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

David BOAZ

“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.”

We should most definitely be addressing the cultural / equality / quality of life factors. But this is the baseline long-term approach. In the interim we should also be striving to treat some of the symptoms.

Laws that help reduce overt racism must be implemented. As difficult as they are, the alternative of doing nothing until the underlying problems are fixed is just not acceptable. Unfortunately in this very difficult arena, there will always be negative connotations. So we just have to strive to implement the right laws - that have the best chance of succeeding and the least chance of having significant downsides

Thanx Robert and Ludwig for your comments.

I want to explore something slightly different but related this post.

I've sometimes commented that a significant number of judges of the federal court are Jewish. I then postulated how unbiased they might be if a high profile Jewish retailing identity was brought before them in a way which threatened his financial existence if the decision went against him.
I used the same logic in suggesting that if the Federal court had a high proportion of Aboriginal judges on it, and a land rights case came before it, that there would be a high likelihood of an 'interesting' interpretation of the Law.

In some research I've been doing about symbols which can be displayed in public, I looked for example at the Swastika. I found that there is a case "Jones v Toban" in which the public display of a Swastika was ruled 'racially vilifiying' "In all the circumstances". I wonder how a Jewish federal court Judge, would rule on such an incident ?

The phrase 'IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES' and the use of the "reasonable man, of average intelligence and his knowledge of world affairs" objective test, leaves PLENTY of room for interpretation in the outcome.

The RRT2001 actually PROTECTS the display of symbols of any kind as long as they are of a religious nature. The Act prevents anyone from 'inciting hatred' etc...... so, I ask, if National Socialism is embraced by some as a 'religion' (with a 2nd coming of Hitler).... does this Act prevent people from inciting hatred towards those who embrace such a religion ? As far as I can see..IT DOES

Perhaps Ivan Milat actually killed those backpackers because GOD TOLD HIM TO.... and he gathered a following. They chose a symbol. The Act also protects them from anyone 'vilifying' them.... Lunacy.

Hence...more evidence of the STUPIDITY of such an Act.

BOAZ__DAVID , Now what about a Bench of Aboriginal and Jewish members- how would Howard's Land Rights Laws stand up then !?
I'd like to see that!

BD, "The RRT2001 actually PROTECTS the display of symbols of any kind as long as they are of a religious nature."

I can't see any good reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs over other beliefs. It seems strange that pretty much any other belief system is regarded as open game but religious beliefs should be given special protection.

People seem to be able to get as determined and obsessive about other things as some of you do about "religious" beliefs. I'd guess that there are some Victorians who take their footy every bit as seriously as the the most diehard religious believer. I value my non belief in mythical beings enough that I'm willing to risk the considerable ire of the tooth fairy and easter bunny (pretty serious stuff). Are there more dedicated believers than the activists putting their boats and bodies in front of Japanese whalers or diving into artic waters to make a statement about the unnecessary slaughter of whales?

On what basis should a religious belief be regarded as more deserving of protection than any other part of a persons belief system? If there is none that holds up to scrutiny then the laws are unjust.

I'm hoping that this topic bears some relation to Leigh's original point.

R0bert

Thanks for the compliment, Maximus. I don’t get many of those. And thanks to all who took part in the discussion.

I believe that the laws are draconian when they are applied to personal spats between individuals. Can anyone cite an instance where our brave politicians have done anything but nibble around the edges, picking on the little guy, and totalling ignoring the real, often organized instigators of community schisms? Politicians make feel-good laws that are an insult to all of us and have no chance of success.

We should not forget that being an indigenous Australian could bring problems for some people, sometimes. But, things such as positive discrimination (negative to others, and still discrimination) and special treatment for minority groups are the road to ruin for those ‘special’ groups as well as the whole of society. I would wager that indigenous Australians would have been much better off without the ‘help’ of wider society. The many talented and successful aborigines in public life are testimony to the opportunities, as are the ‘ordinary’ men and women with aboriginal heritage who quietly get on with the lives along with the rest of us.

We cannot claim that we believe all people are equal if we insist on treating some people as though they are not equal

Robert.. yes indeed it does have to do with Leigh's point.

and I totally agree that religions do not need special protection. I hope u were not thinking I do.

The law which resulted in the Aboriginal woman being busted for racism is interesting. The EOC will tell you that the laws were mainly intended to protect 'minorities'.. so discrimination and vilification of majorities is fine.... how unfair is that ?

The point though, is that as soon as we seek to govern human/racial relationships by LAW.. rather than provide a means of harmony we just place a legal weapon in the hands of already disconnected people and enable them to sue the stuffing out of each other.

I re-iterate that such incidents could be used as teaching illustrations of how pervasive and unwelcome racism is. Unless we tackle such problems at a broad based educational level, we are doomed.
For me, as you might expect, I see the equal importance of underlining the idea of a divine reference point for values. This is achievable in private schools but state schools ? hmmmm a bit difficult.

LEIGH , Not so, there is nothing wrong with helping people be it with money , love, or anything else but you need to have the brains and desire to get the delivery right.
We had a system of self help for Aboriginal People with ATSIC ,it did have a few hiccups , but it was producing leaders .Howard ditched it because it posed another set of Political problems for him and his mates.

Kartiya,

I am surprised that anyone can still believe that ATSIC was anything but a dysfunctional organization, which was, and still is, surrounded in controversy and reports of mismanagement and worse which lead to its demise following a legitimate investigation by the Howard Government prompted, in no small way, by indigenous people themselves.

As you say, it produced ‘leaders’. But whether these people were truly representative of their people is open to debate, as was their ‘brains and desire to get the delivery right’.

The kudos of some of the aboriginal hierarchy seems to have benefited. But how did the ordinary blackfella benefit from ATSIC? If you have any specific examples, I would be interested to learn of them. You blame ‘Howard’ and ‘his mates’ for the situation so, presumably, you have some knowledge I don’t.

You say that there is nothing wrong with helping people, and you are perfectly right. But we have been helping with money (lots of money) and other practical help and understanding for generations. The ‘brains’ part of your qualification has, perhaps, been lacking. Even with all this help from governments, individuals and NGO’s, nothing has really changed for aboriginal Australians who have not gone out and done it for themselves

Leigh, if you remember that the last truly stone age "bush" Aboriginals came in only 22 years ago. Because previous generations were rejected as equals and not encouraged to get educated they are naturally behind in many areas of development [according to white standards].
ATSIC to me allowed young and old Aboriginals to briefly experience something like Democracy and gave many a chance to use their Education in a changeing world that could forgive them for bringing on occasion problems to their job that needed some understanding.It was a start.
I guess if Mal is fair dinkum he should take a lead off his Army mates who are considering not prohibiting a few tatts and occasional drug use in the Army new recruits, and work with those Aboriginals keen enough to put their hands up to have a go to help their communities.They will learn and they will get better .

Kartiya,

Thanks. You say; “Leigh, if you remember that the last truly stone age "bush" Aboriginals came in only 22 years ago. Because previous generations were rejected as equals and not encouraged to get educated they are naturally behind in many areas of development…”

Sorry, but I don’t grasp the significance or relevance of the first sentence in relation to 200 plus years of interaction between indigenous people and white settlers, and I have to admit that I do not recall the incident, though I am in my early 60’s. Previous generations were treated in many instances badly by some people and were not thought of as being ‘equal’, certainly not legally, until one of the few referenda to receive a positive response from most Australians 40 odd years ago. Neither of these things addresses specific achievements by ATSIC for aboriginals.

You say that ATSIC “briefly” allowed aboriginal people, young and old, to experience democracy and use their education. Where is the evidence of this? What education? There is evidence on public record that many, many people received anything but democracy from ATSIC; and, as you say, older generations have no education for the modern world. The young ones, particularly in the remote settlements go to school only if they want to, and those lucky enough to enjoy the protection and encouragement of women elders have been sent to metropolitan schools with which they have agreements, and to schools and hostels specifically for aboriginal kids; if they return to the settlements, even that counts for nothing.

No help or interest from ATSIC, as my wife, who has taught these kids and knows the women involved, could tell you.

I believe that the Minister is ‘fair dinkum’. Even if you don’t like his politics, he is the Minister, and we didn’t see anything amazing from the Opposition when they were in government. And, there will be no aboriginals putting their hands up in remote communities for the Minister to work with.

The remote communities are the problem, encouraging lethargy and despair. They must go for any progress to even begin

Leigh,
many Aboriginal people had new jobs with ATSIC and there were elections and i believe there still are in the Land Councils, which would have been an education in themselves for them .
Until this Government is prepared to make Indigenous Affairs a stand alone Ministry [ no pun intended ] John Howard will be seen around the world and particularly in Asia and the Pacific as having dismally failed Australians, being the PM incapable of bringing Aboriginal Reconciliation to all Australians.
What sort of example must he and the Government be setting to our newly arrived immigrants ?
As for the remote communities ,I know of a teacher who arrived to teach a problem school in the NT . Unable to get to his pupils in the classroom ,he decided to interact with them outside the school and with a combination of sport and Indigenous appreciation he gained their trust and attention .
A bit of lateral thinking for and by the communities is required , not putting them and the retention of Aboriginal Culture, as the Government has done, in the "too hard basket"

Kartiya,

With respect, you are not answering my questions. I made it clear that if there was something I was not aware of, and you could put me in the right direction, I might arrive at a different point of view. You have not done that.

You have not elaborated on the ‘stone age’ aborigines ‘coming in’ 22 years ago. You have not told me where to find this event; even though it is irrelevant to your argument, you did use it! You have not shown me how young and old aborigines used their education or ‘experienced something like Democracy’. You contradicted yourself on the matter of education.

In your last post, you said, ‘Many people had new jobs with ATSIC.’ Who had jobs, apart from high-profile so-called leaders who got into more trouble than Ned Kelly – some of whom still face the courts? There are still Land Councils, but that is not ATSIC. What makes you believe foreign countries will see John Howard (you really dislike him, don’t you) as having ‘dismally failed Australians’? As for reconciliation, he has made it quite clear why he will not move on that (rightly or wrongly), and the electorate seems to accept his explanation. It is impossible to see how the PM has ‘dismally failed Australians’ in this matter, and I doubt that foreign countries, including those in our region, care too much about what we do here.

You seem strong on opinion, and short on facts to back up your claims. As Patrick Buchanan said, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. You go one further – you don’t produce facts at all.

Discussion is good, but we have run out of puff on this one. Nothing has been gained, and we will have to agree to disagree. We are probably on different sides of the fence politically, but remember who set up the apartheid system of remote settlements in the first place: the ALP.

Cheers.