Thank goodness we lost the soccer! We have enough sport to brag about don't you think?
A parishioner asks me to write about part of an article she sent me concerning the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act in Victoria.
There was much talk about it at the time I seem to remember.
As usual the religious right had plenty to say about it at the time. I guess few people bothered to actually read it. I did take the time, and as far as I could tell it was all fairly innocent. (what would I know I am not a lawyer) the religious right were of course paranoid.
Indeed they appear to be the main ones to have been dealt with by the legislation. Apparently they don't like not being able to call a Muslim a spade. If you get my drift.
The article, by a curious Brazilian, Augusto Zimmerman (see here) makes fairly bold statements about what the act might develop into...which is what the religious right were always worried about. They might not be able to say that all Muslims are women-hating shariahites who want to hack off the hands of thieves, and thus frighten everyone into becoming Christian.
Personally I don't want to say that for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that it is not true!
But Zimmerman's paper (which reads rather like a brief tutorial) also suggests that the Act states that "truth is not relevant and cannbot be used as a legal defence"
I don't get this, this doesn't seem to me to be what the Act says at all (download it here if you want). It does suggest that it is no defence that you have made incorrect assumptions about people's ethnicity or religious affiliation...that is if you make offensive remarks about them and then find out that they are not Albanian or Hindu or what ever. In that sense I think the act is correct. It also says that your intention does not essentially affect the offence (that is if you call someone something they find offensive it is not a defence to say you did not intend to cause offence ) I agree with that too.That is rather like expecting to be let off when you have just killed or maimed someone because you say you din't intend to do it. While that might influence the process or the outcome it doesn't essentially mollify the offence only the degree of offence. And that is for the court to work out.
I just don't get this. Surely any right thinking person wants to lessen offensiveness to anyone.
However you may find the picture of the Argentinian penalty defence line (above) to be offensive. If so, I apologise I didn't intend to offend.
2 comments:
thank goodness we lost the soccer? Australia has been seen to be a laughing stock on an international level in soccer. While it may not be an important issue for you and your belief system, for others, its their reason for getting up in the day. Those players are positive role models for youth - wake up!
Even making it to the game was a great achievement for our lads and our country. Winning a couple, drawing a couple was a further achievement for years of work, training and a passion that many Australians believe in.
In this day and age of war, squalor, domestic violence, church abuse, child abuse.. is it so bad for people to want a sporting team to win? Better they direct their passion to sport than drugs, or beating another human being.
My comment was some what tongue in cheek.
I am not so inclined to think that sport is what the main focus of a a thinking nation should be. Which was my point.
We spend enough time in this country focussed on sport, and disproportionately high amounts of money.
I would like to see big bucks being spent on encouraging kids to see visual and dramatic artists as role models, and getting them to see that being academically strong is a great thing to be.
I don't decry the Soceroos efforts but sport is not what life is really about!! It is a distraction
Post a Comment