Tuesday 23 June 2020

Post No. 1,597 - Cross posting: A brief commentary on submissions to the Anti-Vilification Protections Enquiry

This originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-brief-commentary-on-submissions-to.html.
***

Following an email about upcoming public hearings for the Parliamentary Inquiry into the "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001" and anti-vilification protections generally (which will be broadcast here), I thought I'd have a look at some of the public submissions which have been made - which are available here.

Wow.

Some of these submissions are well crafted (including some of those arguing against extension of or change to the Act/legislative protection), but some are . . . not. Later, I'll give links for some of the submissions I think should be read and considered; I won't give links to the badly written vents, as one day those people may change their minds (and, in fact, one followed up an initial vent with a more cogent submission) or may be in a position where the way they expressed their views - not the views themselves - could count against them, and I don't want to be part of that. I want them to find it as easy as possible to change their minds.

But I'd like to begin with a bit of an overview, from the broad perspective of a society (i.e., an organised collective of humans seeking mutual benefit), what this "is all about". I normally write from a solely human rights perspective, but that has been far mofre capably covered by the submissions, so I thought I'd try a slightly different perspective.

So . . . I would argue that, from that broad societal perspective, the purposes of protection laws are:

(a) to allow minorities to be an effective part of a democracy - e.g., by being able to access the same job opportunities, educational opportunities, have the same access opportunities - and, when in need, the same benefits, and all with the same levels of equity (fairness). This is VITAL for the proper functioning of a democracy, and one of the inherent weakness of a democracy is that of populism - the majority ganging up on a minority like a schoolyard gang of thugs picking on a new kid, or a kid who is different. This is a massive benefit to democracies, as it enables society to access and benefit from the skills and abilities of ALL its members (which is a point I've touched on elsewhere - for instance, in this post);
(b) allow minorities to receive "equal" benefit from being a part of that society, which is, IMO, the self evident opposite side of the coin for the previous point;
and
(c) avoid society being a "bad" society, which is not just a judgemental thing, but an observation based on the history of inequitous societies having major problems and often failing for a complex multitude of reasons.
In constructing such laws, it is necessary to consider both active and passive barriers, and various balances.

I'd like to briefly review the topic of barriers first.

Now, it is a commendable fact that many "decent people" (which is a term I am using as an updated version of "reasonable") object to active barriers against others participating in, and benefitting from, society that are barriers that the aforementioned commended objectors do not benefit from. This means that many (not all - some are heartless, which I'll come back to) people will support basic level, obvious laws such as banning egregious behaviour such as murdering women for marrying without family approval, FGM, or sacking women when they get married or because of the woman's faith (on that, it is always important to consider what happens when people change their faith).

OK, that's fairly straightforward so far . . . but what about when people feel personally threatened by sexuality / gender issues? That may be because of regressive religious views, bad parenting, bad peer influences, immature/possessive/violent reactions to personal events (such as a "no" or a relationship ending), and so on. In such cases, despite the feelings/views of the abuser/discriminator, they are clearly actively causing direct harm - to their victim, to themself (in a spiritual sense), and to society generally (through both loss of potential from all parties directly and indirectly affected, and the resources consumed by justice and health services as a result).

This is where the following comment by the great Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. applies:
“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.”
Some of those heartless people are people who have been so scarred by their upbringing, life, or both that they want to be able to lash out verbally without any thought or restraint whatsoever (and, ironically (?), may object to others doing so to them [some don't object] ).

(On that, NEVER dismiss problematic behaviour as "cute" or "boys will be boys", or "that's just queen bee behaviour", or "you'll understand when you're older. Those sort of responsibility-free attitudes  are what helps create people like POTUS45. If you're not sure what to do, seek help, but don't evade responsibility - especially if you're a parent looking despairingly or with bewilderment [peer influences are real, and may outweigh parental influences] at a child you are rearing.)

On the other hand, some people have no clue
(a) of the harm being caused;
(b) of their unconscious bias - including internalised biases such as internalised sexism.
Those people need a little good old-fashioned consciousness raising - and reading the submissions to this enquiry would be a good start.

On that, they also have to understand that the submissions, like those I've linked to below are credible, are based on experience, and are TRUE. Denying that is bad faith. Just because you haven't talked to people face-to-face, or haven't experienced something directly, does not mean it is a lie, result of being deceived, or attempt to manipulate!

On the other hand, it is important to listen to the objections being made. No matter how poorly they are based, they are real evidence that there are people who are likely to discriminate, and give some indication of their thinking and what educative efforts need to address or take into consideration.

There are also issues which need to be considered when balancing all these matters - such as freedom of expression, which is widely misunderstood and misappropriated.

Freedom of expression is a political right, NOT a right to vent personal non-political views. If you want to vent, then go back to the start of this post, and understand that you are actively and deliberately damaging society by stopping society accessing the resources of all its people. If you don't understand that, you need to do (personal growth/development) work to improve yourself as a human being. You having to watch your mouth is NOT a severe imposition: it is being competent as a human being.

For those doing the balancing, consider MLK's quote above. Also consider:
  • Other measures may also be needed - such as education, but that must not be discriminatory - which anything based on Abrahamic religions; 
  • The nature and details of enforcement are also issues to consider - especially given the problems apparent inside police forces here, not just in the USA (such as the use of white supremacist gestures, the utter cluelessness of comments and responses to events that harm or make minority groups wary, etc).
I'd like to finish with a few other quick dot points:
  • changing the Act to go beyond that implied by the original name is not a problem - in fact, I consider that trivial, given that this is for society's overall benefit; 
  • the change of social environment over the last couple of decades as a result of the growth of the internet and social media - which amplify the harm being done by the haters and fearers - is a key factor;and the evidence from other, BETTER (in my opinion) nations is that the laws being considered result in a better functioning society.

Selected submissions: 
Posted by at