Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

31 comments

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

September 28th, 2011 at 11:32 am

Posted in Uncategorized

«
»

31 Responses to 'Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act'.

  1. It’s seems pretty clear that they must have been picking a fight. So again I’m interested to see what happens next.

    This law is so ridiculously broad and obviously lends itself to an excuse to put the squeeze on someone. How do you judge what is offensive in all circumstances? How do you gauge intimidation? There are people who are intimidated by self-confidence.

    Adrien

    28 Sep 11 at 11:53 am

  2. Oh, what a slippery slope we are now on.

    Reading the act, Todd Sampson could clearly be charged for that T-Shirt.

    Token

    28 Sep 11 at 11:57 am

  3. That’s a very broad brush.

    Good thing the current international footy isn’t being held in Australia. Every fan from every nation at every venue could be in breach.

    derp

    28 Sep 11 at 11:58 am

  4. How do you judge what is offensive in all circumstances? How do you gauge intimidation?

    Judge? Nice pun, but judgement has little to do with it. Suffice to say that whitey will always lose agin’ black or even pale-skinned black. Just the way it is.

    Gab

    28 Sep 11 at 11:59 am

  5. Well,

    It’s potentially the ICV v Catch the Fire case (under Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001) all over again, PROVIDED Bolt and News Corp are prepared to fight the judgment as indeed the 2 Pastors did and achieved vindication of sorts after about 5 years litigation.

    David Palmer

    28 Sep 11 at 12:16 pm

  6. in otherwords it can mean anything to anyone depdending upon the judge at the time

    Adrian

    28 Sep 11 at 12:18 pm

  7. So people in Aboriginal only positions didnt benefit from those positions?
    Is the Judge claiming they would have been just as well off/positioned if they hadnt identified as Aboriginal?

    Congratulations equality has been achieved then, time to scrap all Aboriginal only positions.

    Its an illogical judgement, made possible only because the law is so impossibly broad and ill defined there is effectively NO way to debate ethnic/Aboriginal issues without causing offence to someone, somewhere.

    thefrollickingmole

    28 Sep 11 at 12:39 pm

  8. “Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people,” Justice Bromberg said.

    Ms Eatock and a group of eight other Aboriginals took Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times to court claiming racial vilification over two articles in which he criticised fair-skinned Aborigines for what he argued was a choice they made, as people of mixed racial background, to emphasise their indigenous heritage over their white heritage.

    In the articles, on April 15 and August 21, 2009, Bolt wrote that some fair-skinned Aboriginal people, whom he called “political Aborigines”, had received prominence or indigenous awards because they chose to identify with their Aboriginality.

    The Eatock action claimed Bolt’s articles – which appeared under the headlines “It’s so hip to be black” and “White fellas in the black” – had “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated” them and were a breach of racial vilification laws.

    LOl

    The nine Aborigines who took legal action against Mr Bolt were former ATSIC member Geoff Clark, artist Bindi Cole, academic Larissa Behrendt, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson, lawyer Mark McMillan and activist Pat Eatock.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/andrew-bolt-breached-discrimination-act-court/story-e6frfkvr-1226148978809#ixzz1ZDAnTC9R

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/andrew-bolt-breached-discrimination-act-court/story-e6frfkvr-1226148978809#ixzz1ZDALbchf

    JC

    28 Sep 11 at 12:46 pm

  9. In the two “offending” articles cited above, those mentioned are Bindi Cole, Annette Sax, Danie Mellor and Mark McMillan. So I ask why there are nine pale-skinned “Aborigines” taking Bolt to court given that seven of them were not mentioned in the two articles..

    Gab

    28 Sep 11 at 12:58 pm

  10. s18D is also important:
    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
    (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.

    Apparently the judge considered that the comments were “highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks”. If they were “highly” offensive then this judge has lead a rather sheltered existence indeed. The comments were not vitriolic or hateful at all, but mild and questioning, and were clearly raised in the public interest.

    andreas saccularius

    28 Sep 11 at 12:58 pm

  11. Mordy said they weren’t racially vilified.

    In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt’s writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals.

    he found against Bolt because they were offended.

    So you can be free to say white aboriginality is a fraud.. a total and complete fraud and not fear legal repression.

    JC

    28 Sep 11 at 1:01 pm

  12. When you read the section alone Bolt should have just copped a plea, in terms of his prospects of success. It’s a pretty low bar for the prosecution to jump. The section 18D defence seems pretty clear. But the requirement is that the act was done both reasonably and in good faith, so suggestions of a lack of good faith, being a horrid right-winger and all, is enough to exclude the defence. What a dumb Act.

    pedro

    28 Sep 11 at 1:45 pm

  13. (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
    (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
    (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

    Remember the days where it would have to be found that a reasonable person would draw such an injury. You should note that the plaintiffs did not have to be such reasonable persons. Having a predisposition to injury would be reasonable under the section.

    Nanuestalker

    28 Sep 11 at 2:40 pm

  14. Part IIA was inserted into the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995. A number of issues were raised in the case about what the provisions of Part IIA mean and how those provisions should be applied.

    Note the year it as introduced.

    Fucking fucking Labor. Everything those fuckers ends up rooted. Everything.

    There’s not one single thing they’ve ever tampered they haven’t rooted up in some way or another.

    JC

    28 Sep 11 at 2:44 pm

  15. Oh, what a slippery slope we are now on.

    Reading the act, Todd Sampson could clearly be charged for that T-Shirt.

    His shirt offended me. Anybody else want to join me in a class action.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_wednesday_september_28/

    TerjeP

    28 Sep 11 at 2:54 pm

  16. JC – that section was inserted by Michael Lavarch – partner of Larissa Behrendt, coincidently one of the people who brought the case against Bolt.

    Sinclair Davidson

    28 Sep 11 at 3:10 pm

  17. [...] today we know that calling someone a coconut must be illegal, although being called a watermelon [...]

    What’s making the news at Catallaxy Files

    28 Sep 11 at 3:20 pm

  18. JC – that section was inserted by Michael Lavarch – partner of Larissa Behrendt, coincidently one of the people who brought the case against Bolt.

    Wow. Amazing

    JC

    28 Sep 11 at 3:21 pm

  19. Yep.. I’m happy to join the suit.

    Where’s Jason Soon…?

    Jase , wanna sue Birdie for racial vilification?

    JC

    28 Sep 11 at 3:22 pm

  20. Really, Michael Lavarch, I thought he was a Fed?

    pedro

    28 Sep 11 at 5:37 pm

  21. Yes – he was a fed; lost his seat in 1996. Bolt was sued in federal court under federal legislation.

    Sinclair Davidson

    28 Sep 11 at 5:42 pm

  22. Judge? Nice pun, but judgement has little to do with it

    Didn’t realize I’d made it.

    Section 18D of the Act excuses offensive speech if:

    (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.

    Again the courts are asked to judge if something has offended and then made to ascertain the quality of the offensive tract to decide whether to let it off or not because said offense is worthy of expression.

    I’d like to read this in full to see where they found Bolt’s work lacking and on what basis.

    Adrien

    28 Sep 11 at 5:47 pm

  23. Didn’t realize I’d made it.

    No, not you. I meant the lefty judge on the case.

    Gab

    28 Sep 11 at 5:54 pm

  24. (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.

    i love this bit. it basically means if you have all the correct beliefs and call someone a toxic coconut it is ok but if you are andrew bolt you are fucked.

    ben

    29 Sep 11 at 6:27 am

  25. Todd Sampson is such a pretentious fuckhead.

    Sue me you son of a bitch. You can’t win. It’s fact.

    .

    29 Sep 11 at 7:22 am

  26. Hey guys, why the bad language? Be inventive – vast array of words in English language. Leave f word to our opponents if they want to fish in the gutter.

    David Palmer

    29 Sep 11 at 10:32 am

  27. I have a swear filter on my site. I’m sure something could be arranged to port it to Catallaxy. :)

    m0nty

    29 Sep 11 at 10:38 am

  28. Hey guys, why the bad language?

    The truth.

    .

    29 Sep 11 at 6:29 pm

  29. On the subject of swearing, I defer to the erudite Stephen Fry.

    Quentin George

    29 Sep 11 at 6:31 pm

  30. It doesn’t change the fact that Heidi Behrendt-Demidenko is still a white chick from Cronulla. More Puberty Blues than Coonardoo.

    Peter Patton

    29 Sep 11 at 6:37 pm

  31. [...] Almost certainly a violation of s18C of the RDA. [...]

    ‘offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate’ at Catallaxy Files

    5 Oct 11 at 10:38 am

Leave a Reply