Religious vilification laws support our culturally diverse community

22/04/2005

by Helen Szoke
Chief Executive
Equal Opportunity Commission
22 April 2005

Freedom of speech is important, but it is not absolute. It does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want. Just as the laws of defamation outlaw people who make comments that could damage a person’s reputation, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act outlaws the vilification of another race or religion. In essence, the Act is there to help us value our cultural diversity and ensure that we live in peace and social harmony.

There has been a recent spate of articles referring to the need to overhaul the religious section of this Act. The argument is that race is something we cannot change, whereas religion is about belief and should be open to debate with individuals free to choose the religion they practise.

There is nothing in the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act that diverges from the premise of such an argument. The purpose of the Act is to ensure groups and individuals are able to reasonably debate religious differences and do in fact have the freedom to practise the religion of their choice without fear that they will be subjected to acts of hatred.

Pamela Bone’s recent article in The Age concludes that ‘laws against religious vilification are a mistake’ on the basis that ‘beliefs are about ideas and ideas must be open to debate, to criticism and even ridicule’. Her article, which questions the culture and beliefs of Muslims, is testimony to the fact that reasonable discussion about race, religion or traditions is not grounds for a complaint of vilification. The discussion of conflicting ideas is integral to a democracy and indeed to the development of a community that thrives on diversity.

Victoria is Australia’s most multicultural state and the majority of Victorians value our cultural diversity. According to the 2001 Census, almost one quarter of the population of Victoria was born overseas, 180 different languages and dialects are spoken and 116 religions are followed. Inclusion and diversity is an asset that we must continually work to protect and safeguard. Acceptance and tolerance among different racial and religious groups is essential in order to maintain social harmony and productivity.

Richard Florida’s book, “The Rise of the Creative Class” lists ‘a tolerance of diverse lifestyles’ as a key factor contributing to creative economic growth. A homogenous culture does not lead to growth – social, cultural or economic. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is designed to support such a society, not to stop people expressing their views in a reasonable manner or engage in healthy debate.

When considering vilification and acts of hatred under the Act, it needs to be recognised that we are considering the most extreme point in the continuum of prejudice. It is its lowest ebb – where the holder of particular views as to that which is right, good or normal, is not content to simply hold those views, rather, he, she or they seek to advance those views through acts of physical or verbal violence and aggression.

A good way to think about vilification is as the promotion of hatred. The promotion of hatred requires some positive action to encourage others to also hate. It is one thing to personally feel hatred; it is another thing to actively talk it up and encourage others to feel it as well. Conduct that promotes religious hatred is potentially unlawful where it would be expected that the conduct would be seen or heard by members of the public, such as at a public meeting or forum.

The Act expressly states that behaviour that is conducted reasonably and in good faith for a genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose does not constitute vilification. This means that we are able to have robust debate about religion, we are able to criticise and disagree with the beliefs of another religion, and we can do so openly and publicly. What we can’t do is to actively promote hatred of another religion and its followers.

Racist and religious hatred does indeed cause serious harm to both the individuals targeted by the act as well as to the racial, ethnic or religious group to which they belong. It can have serious emotional and psychological effects, as well as creating a sense of non-belonging and making social inclusion in the community difficult for certain people.

Racial and religious hatred can lead to acts of physical violence. Throughout history there exist numerous examples of civil unrest, war, or genocide which have racial and religious intolerance at the core. Take for example, the protestant - catholic conflict in Ireland, the systematic annihilation of Jews in Nazi Germany, the war in Serbia or the burning of witches in the middle ages. In Melbourne, the recent serious arson attack on the Turkish Muslim Isik College demonstrates how racial and religious hatred can translate to an act of violence.

Complaints that are considered by the Equal Opportunity Commission under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act need to be based on the premise that the behaviour did seek to promote hatred of another person or group of people because of their race or religion. 16 of the 34 complaints made to the Commission this year have been declined as lacking in substance. In each instance the Commission concluded that the conduct alleged by the complainants did not amount to either racial or religious vilification under the Act. For example, calling someone a yidd, a happy clapper or a towel head or telling a religious joke may be offensive but would not on its own be considered sufficient to constitute vilification.

A key role of the Equal Opportunity Commission is that of conciliation. If a complaint is deemed to have substance and it is potentially conciliable, the aim is to get the parties together and assist them to see the other’s point of view.

However, dealing with individual complaints does not solve the broader problem. Hatred based on racial and religious stereotypes is based on entrenched attitudes and behaviour which can only be changed by addressing the problem on a societal level. In Victoria, we need to engage in robust and open discussion about our culturally diverse community, and not adopt a stance that promotes hatred and leads to fear, insecurity and alienation.