Inconsistency and genteel hypocrisy surround the new racial vilification law now before the Federal Parliament.
The Bill amends the Crimes Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. The first makes it an offence (penalty one year’s jail) to commit a public act that is racially offensive. Racially offensive means an act “”likely, in all the circumstances, to stir up hatred against a person or group of persons on the ground of race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Public act is defined as communicating words, sounds or images to the public, and includes gestures. There is a further requirement that the accused knows the act is public and is racially offensive.
The change to the Racial Discrimination Act has wider definition of racial vilification, however, the remedy is different. Vilification is not an offence, but the aggrieved person can seek conciliation before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In this Act, racial vilification is knowingly or recklessly doing a public act that is likely to stir up hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule. No actual intention is necessary.
First to the political inconsistency. For some years now we have been told that Australia is a multi-cultural society, a society profoundly tolerant of the various races and nationalities within it. If we are such a society, it seems unlikely that any could “”stir up hatred” on the ground of race, colour etc. In this multi-cultural society, surely, those who listen to the poison coming from the racist’s words would more likely bestow their hatred upon the racist, not his victim. The victim would not be bestowed with hatred, but rather sympathy.
If this law is passed, no-one could be convicted under it. If society is as harmonious as the pro-multi-culturalist politicians and lobby groups tell us, this law is either be unnecessary or unworkable. The unpalatable truth is, of course, that Australia is not a racially harmonious society and, objectively, hatred is capable of being stirred up.
To eliminate the inconsistency, it would be necessary to change the offence by removing the objective test (likely to stir up hatred) and making the offence solely based upon a subjective one (intended to stir up hatred). We would have to punish the racist for committing acts intended to stir up hatred even though, in this multi-culturally harmonious society, he would be doing it unsuccessfully.
Now for the genteel hypocrisy. In a letter explaining the legislation, the Attorney-General, Michael Duffy, said exemption clauses made it clear that the legislation would not impede freedom of speech in private conversation and jokes.
Why not? The law would to make the public stirring of racial hatred an offence, but not the private stirring of hatred. But there is no distinction for the victim. This law says do what you like in private, but let’s make sure everyone behaves in public. It smacks of Victorian hypocrisy. We already have laws against incitement to violence (racist or otherwise), so the hypocrisy cannot be justified on the grounds that public stirring has a greater potential for violence. If the law seeks to punish people who cause fear in people of a particular race that violence may be used against them, why should it exonerate private acts and punish only public acts?
If successful, this law will create a public facade of racial harmony. The public display of graffiti, car stickers and t-shirts will be punished, so they will be removed. This will create an pleasant public face for tourists, United Nations officials and visiting business and political dignitaries. Meanwhile, the private racism continues.
There is a parallel with our defamation laws. The skulduggery of people in powerful positions is well known around the corridors of power and can be discussed in the privacy of dinner party, but let’s not have it out in the open. Don’t let the masses see it. We must be seen to be proper.
The racial-vilification legislation has the same mentality with the same corrosive effect. Oppressive legislation cannot change hearts and minds, though other government action can. Interestingly, this futile exercise in thought control is proposed by the very Government that buckled under states’-rights arguments and shamefully broke its 1983 promise to introduce nation-wide land rights for Aborigines.
The racial vilification law will join the burgeoning weight of legislation that seems to have done little to help the conduct of human affairs in Australia. The bound 1991 volumes of Acts have recent been published. They come to 6905 pages, a record by a long way. In 1960 there were 584 pages and 1948 498 pages. Are we any better off?