Fleeting media interest may have recently caused a topic sometimes discussed on Online Opinion –with a dash of irony added - to slip beneath the radar of people who don’t listen to ABC radio lunchtime programmes.

The subject: racial vilification. The irony: the ‘wrong’ person was the alleged vilifier.

Following ‘white supremacist’ attacks in Perth last year, Western Australia upgraded its racial vilification laws. But, as the ABC’s “The World Today” programme of 2nd August reported, the first test for the laws in Kalgoorlie concerns the racial vilification of a ‘white teenager’. An aboriginal-Australian girl is the alleged offender. It is alleged that this girl threw objects at the white girl’s car and called her a ‘white bitch’ and a ‘white slut’ during what is claimed to be an unprovoked attack. (Details archived on ABC website).

According to ‘TWT’, some aboriginal groups are angered by the case, claiming that: ‘the charge goes against the intent of the new racial vilification laws’, because they were introduced to combat white racism – not, apparently, black racism.

Given the misunderstanding of racism in Australia; the white man bad, black man good nonsense, and the brain-washing we are subjected to by left-wing academics, politicians and individuals, it is, perhaps, unsurprising that the indigenous community would react with anger and bewilderment to one of their own being the first target of laws they believed were there to protect them.

But, the laws are there to protect everyone. Even if they are silly laws as this case proves. The ‘shock’ of finding a supposed victim of racism – merely because she is one of a certain group of Australians – being actually reported for alleged racists actions might be just the trigger needed for all of us to get our feet back on the ground.

Ideally, this test case will not be so much about punishing a probably frustrated and troubled alleged offender as about highlighting that draconian laws can backfire, especially those supposedly helpful to minorities

Excellent!

A really good one Leigh and sensitively written too.

L-O-L.

The unfortunate thing is that Aboriginals still consider themselves victims even though they are provided with good housing, cheap loans and all the amenities that other people have to work very hard to acquire.
Aboriginal youth go around in gangs and attack defenceless people ,sometimes in the streets, sometimes in the person's own home.
On these occasions there is a dead silence from the elders. It is only when a perceived affront is made to an aboriginal, that the elders are up and ,with the absolute approval of the press,in full cry of "racism"
Many of the gangs contain very young children who should not be out on the street but again the elders have nothing to say.
Their silence is deafening when it comes to the well being of Aboriginal children.

It seems to me that a law like this has merit.

Of course it has to apply equally to all. And if the test case is actually in the minority, or the reverse of the intent of the law, well gee….I think that makes it a pretty good test of fairness.

You can call this sort of thing draconian. But to do nothing about the racial vilification evident across this country from white to black (or anyone different), and resultantly from black to white, would be much worse than this sort of attempt at implementing a lawful basis for reducing it.

Ludwig

at heart your concerns are worthy, but the problem comes with the implementation of such laws. Generally they are interpreted to favor the minorities, rather than the actual principle of the law itself.
So, a protection law, morphs into a defacto discrimination law. This is what occurred with the Catch the Fire case in Melbourne.

The RRT2001 has become a defacto tool of enforcing Sharia Law.
I am intending when time allows, to test this, with a complaint to the EOC regarding the Quran which specifically denigrates Christians and Jews by NAME. It does so by referring to us as a class of people, by belief and by name. There is no clearer case of outright vilification as the law has been interpreted and how the litigants legal team is seeking to have the law applied to the Christians.
They are claiming "Truth is not relevant to the Act". Section 9 also states that "motive" is not a factor to be considered.

So, such laws just place big legal sticks in the hands of otherwise puny and impotent people, giving them a 'rush' of power for a fleeting moment.

A BETTER APPROACH.

In my view, rather than the 'legal' approach, we should take the cultural one.
At the root of such problems as racism is belief in ones own superiority and the others inferiority. There may be also other factors of a personal historical nature at work.

Education, which incorporates cultural studies and activities will help us see others as biological equals.
But unless we seek to assimilate as far as possible, those of a noticably different culture, the remaining differences will be the object of scornful observation by some.

Shepparton is lauded as a shining example of 'nice Muslims' and multiculturalism succeeding. But due to their unwillingness to participate in some Educational activities on religious grounds, now we have a disfunctional Ed system there. (The Age, Yesterday)

BD, interesting points. Is the Shepperton issue the one about music classes?

It would be intersting to see how well those laws stand up in other contexts
- the christian gospel clearly villifies non believers and their beliefs. The suggestion that I deserve to spend an eternity of suffering for not accepting your gods plan would be interesting to see put to the test.
- my views on the christain gospel might be in a spot of trouble (if truth and motive are not a defense). I'd best stay out of Victoria.

It's a difficult road when we attempt to prevent the incitement of hatred by restricting speech. There are no easy answers. Somewhere in there is a line where bigots are not given free reign but truth and freedom matter as well.

R0bert