政一B 邱科翰 (3)

姓名 : 邱科翰

班級 : 政一B

學號 : 07114248

[標題] Australia to stop religious schools rejecting gay students

[內文] (節選)

Australia's prime minister has promised to ban religious schools from discriminating against gay students.

Scott Morrison said new legislation would "make it clear that no student of a non-state school should be expelled on the basis of their sexuality".

Some Australian states allow such schools to turn away gay students.

The issue has been hotly debated in the country after recommendations of a report on religious freedom were leaked earlier this week.

The report, commissioned after same-sex marriage was made legal last year, suggested that procedures for non-state schools to reject gay students should be made consistent nationwide, raising the possibility of allowing such rejections across Australia.

On Wednesday Mr Morrison, who leads the centre-right Liberal-National coalition, said the proposals - which included some safeguards for gay students - would be considered "carefully and respectfully".

But on Saturday he made clear that religious schools would not be allowed to discriminate under new legislation.

"Given recent misreporting, we have an opportunity here to bring forward a simple amendment to end the confusion," he said.

State schools are already banned from discriminating against students on the basis of their sexuality.

The report into religious freedom - known as the Ruddock Report - was commissioned to address fears that same-sex marriage would restrict people's ability to practise their religion.

…

[相關憲法條文]

憲法第七條 : 中華民國人民，無分男女、宗教、種族、階級、黨派，在法律上一律平等。

憲法第十三條 : 人民有信仰宗教之自由。

憲法第二十ㄧ條 : 人民有受國民教育之權利與義務。

憲法第二十二條 : 凡人民之其他自由及權利，不妨害社會秩序公共利益者，均受憲法之保障。

{相關法條}

德國聯邦基本法第四條之一 : Freedom of faith and of conscience and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed shall be inviolable.

德國聯邦基本法第四條之二 : The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed. 

德國聯邦基本法第七條之三 : Religious instruction shall form part of the regular curriculum in state schools, with the exception of non-denominational schools. Without prejudice to the state’s right of supervision, religious instruction shall be given in accordance with the tenets of the religious community concerned. Teachers may not be obliged against their will to give religious instruction. 

…

心得評論：

This is a topic that collides with multiple issues, mainly the right to receive education and the right and freedom to practice religion. In Australia, the law prohibits discrimination based on races, sex, sexual orientation and such, but religion is not among those listed. Which means it is legal for religious bodies like the church to openly discriminate other opposite groups, LGBT included, thus evading the laws that otherwise wouldn’t allow such acts to occur. So while public schools operated by the states could have their own measures to combat discriminations against LGBT groups, private religious schools that receives funding from the federal government didn’t have a consistent guideline to follow, which lays down the background for this piece of news. 

The Ruddock Report, which centres on religious freedom and LGBT issues, called for actions to unify standards on the federal level. Under current law, students in Australia ought to have the right to pick whichever school they please, yet faces possible rejection if their sexual orientations were opposite to the school authorities’. This heated the debate between the right for LGBT kids to receive education and the right to religious freedom. However, now that the government has spoken, it seemed that the federal understanding of this issue is that the right to religious freedom is not superior, but rather parallel, to other rights.

In Taiwan, such issues wouldn’t have existed in the first place, as the constitution states that all people have equal rights regardless of religious differences. And since every children has the duty to undergo compulsory education, no school - public or private - could deny a student’s entry based on religious reasons. What about sexual orientations ? Although it wasn’t clearly written, it was mentioned that other rights that weren’t hereby included were still under the protection of the constitution as long as it does not offend “public interests.” So if such an instance did happen in Taiwan, the main debate would be - does the right of LGBT students offends the public interest, namely, the right for religious groups to practice their beliefs ? Which is superior to the other ?