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.