Page 5215 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These amendments in the Bill propose to create laws, create a new cause for complaint, the basis of which is that the complainant is not assimilated into society but is part of a race. It therefore seeks to promote division or to retain division rather than promote assimilation. I think it worthy of note that some of the 75 per cent of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic majority in Australia have expressed a preference for more European migrants, a preference shared by many Australians belonging to other European ethnic groups. This preference is racist only in the sense that Europeans prefer their own kind.
Any law seeking to regulate criminal conduct in society, including violence and incitement to violence, whether to persons or to property, should be impartial and should apply equally to all. All persons who break the law or who employ violence or incite others to violence, whether to property or to the person, should be treated alike by the law, whether their actions are based on racial hatred, political disaffection, personal dislike, revenge, robbery or any other cause. To do otherwise is in itself to adopt racist criteria and discrimination.
Persons harbouring racial hatred may legitimately be strongly criticised in public debate through the use of rational arguments. Many who are accused of being racist do not harbour hatred. Many people who do not regard their own racial group or ethnic group as superior, but merely prefer their own kind, are often regarded as racists. Most groups are racist in the sense of preferring their own kind. Thus whites in South Africa, Aboriginals in Australia, Tamils in Ceylon, Maoris in New Zealand, Jews in Israel, the Japanese and the Chinese are all racist in that sense. Some groups, such as the Japanese, the Chinese, the Jews and many Europeans, are also racist in the sense of believing that their group is superior.
Racism against whites, and especially the Anglo-Saxon majority of whites, is reflected in the anti-white bias in our immigration policy, the failure of the media to highlight Asian racism, and the use of the media to ridicule and belittle our European heritage. It is also reflected in the stacking of immigration advisory panels and groups such as the Institute of Multicultural Affairs with people who support the Asianisation of Australia and who refuse to condemn racism unless it is by Australians.
Professor L.J.M. Cooray, in his book The Australian Achievement: from Bondage to Freedom, deals with a number of the concepts that I believe are relevant to the principal objections to this legislation, namely, that it is not necessary, has no regard for the established traditional views and approaches to crimes or offences, is counterproductive, and is a legislative control in an area inappropriate for government control, where an educational approach would be more appropriate to deal with any real problem. Professor Cooray describes the proponents of legislation such as that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .