Saturday, November 7, 2015

I Now Call on Professor Sand to...

Most curious:

"Muslim Australians experience discrimination and abuse on a daily or regular basis, according to a new report [Freedom from Discrimination] by the Australian Human Rights Commission... Groups said hostile treatment towards Muslim Australians were impinging on people's freedoms... Despite this, the report acknowledged that the Racial Discrimination Act had 'limited' ability to protect Muslim Australians, because it only covered discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic or national origin or immigrant status - not religion. This is different from Jewish Australians, as the Federal Court has found they have a common 'ethnic origin' and are therefore owed protection under the act." (Muslims face abuse, discrimination but act offers 'limited' protection, Judith Ireland/ Beau Donelly, Sydney Morning Herald, 5/11/15)

Australian Jews have a common ethnic origin?


So where does this nonsense come from?

The RDA explains:

"Religious discrimination is not, per se, made unlawful by the RDA. However the term 'ethnic origin' has been interpreted broadly in a number of jurisdictions to include Jewish and Sikh people. The Court in King-Ansell held that Jewish people in New Zealand formed a group with common ethnic origins within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1971 (NZ). Richardson J stated that: 'a group is identifiable in terms of ethnic origins if it is a segment of the population distinguished from others by a sufficient combination of shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from a common or presumed common past, even if not drawn from what in biological terms is a common racial stock. It is that combination which gives them an historically determined social identity in their own eyes and in the eyes of those outside the group. They have a distinct social identity based not simply on group cohesion and solidarity but also on their belief as to their historical antecedents'." (Chapter 3 The Racial Discrimination Act,

Check out the highlighted words. This is beyond rubbery...

Can't help wondering whether Richardson J would have written the above if Shlomo Sand (The Invention of the Jewish People, 2009) had been called as an expert witness at the time.


Anonymous said...

The Sikh people are only included for company. Otherwise it would be the singular "group" not "groups". Imagine if the Sikhs had the audacity to actually deploy the Act!

A number of other genuine ethno-religious groups not included, why?

Converts can also claim to belong to this fake definition. At least the Sydney Morning Herald mentioned this hitherto murky and obscure rort.

So much for equality before the law.

Anonymous said...

So, ridiculous as it may seem, if a group of Russian and Polish Ashkenazi Jews can claim Palestine as their racial home, two thousand years ago, can a group of Papua-New Guinean Roman Catholics claim Rome? Then, given manifest destiny, expand into the rest of Italy and fight serial wars against the neighbours?

Of course they could blame the Italians.