Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – Submission from Rise Up Australia Party

Dear friends,

You may click the following link to read the official submission from Rise Up Australia Party on the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.


We hope that you were able to send yours too as the deadline was 30th April.

Let’s continue to Rise Up Australia for the preservation of Freedom of Speech and to Keep Australia Australian!

Posted on May 2, 2014 in Policies, Rise Up Australia, Sharia

Share the Story

About the Author

Responses (3)

  1. Jocelyn
    May 5, 2014 at 9:16 am ·

    Thank you so much.
    That is so helpful to read.

  2. Pat
    May 5, 2014 at 9:07 am ·

    Hi all at RUAP
    I would just like to say WELL DONE to all peoples who wrote and had input into the Discrimination Submission.
    It was well written and well thought out.

    An insightful, and comprehensive look at the pitfalls of Law, when we try to force people to go against their beliefs and God given understandings of the truth of God and His word.
    Well done again and again.

  3. Bob V
    May 2, 2014 at 10:49 am ·


    Section 18 B, C, D and E of The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 should all be repealed and nothing put in their place.

    Laws against racial or ethnic vilification are a gross infringement of free speech, because any negative or critical statement made in connection with any race or ethnic group or country can be twisted to be construed as being racial vilification. Pauline Hanson was dumped on for saying “we are in danger of being swamped by Asians” which was a perfectly reasonably assessment of Australia’s immigration system. When I was a One Nation candidate I was interviewed by El Telegraph Arabic newspaper, a very large circulation newspaper read by both Christians and Muslims, and I pointed out that just as in the Middle East the Palestinians don’t wasn’t to be swamped by the Israelis and the Israelis don’t want to be swamped by the Palestinians, Australians don’t want to be swamped by Asians, and the interviewer said that was a very good point.

    The truth is no ethnic group anywhere in the world wants to be swamped by another.

    The use of acts like the racial discrimination act in regard to vilification turn out in practice to be completely one sided. They are almost exclusively used against Europeans by non-Europeans. Most of the racial vilification in Sydney for instance in the last few decades has been carried out by Muslims against non-Muslims. Women have been driven out of suburbs like Punchbowl, Lakemba, Bankstown and Belmore by being called f……ing Aussie sluts by the Muslims who have moved in. Can they claim under the racial discrimination act?

    At a recent anti-Israel demonstration against the Max Brenner Chocolate Company in Westfield Parramatta the Muslims were apparently chanting “Death to Israel”.

    Is that racial vilification likely to incite violence? Were any of them arrested?

    The Muslims want any criticism of Islam to be classified as “racism”.

    Islam is a religion not a race and yet under racial vilification laws it has almost become generally accepted by some parts of the media that criticising Islam or objecting to the establishment of a mosqueor Islamic school, or the halal label on food, is racism. Also, as the persecution of Pastor Danny Nalliah and Pastor Daniel Scott in Victoria showed, vilification laws can cover even quoting word for word from the Koran in some circumstances.

    The only laws we need restricting free speech in regard to race or ethnic origin are laws against defamation, laws against causing
    public mischief by spreading false rumours, and laws against direct incitement to violence. The concept of being “reasonably likely to incite violence” is a total hypothetical.

    “Vilification” is a very vague word that is open to interpretation.

    Vilification can be just robust criticism. If words or an act incite hatred against a person or a group of persons, as the proposed amendments to the act express it, that may be a completely unintended consequence of the perpetrator of the words or act. An accurate statement about the disproportionate predominance of an ethnic group in crime statistics, for instance, could incite hatred against that ethnic group. Does that mean such a statement could not be made? Criticism of any of the practices of Islam like polygamy or FGM might incite hatred against Muslims. Does that mean such criticism should not be made? In the minds of some people inclined that way anything can incite hatred. Causing fear in members of an ethnic group may also be an unintended consequence of words or an act in connection with that group.

    “Standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” as described in the proposed amendment is also a very vague concept. In a court of law the standards will be those of the judge, magistrate or commissioner which are never the same as “Standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” and are usually biased in favour of non-Europeans against Europeans.

    I consent to having this made public.

    BOB V

Back to Top