Slur shows why laws matter
I WOULD like to raise two points in regard to GWS veteran Heath Shaw’s insulting slur (“Apology but slur debate rages on”, Mercury, April 24).
First, in regard to the statement made by one AFL club chief executive who said “his players believed the use of audio — broadcast through umpires microphones — was an intrusion into their workplace”.
In acknowledging the football ground as a player’s workplace, the AFL has a responsibility to ensure a mentally and physically safe workplace and should be taking action, with the same vigour as they have in regard to racial slurs, to eradicate such inappropriate and belittling comments. There should be no workplace in Australia that tolerates one employee denigrating another employee by calling them a “f… ... retard” without consequence.
Second, and more importantly, Tania Rattray MLC recently put forward a proposal before the Legislative Council in Tasmania to amend section 17 of the AntiDiscrimination Amendment Bill by removing the words “offends” and “insults”. Section 17 provides an invaluable protection for people living with disability, people who face multiple barriers to meaningful participation in the community and currently report daily instances of being marginalised, ignored and excluded.
While Heath Shaw has apologised to his opponent, he has failed to recognise that his comments are not only offensive but also insulting to people with intellectual disability.
It is slurs such as this that highlight the need to strengthen, not weaken, our AntiDiscrimination Act.
Forgotten cuts
THE Mercury editorial of April 25 accurately describes the important role of community legal centres helping Tasmanians understand and defend their rights, and the wide-ranging benefits of funding access to justice services.
The Federal Attorney-General’s funding reprieve for many CLCs is welcome and well-deserved. However, it does nothing to reverse deep cuts to Environmental Defenders Offices, which have been without federal funding since 2014. In a robust democracy, access to public interest planning and environmental law advice should not depend on private donors. The Productivity Commission (among many others) has said as much. Restoring EDO funding would promote universal access to justice, and invest in helping Tasmanians protect the natural and cultural heritage which makes this such a special place.
Spell out our rights
AS we remember the mateship, courage and sacrifice of those who have served, now is an opportunity to enshrine these hard won freedoms in a Tasmanian human rights act.
In 2008 the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommended our state establish a human rights act to enhance our level of rights protection. The TLRI based its recommendation on extensive consultation and research, which found that protection of human rights in Tasmania is “partial, disconnected and inaccessible”.
A human rights act would set out the rights necessary to ensure all people live with dignity and security; provide recog- nised standards for how governments and public servants conduct themselves in dealing with Tasmanians; and protect the interests of vulnerable Tasmanians. Please visit http://www.tashumanrightsact.org and sign the petition calling for a Tasmanian human rights act. This petition will be delivered to all candidates seeking election to the Tasmanian House of Assembly or the Legislative Council from next year.
Honour Kiwis too
HAVING attended Anzac Day services in Cygnet for three years, I’m surprised that only Advance Australia Fair is played and sung and that the New Zealand national anthem is not played. Without New Zealand Anzac Day would just be Aac Day.
Please don’t misunderstand me. The services in Cygnet are lovely and a lot of effort obviously goes into the planning for them. However, I’ve attended services in Melbourne and Adelaide and always both anthems are played. Playing both anthems surely honours the fact that New Zealanders fought alongside Australians.
Real estate concern
I AM obviously missing something which the whole world seems to get, but why are rapidly increasing real estate prices such a great thing? So, my house may be worth more and if I sold my house I would have to pay more for another one, so no benefit there. If one of my children wanted to buy a house they would be reliant upon a significant contribution to their increasing deposit from me, so no benefit there.