‘The bell was tolling’: the framing of religious freedom in The Australian editorials 2015-2019

ABSTRACT

The Australian is one of the country’s most politically influential newspapers. Between 2015 and 2019 it ran a campaign, supported by an unusually large number of editorials, which raised the profile of the issue of religious freedom in public debate. This article uses media framing analysis to examine the 40 editorials that addressed religious freedom published during this period. Religious freedom was framed by The Australian as a right under profound threat which could have significant consequences for Australian society. The analysis also shows, however, that the framing of religious freedom—and the intertwined freedoms of speech and conscience—was deliberately constructed in order not to protect and promote these rights, but to undermine the progress of LGBTIQ rights, and marriage equality in particular. In the clash between The Australian’s avowed libertarian principles and its politically conservative policy agenda, the newspaper used its framing of religious freedom to continue its longstanding campaign against the progressive left.

KEYWORDS:

• Religious freedom
• same-sex marriage
• media framing
• The Australian newspaper
• lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer (LGBTIQ) rights
• Australia

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful for the support and excellent feedback of Professor Marion Maddox and Associate Professor Clare Monagle from Macquarie University. Thanks to David Marr who was generous both in conversation and in editorial support and to Dr Juliet Sheen for her reading of the paper and helpful feedback. The research and drafting of this paper was conducted at Harris Manchester College, Oxford during the author’s appointment as a Visiting Fellow in 2019. The author is grateful for the invaluable support of the Principal, the Reverend Professor Jane Shaw, and the librarians, Susan Killoran and Niall Sheekey. The author acknowledges the very helpful feedback from the anonymous reviewers whose careful engagement and attention has made this a better paper than it otherwise would have been.

Notes

1. Victorian Department of Education and Training n.d.. See also, for example, Donelly 2016; Louden 2017.

2. See Jabour 2013. Wilson served two years before resigning to seek federal Liberal Party preselection. He has been the member for Goldstein since 2016 and an advocate for marriage equality and freedom of speech. He is referenced in seven of the editorials analysed in this paper, including two after his election to parliament.

3. See Wilson 2014b. His first speech, delivered earlier that month, referred to the Cobaw case: Wilson 2014a.

4. Christian Youth Camps Limited v Cobaw Community Health Service Limited & Ors [2014] VSCA 75.

5. See Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017.

6. The report and the government response is available at Attorney General’s Department, Australian Government n.d.

7. Between 1997 (when The Australian first appears in Factiva) and 2002 when Mitchell took over the newspaper, seven editorials referred to religious freedom issues and the stance was socially progressive, for example, calling for more respect for Muslim Australians post-9/11.

8. The Sydney Morning Herald published eight and The Age published five. The capital city dailies are The Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Telegraph (Sydney), The Age and Herald Sun (Melbourne), Courier Mail (Brisbane), West Australian (Perth), Advertiser (Adelaide), Canberra Times (Canberra), Hobart Mercury (Hobart) and Northern Territory News (Darwin). The other national daily, The Australian Financial Review, also did not publish any editorials during this period.

9. In an opinion piece referenced in three editorials during 2015, Kelly wrote: ‘The central issue in any Australian recognition of same-sex marriage remains almost invisible – whether the state’s re-definition of civil marriage will authorise an assault on churches, institutions and individuals who retain their belief in the traditional view of marriage’ (Kelly 2015, emphasis added).

10. See Chung 2017.

11. Section 18C defines racial discrimination as including conduct that ‘offends’, ‘insults’, ‘humiliates’ or ‘intimidates’ on the basis of their race. The Abbott government sought but failed to remove the section after right-wing commentator Andrew Bolt was found to have acted in breach of the Act. See McNamara 2016.

12. This contrasts with four (of the seven) religious freedom editorials published between 1997 and 2002 raising concerns about the treatment of Muslims in Australia and calling for an end to the abuse and discrimination and greater respect and understanding, for example, ‘Get to know the Muslims among us’ (26 September 2001) and ‘Let’s respect religious difference’ (22 November 2002).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elenie Poulos

Elenie Poulos has recently completed her PhD in the Department of Modern History, Politics and International Relations at Macquarie University. She is a minister in the Uniting Church in Australia and was, for fifteen years, the National Director of UnitingJustice Australia, the Church’s national justice policy and advocacy unit.