In liberal, multicultural societies, society must balance principles such as tolerance for divers... more In liberal, multicultural societies, society must balance principles such as tolerance for diversity with the risk that aspects of some cultural traditions may erode liberal values. Liberalism has traditionally relied on the harm principle as a means by which to draw a line in law between prohibiting or permitting the expression of values held by various groups. This paper examines the harm principle in the context of anti-discrimination law reform in Australia. Such law reform has seen sharp social disagreements, particularly in relation to legal exemptions afforded to religious bodies. Religious groups have sought exemptions to be retained, or expanded, in order to protect religious conscience and practice. They argue that religious exemptions allow the diverse pluralism aspired to by a liberal, multicultural society. Others have pointed to religious exemptions as a cover for illiberal practices. The effects of religious exemptions on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals is a primary example. The paper describes these arguments using submissions to a state (sub-federal) law reform process (Victoria, 2008-10). It finds that key religious arguments had a culturally specific response to LGBTI that was at least partly attributable to the psychology of disgust. The law reform process ultimately found in favour of the arguments put by religious groups. This paper concludes that this result was reached without credible or substantial consideration of the harm principle. Thus, disgust prevailed over harm.
In liberal, multicultural societies, society must balance principles such as tolerance for divers... more In liberal, multicultural societies, society must balance principles such as tolerance for diversity with the risk that aspects of some cultural traditions may erode liberal values. Liberalism has traditionally relied on the harm principle as a means by which to draw a line in law between prohibiting or permitting the expression of values held by various groups. This paper examines the harm principle in the context of anti-discrimination law reform in Australia. Such law reform has seen sharp social disagreements, particularly in relation to legal exemptions afforded to religious bodies. Religious groups have sought exemptions to be retained, or expanded, in order to protect religious conscience and practice. They argue that religious exemptions allow the diverse pluralism aspired to by a liberal, multicultural society. Others have pointed to religious exemptions as a cover for illiberal practices. The effects of religious exemptions on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals is a primary example. The paper describes these arguments using submissions to a state (sub-federal) law reform process (Victoria, 2008-10). It finds that key religious arguments had a culturally specific response to LGBTI that was at least partly attributable to the psychology of disgust. The law reform process ultimately found in favour of the arguments put by religious groups. This paper concludes that this result was reached without credible or substantial consideration of the harm principle. Thus, disgust prevailed over harm.
Uploads
Papers by Angus McLeay