Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Putting balance back into the racial discrimination debate

By Neil Brown - posted Monday, 17 March 2014


Secondly, complete repeal would almost certainly lead to the ALP declaring its intention to reinstate the section if it were returned to government and the Greens joining in. This would create a new and divisive issue that would run and divert the Government's attention and energy from other issues on which it would clearly prefer to concentrate.

Thirdly, a simple repeal would serve to antagonize and alienate some ethnic community groups. This would be socially divisive and electorally unwise.

Finally, the Australian community as a whole would probably want the law to outlaw some types of racially based conduct short of incitement to racial violence. Some such prohibitions that are outlawed by the present provision would be legitimated if s 18C were entirely repealed without something else being put in its place.

Advertisement

It therefore seems we would be well advised to look at the main defects in the present law and concentrate on replacing them with something better, rather than pursuing complete repeal. What, then, is the major flaw in Section 18C that could be remedied by amendment?

The current, subjective test is flawed

The present Section 18C makes it unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private that is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people, and the act is done because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin. This test is essentially a subjective one, based on how the individual or group feel or would feel about the act as determined not by them but by a Judge.

The test is flawed because it tells us little about the community's view of the conduct in question, when the community's view should at least be a factor and it tells us little about whether the community thinks that conduct should be punished.

Rather, it imposes a test where the judge has to put him or herself in the position of the complainant and ask whether an act would have offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated a person or group in light of their own particular sensitivities. Clearly there must be cases where the complainant may well have been offended by what was said about him, but where the community would itself not regard the conduct as justifying the feeling of outrage held by the complainant or any punishment of the respondent (the originator of the conduct) for engaging in the conduct. As the Section stands at the present the originator would be guilty in such cases, even if the community view on any fact situation were that the conduct should not be illegal.

It is true, of course, that the Judge did not use an unrestricted subjective test, as he invoked the notion of whether the "target " would be "reasonably likely in all the circumstances" to be offended, although this is still a subjective test.

In any event, there are also the twin questions of whether a judge, sitting alone, would have any idea of whether the complainant "should" have been so incensed and whether judges should be passing judgment on such questions, which are essentially questions of personal conduct and reaction.

Advertisement

The present subjective test also gives scope for false or even honest outrage, but outrage based on events about which a mature, responsible adult in a society that is committed to freedom of expression should not complain. In other words, the present test enables complainants to bring proceedings and to say, yes, they certainly were offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated or perhaps all of them and for the Judge to say that they were or should have been so offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, whether the community as a whole believes they were not offended or should not have been offended.

There is then a clear danger under the present test that what traditionally would have been thought of as no more than a demonstration of robust freedom of expression becomes illegal, no matter what the community as a whole thinks of it.

The subjective test therefore prevents a proper role being given to the principle that we should strive to give as much rein as possible to freedom of expression as seen by the community. The subjective test of liability is a major defect in the present law and one that calls out for reform.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Research assistance with this article was provided by Brett Shandler, but the opinions contained in the article are the responsibility of the author alone.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Neil Brown QC was Minister for Communications 1982-3 and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Neil Brown

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Neil Brown
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy