Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694818919676.pdf (Australia)
To the Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPRs, Article 18 ) which expressly provides “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

This right shall include freedom to … to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” It is essential that this right be protected by Australian law.

A good law would respect the freedoms of all people.
To curtail religious freedom would harm society to its very roots.

Spirituality is part of most people's lives in which they seek good transcendent values.

This is manifested in the many social services provided freely or at reduced cost to the public.

At the heart of many religions is a message of mercy and the practice of kindness and compassion to others.

The social common good is the good that leads to fulfilment of the whole person.
To deny these spiritual values would limit the human search of seeking ultimate goodness through living a good life.

The shared search and discovery of spiritual truths and revelation is the basis for religions.

True religious expression expresses a lived altruism that has many positive social effects.

One expression of this effect is to protect the lives of the most vulnerable citizens in society.

It is clear scientifically that a human being begins with the creation of unique human DNA.
We should therefore protect this human life from conception.

To base laws on the subjective wants of some citizens over the objective reality of the life within the womb is to deny humanity to a society's citizens and thus fragment the very foundation of that society.
Unfortunately these rights have been so eroded that even the freedom to express the truth of the human being in the womb has become the object of law in the state of Victoria and Tasmania with the bubble zone legislation, Part 9A of the Public Health and Well Being Amendment (Safe Access Zones) Act 2008 Victoria; and - Section 9 of the Tasmanian Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013.
This legislation clearly prohibits citizen's rights to freedom of expression and becomes the very perverse means of using law as the tool for discrimination when it should be used to reduce discrimination.

The move of the law towards reducing personal conscience also curtails the right to conscientious objection in health care.
Conscientious objection is seriously impacted by Abortion laws which require health professionals to refer a patient to another practitioner if they have a conscientious objection to abortion which means they become actively involved in the process of abortion (Section 8 of the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act and Section 7 of the Tasmanian Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act).

Marriage is another area where changes are impacting people's freedom.
Already in Australia the freedoms for gay couples mirror those of heterosexual couples bar 'Marriage' as an institution.

To redefine marriage to include gay couples is a major change to law which would negatively affect citizens particularly the children adopted into such relationships.

Marriage as a social institution has protected the first natural society, the family, for centuries.

Each child has a mother and a father.


To enact legislation that will actively devalue motherhood and fatherhood is to damage children.

Motherhood is different from fatherhood.

Feminism teaches us the special value women make to society.

To no longer recognise that difference is to deny the benefit a mother provides a child.

How can feminists who want equal representation in parliament not want equal representation in the home?

Statistically children do best with a mother and a father.
Legislation which asserts gay marriage is also asserting that legally some children will not have a mother or not have a father.

For legislation to work against the reality that every child has a mother and a father does not just have religious implications it affects the natural rights of a child.

For legislation to prohibit people from voicing their concerns about the care of children in families is to limit freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.
There are numerous precedents in foreign jurisdictions of business people being prosecuted and fined for declining to provide services for same-sex weddings on grounds of religious beliefs or conscience.

Freedom of religion and freedom of conscience must be respected in these areas.
Anti-discrimination laws in Australian states and territories, which provide that you cannot discriminate on the grounds of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, mean that people and organisations would be exposed to the risk of complaints of discrimination if they did not agree with or cannot comply with or conform to changed social, educational or legal requirements that flow from a redefinition of marriage as other than the union of a man and a woman.
Rights and freedoms such as free speech, the prior right of parents to decide the education they want for their children and the right to hold and express religious or cultural beliefs about marriage without being discriminated against in employment or education would all be impacted by anti-discrimination laws if marriage were so redefined.
Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 161 Yours sincerely, Robert Zaar Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 161