The Eaton Cartoon cartoon depicting an aboriginal parent holding a beer and not knowing the name of his child is clearly racist. Not because it is disparaging but because it is a group criticism.
Section 18c makes it unlawful for the same reasons in the Bolt case.
Quote:
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ms Eatock has brought this proceeding on her own behalf and on behalf of people like her who have fairer, rather than darker, skin and who by a combination of descent, self-identification and communal recognition are, and are recognised as, Aboriginal persons….
In order to succeed in her claim, Ms Eatock needs to establish that:
It was reasonably likely that she and the people like her (or some of them) were offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct; and
That the conduct was done by Mr Bolt and HWT including because of the race, colour or ethnic origin of Ms Eatock or of the people like her.
End Quote.
So should the cartoonist be prosecuted?
Or does it accent by ridicule the bizarre assertion that the parents of children in the NT detention centre are the remedy.
Of course it is offensive. But it is not as offensive as not being able to make political comment.
The constitution protects political discourse in Australia that is insulting and offensive.
This was confirmed by the Federal Court in Bernard Gaynor’s case against the army in November last year.
The high tide of political correctness where claiming offence washed all before it is receding. Bolts case was an aberration and never tested against constitutional validity.
In Bolts case free speech, free political commentary was prosecuted as an attack weapon by “fair” and thin skinned aboriginal progressive politics.
But no one will dare to prosecute the cartoonist here. The issue is too important to prohibit valid political cartoon commentary.
That leaves Section 18C high and dry
Time to amend s18C to accord with our Constitution.