Chapter 5: Future Strategies

5.1 Improving legal protection

5.1.1 Federal legislative reform
5.1.2 Improving access to legal protection

5.2 Education

5.2.1 Public Education
5.2.2 Educating young people
5.2.3 Educating service providers
5.2.4 Employer obligations

5.3 Public language

5.3.1 Public language – media
5.3.2 Public language – police

5.4 Law enforcement

5.5 Community action

5.5.1 Leadership
5.5.2 Education
5.5.3 Support

5.6 Public support

• Download Ismaع - Listen: Chapter 5 in PDF format (360K)
  To view these documents you will need to install a PDF viewer application such as Adobe Acrobat Reader or Ghostscript.
  • http://www.ghostscript.com/
  • http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

A major goal of the Ismaع project was to engage members of Arab and Muslim communities, government and non-government organisations in constructive discussion about future strategies to eliminate anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination. In each consultation, participants were asked about their understanding of what is being done and what more could be done to help address prejudice and discrimination against Arab and Muslim Australians.

As set out in Chapter 4 and on the Commission's website,^[1] the Commission found a wide range of existing initiatives aimed at dispelling anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination. However, in the light of the information provided by participants in the Ismaع project about the nature and extent of problems of discrimination and vilification faced by Arab and Muslim Australians, greater effort is needed to fight anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination more effectively.

The following discussion and recommendations may assist government and community organisations to map future directions for eliminating prejudice and discrimination against Arab and Muslim Australians. These recommendations were drafted by the Commission in consultation with the Ismaع project reference group (described in Chapter1). The reference group assisted the Commission by refining the recommendations ensuring they were practical and feasible, directed to the appropriate agencies and reflective of the broad priorities identified by consultation participants. It is important to note, however, that while the Ismaع reference group provided valuable guidance, the recommendations are those of the Commission alone.

This chapter includes the Commission's recommendations and suggestions for future action in six key areas: improving legal protections; promoting positive public awareness through education; addressing stereotypes and misinformation in public debate; ensuring community safety through law enforcement; encouraging effective community action and fostering public support and solidarity with Arab and Muslim Australians.

5.1 Improving legal protection

5.1.1 Federal legislative reform

5.1.1.1 Overview of current laws that deal with religious discrimination and vilification

The proscription of discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion and belief in Australia is not a new concept. Laws exist in a number of states and territories and, in a limited way at the federal level, to deal with these issues. However, coverage across the states and territories is inconsistent and between those state and territory laws that do provide coverage there is a lack of uniformity. An overview of the current status of the laws across Australia that deal with discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion is as follows (a more detailed discussion can be found in Chapter 1):

• It is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their religion in the ACT, Western Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria.^[2] Therefore, a person who believes they have been discriminated against solely because of their religion has no legally enforceable rights if the alleged discrimination happened in NSW or South Australia.
• It is unlawful to vilify a person because of their religion in Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria.^[3] Therefore, a person who believes they have been vilified solely because of their religion has no legally enforceable rights if the alleged vilification happened in the ACT, NSW, South Australia, Western Australia or the Northern Territory.
• In the ACT and Western Australia, the ground used is 'religious conviction'. In Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, the grounds used are 'religious belief or activity' (the Tasmanian legislation also includes religious affiliation). Furthermore, in Queensland^[4] and Victoria,^[5] these grounds are defined as including the absence of religious belief as well as any refusal to participate in religious activity. None of these grounds are defined in the legislation.
• It is not unlawful under federal law to discriminate against someone, or vilify them, on the basis of their religion. However, under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (HREOC Act) the Commission has the power to inquire into and attempt to conciliate complaints alleging religious discrimination in employment and occupation, as well as complaints that allege that the Commonwealth has breached a person's human rights in relation to religious belief. However, the HREOC Act does not provide enforceable legal remedies in relation to these types of complaints. If a complaint cannot be resolved through conciliation and the Commission finds that discrimination or a breach of human rights in relation to religion or belief has occurred within the terms of the Act, the only course open to the Commission is to provide a report to the federal Attorney-General for tabling in the federal Parliament. The findings of the Commission are not legally enforceable and the respondent can ignore them.

5.1.1.2 Issues arising from Ismaع consultations

The lack of consistency in federal, state and territory laws concerning discrim-ination and vilification on the basis of religion was identified as an important issue in the consultations and survey results carried out during the course of the Ismaع project.

Many consultation participants were critical of the fact that Muslims are not clearly protected from religious discrimination and vilification under federal law. The most vocal critics were from states and territories where discrimination and vilification based on religion are not unlawful.

When we all migrated to Australia they accepted us by colour, by race, and by religion as well. So how come we can complain about race or colour but not religion? How come this is not connected? ... At the moment I think the best thing that could happen is if someone calls you a 'dirty something' they better call you a 'dirty Arab' than a 'dirty Muslim.'^[6]

The issue of religion remains one of the most neglected areas in terms of ensuring that people are actually recognised as having rights in terms of the core religion that they have.^[7]

People will discriminate against religion no matter what the law says, but it should still exist ... I believe that it is helpful to have a law as a basis. One example is that women would not be where they are if it wasn't for the law. The bottom line is if the law is there we can use it but if it's not there we can't.^[8]

Many participants called for federal and state laws to be changed or introduced to provide clear protection for people discriminated against or vilified because of their religion.

The Racial Discrimination Act should be amended to make it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of religious belief and practice.^[9]

Federal and state laws need to be amended to include religious vilification of Muslims in order for complaints and the issue to be taken seriously by the Arabic, Islamic and wider community.^[10]

Although most cases of vilification against Muslims is based on their cultural and racial traits, I still believe that the Racial Discrimination Act must cover Islam as a specific cultural group which receives a lot of discrimination based on their religious obligations, duties and practices.^[11]

However, some participants cautioned that reform introduced solely to benefit Muslims may promote further backlash. Rather, as religious freedom is a universal value, the failure to protect Muslims should serve as one example of the inadequacy of federal law.

If people think that changes to the law are being brought about purely for the benefit of Muslims then they'll see it as another change caused by outsiders coming in ... it might actually get hard for the Muslim community ... If you make it a group effort on behalf of all religious groups then surely it will be ok. We have to show how it's affecting a large part of the community - not just Muslims.^[12]

Not all participants were convinced that extending federal anti-discrimination law will eliminate discrimination and prejudice against Muslim Australians.

In regards to the law, I don't think that having religion in the law is going to really have an effect, because people will go against the law regardless.^[13]

However, even those expressing some scepticism were of the view that the symbolic value of legal protection serves an important function in addressing racism. The Islamic Council of NSW has recommended that the law should be amended to cover religious discrimination in NSW and federal law. The Muslim Lawyers Group in Melbourne, Muslim Women's National Network of Australia and the Indonesian Muslim Community of Victoria also agreed that changing the law would send an important symbolic message.^[14]

It doesn't mean that you're going to get a lot of complaints. But people will know that if they behave in such a manner people can take them to court and say, 'Look, what you did was wrong'.^[15]

Once you have the legislation, you know that it's enforceable by law ... People will think twice about racist and derogatory remarks about Muslims ...Changing legislation is important, but it's not about changing it to silence people ... it's about controlling how far we go in demeaning and offending a group of people based on ignorance and misunderstanding.^[16]

Government can only put out a law and it's all they can do. Then if something cropped up, [it's up to you to] take it on and it will be an example. But at least, in the back of your mind, you know that the government is not really with the wrong, it's with the right. It's symbolic.^[17]

To benefit fully from the symbolic value of legal protection, participants felt any change to the law should be accompanied by a comprehensive launch and public information strategy.

I think naturally people are afraid of being punished so the law does have an impact. It does give some security. But it has to be launched properly and also reinforced because there is no point to it if it is not reinforced.^[18]

5.1.1.3 Previous proposals for a federal law making religious discrimination and vilification unlawful

The Commission has previously considered the lack of enforceable remedies at a federal level in relation to discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion. In 1997 the Commission launched a national inquiry into religious freedom in Australia. This began with the distribution of a discussion paper, Free to Believe?: the right to freedom of religion and belief in Australia which reviewed the relevant international human rights law and the legislative and constitutional framework for freedom of religion in Australia. The paper was widely distributed and 255 submissions were received in response. Of those submissions, 147 were from individuals and the remainder from both religious and non-religious organisations including representations from the Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Islamic, Jewish, Coptic, Buddhist and Lutheran faiths. A workshop on religion and human rights was subsequently held by the Commission in early 1998 to obtain advice on a number of core issues including the meaning of 'belief' as distinct from religion, exemptions from the proposed proscription of religious discrimination, and an appropriate model for federal religious vilification legislation. Some 75 religious and non-religious organisations were invited to send a representative and approximately 40 people attended.

In July 1998, as a result of the inquiry, the Commission produced its report Article 18: Freedom of religion and belief^[19] (Article 18 report).

A number of particularly contentious issues were highlighted by the organisations and individuals consulted with and were discussed in the Article 18 report, including

• Defining religion and belief
• Freedom of speech arguments

These issues remain relevant for consideration in the current report.

a) Defining religion and belief

The Australian legal system purports to treat Australia's many different religious communities equally. There is no established or state sponsored religion or church and religious laws are not imposed by civil authority. Under the Commonwealth Constitution, section 116 provides that

[T]he Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Common-wealth.

However, the Constitution does not provide a definition of what will constitute a 'religion'. In addition, none of the state and territory anti-discrimination laws that currently make religious discrimination and vilification unlawful provide a definition of religion.

The meaning of religion was considered in a case decided by the High Court.^[20] In that case, two members of the Court suggested that the following two elements were necessary:

• belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle
• the acceptance of canons of conduct to give effect to that belief^[21]

Other members of the Court held that no single characteristic could define a religion and referred to the following as guiding principles:

• a particular collection of ideas and/or practices involving belief in the supernatural
• ideas that relate to the nature and place of humanity in the universe and the relation of humanity to things supernatural
• ideas accepted by adherents requiring or encouraging the observation of particular standards or codes of conduct or participation in specific practices having supernatural signific-ance
• adherents constituting an identifiable group or groups, regard-less how loosely knit and varying in beliefs and practices these adherents may be
• adherents themselves seeing the collection of ideas and/or practices as constituting a religion.^[22]

Under international law, both article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 1(1) of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (Religion Declaration) use the expression 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' as well as 'belief'. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has adopted a broad interpretation of 'freedom of religion or belief' covering freedom of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs as well as freedom not to subscribe to any of these beliefs.^[23] The Committee has also made it clear that minority and non-mainstream religions are no less entitled to the protection of article 18 than traditional religions.^[24]

If federal legislation were to be enacted that made discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion unlawful, the Parliament may wish to take these matters into account in deciding whether or not a definition of religion should be included in the legislation.

b) Freedom of speech issues

In the consultations leading up to the preparation of the Commission's Article 18 report, numerous submissions were made opposing the introduction of federal religious vilification legislation. The reasons given were numerous, including that such legislation was unnecessary as Australians are already free to believe in the religion of their choice, that the courts may be inundated with petty grievances arising from statements which could turn into lengthy legal battles, and that legislation would hinder the rights of individuals to speak out on moral issues without fear of reprisal.^[25] Overwhelmingly, however, the submissions that were opposed to the introduction of federal religious vilification legislation expressed a fear that such legislation would constitute an unnecessary incursion into freedom of speech.^[26]

Submissions were also received that supported the introduction of such legislation. These argued that religious vilification, like any vilification, discourages participation in a free and democratic society on an equal basis and that because vilification intimidates it targets and thereby undermines their freedom of speech, it is inappropriate to consider only the right to freedom of speech of the vilifier, but not the vilified.^[27]

Under international human rights law, freedom of expression is a fundamental right which lies at the core of civil and political rights and is recognised in article 19 of the ICCPR.^[28] However, while international law requires that freedom of opinion be guaranteed without qualification (article 19(1) of the ICCPR), freedom of expression is not an absolute and unqualified right. Article 5 of the ICCPR limits the exercise of all of the rights and freedoms set out in the ICCPR by reference to the rights and freedoms of others.^[29] In addition, article 19(3) states that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it 'special duties and responsibilities' and that the state may limit the freedom where necessary to respect the rights and reputations of others and to protect national security, public order, public health and/or public morals. Importantly, another article of the ICCPR, article 20, requires the prohibition by law of certain particularly harmful expression. Article 20 provides:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has commented upon the relationship between articles 19 and 20 by emphasising that the limitations required by article 20 'are fully compatible with the right of freedom of expression as contained in article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities'.^[30] Australia has expressed its agreement with this interpretation but declined to introduce further legislation to implement article 20. Australia's reservation or statement of interpretation and intention with respect to article 20 states:

Australia interprets the rights provided for by Articles 19, 21 and 22 as consistent with Article 20; accordingly the Commonwealth and the constituent States, having legislated with respect to the subject matter of the Article in matters of practical concern in the interests of public order (ordre public), the right is reserved not to introduce any further legislative provisions on these matters.

In Australian domestic law, the High Court has recognised certain implied rights and freedoms in the Commonwealth Constitution. In particular, the Court has held that, based on the constitutional provisions setting up a system of representative government,^[31] there is to be implied a freedom of communication as to matters of government and politics.^[32] While these cases did not enunciate a right to free speech per se, they did find that the representative nature of the Australian democracy was reflected in the Commonwealth Constitution and that the protection of political speech and communication was an inherent requirement of that democratic structure.^[33] Later High Court decisions clarified that the protected freedom is the freedom to communicate about political or government matters so as to enable people to exercise a free and informed choice as electors. The sections from which that freedom is implied preclude the curtailment of the freedom by legislative or executive power, but they do not confer a personal right to the individual of freedom of speech.^[34]

Australian domestic law also recognises the need to impose limits on freedom of expression (for example, laws relating to defamation, offensive language, contempt of court and film censorship are among those which traditionally and currently limit freedom of expression in Australia). As noted in Chapter 1of this report (and under paragraph 5.1.1 above), anti-discrimination laws already exist in Australia (including under the RDA) that limit freedom of expression by making it unlawful to vilify a person on the basis of their race, nationality and ethnic origin and already, in some of the states and territories, on the basis of religion.

In relation to the concerns that a federal religious vilification law would prevent opinions critical of religious beliefs being aired in public or prevent debates about particular belief systems being conducted, it is important to note that vilification of the individual (or, adopting the language of article 20 of the ICCPR, advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement of discrimination, hostility or violence against a person because of his or her beliefs) is the proper focus of the proposed legislation rather than critiques of the religion or belief itself. Criticism of the religion itself is borne by the institution which, as a public institution, should be open to questioning of its methods, beliefs and motives. This point was made in a speech by Sir Ronald Wilson, former President of the Commission, in which he stated:

Criticism or even ridicule of a religion is itself I think a conceptually different case from vilification of its adherents or promotion of intolerance against them, although the two may coincide. However genuine the offence which may be caused, I find it difficult to see a violation of human rights in the criticism of religion itself.^[35]

As a result of considering the issues raised during the Article 18 inquiry, the Commission recommended, among other things:

• The enactment of federal legislation containing provisions that make discrimination on the ground of religion and belief unlawful in all areas of public life,^[36] subject to exemptions for discrimination based on the inherent requirement of a job and in certain circumstances in connection with employment at an institution which is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets or teachings of a particular religion or creed^[37] and
• The enactment of federal legislation containing provisions that make incitement to hatred (commonly referred to as vilification) on the basis of religion and belief unlawful.^[38] The report suggested that the proposed provisions should be based on the racial hatred provisions contained in the RDA and recognised that the proposed legislation should make allowances for fair speech and fair reporting to ensure a balance between the competing rights of freedom of expression and the right to be free from vilification on the basis of religion or belief.^[39] It was therefore suggested that, similar to the exemptions contained in the racial hatred provisions of the RDA, exemptions should be included for acts done reasonably and in good faith in areas including the performance of an artistic work, scientific or academic debate or making a fair and accurate report of a matter in the public interest.^[40]

The Article 18 report was tabled in the federal Parliament on 11 November 1998. On 9 February 1999, in response to a question on notice in the House of Representatives, the then Attorney-General stated that the Government did not intend to implement the recommendation for a Religious Freedom Act.^[41]

In April 1999, the Minister for Foreign Affairs asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into Australia's efforts to promote and protect freedom of religion and belief, in particular the extent of violations of religious freedom around the world and the probable causes of those violations; implications for other human rights arising from a lack of religious freedom and religious differences; and the most effective means by which the Australian government and non government organisations can promote freedom of religion in the region and around the world. The report, Conviction with Compassion: A Report on Freedom of Religion and Belief was published in November 2000. While the Committee was of the view that federal legislation giving effect to the right of freedom of religion and belief was not necessary (as it was of the view that Australia is a tolerant country and the freedom to believe or not believe is not merely tolerated but accepted as a fact and a right),^[42] it did recommend that the Australian Government table a response to the other recommendations made in the Commission's Article 18 report, including those recommending legislation making discrimination and incitement to hatred on the basis of religion or belief unlawful.^[43] It also recommended that the Australian Government coordinate a review of Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation to ensure the maximum degree of domestic protection of freedom of religion, with a view to the introduction of a greater degree of uniformity of human rights law and practice in Australia.^[44] A recommendation was also made that the Australian Government continue to encourage and support the Commission's work and ensure that the resources with which it is provided allow it to carry out its work in relation to freedom of religion in timely, efficient, effective and appropriate ways.^[45]

The Commission's recommendations in its Article 18 report have yet to be implemented by the federal Government and nor has a response been tabled in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

5.1.1.4 Conclusion

Current legal protections against discrimination and vilification on the ground of religion or belief, at federal, state and territory level, lack consistency and uniformity with the result that whether someone can seek redress under anti-discrimination laws for religious discrimination or vilification depends on where the conduct complained of occurred in Australia. A person who believes they have been discriminated against because of their religion has no legally enforceable rights if the alleged vilification happened in NSW or South Australia. A person who believes they have been vilified because of their religion has no legally enforceable rights if the alleged discrimination happened in the ACT, NSW, South Australia, Western Australia or the Northern Territory.

As the majority of Australian Muslims live in NSW, the current lack of enforceable legal protection for acts of discrimination or vilification based solely on religion is particularly problematic in light of the information provided by consultation participants, survey respondents and interviewees who took part in the Ismaع project.

It remains the case that at the federal level, while the Commission has the power to inquire into and attempt to conciliate complaints that a person has been discriminated against on the basis of their religion in their employment or occupation, or if that their human rights in relation to religious belief have been breached by the Commonwealth, these complaints do not give rise to any enforceable right or remedy. Australia therefore currently falls short of the internationally recognised human rights standards in the ICCPR and the Religion Declaration (set out in Chapter 1).^[46]

The Commission is of the view that the enactment of federal legislation that makes unlawful discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion would provide greater consistency and uniformity in this area and would assist in Australia satisfying its international obligations in this regard.

Recommendation:

• discrimination on the ground of religion or belief Appropriate exemptions, such as those set out in the Article 18 report relating to the inherent requirements of the job and employment by religious institutions, should be considered and
• vilification on the ground of religion or belief It is acknowledged that the proposed legislation must make allowances for fair speech and fair reporting to ensure a balance between the competing rights of freedom of expression and the right to be free from vilification on the basis of religion or belief. Appropriate exemptions, such as those set out in the Article 18 report, should be considered.

5.1.2 Improving access to legal protection

Another significant concern raised by consultation participants concerned the burden on the individual of initiating and pursuing a complaint. It may be argued that when an entire community is affected, such as by alleged vilification in the media, it is unfair and unreasonable to expect an individual community member to initiate and pursue a complaint.

They have these laws but for the average person in the street it's trying to access something that is not accessible. Me being confident and being in the organisation I am in, it took me a lot of people who I knew to go to, to get to a point where somebody was prepared to say we will take it on from here. For me not knowing the legal system was quite a frightening thing ... So what can we do to simplify these things so the average person gets a chance to lodge a complaint and see something get done about it? Otherwise people will just give up. It's frightening for those who know the legal system, so how is it for those who don't?^[47]

As practicing lawyers, we hate to make complaints because we know what it involves - it's alienating to me ... We advise our clients of the nature and complex process of complaints and they get put off - it's too difficult.^[48]

The issue of the ability or 'standing' of organisations, such as community organisations, to make complaints is dealt with in a number of different ways under the anti-discrimination laws around Australia.

5.1.2.1 State and territory laws

In Queensland, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) was recently amended^[49] to allow complaints of racial or religious vilification^[50] to be made by 'a body corporate or an unincorporated body, a primary purpose of which is the promotion of the interests or welfare of persons of a particular race, religion, sexuality or gender identity'.^[51] If an organisation is able to satisfy certain requirements (such as, that the complaint is made in good faith, the conduct complained of has affected or is likely to affect 'relevant persons' for the body corporate or unincorporated body, and it is in the interests of justice to accept the complaint),^[52] then it will be able to lodge a complaint of racial or religious vilification in its own right.

In NSW, under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), complaints of discrim-ination and vilification on all of the grounds included in the Act can be made by a 'representative body' on behalf of a named person or group of people. A representative body is defined as a body (whether incorporated or unin-corporated) which purports to represent a group of people within NSW, whether or not the body is authorised to do so by the group concerned, and has as its primary object the promotion of the interests and welfare of that group.^[53] Before a complaint can be accepted from a representative body, each person on whose behalf the complaint is lodged must consent to the complaint being lodged and the body must have a sufficient interest in the complaint.^[54] A representative body will have a sufficient interest if the conduct complained of is a matter of genuine concern to it because of the way that conduct could, or does, adversely affect the interests of the body or the interests or welfare of the group of people it represents.^[55]

Similar provisions were recently introduced in Victoria by the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic).^[56] One important distinction, however, is that unlike the NSW legislation, the ability of a representative body to make a complaint on behalf of a named person or group of people under the Victorian legislation is limited to complaints alleging racial or religious vilification.^[57]

In Tasmania, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) provides a broad range of standing provisions, allowing a complaint to be made by a person on behalf of the alleged victim of discrimination or prohibited conduct,^[58] agents^[59] and by 'an organisation^[60] against which the alleged discrimination or prohibited conduct was directed if the Commissioner is satisfied that a majority of members of that organisation are likely to consent'.^[61]

In the ACT, an 'agent' can make a complaint on behalf of one or more people aggrieved by an alleged act of discrimination.^[62] In Western Australia, represent-ative complaints can be made,^[63] although the only 'organisation' referred to in that context is a trade union.^[64]

In South Australia, a complaint can be made by an aggrieved person or by an aggrieved person on behalf of him or herself and any other person aggrieved by the alleged act of discrimination.^[65] In the Northern Territory, only a person aggrieved by prohibited conduct under the Act, or a person authorised by the Commissioner on behalf of the person aggrieved, can make a complaint under the Act.^[66]

5.1.2.2 Federal law

Under the federal HREOC Act, trade unions are the only organisation given specific standing to make a complaint on behalf of one or more other aggrieved persons.^[67] The HREOC Act also provides that a complaint can be made by 'a person ... on behalf of one or more other persons aggrieved by the alleged unlawful discrimination'.^[68] As the definition of 'person' under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) includes 'a body politic or corporate', it is arguable that an organisation that meets this definition could make a representative complaint on behalf of others who are aggrieved by an alleged act of unlawful discrimination or a breach of the racial hatred provisions of the RDA.^[69] The complaint would need to comply with all of the specific requirements governing representative complaints.^[70] It is also worth noting that a person on whose behalf a representative complaint has been made is not entitled to lodge a separate complaint about the same issue.^[71]

However, even if such a complaint were to be made to the Commission and was terminated by the President,^[72] only an 'affected person'^[73] can proceed with the matter in the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Service (FMS). An 'affected person' means a person on whose behalf the complaint was lodged.^[74] Therefore, unless an organisation also made a complaint on its own behalf, it would not be able to commence proceedings in the Federal Court or FMS (which is the only way to lead to an enforceable decision). Only a person who was personally aggrieved would be able to do so.^[75]

In addition to this, the Federal Court and FMS have different standing (and arguably narrower) provisions for representative complaints which must be complied with.^[76]

In light of the differences in the way in which this issue is dealt with under the federal HREOC Act compared with some of the state and territory laws outlined above (in particular, in Qld, NSW and Victoria), consideration should be given to whether legislative amendment at the federal level is appropriate.

5.2 Education

5.2.1 Public Education

Consultation participants believed that education about the religious and cultural diversity of Australians is the most important long term strategy for eliminating anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice. Participants stressed the need for more broad-based public education and for more targeted education campaigns aimed at specific groups such as young people, employers and service providers to help dispel myths and negative stereotypes about Arab and Muslim Australians.

You are not going to solve anything with punitive measures. You will only solve it with education ...^[77]

A person who is ignorant of difference and has no idea about others will discriminate ... But an educated person is more likely to show respect for others.^[78]

Participants felt any education campaign to address negative stereotypes about Islam and Arab and Muslim Australians should include the following key messages:

• Australian Muslims are an extremely diverse group and Muslims contribute in positive ways in all sectors of Australian society;
  When you talk about Islam we are not talking about one group of people from a particular religion. I mean, just look around the room here: we are all from different backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, yet we share the same faith. I think it's just easy for them to put us in a box ... It's so misinterpreted and there are so many stereotypes.^[79]
• Arab Australians also come from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds and that Arabs have made many positive contributions to Australian society;
  We want the diversity of our background to be expressed. This diversity will make them realise that you can't discriminate against an Arabic person in Australia for the actions of an extremist in the Middle East. You can't punish the entire group of people for the actions of one.^[80]
• Islam is a religion of peace;
  Islam is peace. Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and never will ...^[81]
• racial and religious discrimination and vilification is harmful and can be against the law.
  I think generally that the general public is not aware that to discriminate actively, verbally, and harass and vilify is against the law and is punishable as a crime ...^[82]

Participants believed that public education about Arab history and culture or about Islamic beliefs and customs was best conducted within a framework of multiculturalism. Many felt that singling out Arab and Muslim Australians in anti-racism education initiatives would only exacerbate prejudice, not promote understanding. Instead, consultation participants felt that the commonalities which Arab and Muslim Australians share with all Australians should be highlighted.

Education and campaigns, no matter how small or large, should focus on similarities not differences between community groups. One message should be that Islam, like all religions, is about tolerance, acceptance and freedom of speech and expression of that religion.^[83]

The concern that I have is that I don't think we should be isolating the Muslims as such and saying 'Look how different they are'. We're getting all this attention and the media is going berserk.^[84]

Promotion of multicultural principles such as respect for diversity was seen as an essential foundation of any education program to address anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice. Participants felt there should be greater emphasis on the right of all Australians, Arabs and Muslims included, to express their own culture and beliefs and to have equality of treatment and opportunity regardless of their race, culture, language, religion, location, gender or place of birth.^[85]

The strategy has to be about Australian multiculturalism and the notion of rights within multiculturalism because this is a reference which can be historically known and transferred to many different groups ...^[86]

We need to try to broaden the curriculum to make kids understand what multiculturalism's all about - that there's not just one variety of 'proper' Australian. Then you've got to get to the broader population.^[87]

It's very important [for people to learn more about what Islam is] because we do live in a society of multiculturalism. What we don't know about other people's culture and their religion is going to cause problems.^[88]

As detailed in the previous chapter, the 'Living in Harmony' program is the federal government's main initiative to promote multiculturalism. It includes celebration of 'Harmony Day' on 21 March each year and a grants program for community projects that promote harmony between people from different cultural, racial, religious or social backgrounds. In recent years, some of these grants have facilitated the development of educational resources which help promote positive public awareness of Islam and the Muslim community in Australia or of Arabic culture. For example, in 2002 the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils received a grant to foster a better understanding of Islam and the Muslim community in Australia. As noted previously, one of the outcomes of the project was publication of the information booklet Appreciating Islam which provided accessible information about the Muslim faith.^[89] The Australian Arabic Council has received Living in Harmony community grants to produce the documentaries, 'Zero to Zenith: Arabic contributions to Australia' and 'Tale of Two Peoples: Arabic and Indigenous youth in Australia'.^[90]

Consultation participants, particularly those with direct involvement in 'Living in Harmony' projects were, on the whole, positive about the program and saw its benefits in promoting multiculturalism. However, not all consultation participants were enthusiastic about 'Harmony Day'. Some felt that a focus on food, dancing and cultural exchange was superficial and detracted from the more serious underlying message of anti-racism. Many felt that a one day celebration is not opportunity enough to address the problems of prejudice and intolerance that occur during the other 364 days of the year. Others also felt that the grants distributed under the Living in Harmony program were ad-hoc and too short-term to bring about significant and lasting changes in attitudes towards multiculturalism or racism.^[91] Given that in many instances projects are small scale and locally based, most consultation participants were simply unaware of the range of initiatives funded through the 'Living in Harmony' program.

Many consultation participants argued the need for a more dynamic and eye-catching, national public education campaign to promote multiculturalism to a wider audience. To reach this mass audience, some suggested using well known spokespersons (such as sporting or media celebrities) to deliver key messages and to employ more visual forms of communication such as television or billboard posters.^[92] For example, participants suggested erecting billboards outside shopping centres informing people that discrimination is illegal and showing images of Muslim women alongside women from other ethnic or religious backgrounds.^[93] Others also suggested that bus shelters were an ideal location for posters showing positive images of people from various cultures and ethnic backgrounds. Given that bus stops were a common setting for racist conduct, participants felt it was important to provide some immediate redress in such places.^[94] Many stressed the importance of television as a medium for public education.

What I think we need sometimes is like the advertising campaign about road deaths - strong ads that tell people 'No'. Instead, what we get is images of food and dance. We don't get images of multicultural communities contributing.^[95]

What is lacking is an effective media and education campaign for the community in general ...^[96]

The use of visual formats to communicate key messages is particularly important given that people of 'white Anglo-Celtic' background are not the only ones to discriminate against and vilify Arab and Muslim Australians. Information provided during the course of the Ismaع consultations and the UWS survey and interviews suggest that long-established migrants and refugees from non-English speaking backgrounds also do so. People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds for whom English is not a first language or who have low literacy skills may be reached more effectively through visual means such as ethnic radio, television, videos or posters rather than English-language written material.

Other participants argued that encouraging personal contacts is much more effective in overcoming prejudice than expensive advertising campaigns to promote multiculturalism.^[97]

We need to show our humanity and take time to sit around a table with people, and then you will get a lot more people on side and saying that they are caring about me as a human being. They understand me as a person and therefore I will listen to what they have to say.^[98]

People are educated through their interaction with Muslim people and basically getting a better understanding of who they are and how they live.^[99]

Such personal links are being forged around Australia through initiatives such as interfaith dialogues and networks, mosque open days, and inter-school visits involving students from schools with a high proportion of Arab and Muslim students.^[100] In Chapter 4 we discuss a range of current initiatives which aim to foster understanding between individuals from different ethnic or religious backgrounds. The proliferation of interfaith networks around Australia in recent years provides a positive example of how many local and community organisations have worked to help eliminate prejudice against Arab and Muslim Australians. Exchange programs and inter-school visits between Muslim and non-Muslim or Christian schools have also fostered interfaith understanding and acceptance amongst young people.

5.2.2 Educating young people

Consultation participants suggested a variety of more detailed strategies to educate specific target groups such as young people, employers and service providers about multiculturalism and Arab culture and the Islamic faith. Educating young people was seen as a particular priority.

Let's also target the children to educate them properly about how to see the similarities in other kids.^[101]

I think people when they are young should be educated about other people and that people believe in different things and they should just appreciate the different cultures and respect them as human beings.^[102]

Improving education about racism and multiculturalism in schools is an effective way to reach young people. Schools play a vital role in preparing children and young people for effective participation and responsible citizenship in Australian society. Consultation participants recognised the importance of schools in promoting the values of equality, respect for diversity and in helping tackle racism.

Giving education to the adults is fine. But looking at the long term, within the next 20-25 years, the children will grow up to copy the adults.^[103]

Consultation participants identified three main priority areas for improvement in schools: clear and consistent anti-racism policies and programs, ongoing cultural diversity training for teachers and professional staff and review and further development of curriculum that promotes awareness and acceptance of cultural difference.

5.2.2.1 Anti-racism strategies

The goal of creating a 'socially just' schooling environment free of racism is explicitly set out in the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (the Adelaide Declaration) endorsed by state, territory and Commonwealth Ministers of Education in 1999.^[104] The Adelaide Declaration, which provides broad directives to guide schools and education authorities to achieve high quality schooling, also encourages schools and education authorities to ensure that 'all students understand and acknowledge the value of cultural and linguistic diversity and possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from, such diversity in the Australian community and internationally'.^[105]

Each state and territory education department develops and implements specific anti-racism policies and programs in accordance with these broad national guidelines. All state and territory education departments also have guidelines on grievance procedures for handling complaints about racism in schools.

While anti-racism policies and programs are the responsibility of state and territory education departments, their implementation at a local level is a matter for individual schools. As a result, there is a lack of uniformity in how racism is tackled in different schools. This was noted by several consultation participants.

It's so inconsistent. You see one school doing some really fantastic work. In the next suburb, with the same amount of NESB (non-English speaking background) kids, another school will be doing nothing and they get away with it. Opportunities for those kids are lessened; those families suffer; everyone's behind the eight ball.^[106]

In schools with good anti-harassment and anti-racism statements, we don't get problems of racism against NESB students. Some schools are problematic even though they only have a 2% NESB population.^[107]

Consultation participants felt that anti-racism policies were most effective in schools where the principal and senior staff exercised strong leadership in endorsing and enforcing them.

There is a very strong anti-racism policy at our high school that came from the principal right down, so when teachers and students see her setting an example they don't take it lightly, rather, they take the issue seriously.^[108]

At my school it's been very good. I have no complaint about discrimination. The teachers have been wonderful ... our school is made up of like 90% NESB and mainly from Arabic background and the principal has been very supportive. He always tells the teachers during the meetings that we have on a weekly basis to be sensitive to Arab students' needs.^[109]

To encourage strong, consistent leadership against racism by principals and senior staff in schools, federal, state and territory education authorities could play a greater role in promoting the goals of 'socially just' schooling as set out in the Adelaide Declaration. Specifically, there is scope for federal, state and territory governments to work together to promote the Adelaide Declaration goals of ensuring that school environments are free from discrimination based on factors such as culture, ethnicity and religion (goal 3.1) and that students understand and acknowledge the value of cultural and linguistic diversity (goal 3.5).^[110]

Collaboration between federal and state/territory education authorities to promote more consistent implementation of anti-racism policies could be fostered through the federal Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA).^[111] MCEETYA is comprised of State, Territory, Australian Government and New Zealand Ministers with responsibility for the portfolios of education, employment, training and youth affairs. The functions of the Council include coordination of strategic policy at the national level, negotiation and development of national agreements on shared objectives and interests (including principles for Australian Government/State relations) in the Council's areas of responsibility, negotiations on the scope and format of national reporting on areas of responsibility, sharing of information and collaborative use of resources towards agreed objectives and priorities, and coordination of communication with, and collaboration between, related national structures.^[112] MCEETYA is supported by a number of taskforces convened as needed to meet particular goals such as improving Indigenous education employment and training. Information provided by the MCEETYA Secretariat indicated that issues relating to anti-racism and cultural diversity in schools could be addressed by existing MCEETYA taskforces such as the Student Learning and Support Services Taskforce or the Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership Taskforce (or whatever the new configuration of these taskforces may be after a review currently being undertaken by MCEETYA).

Recommendation:

That MCEETYA consider referring these issues to the relevant taskforce for advice on best practice in implementing anti-racist education policies in schools with a view to ensuring schooling is free from discrimination based on culture, ethnicity, religion or race, and for an action plan to implement that best practice.

5.2.2.2 Training teachers

Most children, young people and parents who participated in consultations felt they had received adequate support from their teachers against prejudice and discrimination. However, some believed that individual teachers were ill-equipped to deal effectively with racism in the classroom and playground. In the few instances where teachers were reported by consultation participants to have acted in a discriminatory way, schools had responded swiftly to discipline the individual teacher. The more common complaint from students and parents was of subtle bias manifested in alleged favouritism of non-Muslim or non-Arab students and in offensive or insensitive language or behaviour used by teachers and lecturers leading class discussions about terrorism, for example, or women in Islam.

With the kids, they get verbal abuse, they spit on them, and sometimes they get physical abuse as well. The kids find it difficult to voice it out because they think nothing is going to happen anyway so why should I say it. They are reported to the teachers but nothing happens.^[113]

It is necessary to have mandatory training on culture and religious diversity as a teacher because it is the teachers who also do the discrimination, even union members. It's just that these people are in a position of power and these people are imparting their views on to the children, therefore I really think we need mandatory training in different cultures.^[114]

To ensure that teaching professionals are well prepared to administer anti-racism policies and programs and help promote respect for cultural and linguistic diversity, teachers should receive diversity training as part of their ongoing professional development. Currently, many public schools around Australia offer ad-hoc cultural diversity training for teachers. In areas with high concentrations of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or in schools with specialist programs for newly arrived migrants and refugees, teacher training in anti-racism and diversity awareness appears to be more commonplace. While in some states and territories, induction programs for new teachers includes diversity awareness and anti-racism training, there appears to be no compulsory on-going training for established teachers.^[115] The MCEETYA taskforce on Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership (or its new configuration) could develop standards for anti-racism and diversity training aimed at improving the quality of teaching and learning in schools.

Recommendation:

That MCEETYA consider referring the issue of diversity training of teachers to the relevant taskforce for advice on an action plan for implementation, as part of its commitment to enhancing teacher quality.

5.2.2.3 Curriculum

Teachers and educators who participated in the consultations described a variety of multicultural and anti-racism programs currently taught in schools that promote broad public acceptance of cultural difference.^[116] Programs such as Racism No Way!^[117] offer teachers and students online access to information about racism and racial discrimination. State and territory education authorities have also developed resources that help teachers include multicultural perspectives in teaching subjects ranging from technology courses to studies of society and the environment. The Commission has also developed a range of educational resources that explore the causes and consequences of racial discrimination. These online resources are directly linked to the educational curricula of each Australian state and territory, providing education departments and individual teachers with a clear guide as to how they can be used in the classroom.^[118] Despite these existing initiatives, many participants felt that anti-racism and multicultural education in schools does not go far enough.^[119]

Participants suggested two main improvements to curriculum: that existing curriculum be assessed with a view to correcting misinformation about Islam and Arab history and culture and that the curriculum in primary and secondary schools be expanded to provide unbiased information about all major world religions, including Islam, and major civilisations, including Arabs.^[120] Some young students were in favour of introducing compulsory study of religion as part of the primary school curriculum.

It is important to learn about other religions so that people understand each others' religions and treat them nicely.^[121]

I would like to learn about other religions. I want to learn more than about their differences, like I want to learn about all their beliefs and everything and I will respect their beliefs too. And I want them to learn more about Islam so they can respect my beliefs also.^[122]

While some teachers welcomed the idea of compulsory cross-cultural religious studies, others cautioned against further inflating an already crowded curriculum or warned about the dangers of teaching religion in public schools.^[123]

We would like people to know more about every religion. On the other hand we fear if there is too much teaching of one religion it becomes indoctrination. So you have to find a balance between, on one hand, where people label it as indoctrination and, on the other, the knowledge of what it is all about and of course as educators we have to be a leveller in between.^[124]

Some participants stressed that education about diversity must be embedded in existing curriculum rather than being hastily 'tacked on' as an optional extra. There is considerable scope for integrating education about cultural and linguistic diversity into existing education frameworks and for more active promotion of such programs by federal, state and territory education authorities. For example, there is scope to integrate a fuller discussion of human rights relating to freedom of religious belief and freedom from racial discrimination, in the 'law and rights' component of the Discovering Democracy program developed by the federal government.^[125] This program aims to help young people become responsible citizens by educating students to understand the workings of Australia's political and legal system and the history of Australian democracy. There is also opportunity to further highlight issues like racism and promote respect for cultural and religious diversity in the context of 'Values Education'.^[126] 'Values Education' includes any school based activity to promote student understanding and action based on values such as acceptance of other people's difference, inclusion and trust, respect for others and a commitment to social justice principles. The Commission suggests that federal and state education authorities consider prioritising anti-racism in the future development of values education programs and in civics and citizenship curriculum.

5.2.3 Educating service providers

Many consultation participants reported discrimination in the provision of government services such as policing, public transport, housing, medical care and social security.^[127] To address this, participants recommended diversity training for all government service providers.^[128]

If Australia is to run a migration program, then the institutions of the state have to be prepared to accept, accommodate and service them.^[129]

As service providers we must be culturally confident. There must be some criteria that say, if you want to be a sergeant, teacher or a police officer, what do you know about cultural issues and how do you demonstrate that confidence...?^[130]

Consultation participants identified diversity training for government employees, particularly police, as vitally important.

They need to know the people they are policing. There is no point in having an organisation leader or lecturer come and speak because they aren't going to run into him on the street - it's the actual kids that they are going to be working with they need to speak with.^[131]

Education has to start before they get into the force at the academy level - so they can challenge their prejudices earlier.^[132]

Make sure that all cops at all levels attend the cultural training.^[133]

Police in all states and territories receive cultural diversity training as part of basic recruitment.^[134] In 1997, the National Police Ethnic Advisory Bureau (precursor to the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau) released a national training standard policy for cultural diversity training of police across states and territories. This integrated approach to cross-cultural awareness training replaced an ad-hoc approach based on stand-alone courses that were usually tacked on to the end of training courses. Police across Australia also have access to the resource A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police (2nd edition) which covers information about a range of religions and how the police and emergency services can deliver culturally appropriate services that accommodate different beliefs.^[135]

In relation to government services more generally, there is a national policy framework for ensuring that the diverse needs of Australians are met by culturally responsive federal government services. This policy is set out in The Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society (the Charter).^[136] The Charter was launched in 1998 by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) and endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments and by the Australian Local Government Associations. It aims to remove barriers to accessing government services for clients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and recommends provision of cross-cultural awareness training for staff.^[137] DIMIA reports annually on the progress that Commonwealth agencies have made in implementing the Charter, most recently in its 2003 Access and Equity Annual Report.^[138]

States and territories also have access and equity policies and reporting mechanisms to measure implementation of access and equity standards. For example, public sector agencies in New South Wales are required to have an Ethnic Affairs Priorities Statement (EAPS) which shows how they will deliver appropriate services to a culturally diverse client group, consult effectively and inclusively, provide training for staff on cultural diversity issues and provide language services and information in ways that will reach all clients. Each year the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural NSW assesses and monitors the performance of public sector agencies, and reports on this performance in an annual Community Relations Report.^[139]

Many of the community organisations who participated in Ismaع consultations have delivered cross-cultural awareness seminars to service providers from local, state and federal government agencies to assist these agencies in better understanding and serving the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse clients from Arab and Muslim communities. General interest in these seminars has risen significantly over the last two years as has demand for more specifically tailored cross-cultural awareness seminars from government service providers such as Centrelink, TAFE and some local area police commands.^[140] Consultation participants stressed the importance of ongoing provision of such training to government service providers.

5.2.4 Employer obligations

Consultation participants and survey respondents, including those who participated in interviews, all identified discrimination in the workplace as a major issue (see Chapter 2). Religious dress, an Arabic or Islamic name or evidence of Arabic language skills were factors which participants felt impacted on their opportunities to find a job, or on their capacity for promotion or job satisfaction once they were already in employment. To address these problems, many consultation participants felt that more could be done to inform employers of their legal responsibility to ensure that workplaces were free from racial or religious discrimination.

[I want] just to know that he [the employer] knows that by law he's got no right to discriminate against anyone regardless of their physical features or whatever ... If people are aware that there is a law against this and it is enforced, then I believe it would make a difference.^[141]

Participants felt that small and medium sized employers should be the particular focus of any campaign to increase understanding and implementation of anti-discrimination laws and workplace diversity policies.^[142] Consultation participants felt that larger employers were often more aware of anti-discrimination laws and their legal obligations as employers to foster work environments free from discrimination than smaller employers. Some consultation participants also argued that employers should be better informed about how to properly accommodate the religious needs of Muslim workers, particularly regarding prayer at work.^[143]

The Commission along with state and territory anti-discrimination agencies have developed a range of educational and training resources that address discrimination issues in employment. For example, the Commission's Complaint Handling Section provides information sessions on the law and training in investigation and resolution of discrimination issues for Commonwealth government departments and national employer groups throughout Australia, where appropriate. These presentations and training sessions include provision of information on race discrimination and racial hatred and discussion of relevant case law to assist employers clarify their responsibilities under federal human rights and anti-discrimination law.^[144] The development and implementation of educational programs that promote an understanding of anti-discrimination laws is one of the Commission's core functions and it and will continue to carry out further educational programs in this area.

5.3 Public language

5.3.1 Public language - media

Throughout the Ismaع project, concerns were consistently raised by the participants about the reporting of issues relating to Arabs and Muslims locally, nationally and internationally. This issue has also been the subject of vigorous public debate and analysis.^[145] Consultation participants felt that biased and inaccurate reporting of issues relating to Arabs and Muslims is commonplace among some sections of the media and is extremely damaging. Survey respondents and interviewees also felt that increases in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice, discrimination and violence were linked to negative media portrayals of Arab and Muslims, especially on commercial television, talkback radio and in the tabloid press.

The Arabic community are either the victims or the villains. There is no room in the middle ... to show that they are just like everyone else in the community. They are either fighting or they are victim of vilification. The only way we can get into the media is to push the vilification side and that is ridiculous as there are so many good people in the community who are all working together and trying to actively encourage the community to participate.^[146]

If it's not blood and guts and shootings and disaster, they won't show you. They just want to show the very bad disasters about Muslims and if it's not about Muslims they will associate it with Muslims ... They should be more balanced in the way they report things. I am not a Muslim and I get very upset by the media.^[147]

As a citizen, I feel intellectually and emotionally persecuted by a media that refuses to take responsibility for the emotional damage it has inflicted on Australia's Arabic and Muslim communities and bluntly ignores the fact it is causing damage to Australia's social cohesion ...^[148]

Many participants felt that there is stereotyping in the media of Arabs and Muslims and that this has immediate and direct negative impacts on individuals or communities, exacerbating tensions and fostering a climate conducive to fear, discrimination and abuse.

All of our kids watch TV all of the time. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, whatever - they watch TV. There is a news update and straight away they mention 'Muslim terrorists'. So straight away it is stuck in the minds that Muslims are terrorists. So when they go back to school they will be discriminated against because they are 'Bloody Muslims' ... I think the media is the main cause because kids are picking on Muslims at school and these kids get it from their parents and their parents get it from the media.^[149]

I came as a refugee from Bosnia ... I feel inside that at any moment someone will abuse me or say something to me because every day, every time on TV, it's' Muslim fundamentalist', or 'Muslim terrorists'. Why are they looking at us as fundamentalists and terrorists?^[150]

Specific concerns raised by consultation participants and interviewees about some sections of the media included the following:

• That media reports the ethnicity and religion of Arab and Muslim criminal suspects and offenders but not uniformly for others. Further, that an offender's ethnicity and/or their religion is presented as if it caused the offending behaviour.^[151]
• That media does not provide balance in coverage of Arab and Muslim communities and fails to promote positive stories about Arab and Muslim Australians.^[152]
• That media fail to provide a fair right of reply, for example, by failing to publish letters to the editor critical of an anti-Muslim article.^[153]
• That talkback radio permits racial and religious vilification against Arabs or Muslims to go to air as entertainment.^[154]
• That journalists often get their facts wrong about Islam, Muslims and Arabs.^[155]
• That journalists tap too narrow and unrepresentative a range of spokespersons from Arab and Muslim communities.^[156]
• That Muslims are not visible or heard on 'mainstream' issues but only within the narrow confines of Muslim specific issues.^[157]
• That use of inappropriate or stereotypical images can be used to mislead or reinforce negative stereotypes against Arab and Muslim Australians.^[158]

Many consultation participants were especially upset about media commentary on the sentencing of several young men of Lebanese background charged in a series of eight group sexual assaults which took place in the Bankstown area of south-west Sydney in 2000. Both consultation participants and representatives of Arab and Muslim communities shared the outrage felt in the broader community about these crimes. The Australian Arabic Council publicly denounced the crimes and stated that the perpetrators 'deserve to be dealt with by the full strength of the law'.^[159] Equally, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils condemned the perpetrators of the sexual assaults and stated that '[t]here is no doubt that these individuals acted independently of their religious or cultural background'.^[160] They offered to the victims their 'condolences and warm words of support for the great courage that they have shown in standing against these sadistic and misguided youth'.^[161]

However, participants also felt that media coverage of the trial in 2001 and conviction and sentencing of the offenders in 2002 led to a perception that all Muslims and all members of the Lebanese community were responsible for the actions of the perpetrators.

A couple of weeks ago there was a home rape in Newington but they [the media] didn't mention their religion and ethnicity but only bring it up when they were Lebanese or Muslim. In this case the race card wasn't used.^[162]

The main problem is the media, like the way they portrayed the gang rapes and the calling for the 55 year jail sentence. Why did they have to make it a religious issue, and not encourage the same jail sentence for the priest who raped those children?^[163]

Consultation participants were not alone in expressing concerns about the impact of media coverage of this issue. In March 2004, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal^[164] overturned the conviction of one of the offenders (who was tried separately from the other four co-accused), and ordered a retrial on the basis that there had been a miscarriage of justice despite a strong Crown case against the defendant.^[165] A majority of the Court found that '[t]he feelings of anger, revulsion and general hostility to young Lebanese men that emanated from the media coverage of the trial would have lingered heavily in the atmosphere of [the accused's] trial. Its fairness and the appearance of its fairness were undermined to an unacceptable degree due to the unnecessary decision to direct back-to-back trials'.^[166]

Participants also felt that media coverage of refugee and asylum seeker issues contributed to an increase in prejudice against people of Muslim or 'Middle Eastern' background.

It makes me feel as though the whole world is against me. I don't want to switch on the news ...^[167]

I rang the radio the other day and complained about the language used about boat people. I said they are not 'allegedly' asylum seekers. They are asylum seekers ... The language that is used is used to confuse and to keep the public in the dark.^[168]

Concerns were also expressed by consultation participants that media coverage of terrorism and the 'war on terror' had also reinforced negative stereotypes that Muslims are all 'terrorists' or potential terrorists.

Media are responsible for the worst stereotypes, like Muslims are terrorists, when Islam means peace ... People think that only Muslims can be terrorists. They single out 'terrorist' as equalling to Islam.^[169]

This issue was recently acknowledged by the Australian Press Council (APC) in a press release issued in April 2004. The APC urged newspapers and magazines 'to be careful about using in their headlines terms for religious or ethnic groups that could imply that the group as a whole was responsible for the actions of a minority of that group'.^[170] Whilst acknowledging difficulties that the use of overly general terms has caused for groups such as Indigenous people and the Australian Jewish community, the focus of the press release was on the Australian Muslim community. It acknowledged that while, in some cases, the linking of words with religious connotations (such as 'Islam', 'Islamic' and 'Muslim') to terrorist groups may be, in the strictest sense, accurate, it is often unfair as 'terrorists may be Muslims, but Muslims are not necessarily terrorists, as some headlines have implied'.^[171]

Some consultation participants also expressed disappointment about what they perceived as inaccurate and biased coverage of conflict in the Middle East. This coverage also has its impacts by creating damaging stereotypes in Australia.

Just with all the media attention on the Middle East and the buzz around the Middle East, when kids found out I was Palestinian background, my nickname soon became 'terrorist'.^[172]

A Muslim organisation provided details of a complaint submitted to a local television network about bias in reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For example ... when reporting the confrontation between say a Palestinian and an Israeli, the Palestinian is described as an Islamic terrorist and the Israeli is simply called Israeli or sometimes referred to as a 'settler'.^[173]

The development and implementation of strategies to challenge stereotyping in the media was seen as essential by consultation participants to achieving the broader goal of eliminating prejudice and discrimination against Arab and Muslim Australians. Suggestions for addressing these concerns included:

• media analysis to increase media accountability^[174]
• greater awareness of minimum legal standards in media codes of practice^[175]
• development and promotion of positive stories about Arabs and Muslims^[176]
• more effective engagement between media and community representatives^[177]
• diversity training for journalists^[178]
• provision of media training to community spokespeople.^[179]

5.3.1.1 Media analysis

Allegations of factual inaccuracies and the absence of balance in reporting and commentary are issues of serious concern. The first step towards addressing these issues could be achieved by verifying these allegations through close monitoring of media content. Media analysis could help document whether there are patterns of bias in reporting of issues relating to Arab and Muslim Australians and identify potential breaches in reporting standards and anti-vilification laws.^[180] It could also assist in the recognition and encouragement of media that do present Arabic or Islamic issues in a fair and balanced manner.^[181]

Until recently, there was little in the way of such analysis.^[182] The New 'Others': Media and Society Post-September 11, the November 2003 edition of Griffith University's Media International Australia journal contains a thorough and wide-ranging analysis of media representation of people of 'Muslim and Middle Eastern' background in Australia post-September 11.^[183] Several of the articles in the collection use rigorous content analysis of specific newspapers to explore media representations of asylum seekers^[184] and Arabs and Muslims in Australia.^[185] In Dog Whistle Politics and Journalism: reporting Arabic and Muslim people in Sydney newspapers, Peter Manning, (Professor of Journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney, and the former Head of ABC TV News and Current Affairs and Head of Current Affairs at Network 7), analysed representations of Arabs and Muslims in two of Sydney's major daily newspapers in twelve months before and after 11 September 2001. He found that the media portrayal of Arabs and Muslims in these newspapers relied heavily on stereotypical orientalist notions of Arabs and Muslims as 'irrational' and 'violent' and that the newspapers presented the view that Australia is under threat from such people.^[186]

While scholarly research is an important first step in investigating the nature of media representations and assessing their impacts, community organisations have yet to fully utilise this research as a tool for education or advocacy. Several researchers, including Peter Manning, stressed the need for more assistance to allow greater involvement by community organisations in the process of media monitoring.

Arab and Muslim organizations (separately) should have media monitoring groups that can react quickly to stereotypes and prejudice and seek redress, correction or, at least, balance. The groups would need to be media-wise, have professional-level spokespeople and research resources to back their side of the story.^[187]

You can empower groups and assist them in those battles. This is just in terms of the media ... It is much better to assist communities to represent their own interests in these media ... I think on the basis of that a group should be funded to actively monitor the way they have been portrayed.^[188]

To date, there has been no systematic, ongoing monitoring of media representations of Arab and Muslim Australians by relevant community organisations.^[189] The Australian Arabic Council (AAC) conducts media monitoring on an ad-hoc basis distributing information about media bias in specific television or print reports which stereotype or vilify Arabs. The AAC does this through an 'Action Alert' email list-serve to members and associates to encourage mass action to redress particular articles or news stories.^[190] The Islamic Council of Victoria and the Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations (FAIR) also conduct ad-hoc media monitoring.^[191] These and other community organisations who participated in consultations recognised the need for comprehensive and systematic analysis of print and broadcast media. However, community organisations felt they were not adequately resourced to conduct thorough and ongoing monitoring and analysis of media representation of Arabs and Muslims in the Australian media.

5.3.1.2 Targeted information campaigns on media standards and complaint processes

Many consultation participants felt that there were few, if any, constraints or checks on the media in relation to reporting of issues relating to race and religion.^[192] However, the media are bound by the racial hatred provisions of the RDA and by racial and religious vilification laws in states and territories discussed previously. These laws must be activated by a complaint from or on behalf of people aggrieved by the reporting or commentary aired or published.

In addition to this, each of the media sectors has its own form of self-regulation which allows members of the public to make complaints about certain issues to the relevant industry body.

For example, the federal Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (Broadcasting Services Act) provides for the development of codes of practice by radio and television industry groups in consultation with the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). In developing these codes of practice, s 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act requires that community attitudes are to be taken into account regarding:

... the portrayal in programs of matter that is likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against, or vilifies, any person or group on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race ...^[193]

Once an industry code of practice has been developed, the ABA must be satisfied of certain matters before registering the code.^[194] The ABA has registered codes of practice for all broadcasting sectors (with the exception of the ABC and SBS which are notified to the ABA) which are publicly available.^[195] The April 1999 Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice stipulates, for example:

1.8 A licensee may not broadcast a program, program promotion, station identification or community service announcement which is likely, in all the circumstances, to:

1.8.5 seriously offend the cultural sensitivities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or of ethnic groups or racial groups in the Australian community

1.8.6 provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of persons on the grounds of age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, disability, race, religion or sexual preference.

1.9 Except for Clause 1.8.3, none of the matters in Clause 1.8 will be contrary to this Section if:

1.9.1 said or done reasonably and in good faith in broad-casting an artistic work (including comedy or satire); or

1.9.2 said or done reasonably and in good faith in the course of any broadcast of a statement, discussion or debate made or held for an academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other identifiable public interest purpose; or

1.9.3 said or done in broadcasting a fair report of, or a fair comment on, any event or matter of identifiable public interest.^[196]

A list of the relevant industry groups and their codes of practice are available at: http://www.aba.gov.au/radio/complaints/industry.htm

Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act, a person who wishes to make a complaint about a program broadcast by a radio or television station that is covered by a code of practice must first make a complaint to that broadcaster.^[197] If the person is dissatisfied with the station's response or if the station does not answer the complaint within 60 days, then a complaint may be made to the ABA.^[198]

These mechanisms are valuable in that they allow members of the public to raise concerns, as a first step, directly with the broadcaster concerned. However, it is noted that as the standards contained in s 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act and the racial hatred provisions of the RDA (discussed in Chapter 1) are not the same, a broadcaster that has a complaint made against it under the RDA, and who otherwise complies with the Broadcasting Services Act and the relevant code of practice, would also have to meet the standards contained in the RDA.

The Australian Press Council is the self-regulatory body of the print media.^[199] It was established in 1976 with two main aims: to help preserve the traditional freedom of the press within Australia and ensure that the free press acts responsibly and ethically. To carry out its latter function, it serves as a forum to which complaints can be made about news reports, articles, editorials, letters and images (including cartoons) in newspapers and magazines and complaints arising out of their publication (including publication on a web site).^[200] Complaints to the Press Council are treated as being against the publication, not an individual.

The Press Council sets outs out in its Statement of Principles^[201] those matters which it will have regard to in considering complaints, with the proviso that the Council 'will give first and dominant consideration to what it perceives to be in the public interest'.^[202] Included in the Principles is the following statement:

Publications should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the race, religion, nationality, colour, country of origin ... of an individual or group. Nevertheless, where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express opinions in these areas.^[203]

The Press Council also issues reporting guidelines which it describes as amplifications on particular issues arising from the Statement of Principles.^[204] In 2001, the Press Council issued a revised Guideline on the reporting of 'race'.^[205] The Guideline stipulates:

The Australian Press Council often receives complaints about the reporting of the race, colour, ethnicity and nationality of individ-uals or groups, and these raise important questions about the responsibility of the press in our multicultural society.

In the broadest terms, the Council has found that the tone and context of such reporting are usually the crucial elements in deciding whether its principles have been breached ...

The Council is principally concerned about references to race, colour, ethnicity or nationality which promote negative stereo-types in the community. It acknowledges that the question of stereotypes is not cut and dried, and much depends on the context.

The Council in principle condemns gratuitous use of offensive slang terms for minority groups. However, if someone controversially used such expressions, a publication may well be justified in reporting them in direct quotes. The Council also generally believes that the use of such terms is permissible in opinion articles, when it is to make a serious point, and sometimes in humorous articles and satire. But here again the boundaries are usually determined by tone and context.

The Council also accepts that some international situations are extremely difficult to report or comment on without causing offence to different groups in the community. For example, referring to the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" might offend some readers. But referring to it simply as "Macedonia" might offend others. The Israeli-Palestinian and Northern Ireland conflicts are other obvious examples where deep-rooted passions among readers from various backgrounds are easily inflamed, even by impartial reporting.

In the Council's view, in general, the press needs to show more sensitivity in reporting issues when minority groups are perceived in the community to be more "different" or when they are the subject of particular public debate.

For reasons similar to those discussed in relation to the Broadcasting Services Act, an organisation that has complied with the Statement of Principles and Guidelines issued by the Press Council, could still have a complaint made against it under the RDA.^[206]

In relation to individual journalists, the Australian Journalists' Association Code of Ethics^[207] forms the basis of a self-regulatory system which binds members of the Australian Journalists' Association of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (Alliance).^[208] The Code of Ethics includes