It was one of my first experiences as a migrant in Australia, and one of the least anticipated. I had just got off the bus, at the wrong stop, as it turned out, and was walking, lost in a south-eastern Melbourne suburb, trying to find anything remotely familiar. Then one car passed by and from the window, someone shouted at me: “Wog!”
I stood in shock. This was 2014, not 1964, I thought, who uses the word ‘wog’? Also, what gave me away? Was it the dark hair? The fact I wore a light blue striped jacket that would be fine in Italy and southern France (I was coming home from a job interview − a failed one, if this means anything), but was really out of place in Victorian suburbia? Did it matter? It didn’t. All that mattered is I stood there, bemused, laughing in disbelief, feeling what it was to be slapped in the face with a word.
Words have been part of the national debate in Australia for quite some time now. For the past months, there has been a lot of back-and-forth on whether or not to change the phrasing of Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. The section makes it illegal to do something which could “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone based on their “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Changing − or even abolishing − Section 18c has been the focus of a crusade led by conservatives, who believe that this piece of law suppresses freedom of expression. Thirteen MPs have been part of the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights which tabled its report into the Racial Discrimination Act, after next to a year of debate. Failing to reach consensus, the committee did not make any concrete recommendations on Section 18C, putting forward options ranging from leaving the section unchanged to replacing the words “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate” in Section 18C with words like “harass” or “vilify”.
Conservatives were underwhelmed, if not disappointed, but they don’t seem keen on admitting defeat. Even if the parliamentary debate dies out they will still wage the war on words on other platforms, most notably social media. It is there that progressives and left-leaning commentators are dismissed for their ‘bleeding-heart’ ideology, when they suggest, for instance, that it is inhumane to torture kids in detention centres.
One can but marvel at the ease with which being sensitive to human rights means being ‘soft’, as if the sensible thing to do, regarding crime, drug use or the plight of asylum seekers is to show a heart of stone, and not succumb to feelings of empathy. In Donald Trump’s America, another term has become prominent in the public discourse, to dismiss progressives: ‘snowflakes’, people who are so fragile that they are prone to melt when someone even attempts to use language that they deem as offensive. The irony here is that President Trump himself has proven to be the most sensitive public figure in the US, unable to take the slightest criticism without response.
Despite using different terms to ridicule their ideological opponents, conservatives all over the world share the same hostility towards what they see as restriction to their freedom of speech − ‘political correctness’. One can only feel for these poor people, so oppressed by society’s insistance on being ‘politically correct’. We should see things from their perspective for a moment. Let’s pause and imagine how it would be if all these restrictions to freedom of speech were lifted. If Section 18c was abolished and nobody cared about being politically correct. We would all be free to spew whatever remark came in our heads upon others, calling them names and not caring. We could easily call migrants “wogs”, Asian people “chinks”, Muslims “towel heads”, Indigenous “Abos” and homosexuals “poofters”, and not be afraid if our words hurt them. The opposite of being ‘politically correct’ is being cruel. What’s impressive is that some people − those who dismiss others as “bleeding heart snowflakes” − have no problem with that.
Luckily for society, these people lost this week − twice. Not only is Section 18c unlikely to change anytime soon (Malcolm Turnbull would be extremely reckless to try to meddle with this, as the matter lies in his own hands now), but also the fear-mongers of the anti-halal movement, Kirralie Smith and the leaders of Q Society offered a public apology to the director of the Halal Certification Authority, Mohamed El-Mouelhy, as part of a settlement deal in a defamation case tried in the supreme court.
“The Q Society, its board members and Kirralie Smith did not intend to suggest that the profits of Mr El-Mouelhy’s halal certification business were in any way improperly used. The Q Society, its board members and Kirralie Smith apologise to Mr El-Mouelhy for the hurt caused to him as a result of the publications, the subject of the proceedings,” reads the statement.
Does this mean these people stopped hating Muslim people? No. Will they still try to persuade Australians that halal certification is an attack on Australian values, if not part of a business that funds terrorism, despite all evidence dismissing this idea as ludicrous? In most probability, yes. But, for a while, it’s nice to see people take responsibility for their words and apologise for the offence they’ve caused. They lost some of their pride, yes, but they saved a fortune in legal fees and damages. It pays to be politically correct.