Penny Wongs 2014 speech opposing the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 provides insight into civic participation among those racially vilified through analysis of the act, and its effects on free speech. The proposed amendments would remove the words “offend” and “insult” from section 18c of the act, a proposal which Wong views as favouring the “rights of the bigots” (2014). The amendments proposed come as a response to views held by many that racial vilification laws impinge on the individual rights to free speech. The accuracy of Wongs denial of this effect can be assessed through analysis of this act, and its affect on civic participation among minority groups in Australia can be understood.
Wong’s utilisation of
…show more content…
Twitter and Youtube demonstrates the rising effects of “celebrity politics” in shaping civic participation. Born in the Malaysia state of Sabah, Wong moved to Australia in 1976. She went on to study law and arts at the University of Adelaide, during which, she worked for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. She has held various posts within the labour government, including Minister for Climate Change and Water in 2007, and Minister of Finance are Deregulation in 2010. In 2013 she was elected Leader of the Government in Senate, and after the change in government, she became the Leader of the Opposition in Senate. She is the first woman to hold both of these roles (Penny Wong, 2016). Her speech on March 26th 2014, has received much praise on Twitter. Twitter user @TheMuellerName responded with ‘@SenatorWong fantastic response. Wonderful. Great leadership in such an important moment in our history’. (26 Mar, 2014). Another posted ‘@SenatorWong Thank you for your inspiring and articulate speech.’ (Mis D Meanor, Mar 26 2014) A perusal of Wong’s twitter handle @SenatorWong shows very few hateful responses, suggesting a largely positive public response. The youtube comment section of the speech show a similar response, with one commenter stating ‘Penny Wong has more balls than the entire liberal front bench combined. what and exemplary mp’ (1000tapstar, 2014). However, negative responses could also be found; ’we don't need a law to be nice to each other. Waste of taxpayers time.’ (Iain Gorry, 2014). This response on social media demonstrates a rise in “celebrity politics” and a shift towards active engagement on non-traditional platforms such as Twitter and Youtube, rather than through traditional and more formal spheres. (Loader, Vromen & Xenos, 2015.) Wong’s utilisation of Youtube and Twitter to promote her speech has allowed a much larger audience to see and address both the speech and its content. Thus, Wong’s speech became much more widely known than it would be otherwise, allowing the public, however informally, to participate in the courts decision, which ultimately fell in Wongs favour. This utilisation demonstrates public participation in politics through informal platforms. Analysis of the effects of racial vilification laws provides perspective on the hypothetical consequences of the proposed changes which Wong contests. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 section 18c, makes any public act reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” another person or group based on their “race, colour, or national or ethnic origin” unlawful. Wong juxtaposes her and the Labour parties belief in this “right” against the Abbott governments belief in “the rights of the Bigots” (P. Wong 2014, speech Mar 26) inferring the clause as a remedy to racial vilification. A study conducted by Gelber & McNamara found that since 2008, there has been a significant decrease in racial vilification complaints lodged. However, they assert the number of complaints lodged not to be comparable to the number of reportable offences, as their numerous interviews suggest many minorities are still routinely subjected to hate speech. Their interviews of successful complainants - those who won their case, thereby receiving a form of remedy - demonstrated that those most likely to win court proceedings were supported by a representative organisation, or by a person with exceptional resolve to pursue the matter. (2015) This results from the lengthy nature of pursuing the matter- with some cases taking three years or more to conclude, when most complainants were merely searching for an apology. Interviewee’s believed “it was worth having the laws, but applying them was another story” (Gelber & McNamara, 2015). Suggesting that while the process of engaging in the legislation is deterring, the act does have symbolic value. Examination of “The Bolt Case” provides insight into Wong’s view that racial vilification laws do not impinge on free speech. The case emerged in 2009 when Andrew Bolt wrote two articles for his weekly column in the Herald Sun questioning a number of individuals identification as Aboriginal based on their fair skin colour , and claimed it was beneficial for them to do so, as its “so hip to be black” (Gelber & McNamara 2013). The case was handled by Justice Bromberg, who found the articles to be unlawful. Despite Bromberg’s insistence that the articles were unlawful not because of the subject matter but the “manner in which that subject was dealt with” (Eatock v Bolt 2011). Bromberg found Bolt to be breaching the law because of factual inaccuracies in conjunction with his use of inflammatory language (Gelber & McNamara 2013), such as “White Fella’s in the Black” (Eatock v Bolt 2011). Despite this, Bolt and the media construed the case to be a “trial of freedom of speech” (Gelber & McNamara 2013) rather than a trial of laws aiming to “improve the quality of public discourse”. The irony implicit to Bolts claims of his “silence” and that it had been a “trial of freedom of speech” (Eatock v Bolt 2011), when the media coverage of the case, and Bolts prominence as an individual meant that far from being silenced, Sear claims you “could hardly walk past a newsagent without being made fully aware” (Gelber & McNamara 2013) of his views. This case demonstrates the discourse of the “relationship between individual freedom…and the responsibility to the rest of society” (Woodward, Summers & Parkin, 2010) which Wong’s speech also emits. Wong’s assertion that racial vilification laws are “not about denying free speech” but rather “about asserting the harm done by racist speech” (2014) rings true. Bolts punishment did not silence him, quite the opposite. While the Herald Sun did have to publish a corrective notice - (Gelber & McNamara 2013) an act aimed to change the manner of the discussion - Bolts prominence lead the public to fret over the fate of free speech, meaning as Simons claims, it was “the courtroom loser [who won] the propaganda war” (Gelber & McNamara 2013). This use of propaganda affects the participation of citizens in activating the act, as even though Wong claims the proposed amendments would “be in the interests of the bigots”, the bad media exposure means the act may already be in their favour. The effect of the proposed amendments to the act can be identified through examination of minorities rights and civic participation.
Mansouri & Kirpitchenko report migrant youth as having “an aversion to formal structured engagement” (2015), rather gravitating towards active engagement in informal or family structures. This aversion may result from Australia’s “history of racism” (Poynting & Mason, 2008) equating to those not of caucasian descent being classed as “other” (Poynting & Mason, 2008; See also Bird & McDonnell 1997) and leading those under this classification being subjected to xenophobic backlash (Poynting & Mason 2008) in the form of citizenship being shaped as obedience to the law (Macduff 2014). This is demonstrated through the citizenship pledge, where applicants physically submit to the legal requirements of the pledge, enforcing the governments authority (Macduff 2014). Obedience is further asserted by government policy, with former Prime Minister John Howard stating “if they don’t want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off” (Poynting & Mason, 2008). Well intended, the former Prime Minister responded to 9/11 with a “call for greater state intervention in Muslim cultural and religious matters” (Poynting & Mason 2008) as a means to protect Australia. However, this representation of a people as a “monolithic cultural identity” (Bird & McDonnell 1997) creates problems through separating caucasian Australia from the “other”, creating what Poynting & Perry call a “permission to hate” (Poynting & Mason 2008) and limiting opportunities to participate as citizens of the country they now belong to. “Law is an instrument through which a communities values and rights may be given effect” (Wong, 2014) and the effects of the proposed amendments on civic participation among migrant communities may be that formal participation reaches even lower numbers. Wong’s fears for the “victims of bullying” (2014) resonate
from the hypothetical consequences of removing what little protection victims have. In lieu of a bill of rights, Australia has the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 to combat racial vilification. While, as the Bolt case demonstrates, media discourse surrounding free speech can misconstrue the acts effects, Wong’s defence of the act is justified, and her question “what is the public benefit in removing legal protection against hate speech?” resonates. Gelber & McNamara's interviews of targeted communities revealed a consensus that while there is no profound effect emanating from hate speech laws, they serve to make the public “more conscious and aware” (2014). Suggesting that what little formal participation there currently is among minority groups in Australia may be further compromised by the removal of current hate speech protection. Wong’s 2014 speech addresses the effects of hate speech laws on the Australian public. Her use of social media allowed the speech to gain prominence among the public, thus providing it more influence than were the shift towards celebrity politics and informal civic participation not the current mode. “The Bolt Case” demonstrates the way racial vilification laws effects can be manipulated by the media. Regardless, the act demonstrates symbolic value, though the process of enacting the legislation is deterrent to its ability to remedy. In these ways, Analysis of Penny Wong’s 2014 speech allows an understanding of the effects of racial vilification laws on civic participation to found.
The 2014 Walkley Award winning documentary, "Cronulla Riots: the day that shocked the nation" reveals to us a whole new side of Aussie culture. No more she’ll be right, no more fair go and sadly no more fair dinkum. The doco proved to all of us (or is it just me?) that the Australian identity isn’t really what we believe it to be. After viewing this documentary
There is a reference to our multiculturalism in the lines ‘All cultures together as one. Yet, individual until the game is won’. These lines acknowledge the fact that even though Australia is an increasingly Multicultural society, all Australians, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, share the same values, principles and national identity.
The mention of the abolition of multiculturalism for a “new” post-multiculturalist approach becomes difficult to understand. It claims, “to avoid the ‘excesses’ of multiculturalism” (47), however where does this notable governmental and social switch take place? How is the term coined, and how is it understood in theory versus in practice? How is it different from its predecessor? Even the classification of history struggles to define what is considered to be modern, let alone post-modern, and yet the term suggests a positive approach to alleviating difficult assimilation projects similar to those faced elsewhere (47). This notion may developed on the grounds of “someone else’s problems” ¬– in regards to its Canadian context – as a means to label, or justify, miscellaneous aspects of multiculturalism. However, with the government-wide commitment to policies and programs, in conjunction with social understanding, it naturally becomes subject to a wide array of differing opinions. As both immigration and citizenship policies change, its public reception often shifts as well. Especially since the channels referred to within the ‘multiculturalism...
...ndigenous recognition and the removal of racist remarks has been an on-going theme for a vast majority of time. The necessity of Constitutional reform to close the gap on cultural divide as well as support the on-going concept of reconciliation is essential in ensuring Australia continues to improve and nurture its relationship with Indigenous peoples. The process of amendment through referendum has proven to be problematic in the past, with the success rate exceptionally low. Though with key factors such as bi-partisan support, widespread public knowledge and correct management, the alteration to remove racial discrimination and provide recognition for Indigenous persons within the Constitution is highly achievable. If proposed and eventually passed, this will provide assistance in eliminating many of the cultural gaps Indigenous persons face throughout society.
Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted on July 2nd, 1964 as a mitigation strategy to prohibit any form of discrimination on grounds of a person’s religion, sex, color, race or their national origin. The law was originally meant to solve the problem of discrimination witnessed during voter registration. It was also expected to solve discrimination present at workplaces and schools where there was widespread racial discrimination. However, the law has become an even more relevant tool and has seen to it that hiring and firing processes by many companies are adherent to it.
Throughout the world, in history and in present day, injustice has affected all of us. Whether it is racial, sexist, discriminatory, being left disadvantaged or worse, injustice surrounds us. Australia is a country that has been plagued by injustice since the day our British ancestors first set foot on Australian soil and claimed the land as theirs. We’ve killed off many of the Indigenous Aboriginal people, and also took Aboriginal children away from their families; this is known as the stolen generation. On the day Australia became a federation in 1901, the first Prime Minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, created the White Australia Policy. This only let people of white skin colour migrate to the country. Even though Australia was the first country to let women vote, women didn’t stand in Parliament until 1943 as many of us didn’t support female candidates, this was 40 years after they passed the law in Australian Parliament for women to stand in elections. After the events of World War Two, we have made an effort to make a stop to these issues here in Australia.
As a part of my English communications study I have chosen to explore the various social and political issues regarding asylum seekers in Australia. Firstly I would like to clarify the term asylum seekers, or as they are more commonly referred to: ‘boat people’.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
In Adelman’s Canadian Borders and Immigration Post 9/11 and Hugo’s Australia Immigration Policy: The Significance of the Events of September 11, both authors explore the effects of 9/11 on the Canadian immigration and refugee policy and on the Australian asylum seeker policy respectively. To arrive at their findings, both authors use media coverage, public opinion, and examination of post 9/11 impacts on the policies of both states. Additionally, Adelman uses new legislations that Canada adopted after the attacks while Hugo uses the justification of the Australian government for their change in policy. Attempting to reason states’ actual purpose for introducing controversial immigration policies is problematic. Adelman and Hugo’s method of analysis and hurried conclusions show that the dilemma that arises in explaining immigration trends, including policies.
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
The history of Australia has been altered through multiculturalism. As Carter explains, “Histories of different ethnic groups – the Chinese, Germans, Scandinavians and so forth – have appeared with increasing regularity in recent decades” (348). Australia no longer has the same relationship to a British heritage (Carter 347). More information uncovers the interracial mixing of Indigenous and Asian, European and non-European, etc. Multiculturalism, furthermore, is allowing Australia to break away from its racist and isolationist history (Carter 348). While this is positive, multiculturalism may be a form of ‘nationalist triumphalism. Ien Ang
Banting noted that some Canadians fear multiculturalism will bring, “…challenges to historic cultures, anxieties about Islam, and fears about insecurity,” (797). As people migrate from one cultural or religious backgrounds, maintaining the identity of the host country becomes difficult. Young children born interact with the immigrants and they could easily emulate foreign cultures thereby putting the historic cultural identity of Canadians at risk of erosion. Winter Elke warned that multiculturalism is changing to give too much preference to the immigrants thereby risking it to become a minority affair (638). Therefore, the relationship between national the majority of Canadians and immigrants need rethinking. Erosion of other cultures as immigrants introduce new ways or adapt to the cultures of the host county (Canada). Furthermore, education of the immigrants could face challenges if they experience difficulty settling in Canada. Given that immigrants later work in Canada, the human resource sector faces a new challenge of managing a diversified workforce, which can create headache for Canadian employers. Banting indicated that there is, “a strong sense that multiculturalism policies have “failed” a reaction that is strongest perhaps in the Netherlands, but is felt in many other countries as well,” (797). Such assertions only fuel resentment towards
‘Approximately 1 in 5 people and 7 in 10 teens are victim to racism.’ This is truly alarming and worrying for Australia. Racism has been in Australia from the very first settlement in 1788. Britain claimed Australia as ‘terra nullius’ (empty land) even though they knew that aboriginals existed. The indigenous people of our land were treated more like flora and fauna than citizens of Australia and only were counted in
According to the materials to which I have been exposed in this course, in my informed judgement, the views of these Millennials are very inaccurate. The society on which we live in today still produces discrimination towards minority groups. These groups include but are not limited to: African-Americans and women. Evidence of discrimination are exemplified via an article by authors Joe Feagin, Adriane Fugh-Berman, and Roxanna Harlow (McIntyre, 2015). These articles examine the discrimination that minority groups face in our society and offers an explanation (social factors) to how this millennial obtained misinformed views.
The 1978 implementation of Australia's multiculturalism policy was founded on the principles social cohesion. This calls for individuals to assimilate and share the same values dictated by the Australian Constitution. This has been critical in assimilating migrants to educate them with the country’s values and norms and protect minority groups from discrimination (Department of Social Services, 2015). Whilst the Australian Government’s multicultural program has been coined as the best in the world, many analyst argue that it does not really reflect diverse ethnicities as a majority of migrants have been from Anglo-Celtic. In fact, Sir James Gobbo AC, Chairman, Australian Multicultural Foundation, Australia (2014), claims its difficult to exist assess whoever the program is successful because it is in its infancy and has not had to deal with complex issues such as extreme religious diversity and cultural difference.