Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642814427.pdf (Australia)
Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 I am deeply concerned about the erosion of Australian State and Federal Government protection of both individuals’ freedom of religion rights, religious institutions’ rights to protect their own ethos, and Australian families’ rights to freedom of religion in its public expression, its right to teach and practise, and I welcome the Inquiry to take stock of a deteriorating situation in schools and in the public space.
Infringements of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are evident in the following examples.

From Article 18 : 1.

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
In fact, “practice and teaching” of religious believers is under threat by western governments especially in education where gender ideology is being implemented in schools, which undermines item 4 – parents’ rights over their children.

In Victoria, the State Government has radically forced gender ideology into all schools, across the curriculum K - 12, denying parents their rights to determine the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
The Government is in fact working against families in that State.

Australian families in other States are similarly affected by this same program of forced gender ideology into schools by embedding it across the curriculum so as to close off to children and their parents, the opportunity to avoid participation in the program.

The gender ideology program conflicts with the morality of Christians, Jews and Muslims.
In New South Wales, the names of schools participating in the Safe Schools Program (but this is only one of 5 gender ideology programs) have been removed from the Online Safe Schools Hub website so as to deny parents their right to be informed about what their children are being taught in school, and to undermine parents their freedom of choice in regard to choosing an appropriate school.

2.
2.

No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

The gender ideology embedded across the curriculum in schools K – 12, in fact coerces students to adopt the “beliefs” contained within this program and in order to avoid isolation and name-calling by some of their peers who have opted to embrace the values of the gender ideology program.

The Safe Schools Program actively teaches students how to become activists.
It is therefore a political program which conflicts with Department of Education guidelines which exclude politicking within schools.

3.
3.

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others Under laws passed in Victoria in 2008 and in Tasmania late last year, doctors who have a conscientious objection to performing an abortion, in cases of medical emergencies, are now legally obliged to perform a termination.
When there is no medical Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 110 emergency, doctors are no longer compelled to carry out the abortion.

But despite their conscientious objection to the procedure, they are legally bound under the law in Victoria and Tasmania to refer the patient who has asked for an abortion to a doctor who will.
When person exercises their conscientious judgement against an unpopular issue, they receive far more support and respect than if are objecting to an issue that is widely approved and popular.

A historical example is the 1500 registered conscientious objectors to being drafted to fight the Vietnam War.

These conscientious objectors were celebrated as heroes.

The conscientious objections of these doctors is not treated with equivalence.

Their rights are violated.


The right to conscientious objection is a good indicator of the health of a democracy which claims to adhere to Section 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
There is an urgent need to uphold conscientious objection in view of various anti-life legislation enacted in various countries regarding Euthanasia which supposedly supports an individual’s right to terminate their life; this legislation has in reality expanded the popular and highly subjective notion of “quality of life” with even children in the Netherlands being given the right to determine if their life is deemed intolerable.

Recently a child aged 12 asked for their life to be terminated.
The highly subjective notion of “quality of life” is put forward by activists to support legislation where the “quality of life” of some elderly patients in institutions is determined not by themselves but by administrators in the institutions in which they reside.

This is patently an abuse of duty of care, but in reality administrators can make a determination to terminate a patient, quoting the “quality of care” reason, but in fact from economic and expedient considerations.

4.
4.

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
As already mentioned above, the Safe Schools (anti bullying) Program, the Practical Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships Program, and an Anti Domestic Abuse Program are whilst named so as to encourage popular support within the community, are all in fact gender ideology based programs which include instruction on political activism, break down cohesiveness in school communities, deny students their freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression by creating a coercive politically correct environment within the school.
School is 5 days a week, every week.

There is no escape from this kind of coercion.

Australian State and Federal Governments should improve Legislation to protect and support Australians’ freedom of religious belief, freedom to manifest religious belief in public, freedom to teach and practise their belief with the goal of encouraging harmony within Australian society.
State and Federal Governments should remove from Schools any ideologically driven political programs which use the school yard to propagate political values, encourage division, encourage an anarchical environment and provide an unsafe environment for students.

Yours sincerely Louise Brady Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 110