News Archive April - May 2006

May 2006 - Victoria: Charter of Human Rights and responsibilities
The Victorian Bracks Labor government is proceeding with its plan to introduce a 'Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities'.

[Note - Click here for this introduction and our FULL report]
Attorney General Rob Hulls gave the Second Reading Speech on 4 May, 2006 and the Bill could be debated around the end of May
(Parliament sits 30, 31 May, 1 June, then the following week in June.)

Important Documents:
* Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill
* Explanatory Memorandum
* Second Reading Speech
Explains the government's purpose and aims for the Bill.
[If these links do not work, click here then click on Parliamentary Documents, then on Bills, then on 4. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill ]

ACTION: Victorians, please write to MPs as listed below (scroll down to bottom). Phone them up, and go and see them!
This is an important piece of legislation and we need to politely express our concerns NOW!
Use some of the following points, expressed in your own words.
Please ask them to vote AGAINST a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Liberal Party has recently issued a media release calling for the Bracks government to take the matter of a 'Charter' to a referendum at the November election.
Whilst this is a welcome development, we need to ask them to adopt a position totally opposing the Charter.
[Click here for Full report and Action]

18 May 2006 - The Da Vinci Code movie released
The book 'The Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown has sold millions of copies around the world. The film by the same name is being released inAustralia today.
Already the film critics are being 'critical'! In fact at the preview in Cannes, reports say there was laugher at the key point of the movie.

Critics slate The Da Vinci Code
From AFP, 17/05/2006 07:49 - (SA)

"Da Vinci Code" secret is out: most critics hate it
Reuters, 17/5/2006

Da Vinci Bombs with Critics
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 18 May 2006.

We are not campaigning against the movie - as Christians we need to use it as Paul did in the marketplace and elsewhere in Athens - being able to point out the difference between the false gods that this film proclaims and the true God of the Bible. Since it addresses matters relating to Jesus, it is vitally important that we understand what the false messages the film presents as 'fact' so that we can present the FACTS of the gospel to our friends.

We have prepared a website page with links to some great resources.
Click here.

The page has website links, articles, and details about presentations and forums being held by churches and speakers to enable us to know about the deceptions in the movie and to discuss the truth of the gospel with friends and colleagues.

12 May 2006 - ACT Government passes "Civil Unions" Bill
The ACT Legislative Assembly voted last night to pass the 'Civil Unions Bill' that allows homosexual and heterosexual couples to formally recognise and register their relationships. The 'Registration of Relationships Bill' proposed by the Liberal Opposition was debated at the same time and defeated.

The Stanhope government moved amendments to their original Bill, because the federal government had threatened to override the Bill because it referred to 'marriage' and allowed the use of federal marriage celebrants.

Mr Stanhope said the ACT government would introduce a 'separate' system of celebrants rather than using the federal marriage celebrants - this was one of the amendments. Homosexual website gayNZ reports that the amendments "include requiring 16 and 17-year olds to attain court approval before entering in a civil union; specifically stating that a civil union is not the same as marriage but will be treated as such for the purposes of ACT’s law; and recognising only overseas civil unions and not same-sex marriages for couples migrating to the ACT."

The ACT Attorney General Simon Corbell put out a media release summarising the detail of the amendments. Click here.

Comment:
Certainly the fact that the federal government said they were concerned about the references to marriage in the Bill meant that the ACT Stanhope government decided to implement the amendments.

Now that amendments have been passed that were aimed at defusing the federal government's opposition to the Civil Unions Bill, it remains to be seen what they decide to do. Attorney General Philip Ruddock told ABC this morning that "I've yet to see it [the new amended Bill] and I've asked for my officials ... now that it's been finalised, to obtain it and they'll brief me on it and I'll make some further comments," he said.
Click here for ABC report.

The passing of this law gives formal recognition to homosexual relationships in the ACT. Homosexual lobby groups are already planning to make similar moves in other States.

Salt Shakers opposed both the 'Civil Unions Bill' AND the 'Registration of Relationships Bill' because both endorsed homosexual relationships.

5 May 2006 - Vic. Government passes RRTA amendments
The debate over the Bracks government's proposed amendments to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act were passed by the Victorian Legislative Assembly on Thursday 4 May by 71 votes to 12.

The Bill - called the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TOLERANCE LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL - was debated on Wednesday 3 May, but only re-appeared on Thursday for a vote.

The Nationals proposed an amendment to remove ALL RELIGIOUS sections of the Act. The Liberals said they supported this amendment - with only three Liberals opposing it. Two of those (Phil Honeywood and Victor Perton) are leaving Parliament at the next election. The other, Helen Shardey, is the Member for Caulfield where many of Melbourne's Jewish community live.
The Liberals moved an amendment to add the word 'defending' to the proposed definition of 'religious purpose' in the exceptions.
However the Liberals said that if these amendments were defeated they would support the Government's Bill as they thought it made it more difficult to make complaints.
In the end, neither of the amendments were put. Just the government's amendment Bill.
All the Nationals, the two Independents Russell Savage and Craig Ingram and three Liberals voted against the amendment Bill. The Liberals were Martin Dixon, Ken Smith and Tony Plowman.
We still believe that the amendments proposed in this Bill make the Act worse, not better. (see below). The one good thing about the debate on this Bill is that the intention of the Opposition in opposing the religious sections of the Bill has been made clear.

Click here for the debate and vote. . .
This large pdf document covers the 2, 3 and 4 May 2006.
The debate appears in three sections, starting at at Pages 1221, 1223 and 1262.
The index on the left side of the page can also be used to locate these sections.
The vote on 4 May is recorded in the same document - see Page 1338.

The Bill still has to go to the Legislative Council for a vote. Unfortunately the Bracks government has the numbers in the Council and has shown, by rejecting amendments by from the Nationals and the Liberals, that it is unwilling to listen to anyone else on this matter.

We welcome the growing community concern about the religious sections of this vilification Act. We call for the removal of the religious sections of the RRTA.

1 May 2006 - Victoria's vilification laws
The Victorian government is about to consider amendments to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. The Victorian government is about to consider amendments to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

1 May 2006 - Victoria's vilification laws
The Victorian government is about to consider amendments to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

David Palmer, the convenor of the Presbyterian Church and Nation Committee, has an excellent article in The Age today - exposing the actions of the government and showing how they have NOT listened to the church leaders' concerns about this Act.
(For more details, see item immediately below - dated 29 April 2006)
Click here for the full article.
The article begins...
Religious vilification law undermines multiculturalism
The Age, Opinion, By David Palmer, May 1, 2006
"This week, unless the Government has a last-minute change of heart, State Parliament will approve some minor amendments to Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. In proposing such legislation, the Government will have chosen to ignore the widespread and deep opposition to the act across the full spectrum of the Christian Church - Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.
In announcing the amendments, the Premier claimed the support of Victoria's faith and community leaders in a signed joint statement to strengthen racial and religious tolerance and then went on to say that further consultation with faith leaders (had) been incorporated in the amendments.
Really?
For the record, Premier Steve Bracks did hold a multi-faith forum on September 22 last year comprising 33 faith and community leaders of whom 13 represented different churches. The statement was distributed by the Premier in the last 10 minutes of the meeting when a number of those attending had already departed. It was not in fact signed by anyone; it remains what it always was, the Premier's statement.
While the Premier might like to think he had the wholehearted support of faith leaders, this is not so, at least among the clear majority of Christian faith leaders......"

29 April 2006 - Bracks Government plans amendments to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act

BUT the Government is only proposing MINOR amendments - and these make the ACT WORSE - not better!

The Premier said last September at a faith leaders meeting that he was considering "minor amendments" to the Act. (Click here.)
He told those present he would consider amendments they might propose - Subsequently a Statement of Concern was signed by 19 church leaders calling for the removal of all the civil provisions concerning 'religion' (leaving only the 'criminal' section). They proposed detailed amendments.

The Premier's 'amendment Bill' does NOT address the concerns expressed by the church leaders.
At the beginning of April, Steve Bracks announced he was putting the amendment Bill into Parliament - he did this the following day.
Click for the following:
1. The Bill - Equal Opportunity and Tolerance Legislation (Amendment) Bill.
2. Second reading speech by Steve Bracks
3. Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill.
4. Premier's media release - 4 April 2006.

These amendments are due to be debated and voted on in early May.
For full details of the amendments - click here.
The addition to the exception in Section 11 for 'religious purpose' is supposed to 're-assure us'. It says that a religious purpose can include teaching and proselytising! But no mention of discussing or criticising another religion!!!! Questions asked of the government were NOT re-assuring on this point at all!

Salt Shakers remains committed to the repeal of all the religious sections of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.
We oppose the proposed amendments.
WE encourage people to contact their MPs in the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council to express their concern about the proposed amendments and to ask their MPs to ask for the repeal of all the religious sections of the RRTA.
Click here for MP details.

28 April 2006 - New study looks at 'demand' for same-sex 'marriage'

A new study by the Institute for marriage and Public Policy has analysed all the countries where same-sex 'marriage' is currently available and looked at how many homosexuals are actually 'marrying' when they have the legal option to do so.
In general they found that between 1% and 5% of homosexuals have 'married' in places like The Netherlands and Belgium.
In Canada and Massachusetts they estimated higher figures of 14 - 16 %. Part of the reason for these higher figures may be due to the fact that people from outside those countries can be 'married' in Canada - and though the Mass. law says only residents can 'marry', non-residents have 'married.
Detailed analysis of the available data..... is in the Report. It includes data from studies assessing the number of homosexuals in each country (around 2%).
Click here for the 12 page report .

A media report on the study (by Associated Press but published on homosexual websites) noted that homosexuals may find the figures for Canada and Massachusetts 'encouraging' in some respects. However, the reality is that whether it is a civil union or 'register or whether it is 'marriage' few homosexuals actually take up the option of formalising their relationship. In fact, in the past many homosexuals celebrated their 'difference' and did not want to participate in what they saw as patriarchal and 'heterosexual' institutions....

1 1 April 2006 - ACT 'civil unions' or 'relationship register'
We are aware that some Christian groups and churches in the ACT are asking the ACT government to not allow 'Civil Unions' but to allow a 'Relationship Register' instead, such as they have in Tasmania.

We opposed the implementation of a 'register' in Tasmania and also oppose the concept of a 'relationship register' in the ACT. Homosexual activists note that in effect they give almost the same 'rights'. Wikipedia says that a relationship register is one of the forms of civil union.

One reason given for supporting a 'register' is that other 'significant' or 'caring' relationships can be included - thus not just giving the 'right' to same-sex couples.
But the truth is that the homosexual lobby is the ONLY group lobbying for the changes. There are no 'mother-daughter' or 'two elderly friend' combinations lobbying for these laws. Since Tasmania introduced their 'register' NO caring relationships have been registered! Just 63 same-sex couples.

We call on the ACT government to drop any proposal for formal recognition of same-sex or 'other' relationships.

4 April 2006 - Few homosexuals use 'civil unions' in New Zealand
One year ago, on 1 April 2005, New Zealand legislated to allow 'civil unions'.
However, in the first 12 months, few couples have utilised the option of having a 'civil union'.
In this report from Assist News, it is revealed that ONLY 156 male and 170 female same-sex couples have had a civil union. In addition 68 opposite sex couples have taken up the option. The report notes that 22,000 marriages have been performed in that time.
Interesting and revealing statistics....
The 2001 NZ census showed there were 5070 same-sex couples. This is 0.6 % of all couple relationships.
The number of 'civil union' registrations from the first year means only 6% of those couples have opted to formalise their relationship with a 'civil union'.

Just more evidence that VERY few homosexual couples REALLY want marriage or 'civil union' rights. It is just another strategy to get the community to give them the rights and further normalise homosexual relationships.
See the low figures for Tasmania and Sydney... under 30 March 2006.

Click the tab on the left...

More tomorrow from a recent Victorian study!