March 27, 2014
Waleed Aly
...Perhaps the most remarkable (click here) thing about George Brandis’ now infamous comment this week that Australians “have the right to be bigots” is that it was so unremarkable. Sure, it’s a grating soundbite, but as a matter of substance it’s entirely obvious. Of course we have a right to be bigots. We always have.
That’s the point that has been buried here. Nothing in the Racial Discrimination Act as it presently stands precludes bigotry. In fact I’ll go a step further: you’re even allowed to express your bigotry. Happens all the time. Read a newspaper. Bigoted views are published there several times in an average week.
Two things flow from this. First, that critics of the Racial Discrimination Act are simply wrong to suggest that our free speech is so curtailed that we can’t risk saying anything offensive. The courts have long made clear that the Act only contemplates serious cases. The caricature that we’re placed at the mercy of the most delicate people’s sensibilities is nothing less than a gross misrepresentation of the law.
Second, that supporters of the Racial Discrimination Act are wrong if they insist it provides anything like substantial protection against racism. I’ve copped my share of racial abuse both in public and in private, and section 18C wasn’t ever going to do a damn thing about it....
The Aussies need to consider this:
New York's city council (click here) has banned the use of the word "nigger" in an
attempt to eradicate the slur from the lexicon of hip-hop musicians and
young Americans.
In a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, the "symbolic moratorium" is raising the ire of academics and activists, as well as the artists who use the word with frequency and affection.
"It's a brand-new word," said John McWhorter, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a New York think-tank.
"The people who are doing this, I know their hearts are in the right places. But they're not listening to the language with young ears. They're hearing it in a way that is not intended."
Proponents of the ban say they understand the word's evolution in popular culture -- but are not convinced it belongs there.
Waleed Aly
...Perhaps the most remarkable (click here) thing about George Brandis’ now infamous comment this week that Australians “have the right to be bigots” is that it was so unremarkable. Sure, it’s a grating soundbite, but as a matter of substance it’s entirely obvious. Of course we have a right to be bigots. We always have.
That’s the point that has been buried here. Nothing in the Racial Discrimination Act as it presently stands precludes bigotry. In fact I’ll go a step further: you’re even allowed to express your bigotry. Happens all the time. Read a newspaper. Bigoted views are published there several times in an average week.
Two things flow from this. First, that critics of the Racial Discrimination Act are simply wrong to suggest that our free speech is so curtailed that we can’t risk saying anything offensive. The courts have long made clear that the Act only contemplates serious cases. The caricature that we’re placed at the mercy of the most delicate people’s sensibilities is nothing less than a gross misrepresentation of the law.
Second, that supporters of the Racial Discrimination Act are wrong if they insist it provides anything like substantial protection against racism. I’ve copped my share of racial abuse both in public and in private, and section 18C wasn’t ever going to do a damn thing about it....
The Aussies need to consider this:
In a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, the "symbolic moratorium" is raising the ire of academics and activists, as well as the artists who use the word with frequency and affection.
"It's a brand-new word," said John McWhorter, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a New York think-tank.
"The people who are doing this, I know their hearts are in the right places. But they're not listening to the language with young ears. They're hearing it in a way that is not intended."
Proponents of the ban say they understand the word's evolution in popular culture -- but are not convinced it belongs there.
