Aleph Melbourne is deeply concerned with the announcement that all public submissions to the Ruddock Religious Freedom Review will be kept secret.
The Melbourne organisation stated: “There is a lot at stake for the respect and dignity of LGBTIQ people alongside that of members of religious communities. Any review of freedom of speech requires a full, frank and honest exchange of views.
The notion that submissions to an inquiry should be kept secret flies in the face of the very intention to investigate the freedoms that are under threat.
It would be better for the Turnbull Government to provide full transparency rather than create a tension in our communities. There should be no freedom that is so important that the decision-making process needs to be hidden from view.
The Jewish community is well aware of the risk that discrimination carries. For decades we have been at the forefront of ensuring that people of all backgrounds are free to go about their lives with minimal impact to their personal liberties.
The potential is that the Ruddock Review will see the introduction of new rights giving faith-based organisations greater freedom to discriminate. It may well be that a Christian business that could refuse to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding, because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, could also refuse to serve a Jewish wedding based on the same sincerely held beliefs.”
In Sydney LGBTIQ identity Kim Gotlieb told J-Wire: “I don’t see it as an issue. I think it is more likely that it could be more divisive and unhelpful if the findings were made public. The fact that there is a religious freedom review is in itself problematic to the prayers for more acceptance of diversity in the community at large. I am partly holding my breath, and partly hoping it will go away.”
“I think it is more likely that it could be more divisive and unhelpful if the findings were made public.”
Findings? This is about submissions, which are generally available online, except where anonymity or non-disclosure is explicitly requested.
“There is a lot at stake for the respect and dignity of LGBTIQ people alongside that of members of religious communities. Any review of freedom of speech requires a full, frank and honest exchange of views.
One particular issue I would like to see reviewed is the “Q”for queer associated with terminology LGTIQ.
I find it offensive for those who have loved ones be generally acknowledged as such and could be damaging to children of these relationships.
It certainly has a tongue in cheek undertone for those who voted against it particularly religions who have it mandated in church law.
Lynne, this isn’t a review of the English language.
A valid point in my estimation.
*The Melbourne organisation stated: “There is a lot at stake for the respect and dignity of LGBTIQ people alongside that of members of religious communities.
Show me how you respect these “queers” by using this form of inclusive language.