Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

Joel Feinberg, defines the Offense Principle as “ it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it is probably necessary to prevent serious offense [as opposed to injury or harm] to persons other than the actor, and would probably be an effect means to that end if enacted.” (Feinberg, 1984). I believe that this principle serves as the best way to analyze R. V. Keegstra. There are many factors that fall under the Offense Principle, such as extent, duration, social value of speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, and the general interests of the community at large, however, I will only touch a few. Based off of these factors, Keegstra and Zundel should be prosecuted, but not those from “Go Yankee, go”. Zundel and “Go Yankee, go” are to be discussed in a later section of this essay.

The inherent malleability of section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, also known as the ‘race power’, suggests the continuing historical and institutional racism against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. To overcome discriminatory laws to be passed against Indigenous Australians and to allow the advancement of their situation, it is necessary to amend the race power. This article will propose the amendment of s 51(xxvi) to only allow beneficial laws to be passed with regards to Indigenous Australians, the replacement of s 51(xxvi) with an anti-discrimination power and the replacement of s 51(xxvi) with a new head of power with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These proposals will be analysed considering the judgements in Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the recommendations made by the Referendum Council.

Before 1975 there were innumerable instances of vilification, almost applauded. Singh is convinced that freedom of speech must be regulated, publicizing that “people have a right to have freedom from racial vilification” and that anything which dissimilar to this fundamental entitlement is an “unacceptable and wrong” substitute (Blacktown Sun, 2015). Ironically, the fact that Brandis and his supporters believes the law diminishes freedom of expression and speech, where people cannot “say what they like”, is dismissed by the provisions enlisted under Section18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. As newly appointed Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane argues, “often it is forgotten that the fundamental value of free speech is explicitly protected by

Although the multicultural nature of American society enriches the lives of it’s citizens, the diversity of cultures and ethnic groups has unfortunately also evoked resentment and hatred among some individuals. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate crime is a criminal offense committed against members of a specific group by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, ethnic/ national origin group, religion, or sexual orientation group (FBI, 2004).

The simplest definition of what a hate crime is, is a crime committed against a victim due to his or her perceived role in a social group. Social groups can be defined by many factors such as sexual orientation, race, disability, religion, age, gender and many other factors. Within this essay I aim to evaluate the causes of hate crime and also to assess the impact of crime on victims and the strategies used for responding to hate crime. The types of hate crime I am going to be focusing on are race, sexual orientation and gender.

No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite (622).

One critic draws upon this idea of individual dignity being infringed upon when he states that “it diminishes their status in some disconcernable sense, beyond merely being a manifestation of the speaker’s view of them as inferior or second class people” (Simpson 710). This creates even more discord between social groups if, by means of hateful speech and actions, a group is diminished in value and viewed in lesser worth.

It refers to the law on the right of people to be treated equally. It makes the future employees know that the working environment is free from discrimination and harassment. Moreover, the employees will know that they will be treated with dignity, courtesy and respect. It is also a way to implement training and awareness raising strategies to ensure that all employees know their rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, it is to show the candidate who is applying for the job that he/ she has guarantee protection from any reprisals. By putting effective anti-discrimination and anti-harassment procedures in the job description, it can help business to improve productivity an increase efficiency.

Injuries that are caused by language come from “words that are deliberately chosen to cause harm” (“How Words Can Harm”), and this is better known as hate speech. Hate speech usually includes thick concepts, terms relating to descriptive and evaluative content. Examples of thick concepts are words with a negative connotation, originated through history, used to “disparage a person for simply being who they are” (“How Words Can Harm”). The act of expressing these words are, therefore, unjustified. However, when moral reasoning is used for a situation having potential for hate speech, the words elicit a moral motivation, such as with the umbrella scenario, for the prevention of verbal attacks. It is within the best interests of the potential

On the 28th of September, 2011, a controversial case was resolved at Federal Court concerning two provocative articles by the Herald Sun newspaper columnist, Andrew Bolts. He lost on the grounds of racial vilification according to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Upon hearing the court’s decision, Andrew Bolts said “This is a terrible day for free speech in this country.” raising an interesting question, “Should Anti-Discrimination laws be able to restrict the freedom of expression if it can cause offense?” To answer this question, we will examine the extent to which offense is permissible on the basis of “freedom of expression” and when it crosses the boundaries and starts to cost another individual their reputation and liberty.

Australia’s national laws cover fair-minded employment prospects and anti-discrimination for the business workplace. Businesses are required to be purged of discrimination in the workplace. This is a very important and necessary task for the employer: Understanding your rights and responsibilities that are entailed in the Australian human rights and anti-discrimination law. By implementing these laws against discrimination, advances in productivity and positive increases in efficiency can occur.

I understand that you think you are doing a good job of keeping the Negroes out of your park. In my opinion, this is cruel and racist. this policy is cruel and racist because it isn't fair if whites are superior than whites, you won't be able to make enough money and you will be out of business, and if you can't let blacks have liberty and happiness, what is the point of life.

Obviously, there are various ways that words and images can be used to hurt others. This raises concerns about the need to protect the more vulnerable members of society, such as racial and ethnic minorities, women, and children. In the United States the issue is complicated by the fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech. There are good reasons for cherishing this freedom and protecting it from being tampered with. Nonetheless, there have been calls for the government to step in and limit free speech for the sake of those who might be harmed by it in certain cases. This paper will consider this issue and will review the pro and con arguments that have been made for increasing

Aside from the act of threatening another individual, language crimes can take a variety of forms including bribery, extortion or solicitation (in terms of soliciting things such as illicit sex or murder) (Shuy, 2005: 3). However, the simple act of using offensive language can also be regarded as a language crime and, indeed, such actions have been widely legislated against. Prosecutions here however, are said to be rare – often because people understand the hypocrisy involved in prosecuting another for something that most of us engage in at some point (Taylor, 1995: 224). Vilification can also be regarded as a language crime