Tim Wilson defends free speech, but will that include racist abuse?
|
Version 0 of 1. The appointment of Tim Wilson yesterday by George Brandis as Australia's human rights commissioner has been greeted by the exact reaction the general attorney anticipated, and maybe even required. Wilson, who will be known informally as the "freedom commissioner", told Fairfax media that he was determined to re-focus the commission "on the task of defending freedom of speech as a human right, rather than concentrating on anti-discrimination work". The appointment undoubtedly heralds a new chapter in our country's culture wars. And from my specific workplace perspective, there's been little discussion thus far about the real, everyday impact they will have on workers. Unquestionably, the "black armband" years had an impact on how Australian history is taught and understood. It also goes some way to explain the thinking which led to the publishing of Andrew Bolt's piece on the "right" of "white Aborigines" (fair skinned Aboriginal people) to identify as Aboriginal –the same piece which was later used to successfully prosecute him for publishing deceptive and offensive material. The section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – which are now known as Bolt laws – makes it illegal to insult and offend people because of their race. Brandis made no secret he wants them repealed. Thankfully, Warren Mundine has addressed this question yesterday from an Indigenous perspective in a way that even the most "dyed in the wool" could grasp. He asserts that the ensuing debate "is not really about individual freedoms; it's about perceptions of race and racism", adding that "the problem is not section 18C; it's ignorance of the sophistication of Indigenous laws and cultures". Whether one agrees with the judgement made in the Bolt case or not, it has become the cause célèbre for this new chapter in our culture wars, and the impetus behind Wilson's appointment. Of course, very little can be argued about freedom of speech and its worthiness. However, of particular concern is whether or not an unintended but crucial consequence of these developments will fundamentally change the ways in which workplaces operate in this country. There is scant discussion about whether or not the federal government's desire to scrap section 18C will extend to workplaces. Presumably it will, as it would seem unwieldy to have a piece of legislation that applies in some sections of our interactions as Australians, and not others. Wilson says that section 18C, as it currently stands: basically puts subjective tests on speech which may be deemed to insult, offend, humiliate groups of people based on people's comments. Now that can never be applied consistently, and ultimately means that people are afraid to say things that may otherwise feel. So in Wilson's view, people should be allowed to "say what they feel" about another person's race. We can only assume that this means people should be free to voice their opinions anywhere, anytime – and thus in the workplace. Enlightened employers have successfully developed policies to deter racist language and behaviours for many years. These policies have evolved to meet developing community expectations and standards. Australians understand that, because of our legal frameworks, they are meant to be free from racist discrimination at work. They expect that their workplace will be conducive to them working without others "saying things that they feel" that also happen to be racist. This matters, because workplaces should not be unpleasant places where employees can be confronted by abuse. Racist incidents have changed lives, irrevocably and irreparably, and changed workplaces too – sometimes taking years of repair work and significant investment to overcome. Racist incidents are not be tolerated in the workplace, according to the law. Ask yourself how you'd react if someone called you "wog", "coon", "slope" or "kike" at work because of their right to "say what they feel" as they passed you at the entrance to the bathroom? Would you simply be in a position to return to your desk or forklift, or would you be hurt, offended and possibly humiliated? What would you do if you knew that there was no workplace policy that could prevent this from happening because there was no law for the workplace policy to be based on? And of course, because there was no law, no recourse to any external body either? While nobody would disagree with Wilson's assertion that "we should preserve the right to speak out, mock them and ridicule them for the stupidity of their comments or the hate in their heart", most people understand that to do so isn't always easy at work, especially if you are subordinate to the person abusing you. This is about being practical, not about differences in ideology. Before any changes are made to the Race Discrimination Act, the employment community needs the opportunity to think long and hard about what impact these changes might have on our largely harmonious workplaces, largely free of racist discrimination. What kind of place do you want to work in? Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |