Offending White Men: Racial Vilification, Misrecognition, and Epistemic Injustice

In this article I analyse two complaints of white vilification, which are increasingly occurring in Australia. I argue that, though the complainants (and white people generally) are not harmed by such racialized speech, the complainants in fact harm Australians of colour through these utterances. These complaints can both cause and constitute at least two forms of epistemic injustice (willful hermeneutical ignorance and comparative credibility excess). Further, I argue that the complaints are grounded in a dual misrecognition: the complainants misrecognize themselves in their own privileged racial specificity, and they misrecognize others in their own marginal racial specificity. Such misrecognition preserves the cultural imperialism of Australia’s dominant social imaginary—a means of oppression that perpetuates epistemic insensitivity.Bringing this dual misrecognition to light best captures the indignity that is suffered by the victims of the aforementioned epistemic injustices. I argue that it is only when we truly recognize difference in its own terms, shifting the dominant social imaginary, that “mainstream Australians”can do their part in bringing about a just society

Race riots on the beach: A case for criminalising hate speech?

noThis paper analyses the verbal and textual hostility employed by rioters, politicians and the media in Sydney (Australia) in December 2005 in the battle over Sutherland Shire¿s Cronulla Beach. By better understanding the linguistic conventions underlying all forms of maledictive hate, we are better able to address the false antimonies between free speech and the regulation of speech. It is also argued that understanding the harms of hate speech provides us with the tools necessary to create a more responsive framework for criminalising some forms of hate speech as a preliminary process in reducing or eliminating hate violence

Beyond equality: The place of Aboriginal culture in the Australian game of football

This paper provides an overview of Aboriginal interventions in the sport of Australian (Rules) Football in the period since the formation of the Australian Football League (AFL) in 1990. Recalling several pivotal events that have defined and redefined the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Australian game of football, this paper finds that the struggle to end on-field racial vilification in the 1990s attracted widespread support from the overwhelmingly non-Aboriginal public because these actions were consistent with the political principle of equality. The key actions of Nicky Winmar and Michael Long gained general appeal because they demanded that Aboriginal people be treated as though they were Anglo-Australians. In this regard, the 1990s fight against on-field racism in the AFL was a continuation of the Aboriginal struggle for rights associated with Australian citizenship. As the 1967 Commonwealth referenda on Aborigines demonstrated, most Anglo-Australians understood and supported the political principle of equality even though the promise of citizenship in substantive improvements to social and economic outcomes almost 50 years later remains largely unfulfilled. Nevertheless, in the recently concluded 2015 AFL season, Adam Goodes, the most highly decorated Aboriginal man to play the sport at the highest level, was effectively booed into retirement. Goodes became a controversial and largely disliked figure in the sport when he used the public honour of being 2014 Australian of the Year to highlight the disadvantage and historical wrongs that continue to adversely impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their communities. This paper argues that Goodes effectively sought to shift the paradigm of Aboriginal struggle beyond the sympathetic notions of racism and equal treatment to issues of historical fact that imply First Nations rights associated with cultural practice. Goodes' career initiates a new discussion about the place that Aboriginal cultures, traditions and understandings might have in the sport today. His decision to perform an Aboriginal war dance demonstrates that the new paradigm we propose is primarily about the political principle of difference, not equality

Religious vilification laws in New Zealand: Should the freedom of expression be taken as gospel?

With ever-increasing multiculturalism and diversity within New Zealand, this paper explores the potential for religious vilification laws to be passed in order to promote community tolerance. New Zealand’s Human Rights Act 1993 includes both civil and criminal offences for the incitement of hostility on the grounds of race. There is no commensurate provision protecting religion. This paper considers the harm that religious vilification laws seek to remedy, and whether their efficacy in preventing this harm is proportionate to the incursion upon the freedom of expression. Ultimately, it suggests that while there are real harms associated with religious hate speech, the adversarial legal system is a flawed instrument through which to deal with it

Take-Home Lessons for Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Bisexual School Students

The take-home lesson from this survey of Australian anti-discrimination law is that the legislation offers only minimal protection to gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual students who are verbal abused by other students. School students, apart from those in Tasmania, cannot be held liable for discrimination. Only the Northern Territory Act protects students from being harassed on the basis of their heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality, but this is by educational authorities, not other students. Vilification on the grounds of a person’s sexual orientation, sexuality or transgender status is only prohibited in NSW, Queensland and Tasmania. School-based education on human rights and reform to the anti-discrimination legislation are needed

The 2 Rs – respect and responsibility: the case of Australian Muslim girls

The citizenship debate involves respect and responsibility, and these can be achieved through collective action. Though many members of disadvantaged groups sympathise with the goals of social movements fighting injustice against their in-group (own community) or out-group (wider society) often only a small percentage of them actually participate in collective activities staged to realise these goals. In this paper I discuss the case of Australian Muslims girls who in their home environment respect the family values and carry out certain responsibilities assigned to them. By family values, I mean respect for elders, performing religious duties, for example, offering prayers, and fasting during the month of Ramadan, helping mother in the kitchen and looking after their siblings. In the wider society, Muslim girls attend schools, do part-time jobs and obey Australian values of fair-go, tolerance and multiculturalism ceremoniousl. However, I question in this paper, whether their family and the wider society are working collectively to fulfil their responsibility towards these girls. I discuss the interview responses of 39 Muslim girls (15-18 years) living in Sydney and Perth. I examine pertinent cases within the framework of relevant academic literature, and argue within the social, religious and cultural context. The issues within the family domain are inter-twined within Islamic religious-cultural arguments, whereas the issues in the public domain are argued on cultural conflict between the Muslims and the wider society. With both arguments I show how some Muslim girls negotiate their identity, and suggest their bicultural identity is assisting them to keep a positive attitude in their everyday life. Finally, I advocate that collective action from both the Muslim and the wider community is vital for the well-being of these girls.   Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.1, No.3, 200

A villain and a monster : the literary portrait of Richard III by Thomas More and William Shakespeare

The process of vilification of Richard III started at the end of the fifteenth century, when a well-planned policy of Tudor propaganda was set in motion by Henry VII himself, who commissioned a series of historiographical writings, mainly aiming at the solidification of the newly founded dynasty. One of the strategies, probably the major one, consisted in the definitive annihilation of the last Plantagenet king of England, whose defeat and death on the battlefield should not by any means transform him into the York victimised hero of the Wars of the Roses. Thus, various historiographers delineated Richard of Gloucester as a vile, wicked, monstrous creature. But the hyperbolic process of vilification undoubtedly reached its highest climax with two major early modern authors. The Life written by Thomas More – The History of King Richard the Third (ca. 1514) – and the play written by William Shakespeare – King Richard III (ca. 1591) – may be considered the epitomes of the tradition that has forever shaped the king as a monster. In this text, I focus on the way More and Shakespeare exploit and amplify the vituperative historiographical tradition, though mostly based on rumour, uncertainties and legendary elements. Within this widely accepted tradition, both authors manage to shape a solid portrait of Richard III, an exemplum not to be imitated or followed, but whose performance, built through a set of powerful rhetorical devices, is masterful, both in the Life and in the play

The Attorney-General’s suggested changes to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975

The paper examines the legal implications of the four proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 suggested by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Executive summary The paper examines the legal implications of changes to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the RDA) suggested by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. It does not investigate the policy issues which have been the subject of general discussion, such as the impact of the changes on reconciliation, the proposed constitutional changes or the Close the Gap project, nor does it explore the relative benefits of ensuring more forms of free speech. These issues have been examined extensively elsewhere. There are four changes made by Senator Brandis’ proposed amendments and these are examined in some depth. Of primary significance is the extension of the pre-existing ‘free-speech’ provision, which currently provides that relevant speech acts done ‘reasonably and in good faith’ are not regulated under the RDA.  The proposed extension would protect a very much broader range of public speech, including speech which would incite racial hatred.  To fall outside the proposed section’s regulation the communication must simply form part of the ‘public discussion’ in a very broad range of categories (including, for instance, discussion of a ‘political, social or cultural’ matter). Next, there is the narrowed definition of vilification and intimidation. The requirement that intimidation involve a fear of physical violence would duplicate existing criminal law and tort law provisions. The forms of abuse that would be regulated under the proposed vilification provisions are limited. The examination of these provisions includes an exploration of the nature of race-based insults, which evoke or endorse a significant history of discrimination and prejudice—the difference between such insults and the ‘garden‑variety’ of insults which lack this racial patina is explored. The other two changes are more technical, involving a change to the definition of who sets the standard of a ‘reasonable’ response to racial abuse—the proposed changes would require the judges to cease their current practice of taking race into account when determining what ‘reasonably’ constitutes a breach of the RDA. Finally there is a proposal to delete the section of the Act which recognises that, in determining whether an act is racially motivated, race may be established as simply one of a range of motivations. With this current provision deleted the new section would thus require race to be proved as a more central element of any breach of the Act’s racial vilification provisions. The paper concludes with a brief examination of the interplay between defamation law and the regulation of speech under the RDA. Both are part of a variety of regulatory mechanisms governing speech acts, and both regulate speech which can cause damage, but their history, rationale and processes are different

A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review

In January 2017, the Scottish Government announced a review of hate crime legislation, chaired by Lord Bracadale.1 Lord Bracadale requested that, to assist the Review it its task, we produce a comparative report detailing principles underpinning hate crime legislation and approaches taken to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. Work on this report commenced in late March 2017 and the final report was submitted to the Review in July 2017