500万人投票反对同性婚姻,“YES”阵营必须遵守诺言 'Yes' campaign must keep its promises after 5 million people voted 'No' in same-sex marriage ballot

和我一样,5百万澳洲人在同婚公投中因为同样的原因选了NO:因为我们担忧随之而来对言论,良知和宗教基本自由的影响 - 这些自由是我们渴望在我们的民主国家里根据人权法被受维护的。
但是公投结果出来后,让我吃惊的是同婚阵营突然转向,完全无视保护这些基本自由的需要。

Five million Australians is the number of people who voted "no" in the postal survey for the same reasons I did – because we are concerned about the impact on basic freedoms of speech, conscience and religion – freedoms that we expect to be upheld in our democratic country in accordance with human rights conventions.

What has surprised me following the postal survey results is the "yes" campaign's sudden turnaround to effectively ignore the need to protect basic freedoms that would otherwise be lost.

参议员Dean Smith的提案(同婚合法化)仅提供了对在选择主持同性婚礼与否的神职人员的保护,却丝毫不提对言论自由,更广泛的宗教信仰,以及不顾家长的意愿,暴露在极端激进的性别伦理之下的青少年儿童的保护。
这根本不是一个深思熟虑的提案,也不能代表百分之90的澳洲人,他们相信言论和宗教自由应该在同婚合法化的同时,受到保护。参议员James Paterson的提案,在另一方面努力在拟补这种情况。自由党宗旨里的基本信条,就是保护言论,良知,宗教自由和家庭。

来源 Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/yes-campaign-must-keep-its-promises-after-5-million-people-voted-no-in-samesex-marriage-ballot-20171114-gzlawd.html

Karina_Okotel.jpg

Senator Dean Smith's bill provides protections only around a wedding ceremony and to religious clerics, but does not encompass protections for speech, religious beliefs more broadly, or to children being exposed to radical gender theory against a parent's wishes.

It is by no means a comprehensive bill and does not reflect the 90 per cent of Australians who believe that free speech and religious freedom should be protected with the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Senator James Paterson's bill, on the other hand, makes the effort to strike that balance. Fundamental tenets of the Liberal Party philosophy are the protection of speech, conscience, religious freedom and the family.

当我们听到在这场辩论中提到保护自由的时候,要么就是证婚的神职人员,要么就是做蛋糕的/卖花的/婚纱摄影,实际情况是在这两个极端之间存在着真实而深刻的影响。

在2014年,英国将同婚合法化,并且将对宗教自由的保护写进法律。在2015年,Felix Ngole(谢菲尔德大学社会学学生)在脸书上发言,说因为个人宗教信仰不支持同婚。他同时引用了几段圣经的经文来支持他的观点。当时Felix正在谢菲尔德大学攻读社会学博士,但是就因为这个声明,他被驱逐出大学,原因竟是基于他公开表达的观点,他不适合去做社会工作。
仅仅在两周前,Felix在高等法院上诉失败,无法完成学业。高等法院在判决书中虽然提到了自由表达观点的重要性,以及虔诚的宗教观点应被民主和多元化的社会尊重,但是却支持将Felix开除,因为他的声明可能会被人觉得被冒犯和歧视。
甚至在两年前刚刚同婚合法的爱尔兰,已经有很多显著的后果。公投后仅仅几个月,公平雇佣法案第37.1条被否决,该条例允许以宗教目的建立的宗教,教育和医学机构,可以根据宗教精神的方式来雇佣员工。任何保护自由的承诺都可能会在将来被政府一步步地放弃。

When we hear talk about the protection of freedoms in the face of a "yes" vote, we often hear either about clergy solemnising marriages, or about bakers and florists and photographers. The reality is that real and profound effects occur somewhere between these two extremes.

In 2014, same-sex marriage was legalised in Britain and protections for religious freedom were written into their laws. In 2015, Felix Ngole posted on Facebook that, according to his religious beliefs, he could not support same-sex marriage. He quoted several Bible passages in the comments under his post to support his view. At the time, Felix was studying a Masters degree in social work at Sheffield University. Because of this post, he was expelled from his university course on the grounds that the public expression of his views made him unfit to practise as a social worker.

Just over two weeks ago, Felix lost his High Court appeal to be allowed to complete his studies. In its judgment, the High Court acknowledged the importance of freedom of expression and that deeply held religious views deserve respect in a democratic and plural society, but nevertheless upheld Felix's expulsion as the posts could be "read by people who would perceive them as judgmental, incompatible with service ethos, or suggestive of discriminatory intent".

And even in Ireland, which legalised same-sex marriage only two years ago, there are already significant consequences. Just months after the Irish referendum, section 37.1 of their Employment Equality Act, which allowed a "religious, educational or medical institution under the direct control of a body established for religious purposes" to hire staff in a way that could "maintain the religious ethos of the institution", was repealed. Any promises in relation to the protection of freedoms are fleeting and can be wound back by a future, so-called "progressive" government.

在公投过程中,所有我碰到过的宣传反对的人都被粗暴骚扰过,包括我自己。有些人的标语牌被抢走,其他的被辱骂,吐口水。对与反对同婚的同性恋者,这种扰害尤其厉害。

同婚阵营承诺过,如果同婚合法,不会对言论,良知,宗教自由,以及父母的权利特别是教育的权利有影响。也承诺过不会改变对商业代孕的禁止,或者性别在语言和法律中的使用。任何同婚合法化的提案,如果没有对这些方面的保护,就代表同婚阵营失信了。

Already, throughout the postal survey campaign, anyone I met who was lobbying for a "no" vote told me that they had encountered serious abuse, just as I have. Some had signs ripped from their hands. Others were yelled at, called names and spat on. This is particularly the case for "no" voters who are same-sex attracted who did not want to be called "self-haters" as well as "homophobic bigoted Nazis".

The "yes" campaign promised that, if same-sex marriage was to be legalised, there would be no consequential impact on free speech, religious freedom, freedom of conscience or parental rights, particularly when it comes to education. It promised no changes to prohibitions on commercial surrogacy or to the way gender is used in our language and laws. A push by "yes" campaigners for same-sex marriage legislation that does not enshrine protections that cover all of these aspects would be nothing short of dishonest.

作者Karina Okotel 是联邦自由党的副总裁

Karina Okotel is the federal Liberal vice-president.