[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Tony Abbott dumps controversial changes to 18C racial discrimination laws Heath Aston The Abbott government has backed down on controversial plans to water down the Racial Discrimination Act. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said it was a ‘‘leadership call’’ to bin the proposed changes to Section 18C of the act, which had been roundly criticised by ethnic community leaders and was unpopular with the wider public. "Leadership is about preserving national unity on the essentials and that is why I have taken this position," Mr Abbott said. Mr Abbott said it was a "complication" in the current environment and "we're just not going to proceed with it". ‘‘I’m a passionate supporter of free speech and if we were starting from scratch with section 18C we wouldn’t have words such as offend and insult in the legislation. But we aren’t starting from scratch. We are dealing with the situation we find ourselves in and I want the communities of the country to be our friend not our critic," he said. "I want to work with the communities of our country as team Australia here." The announcement was made under the cover of Mr Abbott’s Tuesday press conference on terror laws with Attorney-General George Brandis. Senator Brandis had led the government’s bid to wind back 18C, famously proclaiming that people had the ‘‘right to be a bigot’’. Before last year’s election, the Coalition had promised to repeal section 18C, which became known as the "Bolt laws" after News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under the existing legislation for two comment piece on white-skinned Aboriginals. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to: "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" because of their race or ethnicity". The Attorney-General's draft bill proposed a new section that would make it: "unlawful for a person to do an act ... that is reasonably likely to vilify another person or a group of persons or intimidate another person or group of persons". The proposed law would have removed protections against offending, insulting or humiliating someone. But the public storm led to months of delays and reports of angst at cabinet level over the changes. Last week, Fairfax Media revealed the Coalition's plan to water down race hate laws had been rejected by a large majority of respondents to a government review. More than 76 per cent of 4100 submissions opposed the proposal. Just 20.5 per cent of submissions were in favour of the changes, according to documents obtained under freedom of information laws by Simon Rice of the Australian National University. Three per cent called for a complete repeal of all racial discrimination protections. Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson tweeted after the announcement: ‘‘Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18C and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.’’ Mr Wilson, an Abbott appointee and former analyst with the Institute of Public Affairs has been vocal in his support for changes to the racial discrimination laws, saying they prevent equality. “A law that was controversial when it was introduced, controversial in its operation, a controversial act today,” he said. “The racial discrimination act significantly restricts free speech in a way that all other anti-discrimination laws do not and the government seems to foolishly think that backing down will assist them or be in the best interest of the Australian population.” Mr Wilson said there should not be a situation where select legal privileges are enjoyed by some and not by other people. “The Prime Minister said that he wants to unite team Australia. I agree, which is why we should have laws that apply for everybody consistently,” he said. “There is nothing more dangerous to a multicultural Australia today than the idea that some people have legal privileges on the basis of their race which do not exist for other people.” Fellow commissioner Tim Soutphommasane also responded soon after the announcement, but supported the decision, saying the federal government had "listened to the community's concerns". The changes to 18C had been publicly opposed by Labor and some government backbenchers including Craig Laundy and Alex Hawke. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said it was an "embarrassing backdown" by the government. He said Senator Brandis had been "rolled" and "humiliated". Referencing Senator Brandis' comments earlier this year that Australians had the right to be bigots, Mr Shorten said "there is no right to be a bigot in this country". He also called on the government to back down on other plans, including "cuts to pensions, to schools, to hospitals". with Lisa Cox, Lucy Cormack Poster Comment: Date: September 30, 2010 by Karen Kissane [PIC: Hurt and offended: (a very white-looking) Pat Eatock] UP TO nine fair-skinned people will testify that they were hurt, humiliated and offended by newspaper columns that questioned their right to claim they were Aboriginal, the Federal Court was told yesterday. The nine are suing Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt over articles and blogs including one headlined ''White is the new black'' that suggested it was fashionable to choose Aboriginal racial identity, which brought ''political and career clout''. Earlier articles, ''It's so hip to be black'', and ''White fellas in the black'', had similar themes. Bolt wrote that ''white Aborigines'' were ''people who, out of their multi-stranded but largely European genealogy, decide to identify with the thinnest of all those strands, and the one that's contributed least to their looks''. Bolt will be the only witness in response, his lawyer told the court. The case will involve debate about racial identity and the limits of free speech. Phoebe Knowles, for the applicants, said it would take up to five days to hear their evidence, which would include allegations of errors in Bolt's articles and an elaboration of their claims to Aboriginality. Ms Knowles agreed there was an objective test for Aboriginal identity that looked at genealogy and whether the person was accepted ''communally''. But she said it was also a deeply personal choice that had ''subjective elements''. She said, ''Mr Bolt says the named persons have falsely claimed their Aboriginality, and whether or not that is false is a relevant issue in terms of whether or not there's a breach [of the law]. It's also relevant to whether or not there's likely to be insult or humiliation.'' She said the case was being run as a class action, with Pat Eatock as the main applicant, as this was simpler than filing nine separate complaints, given that some witnesses lived overseas or in remote areas. The applicants claim the publications breached the Racial Discrimination Act. They want an apology, legal costs, and a gag on republishing the articles and blogs or anything else with substantially similar content, as well as ''other relief as the court deems fit''. They are not seeking damages. Neil Young, QC, for Bolt and The Herald and Weekly Times, said the applicants should explain ''with some precision'' what factual errors were alleged. The hearing will begin on December 13. Justice Ray Finkelstein reserved the issue of costs. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||