Skip to content
Advertisements

Mixing Harassment and Hurt Feelings with Discrimination

January 22, 2013

The following article is by Chris Berg and was first published at The Drum….

Proposed changes to Australia’s anti-discrimination laws were meant to reduce “uncertainty”. But Chris Berg argues that the attempt to merge laws on discrimination and harassment has resulted in an incoherent mess.

Even when discussing complex pieces of legislation, it’s worth trying to get basic concepts right.

The Gillard Government’s proposed anti-discrimination changes fail this test. They artlessly try to blend two concepts together – discrimination and harassment.

But to harass someone and to discriminate against someone are different things.

If a person misses out on a job in favour of a less-qualified person because of their skin colour, then that’s discrimination. Harassment is different. You harass someone when you intentionally disturb or upset another person.

They’re both bad, certainly. But they’re conceptually distinct, and have been that way since the first federal anti-discrimination law was passed in Australia in 1975.

The Government wants to “consolidate” a whole bunch of bills concerning discrimination – including the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act – into a grand Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill.

Simplifying law is a usually good idea. Yet what comes out is an incoherent mess. And it’s hard for citizens to obey an incoherent mess.

For example, if the bill goes through the Parliament, it will be unlawful to treat someone unfavourably by offending or insulting them because of their political opinions, industrial history, or social origin in any work-related area.

The concepts of “offend or insult” come from existing harassment law. Unfavourable treatment is the mainstay of discrimination law. Fusing the two together may superficially seem like a good idea, but read the previous paragraph again. What wouldn’t be captured by this new omnibus bill?

All political opinions are offensive in some fashion – politics is about controversy. Almost everywhere is “work-related” for someone. Offence is in the eye of the receiver, not the giver. And what on earth is “social origin”?

These anti-discrimination changes have a long and sad history.

Way back in 2008, Kevin Rudd and his Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced a broad inquiry into Australian human rights protection.

They put Father Frank Brennan in charge of this National Human Rights Consultation. That year was the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights – a document which Labor’s HV Evatt helped draft. McClelland used the Evatt Foundation as his platform to kick it all off. There was a big song and dance about the whole thing. The committee received tens of thousands of submissions.

But the ambitions of 2008 disappeared. Kevin Rudd’s hyperactivity became nervousness and uncertainty. In 2010 the government rejected the committee’s major proposal – to implement a national charter of rights.

Rudd was dumped. McClelland was jettisoned from the Attorney-General position in 2011.

But one minor government response to the consultation was a promise to consolidate all existing anti-discrimination laws to reduce “uncertainty”. And once started bureaucratic process does not stop.

This is one reason the anti-discrimination bill has “human rights” in the title. It’s a grand phrase for something that is purportedly only designed to merge a few acts together. It’s good public relations as well. Who could oppose human rights?

Yet the consolidation of anti-discrimination law was barely mentioned in the final report of the Rudd-era consultation. And the report did not explain why it was necessary. Last year, a discussion paper about the potential consolidation took the need for legislative consolidation as a given. We seem to have skipped a step. Why is this all so urgent?

In The Australian earlier this month Roxon suggested we need consolidation because “the community at large, including lawyers, is unsure or confused about what might already be discriminatory”.

No doubt many people are confused. That’s what happens when governments pass a lot of laws.

But rather than clarifying existing prohibitions, Roxon’s department have chosen a brute-force approach – they plan to make everything discrimination. They haven’t just consolidated existing law. By mixing harassment and hurt feelings with discrimination they’ve dramatically expanded it, opening up vast new opportunities for litigation. The draft bill eliminates confusion, sure, but replaces it with chaos.

Lost in all this is any recognition of the importance of freedom of association.

Free association is one of our least defended liberties. It is just as much a human right as any protection against discrimination. It appears in both the American Bill of Rights and HV Evatt’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But anti-discrimination law – a passion of the human rights lobby – has steadily eroded it.

Now organisations have freedom of association only if they meet one of the exemptions specified in law. It is the responsibility of religious organisations to justify why they should be allowed to choose employees according to religious doctrine, rather than the government to justify why those organisations should be prevented from doing so.

We have had anti-discrimination laws for nearly 40 years. They’ve taken on a life of their own. The Government is now putting more effort into specifying what is permitted, rather than what is prohibited.

It’s hard to think of anything more contrary to the principle of human rights than that.

Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs and author of In Defence of Freedom of Speech: from Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt.

 

 

Advertisements
9 Comments leave one →
  1. January 22, 2013 8:44 pm

    As one person put it….

    “A lot of People seem to be really offended by Boat People. Will these people now be able to litigate against refugee welfare?”

  2. armchair opinionator permalink
    January 22, 2013 9:18 pm

    Simplifying law is a usually good idea. Yet what comes out is an incoherent mess. And it’s hard for citizens to obey an incoherent mess.

    I think they are whinging about nothing new.

    Is it so hard not to bully, offend and insult or harass others in the workplace? Why should people think they have a right to do so.

    For example, if the bill goes through the Parliament, it will be unlawful to treat someone unfavourably by offending or insulting them because of their political opinions, industrial history, or social origin in any work-related area.

    And so it should be, they come to work, not to be emotionally abused. The workplace is supposed to be a safe environment supposed to offer civility. Any boss who promotes and allows bullying and discrimination deserves to be in court. People kill themselves over that kind of prolonged abuse.

    You are still free to insult, offend and harass at home, with your so-called mates and down at the pub etc.

    Why is it the right whingers, the haters, who insist on being able to bully and intimidate others whenever they feel like it, all cloaked in freedom-of-speech of course.

    I bet the amalgamation of the legislation still won’t get alan jones, andrew bolt and ray hadley to stop offending minorities and the marginalised. No matter how much the right whingers will try to portray it so.

    Of course the pollies will exempt themselves from the legislation.

  3. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    January 22, 2013 10:11 pm

    I actually think that when it comes to bullying and hateful name calling, there are a range of union officials who have it over anyone else that I’ve come across.

  4. armchair opinionator permalink
    January 23, 2013 3:09 am

    I actually think that when it comes to bullying and hateful name calling, there are a range of union officials who have it over anyone else that I’ve come across.

    I think the boardrooms and bosses do pretty well on that score, some seem to equate paying a wage for 8 hrs of labour with total ownership of mind body and soul.

    Of course the religious need to be exempted because they just can’t handle not being able to openly judge and condemn others for not living the way that they dictate.

    http://flourishandbloggs.com/2012/06/05/the-acls-bizarre-obsession-with-gay-people/

  5. January 24, 2013 2:06 am

    The Government wants to “consolidate” a whole bunch of bills concerning discrimination – including the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act – into a grand Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill.
    Simplifying law is a usually good idea. Yet what comes out is an incoherent mess. And it’s hard for citizens to obey an incoherent mess.

    =
    This is also an example of our teabags failure
    Simplifying law is a usually good idea.
    Instead of working with Parliament and contributing, Mr-Rabbit will just oppose. Berg subtly is styling this.
    =
    We can find it hard to draw this conclusion from just Berg`s post, so we need to look elsewhere in the unhinged media landscape. We then soon find the screeching of power-turd George Brandis on the TV, hyperventilating over the changes.

  6. January 24, 2013 2:18 am

    Berg subtly tells us he`s a teabag with,
    “_Yet what comes out is an incoherent mess._”
    even though the consolidation is not completed and has not been put into practice. So how the hell can Berg know it`s
    “_an incoherent mess._” ??
    =
    Berg also wants unwary readers to believe Joolya`s setting a trap for all, and they won`t be able to avoid it with,
    “_And it’s hard for citizens to obey an incoherent mess._”

  7. January 24, 2013 3:10 am

    l have shown the subtle teabag style above,
    but right from the start Berg declared Teabag with,
    “_Even when discussing complex pieces of legislation, it’s worth trying to get basic concepts right._”
    “_The Gillard Government’s proposed anti-discrimination changes fail this test._”
    Pardon? Fails what test exactly? How was it done?
    How was it measured?
    =
    “_They artlessly try to blend two concepts together – discrimination and harassment._”
    Really? How? And artlessly too?
    =
    Berg`s failure, common to most teabags and trollumnists, is they over-reach. Continual bleating about `complexity`, `confusion` and `red-tape` is their usual platform. Now something is being `simplified` or `consolidated` they still bleat, only coz it`s being done by the `other` lot.

  8. January 24, 2013 4:30 am

    Protecting speech is a balancing act by: Nicola Roxon

    We have also identified some areas where the law could be made clearer. One such area is to make clear that harassment can be a form of discrimination.
    Despite what some reports may have said, it is not the case that any conduct that a person finds offensive will be unlawful.
    The draft bill only seeks to clarify what courts have already found – that racial, age, sex and disability discrimination can include harassment on that basis.
    It is also not the case that the specific prohibition against racial vilification would be extended to other types of vilification.

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/protecting-speech-is-a-balancing-act/story-e6frg12c-1226550722087
    =
    While l can`t stand Roxon, l suspect she is being distorted.

  9. January 24, 2013 4:33 am

    Yeah, l am surprised Limited News is running it.

Go on say something, you'll feel better...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: