Section 18C Racial Discrimination Act

At the Albury City Council meeting on 23rd June I moved the following motion:

That Council:

1)    Understands the fundamental importance of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

2)    Recognises that section 18C provides protection to individuals from offensive behaviour because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin

3)    Urges all levels of government to combat bigotry at every opportunity.

4)    Requests the Federal Attorney General to withdraw the Draft Exposure Amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act.

Why did I move this motion?

While we are all entitled to be bigots, I do not believe that it is healthy and in the interests of community cohesion and harmony to allow people the unfettered right to publicly air their prejudices as would be possible if section 18C is changed in the way proposed by Senator Brandis.

At present s18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 states that it is unlawful to do an act which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group on the basis of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.  The proposed amendments would only make it an offense to vilify or intimidate.

There are plenty of other pieces of legislation that make it unlawful to offend including the NSW Summary Offences Act 1988, The Sexual Discrimination Act 1984 and The Criminal Code Act 1995 so why focus on this piece of legislation.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".^[2][3]

I note that the Local Government Act states that the role of a councillor as an elected person is, among other things, “to provide leadership and guidance to the community”.  And in this matter Council is well placed to advance a view for our community.

We have almost 700 refugees in Albury Wodonga and an incredible mix of races and cultures.  We have people of many faiths and of no faith and it is important to ensure that we can all live in harmony without fear of persecution and vilification.  The proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act threaten this harmony.

We have a long history of welcoming newcomers from the waves of migration at the end of WWII to the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Thais and more recently the people from Bhutan, Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan.  Our culture has been enriched by them.  We have the influences of their cuisine and their music and the economic benefits of their hard work.

Think of Young Australian of the Year and contemplate the names Akram Azizi,, Marita Cheng, Khao Do and Tan Le.  The of the names you will hear during the broadcast of an AFL game – Heritier Lumumba, Tendai Mzungu, Nic Naitanui and many more.

They look different and sound different but should they be treated differently?  No and we should close the door to bigots and not allow them the space to or the opportunity to air their prejudices publicly.  We should judge people by their actions not by their looks or beliefs!

Senator Brandis is wrong on this one and our community does not want section 18C repealed.

Religious Views and Society

Australia is home to many different religions; in fact it would probably be fair to say that most of the religions that exist in the world could be found here. For example, think Scientology (yes it is a religion according to the High Court of Australia), Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and the many different sects that would call themselves Christian; Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, Christian Scientists, the various Pentecostal churches, etc, etc.

The views held by these various religions and sects vary quite dramatically and each believes that their view is correct and supported by whatever God it is they believe in and whatever scripture they use. An Orthodox Jew believes it is forbidden to work on the Sabbath and this would encompass the pressing of a pedestrian crossing light activation button. By the way the punishment for working on the Sabbath is to be put to death but they draw the line here. It always amazes me how strongly held some beliefs are but how flexibility is allowed in other cases!

A Muslim believes that a man must grow a beard at least to the length of a fist and that it is forbidden to shave it or to trim it to less than the length of a fist. Hard to see why Allah would care so much about your beard length but that’s what a Muslim believes.

A Jehovah’s Witness believes that having a blood transfusion is forbidden by words in the Bible and there have been many court cases involving the medical treatment of the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Once again I am amazed how an ancient text can be used to discuss modern technological advances and medical treatments. And they’ve had numerous goes at predicting the actual date on which the world will end and Jesus will return. There’s always a good reason why the maths was a bit out but catch a scientist admitting that he might have made a mistake and you can never believe them again!

I wonder why I would be prohibited from ending my own life when it becomes intolerable to me because of pain, dignity or sheer hopelessness. Why do Christians have the right to tell me that I am not allowed to do it and use various verses from parts of what must be one of the most inconsistent and illogical texts to exist, the Bible, as justification.

Don’t get me started on the weird and wonderful beliefs of the Scientologists and other religious fringe – dwellers! Electrodes implanted in heads to receive messages from outer space are by no means the most bizarre beliefs and claims.

And the mainstream Christian churches certainly believe, or did believe for some time in some wondrous things such as the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven or the transubstantiation of wine into blood and bread into human flesh. Shouldn’t we wonder at how the beliefs change over time? The Bible hasn’t changed but we are asked to accept that someone has had a revelation pointing out why something that was accepted as the truth for eons is no longer so. Pretty amazing really!

Why do we condemn the poorest of the poor in Africa and South America to a life of poverty and disease by prohibiting the use of condoms or other birth control means because of some Pope’s, Imam’s, Bishop’s, or Rabbi’s pronouncements and interpretations of ancient and contradictory writings?

So what should we do about all these ideas? Well it’s a free society and we guarantee the right to practice one’s religion but that does not give the believer the right to “impose” their beliefs on others in our society. I really don’t care if we have prayers in parliament or before Albury City Council meetings. I don’t close my eyes or bow my head and nor do I say Amen at the end. But neither do I make a fuss and try to tell others that they should follow my example. I stand quietly and wonder how God will “protect me from all that is evil” especially when I have just read that a man has bludgeoned his son to death.

Now let’s have a look at the protesters outside the medical clinic in Englehardt Street and see what this all means. As Catholics they believe that abortion is wrong in all cases and they would like to convince others of this and so stop abortion as a medical procedure. No problems so far and any vigil or demonstration in support of these beliefs should certainly be allowed in our society. But their protest is not a silent or passive one. From their own statements it is clear that they approach people and try to convince them that they should not have an abortion, even when that may not be the reason for a person attending the clinic.

They show confronting images of aborted foetuses and use words that intimidate and distress people. Some people who use this clinic do it because they have had a partial miscarriage for example and they are they to access a necessary medical procedure.

This is harassment and intimidation and an interference with other’s rights to privacy and it should stop. They would not appreciate me if I protested outside their church with photographs of men who have hanged themselves because of the pain stemming from abuse at the hands of Catholic priests. Would they let me speak to their children and warn them of the presence of paedophiles in the ranks of the priests who conduct services and expound on what is sinful? I think not.

While I respect their beliefs I would ask that they respect my right to believe in other things and my right to privacy.

More about alcohol and violence

Well here we are in 2014 and Albury's New Year's Eve was relatively quiet; that is if you accept that a fractured eye socket and an injured security guard is OK. We didn't have the stuff that has been happening in Sydney but is that just luck?

Now we read that Sydney has had brawls in the CBD for the last two nights and at least one of them is associated with the Ivy nightclub in George Street, a venue that is listed as Schedule 1 by the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing with 26 violent assaults in the last 12 months. This is a venue whose owners argue for a points based system to categorise venues according to the level of violence.

So with a straight face they argue that after the venue accumulates 50 points it should be subject to level 1 restrictions. So what do they suggest you get points for? How's this for breathtaking arrogance; 1 point for something like drink spiking and shoving, 2 points for serious assaults such as breaking someone's nose and 3 points for sexual assault, grievous bodily harm and murder. On my maths that means that you can have 5 sexual assaults, 5 murders and 10 serious assaults with broken noses before any restrictions kick in.

We don't have venues listed as Schedule 1 here in Albury but one venue has made it onto Schedule 2 with 12 assaults.

It's time the government got a bit serious here and stopped listening exclusively to the alcohol lobbyists. How about listening to the public and what they are saying.

I would like to hear your views and am happy to take your calls and emails. I don't have the answers but I have read the research and know from the statistics that we have a serious problem, not just here in Albury but all over Australia.

Let me know what you think.