Exploring nuts and bolts of discrimination

IF you wish to be politically correct you might remove coconuts from your shopping list and start to roll your lamingtons in some alternative form of confectionary coating.

"Coconut" is apparently a derogatory term when used by some Aboriginals to denote other Aboriginals whom they consider to be brown on the outside but white on the inside. So hurtful indeed is the expression that Australia's first female Aboriginal MP has decided to call it quits after being called a "coconut" by extremist environmentalists. Now, the ordinary reader might not be upset when reading the word "coconut" here but Federal Court Judge Mordecai Bromberg might take offence, given his ruling against Andrew Bolt. The judge found Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act not only because of their subject matter but also due to the manner in which it was dealt with. I contend that the Act is bad law, introduced by the Keating government in 1995 when it had embraced the disastrously divisive policy of multiculturalism. The Howard government should have repealed it but probably didn't because it was worried about upsetting the professional ethnic community leaders and the hand-wringing clique of inner-urban voters who wear their hearts on their sleeves when it comes to Aboriginal matters and other social issues, but have never had to confront the appalling and squalid realities of life in remote Aboriginal communities. The subject matter of Bolt's articles was his claims there was a trend for a group of people the judge described as "fair-skinned Aboriginals" to take advantage of their Aboriginal identity. It would be fair to say that dark-skinned Aboriginals living in Aboriginal communities across the northern part of Australia might describe "fair-skinned Aboriginals" as "yellow fellas". The meaning of that term is explained in the Australian Government's National Film and Archive posting of an excerpt from a documentary about Aboriginal Tommy E Lewis and his search to know more about his white stockman father. So, yellow fellas exist, and are recognised by the government. I hasten to add that if some people are offended by the expression that was not intended. I merely intend to show that descriptions like this are used within the Aboriginal community. From reading Judge Bromberg's decision though it would seem that he might disagree with my motives, be disinclined to believe my intent and discover that I have breached the Racial Discrimination Act because, in his view, an article was not "likely to be read by the reader with analytical care". Or that the "article's use of language and structure is highly suggestive and designed to excite". For the judge was of the view that "language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilised. It is language which invites the reader to not only read the lines, but to also read between the lines." When judges begin reading between the lines and finding illegalities in those spaces, we should all be deeply worried. There is no question that the issue of Aboriginal identity is of public interest and that the public interest has intensified by the bleedingly obvious fact that Aboriginals receive entitlements based on their racial identity. The judge admits that his decision is based in part upon the Act's desire to promote tolerance and protect against intolerance in a multicultural society. Without dwelling on his personal political beliefs, he weighed into the political debate in his judgment by stating: "It is a notorious and regrettable fact of Australian history that the flawed biological characterisations of many Aboriginal people was the basis for mistreatment, including for policies of assimilation involving the removal of many Aboriginal children from their families until the 1970s." This is a fiercely contested view by some within the wider community and the subject of several scholarly refutations which have yet to be authoritatively disputed. Given his willingness to share his thoughts on such fiery controversial topics, it is a pity that the judge did not tell us what he thought of the illiterate Aboriginal children living in dysfunctional families while other Aboriginals were being sponsored to attend indigenous forums in glamorous world capitals. This decision is an assault on free speech and a blow to an open media. It is not good enough to know one's apples and oranges or non-hyphenated Australians. Judge Bromberg insists we must be cognisant of coconuts and yellow fellas too.