Extract from The Guardian
It doesn’t really matter what happened with this high-profile 18C
case – for those who want to get rid of it, it’s a case of heads we win,
tails we win
• QUT computer lab racial discrimination lawsuit thrown out
• QUT computer lab racial discrimination lawsuit thrown out
There are a couple of things to know about the Queensland University of Technology racial discrimination case.
The first is that the legal action, which has centred on a trio of students alleged to have engaged in racial vilification, has become a cause célèbre for opponents of 18C – the provision that prohibits offending, insulting, humiliating or intimidating another person on the grounds of race.
The second thing to know is it really doesn’t matter what happened in the court on Friday. For politicians who want to overhaul 18C, Friday’s outcome was always going to be a case of heads we win, tails we win.
If the case was thrown out, the outcome would be spun by the anti-18C brigade as an example of everything that’s wrong with the provision, because look at all the time, stress and resources that have gone into defending an action that never should have proceeded this far.
If the case proceeded, then this would be proof positive that the law is an ass. Just for the record, the case was thrown out.
Before it was even announced, Friday’s decision was being hyped in certain quarters as a landmark and a turning point but, in reality, is nothing of the kind. Here’s what you need to know about what happens next.
Overhauling 18C has emerged as a key test by which Liberal leaders are judged.
The contemporary right, while dabbling liberally in identity politics frolics of its own, is obsessed with pushing back on the identity politics and the rights agenda of the left.
Tony Abbott tried and failed to overhaul 18C, which is one of the main reasons he lost the support of conservatives to remain prime minister last September.
Almost immediately after the July election, conservatives in the government moved to make 18C Turnbull’s test and they have not let up since.
It has been obvious for some time that Turnbull is going to have to replay this debate in some shape or form. The internals demand it.
So the prime minister has in the past couple of weeks, and again on Friday, signalled support for a parliamentary investigation by the human rights committee – an idea being pushed by the Liberal senator Dean Smith.
The Smith proposal would wrap up consideration of 18C in a more broad-ranging inquiry looking at freedom of expression, which would bring other issues into the mix, like the defamation law for example, which well-resourced individuals, like politicians, tend to make liberal use of.
Even though the evidence suggests we really don’t have a problem with 18C as it currently stands – most cases are resolved at conciliation, only 1% of the complaints last year ever made it to the inside of a courtroom – the Smith inquiry is not a terrible idea.
It would make 18C, the sequel, something of a fair fight.
Community groups can have their say. (Again, yes I know, sorry folks.) It would allow consideration of the 18C restrictions alongside the other curbs that currently exist on speech in Australia – the ones politicians don’t generally rush to complain about, the sorts of curbs on free speech that work to protect the powerful, as opposed to the curbs that work to protect the vulnerable.
To put this most simply: a process like the one Smith envisages would test just how free the “freedom” crowd really wants things to be and whether, when push came to shove, some freedoms proved to be more equal than others.
For what it’s worth, here’s what I think about removing the words insult and offend from the RDA.
As a journalist I support removing as many curbs on free expression and free publication as possible. I have a professional interest, in fact, in removing as many curbs on free expression as possible.
So I’m happy to countenance a rebalancing of the RDA, provided the rebalancing of the free speech framework is proportionate and fair. I’m not happy to leave restrictions in place that aid the powerful while going after restrictions that protect the vulnerable. Reasonableness in all the circumstances has to be the threshold test.
The other caveat I’d add to my professional support for speech and communication to be as unfettered as possible is I am a white woman of Anglo-Celtic descent. It’s fair to say I’m about as white as it’s possible to be.
While I have encountered nasty, deeply distressing sexism and casual acts of workplace discrimination; while I’ve been patronised, pitied, marginalised, talked over top of; while I’ve been the unhappy recipient of the unsolicited mansplain – I have never encountered racism.
I don’t know what that feels like. I don’t know what it’s like to be insulted or offended on the basis of my race and that’s what the provision prevents.
Section 18C doesn’t prevent people insulting or offending each other in the ordinary course of events. My inviolable human right to call someone a dickhead at a barbecue remains untrammelled.
And before we rush to wind back the existing racial discrimination protections on the basis they are an inconvenience for the poor, oppressed, white culture warrior of a certain age, who, like me, have almost certainly never been insulted on the basis of their race – we need to stop and listen to the voices of people who have.
The first is that the legal action, which has centred on a trio of students alleged to have engaged in racial vilification, has become a cause célèbre for opponents of 18C – the provision that prohibits offending, insulting, humiliating or intimidating another person on the grounds of race.
The second thing to know is it really doesn’t matter what happened in the court on Friday. For politicians who want to overhaul 18C, Friday’s outcome was always going to be a case of heads we win, tails we win.
If the case was thrown out, the outcome would be spun by the anti-18C brigade as an example of everything that’s wrong with the provision, because look at all the time, stress and resources that have gone into defending an action that never should have proceeded this far.
If the case proceeded, then this would be proof positive that the law is an ass. Just for the record, the case was thrown out.
Before it was even announced, Friday’s decision was being hyped in certain quarters as a landmark and a turning point but, in reality, is nothing of the kind. Here’s what you need to know about what happens next.
Overhauling 18C has emerged as a key test by which Liberal leaders are judged.
The contemporary right, while dabbling liberally in identity politics frolics of its own, is obsessed with pushing back on the identity politics and the rights agenda of the left.
Tony Abbott tried and failed to overhaul 18C, which is one of the main reasons he lost the support of conservatives to remain prime minister last September.
Almost immediately after the July election, conservatives in the government moved to make 18C Turnbull’s test and they have not let up since.
It has been obvious for some time that Turnbull is going to have to replay this debate in some shape or form. The internals demand it.
So the prime minister has in the past couple of weeks, and again on Friday, signalled support for a parliamentary investigation by the human rights committee – an idea being pushed by the Liberal senator Dean Smith.
The Smith proposal would wrap up consideration of 18C in a more broad-ranging inquiry looking at freedom of expression, which would bring other issues into the mix, like the defamation law for example, which well-resourced individuals, like politicians, tend to make liberal use of.
Even though the evidence suggests we really don’t have a problem with 18C as it currently stands – most cases are resolved at conciliation, only 1% of the complaints last year ever made it to the inside of a courtroom – the Smith inquiry is not a terrible idea.
It would make 18C, the sequel, something of a fair fight.
Community groups can have their say. (Again, yes I know, sorry folks.) It would allow consideration of the 18C restrictions alongside the other curbs that currently exist on speech in Australia – the ones politicians don’t generally rush to complain about, the sorts of curbs on free speech that work to protect the powerful, as opposed to the curbs that work to protect the vulnerable.
To put this most simply: a process like the one Smith envisages would test just how free the “freedom” crowd really wants things to be and whether, when push came to shove, some freedoms proved to be more equal than others.
For what it’s worth, here’s what I think about removing the words insult and offend from the RDA.
As a journalist I support removing as many curbs on free expression and free publication as possible. I have a professional interest, in fact, in removing as many curbs on free expression as possible.
So I’m happy to countenance a rebalancing of the RDA, provided the rebalancing of the free speech framework is proportionate and fair. I’m not happy to leave restrictions in place that aid the powerful while going after restrictions that protect the vulnerable. Reasonableness in all the circumstances has to be the threshold test.
The other caveat I’d add to my professional support for speech and communication to be as unfettered as possible is I am a white woman of Anglo-Celtic descent. It’s fair to say I’m about as white as it’s possible to be.
While I have encountered nasty, deeply distressing sexism and casual acts of workplace discrimination; while I’ve been patronised, pitied, marginalised, talked over top of; while I’ve been the unhappy recipient of the unsolicited mansplain – I have never encountered racism.
I don’t know what that feels like. I don’t know what it’s like to be insulted or offended on the basis of my race and that’s what the provision prevents.
Section 18C doesn’t prevent people insulting or offending each other in the ordinary course of events. My inviolable human right to call someone a dickhead at a barbecue remains untrammelled.
And before we rush to wind back the existing racial discrimination protections on the basis they are an inconvenience for the poor, oppressed, white culture warrior of a certain age, who, like me, have almost certainly never been insulted on the basis of their race – we need to stop and listen to the voices of people who have.
No comments:
Post a Comment