Taming tongues that hurt - Herald-Sun

24/09/2002

by Diane Sisely
Chief Executive
Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria
24 September, 2002

Since the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was first proposed in 1999 it has been the subject of intense debate – much of it valuable, but some of it, sadly, misinformed. Interestingly the misinformation spread about the law can be traced back to those who know least about it.

Newspaper columnists, for example, have little to fear from the new law because a complaint under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act needs to be very serious in order for the Equal Opportunity Commission to consider it. For example, calling someone a whingeing Pom may be a crude and incorrect stereotype but it is unlikely to be against the law.

The new law took effect on 1 January 2002 and prohibits racial and religious vilification. Vilification is behaviour that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, another person or group of people.

The law prohibits verbal or written communication that denigrates, belittles or maligns people on the basis of race or religion in public. This includes comments in the press, statements made at meetings, racist publications, graffiti, intimidation and damage to property.

But it is not against the law to subscribe to racial stereotypes or to make jokes as long as the stereotypes or jokes don’t cause hatred, serious contempt for, revulsion or severe ridicule of another person or group of people. A complaint is not going to succeed on the basis of hurt feelings – it has to have a much stronger impact than that.

And there are exceptions under the Act that largely cover the work of artists, performers, journalists, academics and scientists, as long as that work is engaged in reasonably and in good faith. However you can’t just call something artistic in order to vilify people. A comedy show, for example, still has to be reasonable and executed in good faith. One way to ensure this is to for the performers to issue a warning that the material may be offensive to some people.

Opposition to the law has been based on the notion that it erodes our freedom of speech, ignoring the fact that we’ve always had limits on our ability to speak.

In Australia, we do value our freedom to speak openly, to criticise government, to encourage the exchange of differing opinions without fear of reprisal. However, this freedom is an implied right, rather than an actual one. We have no laws granting freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution and defamation laws prevent us from saying whatever we like about someone else – for good reason. We also have workplace relations laws and anti-discrimination laws that govern our public behaviour. These laws recognise that words can cause real damage – words can hurt and humiliate and ruin reputations. They recognise that freedom of speech should not be used as an excuse for hateful language that limits someone else’s participation in society.

And I would ask why anyone would want to?

Critics suggest that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act attempts to prevent people from speaking the truth, but there is an enormous difference between stating a simple fact and stating a fact using the words of hate. For example there is a big difference between saying there is a high rate of unemployment among Aborigines and saying Aborigines are lazy dole bludgers.

Vilification laws don’t stop the truth coming out or stifle opinion or the expression of differing points of view. It merely prevents the expression of those views in the language of hate.

Another criticism of the law is that we wouldn’t need it if people weren’t so thin-skinned. This simplistic argument denies the effects of vilification; people lose jobs, become depressed, withdraw from society.

There are many people who are unable to give as good as they get for fear of losing their jobs, because of social or cultural differences or simply because they are too intimidated by the situation to respond with more abuse in return. But the real question is do we want to live in a combative lawless world where racial slurs and abuse are the norm?

Vilifying behaviour is contrary to democratic values because of its effect on people; it diminishes our dignity, sense of self-worth and belonging to the community. It also reduces our ability to contribute to, or fully participate in, all social, political, economic and cultural aspects of society as equals, thus reducing the benefit that diversity brings to our community.