VCAT rejects AMAC case

A tribunal in Melbourne has ruled that the 'Australian Macedonian (sic) Weekly' which insulted Greek people in a viciously-worded article in May 2009, did not incite racial hatred. The newspaper referred to Greeks, amongst other provocations, as "freaks of nature" and "deranged bastardly monsters" .

The Australian Macedonian Advisory Council's case against the newspaper which described Greece "as a thieving nation", came before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) last month.

Legal advice sought by the Council suggested that the article contravened Section 7 of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic), which states that, "a person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of a class of persons on the ground of the race of that class of person."

The newspaper's editor Ljubco Stankovski told the tribunal that the article had been published in the honest belief it would be of interest to his paper's readers, despite the article's "extravagant" language. The tribunal was heard by Senior Member Noreen Megay. Jeremy Rapke QC, the former Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions represented the newspaper.

In dismissing the racial vilification complaint, Noreen Megay in her nineteen-page document explaining the reasoning for her judgement said: "For the average Macedonian (sic) reader, this article is probably just 'preaching to the converted' and is not likely to stir up such raw emotion as to breach the Act."

Ms Megay added that "a commitment to free speech is an essential concept of all liberal democracies of which Australia is one," before adding that she felt, "firmly of the view that restrictions should only be placed on discourse in the most egregious of cases. In her concluding statements, Bray questioned "whether the subject matter is in the interest of the public as a whole, as distinct from one that excites the interest of two ethnic groups."

The judgement comes after a tireless campaign by the AMAC for over two years, costing tens of thousands of dollars in an effort to hold the newspaper to account.

In a statement released by AMAC following the decision, the Council said: "The danger of the Tribunal finding that the AMW article was not unlawful is that the Courts and Tribunals can be seen to be condoning the kind of racist, insidious language used in thearticle. Ms Megay saw it necessary to state that, despite her finding there was no breach of Section 7, she 'would not wish to be taken as approving the tenor of the article.' "

The AMAC added that "a further danger is that the Victorian community may perceive that there are double standards attached to racial vilification laws, in that some ethnic groups are more likely to be successful in making a complaint than others."

The Council's statement went on to suggest that there existed academic criticism of the particular legislation and similar legislation in other states: "AMAC believes that amendments are necessary to ensure the proper protection of Victorians from vilification and the maintenance of multiculturalism in Victoria."

"To-date there has been no successful racial vilification complaint made under Victorian law. AMAC finds it difficult to foresee what type of conduct or language could possibly be used to invoke a sanction under Section 7, given that the said article did not (in the opinion of Ms Megay) cross the line. AMAC considers that Section 7 is a poorly drafted and toothless provision and that it should be repealed, so as not to give false hope to people who have legitimate grievances and have been racially vilified."

The Council has the option of appealing against the decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria, and has been given legal advice suggeting that Ms Megay's judgment contained numerous errors of law upon which an appeal can be based. However, in considering whether to appeal the decision the AMAC will have to take into account the significant expenses entailed and the considerable risk of costs being awarded against it, should an appeal be unsuccessful. Treasurer of the AMAC, Ian Pelekanakis, who took the witness-stand for cross-examination during the hearing, told Neos Kosmos he was "very disappointed" wit

h the decision and that the Council would now be considering its options. AMAC has until September 28 to decide if it wishes to make an appeal.

The Council welcomes donations to help meet the costs related to an appeal and other future actions in relation to the article. Please contact the Council on 0405 713854 or email info@macedonians.com for further details.

A full copy of the VCAT judgement is available online at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1647.html