Add Category
One Nation party leader Pauline Hanson wants to tear up section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Picture: Lukas Coch/AAP
DEBATE is raging over what constitutes racial hatred in the wake of a contentious case involving three students’ Facebook comments about an indigenous-only computer room.
Queensland University of Technology admin worker Cindy Prior tried to sue Calum Thwaites, Jackson Powell and Alex Wood under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, but lost her leave to appeal last week.
She now faces having to pay costs of up to six figures to the students.
The controversial Section 18C makes it unlawful for anyone to commit an act reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate†a person or group on the grounds of race or ethnicity. It has come in for heavy criticism and calls for reform because of the potential for different interpretation.
But Scott Morrison yesterday said it was “how the Human Rights Commission actually deals with these issues†that was a problem, calling the QUT case “a farceâ€.
Queensland University of Technology students Alex Wood and Calum Thwaites were sued by administration officer Cindy Prior over Facebook comments regarding an indigenous-only computer room. Picture: Joseph Byford/The AustralianSource:News Corp Australia
Ms Prior had argued she was unable to continue working after Mr Wood posted on Facebook: “Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation.â€
Mr Powell responded: “I wonder where the white supremacist computer lab is.â€
Mr Thwaites was alleged to have written “ITT N***ers†but that was never proven and he has strongly denied being responsible for the post.
Are Australia’s discrimination laws unfair? See what you think should have happened in the following real racism cases and how that lines up with the law.
CASE 1
A man with a group of 17 friends, all of South-East Asian descent, entered an entertainment venue and bought a drink. Security approached him and told him to leave. When he asked why, the guard replied, “There was an incident with some folks last week, and the owner doesn’t want to deal with you today.â€
When the man said he and his friends could not have been involved in the incident, the guard said: “He (the owner) doesn’t care; he doesn’t want to deal with you folks today. The owner said there’s too many Orientals here for his liking. I’m just doing my job and listening to the boss.†Around 30 to 40 Asian people were forced to leave the venue.
At a conciliation conference, the owner said he had thought they were associated with some people of South-East Asian appearance he had found snorting cocaine in the toilets.
WHAT HAPPENED?
a) The owner had to apologise for the misunderstanding.
b) The owner had to apologise, implement anti-discrimination policy and training and make a donation to charity.
c) The owner had to apologise, implement anti-discrimination policy and training and pay the complainant $10,000.
d) No action was taken.
Ms Prior may now have to pay the students up to six figures in costs after losing her appeal.Source:News Corp Australia
CASE 2
An Aboriginal man working for the respondent government department as a maintenance worker claimed his supervisors called him over by whistling instead of using his name, assigned him “bad†jobs (including lining the toilet pits after use), called him a “black c**tâ€, used offensive language when speaking to him and described Aboriginal people as lazy and useless.
When he made an internal complaint, he claimed the respondent told him this was part of the work culture and that some of that “stuff†was “OKâ€. The complainant said he resigned due to this treatment. The respondents denied the allegations.
WHAT HAPPENED?
a) The respondents had to provide a statement of regret and payment of $25,000
b) The respondents had to provide a statement of regret and payment of $30,000
c) The respondents had to provide a statement of regret and payment of $45,000
d) The respondents had to provide a statement of regret and payment of $50,000
CASE 3
A comedian under the name “King Billy Cokebottle†pretended to be an Aboriginal person, performing a comedy monologue. The comedian was not Aboriginal. The performances were recorded on video and audiotape, and available for public purchase.
It was alleged that Aboriginal people were portrayed as rude, stupid, unable to speak English properly, dirty, always drunk or drinking and swearing, among other things. It was also alleged that performances referred to matters involving aspects of sacred tribal activities, which could only be discussed by and in the presence of initiated Aboriginal men. This case came before the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia.
WHAT HAPPENED?
a) The act was judged lawful and no action was taken.
b) The act was judged “impolite and offensive†and the comedian had to recall the tapes and make a public apology.
c) The act was judged “impolite and offensive†and the comedian had to recall the tapes, make a public apology and donate $5,000 to charity.
d) The act was judged “impolite and offensive†and the comedian had to recall the tapes, make a public apology and donate $20,000 to charity.
ANSWERS
CASE 1: (b)
CASE 2: (c)
CASE 3: (a) The court ruled that the act was “impolite and offensive†to many groups within Australia, but just because it was insulting did not mean it was unlawful under Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18D protects freedom of speech by ensuring artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.