‘Islam is of the Devil’. For Paul, the best thing that has happened to the planet is the appearance of Jesus Christ. The permissions people give each other to ignore Jesus are frankly inexplicable. It must be, reasons Paul, that ‘the god of this age’ (the devil) ‘has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God’ (2 Cor. 4:4, NIV). Here Paul simply extends Jesus’ own teaching that a ‘father of lies’ is at work (John 8:44).

President Obama, Ban Ki-moon, General David Petraeus, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Indonesian Preseident Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and thousands of others have come down on this little Gainesville church. It is a group of people who disagree with the presuppositions of the arguments against them; who believe that Islam is mistaken and wrong; and who sought to protest Abdul Rauf’s proposed ‘Ground Zero’ mosque. The burning was to proceed as a constitutionally protected act of ‘free speech’.

Would Paul have attended? Once he would have. He was willing to become the impromptu cloak-room for the mob who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58). At that time in his life, Paul thought Stephen every bit as wrong as Pastor Jones now finds Mohammed. And as we have seen, even after Paul was found by Jesus, he remained convinced that there is truth, there are lies, and that religions are not benign expressions of cultural diversity.

So: had Pastor Jones gone ahead, would Paul have attended? Without a shadow of doubt – no. If he may have done before meeting Jesus, he radically changes afterwards. The planned book-burning emerged from a miasma of angry revenge around the World Trade Centre attacks, and from the recent proposal to build a mosque nearby. It is hard not to be reminded of Paul’s post-Jesus kind of response. It is strikingly different:

'Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord.’ On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' – Rom. 12:18–21, NIV; quoting Deut. 32:35 and Prov. 25:21–22.

In a long and nuanced argument about the food and the idols (1 Cor. 8–10), Paul never affirms the idols nor the food practices surrounding them. Yet his conclusion is clear. ‘Give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved’ (1 Cor. 10:32–33, HCSB).

In these and related arguments (e.g. Gal. 5, Rom. 14), Paul was the most extraordinary exponent of freedom. The U.S. First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech can indirectly be traced back to these very arguments. Those who think Islam is wrong have the freedom to say so, and should not resile from saying so. It is problematic that a degree of fear now prevents people from saying so. The liberal establishment that espouses liberality should not stifle careful dispute about religion, for the society that disputes carefully and well will be more tolerant than the one that does not.

But it does not follow that Christians should press free speech to its limit. ‘Muslims believe the Koran is the divine word of God, in letter and meaning,’ says Abdel-Moeti Bayoumi, a scholar at Al-Azhar University, Cairo. ‘If a human burns the revealed word of God, this would be considered the gravest crime for all Muslims.’ Journalist Mike Bernos reports that even Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who sparked Muslim outrage in 2006 with a drawing of the Prophet Mohammed, thought plans to burn the Koran went too far.

Paul would have argued intensely against the Muslim view of the word of God. Yet we have very good reason to think he would have opposed this act. Does Koran-burning help ‘win’ Muslims to Christ? No. Does it create a ‘stumbling block’ for them? Yes. Is it profoundly unhelpful to the kind of person that Paul repeatedly calls ‘the weak’? Absolutely. Paul’s approach to those who have not yet been found by Jesus has given the Christian church, at its best, habits and patterns of action and feeling called ‘gentleness’ and ‘love’. Paul demolishes arguments that oppose Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), but always seeks to ‘build up’ people. Christians and their pastors may, on occasion, have good reason to resist even a President. But we have no warrant to resist the clear teaching and practice of our Apostle.

The imam who is behind the planned Muslim centre at ‘Ground Zero’, Mr Abdul Rauf, now regrets proposing the plan. Yet he believes he cannot withdraw it, because of ‘headlines in the Muslim world … that Islam is under attack. And I’m less concerned about the radicals in America than I am about the radicals in the Muslim world.’ It seems, then, that many Muslims will not back down from giving offence, yet cannot take offence. Perhaps that is precisely because they have not heard and learnt of Jesus’ way. Even so, it does not follow that Christians respond in kind: like Jesus, we are not shaped and formed by the ways of those who oppose us.

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

Sources/Further Reading

‘Muslims: Koran Burning Threatens God's Word,’ Time.com, Sept. 08, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/Bayoumi.

Barbara Liston, ‘Florida pastor not backing down on Koran-burning,’ Reuters.com, Sept. 08, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/liston01.

Mike Bernos, ‘Koran burning will boost Al-Qaeda: Obama,’ AFP Sept. 08, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/bernos02.

Simon Mann, ‘Pastor cancels 9/11 Koran-burning plan,’ SMH Sept. 8, 2010.
Online: http://tinyurl.com/mann001.

www.sie.org.au (this site): see 'More on these topics', top-right of this page.

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.