Brandis amendments to RDA an effective attack on free speech for Aborigines

Aboriginal lawyer Michael Mansell has challenged the motives of Attorney-General George Brandis’s amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act.

“Mr Brandis claims the amendments to the racial hate provisions are about free speech. There are so many other examples Mr Brandis could have reviewed.” Mr Mansell said.

“If I called Mr Brandis or any other public figure a ‘bare faced liar’, I could be sued for defamation. Nowadays the ‘f’ word is normal part of everyday language for youth in public, yet State and Territory laws makes this expression a criminal offence. If a happy person wishes to break out in song in a busy street they can be charged with unruly behaviour or committing a nuisance. Why does Mr Brandis not tackle these restrictions on free speech?

Then there is the criminalising of expressions of dissent against logging (environmentalists), exploitation of workers (union pickets) or protesting without permission. Aboriginal protestors trying to save a 40,000 year-old heritage site at Brighton in Tasmania were arrested, stripped searched and charged with, of all things, trespass. Well-known garden guru Peter Cundall was arrested for protesting outside the Tasmanian parliament. Why does Mr Brandis not tackle these restrictions on free speech?

Then there are the examples of media censorship where the views of particular sections of society are blocked while others are promoted. Neither the Australian nor the Age, as a matter of practice, if not policy, will publish any Aboriginal views different to those that espouse assimilation. The public broadcaster, the national ABC, likewise censors Aboriginal viewpoints so that only ultra-conservative black voices are aired. When did Aunty last give any left leaning views an airing? Why does Mr Brandis not tackle these restrictions on free speech?

All of these examples”, Mr Mansell added, “are blatant breaches of free speech. Why has Mr Brandis missed these obvious examples while supporting a right-wing columnist who is free to publish anything, subject to the law? The answer must rest in ideology and pay-back for the Herald-Sun’s support of the conservative politics of Mr Brandis’s government.”

“We all acknowledge that free speech is not absolute. Distributing child pornography, deliberately behaving offensively, and deliberately targeting minorities by widely distributing venom likely to promote further bigotry against Aborigines and migrants, are justifiable exceptions to free speech.

Free speech is about ensuring that everybody has a right to their say, not just those who have privileged positions to dominate. To allow absolute freedom for Andrew Bolt to vilify fair-skinned Aborigines (as representatives of their people) is to shut down their freedom of speech. It is an Australian cultural prejudice that, in the past, led journalists to demand Aboriginal representatives justify their bona fides on the degrees of dark skin. Bolt is a throw-back to that era. When white people are interviewed, their identity is never questioned. It is discriminatory to ask some Aborigines whether their skin colour justifies their right to be heard. Being continually distracted by questions of identity, by people outside the Aboriginal community, discourages a class of Aborigines from speaking out. That is not freedom of speech: it denies free speech.

There is nothing wrong with Mr Brandis or Andrew Bolt attacking my views about an Aboriginal future. It is wrong to prevent my views being aired because of the colour of my skin.”

The Brandis amendments, Mr Mansell said, make it virtually impossible to contain racial vilification inside reasonable limits. The amendments mean that unless racial vilification puts a victim in fear of ‘physical violence’, racial bigotry has a free hand.