Opposition poster for the 1866 election. Geary’s opponent, Hiester Clymer, ran on a white supremacy platform. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A racist claims to not be a racist when the racist says he or she believes we are all one race, the human race. I make the same claim. The difference between the racist’s use of the phrase and mine, is my context is not the same. I recognise difference, the need for cultural intelligence and I have an understanding of history and accept in some circumstances affirmative action is required.

I’d heard rumours the “Bolt laws” are to be repealed and my attention was drawn to an article in The Guardian, titled ‘Bolt laws’: should it be unlawful to insult people because of their race? presenting for and against arguments.

The balance here is preventing “racial” vilification while allowing free speech, something I’ve never quite been able to settle in my own mind.

I made the (quick) comment reproduced below:

I’m caught between the devil and the deep blue sea on this one.

As much as I quite clearly despise racial vilification and worry about the power of the media “educating” people into hatred via such manipulative techniques as engendering moral panic in the community, I also believe in free speech.

Where does one draw the line between ensuring penalties for what can amount to endangerment of lives (racial hatred inspired physical attacks, for example) and ensuring adequate and constructive discussion about life in a diverse world? Cultural Intelligence requires we actually discuss difference, but if we stifle discussion, we potentially stifle understanding and progress.

People like Bolt are a danger to the community, peddling hatred and nastiness rather than understanding and acceptance of diversity.

The best solution for humanity is one we are perhaps yet to determine.

Continue Reading »