Related Papers
Alternative Law Journal
Racially derogatory cartoons and racial vilif ication laws: Where to draw the line?
2020 •
Bill John
This article examines whether racially derogatory cartoons are capable of infringing Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). In particular, it examines the exemption of ‘artistic work’ in section 18D, which depends on the artistic work being published ‘reasonably’. Courts have struggled to apply the concept of ‘reasonableness’ to cartoons, noting that cartoons are exaggerated by their nature and that they often convey political messages.
Context and the Limits of Legal Reasoning: The 'Victim Focus' of Section 18C in Comparative Perspective
Elizabeth Hicks
This paper considers the recent controversy surrounding section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and assesses the need for reform. I argue that the controversy surrounding section 18C is traceable to two causes. Firstly, section 18C locates the harm of hate speech within the experience of a victim, and secondly, describes this experience in terms of 'feelings' such as offence and insult. This 'victim focus' departs from the traditional characterisation of vilification as speech that harms social cohesion — an approach I refer to as the 'incitement focus'. I defend section 18C's 'victim focus' by analysing the reasoning of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the German Constitutional Court where the 'incitement focus' is dominant. Through this comparison, I demonstrate that the 'incitement focus' is ill adapted to deal with the harm of hate speech in societies with a high degree of social cohesion. In these circ*mstances, the connection between speech and incitement is less amenable to legal reasoning, although courts legitimately perceive harm in the social and historical significance of hate speech. In contrast, Australia's 'victim focus' is better adapted to an inquiry into the relationship between speech and social and historical patterns of persecution. While I defend section 18C's description of this relationship in terms of 'offence' and 'insult', I recommend that the provision be amended to require that 'insult' be considered within an historical and social context. This may strengthen the public's perception that section 18C is a legitimate restriction on speech.
Managing Dissent Under Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act
Dilan Thampapillai
University of New South Wales law journal
Anti-Vilification Laws and Public Racism in Australia: Mapping the Gaps between the Harms Occasioned and the Remedies Provided
2016 •
Katharine Gelber
Despite a lively debate in Australia and internationally about the operation of anti-vilification laws, notably absent from these debates has been empirical evidence of the ways in which targeted communities experience racially and religiously motivated abuse. In this article we aim to contribute to addressing this significant gap. We report on interviews conducted with target community members to identify and map the gaps that exist between the coverage of
The Attorney-General’s suggested changes to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975
University of New South Wales Law Journal
Harming Women with Words: The Failure of Australian Law to Prohibit Gendered Hate Speech
2018 •
Danielle Walt
In Australia, gendered hate speech against women is so pervasive and insidious that it is a normalised feature of everyday public discourse. It is often aimed at silencing women, and hindering their ability to participate effectively in civil society. As governmental bodies have recognised, sexist and misogynist language perpetuates gender-based violence by contributing to strict gender norms and constructing women as legitimate objects of hostility. Thus, gendered hate speech, like other forms of hate speech, produces a range of harms which ripple out beyond the targeted individual. The harmful nature of vilification is recognised by the various Australian laws which prohibit or address other forms of hate speech. But as we map out in this article, gendered hate speech is glaringly absent from most of this legislation. We argue that by failing to address gendered hate speech, Australian law permits the marginalisation of women and girls, and actively exacerbates their vulnerability...
Social Science Research Network
Anti-Vilification Laws and Freedom of Religion in Australia - Is Defamation Enough?
2013 •
Neil Foster
Religious Anti-Vilification Laws: Gatekeeping Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech in Australia
2013 •
Neil Foster
Submission on Proposed amendments to Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
2014 •
Neil Foster
FIGHTING RACIAL HATRED
Melinda Jones
