Let's Not Follow The UK And Class Bigotry As An Aggravating Factor

Someone from deep in the lower tail of the privileged ie. white socioeconomic group goes off on a racist rant on public transport. How should an open society deal with such behaviour?

I’m using the term “privileged” ironically here. Being white confers a range of privileges in Western society, but the advantage of skin colour is significantly outweighed by parental education and financial resources. Does the white son of unemployed, housing commission tenants at Macquarie Fields or Broadmeadows have a better chance of success in life than the daughter of tertiary educated, Asian, Arab or black parents living in Killara or Camberwell?

In Australia, we’ve had a few recent headlines about bogans going off on racist tirades on public transport. Now there has been another incident, this time on a Melbourne train. You may also recall the Emma West incident in London in late 2011.

They have all been by people toward the bottom of the pile in their perceived, large scale social group, who are clearly threatened by immigrants’ success and angry they have not received their “entitlements”. While they may feel justified in their assertion that citizens of British ancestry should have more of a say than other immigrants in how England or Australia is run, they are incapable of articulating anything other than the visceral rage their feelings generate.

Is it necessary or constructive to lay anything beyond offensive behaviour charges against people who yell “This is my fucking country”, “Do you fucking speak English?’ or “None of you are fucking English. Get back to your own country. Sort your own countries, don't come and do mine.”?

The opinions of poorly educated people with impotent social connections and little access to economic resources matter little until they decide to let off a (usually intoxicated) racist tirade in public. Suddenly, their actions are treated as if they have the potential to cause civil war, or at least a “grave threat to public order”.

The media rush to the thesaurus and fall over themselves to exhibit their PC credentials, describing the rant as “vile” and “disturbing”.

No it’s not: it’s just one of society’s dregs going off at some people who aren’t white. ‘Vile’ is a man raping a six year old. ‘Disturbing’ would be a party calling for the deportation of all foreigners getting 10% of the vote.

The Victorian woman was arrested and charged with using obscene language and riotous behaviour in a public place, under S17.1(c) and (d) of the Victorian Summary Offences Act. Usually, Section 17.1(c) (offensive behaviour) suffices. 17.1(d) (riotous behaviour) tends to be added when there is conduct which, as Victorian Legal Aid puts it, “frightens a member of the public and makes them fear that some breach of the peace is likely to occur”.

Was a 37 year old woman racially abusing two fit, young men likely to frighten them, or just anger them? If the vast majority of their fellow commuters were supportive, why would they have been frightened?

Despite a prevalent internal culture of racist views, the police were quite comfortable laying multiple charges. That’s because the police are almost cynically bureaucratic and driven by arse covering. Given the current political winds, they would happily lay every charge on the statute if they believed that would protect them from complaints of bias by various “community” groups or the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

I’m not saying no charges should have been laid; just that 17.1(c) and a fine or better, a fine and community service should suffice.

In last year's Melbourne bus incident, there is clearly a case for an extra 17.1(d) charge against the man who smashed the bus window, because members of the public certainly had good reason to fear for their safety. The police could add a S9.1(c) charge for damaging public property. The three charges together should lead to a hefty fine and many hours of community service.

What we should not do is follow the UK path of declaring significant circumstances of aggravation in any harassment or insulting behaviour with racist overtones. The difference between telling someone “fuck off, you cunt” and “fuck off back to your own country, you don’t belong here, you black cunt” should not be a fine (or not even that) versus a jail term, such as what has befallen Emma West in Britain.

Does anyone believe such a distinction will be made in the laying of charges against black, Asian or Arab people? There is evidence the contrary is occurring in Britain.

All summary offences acts have some section which deals with offensive, indecent or threatening behaviour. In a liberal society, it is reasonable the law should contain such proscriptions, since it is citizens themselves who by consensus decide what constitutes “offensive, indecent or threatening behaviour”.

In a liberal society, people are also entitled to hold and express opinions which are racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other flavour of bigotry. If they express such opinions in a threatening manner, laced with abuse and other offensive language, then they should be charged under S17.1(c) or its equivalent, for the offensive and threatening behaviour, not for expressing their opinions, nor for the particular opinions expressed.

If someone says ”you’re not British if you’re black” or “Asians can never be Australian”, I don’t agree with them, however they should have the right to open the subject up for debate, even if heavily outnumbered. If we can’t police thought, why should we police voicing it?

The problem with adding circumstances of aggravation to summary offences, which usually involve intemperate speech or low level aggressive behaviour, is that it tends to be done by statute, but exercised selectively. The statute ends up looking like a quilt, with a patch for every minority or “oppressed” group and its grievance: cultural minorities, women, homosexuals, the disabled, adherents of foreign religions, anyone who isn’t white. The application of circumstances of aggravation is then selective and hypocritical: Muslims are rarely charged with making inflammatory statements against Jews or women, black people and Arabs never face additional charges for attacking white people.

That’s because these laws are a creation of the academic left, many of whom are ashamed of their culture’s success and power, despite being quite happy to reap its benefits via their university educations, public service salaries and middle class lifestyles. They are more concerned with attacking opponents within their ethnic group than defending against the enemy without.

If we allow these types of aggravating circumstances for “public order offences” in Australia, the left and its “oppressed” allies will hijack the law, as they have in Europe. Immigrants who are quite reasonably criticised for religious and other culturally derived practices and views will claim “hate speech” to stifle reasonable debate on assimilation. Lefties will do more than roll over and give in to them: they will join them in their fight to undermine our liberal social structures.

The quid pro quo for freedom of expression, including bigoted views is twofold. Firstly, there should be some form of offensive or threatening behaviour summary offence. Secondly, the right to self defence should extend to using reasonable force to defend oneself and others against ANY crime, including summary offences such as offensive or threatening behaviour. That includes the right to force a nuisance off a bus or train or out of a premises, physically if necessary.