Racism is more than 'hurt feelings'
We've already had an inquiry to prove it
From being 'black in a public space' to a racist 'terror campaign' against a Sydney Lebanese family, we need to revisit the case studies that led to our Racial Discrimination Act
Do you know why Australia has a Racial Discrimination Act? Amid all the debate about whether section 18C of the act should be repealed as federal attorney-general George Brandis has proposed, few, if any, have stopped to ask that question.
The answer is sobering: the act, introduced by the federal Labor government in 1995, stemmed from a national inquiry into racist violence. The resulting report was compiled over two years by the then-head of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Irene Moss. It listed more than 1400 incidents, ranging from insults, to bricks thrown through windows, to killings.
The answer is sobering: the act, introduced by the federal Labor government in 1995, stemmed from a national inquiry into racist violence. The resulting report was compiled over two years by the then-head of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Irene Moss. It listed more than 1400 incidents, ranging from insults, to bricks thrown through windows, to killings.
In Townsville, for instance, two witnesses confirmed that an indigenous man was told he was arrested for being “black in a public place” and was later assaulted.
The inquiry heard of a “terror campaign” against a Lebanese family in Sydney whose windows were broken and attempts made to set their home on fire. The father died after a stroke and heart attack, attributed by his doctor to the campaign against the family.
In Western Australia a Vietnamese factory worker told the inquiry her head was pushed down a toilet bowl when she challenged her supervisor about his racist attitude. In northern Queensland, four men in Ku Klux Klan-style robes abducted indigenous tribal elders and painted their bodies white before dumping them back in their community.
Moss, the daughter of Chinese immigrants, found in her 1991 report that Australia was a broadly tolerant country, with a dangerous racist strain. Indigenous Australians – Aborigines and Torres Strait islanders – were most often victimised. For them, racism “is like a constantly dripping tap”.
The federal government is seeking to repeal most of section 18C of the act which makes it an offence to insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate someone on the basis of their race. Why?
A reading of the submissions about the proposed changes to the attorney-general’s department that have been published so far shows the act has been working well to mediate the overwhelming majority of complaints made to the Human Rights Commission. Only a small percentage of unsatisfied complainants have felt the need to take matters to court. In those cases, presiding judges have set the bar high before finding against defendants.
For instance, in 2001 an Aboriginal woman complained about two images published in The Cairns Post, that juxtaposed a white couple at a house with a tribal gathering. She found the images offensive. The judge held that the photographs inaccurately portrayed the woman’s usual living conditions but did not in themselves breach the act.
It is, of course, well known that prominent columnist Andrew Bolt was found in 2011 to have breached the act in two articles he wrote about nine indigenous people, that he has railed against the decision, and that the influential think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, has campaigned for the repeal of section 18C.
When Tony Abbott was opposition leader he spoke twice at IPA functions, in 2012 and in 2013, about the serious attack on freedom of speech represented by the decision against Bolt. He promised he would repeal section 18C in its current form.
Apart from those speeches, and a 2011 op-ed by Kevin Andrews headlined “Vague laws let courts dictate public morality”, there is a single paragraph in the Liberal party’s 2013 platform, “Our Plan: Real Solutions for all Australians”, that says:
The inquiry heard of a “terror campaign” against a Lebanese family in Sydney whose windows were broken and attempts made to set their home on fire. The father died after a stroke and heart attack, attributed by his doctor to the campaign against the family.
In Western Australia a Vietnamese factory worker told the inquiry her head was pushed down a toilet bowl when she challenged her supervisor about his racist attitude. In northern Queensland, four men in Ku Klux Klan-style robes abducted indigenous tribal elders and painted their bodies white before dumping them back in their community.
Moss, the daughter of Chinese immigrants, found in her 1991 report that Australia was a broadly tolerant country, with a dangerous racist strain. Indigenous Australians – Aborigines and Torres Strait islanders – were most often victimised. For them, racism “is like a constantly dripping tap”.
The federal government is seeking to repeal most of section 18C of the act which makes it an offence to insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate someone on the basis of their race. Why?
A reading of the submissions about the proposed changes to the attorney-general’s department that have been published so far shows the act has been working well to mediate the overwhelming majority of complaints made to the Human Rights Commission. Only a small percentage of unsatisfied complainants have felt the need to take matters to court. In those cases, presiding judges have set the bar high before finding against defendants.
For instance, in 2001 an Aboriginal woman complained about two images published in The Cairns Post, that juxtaposed a white couple at a house with a tribal gathering. She found the images offensive. The judge held that the photographs inaccurately portrayed the woman’s usual living conditions but did not in themselves breach the act.
It is, of course, well known that prominent columnist Andrew Bolt was found in 2011 to have breached the act in two articles he wrote about nine indigenous people, that he has railed against the decision, and that the influential think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, has campaigned for the repeal of section 18C.
When Tony Abbott was opposition leader he spoke twice at IPA functions, in 2012 and in 2013, about the serious attack on freedom of speech represented by the decision against Bolt. He promised he would repeal section 18C in its current form.
Apart from those speeches, and a 2011 op-ed by Kevin Andrews headlined “Vague laws let courts dictate public morality”, there is a single paragraph in the Liberal party’s 2013 platform, “Our Plan: Real Solutions for all Australians”, that says:
"“Prohibitions on inciting racial hatred or intimidation of particular groups should be focused on offences of incitement and fear but not a prohibition on causing offence”.
That’s not exactly “stop the boats” and it does not specify the repeal of section 18C.
Critics of the act have tried to corral the debate on 18C, by saying “hurt feelings” are not enough to curtail free speech. That may be true enough. They rarely acknowledge that Justice Mordecai Brombergfound Bolt to have "derided and ridiculed" as well as "offended, humiliated and insulted" the complainants. He held that Bolt’s journalism was "reasonably likely to have had an intimidatory effect on some people" and "was not done reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment".
These findings go well beyond "hurt feelings". Returning to the national inquiry that led to the 1995 act reminds all of us of the damage inflicted by racism.
These findings go well beyond "hurt feelings". Returning to the national inquiry that led to the 1995 act reminds all of us of the damage inflicted by racism.
This article is part of a project by final year journalism students at the University of Canberra.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/10/racism-is-more-than-hurt-feelings-weve-already-had-an-inquiry-to-prove-it
posted by Satish Sharma at
13:38
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home