What speech will the religious discrimination bill protect?

Under the religious discrimination bill released by the federal government, a so-called “statement of belief” will be protected speech. Such statements will not constitute discrimination against marginalised groups, as long as it is not deemed malicious, or considered to threaten, intimidate, harass, or vilify a person or group. 

A note to the draft bill explains a “moderately expressed” religious view would not amount to vilification, and there has been some clarification that statements of faith in breach of professional standards will not be protected. Further, you don’t have to be religious to have statements of faith considered protected speech, and any genuine interpretation of religious doctrine or teachings is covered.

This still leaves a lot unknown. Here are six quotes from the Hebrew Bible (text of Judaism and Christianity) and the Quran (text of Islam). Is it OK to say them under the legislation? We asked our legal correspondent Michael Bradley for his views on some key quotes.

Hebrew Bible

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20:13

The part about putting gay men to death is likely to be something that a reasonable person would conclude is encouraging the commission of serious offence (murder), so that takes it outside the protection of statements of belief. However, the rest of it, about being gay being an abomination, probably wouldn’t qualify as vilification, making it okay for an employer, for example, to put it on poster in the office and not be liable for sex discrimination.

In pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.

Exodus 20:17

This is clearly a statement of belief as defined and doesn’t fall within any of the exceptions.  No problem for a psychologist or psychotherapist, being consulted by a female domestic violence victim to let her know that this is their view and that their assistance will be tailored accordingly.

If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall … stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help … and the man because he violated his neighbour’s wife.

Ephesians 5:22-23

On one view, this expression is promoting or encouraging the commission of murder, and therefore isn’t protected as a statement of belief, but it could also be argued that it is so extreme that it shouldn’t be taken literally (bearing in mind that adherents of literal faith often resort to the “Oh it’s just a metaphor” tactic when challenged on questions like this).  If so, it may still be a statement of faith and OK for the local police commander to include it in the daily briefing to the cops.

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 

Matthew 5:32

Absolutely a statement of faith, not caught by any of the exceptions. It will not be discrimination for a school principal to tell all his or her teaching staff who are divorcees that they are adulterers, and include it on their name tags on orientation day.

Quran

And [we had sent] Lot when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people …’

Quran 7:80-81

This is 100% protected; one of the clear consequences of the new law would be to ensure that anyone in any context can proudly declare that LGBTQI attributes are markers of sin, evil, ultimately painful death and an unpleasant afterlife, without committing an act of discrimination. They can say it, shout it, write it, put it on their T-shirts or paint it on the ceiling.

Those who commit adultery, men or women, give each of them a hundred lashes.

Quran 24: 2

It’d be hard to argue that this imperative is only metaphorical — it’s quite explicit. It will most likely be considered to be promoting a crime, or at least inciting violence, and therefore not a protected statement of belief.

So what does it mean?

It’s important to keep in mind that the bill’s design is to give so-called statements of belief legal immunity in the sense that their expression is not an act of discrimination under any other law. It does not, for example, make it lawful for an employer to sack a person for being gay, divorced or pregnant out of wedlock.

It does make it lawful for the employer to let that person, and everyone else, know that they are an abomination in God’s eyes and will be punished for all eternity. As long as it’s a genuine statement of their genuine religious belief.

It works in reverse too: an atheist employer will be able to lawfully let their Christian employees know that he or she thinks their belief in a divine being is ridiculous and possibly an indicator of mental illness. Just provided that their belief is something they genuinely consider to relate to the fact that they don’t believe in God themselves.

Prepare for anarchy, because, if this goes through, that’s where we’ll be.