Well, of course, the main reason that it’s a mistake is that Zali Steggall suggested that Peter Dutton was saying racist things and Dutton has, apparently, been seeking legal advice over this. She also said that he tried to bully and intimidate people but it appears that he didn’t find that defamatory.
Whatever comes from Mr Dutton’s conversation with a lawyer the fact remains that it’s the sort of thing that makes people a bit wary about saying things that could lead to the sort of problems that those who said mean things about Ben Roberts-Smith, Bruce Lehrmann and Linda Reynolds had to face. In some cases, this was nearly as bad for the defendant as the litigant. I mean, Linda Reynolds history of pursuing those who say bad things about her makes me think twice before I even mention her for fear that anything less than adulation may have her using her speed dial to see if even suggesting that she did something wrong at some point in her life could be grounds for a court case… not that Linda has ever behaved in any way that is not exemplary, as I’m sure you all know!
Anyway, Peter Dutton was one of those Liberals who thought that 18C was an unnecessary impediment to free speech. The argument from many of those trying to overturn it was that people should be free to say what they liked and if people were offended then that was just bad luck and they shouldn’t be so sensitive. If I can paraphrase that great intellectual, Andrew Bolt, it’s fine to say things about certain people and to suggest that you can’t is just woke nonsense, however calling someone a racist for merely echoing some of the ideas found in the Ku Klux Klan’s manifesto is just going too far and people should be protected against that sort of thing because it’s only those lazy, unwashed, stupid lefty types who resort to name-calling when they don’t have a better argument.
So if Peter Dutton decides to take the matter further, Zali Steggall will be left with two options: a grovelling apology or defending herself by attempting a truth defence. Now I’m no lawyer so I don’t know what chances a truth defence would have in this particular case. For starters, it would depend on how one defined what sorts of things were racist.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines a racist as:
someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result.
If one were to use this definition then it would be pretty hard to prove that any member of the current federal Liberal Party was racist, because it seems that most of them believe that it’s being a member of the Coalition that makes them “better, more intelligent, more moral, etc.” and that this is what gives them the right to do things like hand in nominations for council elections after the closing date because normal rules don’t apply to them. (Apparently they’ve dropped their legal action against the NSWEC… possibly on the grounds that it may have made it seem like they thought that deadlines were only for people handing in things to Centrelink.)
So, in the case of Peter Dutton, it would be hard to prove that – for example – he walked out of the Apology because of a racist attitude and not because of something else… for example, a weak bladder. Similarly when he referred to people in Melbourne fearing to go out because of “African gangs”, he wasn’t being racist, he was just describing the feelings of the people of that fair city and how they had been fine with caucasian gangs but African gangs were scarier for reasons that weren’t racist in any way. Similarly, when he said that it was a mistake that Fraser brought Lebanese migrants here, he wasn’t saying that for any reason apart from the fact that he didn’t like number of Lebanese dishes that were appearing on menus and he had nothing against the migrants personally. Similarly, jokes about water lapping at the door of Pacific Islanders was all about their lateness and in no way racist. Similarly, his determination to send that family from Biloela back wasn’t because they were Sri Lankan, it was just because they weren’t au pairs. Similarly when Mr Dutton wanted to fast track white South African farmers it was because they were under threat and not because he was prioritising threats to white people over people who were in similar danger. There was a good reason for the difference, I’m sure, even I don’t remember what it was…
No, it would definitely be a mistake to call Peter Dutton racist because things like that can be hurtful and, even if the Liberals didn’t end up repealing 18C, we shouldn’t offend other people unless they don’t have access to legal advice.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
