Over Easter, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), a federal government agency, will be finalising its report on how to crucify Christian schools. The report into ‘Religious Education Institutions and Anti-discrimination Laws’ was instigated by federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. Heads of all major churches pleaded against the report’s proposed removal of protections for Christian schools to teach and live according to their faith. The director of public policy for Christian Schools Australia, Mark Spencer, told Sky News the report spells ‘devastation’.

It’s tempting to draw parallels with the hostile role of the High Priest Caiaphas – the canny politician who declared Jesus must die but first sought legal cover from the Romans. Pilate obliges, in an infamous travesty of justice, just as the ALRC provides a legal fig leaf to cover this naked attack on Christians.

The ALRC draft report shows such contempt for the Christian moral code on matters sexual that it amounts to an open invitation for LGBT activists to march right in to a Christian school and wreck the joint. Which is, of course, the whole point. Dreyfus and Albanese want a way to stop conservative Christian schools teaching those offensive Christian values; the ALRC shows them the way.

So a gay teacher at a Christian school chooses to march at World Pride in the sado-masochistic bondage gear we saw in Sydney, perhaps with a teddy bear head-dress like that sinister poster at Wynyard station? Or he prefers to march in that angel costume displayed during World Pride, where the wings are feathered with multi-coloured penises? Too bad, says the ALRC: a Christian school is, quote, ‘not allowed to take any action against a teacher who marches in a Pride parade’.

It gets worse, of course. What if a transexual staff member wants to teach Christian kids the LGBTQI+ moral code of sex-without-boundaries, perhaps using the notorious Safe Schools/Minus18 material (‘It’s a total lie that all guys have dicks, that all girls have vaginas’… ‘two virginities: my first time with a chick and my first time with a dude’)? Too bad again, says the ALRC: a teacher in a Christian school cannot be stopped from teaching subversive, anti-Christian notions on sex and gender – provided he/xe/they also give a token account of ‘the school’s position on those religious doctrines’.

And so the religious ethos of Christian schools will be trashed by federal Labor. Dreyfus and his ALRC yes-men will knock down the walls that Christian parents have built to protect their children, for those few short years of school, from the foulness beyond. Walls that define a moral domain where marriage is a covenant of compassion as much as passion; where a man must vow himself in loyalty to a woman and to any child they might conceive or never even enter into a sexual relationship; where sexual aberrations, especially if they involve gross abuses of the human body, must not even be spoken of; where the mind-messing notion of gender fluidity is understood for the gnostic cult that it is. Labor hates this ancient worldview, rages against this pocket of resistance to the sexual revolution, and will roll its tanks right over those walls and those parents.

How strange that this moral coercion can happen in a country that has signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That noble document includes freedom of religion and association as well as one vital provision in Article 18: that the state must respect ‘the liberty of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions’.

The ALRC admits that the government is bound to ‘not unduly interfere with or limit human rights’. It then proceeds to argue, using shamefully misleading evidence, that this proposed interference with human rights is ‘necessary’ and therefore justified in law.

Their argument for ‘necessity’ (section A.33), asserts without evidence that LGBTQI+ students will suffer ‘significant mental health harms’ unless we change the law. They give two main arguments, both of them defective and deceptive.

First, the suicide card is played: the finding in a La Trobe study that ‘one in four LGBTQI+ young people have attempted suicide and one in two trans’, as if that was a uniquely LGBT tragedy. No mention of the finding by the US Center for Disease Control that one in four female high school students had a suicide plan in 2021. Why does the ALRC give no context across the whole disastrous youth scene? And why imply that Christian education is a factor in LGBT suicidality when there is no evidence whatsoever, none, zip, to support that slander?

Second, the trans discrimination card is played: ‘Australia’s largest national study into the experiences of transgender students found that a large proportion (68.9 per cent) reported experiencing discrimination, which is a key driver of mental health concerns’. That is regrettable, but again irrelevant to Labor’s case for suppressing religious schools. Nowhere in this ‘largest national study’ is there any mention of religious education as a factor in transgender discrimination or mental health. Not a word.

It is ideology, not evidence, that explains this drive to intimidate Christian schools. Mr Dreyfus should know that anti-religious ideology is lethal.

He is a member of the Parliamentary Friends of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance which defines antisemitism as: ‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities’.

Try changing Jew to Christian in that definition; consider the vicious attacks on any Christian who defends traditional teaching on marriage, gender and sexual ethics; now look at Labor’s attempt to crush our ‘community institutions and religious facilities’, i.e. the Christian school.

Tell me, Mr Dreyfus, how are you not guilty of the same religious hatred against Christians that you so rightly object to when it is directed against Jews?