The issue of human rights was the sleeper of Synod that never quite woke up. The alarm went off in the dying hours of the last day, revealing plenty of heat. But pressures of time and the weight of other matters meant that sadly no real debate took place.
John Dickson and Greg Clarke have written elsewhere of the divisive nature of the human rights debate in Christian circles. These same divisions exist in our own midst and were evident for all to see at Synod, even in the short time allowed for discussion on the final night.
Many people did not agree with the approach adopted in the Sydney Diocesan submission to the Human Rights Consultation (download a copy here). Some saw it as overly conservative, which preferred protecting the status quo rather than showing selfless concern for others, especially the poor, the marginalised and the stranger in our midst.
Dickson and Clarke have argued that we should be prepared to forego our own 'rights', even if this means limitations on Christian freedoms, for the greater good. Should we be prepared to sacrifice our own self interest to advance the cause of the downtrodden? In doing so, can we trust our institutions to protect religious freedoms, along with everyone else's rights in the end? Should the church even expect this?
This interesting viewpoint has been little aired in Christian circles and requires further debate.
My first reaction is that while containing a certain Christian logic, it is obviously not without risk.
It also puts considerable faith in the people who run our institutions, particularly the parliament, to always act rightly and stand up for injustice in all its forms.
The imperfections of our governing authorities in making these sorts of decisions are plain for all to see in the crisis now engulfing the Federal Government over the fate of the Sri Lankan boat people. The willingness of a government to shunt a difficult decision off to someone else, such as a different jurisdiction (even a foreign one) or the courts, can never be underestimated.
The capacity of a government and politicians to make a hard political call is largely ruled by the timing of the political cycle. Governments are at their boldest straight after an election, when they clutch a newly-minted mandate from the electorate and set about implementing election commitments. As the next election draws closer, boldness wanes until it reaches a state of paralysis. (This currently exists in NSW, and the next election is still 16 months away!)
The position put by Professor Patrick Parkinson offers some comfort (you can read an extract in the December edition of Southern Cross). It may be the only basis on which Christians could come to a common mind on the importance of protecting human rights of the poor and marginalized, and upholding religious freedoms.
What do you think?
