My recent submission to the Expert Panel on Religious Freedom C/O Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

ETA Monday, April 2: So I've come across two things that address the issue of Religious Liberty from some different sides, not necessarily straight up anti or pro, and I think they're definitely worth sharing.

I subscribe to Counter Arguments and I do encourage people to check it out. The arguments are clear and fairly comprehensive and provide great great ground for further discussions. In this video, he tackles the subject od religious freedom, specifically addressing the Kim Davis case and the arguments around civil disobedience. I think it does a great job of breaking the situation down, particularly helping to distinguish the roles of the different branches of US Government in legalising Gay Marriage and the implications for law enforcement.

An area of difficulty I found was in the idea that those advocating for religious liberty are in any way looking for a free for all pass on any behaviours claiming roots in religious belief and that is very well addressed in this article:

#KimDavis, Slippery Slopes and Religious Freedom

I think what this article does is outline the ability to have a balance that allows all cases and rights be properly examined and then dealt with accordingly which, as per my submission below, is something I strongly agree with.

**************************

Further information regarding the current review is available here:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review

The right to freedom of religion and belief is as fundamental as the right to dissent or criticise any form of belief. Both should be equally and adamantly protected. 

For the state to create an overriding general mandate on morality despite the complexity of core beliefs and the right to express those beliefs ultimately stifles the opportunity for genuine and open discussion which is essential to furthering human understanding in a pluralistic world. One doesn't wipe out discrimination by forcing people to act in genuine conflict with their conscience and the only real way you can distinguish between the two is through honest conversation which also must involve honest listening. 

If a case comes forward and is placed under scrutiny, then the merits of each side's arguments can actually be judged. Once the ability to even argue a side, whichever side it is, is taken away by being made contrary to law, the opportunity to judge actions based on genuine reason and merit disappears. In a democracy, such a thing would be unspeakably wrong. 

We must fight discrimination tooth and nail, but in trying to stamp out real discrimination, lumping those who intend to spread real hatred and unjustly discriminate with those who have genuine reason for their beliefs and whose beliefs have no root in hatred, does the population real injustice. In a democracy, we cannot abide by simply gagging a portion of the population. 

Our only chance is to protect the freedom of all sides to peacefully and respectfully live and express their beliefs and therefore allow genuine discussion and further encourage real understanding between all.

The Briefest of Comments on the Australian Federal Election (or pretty much any election)...

... brief from sheer fatigue after reading, thinking, reacting and having to finally pull away from the never ending campaigning and opinion jockeying alongside the wish to still put in a cent.

Voting may seem like a time when our voices are quietest, like a drop in the ocean of already minuscule hope for change.

But as I was reminded by a wise friend not that long ago as we were discussing the emergence of candidates like Trump and Duterte, at the end of the day, as a whole, we end up with the elected officials/parties we deserve.

Key word: Elected.

Vote and be sure you at least begin to be heard.

#myswf2016

I'll put together a more comprehensive review set to adorn my sadly neglected little blogger but for now, this micro-update and Studio collage, complete with dorky touristy stickers, will do.

Such a brilliant few days thanks to 14 sessions, 28 panellists/speakers (alongside some excellent facilitators) and 1 incredibly talented performer who somehow created a seamless solo hour of Austen oftentimes without the apparent need for oxygen. I look to you, Miss Vaughan's Miss Bates. Do you not breathe?

Got in a good mix of the journalistic, the political, the philosophical and the literary this year, happy crumbs of the untaken arts undergrad and the masters that will never see completion. Particular favourites? The Danger of Ideas, The Risky Business of Breaking News and Murder in the Making were all outstanding panel discussions with amazing moderators and Emma Sky, Emily Maguire (saw her in 2 panels) and Rebecca Vaughan all particularly blew me away in sessions that, funnily enough, fantastically bookended my time at the festival. Nothing to do with primacy or recency however, they three are simply that impressive.

Anyhow, cheers to SWF for one of my favourite times of year and onward till SWF2017 a.k.a. my next run on Gleebooks. In other news, I now officially live amongst piles of paperbacks threatening to topple and bury me alive at any moment. #theymaytumble #imaydie #sweetphonicdeath #iregretnothing #canyoutellthiscamefrominsta? #myswf2016

We... They... Us... Them - anyone else tired yet?

I'm done reading about Zaky Mallah.

It's been said before and it will be said again - reading the news is so tiring. It doesn't end with whatever article you're reading either. Venture, if you dare, into the comments and soon enough, you're drowning in vehement, and often madly vindictive, declarations about 'The Left' or 'The Right'. Yes, I know I've said all this before but honestly, it still applies and it's still tiring.

You've gotta love modern hypocrisy. From all sides.

The Left, The Right, The Religious, The Secular, The Rich, The Poor... are all groups. If we were talking about just one person, that would be complex enough but we are talking about huge groups of groups (apparent typo absolutely intended) of people and the groups and the individuals are all complex unto themselves. Generalised statements about any of those groups and any other similarly and arbitrarily categorized pockets of people are therefore not only always going to be open to question, but also only add further fuel to the fire that is ongoing Us and Them mentality which seems inescapable when discussing any matters of complexity and ultimately paralyzes any progress.

Sadly, for too long, I myself have fallen for this way of thinking and it's time to stop because it is hypocrisy in itself.

Sittin' on the fence...

This is incredible, however the full article MUST ALSO be read here: Liberals Are Ruining America. I Know Because I Am One.

I am one of likely many ‘fence-sitting’ moderates out there (I may not be from the US, but let’s face it, ‘left VS right’ politics exists everywhere) in that I find no one entity on either side wholly espouses my personal convictions. I also find that nowhere near as contradicting as the pundits would make it seem. Quite honestly, I think that political parties end up so desperate to keep the party line that even if they agree on something, they’ll find some way to disagree/argue/extend the madness.

That said, they are the ones in power (regardless of the democratic process claiming we are) and we have to work with them as much as they have to work with one another. That, I think, is the best point made by Steve Almond’s article. Instead of running into issues determined to butt heads, people need to listen to one another and actually try to find common ground upon which to build solid foundations for real progress and problem solving.

However, take a look at the comments below the story. Already you can see who has gone in determined to find an agenda in the article that ‘undermines’ their own or to berate the author for his naivete, or simply further propagate the prejudices held on both sides via the typical name-calling.

Clearly, it’s not just the political parties who aren’t willing to actually listen to anyone other than the wingnuts, spectrum end regardless… and these people are just as loud. So basically, the loudest groups in any issue are the extremists and the people decrying (and therefore calling more attention to) said extremists while anyone suggesting any actual communication gets drowned out.

Mr Almond, it appears as though you ask too much.

But hell, I’m hoping right along there with you.

(article found via rtnt tumblr)