Isobelle Mannix PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT What does section 18C involve?

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act involves a person being able to hold another accountable for acts that offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate on the clear basis of race or ethnicity. This is followed by Section 18D, which implicates that the exceptions of Section 18C apply only to artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interests that are said or done in good faith. What are some of the concerns around the proposed changes? By altering the wording of what is deemed to be unlawful from offends, insult, humiliate or intimidate to intimidate and vilify widely opens up the playing field for certain aspects of racial harm to not be considered against the law. As Soutphommasane suggests, vilify will allow for the extent of the racial behaviour to be measured against a third party or the publics reaction as to whether it could become a civil case of defamation rather than being based on the extent of harm inflicted on the victim. Intimidate only encompasses physical harm, where the Section 18C changes will excuse all non-physical racial harm. Additionally, Hartcher and Massola expose that by weakening and thereby giving no lawful defence to public racism, minority groups will have to endure racially offensive words and images that are within public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter that are free from liability or jurisdiction. The proposed changes only protect the loud, rich and powerful members of society that have the means to firstly execute racist remarks or content but also if they are victims, have the ability to influence their connected third party or the wider population to bring justice onto the offender. The changes give priority to these people such as Lynchs use of the example of the Andrew Bolt case, which demonstrated that only until Bolt was found guilty of his crimes was the voice of the harmed Aboriginal community heard by the wider audience. More basically, Balint brings forth the idea and criticism that if free speech is the basis of concern and motive of the government for the repeal, then why focus on Section 18C or the Racial Discrimination Act in the first place. We are free to conscientiously believe a morally incorrect point of view but giving a person the ability to act on this would further marginalise the most vulnerable in our community and do more damage than mere offence. Why is the federal government considering amending the legislation? On the basis that the removal of the protections in the Racial Discrimination Act will bring a much needed aura of free speech to Australian society, Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis insists his governments amendments will do much more than this; society will achieve the discovery of truth and intellectual and moral development of its citizens (Balint). Extending this, allowance for racial material to be produced by professionals such as politicians, journalists, artists, academics and scientists, to voice public discussion is to be granted but only enough freedom of speech to arise mere offence. These bigots, as Brandis unintentionally calls

Isobelle Mannix them, will create this wave for a more intellectual society the government believes these changes will ensue. Adding to this, Brandis government believes that generally the victims of racial harm are just as easily capable of using the media to condemn a persons free views as much as the offenders use of the media to communicate their opinions. As well, the government hopes that although Section 18C is being amended, its original standards of justice and behaviour are already embedded in Australian culture where by change in wording will alter very little in society. As a sociologist, what are your thoughts about the need for legislation about discrimination? Having legislation about discrimination that gives no open ground for professional racism to occur, like the amendments to both Section 18C and 18D does, can exist in a society as a powerful method to prevent subcultural division within a country. The legislation must involve fairness between all people in the typical terms of race, ethnicity and religion but also in wealth, occupation and socioeconomic status that is prominent in this technologically-driven age. Without having the defensive force for would-be targets, society could become victim to and be influenced by the provocative and immoral attention tactics of shock-jocks, unethical politicians, the extremely wealthy or the celebrities of our society. Had Andrew Bolt not been convicted of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act, the voice of the Aboriginal people on his comments might not have been heard nor would he and others with his views be educated on the wrong of their extremist thoughts that were turned into actions. Ultimately, the Aboriginal people would have continued to remain victims of unrestricted discrimination, typical of the time before progress was made to restrict this behaviour. More can be and is achieved in a democratic society when there is no racial tension present and macro prevention of discrimination exists. How is development supposed to occur when there is conflict between two groups of people, let alone within a society? By giving the minority a defence to properly live in a society free from harm or abuse, then possibly harmonious integration may occur as a result of the majoritys acceptance of the culture and thereby even a cease to the factors that lead to the legislation about discrimination being created in the beginning.