Introduction

Vilification and Discrimination still occur within Australia, even in 2020. We live in a world now that not only journalist, but everyone needs to be aware of the language they use when creating content for the public. It is crucial to be conscious of the restrictions of Freedom of speech. It is essential to understand the legal obligations people are held accountable for when it comes to the harm of another, as well as a person’s right for Freedom of expression and human right. Many federal laws within Australia have been authorised that are constructed to protect the minority groups from discrimination, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Each state has also validated anti-discrimination legislations.

Australian have progressed significantly over the last fifty years regarding the protection laws of these issues. However, currently within Australian Politics, there is a Religious freedom Bill being discussed through parliament that would create religious privilege and blur the lines between Freedom of speech and hate speech.

So, let’s break this down.

What is Freedom of speech, and how does it apply within Australia?

Freedom of speech is the right to express one’s opinion and ideas legally without government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations. (Merriam-Webster)

The Australian Constitution does not particularly protect Freedom of speech more so Freedom of expression. There are already restrictions on Freedom of expression within existing laws and legislations regarding the prohibition of hatred acts and Discrimination against another person. However, these restrictions may be amended if the proposed ‘Religious Freedom Bill is approved. Some people argue this new law would be for the better and give protection to religious opinion, while others argue that it will threaten Human Rights and bring “narrower” protection for a certain minority and Could leave the remaining minorities vulnerable.

Currently, within Australia, no Commonwealth Legislations are protecting the rights of Freedom of expression.

What are Vilification and Discrimination?

Vilification Is a hatred act in public that is to be expected to discriminate or offend another human being based on their sexuality, race, gender, disability and religion. These laws were put in place to protect and discourage hate speech and acts of hate.

Discrimination is when a person and or group acts with intolerance or gives unfair treatment to another person group based on their nationality, age, sexuality, race, religion, ethnicity, disability or political views.

The law and Penalties within Australia

Within Australia, it is unlawful to discriminate. There are anti-discrimination penalties put in place to protect a person against discrimination. The penalties differ between each Act. The penalty is dependent on the type of legislation that is broken for example under the Fair Work Act 2009 the maximum penalty for contravention of the unlawful discrimination protections is $63,000 per contravention for a corporation and $12,600 per contravention for an individual.

Exemptions

Within anti-discrimination laws, there are exemptions allowed. There are some exemptions listed within each Act where it will enable services and jobs to target a certain group. For example; the Act states that it is allowed to advertise for a job for a particular sex if the job requires that sex explicitly for the position. An example would be a male cleaner to clean the male public restroom and vice-versa. Other exemptions include that a service provider may provide services to meet the need of a particular group. Particular exemptions allow a person or group to favour an another within certain situations and therefore is not seen as an act of discrimination.

Case study: Religious Freedom bill 2019

In august of 2019, the attorney-general released drafts of three bills; the Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, and the Human rights legislation amendment (Freedom of Religion) Bill 2019, which would make up the religious freedom legislation.
Under this proposed legalisation statements of religion will be protected and will not violate other federal, state and territory discrimination laws.
Statements must be made within good faith; not vilify or provoke hatred against another person. (Karp, 2019)

For example:

• A student with a disability may be told by a teacher their disability is a trial imposed by God (PIAC)
• An office worker could declare on social media that a fellow employee is in a wheelchair because they are sinful and urge them to attend a faith healer. Such a “statement of belief would override the workplace inclusion policy”, and any action taken against the offender could be appealed to the Human Rights Commission as “religious discrimination”. (Karp, 2019)
  Other areas of protection fall under medical services. A practitioner, unless it is against the law, may refuse to provide medical treatment or their services.
• A pharmacist refusing to provide the pill to women for contraceptive use (EM), or hormone treatment (Public Interest Advocacy Centre, LGBTI Health Alliance)

This Bill states that a person of faith does not employ religious Discrimination if they act in accord with their faith and beliefs. However, how would one prove that their beliefs are true to their faith and not a lie to protect them from a law that if not protected by religious Freedom would typically have them prosecuted for Discrimination?
This question is just one of the many concerns people have concerning this proposed legislation. On the 10th of December 2019, the Government released the Second Draft of the Religious Freedom Bill after receiving approximately 6,000 submissions including many campaign-based submissions regarding amendments that they believe need to be made before this Bill is approved.

Concerns raised from the first draft included that this Bill Could legalise hate speech within Australia if it aligns within a person’s faith.
There would be a lot of “grey-area” between current Australian anti-discrimination laws and the Religious Freedom Bill. Under the sex Discrimination Act 1984, it is unlawful for:

(1) a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of the aggrieved person’s sexual orientation if, by reason of:
(a) the aggrieved person’s sexual orientation; or
(b) a characteristic that generally appertains to persons who have the same sexual orientation as the aggrieved person; or
(c) a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who have the same sexual orientation as the aggrieved person;
the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person who has a different sexual orientation.
Yet, under the proposed Religious Freedom Bill, it is stated that a Doctor will be able to deny IVF treatment to same-sex couples if they believe it goes against their faith.

This line between discrimination and religious freedom becomes exceptionally blurred, and it becomes difficult to determine a person’s legal right.

Reference List

Karp, P 2019, ‘Religious discrimination bill: what will Australians be allowed to say and do if it passes?’, The Guardian, 14 December, Viewed 21 April,  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/14/religious-discrimination-bill-what-will-australians-be-allowed-to-say-and-do-if-it-passes

Jurgen Habermas created the phrase public sphere in 1962; he imagined this sphere to be like an 18th-century coffee shop filled with the intellectual “upper class” people. A space where people would critically discuss and debate new ideas and issues around the world free of social and political pressures.  In comparison, Habermas would cast “ordinary” people the role of the audience where they would observe the debates and have no verbal input. (Bruns & Highfield 2016)

With the internet and social media forever changing and evolving, the term ‘public sphere’ is growing with it. Some people argue that with the rise of social media, It’s not seen as a public sphere as it gets lost through the internet and anyone can participate.

However, I disagree. I think it’s a more inclusive and modern version of a “public sphere”.

For myself, my public sphere is a mix. up until recently, my sphere consisted of Instagram with a hint of Facebook. It was a way to connect and engage with topics and relevant information the people you follow choose to post. With social media evolving and linking with different platforms, its easy for each sphere to overlap and we as the users can determine who enters our sphere and vice versa. 

My sphere within Instagram consists of my friends, family, friends of friends, people who inspire me and have a positive impact on mental health, and a few celebrities/ influencers. I can choose who I engage with, so in a sense, I control my sphere. 

When I started my degree, my choices for a ‘public sphere’ grew, and Twitter has taken up a large portion of my contribution to discussion and debate. It’s a place where I engage with my peers and teachers #bcm110 #bcm113 @UOWDMS and discuss relevant issues within each subject and discuss current topics. I have found Twitter to be the most inclusive of public spheres as it gives everyone to be able to access information about ‘trending’ issues. If you have an account, it provides the user with the opportunity to contribute to the conversations. However, people who may be seen as excluded would be lower socioeconomic countries who may not access to technology and the older generation. 

Within any sphere, issues can arise. Within the world of  Twitter, it’s easy for people to debate with one another. A problem I find within this vertical community is that people can hide behind a screen and create issues within the virtual community. 

The global pandemic of COVID-19 a severe health issue relevant to everyone has been trending on twitter for the past couple of months. Hashtags, for instance, #covid_19 and one in particular #COVIDIOTS are both significant to this issue and has been a current hot spot for discussion.

The media plays a massive role in what is spoken about within the public sphere of Twitter as it is a significant source for all News stories. News channels/ newspapers and politicians such as Donald Trump (although his views are sceptical) share stories and their opinions via this platform. These accounts disperse information, and the issues go viral. Users create hashtags that start ‘trending’ to create conversation and share their views. 

 So let me know? Where is your public sphere?

Lucy xx

REFERENCE LIST

Bruns, a. and Highfield, T., 2016. Is Habermas on Twitter? Social Media and the Public Sphere. [online] p.99.