The APS recently provided a submission to the Federal Attorney-General on proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, which were put forward by the Abbott Government in early 2014 in order to remove provisions which are considered to unreasonably limit freedom of speech. The APS submission recommended retention of the existing Act, drawing on psychological evidence to demonstrate the links between racism and the mental health and wellbeing of individuals and communities. Along with research evidence, the APS submission was particularly informed by psychologists working with people from Indigenous and ethnic minority communities, as well as those with expertise in attitudes and behaviour change strategies to address prejudice and discrimination. This article is an edited extract from the APS submission.
| Key relevant proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act |
|
The proposed changes would repeal Section 18C, as well as amend parts of Sections 18B, 18D and 18E of the existing Act. The APS submission focused on the impact of the following aspects of these proposed amendments.
- Repealing Section 18C, which currently makes it unlawful for someone to do something that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” an individual on the basis of race or ethnicity
- The proposed changes would instead make it unlawful to “vilify or intimidate another person or a group of persons” (i.e., “offend, insult and humiliate” have been removed).
- “vilify” is defined as “inciting hatred against a person or group of persons”
- “intimidate” is defined as to “cause fear of physical harm”
- The proposed changes would also add the specification that whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect “is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community”.
- Changing exemptions in Section 18D, which currently make exemptions for an act being done reasonably and in good faith, and for the public interest
- The proposed changes would allow exemption of acts in the public arena that apply to “words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter”.
|
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) was introduced to protect members of the community against racial discrimination and is fundamental to Australia’s commitment to a socially cohesive, multicultural society. The proposed amendments to the RDA have been stated by the Federal Government as necessary on the basis of the human right to freedom of speech. While the protection of free speech as a human right is important, this right should not be at the expense of the right to freedom from discrimination, so a reasonable balance needs to be achieved. If the dignity of others is not upheld, then this in turn impacts on the realisation of free speech for those who are the victims of racism. It is arguable that the ability to speak freely and safely is more tenuous for minority group members than for majority group members.
Response to specific proposed amendments
1. Definitions of vilify and intimidate
The proposed changes to the definition of “vilify” and “intimidate” focus narrowly on incitement to racial hatred or threats of physical harm, which overlooks the evidence that racial vilification and intimidation can result in psychological harm as well. Thus, confining the definition of intimidation to physical threat alone is at odds with what is known about the power of verbal, psychological and emotional abuse to harm targets on multiple levels.
Such abuse can make the target person or group feel rejected, which has been shown to be linked to depression and anxiety, which in turn affect social cohesion and productivity, as well as mental health and wellbeing (Meyer, 2003). Racial intimidation can also lower self-esteem and sense of belonging (Paradies et al., 2013). In general terms, there is compelling evidence of a link between ethnic and race-based discrimination and poor mental health and wellbeing (Paradies, 2006; Paradies et al., 2013). While most people experience rejection at some point in their lives, it is the cumulative effects of frequent personal attacks and insults that are likely to do the most damage. Dunn and his colleagues (2009), for example, reported that 63 per cent of Indigenous Australians experience name-calling, ridicule and abuse on a daily basis.
The American Psychological Association (APA, 2001) has explicitly stated that racism, prejudice and discrimination are pervasive and persisting challenges for society that have been linked to a range of poor mental health outcomes, including:
- Negative cognitive, behavioural, affective and relational effects on both child and adult victims nationally and globally, historically and contemporarily
- Increased anxiety, depression, self-defeating thoughts and avoidance behaviours
- Negative impact on ethnic minority children’s academic and social development, self-esteem and personal feelings of efficacy
- High levels of emotional distress, due to its inextricable link to poverty and its risk factors.
Racism not only has harmful effects on individual victims of racism but for a society as a whole, as it more generally undermines the community’s expectations that they can count on having their own human rights respected. As Allbrook (2001) noted, racism is “socially destructive, destabilises good community relations, social cohesion, and national unity… and decreases productivity” (p. 12, cited in Pedersen et al., 2003). Furthermore, some research finds that racist speech not only negatively impacts on the victim but that bystanders to such racism are also negatively affected (Chrobot-Mason, Ragins, & Linnehan, 2013).
These individual and community impacts of racism are highly relevant to the proposed amendments to the RDA because language or behaviour that “offends, insults and humiliates” on the basis of race or ethnicity constitutes racism and there is clear evidence that it causes psychological and social harm.
| The APS recommends that any definition of “vilify” or “intimidate” that is adopted should encompass more subtle, psychological forms of racism. The offence of intimidation therefore should include psychological and social harm (not just physical harm). |
2. How the experience of racism is determined
The proposed changes to the determination of what is considered to be racist by an “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community”, rather than by the standards of any particular group, contradicts the subjective experience of racism. Racism is not an obvious problem to those who may not have experienced its effects, that is, the dominant or less disadvantaged group, yet it is often this group that sets political and cultural agendas (Zelinka, 1995). In everyday terms, the question could be asked: If I step on your toe, who is the first to feel the effect, and who is best placed to say whether and how much it hurts?
As scholars Augoustinos and Reynolds (2001) explain, if racism is defined without reference to power differentials between groups, “anyone can engage in ingroup preference and outgroup bias” but “the power one group has over another transforms race prejudice into racism and links individual prejudice with broader social practices” (p.4).
| The APS recommends that when assessing what may be "reasonably likely" to have an effect for an “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community”, consideration and priority should be given to the particular experience of the target group, that is, the group most affected in a particular context. |
3. Exemptions for acts in the public arena
The proposal to exempt acts in the public arena, such as “words...communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion”, from the jurisdiction of the RDA is of significant concern. It seems self-evident that more widespread damage can be inflicted by racial vilification that occurs in a public rather than a private setting. Remarks and actions that are broadcast and published can have a much wider influence and impact than simply on the targeted individual or group due to the powerful influence of the media on public attitudes, and the evidence to indicate that racist behaviour leads to more racism.
Seeing and hearing other people’s behaviour and speech in public can have a powerful influence on one’s own behaviour and attitudes. Exposure to racism leads to changes in children’s attitudes, particularly in the adolescent period when the social context has a potentially larger influence on attitudes than do family influences.
Given their powerful influence on public attitudes and perceptions, the media have an important social responsibility in relation to the messages conveyed about race and ethnicity. The prolific work of van Dijk (e.g., Van Dijk, 2000) highlights the role of the media, and specifically discourse and the words used, in not only perpetuating racism but creating new forms of racism. There is also evidence to suggest that prejudice relates to the acceptance of false beliefs as accurate, and that false beliefs relate to negative political rhetoric (Pedersen, Watt & Hansen, 2006; Suhnan, Pedersen & Hartley, 2012). Thus, there is little doubt that the words and actions of political leaders, public figures and prominent media personalities can affect community attitudes. Further, positive representations of minority groups in the media have been shown to lead to more positive attitudes of viewers, and conversely, it is likely that misrepresentation will lead to prejudice and stereotyping (APS, 2013).
| The APS recommends that public discussion should not be wholly exempt from the RDA, on the basis that potentially more psychological damage can be inflicted on a wider scale by racial hatred and vilification that is expressed in a public rather than a private setting. |
Conclusion
An examination of the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act with reference to the psychological literature highlights the risk for increased prevalence of race-based discrimination, with implications for poor mental health outcomes. A weakening of race discrimination laws could send the message to the community that racist speech is acceptable, and consequently risks increasing racist behaviour and attitudes. The proposed amendments therefore have a potentially negative impact on the future health and wellbeing of individuals, affected ‘target’ groups and the wider community. The APS supports strong protections against racial vilification and discrimination in all its forms, and hence advocates retention of the existing Racial Discrimination Act.
Heather Gridley FAPS, Manager Public Interest, National Office
The preparation of the APS submission was coordinated by the APS Public Interest team with input from the APS Public Interest Advisory Group and other expert advisers.