(duellists in a judicial farce)
Full article on the Court’s judgement (as reported by The Guardian) appendaged to this essay.
AN OLD ARRIVAL
My antecedents came to Australia four generations ago. They didn’t come to change the country or to tell those already here that it was time they changed their ways to accommodate theirs. They came not to proselytise but to survive, to escape starvation during the ‘blight’ (the Potato Famine). They had nothing, they asked for nothing, they got nothing from those already here bar the opportunity to work and build a new life. And that’s just what they did.
Being poor, Catholic and Irish they started at the bottom. Their status was anchored by the low standing of Irish convicts in what was, up until then, a British penal colony. The lexicon of words then used to describe the Irish was far from flattering. Paddy, Paddywacker, Mick, Paddyquick were but few of the cognomen employed. Those appellations invariably carried negative connotations re religion (Catholic) and racial traits (dumb, uncultivated, brutish, irascible, drunken, unhygienic …and many more). The Irish’s close association with First Nations People (as reflected in the phrase ‘Shamrock Aborigine’) was further reason for Colonial upper classes to look down their noses.
In spite of these stereotypes and handicaps Irish Australians had no option but to work their way up. And that’s just what they did.
The fact the Irish, ‘at home’ were then increasingly and violently trying to shuck off the yoke of British rule (after eight hundred years) only added to the ‘suspicion’ that surrounded the Irish down under.
Yet these discriminated-against New Australians (mainly peaceably) worked within the social, political and legal system to change them to a point where both Irish and English are now content to live under the same set of rules.
That positive result often goes unnoticed by many non-European post war arrivals who increasingly view the Irish (indeed any European) as but part of a privileged (if not oppressive) white class. This is a simplistic and dangerous assumption. It ignores history.
The history of the Irish in Australia examples how even the most disparate of cultures can work out ways to happily live together. That early example was followed by others. Greek, Italian, Dutch, Poles, Hungarians, Jewish refugees et al. arrived here after WW2 to live in what they found a peculiar, if not strange, country. They too changed what they found, just as much as what was already here changed them. Yes it took time, but rarely more than a generation or two.
That phenomenon occurred again and again with various diaspora and migrant groups, including the Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian and others. During the horrific bushfires of 2019 Sikh volunteers from suburban Melbourne drove up to help defend and rebuild our old ‘from-colonial-day’ farms in NSW. That’s multiculturalism at its best. They left with not only our gratitude but also with us better understanding them – and they better understanding us.
That’s a history which should be borne in mind when looking at the flare up between Senators Hanson and Faruqi.
A NEW ARRIVAL
Dr. Faruqi was invited to come and sit at our table in 1992. Since her arrival from Pakistan she has supped enthusiastically on many of the best dishes on the Australian menu, including two higher University degrees, terms as a NSW member of the Legislative Council (the first Muslim women to do so)and one (currently) as Deputy leader of the Greens in the Senate (another first). She’s also had a rich professional career as an engineer, bureaucrat, academic, consultant and multiple property owner.
Senator Faruqi is obviously talented and has done well. To achieve all this in 30 years suggests she found Australia a welcoming and accommodating place in which to pursue her dreams.
But of late she has developed the habit, between courses, of pointing out the faults of her hosts. Insisting, not suggesting, they’ll have to change their ways to accommodate her views of the way Australia ought be run, how they should change their menu to suit her tastes.
Nobody at high table gets anything right according to the Senator. Labor politicians are too timid to support Palestinians as they ought be supported. She decries Coalition members for siding with their fellow colonisers, the Israelis. Declares Pauline Hanson a racist for telling her that if ‘she finds it so terrible here’ to ‘P.O. back to Pakistan’- and (successfully) petitioned The Federal Court to declare that last remark ‘racist’.
She sees no merit in the life of Queen Elizabeth II, detests British colonialism, our treatment of First Nations People, gender inequality and misogyny. Indeed, she seems to find little that’s praiseworthy in her adopted country. She seems to think we (and particularly white Australian males of all ranks and ethnic backgrounds) need to lift our game – and do so pronto.
She describes herself thus -‘I am an unapologetically Brown, Muslim, migrant, feminist woman and very loud and proud about my identity.’ She has the right to be all those things, just as others have an equal right to be who they are.
What grates most about Faruqi is her superior tone of voice. When you see her in Question Time (and in the media) it’s easy to detect more than a whiff of moral superiority in her demeanour, the tone of the Preacher who is quick to praise but even quicker to condemn, a person who (in spite of all their virtuous talk) seems happiest when belittling those she sees as the enemies of what she defines as good. Her preference is to attack, not negotiate; to present herself in a theatrical manner.
Maybe I’m paying her a great disservice by saying these things. Maybe she is very different if you have the opportunity to work with her in the real world. Maybe. But as an ordinary voter you can only judge a politician by what you see and hear them say in public.
I (you may not) find her didactic, aggressive and confrontational – ie. divisive. She fights to conquer, not to promote understanding or cooperation. Her voice serves to exacerbate divisions not bridge them. In this sense she reminds me of her ex-sister Senator, Lydia Thorpe.
If (to misquote Brutus upon the assassination of Caesar) If I have misjudged “let her speak, for her I have offended”.
One cannot but wonder, however, why a feminist of such ability would choose to use her skills fighting for gender equality in Australia when there are many millions more women in Pakistan who live in much more oppressive circumstances than they do here in Australia .
After all, a good Utilitarian (of the John Stuart Mill ilk )would argue that the optimal course of action is to do ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Surely the gap between existing circumstances and the ideal of gender equality (ie. the room for improvement) in this Islamic country is bigger than here…and when you multiply this by the difference between the female populations of the two countries (125 million versus 15 million)…it seems plausible her skills might be better used where Pauline Hanson suggested.
Perhaps Senator Faruqi, somewhere in her cultural studies, read Luke 2:24 which claims that “no one is a prophet in their own land”…and took that advice as gospel.
We are fast reaching a point where it might be illegal to say virtually anything that might upset or offend anyone who self identifies as belonging to a racial minority. Of course rational people believe standing against racism is a noble and worthwhile cause. Rational people also believe violence (physical or economic) should never be tolerated.
But protecting everyone from any comment they might, in part, regard as a racial slight is to tread a dangerous path; a path that heightens sensitivities between people in ways more likely to exacerbate the divisions between them rather than bridge their differences.
Where everyone is ‘always prickly’ and, en-garde, when they’re on the lookout for ‘offence’, they’ll almost certainly find it .
Once emotions on one side are triggered by a perceived slur, the rebuttal of those slurs, will be usually taken by the other side as a slur on their honour. And so the cycle of animosity begins. The chances of the opposing sides working and living together in harmony collapse once the adrenaline’s up and blood is pulsing through the veins.
WHO’S RACIST? THE BACKERS OF ISRAEL OR THE BACKERS OF PALESTINE?
As an old, white Australian I have no objection to any Australian protesting against Israel’s conduct in the current war. I think Israel is consciously destroying Gaza in an act of genocide.
If I were a Palestinian would I not loathe a Country that kills my brothers and sisters, destroys their homes, denies them food, water, education, medical supplies and livelihoods – a Country that remotely kills (by bombs and missiles) ordinary Gazan civilians without regret?
Why wouldn’t I call those fighting against the IDF ‘freedom fighters’ and proudly fly their flags when demonstrating or lamenting the assassination of those leaders? Why would I not resent the dispossession and marginalisation of my people by an expansionary state?
I can find no fault in local demonstrations that call to stop the bloodshed and destruction – as long as they don’t employ violence. I think Palestinians have the same rights as Israelis to live in their own Country, on their land, their way according to their priorities, culture and religion – and to do so in peace and security.
On the other hand I appreciate what a horrific event Oct.7/ 2023 was for Israelis. The shock, the need for and right to self-defence in a neighbourhood that’s hostile to their very existence, their fear for the hostages, the desire for revenge…and the post Holocaust dread that antisemitism will again raise its head in the diaspora, including multi-cultural Australia. It’s easy to understand why members of the Australian Jewish community have raised their voices in self-protection and to argue Israel has the right to govern within its own 1948 borders in peace and security.
Both peoples have the same rights. Neither is superior or inferior to the other. Neither is wholly right or wrong. Both have sinned and been sinned against by the other. Recognising this is the first step toward starting on the road to long term peace.
This is just what our Government and political class should be telling Australians in the interests of preserving our multi-cultural society.
As a country we should not be one-eyed. Australia should not take sides. Certainly we should not lionise Israel and demonise Palestinians. True, Israel is our ally, a democracy and under threat, but it is not a state without fault. We can’t afford to be blind to those faults if we are to demonstrate racial equality at home.
Our politicians fail the Country when they take sides (in this war or any other issue where racial differences are involved) with the aim of boosting their electoral prospects and/or endearing themselves to supporter or lobby groups. Using racial and ethnic tensions as a political tool is a betrayal of their core responsibility to treat all Australians equally-and insist that Australian citizens do likewise.
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
It’s bad enough when senior politicians hurl insults at each other in Parliament. Occasional slips-ups can, however, be forgiven because we understand how easy it is to lose control in the heat of the moment. That’s why politicians have the protection of ‘parliamentary privilege’.
It’s less easy to forgive decisions made outside Parliament in the cold light of day.
If politicians get into the habit of running to the courts every time they or theirs feel racially slighted or stigmatised things are only going to get worse, not better. When an alleged slight becomes the subject of a legal complaint any division between the accuser and the accused becomes exacerbated – widened, not narrowed. Seeking ‘justice’ this way does not result in the opposing gladiators finally hugging each other. It’s an immature way for senior politicians to behave. The Courts aren’t megaphones for ego boosting
In a world where the fuck word in various combinations) is routinely used in popular tv series, where photos of dead and dismembered war victims are depicted on the nightly news, where details of murders highlighted in the press…… a world where the President Elect of the US calls the Vice President ‘retarded’ and ‘lazy’ (the latter being a well-known racial trope for slow and low IQ coloured peoples) it seems more than a little precious to go to court because someone tells you ‘to piss off back to Pakistan’ …..and seek compensation of $150,000 by way of damages (plus legal costs).
I can remember the time when ‘whinging Poms ’ (ie. English immigrants who complained life in Australia didn’t live up to their expectations) were advised to ‘go home Pom’. Nobody thought this was a racial slur. Yes, it was a negative comment, one that was often made in everyday domestic contexts too – eg. ‘ If you don’t like living in Sydney, why don’t you p.o. back to the bush’.
There’s a strong, idiomatic history of the use of the phrase in this Country. Hanson grew up when such phrases were in common use, they’d be part of her inherited lexicon. The phrase would carry different connotations for each litigant in this case merely because their backgrounds are so different.
Going to court for a judge to decide which interpretation is ‘right’ (Faruqi’s or Hanson’s , neither or both) is to ask him/her to make what is essentially a subjective decision, not one based on objective law. It places the law in an invidious position. And it involves high costs to taxpayers.
High Court actions are not cheap. All the time and resources tied up in adjudicating such a trivial matter could, surely, be more productively spent elsewhere?
TOO MANY COOKS
In recent years we’ve become an ever more litigious society, particularly so when it comes to settling disputes among the talking classes. Lawyers might welcome the increased demand for their services. But we ordinary citizens shouldn’t. Everywhere you look new bodies, instrumentalities and bureaucracies are being set up to ‘protect’ someone from being harmed by someone else.
In the area of human rights, we not only have the Courts but a Human Rights Commission, an Antisemitism envoy, an Islamophobia envoy and a number of State and Federal instrumentalities with various briefs ranging from seeking equality for women to reducing domestic violence. The number of government funded First Nations bodies engaged in pursuing Indigenous rights etc has also greatly multiplied over time. We have an eSafety Commissioner …..and many more ‘protectors’ and ‘expert panels’ that will end up tripping over each other in trying to define what is and isn’t acceptable for ordinary people to say, post online and do. At best this bludgeoning trend will result in increasing censorship. At worst it could cancel all but the most sanctioned and woke of voices. Both outcomes would be a regressive step for our democracy.
Democracy thrives on robust free speech. If one wants to engage in it, bruises must be accepted as par for the course. If you push hard in your critique and criticism of others you should prepared to receive equal treatment in return from the people you accuse of fault.
Politicians who throw hand grenades at a bête noire hoping to inflict damage are cowardly if they then immediately threaten to use the law – ie. hide behind the shield of the law – to avoid any riposte that does, or might, upset them.
Healthy discourse, free speech, is a robust activity that should be constrained by only three rules. Refrain from any incitement toward violence. Give it (your cause) all you’ve got ……while remembering to treat others the way you’d like them to treat you.
But then again what would I know?
NEXT? A SPECIAL ENVOY TO COMBAT ANGLO-CELTIC PHOBIA?
I’m only an old Australian white man, part of the repressive, colonial patriarchy that must, it seems, be excised from the body politic if progress is to be made. I’m sure many will find much of what I’ve said in this essay so ‘offensive’ that I deserve to be hauled before some tribunal for punishment, if only my ideas weren’t so anachronistic and therefore irrelevant.
Better just to ‘cancel’ voices like mine, to deny they have any validity by ignoring them.
Time will guarantee people who think like me will soon wither on the vine and fade from the scene. We will be more likely remembered in history as the spawn of the invaders rather than those who built the foundations of this modern democracy, a Country that millions still want to migrate to in search of a better life. It’s currently fashionable to argue that white Australian males are the ones who stained this otherwise pure Continent, we’re positioned as the originators of this Country’s original sin.
In time this trope risks becoming an ingrained racial stereotype. If and when that happens I don’t think our chances of being ‘protected’ by the law are very good.
Every society needs someone to blame for its shortcomings and dissatisfactions. Senator Faruqi seems determined to land that blame squarely on the shoulders of Anglo-Celtic males. Does she ever wonder why we might find her insistence a reverse type of racism?
Tim Lenehan
STOP PRESS
Today (26 Nov.) Senators Faruqi and Thorpe called for a Senate inquiry into Parliamentary racism. This move looks like a further attempt to stigmatise white Australians. How they present their arguments will be an ‘acid’ test for the opinions I’ve expressed by me in this month’s essay. As always, you are the judge as to validity of our opposing perspectives.
Faruqi’s objection to The Senate’s censuring of Senator Lydia Thorpe (for her outburst against King Charles) is now available on SBS – so too is Senator Wong’s reply. It’s a
5-minute exchange that’s well worth watching.
The following article is courtesy of Guardian Australia.
Pauline Hanson engaged in racial discrimination against Mehreen Faruqi when she tweeted the Greens senator should “pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan”, a judge has ruled.
The judge ordered Hanson to delete the offending tweet and pay Faruqi’s costs for the proceedings. Faruqi’s lawyer, Michael Bradley, told Guardian Australia that while costs had not been calculated in full, they would probably total “many hundreds of thousands of dollars”.
The proceedings, in the federal court, centred around an interaction the pair had on X, then called Twitter, on 9 September 2022, shortly after Queen Elizabeth II died, with the judgment setting out details of the interaction.
Faruqi greeted the news of the queen’s death by tweeting: “Condolences to those who knew the Queen. I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples. We are reminded of the urgency of Treaty with First Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies & becoming a republic.”
Hanson tweeted in response: “Your attitude appalls and disgusts me. When you immigrated to Australia you took every advantage of this country. You took citizenship, bought multiple homes, and a job in a parliament. It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan – PH.”
Justice Angus Stewart on Friday found the One Nation leader’s tweet was unlawful and portrayed Faruqi as a “second-class citizen” who took advantage of Australia and who, as a migrant to the country, “should be grateful for what she has and keep quiet” – a position he declared to be “exclusionary”.
Stewart found Hanson’s comment that Faruqi should “piss off back to Pakistan” was a “variant of the slogan ‘go back to from where you came from’” which he said was an a “racist trope” and a “strong form of racism”. He added that Hanson’s tweet, given her profile, likely “empowered others” to make similar or worse comments.
The judge rejected Hanson’s arguments, including that Faruqi’s tweet on the queen’s death justified her response. He found Hanson’s tweet did not fall within the fair comment exemption because it was an “angry, personal attack”.
Hanson, who was not present in court, posted on X shortly after the judgment was handed down, expressing her disappointment with the decision and saying she had “instructed her lawyers to prepare and lodge appeal documents”.
An emotional Faruqi hugged her legal team – many of whom were also in tears – after the judgment was handed down. Addressing media outside the court, Faruqi said Friday’s win sent “a strong message to racists that they will be held accountable” and made clear that “hate speech is not free speech”.
“Today is a win for every single person who has been told to go back to where they came from, and believe me, there are too many of us,” Faruqi said, adding that the case had taken “a very personal toll”.
The judgment was “an affirmation for migrants that people of colour do not have to be grateful or to keep quiet”, she said: “I will be speaking out more loudly and more strongly than ever before.
“Today’s judgment is landmark … It is a warning for people like Pauline Hanson, and I do hope it emboldens individuals and communities to assert their right to live free from racism.”
Bradley said the case had “made law today” and set new precedent for the way that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was considered by the courts.
“There have been very few successful 18C cases and this is the first one that has dealt with this idea of coded racism … which has deep meaning attached to it that is well-understood by perpetrators of racism and their victims,” he told Guardian Australia.
Bradley said when cases had been successfully brought under section 18C in the past “it’s usually been stuff that’s in your face, overt racism … This is a different sort of class of racism or racist hate speech and it’s the most insidious type, it’s intergenerational and for people who are exposed to it – people of colour, immigrants, First Nations people – they cop this stuff by way of micro-aggression all the time, their whole lives. This is a real line-in-the-sand moment.”
He added: “It’s an extraordinary judgment. It’s a precedent for the law, absolutely, but I think it has much wider impact. It changes the conversation around the limits of tolerance for racist discourse, and certainly it’s something the media should pay very close attention to, public figures like politicians should read it and have a think about their own language and how they engage in public debate and the weaponising of people’s ethnicity or colour against them.”