Yes 阵营的核心骗局——宗教信仰自由 - Deception on freedom of religion key to ssm yes case

 Yes 阵营现在对赢得邮政投票志在必得,他们说“同性婚姻立法完全不会对宗教信仰产生威胁”。在这个重要时刻,我们必须站出来反驳他们,揭露同性婚姻立法所会引发的一系列后果。

       这种错误论点是工党和联盟党的资深政客们提出来的。显然,他们认为回避宗教上的辩论是他们在这次运动中获胜的根本保障。这是非常值得我们警惕的,这意味着“yes”阵营企图依靠向公众灌输错误信息来获胜。

With the Yes case positioned to win the postal plebiscite, it is more important than ever the misleading and false claims of its advocates — that there is no religious issue at stake — be confronted and the ramifications put on the table.

These claims are made by senior Coalition and Labor politicians. Indeed, it seems they think rejection of the religious argument is fundamental to the success of their campaign. This is alarming because it implies the Yes case depends on persuading the public of a false proposition.

原文:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/paul-kelly/deception-on-freedom-of-religion-key-to-ssm-yes-case/news-story/adec3fcd41eda3a05478dee1d7d03e8e

Flag.jpg

图: 在堪培拉的支持同性恋婚姻集会上, 通过彩虹旗可见国会大厦

 

      历年来,政府和议会就同婚立法的情绪化辩论不断,但他们却一直拒绝讨论立法对宗教自由的广泛影响。相反,他们使用一个巧妙的借口:法律的变更只会影响婚礼仪式,而婚姻法已经为神职人员和婚礼庆典人员提供了保护。这是非常狭隘的宗教自由。

      如果同性婚姻合法化,各州的法律和大多数宗教法规就会和社会最基本的制度产生直接冲突。毫无疑问,为了在政治和法律领域取得平衡,同性婚姻常态化和宗教信仰自由必然会不断地发生冲突。

这种冲突的案例在已通过同婚立法的各国举不胜数。诸如“这还不是世界末日” 的愚蠢说法都是为了欺骗人民。

      “Yes”阵营一直以来拒绝讨论的立法对宗教信仰自由的影响现在成为这次邮政投票的焦点,他们被搅乱了并宣称自己是正义的。这是不可避免的。虽然“No”阵营有些人的论点是站不住脚的,但是他们对丧失宗教信仰自由的警告是有根有据的。问题的关键是,yes阵营里那些高智商的政治精英现在却被套住了:他们推销的是连自己都不相信的虚假理论。

The government and parliament, despite years of emotional debate, declined to address the wider religious freedom question. The political class engaged instead in a great pretence: that the only such issue concerned the wedding ceremony and protections in the Marriage Act for clergy and celebrants, an extremely narrow view of religious freedom.

Given legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and laws of most religions will be brought into direct conflict over society’s most essential institution, the one certainty is ongoing legal and political trench warfare over the balance between acceptance of the same-sex marriage norm and the scope for freedom of belief and religion.

There is a litany of examples from the overseas experience. Fatuous remarks that “the world hasn’t come to an end” in countries that have legislated same-sex marriage are just that — and designed to deceive.

Having refused to confront the issue the advocates of the Yes case now get agitated and self-righteous when it has become an issue in the plebiscite. This was inevitable. While some aspects of the No case are obnoxious, its warnings about religious freedoms risks are entirely valid. What matters is that the many highly intelligent political champions of the Yes case are trapped: they are selling a shoddy intellectual bill of goods and many of them know it.

      第一点,澳大利亚对宗教信仰自由保护不足。今年二月,参议院特别委员会的报告证实并记录了这一点。和其他的西方国家不同,澳大利亚没有一项法律规定宗教信仰自由是一项独立的权利。而法律对性取向的保护远远超过对宗教信仰的保护。

      根据公民权利和政治权利国际公约,宗教信仰自由是神圣不可侵犯的权利。现在的危险是议会正在破坏我们对这个国际公约所做的承诺。

      提交参议院委员会的证据显示联邦法律和大多数州的法律对宗教信仰的保护都很薄弱。主要保护条款集中在反歧视法的“豁免”条款里。圣公会悉尼教区向委员会提出:澳洲 婚姻平权议案没有将宗教信仰自由视为基本人权。这点是很明显的。婚姻同盟(Marriage Alliance)指出:“我们相信宗教自由是最基本的人权,而将辩论限制在豁免条款是对这个事实的误读。”

       议会收到不少提案,要求将“宗教信仰神圣不可侵犯”列入联邦反歧视法加以保护,这些提案获得了强有力的支持。这项提案至关重要。委员会一致同意:“加强对宗教信仰自由的保护势在必行。” 人权法律中心表示:“信仰自由应该受到法律保护。实际上,我们记录在案的许多调查结果都显示,联邦反歧视法必须加强对宗教信仰的保护。”

       委员会主席自由党的David Fawcett警告:“如果澳大利亚想要继续保持社会的多元化和包容性,使不同的观点能得到重视和保护”,那么对宗教自由进行立法保护是最基本的。特恩布尔政府和工党对此有何反应呢?

       他们的反应是漠视和轻蔑。原因很明显—政治正确。工党全盘接受LGBTI的论调,拒绝讨论任何关于宗教信仰自由缺乏保护的问题。而对于联盟党而言,这正是他们保守主义核心的薄弱环节。更深层的问题是,政治家们其实知道教会才是真正易受攻击的弱势群体。

      悉尼大学的Patrick Parkinson对这种可悲的形势做了总结:“ 在过去几年内有数不清的婚姻平权议案提交议会,而他们绝大多数的共同点是:对良心自由只提供最低限度的保护。”

The first point is that religious freedom guarantees in this country are inadequate. This was agreed and documented in February’s Senate select committee report. Unlike many Western nations, Australia has no statutory expression of a stand-alone right to religious freedom. There are far greater legal protections in relation to sexual orientation than in relation to religious belief.

This is an anomaly given that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights freedom of religion is an inviolable right. The risk now is our parliament undermining Australia’s commitment to the ICCPR.

Evidence presented to the Senate committee shows that statutory protection of religious belief is weak both in federal law and a number of states. It mainly exists as “exemptions” from anti-discrimination law. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney made the obvious point to the committee that this failed to treat freedom of belief and religion as a fundamental human right. Marriage Alliance said: “We submit that religious freedom is a fundamental human right (and) that framing a debate in terms of exemptions misunderstands this fact.”

There was strong support in submissions for parliament to leg­islate to enshrine religious guarantees as a protected attribute in federal anti-discrimination law. This is the pivotal point. The committee unanimously agreed there was a “need to enhance current protections for religious freedom”. The Human Rights Law Centre said: “Religious freedom should be protected in law. Indeed, we are on record in a number of inquiries supporting the addition of religious belief to protections under federal anti-discrimination law.”

Committee chairman Liberal David Fawcett warned that “if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal” then such action on religious freedom is essential. What was the reaction of the Turnbull government and Labor to the Senate report?

It varied between disregard and contempt. The reason is apparent — politics. Labor has abandoned any interest in addressing the inadequacy of religious protection laws with its embrace of the LGBTI cause. As for the Coalition, the story is the weakness of its conservative caucus. The deeper point is the churches are vulnerable and the politicians know it.

The lamentable situation was summarised by the University of Sydney’s : “There have been numerous bills introduced into parliament to enact same-sex marriage over the last few years and what has been common to most of them has been a minimalist protection for freedom of conscience.”

       第二个要点,同性婚姻合法化之后这场权利之争将会继续进行。在丹麦,路德宗教会的权利已经受到限制。在瑞典,首相说神父不得拒绝为同性婚姻伴侣证婚,如同医务人员不得拒绝施行人工流产手术一样。英国国会下议院议长声称如果不强迫教会遵守法律,“真正的婚姻平权”就不可能实现。澳大利亚绿党正式表示他们要求撤消反歧视法的宗教豁免条款。工党中的左派大部分都持这种观点。

      现在大家都要小心了。除非你是政治盲,否则这些都是不可否认的事实(很多政客故意否认)。同性婚姻合法化后的战役已经打响。虽然大多数人真诚地相信同性婚姻立法是为了“反歧视”,但这根本不是它的目的。它的目的是以意识形态颠覆西方社会、法律和规则的根基。这个进程在婚姻法改变之后会继续飞速发展。

      婚姻平权是一种意识形态,意识形态的本性就是不取得胜利决不罢休。 安全学校倡导者罗旭能(Benjamin Law )在《季刊》 “101项道德恐慌” (Quarterly Essay Moral Panic 101)一文里说的:“很明显,同性婚姻立法绝不是针对恐同者的最后一战。” 争战将会在校园和各种机构里继续进行。罗旭能(Benjamin Law)指出,LGBTI 的两大目标是安全学校和同性婚姻。

 他说安全学校颠覆了我们对性别和性取向的看法,“必然会让人觉得很不舒服”。他还谈到安全学校用性别流动理论推翻传统准则,邀请“人们重新考虑是否根本有必要进行男性或女性身份的认知”,目的是在全国强制推广安全学校课程。

 Yes阵营的政治家们把我们当成傻瓜欺骗,说公投和安全学校课程没有任何关系。在性权利和宗教自由的天平上,同性婚姻合法化将成为打败宗教自由的决定性砝码。法律和文化的改变将全面影响决策者,包括公务员、公司、媒体和教育机构。

      教会仍然是受攻击的首要目标,并且由于对教会的保护十分薄弱,当攻击者得势的时候,教会就处于非常危险的境地。

The second core conclusion is that this battle over rights will continue after same-sex marriage is legislated. In Denmark the Lutheran Church has had its rights restricted. The Swedish PM has said priests should no more be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples than medical professionals should be exempt from abortion procedures. The Speaker of the British House of Commons says “proper equal marriage” won’t happen until the churches are compelled to obey by law. Australian Greens formally say they want the religious exemptions in anti-discrimination law to be wound back. Many in the ALP left have the same view.

We are being put on notice. You would have to be politically blind to deny the reality (an option many politicians have deliberately chosen). The post-same-sex marriage battle is already under way. This is because while many people genuinely see same-sex marriage as an issue of non-discrimination, this was never its essence. It is an ideological cause seeking fundamental changes in Western society, laws and norms. It will continue apace after the law is changed.

Marriage equality is an ideology and ideologies, by nature, do not settle for compromise victories. As Benjamin Law says in Quarterly Essay:  “It might be stating the obvious but same-sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia.” The struggle will continue — in schools and in institutions. Law says the two biggest LGBTI issues are Safe Schools and same-sex marriage. He says Safe Schools is “supposed to discomfort people” by up-ending how we see gender and sexuality. He talks about exploding accepted norms with queer theory, inviting “people to reconsider why anyone should be obliged to identify as female or male at all”. The aim is to introduce Safe Schools across the country and make it compulsory.

The pretence by Yes case politicians that the plebiscite has no consequences for the Safe Schools program treats us like fools. Legislation of same-sex marriage will tilt the scales decisively in this struggle between sexual rights and religious freedom. This legal and cultural change will influence decision-makers everywhere — public servants, corporates, media and educational institutions.The churches will remain a prime target and the fact their protections are weak makes them highly vulnerable once the assault gains momentum.

      Yes 阵营的人自称是为人权而战,但他们忘了这是绝妙的反讽,如果你只维护自己挑出来的人权,就是在破坏人权。正如Parkinson 所说的,一致性原则要求那些声称为人权而战的人必须好好考虑如何平衡各种人权。

      澳大利亚从未对各种人权进行平衡,从来没有过。现在所有的迹象都显示如果同性婚姻立法获得通过,宗教信仰自由将被完全忽视,后果就是剥夺和牺牲对信仰的法律保护。

      这些政客们这样做因为他们以为可以逃避责任。他们有权利随己意判断,但他们没有权利欺骗大众。他们所承诺的宗教保护是毫无价值的,他们的无所作为就是明证。不管对投票结果会产生什么影响,人民必须知道真相。

The Yes case bases its campaign on human rights but misses the exquisite irony that you cannot cherry-pick human rights and keep your integrity. As Parkinson said, consistency of principle means those who justify their campaign on human rights need to give proper consideration to how rights can be balanced.

That hasn’t happened in Australia, not even remotely. Every sign is Australia will legalise same-sex marriage devoid of any serious attention to religious freedom issues and, as a result, religious protections will be exposed and sacrificed.

The politicians are doing this because they think they can get away with it. They are entitled to that judgment. What they are not entitled to is a gross deception. The assurances they give on religious protection are worthless — their inaction proves that. People, regardless of how it affects their vote, need to know the reality.


Paul Kelly, The Australian