Tag: Anti-discrimination

Aleph Melbourne submission referenced in ALRC final report of inquiry into Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws

In February 2023 Aleph Melbourne lodged a submission with the Australian Law Reform Commission’s enquiry into Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws.

The ALRC released the report into the enquiry in December 2023, and on March 21 2024 the report was tabled in Parliament.

Aleph Melbourne’s submission was referenced on page 91 in the report, in relation to Section 4.23 point 2:

 4.23 In relation to submissions made to the ALRC in this Inquiry, key reasons underpinning stakeholder support for Proposition A.1 were:

  •  coherence with international and domestic law;14
  •  reducing the risk of harm to vulnerable students;15
  •  supporting inclusion and diversity;16 and
  •  compulsory school education is a public good, supported by public funding, so schools should be safe environments for all students, and should be accountable to community expectations.17
ALRC-ADL-Final-Report-142-pp90-91

Aleph Melbourne submission to ALRC inquiry into Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws

The Australian Law Reform Commission is holding an inquiry into Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws.

This is Aleph Melbourne’s submission to the inquiry:

2023-ALRC-submission-179-M-Barnett-ADL-submission

All submissions here.

Jews All Diverse and Equal Video Competition! | Minus18 + JCCV

From Minus18:

We’re working on a very exciting new project with the Jewish Community Council of Victoria!

It’s a video competition all about showcasing the experiences of Jewish young people to help combat LGBTI discrimination!

Entries close on October 30th! Get in fast!

Go to http://jccv.org.au/jade for more information!

Minus18 is Australia’s largest youth-led organisation for same-sex attracted and gender diverse young people. This is where we belong.

Website https://minus18.org.au

AJN Letters: Response to the appointment of Mark Dreyfus as Attorney-General – February 15, 2013

15 February 2013
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

Letters to the editor should be no more than 250 words and may be edited for length and content. Only letters sent to letters@jewishnews.net.au will be considered for publication. Please supply an address and daytime phone number for verification.

Commending Dreyfus

A HEARTY mazal tov on the appointment of Mark Dreyfus as federal Attorney-General.

I am heartened by his solid support for removing discrimination in the federal Marriage Act introduced under the Howard government in 2004, which purposefully prevents same-sex couples and intersex people from obtaining a civil marriage.

It is also reassuring that Dreyfus backs the inclusion of protections under proposed federal anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds of gender identity and sexuality.

These changes will greatly benefit the Jewish community by ensuring our families and children are better protected, less susceptible to discriminatory practices and able to celebrate loving, committed relationships on par with the rest of society.

MICHAEL BARNETT
Ashwood, Vic

ECAJ submission to the Senate Committee on the Exposure Draft of Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry submitted a response to the Senate Committee inquiry on the Exposure Draft of Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.

All submissions to this Senate inquiry are online here.  The submission by the ECAJ is available on the Senate site (#242) and the ECAJ site.

The following paragraph on page 6 of the submission (emphasis added) is of particular relevance:

Whilst there are good, evidence-based policy reasons to have legislation in place which prohibits conduct that offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates others because of other attributes, especially sexual orientation and gender identity, we believe that this should take the form of anti-vilification, not anti-discrimination, legislation and such legislation should include the same objective element as applies when the protected attribute is race. If, as we believe is the case, the Commonwealth lacks the constitutional power to enact anti-vilification legislation to protect attributes other than race, then it should be left to the States and Territories to do so, and the focus of government should be to achieve uniformity in such legislation across Australia.