The right of religions to discriminate

Labor's new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which is currently in front of a Senate inquiry, is causing a stir within some circles. I say a few, because it's not really front page stuff. Religions have discriminated against particular groups for centuries, and even the most progressive churches still discriminate. (You can't be an Anglican bishop without first being Anglican!). Though what has become an issue, is whether the government is justified in securing the right of religious organisations to discriminate when it comes to services they provide, like hospitals and schools.

It is well known that most religions organisations don't recognise, respect or tollerate certain practices; from homosexuality to unmarried couples. Often these groups that are marginalised become (or already are) secular or atheist because of this. Though there are some who wish to identify with a particular religion, despite not being fully accepted by their chosen religious organisation. There are many reasons as to why this occurs, yet the main rational is because they personally get a tangible benefit from identifying with that faith. Be it a good feeling that they will have an eternal life, or the comfort of being accepted within a particular community. Religion brings a benefit to people who subscribe to it.

But that benefit is severely diminished when the value that is placed upon particular practices and beleifs, is erroded by the state or others. The Australian constitution protects freedom of religion. That allows individuals to freely associate with religions of their choice and not be discriminated against because of that, but it also allows religious organisations to operate independently from the rules of a secular state. Most often this is held to mean they don't pay tax. But it is much more. Religious organisations don't have to subscribe to a particular organisational structure like a public company does. Nor are they required to change their belief from creationism to evolution because the state doesn't believe in it. This freedom enables religious organisations to run themselves in the way they and their members see fit, not the public or secular government. Just because the state believes discrimination is abhorrent, does not mean it can impose that value on a religion.

People of similar faith congregate around each other for a 'shared' experience. They get meaning and benefit from existing in such a close and similar community. Religions that discriminate, actively choose to do so because that is (typically) what the majority of the congregation want. If the majority of members of the Catholic church accepted the notion of abortion, they would not excommunicate members who receive one. While not completely approving of it, most of the Catholic church has stopped excommunicating members who get divorced. (It was a bad retention strategy.) Some Anglican churches have 'gay only' services that particularly target gay Christians. Why? Because that is what the Church as a whole wants. Religion morphs over time and some faiths modernise, others don't. What's most important is that the ones that don't still bring value to the people who believe in such orthodox faiths. The 'purity' of their religion comes not from just being able to exclude those who are divorced, gay, or had an abortion, but those from other faiths, those who don't truly follow their practices. And this is why for religion, discrimination is is a tool that enables practice.

As a free citizen, you have no right to access a religion. You may choose your faith, but you have no right to demand access to your faiths organisation. As a Christian, you can't walk into a Synagog and demand a Rabbi give you a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. They wouldn't allow it on religious grounds. It would be against teachings, current orthodoxy or because its members find it disrespectful and 'immoral'. It doesn't matter if this was something of your choosing or not, because the rest of the church's religious practice is harmed. If you disagree with their religious view, change the church you attend, change that organisation and it's members viewpoint, or start your own religion (hello Church of England). It is completely within the rights of a religious organisation to discriminate against certain people, so they can actually provide the religious benefits that its members want. The government shouldn't shy away from defending this right to discriminate. Otherwise churches, religious ceremonies and certain practices just become "acts for hire" by members of the public who want to gawk at people in funny costumes.

When it comes to a religion discriminating against an individual for a "public services" they want, it becomes a trickier issue. A religious organisation which receives public funds to run a service, such as a school or hospital, should not be able to discriminate on who they hire or who they let in the front door. Government funds come from an assumed secular source, the taxpayer. The funds are not there to help provide better services to one religion, but to any citizen who may wish to access those services. Funds that are raised privately by churches are for the sole purpose of assisting those they wish to assist, mainly those who are interested in their faith. It is perfectly acceptable for a privately run religious school to deny homosexual teachers from working there, as it is to bar non religious students from going to that school.

It sounds horrible if you are in that minority. And most people are, as you can't be part of every faith. Yet those with such strong strong beliefs who want to bar and discriminate so as to guard their faith and its practices, need to be protected. For some this is done by not having a gay priest. For others it's not having a sinner in the pews. Those who wish to access a special religious social service, like a Catholic hospital or Islamic school, do it for a religious reason. They want their child to be taught a certain way, they want a particular kind of care, or only want to be surrounded by certain people. If that's their wish, they or their church can pay and provide for that particular religious service. They pay for a service that comes with a complimentary sermon. As for everyone else who is considered a minority, there are many local secular government services provided, from hospitals to community housing. So let those with a strong faith live and receive their services as they wish.


Links: 
Gillard's bizarre act of faith leaves vulnerable unprotected - National Times
Anti-gay rights to stay - Sydney Morning Herald
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012: Explanatory Notes - Attorney Generals Department

US debt ceiling woes

"I told you so" 

The US has always had a morbid fascination with its debt. Clocks had been set up around the country decades ago, showing the slow but steady increase in US public debt. With the 11th hour nigh before the US debt ceiling is reached on August 2nd, there is a strange, discomforting irony in going back and looking at the clocks that were originally passed off as a scaremongering tactic for conservative candidates. Though with Congress still not having come to a decision as to whether to raise the debt ceiling (and if so by how much), there is the ever growing possibility that the US may default.  And even if it doesn't, the US may still dip back into recession because of bad economic policies were rushed through at the last minute to avoid default.

The very idea of a debt ceiling for government makes perfect sense. It's a cap (the ceiling bit) on the amount of money the government can borrow. This in theory reduces the ability of a government to act irresponsibly and charge up the national credit card on irrelevant, pricey policies. Though in this circumstance, the US debt ceiling is acting as anything but a protection measure for the US government and economy. It has become a mere obstruction to the ability for the US government to make both timely policy, but also not to default and loose its AAA credit rating.

To take the view of the "Tea Party", Barack Obama - being as fiscally and politically irresponsible as he is -  is trying to ruin the US economy. In this situation, the debt ceiling wouldn't stop an economic disaster. As soon as the government over borrowed, either the government would have cease from acting on anything that cost or the US would loose its AAA credit rating and economic strife would ensure. The President could also ignore the ceiling and open up the possibility for impeachment, thus economically and politically disabling the economy. In no way does the US debt ceiling manage to avoid or mitigate bad political and economic decisions in relation to debt. It acts more as a guideline, a point of reference to which governments would not like to reach because of what it symbolises; bad economic management.

Though for Barack Obama, who is trying to stimulate the struggling US economy and also push through major yet costly healthcare reform, the debt ceiling acts only as a blockade to action. It prohibits the President from using his executive power to make decisive action where Congress dithers and dawdles.  Though the closer the US gets to hitting the $USD14.3 trillion ceiling, the more pressure is placed on him to take decisive action.

On the current course, if no action is taken, the US will break through the ceiling on August 2nd, requiring Congress to limit government expenditure, resulting in the US defaulting on some of its loans. The impact of this would not only likely plunge the US back into recession, but it would trigger a wave of instability over financial markets around the world. With the already unstable Eurozone, a US default would only worsen their situation. The other option is that the President ignores the ceiling (and continues spending) or priorities some payments so as to avoid default. Though this would cause a political/constitutional crisis with the President using his powers in the manner, creating even more uncertainty and instability. Hence the only real option that remains is negotiation and deal making with the Republicans. As the Republicans hold the majority in the  House of Representatives, and could realistically pass their own policy of heavy spending cuts through with a filibuster, politics in Congresses is getting very terse, tense and nasty.

It's 11th hour of Capital Hill with the 2nd August fast approaching. It is unknown whether it will be the Democrats or Republicans who become victims of circumstance by agreeing to a last minute deal in Congress. The one unknown variable in this political equation is the markets knowledge that the US economy is at its most fragile state since the 2008 GFC (Global Financial Crisis). This may be the hour for bold decision making and strong leadership; or a drawn out filibuster, political backstabbing and a solution that no one is really confident in.

Links

US House and Senate divided over debt ceiling issue - BBC news 

Q&A: Why has the US not agreed a new debt ceiling? - BBC news 

Talks resume as Senate kills off debt bill - ABC news 

2010 Federal Election: it finally begins

I considered writing about the 2010 Federal Election once it was called, but in all honesty, I couldn't be bothered. Parties and candidates had careful, pre written scripts and sound-bites, and everyone was playing it safe. Policies were thrown out like tidbits, with only a few in marginal electorates willing to swallow them up. But it's now only a week until the polls, and the heat is on. This is the week that makes or breaks a party, shapes the publics opinion about what type of leader each party has. Enter the real Julia, enter the 'underdog' Abbott, enter all minor parties (sorry, that includes you Bob Brown) who are vying desperately for attention and votes. I can't give a summary of the whole campaign thus far in a single post, but what I hope to give is a snapshot of what's occurring, and insight into each leader, campaign and their policies.

The leaders

1. Julia Gillard - highly competent and good with sound-bites. The 'real Julia' isn't scripted, but neither is she a loose cannon. Like Barack Obama, she isn't playing up her stark opposition to all the other candidates (gender in this case, instead of race), however her method of gaining power has ultimately undermined some of her credibility. 
2. Tony Abbott - a robust politician who's been around long enough to know how the political game works. Has run a highly successful ad campaign with tweet length policy statements. A defeat at the election will assuredly result in his removal from leader, though if he became PM, the marginal supporter base that got him to the position of opposition leader would swell. 
3. Bob Brown - asks tough questions and attempts to bring back issues that both major parties often (conveniently) forget. Because of his age, engaging with the younger demographic of Greens voters is an issue, as across TV he comes across as very stoic. Though he's very enlivened on radio. 

The campaigns

If you don't live in a marginal seat, especially west Sydney or southern Queensland, it's understandable if you don't know an election is occurring. The obviously disproportionate amount of time each party is concentrating and pork-barreling marginal seats is disgraceful, but I guess this is modern democracy at work.

• Labor - currently running a huge fear campaign nation wide against Tony Abbott. It's cheap and dirty, but it's eating away at the gains Abbott has made in the first 3 weeks of the campaign. 
• Liberals/Coalition - arguably have run a fear campaign from the start (stop the waste, stop the taxes, stop the boats and pay back the debt). Though unless they can change their rhetoric or find mud to sling back at Gillard apart from the old "Labor can't manage the economy, voters who are moved by fear campaigns will be swayed more by Labor. 
• Nationals - best jingle for their ad. It makes "stand up Australia" sound even more corny that it already is. The best ad of the campaign thus far. 
• Greens - horrible original ad, but Gruen Nation made a better one for them (that otherwise would have been the best). But because it was commissioned by the ABC, it can't be used. 
• Get up! - clearly the winner in this election, for running the best ads, campaigns and promoting issues better than any other party. It says a lot about the power of lobby groups. When it attacks a party/candidate, it really hits hard! 

The policies

Here is a very brief overview of some of the policies that have been flagged and have become issues within this election. As the week progress, new topics (hopefully about Indigenous affairs or something of equal note) should arise, rather than the typical (but almost guaranteed) economy and border protection policies. 

1. The economy - the main question is who's going to pay back the debt, and who's going to have the largest surplus? Despite the fact that any economist with any credibility (including Joseph Stiglitz and the RBA) acknowledges that Australia's government deficit is not a problem, and if no one payed it back, it would have virtually no affect on the economy; this becomes a moot point. But then it's a question of who can you trust to manage the economy? Both parties have shown equal competence (when you take a bipartisan approach) because they've both had very similar policies (which each party has vehemently denied for political reasons), thus it's also a moot point. So when it comes to the economy, both parties are competent, yet they want to stake the whole election on it! 
2. Boarder protection and stopping the boats - since neither party has been able to conclusively stop the boats, and since the boats only make up 4% of all asylum seeker arrivals, this shouldn't be a big issue. But xenophobia and fear make good campaigns, plus it's easier to tweet STOP THE BOATS. The main difference is East Timor or Nauru (Labor/Coalition respectively), but if you want a completely different option, then the Greens are for community processing, which is what we do for the 96% of all asylum seekers who arrive by plane. 
3. The environment - Labor are wanting to build community consensus by having a talkfest (National citizens assembly) and maybe sometime in the future have an emissions trading scheme. The Coalition are going to have a Standing Green Army (will this be able to invade New Zealand?) of volunteers planting trees and scrubbing coal or something equally as ludicrous as Labor's 'group talk with butcher paper' solution. But the Coalition is also wanting to give financial incentives to businesses who reduce their carbon emissions. Though whether it's an ETS or incentive scheme, it's going to cost money. The Greens are still advocating for a hardline ETS, and despite the fact they may hold the balance of power, it's unlikely it'll ever pass. 
4. Hospitals/Schools/Childcare/Mental health - both parties have shown some interest in these areas, and have surprisingly from both sides, committed more funding. The coalition is all about handing over power/money to the hospitals and principles' of schools, where Labor is about national standardisation and control. Considering the fiasco with the pink batts scheme, this may not be a wise move. However giving free reign to whoever is in charge of an institution, as the Coalition would like, opens up the opportunity for local incompetency. 
5. Indigenous Affairs/Gay marriage/Community Housing/Arts and Science etc - either ignored, condemned, or barely mentioned. More debate and policies over these issue may still come, but it's unlikely. The Greens are aiming to bring some of these issues into the overall debate in this last week, although the chances of them ever becoming serious issues at this stage, is highly unlikely. 

How you should vote! 

I could tell you how to vote, but I won't. Everyone has their own views about politics, policies and issues, and that should be respected. Though when you do find a party/candidate you like, don't vote for them because an ad told you so or because you voted for them before. Justify the reasons why you like them (or don't like the rest) and take a minute to find out more about their polices. 

Though as a side note: if you're in a safe 'blue ribbon' seat, for the House of Representatives ballot, I encourage you to put the current candidate last. Don't vote for the safe incumbent!!! The more marginal your seat is, the more likely your electorate will be pork-barreled and receive election attention. And if this election has highlighted anything, marginal seats are the places to be.

So don't forget to vote this Saturday, 21st August (8am-6pm). 

No progress on Indigenous Health

While Kevin Rudd wants Western Australia to sign up to his National Health reform package, Australian citizens who are in most need of healthcare reform are still waiting for change to occur. On February 13 2008, Kevin Rudd promised to bridge the heath and life expectancy gap between Indigenous Australians and Non Indigenous Australians. At a time where a National Health reform package is on the table for discussion, with an aim to improve the health of all Australians', Indigenous health has been practically ignored. It seems the most opportune time to bridge the gap has been sacrificed, for the sake of a government concerned with being re-elected. 

It's not only the Federal Government's fault for ignoring Indigenous health and social issues, but also the fault of the Australian public. Because the general public is not directly effected by the atrocious health and social well-being of Indigenous Australian's, there is little pressure put on governments to act decisively on this matter. The geographical remoteness of these broken communities prevents wide scale media attention, further pushing Indigenous health and affairs into the dark. While these are the main factors preventing Indigenous issues from being front page news, the political and social awkwardness that comes from making policy and dealing with Indigenous affairs, muddies this process. Ultimately it is easier practically and politically, to speak in general terms about "bridging the gap", rather than taking action.

When it comes to assisting these broken communities, an overarching policy must be put in place, combined with individual, town by town specific action. Some communities suffer from high rates of crime because of a lack of jobs, others alcohol abuse, others systemic health problems. The intervention was a necessary first step, but it wasn't and isn't going to solve the entire problem. What is needed is an overarching policy from the Federal government, committing funds to rebuild communities that have been neglected of government services for decades. It's not just throwing money at the problem, it's setting out a plan of action with legislation necessary to enact it.

One of the main reasons Indigenous health is so expensive is because Indigenous Australian's are over-represented in Australian hospitals. The cost of preventing chronic and serious health problems is cheaper than treating it. Thus without local preventative health measures, such as sanitation, local clinics and local GP's, the cost of Indigenous health will always be expensive (and wasteful). It is laughable that the Federal Government is promising 80 new Indigenous health officers, and believes this will make a meaningful contribution to closing the gap. Promising every remote Indigenous community a shower would be more effective, as only 30% s have a working shower. The lack of such basic sanitation has lead to a swine flu outbreak amongst the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, with Indigenous Australian's 12 times more likely to be hospitilised for swine flu. This figure is compounded by the fact that access to the 'free' swine flu vaccine would have almost been almost impossible for communities that don't have a doctor or a healthcare worker. 

While Indigenous Health and "the gap" can't be closed overnight, making no policy, and taking no action is not going fix the problem either. Opportunities for reform are passed up on and the political capital for action just isn't there. Will it really take another "little children are sacred" before the government and parliament open its eyes? While the Australian government has apologised on behalf of all of Australia for the'stolen generation', Kevin Rudd might as well start writing his next sorry speech, on behalf of the 'Ignorant Generation'

Links:
Swine flu hit Indigenous people hardest: study - ABC Online

'Alcohol and indigenous violence linked' - The Age Online

NT says it will sign health deal if more money is offered - The World Today

Govt promises more Indigenous health officers - ABC online