Alas Poor Yagan

Last updated

Alas Poor Yagan, from The West Australian, Saturday 6 September 1997 Alas Poor Yagan.jpg
Alas Poor Yagan, from The West Australian , Saturday 6 September 1997

Alas Poor Yagan is an editorial cartoon created by Dean Alston and published in the Australian newspaper The West Australian on 6 September 1997. The cartoon, consisting of eight panels featuring Noongar activist Ken Colbung and three Indigenous Australian children, sparked controversy due to its content, leading to a racial discrimination complaint lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The commission ruled that while the cartoon made inappropriate references to Noongar beliefs, it did not violate the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The commission's ruling, which found the cartoon to be an "artistic work" published "reasonably and in good faith", has been the subject of academic debate, with some commentators expressing concern about the broad interpretation of the exemption provided under the Racial Discrimination Act. This decision was upheld upon appeal to the Federal Court of Australia.

Contents

The cartoon was published in the wake of the return of the head of Yagan, a Noongar warrior who resisted European settlement of Western Australia, from the United Kingdom. The repatriation process was marked by internal conflicts within the Noongar community, which were publicly aired and even led to litigation in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The cartoon was seen as critical of these conflicts and was interpreted by some as insulting aspects of Indigenous Australian culture and casting aspersions on the motives and legitimacy of Indigenous Australians with mixed racial heritage.

Background

Alas Poor Yagan was published shortly after the return of Yagan's head from the United Kingdom. Yagan was a Noongar warrior who resisted the European settlement of Western Australia. He was shot dead by a settler in 1833, and his head was removed and sent to the United Kingdom for display in a museum. In 1964, it was buried in an unmarked grave in a local cemetery. The Noongar community began efforts to locate and repatriate the head in 1990. Yagan's head was finally exhumed in September 1997, but organisation of the handover "was accompanied by a degree of sometimes undignified acrimony over who had the appropriate cultural claims, by descent, to bring the remains back". [1] These conflicts within the Noongar community were publicly aired, and at one point even involved litigation in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. [2]

Publication

The West Australian provided coverage of the repatriation of Yagan's head, including the conflict within the Nyungar community. Alas Poor Yagan was published on 6 September 1997. It was critical of the fact that the return of Yagan's head had become a source of conflict between Noongars instead of fostering unity, and it lampooned the conduct of those involved in the conflict. It could also be interpreted as insulting aspects of Indigenous Australian culture, and casting aspersions on the motives and legitimacy of Indigenous Australians with mixed racial heritage. [2]

Complaint

On 24 September 1997, a complaint about the cartoon was lodged with the Race Discrimination Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The complaint was made by human rights lawyer Hannah McGlade on behalf of a group of people calling themselves "The Nyungar Circle of Elders", and comprising Albert Corunna, Richard Wilkes, Violet Newman, Mingli Wanjurri, Leisha Eatts, Robert Bropho and Ken Colbung. The complainants alleged that Alston and The West Australian had breached "s18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975". [2]

On 4 March 1998, the Race Discrimination Commissioner discontinued her inquiry into the case on the grounds that the cartoon was "an artistic work" that was published "reasonably and in good faith", and was therefore exempt from the s18c conditions under s18d of the Act. The Nyungar Circle of Elders rejected that finding, and asked for the case to be referred to the commission for public inquiry. A public hearing was held on 29 April 1999, and the findings released on 12 April 2001. The Commission found that the cartoon was in breach of s18c of the Act; specifically, it found that the cartoon:

The commission also found, however, that the cartoon was exempt under s18d of the Act, because it was done reasonably and in good faith. The reasoning was based partly on the overall coverage of the issue by The West Australian, which "provided a balance report... and an opinion which... encouraged unity in, and support of, the Aboriginal community". In such a context, the decision by then editor Paul Murray to publish the cartoon was found to be reasonable. [2]

Robert Bropho then sought a judicial review of the commission's finding, but his application was dismissed on 4 December 2002. Bropho then appealed against that decision in the Federal Court of Australia. On 6 February 2004, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Bropho to pay all costs. [1]

Analysis

According to McGlade, a number of academic commentators have expressed concern about the ruling, in particular that the protections offered under section 18c were being undermined by a broad interpretation of the s18d exemption. McGlade has argued that "it is extremely difficult to reconcile the serious finding of breach under section 18C with the subsequent finding of reasonableness under section 18D", [3] and that "obviously the adverse findings made of the Commission could have been relied upon to defeat the respondent's claim to have acted reasonably and in good faith. It appears that the complainants were placed under an impossible burden of proving explicit motive and intent.... [P]roper remedies are being denied by the responsible bodies." [4] A similar point is made by Anna Chapman, who argues that "the result of the case was a reification of dominant racial values... in prioritising non-indigenous racial narratives over Indigenous perspectives." [5]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Noongar</span> Group of Aboriginal peoples on the southwest coast of Australia

The Noongar are Aboriginal Australian people who live in the south-west corner of Western Australia, from Geraldton on the west coast to Esperance on the south coast. There are 14 different groups in the Noongar cultural bloc: Amangu, Ballardong, Yued, Kaneang, Koreng, Mineng, Njakinjaki, Njunga, Pibelmen, Pindjarup, Wadandi, Whadjuk, Wiilman and Wudjari. The Noongar people refer to their land as Noongar boodja.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yagan</span> Australian Noongar warrior (c. 1795 – 1833)

Yagan was an Aboriginal Australian warrior from the Noongar people. Yagan was pursued by the local authorities after he killed Erin Entwhistle, a servant of farmer Archibald Butler. It was an act of retaliation after Thomas Smedley, another of Butler's servants, shot at a group of Noongar people stealing potatoes and fowls, killing one of them. The government offered a bounty for Yagan's capture, dead or alive, and a young settler, William Keats, shot and killed him. He is considered a legendary figure by the Noongar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racial Discrimination Act 1975</span>

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Australian Parliament, which was enacted on 11 June 1975 and passed by the Whitlam government. The Act makes racial discrimination in certain contexts unlawful in Australia, and also overrides state and territory legislation to the extent of any inconsistency.

Human rights in Australia have largely been developed by the democratically elected Australian Parliament through laws in specific contexts and safeguarded by such institutions as the independent judiciary and the High Court, which implement common law, the Australian Constitution, and various other laws of Australia and its states and territories. Australia also has an independent statutory human rights body, the Australian Human Rights Commission, which investigates and conciliates complaints, and more generally promotes human rights through education, discussion and reporting.

Dean John Douglas Alston is an Australian cartoonist who became the editorial cartoonist of The West Australian newspaper in 1986.

Kenneth Desmond Colbung AM MBE, also known by his indigenous name Nundjan Djiridjarkan, was an Aboriginal Australian leader from the Noongar people who became prominent in the 1960s. He was appointed an MBE and an AM for his service to the Aboriginal community.

Robert Charles Bropho was a Ballardong Noongar Australian Aboriginal, rights activist and convicted serial child sex offender from Perth, Western Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swan Valley Nyungah Community</span> Former community in Western Australia

The Swan Valley Nyungah (Noongar) Community was an Aboriginal community of Noongar people at Lord Street, in the outer Perth suburbs of Lockridge and Eden Hill in Western Australia.

The Native Title Act 1993(Cth) is a law passed by the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) was established in 1977 by the Government of Canada. It is empowered under the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and to try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction. The CHRC is also empowered under the Employment Equity Act to ensure that federally-regulated employers provide equal opportunities for four designated groups: women, Aboriginal people, the disabled, and visible minorities. One member of the Commission is designated as the Accessibility Commissioner under the Accessible Canada Act. The Commission helps enforce those human rights and inform the general public and employers of those rights.

<i>Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was a case before the High Court of Australia determining that the HREOC could not validly exercise judicial power. The High Court maintained a firm position against attempts to confer judicial powers upon non-judicial bodies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Northern Territory National Emergency Response</span> Australian government intervention within indigenous Australian communities

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response, also known as "The Intervention" or the Northern Territory Intervention, and sometimes the abbreviation "NTER" was a package of measures enforced by legislation affecting Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia, which lasted from 2007 until 2012. The measures included restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and pornography, changes to welfare payments, and changes to the delivery and management of education, employment and health services in the Territory.

<i>Silberberg v The Builders Collective of Australia Inc</i>

Silberberg v The Builders Collective of Australia Inc, is a 2007 judgment of the Federal Court of Australia, and the first Australian case exploring the liability of Internet forum operators for racial vilification under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians have been described by academics and commentators as often negative or stereotyped. It is said that in issues which concern them, the voices of Indigenous Australians are drowned out by non-Indigenous voices, which present them as problems for the rest of society.

This is a timeline of Aboriginal history of Western Australia.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of skin colour, ethnicity, national origin or race. Some jurisdictions also give redress when a person is victimised on account of religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, deals with offensive behaviour "because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin" in Australia. It is a section of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which was passed by the Australian Parliament during the term of the Whitlam government and makes racial discrimination unlawful in Australia. Section 18C was added by the Keating government in 1995. The Section has been controversial and subject to much debate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substantive equality</span> Concept of equality of outcome for groups

Substantive equality is a substantive law on human rights that is concerned with equality of outcome for disadvantaged and marginalized people and groups and generally all subgroups in society. Scholars define substantive equality as an output or outcome of the policies, procedures, and practices used by nation states and private actors in addressing and preventing systemic discrimination.

Anti-discrimination laws in Australia have been enacted at both federal and state/territory levels to outlaw discrimination and harassment in a range of areas of public life. Federal law operate concurrently with state/territory laws, so both sets of laws must be followed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hannah McGlade</span> Australian lawyer, academic, and human rights advocate

Hannah McGlade CF is an Indigenous Australian academic, human rights advocate and lawyer. She is a Kurin Minang Noongar woman of the Bibulman nation and is as of May 2022 an associate professor at Curtin University's law school. She was appointed Senior Indigenous Fellow at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2016 and has been a member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues since 2020.

References

  1. 1 2 Federal Court of Australia (2004). Bropho v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16. 6 February 2004
  2. 1 2 3 4 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2001). Corunna v West Australian Newspapers (2001) EOC 93-146. 12 April 2001.
  3. ↑ McGlade, Hannah (2001). "Race Vilification Before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission". Indigenous Law Bulletin . 5 (7).
  4. ↑ McGlade, Hannah (2004). "Race Discrimination in Australia: A Challenge for Treaty Settlement". Honour Among Nations?: Treaties and Agreements with Indigenous People. Melbourne University Publishing. pp. 273–287. ISBN   0-522-85106-1.
  5. ↑ Chapman, Anna (2004). "Australian Racial Hatred Law: Some Comments on Reasonableness and Adjudicative Method in Complaints Brought by Indigenous People". Monash University Law Review. 30: 27–48.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.