Right: Federal Attorney-General George Brandis, defending his changes to the Act: `People do have a right to be bigots, you know'.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Background information
(Most of the information reprinted below has been taken from the section of the Australian Human Rights Commission's homepage titled 'Know your rights: Racial discrimination and vilification'.
The full text of this material can be accessed at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/know-your-rights-racial-discrimination-and-vilification)
What is racial discrimination?
Racial discrimination is when a person is treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status. For example, it would be 'direct discrimination' if a real estate agent refuses to rent a house to a person because they are of a particular racial background or skin colour.
It is also racial discrimination when there is a rule or policy that is the same for everyone but has an unfair effect on people of a particular race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status. This is called 'indirect discrimination'. For example, it may be indirect racial discrimination if a company says that employees must not wear hats or other headwear at work, as this is likely to have an unfair effect on people from some racial/ethnic backgrounds.
What is racial hatred or racial vilification?
Racial hatred (sometimes referred to as vilification) is doing something in public based on the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate. Examples of racial hatred may include:
a) racially offensive material on the internet, including eforums, blogs, social networking sites and video sharing sites
b) racially offensive comments or images in a newspaper, magazine or other publication such as a leaflet or flyer
c) racially offensive speeches at a public rally
d) racially abusive comments in a public place, such as a shop, workplace, park, on public transport or at school
e) racially abusive comments at sporting events by players, spectators, coaches or officials.
How am I protected from racial discrimination and racial hatred?
The Racial Discrimination Act aims to ensure that Australians of all backgrounds are treated equally and have the same opportunities.
This Act makes it against the law to treat you unfairly, or to discriminate against you, on the grounds of race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, and immigration status.
The Act also makes racial hatred against the law.
Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) states:
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
When is racial hatred not against the law?
The Racial Discrimination Act aims to strike a balance between the right to communicate freely ('freedom of speech') and the right to live free from racial hatred or vilification.
To strike this balance, the Act outlines some things that are not against the law, provided they are 'done reasonably and in good faith' - even if they are done in public.
Under the Act, the things that are not against the law if they are "done reasonably and in good faith" are:
a) an artistic work or performance - for example, a play in which racially offensive attitudes are expressed by a character.
b) a statement, publication, discussion or debate made for genuine academic or scientific purposes - for example, discussing and debating public policy such as immigration, multiculturalism or special measures for particular groups.
c) making a fair and accurate report on a matter of public interest - for example, a fair report in a newspaper about racially offensive conduct.
d) making a fair comment, if the comment is an expression of a person's genuine belief.
The Andrew Bolt case
(Most of the information below come from the Wikipedia entry titled 'Andrew Bolt'. The full text can be accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt)
The Abbott-led Coalition Government plans to amend part of Australia's racial discrimination laws by repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
The changes came in response to a high-profile case involving conservative commentator Andrew Bolt, who was found to have broken the law over two articles he wrote in 2009 about light-skinned people who identify as Aboriginal. At the time, Bolt said it was 'a terrible day for free speech in this country'.
Attorney-General George Brandis has stated that the Government's planned amendments 'will ensure that can never happen in Australia again'.
In September 2010, nine individuals claiming Aboriginal ancestry commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against columnist and commentator, Andrew Bolt, and the Herald Sun over two posts on Bolt's blog. The nine sued over posts titled 'It's so hip to be black', 'White is the New Black' and 'White Fellas in the Black'. The articles suggested it was fashionable for 'fair-skinned people' of diverse ancestry to choose Aboriginal racial identity for the purposes of political and career advancement. The applicants claimed the posts breached the Racial Discrimination Act. They sought an apology, legal costs, and a gag on republishing the articles and blogs, and 'other relief as the court deems fit'. They did not seek damages.
On 28 September 2011 Bolt was found to have contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.