Wrong targets in debate against 18C MICK GOODA THE AUSTRALIAN JANUARY 26, 2015 THERE have been numerous articles in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy seeking to revive debate about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. What I find troubling is that those who seek to revisit this debate too often rely on issues facing Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to advance their arguments. It’s as if contentious Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content is used to provoke an outrage or offence, to confirm the need for a particular brand of free speech. Jeremy Sammut (The Australian, January 20) argues that 18C is “silencing debate” on indigenous affairs. He fails to recognise the vital debates we have been having over the past 30 years. Native title, family violence, child abuse, education, employment and welfare have been raked over to the nth degree in a no-holds-barred manner. This newspaper alone has devoted acres of newsprint to these issues. Debate is not stifled; in fact some would say it has thrived. This has been confirmed by a number of court cases that have not met the RDA threshold of “insult and offend”. Two that come to mind are the Billy Cokebottle and Bropho cases, the latter ironically involving offensive cartoons depicting Aboriginal people. The points of contention were deemed to be “impolite and offensive” to many groups, but this did not make them unlawful under the RDA. In fact, the Billy Cokebottle and Bropho cases satisfied the numerous exceptions provided by Section 18D of the act. Critics of 18C, such as Sammut, have also taken aim at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle, painting the practice as an outdated separatist agenda that fails the many Aboriginal children in the care system. The peak body for indigenous child care, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, has defended ATSICPP against such claims. It says the “principle has evolved … to avert the creation of another Stolen Generation. The principle isn’t confined to deciding where and with whom children will be placed; it is also designed to give a child’s family and community some measure of participation and influence over decisions about their children”. Unfortunately, arguments against the ATSICPP portray Aboriginal people and culture as dysfunctional and confined to “traditional” notions of Aboriginal identity. Urban Aborigines still have distinct cultural needs and identities, some of which are met by applying the ATSICPP. This leads me to what has been the star attraction of the 18C sideshow — Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity. This is a popular means of smearing Aboriginal people and culture, particularly the so-called “fair-skinned” and “new identifiers” of our mob. Of course, the basis for these insults lies in the hoary old contention that people identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander only to receive truckloads of government largesse to which other Australians lack access. The perception that being Aboriginal is a gravy train of special treatment is ridiculous. Overcoming indigenous disadvantage through targeted schemes and policies is an exercise in substantive equality used to address the entrenched inequality faced by our communities. Indigenous people have the poorest health and poorer living conditions and educational outcomes than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. I doubt there are many people out there wanting to swap places with an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australian, because it would mean exposure to these issues and more. The issue of entitlement is a true topic for public discussion. However, the question of who is and who isn’t Aboriginal rightly belongs to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to determine. Blood quantum definitions imposed by non-Aboriginal people don’t cut it in our communities. The “light meter” approach to skin colour just doesn’t wash. It is not the intent of 18C defenders to silence difficult conversations, but rather to contain the bigotry and racism that have no place in a modern Australia. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right, and it should not continue to be used to dictate how other people live or how they identify. Those who seek to revisit this debate should take Tony Abbott’s lead and heed the overwhelming public support for retaining the RDA protections and community harmony. As the Prime Minister recently said, we “do have very robust free speech in this country”, and it is time to transcend the “us and them” mentality in issues that can unite us rather than divide us. Mick Gooda is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.
Posted on: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:19:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015