Human Rights Everywhere!

We posted earlier this month about the Australian Human Rights Commission and its fight against “cyber-racism” — that is, content posted on the internet that offends members of minority groups.

As a follow-up, we then reported on an enquiry made by our New Zealand correspondent Aucklander with the Australian Human Rights Commission concerning its policies on cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia.

In the intervening weeks since then, Aucklander has exchanged a series of emails with human rights officers in Sydney. Concerning his encounter with Australian bureaucracy, Aucklander has this to say:

I think I have a usable answer at last from the Australian HRC, via two replies. My basic concern was whether the rules will only apply to real racism or also to criticism of religion. They seem to have answered that ‘no, it’s still ok to criticise religion’ — or at least that’s how I read it. But I understand your point about the UN moving towards making blasphemy illegal worldwide. A definite threat to be noted.

You’ll see that they didn’t even try to answer my last question:

5.

I realise that this is a fairly new area for the HRC, and also that actual threats against any people should not be legal. So how does the HRC view an incitement to hit disobedient wives, as contained in one religious doctrine? Why is that legal?

No response, so it seems that inciting domestic violence in a religious text is OK with the Australian HRC. Perhaps one of the Aussie GoV members could pursue this further. I might take it up here in New Zealand.

To recap the original post, this is the initial email Aucklander sent to the Australian Human Rights Commission:

From: X
Sent: Friday, 3 December 2010 2:02 PM
To: New Complaints
Subject: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia

Dear HR Australia

I am interested in how you deal with cyber-sexism. Since you are actively against cyber-racism, why are you not also be dealing with cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia? As a feminist and supporter of homosexual friends I am deeply offended by many websites, including religious ideologies that downgrade women and threaten homosexuals.

While I am opposed to racism (in fact there is absolutely no scientific proof that different ‘races’ exist), there has been a tendency lately to claim that opposition to certain religious doctrines is ‘racist’. It is clearly not, as religion is a doctrine and not a genetic trait.

Please give me your definition of ‘race’ and of ‘racism’, and assure me that religious doctrines are absolutely not considered racial characteristics, so that if someone opposes a religious doctrine or practice online, they will not be committing ‘race crimes’ in your books.

If you are wondering why I am asking this question from New Zealand: I have gay friends in Australia and am concerned that under your laws, if they dared to comment online on anti-gay religious doctrines, they could be deemed offensive and ‘racist’! The same could apply to women opposing sexist religious doctrines publically online.

As a secularist, I am also interested to know how you ensure that enforcing people’s human rights regarding religion does not interfere with others’ rights to secularism and atheism? If it is someone’s right to state that non-believers are somehow inferior (easily found in many religious texts and frequently stated publically, online, by believers), would an atheist have the same right to call a believer inferior? If not, why not?

Many Regards,

X
Auckland, NZ

He received this response:

From: Complaints Info
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:18 PM
To: X
Subject: RE: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear X,

I refer to your email enquiry sent on 3 December 2010, which raises concerns about “cyber-sexism”, “cyber-homophobia” and religious doctrines.

I note that you say that you are offended by many websites, including religious ideologies that downgrade women and threaten homosexuals. You raise various questions relating to the racial discrimination and the relationship between racial discrimination and religious doctrines. Please be aware that in terms of your questions I am only able to advise you on our jurisdiction.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has a specific jurisdiction when it comes to the issues it can deal with. Its role is to consider claims of discrimination on the basis of a person’s race, sex, age or disability within specific areas of public life. The Commission can also consider claims of human rights breaches relating to one of the international covenants scheduled to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, which can only be made against the Australian government. We can also look at claims of alleged discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion, sexual preference, criminal record, political opinion, social origin or trade union activity in employment.

Religious discrimination and Sexual preference discrimination

Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (AHRCA) discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference and religious beliefs are only covered in the area of employment. Further information about freedom of religion or belief can be found on our website at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/religion/index.html.

The Commission has put out some publications that may be relevant to your concerns. You can access this information at the following link:

www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/gay_lesbian/index.html

Racial discrimination and Racial Hatred

Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA), the Commission’s Complaint Handling Section can consider claims of discrimination and of racially offensive behaviour (racial hatred), which occurs in “public” and is based on the race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin of a person.

The following links have further information which should provide the information you requested in relation to racial discrimination and the racial hatred provisions:

humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimination/guide_to_rda/index.html
www.humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimination/racial_hatred_act/index.html
www.humanrights.gov.au/racial_discrimination/publications/cyberracism_factsheet.html

State and Territory Anti-discrimination and Equal Opportunity Agencies

Under some of the State and Territory Anti-discrimination laws, the coverage in relation to religious beliefs and sexual preference discrimination may be broader in terms of what the Commission can deal with. Please see the following links for more information on the relevant State or Territory’s laws and contact details.

• ACT Human Rights Commission
  
• Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
  
• Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland
  
• Anti-Discrimination Commission Tasmania
  
• Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
  
• Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission
  
• South Australia Equal Opportunity Commission
  
• Western Australia Equal Opportunity Commission

If you have further questions about the Commission's laws please contact me via the Complaint Information Line, on 1300 656 419.

Regards,
Penny De Paoli
Complaint Information Officer
Complaint Information Service
Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 8 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

Human rights: everyone, everywhere, everyday

Aucklander’s follow-up email:

From: X
Sent: Friday, 10 December 2010 4:39 PM
To: Complaints Info
Subject: Re: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia - Details please

Dear Penny

May I please have more clarity on the following:

1.		Is Christianity considered a ‘race’? Is Islam considered a ‘race’? Your webpage implies that HRC at least considers Islam a ‘race’ by placing a link to the ‘Muslim women’s art project’ on the ‘racial discrimination’ page. I make an essential distinction between unchosen genetic characteristics (e.g. skin colour) and religious ideology, which is a matter of choice. Does the HRC not make that distinction? If some religious groups are considered ‘races’ by HRC, please define which religious groups are.
2.		Your web-page states HRC can take action ‘if you are offended or insulted because of your race by a website, or material on a website’. If you do consider some religious groups ‘races’, some religious zealots would be ‘offended or insulted’ simply by someone saying that god doesn’t exist. For example, if an Australian complains on a website about what they consider sexism or homophobia in a religious ideology, could he or she face charges of cyber-racism? I think the public deserve to be informed if there is such a threat to critics of religious ideology.
3.		If religious groups are considered ‘races’ but atheists are not, please explain why. Religious texts online are full of discrimination against atheists, so if religious groups are ‘races’, then atheists deserve the same protection against ‘cyber-racism’.
4.		I realise that this is a fairly new area for the HRC, and also that actual threats against any people should not be legal. So how does the HRC view an incitement to hit disobedient wives, as contained in one religious doctrine? Why is that legal?

Regards, X

And the final reply from the Australian Human Rights Commission:

From: Complaints Info
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 5:13 PM
To: X
Subject: RE: Cyber-sexism and cyber-homophobia - Details please [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear X

I refer to your further email to the Commission, containing a number of questions, to which I will respond in turn.

1.		The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the RDA) covers race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, and in some circumstances, immigrant status. Christianity and Islam are religions, and therefore would not fall within one of these grounds. Courts have found that Judaism and Sikhism falls within the term ‘ethnic origin’.
2.		The RDA states “It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” If a person feels that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their race or ethnic origin in an area of public life, it is open for them to lodge a claim with the Commission.
3.		It does not appear that Atheism is a “race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin”, so therefore, claims of discrimination on the basis that a person is an atheist may not be considered under the RDA. It is arguable that ‘atheism’ could be argued to be a belief, which could bring into play the human rights jurisdiction. Please note that the Commission can only consider such claims against the Commonwealth government.

More information about this can be found on our website, particularly our Federal Discrimination Law publication. Our website is www.humanrights.gov.au.

Should you have any further queries, please advise by return email or call our Complaint Information Line on 1300 656 419.

Regards,
Rebecca Gieng
A/g Supervisor
Complaint Information Service
Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 8 Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
T 1300 656 419 F +61 2 9284 9611
E complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au W www.humanrights.gov.au

Human rights: everyone, everywhere, everyday