tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca-fr/topics/james-paterson-46261/articlesJames Paterson – La Conversation2023-11-15T08:14:56Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2178082023-11-15T08:14:56Z2023-11-15T08:14:56ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: James Paterson on the High Court’s decision on detention and rising anti-Semitism<p>Last week the High Court ruled that holding high-risk asylum seekers in indefinite detention was unconstitutional. As a consequence of the court decision, more than 80 people, some of whom were convicted of serious crimes including murder and rape, have been released. The government will rush in legislation on Thursday to deal with the fallout.</p>
<p>In this podcast, Liberal senator and Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security James Paterson joins The Conversation to discuss the High Court’s ruling, his concerns about increasing anti-Semitism across the country, the rising cyber risks, and Australia’s future relations with China.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217808/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, Liberal Senator James Paterson joins The Conversation to discuss the High Court's ruling, his concerns about rising anti-Semitism, rising cyber risks, and Australia's future relations with ChinaMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2040162023-04-18T02:00:41Z2023-04-18T02:00:41ZJacinta Nampijinpa Price to be Peter Dutton’s right-hand campaigner against the Voice<p>Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has given his campaign against the Voice added horsepower by elevating high-profile Indigenous Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to become shadow minister for Indigenous Australians.</p>
<p>Price has been one of the loudest, most trenchant opponents of the Voice – at the opposite end of the Coalition spectrum from Julian Leeser, whom she replaces. Leeser resigned from the frontbench last week to campaign for the yes case, triggering the frontbench shakeup. </p>
<p>In a significant reshuffle, Dutton has also brought the Coalition’s other Indigenous MP, South Australian Senator Kerrynne Liddle, into the shadow ministry. Like Price, Liddle, a former journalist and businesswoman, entered parliament at last year’s election. </p>
<p>She will become shadow minister for child protection and prevention of family violence. Dutton has brought this issue to the fore in relation to Indigenous communities with allegations of sexual assault against Indigenous children in Alice Springs. </p>
<p>The reshuffle also sees Karen Andrews, who has been spokeswoman on home affairs (and previously the minister), step down to the backbench. Dutton said Andrews has recently told him she would not run again and would be happy to go to the backbench when there was a reshuffle. </p>
<p>Andrews will be replaced by Senator James Paterson, who under the Coalition government chaired the powerful parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security. He is already shadow minister for cybersecurity and shadow minister for countering foreign interference. </p>
<p>Senator Michaelia Cash becomes shadow attorney-general (the other portfolio held by Leeser), returning to an area she held in government. She retains her present responsibilities for employment and workplace relations. </p>
<p>The choice of Price had not seemed to be Dutton’s original plan. Coming from the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party, she sits with the Nationals. </p>
<p>Her promotion, following talks between Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud, means the Nationals’ representation is above their quota under the Coalition agreement. </p>
<p>Apart from the quota issue, there were other arguments against Price – that she was too inexperienced and that elevating her would put noses out of joint among Liberals who had been around longer. </p>
<p>But over the past week, calls increased for her appointment from vocal supporters, and she featured widely in the media including on the ABC’s Insiders on Sunday. </p>
<p>Dutton described Price as “a warrior for Indigenous Australians”. </p>
<p>“She’s always fought hard to improve the lives of Indigenous women and kids. She’s done an incredible amount of work to tackle tough issues like the scourge of sexual abuse, domestic violence and the crisis of law and order in some Indigenous communities, particularly Alice Springs most recently.” </p>
<p>Dutton also insisted he had raised the issue of child sexual abuse with the prime minister, despite Anthony Albanese on Monday denying this. </p>
<p>Dutton told his news conference: “There is a systemic problem in Alice Springs, the NT and other parts of the country and a big part of the decision to put Jacinta Price into this portfolio and Kerrynne Liddle into her portfolio is because we want to provide a brighter future for those kids.</p>
<p>"We can’t have a situation where we have young children being sexually abused, the impact psychologically on them, the difficulties it creates within a home environment.</p>
<p>"As we know, in Alice Springs at the moment, there are very significant issues.”</p>
<p>Andrews said that having decided “to call time” on her political career, “I wanted to ensure the Coalition has maximum time to have a replacement in the crucial home affairs portfolio, and the best replacement candidate for [her Queensland seat of] McPherson in place”. </p>
<p>She said in a statement she would continue to to support the Liberals’ position on the Voice. But she told a later news conference: “I won’t be out there wearing a shirt that says vote no. When people speak to me I will go through what
my concerns are, but I want to do that in a very neutral way so that
people are in a position that they can make their own mind up.”</p>
<p>She said she could not support the current words for the referendum, but she was open to working to get a proper set of words.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Price, the new shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, has been one of the loudest, most trenchant opponents of the Voice.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1977612023-01-16T06:05:41Z2023-01-16T06:05:41ZAre the Clintons actually writing their novels? An expert uses ‘stylometry’ to analyse Hillary and Bill’s writing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504290/original/file-20230112-60779-e6jept.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=63%2C0%2C2772%2C1824&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Author James Patterson and former President Bill Clinton attend a book signing for The President is Missing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/huntington-ny-jun-28-author-james-1123404659">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2018, former US president Bill Clinton coauthored a novel with James Patterson, the <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/20/how-james-patterson-became-the-worlds-best-selling-author">world’s bestselling author</a>. The President is Missing is a typical “Patterson”: a page-turner of a thriller, easy to read, with short chapters and large font.</p>
<p>Patterson is accustomed to collaborative writing – much of his success can be attributed to novels he has written with others. Considered the first “brand-managed author”, Patterson brought the Hollywood model of film production to books. </p>
<p>He is as much a producer as he is a writer, using a string of junior collaborators to run his factory of novels. Patterson outlines the plot, the coauthors write the story, Patterson offers feedback. While <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-dont-need-to-write-much-to-be-the-worlds-bestselling-author-75261">he doesn’t seem to do much writing</a> himself, it is a system that has made Patterson <a href="https://wealthygorilla.com/richest-authors-world/">a rich man</a>.</p>
<p>It’s one thing for Patterson to work with aspiring novelists looking to launch their careers, but when former presidents come looking for a writing partner, that’s a different story. Where Patterson’s other collaborators have been his junior, exchanging their labour as writers for a bit of pay and profile, Bill Clinton probably isn’t in need of a freelance writing gig to pay his way.</p>
<p>Indeed, in the case of The President is Missing, analysis found that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2018/jun/07/bill-clinton-james-patterson-the-president-is-missing-co-authors">Patterson did most of the writing</a>. The only exception is <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/18/bill-clinton-and-james-pattersons-concussive-collaboration">the novel’s ending</a>, which is essentially a “fiction-free” version of Clinton’s “politico-historical thoughts”. </p>
<p>Of course, style isn’t the only thing that makes an author. Stories are as much about plot (some might even argue more) as they are style. But analysing who came up with the contents of a story is a far more complex task than analysing who actually wrote it and as the adage goes, a good story is all in its telling.</p>
<h2>Using ‘stylometry’ to establish authorship</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnFgVc8UNkE&t=38s">Using a technique called “stylometry”</a>, it can be established that Patterson probably wrote most of The President is Missing. Stylometry uses computers to statistically analyse the frequency of words in a text. It can be applied to a variety of research purposes, most notably, authorship attribution. </p>
<p>Stylometry is useful when a novel’s authorship has been questioned because every individual’s writing style possesses subtle indicators – or “authorial fingerprints” – which can be used to determine who is most likely to have written a particular piece of work. </p>
<p>Authorial fingerprints are developed by analysing a writer’s solo-authored works, which can then be applied to collaborative efforts (luckily, Bill Clinton has a few books attributed to him alone).</p>
<p>So, what happens when stylometry is applied to a more recent novel coauthored by Patterson and Clinton? In June 2021, a second political thriller, The President’s Daughter, was published by the pair. Once again, it appears that Patterson did nearly all of the writing.</p>
<p><strong>A stylometric analysis of The President’s Daughter</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A stylometric analysis of The President’s Daughter. Bill Clinton’s authorial fingerprint / stylistic signal is represented in red, while Patterson’s style is represented in green. Green is the dominant colour throughout, which means Patterson is the likel" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504287/original/file-20230112-46586-10m2v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill Clinton’s authorial fingerprint / stylistic signal is represented in red, while Patterson’s style is represented in green. Green is the dominant colour throughout, which means Patterson is the likely author of most of the book.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the chart above shows Patterson’s authorial fingerprint (represented in green) dominates the novel. But as with The President is Missing, there is a slight exception.</p>
<p>In their first novel, Clinton clearly wrote the ending, whereas with The President’s Daughter, it seems that he wrote the beginning. The book opens with the attempted assassination of a Libyan terrorist as the novel’s protagonist, a soon-to-be former president of the United States, watches on from the famed Situation Room in the White House.</p>
<p>The formula for the collaboration remains consistent across both novels. Patterson, the seasoned pro, does all the actual writing, but Clinton still gets a turn.</p>
<h2>What about Hillary’s novels?</h2>
<p>Bill isn’t the only novelist in the Clinton household. Hillary Clinton has also coauthored a novel.</p>
<p>In 2021, she published a political thriller called State of Terror with Canadian writer Louise Penny. But that is where the similarities to Bill’s literary career end. Unlike her husband, stylometry indicates that Hillary Clinton did contribute a significant portion of the actual writing. More than half of State of Terror matches her authorial fingerprint.</p>
<p><strong>A stylometric analysis of State of Terror</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Hillary Clinton’s authorial fingerprint / stylistic signal is represented in red, while Louise Penny’s style is represented in green." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504288/original/file-20230112-60681-82xd8b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hillary Clinton’s authorial fingerprint / stylistic signal is represented in red, while Louise Penny’s style is represented in green.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The division of labour between Penny and Hillary, shown in the chart above, seems much more equitable than it is with Patterson and Bill. The novel is divided into two absolute sections with the first 40% of the novel seemingly written by Penny (represented in green), while Hillary Clinton wrote the remainder (as shown in red).</p>
<p>Some <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/12/state-of-terror-by-hillary-rodham-clinton-and-louise-penny-review-politics-and-patriotism">critics have suggested</a> that the novel is a fictionalised account of Clinton’s views, and in part, her career.
Guardian reviewer Mark Lawson suspects that future biographers and historians “may find at least as many revelations in the couple’s fictions as in their memoirs”. </p>
<p>That may well be the case for Hillary, who felt confident enough in her own writing (it is perhaps unsurprising that Hillary Clinton is as literate as she is articulate) to take on such a task in her own hand. But the same cannot be said of her husband’s forays into fiction.</p>
<p>Whether or not State of Terror is about Hillary Clinton, commentators can certainly be assured that she wrote much of it. Stylometry seems to indicate that Bill on the other hand is merely playing a bit part in the next phase of the Patterson literary machine.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197761/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James O'Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An expert discusses how much of his coauthored novels former president Bill Clinton wrote himself, compared to his wife and fellow novelist, Hillary Clinton.James O'Sullivan, Lecturer in Digital Arts & Humanities, University College CorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1272222019-11-18T04:06:43Z2019-11-18T04:06:43ZPaul Keating attacks media for ‘pious belchings’ over China<p>Former prime minister Paul Keating has launched a scathing attack on the Australian media for its coverage of China, denouncing “the nominally pious belchings of ‘do-gooder’ journalists” who live on leaks from security agencies.</p>
<p>Keating told the Australian newspaper’s strategic forum on Monday: “The Australian media has been recreant in its duty to the public in failing to present a balanced picture of the rise, legitimacy and importance of China”.</p>
<p>Instead it preferred “to traffic in side plays dressed up with cosmetics of sedition and risk”.</p>
<p>His attack comes amid debate about <a href="https://theconversation.com/chinese-embassy-says-liberal-critics-hastie-and-paterson-should-repent-127182">China’s refusal of visas to two members of federal parliament</a>, Andrew Hastie and senator James Paterson, who have been strong critics of the Beijing’s regime.</p>
<p>Current relations between the Chinese and Australian governments have been strained for some time, with a range of tension points, including the issue of Chinese interference in Australian politics and universities and the government’s response.</p>
<p>In his speech Keating once again had in his sights what he sees as the sway of security agencies in foreign policy especially on China, a point he made forcefully before the election.</p>
<p>“What passes for the foreign policy of Australia lacks any sense of strategic realism,” he said. “The whispered word ‘communism’ of old, is now being replaced with the word ‘China’.</p>
<p>"The reason we have ministries and cabinets is that a greater and collective wisdom can be brought to bear on complex topics – and particularly on movements of tectonic importance.</p>
<p>"This process is not working in Australia, ” he said.</p>
<p>“The subtleties of foreign policy and the elasticity of diplomacy are being supplanted by the phobias of a group of national security agencies which are now effectively running the foreign policy of the country.</p>
<p>"And the media has been up to its ears in it.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-chinese-migrants-dont-always-side-with-china-and-are-happy-to-promote-australia-126677">New research shows Chinese migrants don't always side with China and are happy to promote Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>He targeted particularly The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age for their China coverage.</p>
<p>“Drops to journalists by the [security] agencies about another ‘seditious’ publication in a particular university or the hijinks of another Chinese entrepreneur is passed off as the evil bearing of the Chinese State.”</p>
<p>He said he did not know how Scott Morrison and the government permitted this state of affairs.</p>
<p>Keating said big states were “rude and nasty,” and referenced instances of American behaviour. “But that does not mean we can afford not to deal with them – whether it be the United States or China”.</p>
<p>“It is the national interest and its long run trajectory which should guide our hand and not the nominally pious belchings of ‘do-gooder’ journalists who themselves live on leaks of agencies unfit to divine a national pathway.</p>
<p>"Organisations which lack comprehension as to magnitude or moment or the subtleties and demands of a dynamic international landscape.”</p>
<p>Keating said it was in Asia’s interests, including Australia’s interests, that the US remain engaged in the region.</p>
<p>“Closer US political and commercial links with the countries of the region should help establish a web of self-reinforcing, cooperative ties which over time, should assuage Chinese concerns that a structure is being built with the express purpose of Chinese strategic containment.</p>
<p>"Indeed, such a cooperative structure should encourage China to participate in the region rather than seek to dominate it.</p>
<p>"We want a region which gives China the space to participate but not dominate.</p>
<p>"Australia, for its part, should be actively involved in the development of such structures, while being wary of being caught up in a policy by the United States, should the United States come to the conclusion, that the rise of China is broadly incompatible with its strategic interests.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/chinese-australia-relations-may-not-be-toxic-but-they-do-need-to-keep-warming-up-113545">Chinese-Australia relations may not be 'toxic', but they do need to keep warming up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Keating said President Trump had no appetite for a military skirmish with China – which was good news – but he would not be setting a new international model.</p>
<p>“At the moment the current model is in serious decline. Global institutions are crumbling. Look at the WTO. The global system is under stress.</p>
<p>"And regional institutions are being marginalised into the bargain. For instance, the President did not attend the recent East Asia Summit. He did not even direct his Secretary of State to attend,” he said.</p>
<p>“On the broader point, whether the United States can assume it retains strategic guarantor status in East Asia is open to debate.</p>
<p>"What is not debatable is that we need the US as the balancing and conciliating power in the region.”</p>
<p>Keating said after this presidency the US would not return to being the state it was, regardless of whether the next president was Republican or a Democrat.</p>
<p>Not only was the US withdrawing from Asian arrangements – it was doing the same in Europe.</p>
<p>Australia would be left in the “deep blue sea” dealing with the great powers of the US and China over the next 30 years. </p>
<p>Unfortunately debate in Australia about China had degenerated, with two propositions contributing to this, Keating said. One was the unstated assumption that somehow China’s rise was illegitimate; the other was China was not a democracy. He dismissed the accuracy of the first and the relevance of the second.</p>
<p>China would be - was now - the predominant economic power in Asia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/outgoing-asio-head-hopes-for-greater-public-preparedness-to-defend-australian-sovereignty-122969">Outgoing ASIO head hopes for greater public preparedness to defend Australian sovereignty</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>“That position will not be usurped by a non-Asian power, either economic or military.</p>
<p>"How does Australia respond to this?</p>
<p>"Is it to help divine and construct a set of arrangements which engages China but which also prevents China from dominating the region?</p>
<p>"Or do we seek to insulate or remove ourselves from this enormous shift in world economic power, by allowing our singular focus on the United States and our alliance with it to mark out our international personality?”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127222/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Amid debate about China’s refusal of visa to two federal MPs, former PM Paul Keating denounced the media for ‘failing to present a balanced picture of the rise, legitimacy and importance of China’.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/880712017-11-26T04:46:43Z2017-11-26T04:46:43ZConservative amendments to same-sex marriage bill would make Australia’s laws the world’s weakest<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196352/original/file-20171125-21805-1duj6x1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C466%2C5390%2C2883&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Amendments proposed to the same-sex marriage legislation would wind back a lot of the gains made under anti-discrimination laws.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Unsplash/Zelle Duda</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Monday, the Senate will start debating a series of proposals to limit the scope of marriage equality reforms. If they are agreed, Australia would be the only country effectively to have wound back laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination after legislating to protect them.</p>
<p>As our comparative analysis below shows, it will also provide the largest carve-out of any country that permits same-sex marriage. Australia’s version of marriage equality would, on a global scale, be the weakest and least equal of all. </p>
<h2>Discrimination on the grounds of belief</h2>
<p>Recognising they would most likely lose the marriage equality survey, religious and conservative hardliners shifted their focus to limiting the scope and breadth of the marriage equality law. This was led by Liberal senator James Paterson, who tabled a draft bill <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/alternative-same-sex-marriage-bill-explainer/9143578">in advance of the survey result</a>.</p>
<p>That bill proposed a range of exemptions for discrimination against same-sex marriage, celebration, ceremony or education on the grounds of personal belief. His bill also proposed to protect the tax-free status and public funding of religious organisations that discriminate against same-sex relationships.</p>
<p>The Paterson bill was widely criticised. After the announcement of a strong “yes” result, Paterson declared he would withdraw the bill in favour of a more popular one <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1099">by senator Dean Smith</a>.</p>
<p>However, it quickly became clear that the ideas and proposals behind Paterson’s bill<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/anja-hilkemeijer/paterson-s-quest-to-water-down-marriage-equality-is-not-dead-yet_a_23278822/"> were not dead</a>. Rather, they had always been intended to be the source of amendments <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/11/15/australia-votes-yes-same-sex-marriage-survey">to the Smith bill</a>. This culminated with a set of proposals for amendments from various conservative MPs. These include proposed amendments by: </p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-18/brandis-may-incorporate-human-rights-treaty-to-ssm-bill/9164770">George Brandis</a>, to allow both religious and civil celebrants to refuse to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies and to include a declaratory statement regarding the right to freedom of religion; </p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/23/labor-rejects-coalition-conservatives-changes-to-same-sex-marriage-bill?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">Scott Morrison</a>, to allow parents to remove children from classes where “non-traditional” marriage is being discussed; and</p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/s1099_amend_f08043ee-65d6-43ac-a1c7-cbe4bc2b83b8/upload_pdf/8321_CW_Marriage%20Amendment%20(Definition%20nad%20Religious%20Freedoms)%20Bill%202017_Leyonhjelm.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">senator David Leyonhjelm</a>, to allow people to refuse commercial services to same-sex celebrations (the “wedding cake” clause).</p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196350/original/file-20171125-21816-3gk8j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196350/original/file-20171125-21816-3gk8j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196350/original/file-20171125-21816-3gk8j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196350/original/file-20171125-21816-3gk8j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196350/original/file-20171125-21816-3gk8j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196350/original/file-20171125-21816-3gk8j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196350/original/file-20171125-21816-3gk8j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are a variety of legal sources and protections for marriage equality throughout the world, but most don’t allow anyone but religious ministers to discriminate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Peter Hershey on Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is likely that all of Paterson’s original exemptions will be proposed in one form or another in the Senate debate this week. We have therefore included each of his original proposals in the analysis below. These are compared to other countries where same-sex marriage is legal. </p>
<p>As several human rights lawyers and scholars have pointed out, the conservatives’ proposals misrepresent how human rights law works. The right to belief has never trumped freedom from discrimination, and never justified treating same-sex persons unequally. </p>
<h2>Australia’s positive protection laws</h2>
<p>In 2013 Australia passed the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5026">Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act</a>. It implements Australia’s <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5026_ems_1fcd9245-33ff-4b3a-81b9-7fdc7eb91b9b%22">international human rights obligations</a> to create a more inclusive society for all people, regardless of sexual orientation.</p>
<p>It places Australia within a group of countries that have enacted positive protections against discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, and for same-sex couples in all areas of life (the “Positive Protections Group”). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196351/original/file-20171125-21805-1cv1bp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196351/original/file-20171125-21805-1cv1bp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196351/original/file-20171125-21805-1cv1bp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196351/original/file-20171125-21805-1cv1bp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196351/original/file-20171125-21805-1cv1bp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196351/original/file-20171125-21805-1cv1bp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196351/original/file-20171125-21805-1cv1bp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia is already in a group of countries that applies international human rights law domestically to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of preference.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Abo Ngalonkulu on Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Should the parliament accept the proposed exceptions and so-called “rights” to discriminate on the grounds of belief, it will effectively wind back many of these protections in a manner not seen anywhere else. </p>
<h2>Which countries allow same-sex marriage and how?</h2>
<p>The below map shows countries where same-sex marriage is legal – clicking on a country gives further details.</p>
<p><iframe id="EvPGT" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EvPGT/9/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>There are two primary divisions in how countries guarantee same-sex marriage.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Constitutional guarantee vs legislative groups.</strong> In Brazil, Colombia, Taiwan, South Africa and the US, the right to same-sex marriage derives from the national constitution, meaning that their legislatures cannot make laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unions (the “constitutional guarantee” group). All other countries in the table have legislated to permit same sex marriage. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>The positive protections group.</strong> Twenty-two of the countries that allow same-sex marriage have also enacted positive human rights protections into national legislation similar to those enacted in Australia in 2013. Colombia is the only country to fall both within the constitutional guarantee and positive protections groups. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Two other distinctions are relevant. </p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Commercial celebrant countries.</strong> All countries allow marriages to be officiated by civil ceremony; most also permit religious ceremonies. Australia, New Zealand and the US allow commercial civil unions to be conducted, effectively creating a third category of marriage celebrants. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>United States.</strong> The US is harder to put in either group because its constitutional protection for same-sex marriage comes from its Constitution, but laws about marriage are made in the states. Both state and federal governments can make laws about discrimination. This means the states can carve out certain exceptions where they don’t directly conflict with federal law. So far 21 states have chosen to do this. None has as many exemptions as are proposed in Australia.</p></li>
</ul>
<p><iframe id="sPitS" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/sPitS/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Most countries only allow limited minister of religion exemptions</h2>
<p>Several European countries provide no religious exemption in their marriage laws. The reason for this is that the law only recognises civil ceremonies.<br>
Germany, France and Luxembourg are among the countries where same-sex and opposite-sex couples are truly legally equal. These three positive protection group countries are closely followed by Denmark, which has a very limited exception for priests of the state Lutheran church, who may individually refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony. But they cannot prohibit their churches to be used for same-sex marriage ceremonies.</p>
<p>The remaining countries in both same-sex marriage groups all allow religious celebrants to refuse to officiate in same-sex marriage ceremonies. However, the vast majority of these do not allow state celebrants to refuse on the grounds of belief; only Portugal and South Africa do. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196349/original/file-20171125-21853-133sgtx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196349/original/file-20171125-21853-133sgtx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196349/original/file-20171125-21853-133sgtx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196349/original/file-20171125-21853-133sgtx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196349/original/file-20171125-21853-133sgtx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196349/original/file-20171125-21853-133sgtx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196349/original/file-20171125-21853-133sgtx.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The most common exception to marriage equality is to allow religious ministers to refuse to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies on the grounds of belief – but even that isn’t universal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by zelle duda on Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interestingly, an unofficial poll by The Guardian last week indicated that around the same percentage that officially approved marriage equality agree that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/21/voters-back-right-to-refuse-to-carry-out-same-sex-weddings-guardian-essential-poll">ministers of religion <em>and</em> celebrants</a> should have the right to refuse to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies on the grounds of belief.</p>
<p>This would contradict international practice, which only allows religious celebrants to discriminate. </p>
<p>That said, it would appear The Guardian poll did not distinguish between these things when asking participants of their views, so we do not truly know the views of Australians about each of these categories of celebrant. </p>
<h2>No positive protection group country has wound back existing protections</h2>
<p>Beyond the ceremony exceptions, no other country in the positive protections group (of which Australia is a party) has wound back their anti-discrimination laws to permit exceptions for education, tax, or service delivery. Australia would well and truly stand alone in this respect. </p>
<p><iframe id="YufyA" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YufyA/9/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In fact, only the US allows some of these exemptions in a smattering of states, due to the constitutional division of powers there. </p>
<p><iframe id="BZwpm" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/BZwpm/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Ultimately, in Australia religious organisations gain most of their tax exemptions from the federal government, so state-based exemptions are not particularly relevant to this analysis. </p>
<p>While many US states (along with the UK) allow withdrawal of students from sexuality education, this is a general “right” of parents. Only two US states specifically allow parents to do it on the grounds of gender-preference education.</p>
<p>The Australian proposal would place us in line with the more extreme US states in this regard. Providing parents the right to dictate the contents of state education in this way would have significant spillover effects – raising questions about other “beliefs” such as evolution, vaccines and climate change. It would also move us closer to the US model of privatised, market-based education. </p>
<p>Should the complete package of amendments succeed, Australia would very much be the most extreme in the number and degree of exceptions, and far out of step with the majority of countries that have decided to provide marriage equality to all couples.</p>
<p><iframe id="YVUdG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YVUdG/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The above table represents the full data-set of all same-sex marriage permissive countries, including US states. The data is in draft form, was collated quickly in advance of the Senate debate, and deals with complex legal arrangements around the world. Some generalisations were necessary. Some mistakes may have occurred. Please bring any errors to our attention. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>The authors recognise the contributions of our research associate Daniel Westbury.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88071/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An analysis of of countries that allow same-sex marriage shows that the proposed amendments to the Dean Smith bill, if allowed, would still enshrine much discrimination.Brendan Gogarty, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of TasmaniaAnja Hilkemeijer, Lecturer in Law, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.