18C reform: fears Labor will apply act to include religion

18C reform has spurred a new political row about whether a future Labor government would extend it to shield religion.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten talking to Labor MP Anne Aly. Picture: Kym Smith

Malcolm Turnbull’s push to ­reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has triggered a new political row about whether a future Labor government would extend the section to cover ­discrimination against religion.

In an extended interview with The Australian, Labor backbencher Anne Aly this week argued discrimination against Muslims had become a “new form of racism” and backed the need for a discussion about extending 18C to guard against religious vilification.

The comments have broadened the debate about the section, allowing the government to challenge Labor over federal discrimination laws and raise the spectre of new anti-blasphemy provisions being incorporated within the ­Racial Discrimination Act.

Attorney-General George Brandis called on Mr Shorten to “immediately rule out any proposal by a future Labor government to extend the reach of section 18.”

He warned that if 18C were ­extended to cover religion it would “be an even more dangerous ­further incursion on freedom of speech and indeed freedom of ­religion itself.” “Ever since the old law criminalising blasphemy ­became obsolete in the 19th ­century, the government has ­accepted that it has no role in the regulation of religious belief or worship,” Senator Brandis said.

“Yet, under Dr Aly’s proposal, an adherent of one religious faith could claim the protection of ­section 18C if they were offended by criticism of any of tenets of their faith, including by adherents of other faiths.”

Former Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson warned an extension of 18C could “turn ­Australia into Saudi Arabia” while crossbench senator Nick Xenophon also said he could not ­support the “reintroduction of blasphemy laws in this country.”

While Dr Aly says she is a longstanding opponent to anti-blasphemy laws, in her interview with The Australian she lent her strong support to a future debate about extending 18C to cover religion.

She also argued against adopting a single standard of acceptable speech in Labor’s proposed consolidation of federal anti-discrimination laws — a proposition that Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus has confirmed will be given consideration by a ­future Labor government.

Dr Aly issued a statement on Wednesday saying she had “not moved to extend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to cover religion”. But her own statements, outlined in the accompanying article, reveal her strong support for a future debate about extending ­section 18C, a reassessment of what constitutes racism and a ­concern that Muslims are not ­already protected by the Racial Discrimination Act.

Dr Aly’s remarks attracted the support of the Federation of Islamic Councils’ president, Keysar Trad, who backed the extension of section 18C to cover religion.

He told The Australian the extra protections could have taken the heat out of the rhetoric in the lead-up to the 2005 Cronulla riots, possibly avoiding them altogether.

“Of course we need religious protection. Section 18C should be strengthened and broadened … so that Australians can go about their legitimate daily business ... free from persecution,” he said.

Dr Aly did make a key qualification about extending section 18C during her interview with The Australian — she does not want to be the one to initiate this discussion within the Labor Party. “Do you know, it’s not really a priority for my electorate,” she said. “I’m here representing my electorate. And so there are so many things that are a priority for my electorate for Western Australia.”

Pressed on the pledge in the Labor 2015 National Platform to consolidate federal anti-discrimination laws into a single Act, Dr Aly was cautious on whether a ­single standard should be adopted to regulate unacceptable speech.

Mr Dreyfus has indicated that Labor will consider establishing a single standard of acceptable speech in its project to combine the five federal acts guarding against age, race, sex and disability based discrimination into one act.

This has raised questions about whether this standard would be the same as that currently contained in section 18C of the RDA, which makes it unlawful to “offend,” “insult,” or “humiliate” someone on the basis of their race, colour, ethnic or national origin.

But Dr Aly was sceptical about applying this test more broadly, arguing there should be separate tests for different kinds of discrimination. “They are different forms of discrimination and they need to be considered in context,” she said.

“I think that, yes, having a ­single act and removing bureaucratic layers is a good idea. But I think that, in terms of assessing the thresholds for each form, careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring that we don’t end up with a one-size-fits-all model that doesn’t work.”

THE INTERVIEW

This is the transcript of part of Anne Aly’s interview with The Australian about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

One of the issues it doesn’t cover is religion. What do you think about that? Do you think there is scope to see this applied more broadly so that it’s not just an issue about racial discrimination but it can capture other forms of discrimination too?
One of the things that I would argue is that when we look at how racism is practised, if you like, today, how it’s expressed today and the impact that it has, is that it extends to religion.

It’s not just about race, it also extends to religion and certain religions. A couple of religions, as you know are already covered in the act. So Jews and Sikhs are both already covered in the act. And that’s because of precedents that were set in legal cases outside of Australia.

So … this new form of racism is one that also affects and impacts on religions and in particular, Islam, Muslims — OK — and Muslim people.

So there is scope to, I guess, reassess how we look at racism in terms of its targets and its impacts and expand the scope of what we mean by racism to include those.

But I find it a little bit strange that someone can call you “a dirty Arab” and that be covered under the bill, but if they called you a “dirty Muslim” you’re not. So I think there’s scope there.

Is that a debate you’d like to see happen in the future?
I’d like to see that happen. I’d like to see that discussion happen because I think we have definitely seen an increase in anti-Islamic rhetoric.

And it’s not like that hasn’t had real implications on real people’s lives. It has actually had ramifications.

Are there any examples you can think of recently?
There’s a million of them, you know, people being abused in the streets; Muslim women being yelled at on public transport; having hijabs ripped off.

And for all of that they are not protected under the commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act.