The modernisation seeks to fill a twenty-six-year gap and reflect some of the modern challenges.

Dr John Kleinsman, director of the NZ Catholic bishops' Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics, is delighted with the bishops' update.

Kleinsman describes the new document as a "succinct overview of eight key moral areas, including a new section on information technology and artificial intelligence."

Among the modern challenges the bishops consider

• Information technology and artificial intelligence
• Justice and correction systems
• War and peace
• Poverty
• Discrimination and abuse
• End-of-life issues
• Beginning of life issues
• Integrity of Creation

Kleinsman says that people generally know what the Chucrh teaches but are unsure of why.

Te Kahu o te Ora - A Consistent Ethic of Life summarises key points which can give people greater insights into Catholic thinking, comments Kleinsman.

"It is a great source for open and informed discussions", says Kleinsman who, as well as being a theologian, is a married man, father and grandfather.

The original Te Kahu o te Ora was inspired by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's A Consistent Ethic of Life.

Bernardin's work grew from his observation that we must act consistently because all human life is sacred.

It was Bernadin's view that it was inconsistent to protect life in some situations but not in others.

In the years following Roe v. Wade, Bernardin argued that human life is always valuable and must be respected consistently from conception to natural death.

Being pro-life is not only about abortion or euthanasia.

Being pro-life must encompass war, poverty, access to health care, education and anything that threatens human life or human wellbeing, he argued.

Stephen Lowe, the Bishop of Auckland, the Apostolic Administrator of Hamilton and President of the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference, describes the update as "Opportune".

Lowe says human life and emerging challenges are interconnected.

"The essence of Te Kahu o te Ora is the interconnectedness of all life, from the womb to the Earth," he said.

Lowe says Pope Benedict put it well some years ago:

"There are so many kinds of desert. There is the desert of poverty, the desert of hunger and thirst, the desert of abandonment, of loneliness, of destroyed love. There is the desert of God's darkness, the emptiness of souls no longer aware of their dignity or the goal of human life. The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast."

"While traditional human life issues continue to need our attention, we are now facing many new problems, all interlinked.

"The key message of Te Kahu o te Ora is that everything is connected, whether it is life in the womb or the life of the Earth," Lowe repeated.

Sources

• Supplied
• Catholic Sun

But to his dismay, the Portuguese embassy returned his passport without a visa July 24, making him one of a rising number of people prevented from travelling to Lisbon for the world's largest Catholic youth event.

Along with his passport, Javed received a Portuguese form with a box ticked indicating that the authorities considered the reasons for the trip unreliable.

In other words, they were not convinced he would return home after the Aug. 1-6 gathering.

In a video sent to The Pillar July 26, Javed said that his wife had dreamed of receiving a blessing from Pope Francis as the couple married in 2017 but are yet to have children.

"She said that if we get the blessing from the pope, and we will see the pope, maybe God will bless us," the 32-year-old from the city of Sargodha said.

"She has faith that God will bless us."

Javed explained that after hearing about World Youth Day, the couple gathered all the documents required for a visa application, despite the difficulty of doing so.

Visa decisions are made by representatives of the Portuguese government and are made separately from the registration process for WYD, which the WYD Lisbon 2023 Foundation oversees.

Portugal, a member of the European Union and part of the border-free Schengen Area, has reinstated documentary border controls until the end of WYD, "to safeguard possible threats to public order and internal security" associated with a papal visit. Pope Francis is due to visit the country on Aug. 2-6.

Pilgrims have overstayed their visas at previous WYDs.

Australian media reported that out of the 110,000 people who attended WYD in Sydney in July 2008, 550 did not return home.

By September 2019, 280 pilgrims remained "on the run." Most were from South Pacific countries including Tonga, Fiji and Samoa, with the remainder from India, Pakistan, and Vietnam.

Ahead of WYD in Madrid in 2011, the Spanish authorities suspended visas from Pakistan.

"Many people from this country have tried to stay in Europe after past WYD celebrations as illegal immigrants, that's why the Spanish government has suspended the granting of visas," a spokesman for the event's organizers said at the time.

WYD Lisbon 2023's official website says that the meeting is "aimed at pilgrims from all over the world between the ages of 14 and 30, but pilgrims of other ages are welcome to register."

It also explains that "it is the responsibility of each WYD participant to obtain a visa."

Each person who registers receives a personalised letter of confirmation, which is then signed by their diocesan bishop and forms the basis for their visa application.

Archbishop Joseph Arshad of Islamabad-Rawalpindi signed Javed's registration document.

In March, WYD organizers acknowledged that a group of 10 people with whom Javed and his wife intended to travel had paid the almost $2,500 contribution required for a package including accommodation, meals, transport, insurance, and a pilgrim kit.

The group also donated more than $100 to a solidarity fund that covers the participation costs for "young people coming from less fortunate parts of the world."

"We provided all the documents as they required, but they didn't issue us a visa," Javed said.

"My question is why they didn't issue us a visa. Because we are poor?"

Portugal's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pakistan was named the world's seventh most difficult country in which to be a Christian by the advocacy group Open Doors in its World Watch List 2023.

The organisation said that the nation's Christians — who comprise around 1.8 percent of the almost 250 million population — "are considered second-class citizens and face discrimination in every aspect of life."

Javed, who has struggled financially since the coronavirus crisis, told The Pillar that he had two jobs, bringing in an income of around $90 a month.

He said he had heard that a few applicants from Pakistan with stable, well-paying jobs had received visas.

"We don't have much money … So that's why they didn't give us a visa. So is this event for rich people only? And what about the poor, what about us?" he asked.

"And if they want to do this with us, they should mention on the website that World Youth Day is for rich people only, so the poor people can't apply and can't waste their money and their time, their emotions." Read more

• Luke Coppen is The Pillar's Senior Correspondent. He edited the U.K. Catholic Herald from 2004 to 2020 and was Europe editor of the Catholic News Agency from 2020 to 2022.

Specifically, 303 Creative addressed whether a Colorado anti-discrimination law can require a designer who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple.

Two years ago, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the answer was "yes."

But on June 30, 2023, a bitterly divided Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding 6-3 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibited state officials from requiring the designer to create a website that communicates a message with which she disagrees.

As a professor of law who pays particular attention to First Amendment issues involving freedom of religion and speech, I see the case highlighting the tension between two competing fundamental interests - ones that clash routinely in 21st century America.

Compelled speech?

The underlying dispute involves graphic artist Lorie Smith, the founder and owner of a studio called 303 Creative.

According to court documents, Smith will work with clients of any sexual orientation.

However, she will not create content that goes against her religious beliefs, such as "that marriage is a union between one man and one woman."

Conflict arose when Smith challenged Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act, under which it is discriminatory and illegal to refuse services to someone based on "disability, race, creed, colour, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin or ancestry."

In 2016, Smith unsuccessfully sued the members of the state's Civil Rights Commission and Colorado's attorney general.

She and her attorneys argued that creating a website counts as an act of speech, and so being required to prepare a same-sex wedding website would violate her First Amendment rights: The law would force her to speak, legally referred to as "compelled speech."

Smith and her attorneys also claimed that requiring her to create a website would violate her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The federal trial court in Colorado rejected Smith's attempt to block enforcement of the anti-discrimination law in 2019.

When she appealed, a split 10th Circuit affirmed that Smith could not refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings, even if it would have gone against her beliefs.

In the court's opinion, protecting diverse viewpoints was a "good in and of itself," but combating discrimination "is, like individual autonomy, ‘essential' to our democratic ideals."

In a lengthy dissent, the chief judge of the 10th Circuit focused on compelled speech. He criticized the panel for taking "the remarkable - and novel - stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience."

SCOTUS speaks

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Smith's case but limited the issue to free speech, sidestepping the dispute over the free exercise of religion.

The question before the court was "whether applying a public accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that "First Amendment protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy."

Gorsuch reviewed the Supreme Court's cases protecting the rights of individuals not to express themselves.

In 1943's West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, for example, the court declared that public officials could not compel students who were Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag, because doing so violated their religious beliefs.

While noting the "vital role public accommodations laws play in realizing the civil rights of all Americans," Gorsuch reasoned that Colorado could not "force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance."

Further, Gorsuch harshly criticized the dissenting justices' argument that Colorado's law focused on business owners' conduct, not speech, contending that the dissent sidesteps a key question: whether a state can "force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose dissent was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, lamented the majority's decision as a time when there is "backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities."

Sotomayor then argued that under Colorado's anti-discrimination law, Smith's "freedom of speech is not abridged in any meaningful sense, factual or legal." If Smith wants to "advocate the idea that same-sex marriage betrays God's laws," Sotomayor made it clear that she can.

Sotomayor went on to decry the ruling for symbolically "mark(ing) gays and lesbians for second-class status." Denying services to same-sex couples "reminds LGBT people of a painful feeling that they know all too well," she wrote. "There are some public places where they can be themselves, and some where they cannot."

Questions ahead

To see how 303 Creative's impact plays out, it is worth closely watching the parts of the U.S. with anti-discrimination statutes in place.

Justice Gorsuch noted that about half of all states have laws like Colorado's that "expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation."

More specifically, 22 states, plus the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., offer various forms of protections for LGBTQ+ individuals - including retail stories, restaurants, parks, hotels, doctors' offices and banks.

I believe 303 Creative presents a challenge for society to come to grips with the tension between two fundamental interests.

One is the Supreme Court's affirmation of Smith's key argument: that requiring her to prepare websites that go against her religious beliefs would violate her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The other is the interest of same-sex couples in hiring the services they wish - and simply to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, on par with any other potential customers.

Ensuring both freedom of speech and civil rights requires good-faith efforts at respect - and respect is a two-way street.

However, exactly what this looks like will likely be the cause of more litigation to come.

• Charles J. Russo is Joseph Panzer Chair in Education in the School of Education and Health Sciences and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton.
• First published in The Conversation. Reproduced with permission.

Logan Popp, a trans man, said he was speaking out to warn others in the rainbow community about the staff member's words - which he said "could be a matter of life and death".

Popp said he was a regular at Unichem Torbay, where he had always been welcomed and treated with respect before an incident on Friday left him feeling uncomfortable to return. Read more

The research published in Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Harassment in Aotearoa New Zealand showed 61% of disabled workers had been racially harassed in the previous five years, compared to 37% of non-disabled workers.

Nearly 60% of disabled workers had been sexually harassed in the same time period compared to 28% of non-disabled workers.

Meanwhile, 52% had been bullied in the previous 12 months, compared to 17% of non-disabled workers.Read more

Decision-makers and gatekeepers - from border guards to maître d's - will have a means of knowing who can safely engage with others.

To that end, the New Zealand government aims to have one in place by year's end.

But vaccine passports have also prompted riots and protests overseas, and there are as yet unanswered questions about their use domestically.

A central concern is that they will cause or exacerbate inequality because access to a passport relies on access to vaccines, and access to vaccines has been unequal.

Internationally, citizens of some countries are more likely to have access to vaccines - and so to vaccine passports - than citizens of other countries. And within countries, some individuals and groups are more likely to have access to vaccines than others.

Furthermore, these inequalities track familiar and ethically troubling fault lines: New Zealand has struggled to lift Maori vaccination rates to match those of European New Zealanders, though Maori are more at risk.

And vaccine passports could compound existing inequalities, as those with them return to work and other activities while those without remain trapped.

Inequality and discrimination

But there are reasons to think these legitimate concerns don't automatically mean vaccine passports are unethical.

Firstly, the need to contain COVID-19 justifies the significant restrictions of important liberties in lockdowns. But to the extent that vaccines work, that justification doesn't apply to someone who has been vaccinated.

The justification for curtailing liberties has gone (or at least, given the possibility of breakthrough cases, been considerably weakened), so for the vaccinated the curtailment should go too.

Secondly, distinguishing between people on the basis of their COVID immunity may be discrimination, but it's not obvious it is unjustified discrimination.

Whether someone is vaccinated or not is arguably legitimate grounds for discrimination.

The unvaccinated (for whatever reason) pose a greater risk to others than the vaccinated. They are also more likely to suffer severe symptoms if they get COVID-19.

Thirdly, one reason to tolerate inequality is that sometimes it improves the position of the disadvantaged.

We might tolerate doctors' high incomes, for example, if the promise of a higher income led people to study medicine and we believed a good supply of doctors benefited the worst-off members of our community.

Vaccine passports might work the same way. They help get the economy going, so the government can support those still locked down. They're also an incentive to vaccinate, and high vaccination rates are good for everyone — perhaps especially the unvaccinated.

An offer you can't refuse

But the use of vaccine passports as incentives poses some real issues. How they are used is crucial. Under some proposals, vaccination passports are (like conventional passports) essentially another international travel document.

Increasingly, however, countries (including New Zealand potentially) are proposing their use to control access to a significant range of domestic activities, such as returning to work in person, dining out or going to concerts and sports events.

In this context, it's clear some incentives can be coercive: they might be an offer you can't refuse.

There are some people desperate to travel overseas, perhaps for good family reasons. But most of us can still decide whether the incentive of the IATA Travel Pass is enough to motivate us to travel.

Justified coercion?

Many people, though, will simply not be in a position to refuse the incentive of a domestic vaccine passport.

Getting back to work and a pre-COVID life will not be a discretionary matter. For them, domestic vaccination passports are likely to be coercive.

For now, at least, the government insists vaccination will not be mandatory.

But effectively it will be for those who have no choice but to get a vaccine passport to work or have access to non-discretionary domestic activities.

And that coercion will not apply equally. There will be much greater pressure on those who are already socially disadvantaged and less able to make a genuine choice.

Coercion is sometimes justified, and perhaps the threat posed by COVID-19 warrants it. However, we should be wary of accepting kinds of coercion that are discriminatory and inegalitarian.

Governments need to be clear

So what should we do about vaccine passports and vaccine incentives?

We could restrict them to more discretionary activities, such as international travel, concerts and restaurants. That would be an offer anyone could refuse, especially the already disadvantaged.

But this use of passports might be an insufficient incentive — too many people might refuse to get one. That's a problem if we think trying to increase vaccination rates is justified.

So we think governments have a choice: they should address concerns about vaccine passports by avoiding uses that are coercive, discriminatory and inegalitarian.

Alternatively, they should acknowledge their position that COVID-19 justifies coercion, and make vaccination mandatory.

The second option would be less discriminatory and seems less likely to threaten trust and cooperation than the surreptitious and uneven compulsion provided by wide-ranging requirements for domestic vaccine passports.

• Tim Dare Professor of Philosophy, University of Auckland and Justine Kingsbury Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Waikato.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

The "family link" policy, introduced in 2009, prevents refugees from Africa and the Middle East from resettling in New Zealand unless they have family already living here.

"Policies that single out African and Middle Eastern refugees and treat them unfairly in comparison to other refugees are unacceptable," Foon told 1 NEWS.

Guled Mire, a prominent refugee and Muslim community advocate, said the community were grateful and heartened by Mr Foon's comments on the family link policy.

In May immigration minister Iain Lees-Galloway agrees quota rules for refugees from the Middle East and Africa are discriminatory but was brought in by the previous government.

Lees-Galloway said quota rules run for three years and a government decision about the next three years was "imminent".

Select Committee recommendation

A parliamentary select committee - with MPs from across the political spectrum - has been considering a petition demanding the policy be scrapped, but last week, reported back with little in the way of enthusiastic support. It stated:

"Reviews of the settings for the Refugee Quota Programme take place in three-year cycles, with the current cycle being 2019/20 to 2021/22.

The policy settings that are typically reviewed include: the size of the quota, the international regional allocations, and the size and settings for any subcategories.

The Government has already signalled the increase in the refugee quota to 1,500 individuals. We understand that the Government is still reviewing some of the other policy settings for the current cycle.

We encourage the Government to take into account the first-hand perspective and evidence given by the petitioner when reviewing the settings.

Gayaal Iddamalgoda, from the Migrant and Refugee Rights Campaign, said the MPs should be embarrassed by the "shameful" response.

Source

• tvnz.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• parliament.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• Image: rnz.co.nz

This is an increasingly urgent issue because of the "resurgence of divisions in today's world," Archbishop Ivan Jurkovic told the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

"This cannot happen without the leadership of government and other local stakeholders, including community and religious leaders, alongside women and men at all levels of society."

These are some of the conclusions contained in a report from a United Nation Human Rights delegation that has just completed a visit to Samoa.

The delegation concluded that while huge strides had been made in tackling the issue of gender-based violence, much more still needs to be done to tackle deeply rooted gender discrimination.

Kamala Chandrakirana, who currently heads the UN Working Group on discrimination against women, says Samoa is only at the beginning of a long journey.

Samoan authorities have acknowledged the problem since a 2007 study on domestic violence found 46 percent of women surveyed had experienced some form of partner abuse and 60 percent been physically abused by someone other than a partner.

Data from the Domestic Violence Unit of the Ministry of Police shows between the years of 2007-2015 there was an increase of reported domestic violence of female victims between the ages of 17 and 33.

The increase refers only to cases reported to Police headquarters in Apia. It does not include cases reported to police outposts.

At the end of last year Samoa's prime minister Tuila'epa Sa'ilele Malielegaoi set up a commission to inquire into domestic violence

Its chairman, Samoa's ombudsman Maiava Iulai Toma, said during the consultations he came to realise that traditional institutions, such as the matai system, which is influential in regulating behaviour in villages, should be engaged.

"But then of course we have to really look at these institutions to see that they can truly provide solutions and that they're not a significant part of the problem," he said.

The UN delegation:

• Found many Samoans had been profoundly shocked by a recent government report revealing the scale of gender-based violence.
• Concluded addressing the root causes of violence against women would require a major shift in cultural perceptions about women and their place in society.

The delegation urged new policies including:

• A state-sponsored social welfare system
• Full support for women and girls who had suffered sexual or physical violence
• Better funding for the civil society groups that are already making an immense contribution despite limited resources.

The delegation carried out its fact-finding visit from 8 to 18 August.

It had been invited by the Samoan government to look into the current situation of women's human rights in the country.

Source

• UNOG
• Pacific Scoop
• RNZ
• RNZ
• RNZ
• Voice of America
• Samoa Observer
• Image: UNDP

The proposed Crimes Bill 2017 was presented after the Cook Islands Parliament established a committee to review public submissions about amending the Crimes Act.

Some religious leaders are opposing the change.

"If a person chooses to live a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender lifestyle, he or she is choosing a perversion of God's good design," claimed Tevai Matapo a senior church minister.

"The only hope for the abolition of the hatred and mistreatment of any group of people, including those engaged in sexual sin, is in submitting to God and being washed clean by Jesus Christ," he said.

The Te Tiare Association is the Cook Islands' only LGBTI group.

Valentino Wichman, who led the group's submission, has since called on the committee to make sure that there were no other parts of the new bill that would criminalise homosexuality.

"What people tend to forget is that there is a very real personal aspect to this argument of decriminalising homosexuality," Wichman explained in his submission.

"Everyone has a family member or friend that is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, queer or intersex. There are real people affected behind this debate."

Vanuatu, Fiji, Palau and Nauru have have decriminalised homosexuality.

In Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu, anti-homosexuality law applies only to men.

Homosexuality is illegal in Solomon Islands for both men and women.

Source

• RNZ
• Eikon
• Image: Samoaplanet

Mr 'Akilisi Pohiva said local women's groups would again be asked to carry out public consultations.

Tonga has been preparing to ratify the convention since 2015. Last year Pohiva said the Government was stepping back from ratification after opponents protested that it could open the way for same-sex marriage and abortion.

"We made it clear that some of the clauses in regards to CEDAW are well taken by government and there are a few we do not think that they are appropriate," Pohiva said.

"We cannot apply this provision in the case of Tonga. That is why we thought the most appropriate action to be taken is to send them back for review and for discussion."

In May 2016 the Catholic Women's League presented a petition to parliament.

Lady ‘Ainise Sevele, the Assistant President of Tonga's Catholic Women's League with the Vicar-General Monsignor Lutoviko Finau and other church members led the march of about 300 people.

At the time Lady Sevele said the petition had more than 2000 signatories, calling for the Government of Tonga not to ratify the United Nation's CEDAW convention for women.

The main reasons for their opposition is that they believe the convention, which seeks to eliminate discrimination against women, clashes with their Christian faith and does not concur with the fundamental values of Tonga's family life.

Tonga is one of only six UN members which haven't ratified CEDAW, including Iran, Sudan, Somalia and the USA.

Source

• radionz.co.nz
• matangitonga.to
• Image: radionz.co.nz

Doctors who refuse to take part in abortions are suffering increasingly from harassment and discrimination at work, the British Medical Association (BMA) has told MPs.

Healthcare professionals are complaining to the union that they are facing pressure to take part in abortions and confronted with glass ceilings to advancement when they refuse.

The BMA highlighted the problem in written evidence submitted to a parliamentary inquiry into the working of the conscience clause of the 1967 Abortion Act.

The BMA said in its evidence that it "supports the right of doctors to have a conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy and believes that such doctors should not be marginalised".

Source:

• Catholic Herald

Martine Delaney had complained to Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Commission about a booklet produced by Australia's Catholic bishops.

The booklet, titled "Don't Mess with Marriage", was a pastoral letter from the bishops sparked by the same-sex marriage debate.

Ms Delaney and Hobart archdiocese agreed to enter conciliation last year, but the activist said the Church refused to budge from its position.

Ms Delaney said she withdrew her case to avoid a lengthy tribunal battle.

Continue reading

Former Australian cabinet minister Senator Eric Abetz put up the motion in the senate on Thursday.

This was on the same day as it was confirmed that Tasmania's anti-discrimination commissioner is to conduct an investigation into the pamphlet.

The pamphlet, which is a letter from Australia's Catholic bishops, was distributed to Catholic schools throughout the nation earlier this year.

It outlines the Church's stance against changing Australia's Marriage Act to include same-sex couples.

The senate motion by Mr Abetz was brought with some crossbench support.

The motion stated that: "The senate, while not expressing a view on the contents of the booklet issued by the Australian Catholic bishops conference entitled ‘Don't Mess with Marriage', fully supports the rights of members of the Catholic Church, including Archbishop Julian Porteous [of Hobart], to distribute it."

Labor and the Greens joined forces to block the motion before it got put to a vote.

Mr Abetz said that the two parties shut down the basic right of freedom of speech.

"Free speech is a key pillar of our society and the tricky tactics used by Labor in an effort to shut down debate and run a protection racket for the extreme Greens flies in the face of the open discussion we should be having about marriage," he said.

Labor senator Claire Moore said it was "simply not appropriate for the senate to determine a position on this matter", while a case was being decided.

Greens senator Robert Simms said: "The Australian Greens support free speech in this country, but we recognise that freedom of speech is a limited concept in any democracy.

"We believe that the right to express a view should be balanced against the rights of members of our community to feel safe and secure from persecution and discrimination."

Mr Abetz has promised to bring back the motion to the senate.

Sources

• Guardian Australia
• Guardian Australia
• Sydney Catholic
• Image: Sydney Morning Herald

The Randstad Workmonitor report found that more than three-quarters of Kiwi workers believe their company has an open and inclusive culture, while 88% of companies value diversity in the workplace.

9% of Kiwi workers said they had been victims of religious discrimination, while 16% of Aussie workers said they had been subjected to it.

The number of Australians subjected to racial, gender or age discrimination in the workplace is higher than the global averages.

Researchers also found that New Zealand workplaces were supportive of gender equality.

Just 16% of Kiwi participants said they had been subjected to gender discrimination - a rate that is significantly lower than the global average of 21%. A quarter of Australian respondents said the same.

New Zealand was also found to be among the most tolerant when it came to having workforces consisting of employees from various racial backgrounds.

Just 10% of Kiwi workers said they had been subject to racial discrimination at work, compared to 20% in Australia - a statistic that is 3% higher than the global average.

"It's great to see New Zealand as a place that recognises diverse cultures, which can be attributed in no small part to the steady inflow of immigrants into New Zealand for more than two centuries," said Penni Hlaca, head of client solutions at Randstad New Zealand.

"The fact that Kiwis love to travel abroad and embrace new cultures, provides us with a competitive edge on the increasingly global employment landscape."

Hlaca added that the results were "simply a reflection of New Zealand culture".

"But the key is to not get complacent, and whilst we are stacking up well on a global scale for acceptance, we should continue to strive to set the benchmark as a country where nobody feels discriminated against," she said.

Source

• hcamag.com
• Image: hrc.co.nz

Martine Delaney has asked the commissioner's office to investigate Hobart Archbishop Julian Porteous and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.

At issue is the booklet "Don't Mess with Marriage", produced by the bishops earlier this year.

The booklet makes it clear that the Church opposes the legalisation of same-sex marriage and explains why it defends legal marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The publication was distributed in June to about 12,000 Tasmanian families whose children attend Catholic schools.

Campaigner Martine Delaney, who is the Greens' candidate for the federal seat of Franklin, said the booklet could cause "immeasurable harm".

She told media that the booklet gives "the idea that same-sex attracted people can never have a relationship that is equal to a heterosexual marriage, that they can never be whole as people, that their children can never be complete as people".

In her complaint, Ms Delaney asked for a public apology from the Archbishop Porteous and the Australian Catholic Bishops.

She also wants the Catholic Church in Tasmania to implement a Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex awareness program for all staff and students within the Catholic education system.

Australia's government has suggested that a plebiscite will be held on legalising same-sex marriage during the next federal parliament.

Archbishop Porteous said it is important that there be an open and free debate.

"The [booklet] affirms the dignity of all human beings regardless of their physical characteristics, gender or the orientation of their sexual attraction," he said.

"[It]condemns in the strongest terms any form of unjust discrimination."

He said some people want Christians prevented from publicly expressing their views on important social issues.

"Increasingly they are trying to manipulate anti-discrimination legislation to achieve this end.

"This represents the rise of a new intolerance against Christianity in Australian society and more generally a threat to freedom of speech."

Once the Commissioner has investigated a complaint it could be referred onto an Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, which has the power to make orders.

Sources

• Guardian Australia
• ABC
• Hobart Legal
• Image: ABC

A public consultation carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission also showed Christians are being mocked by colleagues for being bigoted.

Christians are also discriminated against when it comes to wearing religious symbols, the report showed.

Almost 2500 people took part in the consultation.

It found widespread public confusion and misunderstanding about the legal status of religion.

Continue reading

Houston's city attorney issued subpoenas in response to a lawsuit related to the city's new non-discrimination ordinance.

The new law, which has yet to take effect, would, among other things, allow men who identify as women to use restrooms of their choice and vice-versa.

A petition to put this to voters was knocked back, resulting in a lawsuit, and hence the subpoenas.

The pastors are required to hand over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender issues or Houston's first openly lesbian mayor Annise Parker.

Although the five pastors are not plantiffs in the lawsuit, they organised the petition, so their sermons are relevant, the city's attorney said.

Critics have charged that the city's move contravenes religious liberty and is an attack on the first amendment to the US constitution.

Continue reading