Jackboots in cyberspace
Alan Gold
There's
an old and comforting saying that 'sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words will never hurt me.'
When
I was at school in England, when I was being taunted for being the only
Jew in a class of middle-class British kids, let me assure you that
words certainly did hurt me. Indeed, those words of antipathy and religious
intolerance from the mouths of children who couldn't possibly have understood
their significance, have proven to be my greatest motivation in working
to prevent others from suffering the same fate.
Thanks
to racial vilification laws which exist in this country, the words which
can be used in public these days tend to be far more muted. However,
the subtext and context of racially motivated communications, be they
person-to-person or in the media, are becoming increasingly subtle to
stay within the bounds of legislation, yet they are just as damaging.
We
read of carloads of youths of "middle-eastern appearance";
we read of 'Asian gangs'; we read of 'Jewish businessmen'; we listen
on radio to pundits of intolerance who whip up communal anger at best,
hatred at worst. They see no wrong in what they're doing. They believe
that they have the right of free speech on their side, and tilt at the
windmill of political correctness.
Journalists
who report that an Asian was accused of shoplifting, or a Lebanese youth
was before the courts for drug crimes, don't seem to have any comprehension
of the slander or hurt they are engendering against the entire community
by gratuitously identifying the individual's race or religion when it
often has no bearing on the case.
But
there's another side to this coin, one which is just as damaging to
minority communities. It might please the Aboriginal community for such
champions as Cathy Freeman to be identified as an Aboriginal athlete,
but is Shane Warne ever identified as a white Anglo Australian? We will
all be on much safer ground when we think of Cathy as a gold medal Olympian
and Shane as a great Australian bowler.
The
unwarranted identification of a racial or religious characteristic in
speech perpetuates the gulfs which are growing between the cultures
of our multicultural society. I'm not, of course, proposing the abolition
of identifiers where they are significant. If the religion, race, ethnicity
or persuasion of an individual is essential to the narrative, then by
all means use it…but if nothing turns on it, then better to leave
it out.
Some
years ago, feminists around the world changed our thoughts by forcing
us to change our language. Now that racial vilification is so prevalent
and finding new media for propagation, I believe that the time is right
for a fresh look at the international standards we apply for racial,
religious, ethnic and other aspects of identification. There is a frightening
growth in intolerance towards refugees, migrants, and minority ethnic
communities, not just here in Australia but throughout the world. Racial
intolerance and vilification is unquestionably on the rise. Now is the
time to work towards a new language, new protocols, and new standards
for all media, in all countries.
Of
course, the biggest problem which faces this sort of anti-vilification
challenge is the concept of freedom of speech. How often have we heard
that we must have fewer restrictions on what we can say and do, and
all in the name of freedom of speech. While the opponents of racial
vilification legislation talk about the rights of the majority to say
what they like, they always seem to forget that it's the often-powerless
minority which bears the brunt of the abuses that this very freedom
enables.
And
if you'll forgive me, I'd like to quote Kierkegaard, who said that people
demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which
they avoid.
This
is all becoming increasingly urgent because today we have a medium which
has become so powerful for spreading vilification and hatred, that a
whole new set of international laws and standards needs to be written
to protect those in our society who are powerless.
The
internet has enabled the grandchildren of Adolf Hitler, the heirs to
Josef Goebbels, to acquire a whole new audience, a world-wide community
which six months ago was estimated to be over half a billion people,
and which other estimates put at over a billion…one sixth of the
world's population…in three years time.
These
facists, proudly calling themselves neo-Nazis and wearing the unmistakable
insignia of Hitler and his stormtroopers, sprouting the age-old vilifying
canards about Jews and Asians and Catholics and Blacks, have improved
on the use of radio and newspapers perfected by Goebbels. They have
now attached themselves to the Internet, and are using cyberspace to
reach minds which are often untutored in the truth of history and open
to all manner of suggestion. Young people often wander the internet
alone, and away from the eyes of their families, and so rarely is there
a censoring or parental mind at hand when a youngster comes across a
virulent racist site.
The
vast majority of the fascists who are now using the internet as their
medium for communication are to be found in America, Germany and to
a lesser extent in Canada and the United Kingdom. Of course, there are
racial hatred and vilification sites in many other countries, dedicated
to the destruction of particular racial, religious or ethnic groups,
or those professing a particular lifestyle. But in terms of general
hatreds…hatred of everyone who isn't white, Anglo-Saxon and following
a hideously narrow branch of Protestantism…the majority originate
in America.
This
has been the case since the internet first became popular. But there's
a brand new development, something which has only just started to happen,
something which can be dated back to September 11th, something which
should worry all of us.
This
is growing conflation of the camps of the extremists. Suddenly we find
that Islamic militants and neo-Nazi Christian groups are becoming confluent
in purpose, if not confluent in ideology.
The
Simon Wiesenthal Centre Director, Abraham Cooper, calls it Trans-national
hate, in which the technology of the internet has united haters from
all around the globe, forming the most unusual of bedfellows.
Suddenly
Islamic extremists, neo-Nazis, fundamentalist Christians and other cancerous
groups from the United States to Russia, from Switzerland to Pakistan,
from South America to Japan, are all finding in each other validation
for their virulently racist ideologies.
Now
one would never, ever, have thought that a neo-Nazi skinhead from Berlin
would happily sit down in a café and discuss his ideologies with
a member of the World Church of the Creator, or an Islamic terrorist
group, but that's what's happening in cyberspace on the Internet. Because
of the invisibility of the communicators, the only thing which seems
to matter in cyberspace is the object of their hatred…blacks, Jews,
Gays…the usual pantheon of victims. These groups of haters are
sharing their ideas, reading each others' messages, supporting each
others' positions.
The
extremists in Australia, of course, slavishly follow the credos espoused
by their peers in other countries. While in this country we certainly
have our own home-grown brand of racially intolerant and prejudiced
individuals, from One Nation to the League of Rights, most of the newer
extremists have adopted the language, iconography and even the nuances
of America.
Just
as an example, let me relate to you reaction of local extremists of
the far right to the September 11th assault against America.
The News Report, which included a claim that the attacks have facilitated
the suppression of freedoms. These include the implementation of emergency
legislation, which could eventually lead to the "registration of
every man, woman and child to report to his local post office with car
keys, mortgage, bank book and cheque book" and the "military
invasion" of 120 major cities.
There
are many other instances over the past four or so years of the use of
the internet to spread racial intolerance in Australia, and to propagate
lies and distortions in order to satisfy a particular personal or group
philosophy.
Among
the most notorious, of course, is Frederick Toben of the Adelaide Institute,
who was recently jailed in Germany for denial of the Holocaust.
Toben
is one side of the division which runs between the neo-Nazis and the
self-appointed truth-seekers who inhabit that small corner of the internet
dedicated to hatred. The division is between the pseudo-scientific-historical
research 'institutes' such as David Irving's FPP and Frederick Toben's
Adelaide Institute, where they purport to examine the Holocaust in order
to verify its truth, and the virulent and odious racist and religious
sites dedicated to their own supremacy and their fear and hatred of
others who are different.
On
the pseudo-academic websites, vapid and irrelevant discussions are trotted
out, picking up on minute supposed inconsistencies in the narrative
of the Holocaust, purporting to offer proof that the Holocaust didn't
happen.
On
the other side of the divide are the pseudo-religious and neo-Nazi sites
such as the Church of Christian Identity, the World Church of the Creator
or Stormfront, hate sites which don't bother to pretend they are publishing
the truth, but merely propagate their odious libels in the hope of attracting
new converts.
This,
today, is the new battleground. This is the medium in which the latest
battle in the war against racial and religious vilifiers is about to
be fought.
So
far, the racists have struck most of the blows, because civil libertarians
and governments are still trying to reconcile the rights of citizens
and the freedom of information they deserve with the rights of minorities
to be protected.
Soon,
I hope, the battle will turn, and the vilifiers will have fewer and
fewer places in cyberspace where they can meet.
