In 1975, Australia passed a law called the Racial Discrimination Act. According to humanrights.gov.au, "the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 gives effect to Australia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Its major objectives are to:
- promote equality before the law for all persons, regardless of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin, and
- make discrimination against people on the basis of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin unlawful."
- make discrimination against people on the basis of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin unlawful."
Section 18C of the RDA 1975 states:
"Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people..."
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people..."
Basically, the law in Australia says, "you can't insult or offend or intimidate people. It is a crime. You can be punished!"
Conservative columnist and host of Sunday show The Bolt Report, Andrew Bolt wrote an article in 2011 about fair-skinned Australians who identified themselves with their aboriginese heritage. In the article, he discussed the morality of those fair-skinned Australians identifying themselves only as aboriginese even though some of them look European and have fair skin. (In Australia, being aboriginese allows you to get a good deal of government welfare). There was huge public outcry and understandably, fair-skinned aboriginal Australians were offended and insulted and sued Andrew Bolt under the RDA Sec 18C. The court found the columnist guilty. His article was banned.
The conservative government of Tony Abbott campaigned to do away with this provision of the law that declares "offence" and "insult" a crime because of its belief in the freedom of speech, offensive and insulting as it may sometimes be. The Attorney General George Brandis and the Prime Minister spearheaded the government's proposal to amend the law but after much debate and opposition from MPs, ethnic communities and the left-leaning sections of the public, the government dropped its plan to seek the amendment. Guess what the main reason was: ethnic politics!
In Australia, there is a large and growing population of Muslim voters particularly in the western part of Sydney. Their votes are proving to be crucial for candidates to be elected. The vocal sections of the Muslim community tend to me be more anti-Western, pro-Islamic and hardline in their belief. Offending a Muslim would be easier than, say, a Christian, due to their relative sensitivity. The government of Australia, in its hope to be inclusive of all communities, especially the Muslim community, decided to drop the draft bill. According to the PM, the proposal to remove the 18C clause had become a "complication" in the Government's relationship with the Australian Muslim community. Fair enough. But is that good for the country?
One needs to ask whether the liberty of an individual or a community to be able to speak without being punished for every "offence" and "insult" taken should be the guideline of society or not. Should we let ethnic votes and politics dictate the course of government decisions, especially when it is in the national interest.
Personally, I'd take the insult and let the moron be reprimanded by society and preserve free speech.
