Australian position on Macedonia

[George S.]

What a anti macedonian this guy is.The last thing on his mind is to admit to the truth.

[Makedonska_Kafana]

What a anti macedonian this guy is.The last thing on his mind is to admit to the truth.

George, he's not anti Macedonian he's anti common sense - blind, zaspan, tenake. I'm, a bit surprised how piss poor some of his knowledge and information is and he should know better then to fuck with me ie. you taking meds, tsarknias, bitove etc.

He, doesn't know as much as many here - he's been working part time for many years and thank God for Google translator.

[makedonche]

Wow, this lesson is just as fascinating as I imagined it to be. Where is the elephant?

rujnovino
I'll narrow it down for you since you are having comprehension difficulties, here you go:-

UNITED -
–adjective
1. made into or caused to act as a single entity: a united front.
2. formed or produced by the uniting of things or persons: a united effort.
3. agreed; in harmony.

Since we are having a discussion it's your turn to show me how the 3 above points can be accurately attributed to UMD and their use of the title.

[Pelister]

I think you're being extremely misleading by even mentioning UMD in the same post as achievements orchestrated by the Canadian Macedonian community, whist your generalised attack on the Australian Macedonians is childish and petty.

I think he is too. UMD will lay claim to every Macedonian "acheivement" for as long as UMD has been around (about 5 years!). Its supporters you can bet will be doing the same thing. I've noticed how UMD has dominated the air waves and public spaces - what are we talking about here, 300 members, more? The illusion is that it is everywhere and doing remarkable things, when hard evidence has proven once again that they are 'political whores' (a phrase the tipped Maknews over the edge, particularly in reference to people like Meto Koloski and his clique who asked for a name change.) The longer this charade goes on the more I realise that no one has asked for recognition, yet. Gruevski isn't asking for recognition, what he is doing is exporting the idea to the entire world that our identity, is OPEN to negotiation, as far as he is concerned, and will remain that way, even though the Macedonian people are against it.

[Makedonska_Kafana]

Since we are having a discussion it's your turn to show me how the 3 above points can be accurately attributed to UMD and their use of the title.

In, order to answer the above truthfully he must make a premeditated choice to lie for the UMD. In, his reckless attempt to assist the UMD he has brought more shame (honesty) and a reason why people must think twice about anything they have to offer .. he, can't bail on them now he's in way over his head and feels some sense of responsibility.

I'm ready to hear that reply - it's showtime

[makedonche]

In, order to answer the above truthfully he must make a premeditated choice to lie for the UMD. In, his reckless attempt to assist the UMD he has brought more shame (honesty) and a reason why people must think twice about anything they have to offer .. he, can't bail on them now he's in way over his head and feels some sense of responsibility.

I'm ready to hear that reply - it's showtime

MK
I don't expect him to reply or even attempt to answer the questions, my guess is he will deflect, ignore or flippantly skip over the issue at hand, despite laying it out in front of him, he will more than likely come back with another question in order to avoid having to answer. Ka sho ti reche ponapre - tenake!

[Vangelovski]

Pension Agreement between Macedonia and Australia

I've just recently been informed by a number of Macedonian pensioners living in Australia that Centrelink has sent them forms and told them that they have to fill them in outlining work they have done in Macedonia otherwise they will have their Australian pensions cut.

Does this mean that their Australian pensions will be reduced proportionally to the amount of time worked in Macedonia and that they will then have to claim Macedonian pensions for the time worked there?

Denars are not the local currency. I'm starting to suspect that we have been given a dud deal.

[Makedonska_Kafana]

MK
I don't expect him to reply or even attempt to answer the questions, my guess is he will deflect, ignore or flippantly skip over the issue at hand, despite laying it out in front of him, he will more than likely come back with another question in order to avoid having to answer. Ka sho ti reche ponapre - tenake!

He, was here earlier and made a choice to read and make no public comment (fled) at that time. He, tends to return after midnight Toronto time so he's still at the library looking up many words and definitions.

Does he think we're playing some sort of ethnic game here? Well, he will come to learn that the games ended 20 years ago.

[DirtyCodingHabitz]

You can only take your age pension forever, other pensions only for 3 months and then they stop sending.

[makedonche]

He, was here earlier and made a choice to read and make no public comment (fled) at that time. He, tends to return after midnight Toronto time so he's still at the library looking up many words and definitions.

Does he think we're playing some sort of ethnic game here? Well, he will come to learn that the games ended 20 years ago.

MK
Pretty easy to come and go, chuck a few comments here and there, duck and weave, dodge and avoid, shit...reminds of some overseas politicians!

[Makedonska_Kafana]

MK
Pretty easy to come and go, chuck a few comments here and there, duck and weave, dodge and avoid, shit...reminds of some overseas politicians!

At, some point in time he'll wake up (hopefully) to find an empty house where he can do what he wishes; however, until that time he will continue to get a major beating in the name of the UMD.

God, gave him two hands and it's time for him to use them - switch!

[makedonche]

rujnovino
I'll narrow it down for you since you are having comprehension difficulties, here you go:-

Since we are having a discussion it's your turn to show me how the 3 above points can be accurately attributed to UMD and their use of the title.

rujnovino


What happened to the discussion we were having? Here's a clue, it's your turn to respond now! Try and answer some of the questions that have been put to you, they remain unaddressed to date!

[Makedonska_Kafana]

rujnovino


What happened to the discussion we were having? Here's a clue, it's your turn to respond now! Try and answer some of the questions that have been put to you, they remain unaddressed to date!

nema mundi, skopen e sto po sto >>>>>>>> walk-in-closet filled with dresses and makeup aka user names

[George S.]

Like snagglepuss exit stage left.If the big boss meto can do it why can't a fellow umdian do it.

[lavce pelagonski]

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/1647.html

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council Inc. v LIVV Pty Limited trading as Australian Macedonian Weekly (Anti-Discrimination) [2011] VCAT 1647 (30 August 2011)

Last Updated: 6 September 2011

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LIST

VCAT REFERENCE NO. A41/2011
CATCHWORDS
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, section 7, whether article in ethnic weekly newspaper incited hatred or other relevant emotion on the ground of race



APPLICANT

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council Inc. (“AMAC”) on behalf of James Papadopoulos, Con Kouremenos, Christine Stavropoulos and Ian Pelekanakis
RESPONDENT

LIVV Pty Limited trading as Australian Macedonian Weekly
WHERE HELD

Melbourne
BEFORE

Noreen Megay, Senior Member
HEARING TYPE

Hearing
DATE OF HEARING

3 and 4 August 2011
DATE OF ORDER

30 August 2011
CITATION

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council Inc. v LIVV Pty Limited trading as Australian Macedonian Weekly (Anti-Discrimination) [2011] VCAT 1647

ORDER


The complaint is dismissed.
Noreen Megay
Senior Member






APPEARANCES:

For Applicant

Mr T Hurley of counsel
For Respondents

Mr J W Rapke QC, senior counsel

REASONS

Background

The complainant AMAC is an incorporated association and the other complainants are, or were, office bearers of the association. According to its website, AMAC is an “Hellenic-Australian non-profit political synergy, established in 2008 for the welfare and advancement of the Greek-Australian community. The chief concern of the AMAC is to edify, preserve and promote Hellenic civilisation in Australia with specific emphasis on the origin, history and culture of Macedonia. Where possible, it clarifies distortions of events aimed towards the falsification of Macedonian history through the illumination of historical truth, thereby safeguarding the kernel of Hellenic heritage for the sake of posterity.”
The respondent company publishes a weekly newspaper entitled Australian Macedonian Weekly. The newspaper is published mostly in the Macedonian language with the occasional article in English. It is produced in paper form and is sold by newsagents and other retailers. The hard copy version uses the Cyrillic alphabet. An electronic version appears on a website and its readers can choose between Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. Its editor (and sole director and shareholder) is Mr Ljupco Stankovski. He prints 5,000 copies each week with approximately 2,400 copies being distributed throughout Victoria, the balance throughout Australia where there are large Macedonian communities.
The 19 May 2009 edition (at page 27 of 60) carried an article headed “Who in this celestial world gave the Greeks the right to take away the Macedonian language?”
Apart from page 26 (which included four English language articles on a related subject matter), a small article on page 60 about a Melbourne Victory result and various advertisements, it was the only other English-language article in the entire 60-page edition.
The article in question is said to be written by someone who calls himself “Gandeto” and is date-lined 14 May 2009. The editor was sent a copy of this article from overseas. He received it on 16 May 2009 and having read it, decided to publish it. On 17 May he suffered a stroke which left him in a coma for two months and in hospital until the end of the year.
Following publication of the article Mr Kiritsis, the executive director of the complainant, wrote a series of letters to the respondent. Those letters were dated 29 July 2009, 12 August 2009, 15 August 2009, 25 August 2009, 9 September 2009, 16 September 2009 and 1 September 2010. Only two of them referred specifically to the article in question; the balance took the form of complaints about the publication of some“geographical maps” and an earlier article entitled “Sex, Alexander the Great and a dog called Dora” the content of which is unknown to the Tribunal. There is no doubt that the major cause for concern expressed in those letters was the latter article, not the Gandeto one.
On 14 August 2009 AMAC was informed of Mr Stankovski’s stroke and on 14 September 2009 his son sought further particulars of the complaints. Notwithstanding the grave illness of the publisher, the complainants took their grievance to the Press Council on 30 September 2009 but as the Tribunal understands matters, their complaint was not able to be dealt with. On 24 September 2010 they filed a complaint with the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. Attempts to conciliate the dispute were unsuccessful and on 27 January 2011 the matter was referred to this Tribunal pursuant to s.117(3) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995.
Because it will be necessary consider the article in its historical and social context, some explanation is required. The article commences with a statement attributed to the Greek Prime Minister Harilaos Trikoupis who led Greece from 1882 to 1895. The quote is as follows:

“When the Great War comes, Macedonia will become Greek or Bulgarian, according to who wins. If it is taken by the Bulgarians, they will make the population Slavs. If we take it, we will make all of them Greeks.”

One gains the flavour of the article from the following paragraphs headed “Does it make any sense?”

Harilaos’ prophecy came true and in the Great War of 1912-13, Greeks – with the support of the western nations who reeked with chauvinism and hypocrisy – took Macedonia for the first time in their history. Ever since then, this thieving nation meticulously engaged its fascist army in destroying anything Macedonian and replacing it with Greek. To put a permanent imprint on a land they never owned before, they uprooted the ethnic Macedonians from their ancestral lands; burned and defaced any Macedonian artefact found connected to the past, transplanted refugees from Asia Minor and spread their gruesome poisonous propaganda throughout the Macedonian land. By erasing the Macedonian legacy, these fascist Greeks felt that they can eliminate and wipe out all potential witnesses from ever challenging the newly established status quo.

While with time, I think, we can forgive their zealousness for replacing the Macedonian toponyms. We can also overlook their crime in ethnically cleansing people from their homes. We can ignore the fact that they have burned our books written in the old Macedonian language. We can, perhaps, disregard the atrocities committed during the war; we’ll even discount the murders perpetrated in the name of Hellenism; we can forgive the delusional Greek zealots from erasing the Macedonian written language from the Macedonian churches and monasteries. Furthermore, we can close our eyes to the everyday torments inflicted on those ethnic Macedonians who elected to stay in their ancestral homes and take a chance under the hated Greek occupation.

I think we can, somehow, manage to convince ourselves to let everything stay in the past

The article continues:

But what we cannot overlook, what we cannot ignore, what we cannot disregard, cannot forgive, cannot close our eyes to, and we cannot ever remain silent about is the fact that these Greek zealots, these Greek deranged bastardly monsters took the Macedonian language away from our Macedonian children. That is what we’ll never, in a million years, be able to overcome and put behind us. That we cannot do.

How can a stinking Greek teacher and spy-for-a priest religious person denigrate, disparage, malign and ridicule the language of a child spoken by his mother and grandmother. How can a first grader be made to feel inferior because he does not speak Greek? How can a butcher-for-a-priest refuse to baptize a child with a name given by his parents?

.......

Who gave a right to these freaks of nature to impose their ugly nature on other populations

....

What evil alien abstraction possessed your dark soul to deprive a child from learning its mother’s songs? What barbaric wickedness obliterated your senses to deprive the children from learning their traditional cherished bedtime stories and songs, saved and propagated for generations on hand? Just what morbid urge, what dark indomitable fear prompted you to act with such horrible ferocity against defenceless population entrusted under your care?

Fast forward from the 19th century to 1913 and then to 1945 which saw the commencement of the communist Republic of Yugoslavia under Prime Minister Tito comprising Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Macedonia, Slovenia and Montenegro. Tito died in 1980 and without his influence, ethnic and nationalist differences began to flare and the disintegration of the union began. Slovenia and Croatia were first to declare independence followed shortly thereafter (in January 1991) by Macedonia. It became a parliamentary democracy.
In an article annexed to Mr Stankovski’s statement, Professor Loring Danforth (the Professor of Anthropology at Bates College Maine USA) set out the background to what is now colloquially known as “the naming dispute.”

As Yugoslavia finally began to collapse in the early 1990s, the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, in a referendum held on September 8, 1991, voted overwhelmingly in favour of initiating the process of establishing a completely sovereign and independent Macedonian state.

The fledgling state of Macedonia, however, faced a difficult struggle for international recognition because of the fierce opposition mounted by Greece to what Greeks claim to be a misappropriation by a Slavic people of the name Macedonia, a name that “was, is, and always will be Greek.”

In December 1992 the Republic of Macedonia applied for membership of the United Nations. On 8 April 1993 the General Assembly decided to “admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.”
The “naming dispute” persists and remains unresolved. According to Professor Danforth’s article the Greek nationalist position is that “because Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians were Greeks, and because ancient and modern Greece are bound in an unbroken line of racial and cultural continuity, it is only Greeks who have the right to identify themselves as Macedonian, not the Slavs of southern Yugloslavia, who settled in Macedonia in the sixth century AD and who called themselves “Bulgarians” until 1944.”
Two reviews serve to inform the ongoing discussion of the competing parties. Human Rights Watch (formerly Helsinki Watch) published a review of information gathered by a fact-finding mission in the Macedonian region in northern Greece in July 1993. Human Rights Watch is a body established in 1978 to monitor and promote domestic and international compliance with the human rights provisions of the 1975 Helsinki accords.
In February 2009 a report by an Independent Expert on Minority Issues (Mission to Greece) was presented to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly.
The Tribunal is not required to express any view on the conclusions contained in these reports save to note that they indicate incidents which, if correct, would serve to authenticate many of the claims that underpin the denunciations in the article in question.

The legislation

The purposes of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (“the Act”) are set out in section 1.

The purposes of this Act are—

(a) to promote racial and religious tolerance by prohibiting certain conduct involving the vilification of persons on the ground of race or religious belief or activity;

(b) to provide a means of redress for the victims of racial or religious vilification

Section 4 sets out the objects and provides –

(1)The objects of this Act are—

(a) to promote the full and equal participation of every person in a society that values freedom of expression and is an open and multicultural democracy;

(b) to maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment does not vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons;

(c) to promote dispute resolution and resolve tensions between persons who (as a result of their ignorance of the attributes of others and the effect that their conduct may have on others) vilify others on the ground of race or religious belief or activity and those who are vilified.

Section 7 makes racial vilification unlawful and provides that-

(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct—

(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and

(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

“Race” is defined in the Act to include “(a) colour; (b) descent or ancestry;(c) nationality or national origin”.
Section 9 deals with the irrelevancy of motive and dominant ground and provides -

(1) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.

(2) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons is the only or dominant ground for the conduct, so long as it is a substantial ground.

Section 11 sets out some exceptions and provides –

(1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith—

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for—

(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1)(b)(i), a religious purpose includes, but is not limited to, conveying or teaching a religion or proselytising.

The complainants’ case

The complainants contend the respondent has breached section 7 of the Act, They say that the article constitutes racial vilification at three levels, namely-
The article as a whole;
The structure of parts of the article; and
Some specific words and phrases in the article.
They contend that the article describes the beliefs of “modern/contemporary Greeks” and is not expressing views of antiquity. They conclude this is so by virtue of reference to “modern Greeks, “Greek zealots” and references to Greece being undemocratic and “run by a government composed of zealots that only the brave few resist”.
They contend that the paragraphs repeated in paragraph 9 herein contain a peroration or exhortation leading to the denunciations set out in paragraph 10 herein (after the section in bold type) and the dramatic effect of the writing makes the words more effective in inciting hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of the Greek race. Further, other paragraphs contain statements that criticise the Greek race as one which is unable to maintain a real democracy, that endangers and oppresses ethnic minorities and can only produce a government that is run by hot headed brainwashed nationalists who dwell in the middle ages. They maintain that the concluding paragraphs of the article constitute a patronising statement that the Greek race is only capable of creating a country deficient in human rights, poor and on a downward spiral.
Their other contentions relate to various phrases which the complainants contend hold the Greek race up to hatred, serious contempt, or revulsion or severe ridicule because they portray members of the Greek race as having a capacity to perform and accept things that civilised persons do not. Such phrases are :
“a thieving nation”
“these Greek deranged bastardly monsters”
“stinking Greek teacher and a spy-for-a-priest”
“a butcher-for-a-priest”
“freaks of nature”
“deranged monsters”
“evil alien abstraction”
“what evil spirits possessed your moronic conscience
“predisposed to such ghastly monstrosity”
The Tribunal heard viva voce evidence from Mr Ian Pelekanakis who is a member of the complainant body and also its treasurer. In addition the Tribunal accepted into evidence three statements in support of the complainants’ case. One was from Leyshon Betts and the other from Professor Melville-Jones. Neither is of Greek descent and both stated that in their view the article breached the Act because of its offensive and abusive language. A third statement was received from Peter Jasonides who is of Greek extraction; in his view the impassioned tone of the article and its disparaging characteristics were malign and stimulated racial hatred.
Mr Pelekanakis told the Tribunal that the article’s author had used alleged historical events to abuse today’s Greeks and to portray them as racially inferior, evil and wicked. He said the article had been brought to his attention and he had then purchased a copy of the paper. He neither reads nor speaks Macedonian. The article was discussed at length at board level resulting in a decision that “something had to be done” about it.
In cross-examination he agreed that the naming issue was a “running sore” and that it had remained so since 1991. He insisted that the article had a dehumanising intent and was an attempt to portray Greeks as racially inferior, evil and wicked.

The respondent’s case

Mr Stankovski gave evidence as to how the article came to be published and why he thought it suitable for publication. It is clear that he is still unwell but his explanation is best summarised by some paragraphs from his written statement. He stated –

....because of the small overall population, the [Macedonian] community, whether at home or abroad, is very cohesive with a strong sense of ethnic identity. It is united by the Macedonian language, by its own church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church. There is a high level of inter-marriage between Macedonians. Extended family groups are common. In Melbourne the community is highly organised around the churches, cultural groups, sporting clubs and social activities.

In Melbourne, two newspapers as well as ethnic radio and television programs reinforce community cohesion and identity. The internet is used by many groups of Macedonians, and facilitates contact internationally. A Macedonian resident in Canada emailed the article complained of to the newspaper. The article that was forwarded to us was published in Canada a few weeks before we received it. We published it in the same format in which it was forwarded to us. As editor I considered it appropriate for publication as in my view, its content was a matter of public interest for the Macedonian community. The issues raised were topical and current and of concern to Macedonians in Australia and worldwide. In addition, the article coincides generally with Macedonian’s ongoing attempts to join the European Union, NATO and the United Nations under its constitutional name (the “naming dispute”)

.......

The article was published in the honest belief that it would be of interest to Macedonian readers, and that it was a matter of political significance and as such was worthy of discussion. There was no ulterior motive in publishing it. I believed in the truth of the statements made in the article, even though the language may have been extravagant in parts. It was my view that the public interest in the publication lay in educating and acquainting Macedonians in Australia of the history, heritage and nuances in dispute. I also felt the publication was able to remind Macedonians of the importance of these issues.

In cross-examination he was asked the following:

Q. If someone said of Slavic Macedonians that they were evil abstractions or freaks of nature, you would agree with me that is something that would hold Slavic Macedonians up to ridicule or contempt”

A Yes

Do you agree with me that if an article is written in Hobart which said something of American Indians that they were freaks of nature or evil alien abstractions would not those America Indians be entitled to say that they had been ridiculed?

Yes

In re-examination it became clear that Mr Stankovski’s grasp of English was less than fluent and that his ability to explain the meaning of various words was less than adequate. It was also apparent to me that he was unwell.
There were other witnesses for the respondent. The Tribunal heard from Aneta Kotevski and received various statements. Predictably each of the witnesses was either born in Macedonia or one or both of their parents were. The thrust of their evidence was that the article was to be read within its historical context and pointed out that the article assumes a certain knowledge of history and in particular of the annexation by Greece of Macedonia in 1913 and the subsequent and long-running naming dispute.

Discussion

The evidence before the Tribunal is predictably partisan and frankly of little assistance. The Greeks say the article vilifies them and incites hatred; the Macedonian Slavs (if I can call them that without being accused of using a pejorative term) say it is an article of interest to Macedonians and its utility is to educate and inform Macedonians living in Australia.
The first matter for me to decide is that of the right of the complainants to bring this action. As I understand the claim, it is brought pursuant to the representative provisions of the Act. Section 19 sets out who may take a complaint to the Commission. The relevant sub-sections provide as follows:

(3) A representative body may complain to the Commission on behalf of a named person or persons if the Commission is satisfied that—

(a) each person named in the complaint—

(i) is entitled to complain under subsection (1)(a); and

(ii) has consented to the complaint being made by the body on the person's behalf; and

(b) the representative body has a sufficient interest in the complaint; and

(c) the alleged contravention arises out of the same conduct.

(4) A representative body has sufficient interest in a complaint if the conduct that constitutes the alleged contravention is a matter of genuine concern to the body because of the way conduct of that nature adversely affects or has the potential adversely to affect the interests of the body or the interests or welfare of the persons it represents.

(5) An authorisation under sub-section (1)(b)(i) may be given—

(a) in writing; or

(b) in any other manner approved by the Commission.

I accept the evidence given by Mr Pelekanakis as to the genesis of the complaint, the reason for it and his explanation of how the subject matter of the complaint is viewed as a matter of genuine concern to the organisation of which he is a member and office bearer. This is so notwithstanding that the emphasis in most of the “pre-complaint” communications related to other matters.
The starting point for any analysis of matters arising under the Act is the Preamble to it, an unusual addition to the legislation in itself. The opening words of the Preamble are-

The Parliament recognises that freedom of expression is an essential component of a democratic society and that his freedom should be limited only to the extent that can be justified in an open and democratic society.

This makes it crystal clear that Parliament intended this Act to be interpreted with care and a degree of rectitude. Indeed, Neave JA, in Catch the Fire highlighted that approach at paragraph 173 where she stated –

The legislation aims to strike a balance between protecting freedom of speech and protecting people from vilification on the grounds of their race and religious belief. It would inconsistent with this aim to interpret the legislation so as to make it impossible for people to proselytise for their own faith or to criticise the religious beliefs of others.

That line of argument was considered in some detail in Walsh v Hanson [2000] HREOCA 8 and the sentiments expressed by the Commissioner bear repeating. The case involved Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party and the publication entitled “Pauline Hanson The Truth”. In the publication there were claims that aboriginals practised cannibalism and that they ate babies. Complaints were made about parts of the book although many aboriginals objected to it in its entirety. Ms Hanson defended the book (although she was not the author, she owned copyright) saying people needed an alternative to the noble savage picture of aborigines being taught in schools and universities. Having concluded that the nature of the publication was political, the Commissioner had this to say –

It is without doubt a grave matter to restrict or control the free expression of political thought. Such restrictions have frequently been imposed in the name of some good said to be so important that its promotion or preservation justifies the restrictions. I think care has to be taken not to suppress genuine political expression, even when that expression, either in form or content or both, may be repulsive to the majority of the community.

It is a concomitant of political freedom that political activists, especially those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum of ideas, will from time to time, even frequently, hurt and offend other members of society. It seems to me that we must be mature enough to accept that as a price that we must pay for the privilege of living in a society where political expression is to remain free and unfettered. This is so no matter how odious to the majority some of the fringe manifestations of that freedom may be.

The leading case in this jurisdiction is Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc & Anor [2006] VSCA 284. This was an appeal from a decision of this Tribunal that two Pentecostal pastors, and their evangelical organisation Catch the Fire Ministries, had engaged in religious vilification of Muslims in statements made at a public seminar held in 2002 and in articles published in 2001.
In his comprehensive judgment Nettle JA traversed the terms of the Act and made a number of salient points which have resonance in the case before me although I am not persuaded that I should just replace the word “religion” with “race” and assume that Catch the Fire contains a complete dossier of answers for matters arising where “race” is the sole element. This is because there are some necessary differences. For instance, in most cases, religion is a choice whereas race is not and one might ponder whether standards should be applied differently when considering whether racial laws (in circumstances where the person being racially vilified has no ability to choose) have been breached. That said, his Honour’s instructive judgment provides comprehensive guidance on a number of facets of the matters before me.
Under the heading “The meaning of ‘incites” his Honour dealt with the prevailing view that had arisen from the a decision of the NSW Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Ltd [2000] NSWADT 77. In that case, the Tribunal was considering the effect of s.20C of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) which provides –

“It is unlawful for a person, by public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or member of the group.”

At paragraph 13 his Honour stated:

The New South Wales Tribunal took the view that the word “incites” in s.20C should be given its ordinary meaning “urge, spur on, stir up, animate, stimulate to do something.” It also held that the operation of s.20C was not limited to what it called “actual incitement” and thus that it was sufficient to engage the operation of s.20C that conduct appear as likely to stimulate hatred, serious contempt or serious ridicule. That meant, it was said that one was to ignore any special characteristics or proclivities to which the audience or potential audience might be subject and to assess the matter by reference to the standard of the ‘ordinary reasonable reader”. In other words, one was to assume a “person of fair average intelligence who is not perverse, morbid, suspicious of mind or avid for scandal.”

In my view, however, that reasoning is not altogether apposite in relation to s.8 of the Act. That accords with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word and also with the criminal law’s conception of incitement, upon which s.8 appears loosely to be based. I also allow that incitive conduct is capable of contravening s.8 without necessarily causing hatred or serious contempt or revulsion or serious ridicule. As with the common law criminal offence of incitement, I view s.8 as directed to inchoate or preliminary conduct, whether or not it causes the kind of third party response it is calculated to encourage. In that sense, the section is prophylactic. But that said, I do not accept that one should exclude from consideration the nature of the audience to whom the conduct is directed.

It strikes me that even if the reasoning of the NSW tribunal remains entirely apposite in the case of race, in the circumstances of this matter, in its particular factual context and the Court of Appeal’s commentary about audience, I should not deal with incitement on the basis of whether or not the article is likely to stimulate the relevant emotion absent any consideration of the potential audience.
His Honour went on to state that the idea of the ‘ordinary reasonable reader’ arises from defamation law which has as its object the protection of individuals against false allegations calculated to lower them in the esteem of others. He continued –

Contrastingly, s.8 does not prohibit statements about religious beliefs per se or even statements which are critical or destructive of religious beliefs. Nor does it prohibit statements concerning the religious beliefs of a person or group of persons simply because they may offend or insult the person or group of persons. The proscription is limited to that which incites hatred or other relevant emotion and s.8 must be applied so as to give it that effect.

Neave JA took a slightly different view and concluded that because of publication on the web site and because anyone could have read the material on the website, the Tribunal was required to consider whether its effect was likely to incite hatred and other relevant responses among “a broad audience.”
Nettle JA went on to consider the nature of the audience to whom the conduct is directed. At paragraph 16 he continued:

If conduct is to incite a reaction, it must reach the mind of the audience. And if conduct is to be perceived as inciting a particular reaction, it must reach the mind of an audience as something which encourages that reaction. So, for conduct to incite hatred or other relevant emotion it must reach the mind of an audience as something which encourages those emotions. So, therefore, the question of whether it has that effect will depend upon the perception of the audience.

17. Of course, where statements are published generally as they might be in a book or newspaper or by posting on a web site, one may need to have regard to all manner of persons who are likely to see them and absorb them. But it is otherwise where the audience is select.

18......Parity of reasoning with the law relating to misleading and deceptive conduct suggests that s.8 has in view the effect of conduct on a reasonable members of the class of persons to whom the conduct is directed. But for the reasons already expressed, the perception of a reasonable member of the class of persons to whom conduct is directed will not always be the same as the perception of the so-called ordinary reasonable reader. ....

19. So to say does not deny “the ordinary reasonable reader” a role in the assessment of religious vilification. As will be seen, he or she or at least something very like them has a large role to play in the application of s.11. But for the purposes of s.8 I think the test is different. It is a question of whether the natural and ordinary effect of the conduct is to incite hatred or other relevant emotion in the circumstances of the case.

It is abundantly clear that it is necessary to construe the article as a whole and not to take individual phrases in a piecemeal fashion and construe the effect of each individual phrase. The cases are ad idem on this point and it follows that I reject the submission of counsel for the applicants that I should consider the individual slurs one by one.
It is necessary to view the entire article against the backdrop of historical context and the dispute which has arisen between the two communities and the antipathy generated by that dispute. The question to be asked is whether the article, as whole, in its historical and social context, amounts to incitement to hatred of the Greeks as a race? Not the ultra-nationalist Greeks who may have perpetrated the acts complained of, but the Greeks as a nation, as a race of people. And of course in answering the question, one must consider the nature of the audience which is likely to see and absorb the statements in question.
In so doing , I must also consider whether there are parts of the article which contain what is referred to in the cases as an ameliorating effect. The writer states that “he solutes [sic] all the progressive Greeks, who today, at their own peril – bravely support the ethnic minorities in Greece. I solute [sic] their courage to stand up to the hot-headed, brain-washed nationalists”. One might draw a variety of inferences from the text of the article that the writer does not seek to brand all modern Greeks with attributes equivalent to their forbears but in the main I viewed those inferences to be of little moment.
The Australian Macedonian Weekly is, as mentioned before, printed in the Macedonian language. A perusal of its website indicates copies from 2006 onwards are available on archive. A random search of several editions over the time reveals that English language articles are a rarity. Indeed the majority of editions are entirely in Macedonian. So even though the editions are on the website, they are not likely to be accessed by the public at large or indeed by folk who do not read the language. In my view that limits the extent of the potential audience. Furthermore, as Dr Kotevski said, without a knowledge and understanding of the history, a casual reader would not in any event comprehend the nuances contained in the article. Dr Kotevski, whose evidence I accepted on that point, is a daughter of a mixed Macedonian/Greek parentage.
Neave JA contemplated whether s.8 required consideration of whether the ordinary reasonable reader would be incited to hatred or other relevant response and referred to the finding in the Kazak case that s.20C of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 required consideration of whether

“the ordinary reasonable reader [could] understand from the....act that he/she is being incited to hatred towards or serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or persons on the ground of race.”

At paragraph 157 she had this to say ;

Section 8 is not directed at religious vilification in the abstract but is concerned with the effect of the alleged inciter’s words or conduct on those exposed to that behaviour. If that were not the case, a person could deliberately inflame the emotions of people known to have prejudiced views towards a particular religious group and then avoid the application of s.8 by saying that the behaviour would not have incited an ordinary reasonable audience. With one minor qualification, I therefore agree with Nettle, J.A.’s view that s.8 requires consideration of the effect of the conduct on a member of the class to which it is directed. The minor qualification relates to Nettle, J.A.’s reference to a ‘reasonable” member of the class to which that conduct is directed. Despite the common use of the concept of reasonableness, both in the common law and in legislation, I have avoided that formulation because the concept of “a reasonable member of the class” may be inappropriate in the context of racial or religious vilification......it may be more appropriate to consider the effect of the words or conduct on an “ordinary” member of the class to which it is directed, taking account of the circumstances in which the conduct occurs. I would therefore agree....that the test for the purposes of s.8 is “whether the natural or ordinary effect of the conduct is to incite hatred or other relevant emotion in the circumstances of the case.”

For his part Ashley JA (dealing with the differences between his other two colleagues) at paragraph 132 stated:

First, concerning the question of incitement, I prefer the formulation that it should be decided by reference to an “ordinary” rather than a “reasonable” member of the audience class.....

......I agree with Neave J.A. that the import of a publication, so far as incitement is concerned, may be disclosed from consideration of its entirety rather than by discrete examination of its component parts.

All three of the judges in appeal spent some time considering the applicability of the test formulated in Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16. That case involved the publication of a cartoon that lampooned the dispute about the return of the head of an aboriginal leader from a museum in England. The ensuing complaint alleged a breach of s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) which provided –

18C(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

At first instance in Catch the Fire, the late Judge Higgins, then of this Tribunal, without expressly stating the source of his view, appeared to rely on the decision of French J in Bropho that the words “done because of” in s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, required a “causal connection”.
The Commonwealth Act contains exemptions in like vein to those found in s.11 of the Victorian Act. So, although the exemption sections are almost identical, the sections dealing with the actual breach are not so similar and that very difference makes the application of Bropho to the interpretation of s.7 somewhat fraught. What the case does highlight however is that the Court approved the formulation of Kiefel J in Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1007 and that her Honour in turn relied on Waters v Public Ttransport Corporation [1991] HCA 49; (1991) 173 C.L.R. 349,401.
In considering the meaning of the words “on the ground of religious belief” as they appear in s.8, Nettle J.A. noted the construction placed on the words by the judge at first instance that the meaning of the words “on the ground of” was not dissimilar to “because” as it appeared in s.18C of the Commonwealth Act. He thought there were problems with this interpretation. In particular, at paragraph 23, his Honour stated:

..... it appears to me that s.9(1) of the Act, by expressly providing that a person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant, confirms that "on the ground of" in s.8(1) is to be interpreted as the majority interpreted those words in the Equal Opportunity Act in Waters. In effect, it gives statutory force to the view first expressed by the House of Lords in R. v. Birmingham City Council and later adopted by Deane and Gaudron, JJ. in Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v. Banovic and then by Mason, C.J. and Deane and Gaudron, JJ. in Waters, that intention or motive to discriminate (or in this case to engage in conduct which incites hatred), though it may be relevant so far as remedies are concerned, is not a necessary condition of liability.

Again, at paragraph 30 his Honour referred the problem of adopting the Bropho test and summarised as follows:

With respect, there are several aspects of that reasoning [the Tribunal at first instance] which I take leave to doubt. The first of them arises out of the adoption of the Bropho test and, consequently, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the words "on the ground of [religious beliefs]" imply a causal connection between religious beliefs and impugned conduct. In effect the Tribunal decided that the Seminar contravened s.8 because the Tribunal was satisfied that Pastor Scot was moved or caused by the religious beliefs of Muslims to make the statements which he did at the Seminar, and that an ordinary reasonable person who was not malevolently inclined or free from susceptibility to prejudice would be inclined by Pastor Scot’s statements to hate Muslims. But, for the reasons which I have given, I do not consider that that was the question which needed to be decided. In my view the question was whether, having regard to the content of the statements in the context of the whole of the Seminar, and to the nature of the audience in the sense that I have described, the natural and ordinary effect of what was stated was to encourage the hatred [or other stipulated emotion] of Muslims based on their religious beliefs..

It seems all three Justices of Appeal concluded that the approach taken by the majority in Waters was correct in relation to s.8 of the Victorian Act; i.e that the meaning of “on the ground of” in s.8 referred to the basis of the feelings likely to be incited in the audience and not to anything that motivated the vilifying conduct. This test is identical in respect of the element of “on the ground of” adopted in Kazak.
The language used in the article in question was described by Mr Stankovski as “extravagant”. That strikes me as an understatement. Frankly it is more properly viewed as an intemperate and (in many parts) hyperbolical rant aimed at the acts of past participants and present ultra-nationalists. But the test is not whether the article could have been written better, could have been expressed in less pejorative terms, or as counsel put it, in a more felicitous tone.
It is not for this Tribunal to determine whether the acts complained of in the article are an accurate recounting of history; the truth or otherwise of what might be seen as extreme allegations is of little relevance. It is not material whether the following extracts are or are not be a correct version of history although it is fair to say that against the “nuances of history” such allegations might appear perfectly appropriate but do not necessarily incite hatred.
..destroying anything Macedonian and replacing it with Greek;
to put a permanent imprint on a land they never owned before, the uprooted the ethnic Macedonians from their ancestral lands:
Burned and defaced any Macedonian artefact found connected to the past;
transplanted refugees from Asia Minor and spread their gruesome, poisonous propaganda through the Macedonian land;
By erasing the Macedonian legacy, these fascist Greeks felt they could eliminate and wipe out all potential witnesses from ever challenging the newly established status quo.
The complaints made in the article are not, in any event, complaints against Greeks per se; they are complaints about the actions of some Greeks perpetrated in the past and denunciations about perceived past wrongful acts.. “How can a stinking Greek teacher...?” whilst offensive is not made against all Greeks although made in relation to a teacher who refuses to let a child speak its mother tongue; “How can a butcher for a priest?” refers to an un-named individual, not to all Greeks; it is not a statement that all Greeks are butchers. And so on. What is being criticised here is the conduct of the priest, the conduct of the teacher.
Paraphrasing in accordance with section 7 what Neave J.A. stated as the correct construction of s.8, the following applies:
The phrase “on the ground of race” does not refer to the ground which caused the alleged inciter to act, but to the ground on which people exposed to the alleged inciter’s words were incited to hatred or other relevant emotion against another person or group.
It is not necessary to show that the audience was actually incited to hatred, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of a person or class or persons on the ground of their race.
A breach of s.7 occurs if the words or conduct have the tendency to incite that response.
In considering whether s.7 has been breached, it is necessary to take account of the effect of the words on an ordinary member of the audience to which they were directed.
The cases agree that the ordinary meaning of the words “incite” is to “urge, spur on, stir up, animate, stimulate to do something.” So in the context of s.7 the question that must be asked is whether, having regard to the content of the article as a whole set in its historical and social context, to the nature of an ordinary member of the audience it might reach, whether the natural and ordinary effect of what was stated in the article is to stir up, etc or stimulate and encourage the hatred of, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of Greeks on the ground of their race. I am not persuaded he complainants have made out their case; by that I mean that I am not persuaded that the offending article, when read by a person (within the limitations of the contemplated audience) of ‘fair intelligence who is not perverse, morbid, suspicious of mind or avid for scandal’ is likely to stimulate hatred or the other emotions contemplated by s.7.
I am mindful of the comments of Neave J.A. that when information is transferred to the internet, it reaches a broad general audience. But such is not the case here. I can say this with some confidence for the following reasons. Mr Stankovski told the tribunal that the article was aimed at Macedonians living in Australia. His evidence by itself might not be enough but there are other factors bearing on the subject. On its face, this is a Macedonian newspaper, published essentially in the Macedonian language in Cyrillic script and aimed at the Macedonian community. Certainly when published on the website it can be accessed by people who do not read Macedonian but such a reader would be limited to finding and reading the isolated English language articles appearing amid the myriad pages of Macedonian text.
Counsel for the respondent contended that because so much of background to the dispute which was the genesis of the article was not dealt with in the article and that knowledge of the history of the dispute was assumed, serves to confirm that the intended audience was not the world at large but a rather more select audience, Macedonians, and I think there is much force to that submission. For the average Macedonian reader, this article is probably just “preaching to the converted”and is not likely to stir up such raw emotion as to breach the Act. I suspect that the average non-Macedonian reader who might stumble across the article on the website or who might flick through it at the local shop would just wonder what it was all about without being incited to any extreme emotion about Greeks.
It is true that in modern multicultural Australia people might wonder why it was necessary consistently to re-open old ethnic wounds and to do so in such forceful terms. Although I would not wish to be taken as approving the tenor of the article I am not persuaded it breaches s.7 of the Act. In my view the words of the article do not have any tendency to incite hatred against Greeks or to incite serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of Greeks on the ground of their race.
A commitment to free speech is an essential concept of all liberal democracies of which Australia is one. In this country we do not have a version of the USA’s first amendment which protects the most rabid ideology in the name of free speech but the legislation under review here (and its federal and other state counterparts) serves to place some restriction on racist and other extreme expressions. That said I am firmly of the view that restrictions should only be placed on discourse in the most egregious of cases. I can do no better than to echo and adopt the sentiments of the Hon J A Nader QC , the Commissioner who presided over the Hanson case. His comments on political discourse and its place in our society and the need for political expression to remain free and unfettered are set out in paragraph 40 herein.
It has not been necessary for me to consider the effect of section 11 because I have not found a breach of s.7. However without wishing to be taken as having considered the matter with any particularity, and assuming one were to be satisfied that the respondent had acted reasonably and in good faith, I would have some difficulty in deciding that the article was “a publication,
discussion or debate” for “any purpose that is in the public interest.” My instinct is that the section requires a consideration of whether the subject matter is in the interest of the public as a whole, as distinct from one that excites the interest of two ethnic groups of the public. But I am not required to decide the point.
The complaint is dismissed.

Noreen Megay
Senior Member