This submission is from the Humanist Society of New Zealand. The Humanist Society of New Zealand (Inc.) represents the interests of non-theistic people in New Zealand. We seek to build a more humane society based on human and other natural values. New Zealand census figures indicate that a third of the population has no religious belief and that a larger portion of New Zealanders does not indicate any specific religious belief.
Our organisation is an affiliated member of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) with nearly 100 member organisations worldwide. This represents about 5 million members.
The Council of the Humanist Society of New Zealand endorses this submission.
The Humanist Society of New Zealand considers that the Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity is well intentioned but does not support the Statement as it is currently worded. The Society considers the Statement as written conflicts with the human rights of New Zealanders. However, it is possible to redraft the Statement so that it is consistent with human rights legislation.
The Statement currently discriminates against people who are either not religious or who are alternatively religious. It undermines the ability to have freedom from religion if this is an individual’s choice. The Statement would make it harder to respond appropriately to religious extremists. Our government should not endorse the draft Statement, as this would attack the separation of religion and state in a secular New Zealand.
The Statement gives rights to religious people but it does not give these same rights to those that are non-religious. This unjustified discrimination is against the New Zealand Human Rights Act. The Statement talks of giving rights to faith communities. This is in conflict with our human rights legislation that does not mention faith communities, but instead focuses on the rights of individuals. The Statement overly limits freedom of speech as outlined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights and other human rights documents.
The Statement is also at odds with how the United Nations is structured in that this body does not have a special representative that focuses only on the freedom of religion. Instead, the United Nations is inclusive and it has a special representative that focuses on the freedom of religion or belief.
There is often strong disagreement over whether something is religious or non-religious in nature. For example some people claim that Humanism is a religion while others say that it is a philosophy. It would be wrong that the person who believes that Humanism is their religion has more rights than those that consider that it is their philosophy. The standard way of removing this type of confusion about entitlements is to talk about the rights of religion and belief at the same time.
These faults in the Statement can be remedied through the examination of current human rights documents and the amendment of language so that the Statement can agree with New Zealand law and the structure of the United Nations. Current human rights legislation shows that it is quite possible to have declarations about religion or belief instead of just narrowly focusing on the rights of the religious.
Religious people are not somehow disabled and in need of help when they already constitute a powerful majority in New Zealand. Our national anthem includes religious people of different faiths but it has no provision for people without a belief in a god. Religious people have huge financial reserves and significant tax exemptions to help protect their interests. In contrast, non-religious people have relatively few resources to protect their rights.
There is negative stereotyping of atheists and agnostics in our country and in other western countries. This bias is shown in a 1999 Gallup poll where only 49% of American adults would vote for an otherwise qualified presidential candidate if they were an atheist. In the same poll 59% of Americans would vote for a homosexual candidate and over 90% would vote for black, Jewish or female candidates. This suggests that in America known atheists are more discriminated against than homosexuals, while at the same time other minority groups such as Jews are widely accepted. Similar prejudices would also be applied to atheists and agnostics in New Zealand.
The introductory part of the Statement refers to people settling in New Zealand of differing religious beliefs but it ignores the beliefs of people who were already in New Zealand and the settlers who were not religious. The Statement gives an excuse for Christians to have special rights over others by saying that Christianity is an integral part of New Zealand’s culture. The Statement, in focusing on religions from particular geographic areas, also excludes people from other parts of the world. The discriminatory highlighting of particular religions or beliefs clashes with human rights legislation, which is usually inclusive of everyone.
In saying that faith communities have a right to security the Statement forgets that everyone has a right to security. Generally, there should not be a focus on the rights of nebulous groups such as communities. Instead, we should talk more about the rights and responsibilities of individuals who can be directly harmed or rewarded in observable ways. To say that someone only has rights because they are part of a specific community would be wrong. Giving rights to faith communities will take away the rights of individual women, children, heretics, and homosexuals. The human rights of individuals need to be invoked to prevent torture, genocide, and terrorism.
The Statement substantially weakens free speech from how it is stated in New Zealand’s Bill of Rights and other legislation. The current wording would silence those who speak to stimulate debate and those deemed to be uninformed by others. Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad would all have easily broken the draft guideline about freedom of expression. The guideline would prevent legitimate editorial comment, political debate, social discussion and blogging.
People need to be able to criticise extreme religions and ideologies. It should be possible to criticise Islamic terrorists, Maoists, the Exclusive Brethren, and the Destiny Church. Unfortunately, the limitations on freedom of speech given in the Statement will deter people from criticising the negative aspects of different religions.
Some people associated with Humanism have been wrongly persecuted for voicing what was perceived to be blasphemy. Socrates and Theo van Gogh have been killed for presenting their different opinions about religion. Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasrin, and Dr. Younus Shaikh have been seriously threatened with death for their comments and actions. Galileo suffered imprisonment when he disagreed with church authorities. With these historical examples it is clear that Humanists would want to have freedom of speech maintained.
The Statement means that religious people have to be reasonably accommodated to. For this to work religious people would also need to reasonably accommodate to New Zealand society. There is no corresponding right of accommodation for non-religious people given. However, if someone who is religious can take time off work to pray, then someone who is not religious should also be able to take time off to have a break of similar length. To protect public order and safety it may be necessary to require the removal of burqas at certain times, for example when checking passports and during court proceedings.
The education guideline should be reworded so that it does not suggest that religion will have to be taught in all schools to every student. There should not be the forced introduction of a new religious subject into the curriculum, when it is already difficult to teach all that which is in the current curriculum. Any teaching of religion would need to comply with the secular provisions in the Education Act. If religious traditions were to be taught in schools then non-religious philosophical traditions would also need to be discussed in education. The Statement says religion should be taught in an impartial manner but this may mean that people will be afraid to criticise religious extremism.
The guideline on faith communities building relationships with government undermines the separation of religion and state. Instead, all individuals and groups should have equal opportunity to form relationships with the government. Generally, the last guideline seems to give encourage Exclusive Brethren type arrangements within parliament to occur, without there being reasonable restraints.
We thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the Statement.
Yours sincerely
Kent Stevens President
Recommended Reading
A Matter of Concern
The Council of the Humanist Society have discussed this document and members of the council have expressed their concern. A submission has been prepared. A copy of the Draft Statement and the background document released by the Race Relations Conciliator are reproduced below.
There is reason to be concerned because this document, that purports to "promote religious tolerance, improve communication between government and faith communities, affirm the right to freedom of religion, and provide a framework for the development and maintenance of harmonious relationships within communities" may actually: make people without religious belief third class citizens or worse, * break down the separation between religion and state, * open the door for religious education in schools, * and open the door for religious censorship. * This document began with the first Asia-Pacific Dialogue on interfaith cooperation in Yogyakarta, Java, Indonesia, in December 2004. This meeting was attended by a New Zealand multi-faith delegation who proposed the draft statement to improve cooperation between government and faith communities. Following the meeting, the Victoria University Religious Studies Programme undertook to develop a draft statement under the leadership of Professor Paul Morris. This draft statement was to be part of the diversity action programme of the Race Relations Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission.
The fact that the original meeting took place in Islamic Indonesia should in itself be a matter of concern. In most Moslem countries non-believers are considered to be less than third class citizens, behind Moslems (the First Class), and those who believe in god but are not yet Moslems (Second Class). To some Moslems, Atheists are considered intrinsically evil, and agnostics not much better. To them, atheists are like an evil cancer in society, there to undermine peoples faith in god. They may be just tolerated until the time comes for them to be eliminated. Some Moslem countries require you to produce a baptismal certificate to gain an entry visa. Most Islamists believe that there should be no separation between their religion and the state. This dates back to Mohammad who was both the religious leader and the government of the first Islamic state that he created. Following the Iranian revolution, fundamentalist Moslems, and even those of milder persuasion, have sought to establish theocratic states in Moslem dominated countries along the lines of the Iranian government. To this end the have made the establishment of stable democracies in their countries difficult and have sought to undermine non-theocratic governments.
It should be noted that in Moslem countries the word "secular", when used to describe a "secular government", means "not controlled by the clerics". The secular government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, for instance, professed to be a Moslem Government and Saddam Hussein would frequently appear on Television professing his Moslem faith. The most extreme Islamists are those associated with the Al Quada network that seeks to establish theocratic governments in all Moslem majority countries and then convert the rest of the world. Many Christians, and those of other persuasions, share the desire to see stronger links between religion and government and the introduction of religious education into schools. Consequently, they are happy to join with the Islamists to break down the separation of Religion and the State.
Most Islamic states have refused to adopt or implement the United Nations Universal declaration of Human Rights saying that it conflicts with Islam, although it was drafted to be acceptable to Islamic countries, and have often denied Human Rights to some or all of their citizens.
The influence of religion on the politics of New Zealand, and other countries like Australia and Britain, are a matter of continuing concern. Under the First Past the Post system in New Zealand, before the advent of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting, the two major parties had a similar number of supporters. The Roman Catholic minority exercised undue power by influencing the voting of some of their adherents and could make or break a government by swinging enough votes. Both Labour and National were always careful to avoid upsetting the Roman Catholic minority and the editor of The Tablet (the influential Roman Catholic Newspaper), or took care to ensure that their policies were acceptable to the Roman Church. The Influence of Roman Catholic thinking on Robert Muldoon's government during the late 1970's was well known at the time. For more detail of this see Marilyn Waring's forward to Nicky Hager's book The Hollow Men released today. An edited version of this forward appeared in The Dominion Post Wednesday, November 22, 2006. While there are other factors, a consequence of MMP that has resulted in an increased number of political parties and other minority interests in politics, has been the breaking of this ability of the Roman Church, or other religious groups, to control the major political parties. As a consequence religious groups are now seeking new ways to exert their influence on government.
HSNZ is concerned that this is another cynical attempt by religious people to exploit the office of the Race Relations Conciliator on a matter that has no real connection to race. It is an attempt by religious people to increase their influence over government, to restrict freedom of expression, and to open the door for the teaching of religion in schools while excluding the alternative of no belief.
Many Humanists would consider that the separation of church, or religion, and state is the ideal and that links between religion and the state in any part of the world and throughout history has always led to trouble, including the abuse of Human Rights and discrimination against people who are not part of the majority religious group.
Below is a draft of a submission by the Humanist Society of New Zealand prepared by Kent Stevens with input from the Council of HSNZ and some suggested amendments to the Draft Statement. Your comments are welcome.
Email your comments and suggestions to: Kent Stevens at KentStevens77@yahoo.com or Iain Middleton at iain-middleton@clear.net.nz
Attend the meetings and express your concern in the strongest possible manner. Five meetings remain, see below.
Prepare your own personal submission. Required by Friday 15 December. See: http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/introduction/tengirathenzdiversityactionprogramme/nationalstatementonreligiousdiversity.php
The Humanist Society of New Zealand does not support the Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity. The Society does not endorse this Statement as it conflicts with the human rights of New Zealanders. The Statement discriminates against people who are either not religious or who are alternatively religious. It undermines the ability to have freedom from religion if this is an individual's choice. Our government should not endorse the Statement, as this would attack the principal of separation of church and state, or religion and state, in a secular New Zealand.
The introductory part of the Statement refers to people settling in New Zealand of different religion but ignores the settlers who are not religious. The introduction does not have any provision for people who consider that they have no faith. The Statement gives an excuse for Christians to have special rights over others by saying that Christianity is an integral part of New Zealand's culture. The historical aspects of particular religions are irrelevant to contemporary human rights and they should be deleted from the document.
In saying that faith communities have a right to security, the Statement forgets that everyone should have a right to security. Generally, there should not be a focus on the rights of nebulous faith communities. Instead, we should talk about the rights and responsibilities of individuals who can be directly harmed or rewarded in observable ways. Giving rights to faith communities can take away the rights of individual women, children, and homosexuals, associated with these groups.
The Statement substantially weakens free speech from what is stated in New Zealand's Bill of Rights. The current wording would silence those who speak to stimulate debate and those deemed to be uninformed by others. Socrates, Jesus, and Muhammad, would all have easily broken the draft guideline about freedom of expression. The guideline would prevent legitimate editorial comment, political debate, social commentary, blogging, and conversation.
The Statement means that religious people have to be reasonably accommodated to. For this to work religious people would also need to reasonably accommodate to New Zealand society. There is no corresponding right of accommodation for non-religious people given. However, if someone who is religious can take time off work to pray, then someone who is not religious should also be able to take a similar amount of time off or a break of similar length.
The draft guideline on education should not force all schools to teach religion. Any teaching of religion would need to comply with the secular provisions in the Education Act. If religious traditions were to be taught in schools then non-religious philosophical traditions would also need to be discussed in education.
The guideline on faith communities building relationships with government undermines the separation of church and state. Instead, all individuals and groups should have equal opportunity to form relationships with the government.
We thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the Statement.
Yours sincerely
Kent Stevens President
- - - - -
It is very doubtful that New Zealand needs this Statement. If adopted and promulgated it will be used by religious people for the promulgation of religion and to marginalise or discriminate against those of no-religion.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 already provides protection for those of different religion. Parts 13 & 15 of the Bill of Rights reads as follows.
13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion * Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference. 15 Manifestation of religion and belief * Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private. While the Humanist Society would prefer that this Draft Statement is not adopted, should it proceed some more specific concerns and suggested amendments follow. These can be compared with the original Draft Statement below:
Rather than being called the Draft "National Statement on Religious Diversity", it would be better called the Draft "National Statement on the Diversity of Thought".
Rather than saying: "New Zealand is a country of many faiths, and increasing religious diversity is a significant feature of public life", it would be better to say: "New Zealand is a country with people of many faiths and people of no religion, and increasing diversity is a significant feature of public life"
Item 2. The Right to Religion should read: New Zealand upholds the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to have no religion and to the freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious or ethical belief or non belief.
Item 3. The Right to Safety should read. All individuals have a right to safety and security regardless of their religious convictions or non belief.
Item 4. The Right to Freedom of Expression The right to Freedom of Expression exists elsewhere, such as in the New Zealand Bill of Rights. It is doubtful that it belongs here. This expression of the right to Freedom of expression is more restrictive than the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and might in this context be used to censor any person who criticises a religion. Religious people have argued, in New Zealand and elsewhere, that some publications or artwork should not be published because they are offended by it. No individual or religion has the right not to be offended - this is not a basic human right. Many non-religious people find the statements and actions of religious people very offensive but do not call for censorship.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Part 2 Section 14 states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." Emphasis added.
The New Zealand Censorship Act restricts censorship to that which is "injurious to the public good" and requires a higher standard of proof for "injurious to the public good" than was previously required when something could be censored because somebody considered it offensive.
Item 5. Recognition and Accommodation should be amended to read. Reasonable steps should be taken in educational and work environments and in the delivery of public services to recognise and accommodate people of different religious beliefs and practices and those of no religion to ensure that all people are treated in an equal manner.
Item 6 Education should be amended to read If religion is taught in schools, schools should teach an understanding of the diversity of religious and spiritual traditions and non-religious philosophies in an impartial manner. (Note that many Humanists object to religion being taught in schools at all, as did those members of parliament who passed the New Zealand Education Act in November 1877.)
Item 8. Cooperation and understanding should be amended to read Government, faith communities, and non-religious communities, shall seek to build and maintain positive relationships with each other, and promote tolerance and understanding in the community.
Your thoughts on these amendments and other alternatives are welcome. See email addresses above.
Meetings to Discuss the Draft Statement
Meetings have already been held in Christchurch on the 31st October, Dunedin on 9th November, Levin on 21 November, and Hamilton on 29th November. Interested people are invited to attend the future meetings to express their concern at the wording of the Draft Document.
Wednesday 29 November, Porirua A forum will be held at Porirua City Council in the Administration Building from 6-8pm. The meeting will be on level 6, and access is through the Hagley Street entrance. If you would like to attend, please RSVP by Thursday 23rd November to Seanoa Faraimo, Community Development Officer, at sfaraimo@pcc.govt.nz?or phone 04 237 1503.
Thursday 30 November, Auckland There will be a meeting at the Freeman's Bay Hall, 52 Hepburn St, Freeman's Bay from 7pm on Thursday 30 November. For further information please contact Abigael Vogt at abigael.vogt@aucklandcity.govt.nz, 09 353 9647 or Darian Smith at darian.smith@aucklandcity.govt.nz, 09 353 9671.
Saturday 2 December, Nelson A meeting will be held on the evening of Saturday 2 December in the City Council Chamber. Further details are available by contacting Ren Kempthorne?at kempthorne@xtra.co.nz.
Tuesday 5 December, Wellington There will be a meeting in the Committee Room of the Council Building in Wellington from 5.30 on Tuesday 5 December. For further information please contact Nadia Fawzi at nadia.fawzi@wcc.govt.nz .
Monday 11 December, Rotorua The Bay of Plenty Interfaith Council will meet on Monday 11 December from 5-7pm in the Rotorua Council Chambers to discuss the draft statement and prepare a submission. Contact Jenny for further details.
Background to the Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity
Reproduced from the website of the Race Relations Conciliator.
Introduction The Race Relations Commissioner is inviting public feedback on a Draft Statement on Religious Diversity in New Zealand.
Purpose of the Statement The purpose of the statement on religious diversity is to: Promote religious tolerance Improve communication between government and faith communities Affirm the right to freedom of religion, and Provide a framework for the development and maintenance of harmonious relationships within communities.
Background The idea of a national statement on religious diversity was raised by the New Zealand multi-faith delegation to the first Asia-Pacific Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in December 2004. It was a response to the challenges of increased religious diversity in New Zealand in the context of regional and global conflicts involving religion. It was seen as a way of promoting religious tolerance, improving communication between government (including local government) and faith communities, affirming the right to freedom of religion, and providing a framework for the development and maintenance of harmonious relationships within communities.
The Victoria University Religious Studies Programme, under the leadership of Professor Paul Morris, undertook to develop a draft statement as part of the Programme's contribution to the New Zealand Diversity Action Programme. The Diversity Action Programme is facilitated by the Race Relations Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission (see www.hrc.co.nz/diversity ). The Commission has established an interfaith network to connect government, faith communities and individuals with an interest in promoting interfaith dialogue and cooperation, tolerance and harmonious relationships within communities. For more information or to subscribe to the network email nzdiversity@hrc.co.nz .
Professor Morris presented a first draft of the statement to an interfaith forum that was held as part of the New Zealand Diversity Forum on 21 August 2006. Central and local government and faith community representatives at the forum welcomed the proposal as a starting point for further consultation with communities. A number of participants provided further comment on the draft either on their own behalf or after initial consultation with their own constituency.
A working group of faith community members and human rights representatives was convened by Professor Paul Morris and Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres at Victoria University on 10 October to discuss the proposal further and refine the draft.
Community Consultation The Race Relations Commissioner is now seeking public feedback on the revised Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity. He has invited local government, interfaith groups, faith communities, Members of Parliament, and other community groups to discuss the draft and provide comment.
The closing date for responses is Friday 15 December. A number of organisations will be holding interfaith meetings on the statement, and dates and details will be available on the website at www.hrc.co.nz/religiousdiversity .
Next Steps Submissions will be analysed in January and the working group will be reconvened to consider the feedback and to prepare a further draft of the statement. The statement will then be referred to the National Interfaith Forum in Hamilton on 18-19 February for endorsement. Subject to endorsement by the Interfaith Forum, the statement will be referred to the Government and other organisations for consideration. The government will be asked to adopt, endorse, support, welcome or note the statement. The Prime Minister will then be invited to present it to the third Asia-Pacific Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation to be held at Waitangi from 29-31 May 2007.
The process of consultation itself will help to develop a conversation about these issues. After the statement is finalised it will continue to be a reference point for discussions on religious diversity by central and local government and communities.
Questions To Discuss and Answer
A meeting report form and individual response sheet are provided separately.
Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity As supplied by the office of the Race Relations Conciliator. New Zealand is a country of many faiths, and increasing religious diversity is a significant feature of public life. At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Governor Hobson affirmed, in response to a question from Catholic Bishop Pompallier, that "the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom shall alike be protected". The State has recognised a diversity of beliefs in New Zealand ever since. Christianity has played a formative role in the development of New Zealand in terms of the nation's identity, culture, beliefs, institutions and values. It continues to be an integral part of New Zealand's culture and heritage. New settlers have always been religiously diverse, but only recently have the numbers of some of their faith communities grown significantly as a result of migration from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. These communities also have a positive role to play in our society. In this context a reaffirmation of our national commitment to religious diversity is important. International treaties including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights uphold the right to freedom of religion and belief - the right to hold a belief, the right to change one's religion or belief, the right to express one's religion or belief, and the right not to hold a belief.
The following guidelines provide a framework for the recognition of New Zealand's diverse faith communities and their harmonious interaction with each other, with government and with other groups in society: 1. The State and Religion New Zealand has no state religion. The State treats all faith communities and those who profess no religion equally before the law. 2. The Right to Religion New Zealand upholds the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious or ethical belief. 3. The Right to Safety Faith communities have a right to safety and security. 4. The Right of Freedom of Expression The right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press are vital for democracy, but shall be exercised with responsibility and in an informed manner. 5 Recognition and Accommodation Reasonable steps shall be taken in educational and work environments and in the delivery of public services to recognise and accommodate different religious beliefs and practices. 6. Education Schools shall teach an understanding of the diversity of religious and spiritual traditions in an impartial manner. 7. Religious Differences Debate and disagreement about religious beliefs within faith communities and beyond is inevitable, but shall be exercised within the rule of law and without resort to violence. 8. Cooperation and understanding Government and faith communities shall seek to build and maintain positive relationships with each other, and promote tolerance and understanding in the community.
valid html5