Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

Law on racial
discrimination
Sir,—It troubles me that those
unfamiliar with the heady at-
mosphere of civilised irony per-
vading some parts of the Research
School of Social Sciences will be
baffled by the logic of Professor
Eugene Kamenka in his article
(The Canberra Times, August 16)
on proposed legislation to outlaw
words or conduct "likely to result
in hatred or contempt against a
person or group of persons dist-
inguished by race, colour, descent
or national or ethnic origin or to
hold an individual or group up to
contempt or slander on a similar
basis".
On the one hand Professor
Kamenka takes issue with Dame
Roma Mitchell for her comment
that it is most likely that the pro
posed legislation will encounter
hostility among Anglo-Saxons,
who will object that it interferes
with freedom of speech. This, Pro
fessor Kamenka assures us with
heavy-handed irony, is racist; he
tells us that he abhors Dame Roma
Mitchell's "racism... the notion
that opinions are determined by
ethnic origin or even position in
life".
It's dangerous to be spluttering
too much in reaction to this (Sure
ly in some senses opinions are
determined by ethnic origin and
position in life?) because you may
very well choke when, three para
graphs down the same column,
you read that Professor Blainey (of
all people, and unlike Dame Roma
Mitchell) "does not make overtly
racist remarks". Relatively
straight-forward souls will think of
Professor Blainey's infamous re
marks (with which I am assuming
everyone must be familiar, since
he has put himself on every talk
back program in the country to
propound them), look at the word
ing of the proposed legislation, and
wonder what on earth Professor
Kamcnka can mean (though
doubtless we could all agree that if
Professor Blainey could get
through the net the proposed legis
lation would indeed not be worth
the threat posed to freedom of
speech).
However they may seem to defy
ordinary logic, Professor
Kamenka's subtleties have several
pleasing consequences. The first is
that there can be no meaningful
application of the word racist if
(owning to refinements of irony) it
cannot be used of Professor
Blainey, but must embrace any
utterances of any kind relating to
race. This in turn conjures the
delightful fact that we arc in-,
evitably painted into a familiar
corner in our attempts to tackle
discrimination: we can do nothing
because it contains the very dis
crimination from which we
purport to be escaping. Thirdly,
the reductio ad absurdum prac
tised on Dame Roma Mitchell suc
ceeds in implying that this is what
the Human Rights Commission is
about: ignore what they say; soon
we'll all be in jail if we describe
someone as Italian.
What troubles me most is that
in his conccrn for freedom of
speech (the sincerity of which I do
not question, though doubtless
some of Dame Roma Mitchell's
Anglo-Saxons would resemble
those well-off people incensed by
means-testing pensions on the
grounds that it might reduce the
pressure the poor can put on gov-
ernments). Professor Kamenka in
advertently encourages further
woolly-mindedness about Pro-
fessor Blainey, whose obnoxious
comments are certainly not to be
refuted on the grounds that you
can't meaningfully describe some
one as Italian or Vietnamese.
ADRIENNE STEADSON
Griffith.
$