Repealing the race hate laws isn't 'freedom' to Indigenous people

Now Brandis has said people have a 'right' to be bigots, expect fearful and beleaguered minorities to resist this ongoing attack on their identity

Siv Parker

Most of the public are concerned about racism whether due to experience or observation. A recent survey revealed that between 66% and 79% of respondents preferred to retain section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act – the so-called "Bolt laws" – for its protections against "offence, insults and humiliation".

I have no idea how many Indigenous people were polled, but am not surprised to note a general reluctance from my community to share their thoughts on the removal of these protections, though on Wednesday Warren Mundine, the head of the prime minister's Indigenous advisory council, said that it would “let people off the chain in regard to bigotry".

On Monday, George Brandis stated that "people have the right to be bigots". But if bigotry is a right, I wonder whether there have ever been any speeches that inspired greatness, that lifted the spirit, or that enlightened the listener because the speaker had been encouraged to let free their inner bigot? Most great orators that come to mind, King, Mandela and Ghandi, were speaking out against oppression and were not recommending it for others as the way to elevate society.

Some commentators may be intrigued by questions of race and identity – as in Andrew Bolt's notorious articles about "light-skinned Aboriginals" that were the catalyst for this drive to change the race laws– but to my mind those questions have been asked and answered for decades now. Bolt condemns "the new tribalising of our country", but every effort to legitimise public attacks on one community reinforces that they are a group. It reiterates what the characteristics, in all their diversity, are of that group and attacks on identity will not stop people self-identifying as Aboriginal or Indigenous or whatever description of their choosing.

Indigenous people make nearly 2.7% of the Australian population. Many Australians may never meet a member of this small minority, but Aboriginal people are far more accessible now, if only via Twitter and other social media platforms.

I have more freedom to speak my mind these days than I’ve ever had, thanks to social media. I can choose who and how I engage, and even in a week when I spend more time off than on my keyboard, I can average nearly 40,000 views of my tweets, despite having less than two thousand followers. I may have no way of knowing who is taking an interest in me, but it’s certainly less perilous than encounters I might have in public spaces where I’m at risk of being abused in the street, insulted on public transport and humiliated in public forums.

None of these risks are new to Indigenous people, but the general fear articulated by the only representative body, the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, in alliance with other ethnic groups, is there will be more likelihood of these type of attacks if the broader community emphasis is on "freedom of bigotry”.

The right to talk to me harshly and offensively will not make Australia more free. Individuals who suffer racism are often fearful for their public safety, job tenure, ability to rent a home or access any good or service, including health and education. They are deeply concerned by the way their community is depicted on screen, and in print. The accumulation of abuse in any and all of these areas would silence and compromise the lives of even the most stoical person.

The potential victims of this law reform, the details of which we have yet to see, are hardly likely to rise to speak in parliament or face a media throng. The people pushing these reforms are unlikely ever to be the subject of the most severe consequences of a government-sanctioned right to bigotry. The champions of this "right" will barely notice a difference in their everyday existence, but their victims certainly will.

The nature of the debate in my corner of social media revolves around dismay that a small handful of peoples’ definition of freedom of speech may incapacitate another person’s entire existence. What is freedom, if it simply means the liberty to rip apart the social fabric of our country?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/27/rracial-discrimination-act-18c-bolt-laws