The Islamic Republic of Australia by Sami Shah

Author:Sami Shah
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: HarperCollins Publishers
Published: 2017-05-17T16:00:00+00:00

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

In the endless debate around 18C, these qualifications keep getting forgotten. As does the fact that the punishment for breaches of 18C are rare and mild. The Human Rights Commission is hardly the dictatorial enforcer the way it’s often portrayed in the pages of conservative newspapers. Its role is more as a neutral facilitator that advocates for conciliation, and on rare occasions when someone does go to court, the damages are minimal as violating 18C is not a criminal offence.

*

What I find bizarre is how much attention this rather obscure corner of Australian jurisprudence has now received – so much so that even a Pakistani immigrant has had to learn all the details and subclauses. The reason being, of course, is that the sustained assault on 18C by conservative politicians began when Tony Abbott’s favourite public intellectual, Andrew Bolt, was found guilty of having violated it.

Since then, the argument against it has been framed in the language of ‘free speech’, which always perks my ears right up. The most worthy and interesting contribution to the debate, in my opinion, was provided by Attorney-General George Brandis, who said, ‘People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have a right to say things that other people find offensive, or insulting, or bigoted.’ This point generated a great deal of controversy at the time, but the right to offend is fundamental to free speech. And it’s a right that Brandis was fighting for when defending the bigotry of a friend.

Except the conservatives’ enthusiasm for the right of bigots to speak their minds disappeared a few months later, when a controversial young man named Zaky Mallah was on the ABC TV program Q&A.

I had no clue who Zaky Mallah was when the camera first cut to him. All I could see was a young man, likely of Middle Eastern or South Asian ethnicity, wearing a giant baseball cap with a golden marijuana leaf emblazoned on the front as a declaration of poor life choices. A quick read through his Wikipedia entry shows that sartorial errors are the least of his terrible decisions, but it’s his Q&A appearance that’s of relevance to this discussion.

As an audience member, Mallah asked a preapproved question to government MP Steven Ciobo, who was on the panel, about the legality of prosecuting people who tried travelling to Syria. A back-and-forth

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.