Sydney is not Soweto, its Asian migrants are not coloureds, or persons of colour - South African Australian Judge Angus Morkel Stewart's decision in Faruqi v Hanson an insult to anyone who is not white
by Ganesh Sahathevan
In the recent Federal Court Australia decision in Faruqi v Hanson Mr Justice Angus Morkel Stewart (Stewart J) found at [242]:
I am comfortably satisfied that both groups of people in Australia that I have identified, being persons of colour who are migrants or of relatively recent migrant heritage and persons of colour who are Muslim, are reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended (ie profoundly and seriously), insulted, humiliated and intimidated by Senator (Pauline ) Hanson’s tweet.
The case concerned a tweet that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson directed at Deputy Greens leader Senator Mehreen Faruqi. Mehreen is Pakistani Muslim who continues to advocate for Pakistan as a senator of the Senate, Parliament Of Australia.
Senator Hanson wrote in her tweet "piss off back to Pakistan" after Senator Faruqi commented on the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
While Stewart J's has handed down highly detailed, closely argued reasons for judgement, there a number of glaring problems:
a) Migrants who are not white, indeed people who are not white , do not like being called "people of colour". While that term has become fashionable, it is demeaning and strips migrants of their identity. This writer , for example, is Ceylon Tamil, and should not have to correct some so-called progressive that he is not "a person of colour".
b) Migrants who are not white can agree,and in fact share the same ideology, as Pauline Hanson and One Nation. After all, we migrated to white Australia, not some confused version of what white Australians think Asians and Asian countries are like
c) One Nation has a strong following among "migrants who are not white", and has been fielding candidates who are not white.
In short, Stewart J's judgment seems detached from the reality of Australia as it is, even if it might be in agreement with academic and Green fantasies of what Australia should be. In fact, Stewart J seems not to understand that in his judgement a Pakistani Muslim can and has been reduced to "a person of colour".
The term "person of colour" seems to have originated, if not has much in common with the term "coloureds" devised by South Africa's apartheid regime. Stewart J was a successful member of the Durban (South Africa) Bar, having been born, bred and educated in South Arica. He was admitted to the NSW BAr in 2011 and elevated to the Federal COurt in 2019.
It does appear that Stewart J needs reminding that Sydney is not Soweto, Australia is not South Africa, and its Asian migrants are not coloureds. While it is true that as a judge in the case Stewart J is bound by the evidence before him, but then as a judge it is his decision whether to accept or reject the evidence, and what weight to give it. His decsision in Fauqi v Hanson gives credence to the derogatory term, "person of colour" by placing firmly within the Australian common law, quite likely giving it the status of a phrase that has judicial notice.
END
Comments
Post a Comment