The Racial Discrimination Act

The landmark case speaks “directly to the psychic injury inflicted by racist speech by noting that the symbolic message of defeatism affected the hearts and minds” of the students (Lawrence 2088). The message still emerges in today’s society through the racial comments on minorities. The harassment and demeaning towards the minority students because of their difference in culture and race is inhumane. They deserve to be able to attend school without fearing that they might be a perpetrator's next target of racially assaulting speech. The racial slurs and “harassment often causes deep emotional scarring and feelings of anxiety and fear” that filters through the victim's life (Lawrence 2088). People need to acknowledge that “there is real harm inflicted by racist speech and that this harm is far from trivial” (Lawrence 2087). By accepting Lawrence’s argument that the regulation of racist speech can alleviate the damages done to minorities, there will be a positive outcome regarding the mental health of minorities. The benefits of regulating assaultive racist speech is the diminishment of negative psychological thoughts of the minorities. Racist speech causes the minorities to think negatively about themselves since the perpetrator emphasizes that being a minority means that they are inferior, which increases the chance of the minorities clouding themselves with

Jo isn't trying to attack a political party, a social demographic, or anyone in particular. He is a person who is worried about his country and wants what is best for it. Jo doesn't believe that hate crime legislation falls into the category of improving his country. He feels that it worsens tension between opposing groups. He illustrates this by using 3 distinct groups of people in America: occupation, sexual orientation, and pedophiles. These people are not all one race, religion, color, creed, etc. There are people from every social demographic that can fall into any one of those categories. The 'currency' of this article is over 10 years old. Meaning that many things have changed since the publication of Jo's article in 2002. Regardless, I felt that most of what Jo has to say in his findings applies to us still today. What is wrong is wrong, it doesn't matter if it was previously tolerated in the past. That is why despite the age of this paper, I still felt that it was a valuable

In this task I am going to quickly explain how one particular legislation promote anti-discriminatory practice and then assess how it 'd been utilized. I am then going to evaluate the impact of a late national approach activity that advances hostile to oppressive practice. Ultimately I will be evaluating the accomplishment of a late legislation in advancing against prejudicial practice.

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

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the Brandis reform would be the entrenchment of the change in social perceptions in regards to social tolerance. As the esteemed social justice magazine Peril Inc. reported, “any watering down or perceived dilution of the Racial Discrimination Act would send the wrong message to potential offenders that hate speech was becoming more acceptable in our society…”. As recorded in Victoria, where there is an exponentially growing multicultural population, many ethnic groups have become increasingly disheartened with Brandis’ proposed reforms (Peril Magazine Inc, 2014). Comparatively, establishing similar ground was a Conversation media article which boldly asserted that the removal of provisions would increase vilification on the internet. In 2013 alone, internet vilification accounted for

Racism started when African American slaves were brought to the new world (America) to aid in the harvest of tobacco crops. Slaves were treated badly by being beaten and whipped. Punishments were normally a response to disobedience but others were abused by their owner to show dominance. Because of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 slaves were freed into areas all over the United States (U.S.), but Lincoln’s Proclamation did not stop people from having hate against African Americans. Americans need to hinder racism by following federal laws, like the Civil Rights Act, that are established so racism can be abolished once and for all.

Which is the other strongpoint of this case. The ruling proved, through court of law, that an act’s penalty can be constitutionally enhanced. This case would be of great aid in paving the way for hate crime statues, on a national level, to be implemented in the

As the American political landscape continued its transformation from generation to generation, the focus of the era was on the best possible implementation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the interpretation of its language. This focus became a clear codified interpretation in 1990, following the same strain of thoughts as the Civil Rights Act of the 1960’s, advocates of the disabled community lobbied for the equal protections that had been previously granted to racial minorities. In subsequent acts, the disabled constituency had gained protections in 1973 with the amendment of the Fair Housing Act and again in 1988 with the Rehabilitation Act. The final step for equal protections came in 1990 under the 101st

It’s been more than two years since Senator George Brandis announced that people had the right to be bigots, and Tony Abbott was forced to back down from abolishing section 18C following outrage from ethnic and minority groups.

Immigrant defined as a process of leaving one’s home country to settle in a new one. Immigration is a large group or number of immigrants. Some other words that are also known as immigrants are an outsider, settler, alien, newcomer, and foreigners. People often get legal and illegal immigrants confused on which one mean which. Legal is newcomers who have entered a country by law. Illegal is forbidden by law or statute. Emigrant is a person who emigrates from his or her native country or region. Personally, legal outsiders need to stay here while illegal outsiders should go back to the country they came from.

Racism act plays a major part in police misconduct. Decent numbers of minority groups are more likely to be victims of unfair police treatment. A case that still stands as a classic in police history is Rodney King. Rodney King beating is truly a depiction of police brutality. On March 3, 1991, officers from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) stopped motorist Rodney King who was speeding 100 mph and charge for a traffic violation. During the arrest King was hit over fifty times with nightsticks after initially resisting police orders. A witness to the event, George Holliday, videotaped the arrest, which was later viewed on local station KTLA and commercial news networks nationwide. Within a week following the incident, a Grand Jury

Discrimination, while highly troubling and disruptive to social progress, has been in practice for centuries. From biblical eras, when at one point Jews were held as prisoners under the law of the Pharaoh, to more modern times concerning issues with race and other differences such as today’s fight for same-sex marriage approval, there have always been issues presented in society resulting from the many dissimilarities found amongst the appearances, behavior, beliefs, et cetera of the public. As history has shown time and time again, it is simply not acceptable for discrimination to have a role in the happenings of current times. Gone now are the days where minorities would sit back and accept the unfair treatment that society would press their way. The public is much more aware of the rights that are afforded to them from birth by the terms of the Declaration and Constitution. Rather than accept any injustices thrown its way, society has grown to rely on the government as a figurehead to step in and prevent any unfair treatment geared towards the People. It has become an expected happening that concerning any major issues on the grounds of discrimination, whether on a local, state, or federal level, the government is responsible for creating and enforcing policies that protect those affected from unfair treatment. Before implementing or changing a policy onto the public, officials are expected to weigh each idea thoroughly as to identify the consequences of its placement,

In the past, discriminatory practices interfered with recruiting and hiring diverse subjects to fill employment opportunities in America. Therefore, in 1964, legislation passed the Civil Rights Act to prohibit employers from discriminating based on race, color, sex, national origin or religion. Under the law enacted, it does not matter if the discrimination is intentional or unintentionally, and the burden of proof falls upon the defending agency to prove its hiring and recruiting practices are related to job performance. For example, the Baltimore police department excluded 95% female and 32% Hispanic men because of a 5’ 7” height restriction (Gaines & Kappeler).

Early this year, the Abbott government had proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. This is in light of a case involving commentator Andrew Bolt over two of his articles about light-skinned people claiming to be aboriginal. In the said proposal, sections 18B, 18C, 18D, and 18E will be repealed and a new section will be introduced (Leslie, 2014). Section 18C comes as the key repeal as this section makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate someone because of their race or ethnicity (Leslie, 2014). The new section will water-down most of the provisions of section 18C. Article 1 will be changed from:

Freedom of speech is a human right that all individuals are entitled to and the Australian legal system protects under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Freedom of speech refers to article 19 on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which allows people to think and say what you like and nobody can forbid you. By having this right, it allows individuals to have a feeling of ownership of principles, processes and ideals along with fuelling the critical search for the truth.