My think tank submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Free Speech that Section 18C ought to be completely removed from the act. https://aip.asn.au/2016/12/submission-to-federal-government-free-speech-inquiry/

One reason is that it actually makes racial divides greater. News that a Japanese group is taking a Uniting Church congregation and a Korean group to the HRC for a monument on the treatment of comfort women underlines this as a problem. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/war-womens-memorial-in-18c-complaint/news-story/f4a13f4a10fede4b1c19c96e403679aa

Not that I think this action will succeed, but the process will be punishing for those involved. And the fact that the act creates this action for hurt feelings actually encourages people to get upset and legitimises it.

when you make it financial rewarding to be a victim you are going to end up in the mess we have today. Of course the Human Rights Commission and its employees benefit from stirrring up dissent. I mean imagine that we were all treated as Australians with a right to an opinion. Overnight industries that rely on victimhood would dissappear. Why not fine every white australian male yearly. We know they are all bigotted, commit domestic violence and are full of hatred. Maybe tax them an extra $500 a year. It would be a lot cheaper.

I'm inclined to agree with Graham, that justice must be served, the opinions of all Australians should be allowed to be aired, but that the displaying in Australia of a monument to Korean sex-slaves, i.e. 'comfort women' [comfort for whom ?] may be inappropriate.

It may be quite appropriate for such monuments to be built all over Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere, since that is where so many women were held captive to serve the vile demands of Japanese aggressors, fifty and a hundred times a night for many years in many cases. But not in Australia. The Japanese seem to nee to be constantly reminded of their wartime atrocities. And to label such captive women as 'prostitutes' is utterly appalling, as someone did last night on the 7.30 Report.

Multiculturalism doesn't mean that people bring their (quite legitimate) grievances with them, that they leave them at the door, as it were. Otherwise, the Irish here could build monuments to condemn the brutal rule of the English, and their role in the Great Famine; the Scots could mount dioramas portraying the callous Clearances perpetrated by the English; the Greeks could build monuments displaying the long, brutal rule of the Ottoman Turks. And so on, ad infinitum. But multiculturalism shouldn't be allowed to divide Australians.

My heart goes out to the Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Burmese people, and so many others, for what they suffered at the hands of the Japanese. We should never forget what happened during the War. But Australia is not the ground for such monuments.

Joe

Hi Graham,

I see no reason to alter or remove 18C. We have 18D -
which takes care of the "Freedom of Speech" argument.
I fear that altering or removing 18C would give way
open slather on racial intolerance. I believe that
freedom of speech does not confer a right to malisciously
misrepresent or vilify. And the further altering or
removing 18C would send a disheartening message to
minorities. Not everyone loves their neighbour as
Tim Soutphommasane wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald
article listed below.

Tim writes, "We are on any objective measure, a highly
diverse, but highly cohesive society.
We are entitled to celebrate our story of multiculturalism.

Legislation has been one handmaiden of this success.
Over 41 years ago today, the Racial Discrimination Act came
into effect as our first national human rights law. It has
provided every Australian with the assurance that they
should be treated fairly, regardless of their colour or
background.

As we mark its anniversary, the act remains as important as ever,
especially for those most vulnerable to experiencing discrimination."

Tim also states that it also has a cultural purpose. In 1975, then
PM Gough Whitlam sand the Act would help to entrench new
attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and
minds of people.

Surely most of us would hate to see this change.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-racial-discrimination-act-is-as-important-as-ever-20151029-gkm646.html

I have mixed feelings about this, and I'm not the only one a bit confused.

Joe, if it's only appropriate to build monuments where the event happened, what are we to do with all the existing war memorials in Australia to Australians who suffered overseas? Would it be OK to build a memorial in Australia to Australian women who were used as sex-slaves, or is the problem that the memorial is to Korean women?

As a descendant of Irish who were mistreated, and of Scots who were on the losing side at Culloden I also have mixed feelings about memorials here in Australia to those events. After all I'm only here in Australia because my ancestors lost out there. The difference is that while the English caused the problem there and mistreated my ancestors, they also provided the method of escape, for example the Bounty migrant system from Scotland. And then we all intermarried - so we (the oppressed) are also them (the oppressors). A memorial in Australia to the Irish famines and the Scottish clearances could be quite positive: yes, it was terrible, but hey, we survived! Should there be such memorials here? Well, in fact there already are: http://www.irishfaminememorial.org/, http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/landscape/settlement/display/21953-maclean-bicentennial-memorial-cairn. Do you think these 'divide' Australia?

If it's OK for Irish and Scottish Australians to have such monuments to atrocious events elsewhere, why not Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Burmese Australians (and all the rest)? Perhaps because some events are more recent and so more sensitive? But they are sensitive to the sufferers as well as the perpetrators. Whose sensitivity takes priority?

No easy answers.

Joe,

" Otherwise, the Irish here could build monuments to condemn the brutal rule of the English, and...."

This fits the bill!!

There is a 1798 Memorial at Waverly Cemetery in NSW, over the tomb of Michael Dwyer, the "Wicklow Chief" and his wife Mary that has, among other reminders:

"On the rear wall are 76 names of men and women, priests and ministers, who took part in the 1798 Rising. Below them are the names, added in 1947, of those who were executed after the 1916 Rising. In 1994 the Irish National Association, to whose care the Monument is entrusted, placed a plaque behind the monument to commemorate the ten Irish Republican hunger-strikers, who died in the Maze prison, Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1981.

The Irish National Association holds a ceremony at the Monument every Easter Sunday afternoon."
http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/1798_memorial_waverley_cemetery

Some of the Easter Sunday speeches are not kind to the English, the gathering at the Memorial is an expression of solidarity with the cause of Irish freedom and the ultimate reunification of Ireland and a veneration of those who, over the centuries fought and died in the cause, particularly those patriots murdered by the English after the 1916 Rising.

Éirinn go Brách!!