Race speech change slammed

Holt MP Anthony Byrne chatted to locals last week about the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, including Kushan Nawaganuwage, Bao Truong, Asad Asim, Hafiza Zahidee, Jonathan Jayasinha, Sarah Williams, Mendi Noori, Dani Rothwell and Shabnam Safa. Picture: DONNA OATES

By LACHLAN MOORHEAD

HOLT MP Anthony Byrne has slammed the controversial changes to the Racial Discrimination Act proposed by the Federal Government.
On Friday Mr Byrne met with a group of local students opposed to the amendments flagged by Attorney-General George Brandis last month.
Senator Brandis has confirmed the repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which will see the removal of the words “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate”, while leaving “intimidation” and adding a new offence – “racial vilification.”
Under the proposed changes Section 18D of the Act will be removed entirely, with the exemptions to be moved into 18C.
Mr Byrne said the amendments diminished protections against racist hate speech in Australia.
“The insertion of this narrowly and ineptly drafted new provision in an Act, which has a strong history of consultation and community consensus, is a disgrace,” Mr Byrne said.
He said the proposed changes would negatively impact the 26.7 per cent of Casey residents who were born in non-English speaking countries.
Former Casey youth ambassador and Afghan-born Shabnam Safa, who met with Mr Byrne last week to discuss the amendments, said there were a minor group of Australians that were “not comfortable” with the country’s cultural diversity.
“This is going to open the gates for that little group of people to express themselves and who knows to what extremes they’re going to go,” she said.
“It may seem like minor change but we don’t know what’s going to happen after if we stay quiet.
“I think the law is pretty fair. It’s been working well over the last few decades, there’s no reason to alter it.”
Victorian Liberal and La Trobe MP Jason Wood, a former police officer, has raised concerns that the broadness of the amendments would make it almost impossible to authorise a brief of evidence against anyone falling foul of the proposed laws.