Addressing the topic of urban poverty, Glaeser quotes Plato: any city, however

small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich.
Poverty does not necessarily define cities as places of inequality and deprivation;
cities do not have poverty because cities make people poor but because cities
typically attract poor people with the prospect of upward mobility. In past centuries
and in the current era of the highly mobile creative class, people have been drawn
to urban areas because cities offer advantages they didnt have in their previous
homes. In most cases, newcomers succeed and move forward economically since
cities are diversified portfolios of employers that provide a wide range of jobs at
varying levels of skills. The best cities have a mix of skills and provide pathways for
those who start with less to end up with more. Cities decline when they cease to
offer employment opportunities; people remain in poverty when they are
disconnected from economic opportunity.
Thriving cities share a single common aspect: they attract smart people and enable
them to work collaboratively. As others have also observed, people are increasingly
choosing where to live on the basis of pleasure as well as productivity. Glaeser
refers to cities with high levels of amenities as consumer cities. The growing
importance of the consumer city should serve mainly to keep civic leaders focused
on doing the basic job of local government: policing the streets and improving
public schools. Restaurants and theaters are also attractions, but they are neither as
critical as safety and schools nor as amenable to governmental intervention. Those
amenities come naturally in a thriving city.Today, New York residents are actually
willing to pay a premium to enjoy its pleasures.There is every reason to think that
an increasingly prosperous world will continue to place more value on the
innovative enjoyments that cities can provide. The bottom-up nature of urban
innovation suggests that the best economic development strategy may be to attract
smart people and get out of their way.

On the people
Any city however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the
other of the rich. These are at war with one another.
(Plato)
What is the city but the people?
(William Shakespeare)
Clearly, then, the city is not a concrete jungle, it is a human zoo.
(Desmond Morris)

From Book IV of Platos Republic to Shakespeares lesser known

tragedy, Coriolanus, to zoologist Desmond Morris 1969 contrast of human tribal
beginnings with modern life, the city has been center to social, economic and
political analysis. In light of the last year, in which social protest has
reemerged(datang balik) in urban places around the world, these three perspectives
have never been more relevant.
Prejudice is a product of ignorance, meaning that man is always afraid of and
against what it doesn't understand. Being against something just because it's
strange to you, i.e. racism, homosexuality, etc, is a prejudice, created by man
himself. Being prejudiced against something keeps you from communicating with
those people and from understanding. The author is likening the restriction of
human prejudice to chains. Basically, someone who is prejudiced against something
is that way because of their own ignorance, and their ignorance is holding them
back like chains from ever understanding the truth.
Lina 7 years ago
Chains=things that keep us bound, unable to break-free, imprisoned, captured,
trapped, unnatural, and against our will
Prejudices= unfounded opinions, biases, preconceived judgment before facts are
known
Forged= tempering process of putting metal into fire to be hammered (beaten into
shape)
When men act at the expense of others, the cost is greater than either can pay.

In recent years we have had a variety of well publicised incidents occurring on our
public transport systems and other public amenities that have involved cases of
racism and vilification here in Australia:
Some of these are listed hereunder. This is directly from the blog of The Koori
Woman here: The words are hers. If you are offended by her language, I apologise.
10 Racist Incidents in Australia 2014
10.Woman goes ape***t on a bus, etceteraaa etcetera.
We all know this story. What is it with racists and buses anyway? Something about
public transport really brings out the racist in the racists though. Although I didnt
see her crying on A Current Affair, so is she really rehabilitated? I guess well never
know.

At least she got charged.

9. A Muslim woman was violently assaulted in Melbourne
A woman believed to be a Muslim was left shaken and traumatised after she was
thrown out of a train in the northern part of Melbourne in a racist attack. The
womans abuser grabbed her by the hair and neck as her head was bashed several
times on the wall of the trains carriage.The Muslim woman was then pushed off the
train when it arrived in Batman Station in Coburg North.
Ken Lay calls it a Prejudice related crime seriously dude?
She was finally arrested, and quelle horreur she is a serial racist who was involved
in a string of incidents on trains in Melbourne.
8. Its my f*****g country, racist on yet another train, etceteraaaaaaaa etcetera
It doesnt get much uglier than a drunk person spraying around racism at people
who just want to get to where theyre going. But, racists have never been among
the politer realms of society. This woman thought it would be ok to call people black
c**ts, a fellow traveller (and dont you just love it when this happens) wasnt having
any of it.
When the woman states this is my country he replies deadpan If this is your
country, then I dont f*****g want to be here.
If anyone sees this guy out and about, give him a high 5. Hell, he deserves 3 million
high fives.
She wasnt charged either.
7. Where a busload of Jewish KIDS cop a spray
A group of drunken youths accused of chanting anti-Semitic abuse at a busload of
Jewish primary school students had engaged in an opportunistic attack and had not
considered the consequences of their actions, police say. Really? 5 youths between
15 and 17 were arrested and were so drunk they couldnt be interviewed, In Vino
Veritas I say.
6. African Australians being abused over Ebola outbreak Yes, you read that
right.
African Australians were harassed abused and shunned, because of the Ebola
epidemic abroad. You cannot make this shit up. I cant even come up with a
sarcastic comment about this and the people who took part in this need to be called
stupid, repetitively.

5. Number 5s racist train attack comes to you from Brisbane (Stop hogging the
racism Melbourne Gaawd)
The man in this video calls the guard a n-r and a black ct and tells him to
learn some f*****g English, cuz this is Australia.
After the video went viral he took to Facebook and declared his pride in his race.
Then he must have had a change of heart, because a few hours later he apologised.
Maybe after the cops came?
4. Sydney FC files a racism complaint against a Wanderers player racism in
sport, in Australia?! (Snark)
Crack midfielder Ali Abbas filed a formal complaint after comments made to him in
relation to his cultural and religious background. This came after an erase racism
round of the league. If this sounds familiar, a similar thing happened to Adam
Goodes last year.
3. 1 in 10 Australians are racist (Not really an incident, but worth noting on my
list)
The University of Western Sydney research shows more than one out of ten of us
have racist tendencies. It kind of explains a lot.
2. 3 men arrested after taunting people walking into a Mosque and causing a
brawl
Australias version of the KKK, The ADL decided to go visit a Lakemba mosque after
the Lindt cafe siege that caused the deaths of 3 people, including the shooter. After
the ADL made derogatory remarks to people entering the mosque, a brawl broke
out. These people are racists and idiots and dont get a link.
1, Barry Spurr resigns (hurrah)
New Matilda, the online news source broke the news of Barry Spurrs racist emails. I
wont repeat what they said here, needless to say they were incredibly
offensive. Spurr defended himself by saying the emails were whimsical word play.
He whimsied himself straight out of one of the best jobs in the country.
One of the questions that I often get asked is Should I take on the person who is
making those racists remarks and offending someone in front of me. My view is that
we need to confront the racists when they display their racist and vilifying
behaviour. But let me quote to you the words of Professor Kevin Dunn. Kevin has
done a lot of work in the area of racism in Australia. His work is amongst the most
quoted and cited work in this area. He conducts surveys of racism and reports on
these on a longitudinal basis so we can discern any trends in attitudes of Australians

to such issues as Migration, Aboriginal communities, Refugees etc. The words of

Kevin Dunn follow hereunder:
We need people to speak up and speak out against racism as they have done in
the past 24 hours but we need people to do this every day, says Professor Dunn.
Unfortunately research shows only 1 in 3 do take action when they see racism in
the community.
The main reasons people dont take action are fear of being the target themselves
or lack of awareness of what to do.
Professor Dunn says there are ways citizens can safely take action when they see
racism in public places, for example:

report it to authorities such as police, security or management.

use humour to make fun of the person making the racist comments gather
like minded people and make a group intervention.

One of the most effective ways to take action in public is show empathy for the
person being targeted. The Ill ride with you hashtag is an example of a successful
grassroots response where the community stands together against racism, says
Professor Dunn.
It empowers individuals and the community to confidently and safely stand up
against racism wherever and whenever they see it.
Much of what Professor Dunn advocates herein is echoed by a number of other
experts in the area. Even sites such as WikiHow can give you useful tips on how to
deal with overt acts of racism and vilification. See here:
Following the incidents in America in 2012 which resulted in the death of Trayvon
Martin, Liz Boltz Ranfeld wrote a piece on her blog which did resonate with a
number of commentators in this area. That blog is accessible here:
Her strategies in dealing with racism were as follows:

I will not worry about becoming that person who talks about race and
racism all the time online or in real life.

I will admit to myself and to others when I commit a racist act, whether I do it
knowingly or unknowingly.

I will feature the voices of women and men of color on my blog.

I will purposefully diversify the syllabi in each of my classes to include more

POC writers and scholars.

I will actively teach about racism in my classroom. (Authors note: She is a

school teacher)

When I see someone I know being racist, I will confront their racism.

I will work to recognize my white privilege and use it for good.

What about you? If you are white like me, how will you confront and challenge
racism where it exists today? If you are already part of this fight, what advice can
you share?
So, where does this all leave us? Clearly the message coming across loud and clear
is that when confronted by an act of racism, we must equally deal with it. We must
acknowledge it and indicate our displeasure at its occurrence. This, for many
people, will be the hardest to implement. I know that I have been threatened
physically by people who were perpetrating these acts that I considered racist. That
is a major issue. However, that has not stopped me nor should it.
The last time that I had occasion to confront a perpetrator, he had his fist drawn
back to land on my face! Had it not been for a plain clothes policeman who was
passing close by, saw me and knew me and yelled across the car park and then
strode over and confronted the attacker, I suspect that my facial features may well
have been rearranged! That incident has not reduced my resolve to continue to
confront racism when I see it.

Racism in Australia traces both historical and contemporary racist community

attitudes and incidents in Australia. Australia today is a multiethnic society and the
product of multiple waves of immigration. All of Australia's population can be traced
back to other countries, dating back centuries. Indigenous Australians are believed
to have migrated from Africa, and were some of the first to do so.
Laws forbid racial and other forms of discrimination and protect freedom of religion.
[1][2]
Demographic analysis indicates a high level of inter-ethnic marriage: according
to the Australian Census, a majority ofIndigenous Australians partnered with nonindigenous Australians, and a majority of third-generation Australians of nonEnglish-speaking background had partnered with persons of different ethnic origin
(the majority partnered with persons of Australian or Anglo-Celtic background,
which constitutes the majority ethnic grouping in Australia). [3] In 2009, about 25.6
per cent of the estimated resident population of Australia comprised those born
overseas.[4]

Indigenous peoples of Australia, who had lived in Australia for at least 40,000 years
before the arrival of British settlers in 1788, were dispossessed from their land in
1788 by Britain, which claimed Eastern Australia as its own on the basis of the now
discredited doctrine of terra nullius. Initially, indigenous Australians were in most
states deprived of the rights of full citizenship of the new nation on grounds of their
race and restrictive immigration laws were introduced to preference "white"
European immigrants to Australia. Discriminatory laws against indigenous people
and multiethnic immigration were dismantled in the early decades of the Post War
period. A 1967 Referendum regarding Aboriginal rights was carried with over 90%
approval by the electorate. Legal reforms have re-established Aboriginal Land
Rights under Australian law and in the early 21st century, indigenous Australians
account for around 2.5% of the population, owning outright around 20% of all land.
Intense focus on the impact of historical policies like the removal of mixed ethnicity
Aboriginal children from their Aboriginal parent resulted in a bipartisan
Parliamentary apology to Aborigines carried in 2008. Aboriginal health indicators
remain lower than other ethnic groups within Australia and again are the subject of
political debate.
Policies of multiculturalism were pursued in the post-war period and first Eastern
and Southern European, then Asian and African immigration increased significantly.
Legislation including the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Commonwealth Racial
Hatred Act (1995) and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Act (1986) outlaw racial discrimination in the public sphere in Australia. In recent
decades, anti-immigration political parties like the One Nation Party have received
extensive media coverage, but only marginal electoral support and successive
governments have maintained large, multiethnic programs of immigration. As in
other Western nations, tensions in the aftermath of events like the September 11
attacks and Bali Bombing by radical Islamists contributed to strained ethnic
relations in some Australian communities.

The significance of discrimination

Discrimination is the practical expression of prejudice. Prejudice, that is, beliefs and
attitudes that rank some people as inferior to others or as inherently different from
others, produces discriminatory actions. The two are intimately and inextricably
connected. So a conference that examines prejudice must include discrimination.
Discrimination is defined as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference
based on [a proscribed ground] which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or
impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human
rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any
other field of public life.[1] Proscribed grounds in international law include race,

colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.[2] The list in international law is not a closed list. It is
stated as including those grounds specifically enumerated, not as being restricted
to them. Disability, sexual orientation and age are generally accepted as other
grounds of prohibited discrimination.[3] In Australia federal and state laws proscribe
a long list of grounds of prohibited discrimination: sex, marital status and
pregnancy;[4] race, colour, descent and national or ethnic origin;[5] disability;
[6] religion, political opinion, national extradition, social origin, age, medical record,
criminal record, sexual preference, trade union activity and nationality.[7]

Not all distinctions are unacceptable. The bases of distinction singled out for
proscription are those that go to the essential attributes of a person, that
collectively constitute a persons identity. Many of the attributes are unchangeable
(or virtually unchangeable) features of the person: ethnicity, skin colour, gender,
national and social origin, sexual orientation, disability. Other attributes, though
changeable, are so fundamental to a persons identity that to change them would
do great damage to that identity. They concern what the person believes and thinks,
his or her views in relation to religion and political ideology. They protect what is in
each persons head and heart, perhaps the last holdouts of inviolable personal
privacy.

This connection between personal identity and the proscribed grounds of

discrimination is what makes discrimination so utterly unacceptable. It is not merely
that a person is treated differently. It is that the basis for the detrimental treatment
is the very nature of that person as a human being who he or she is. It is not a
matter of mere personal dislike. It is that the person suffering the discrimination is
considered fundamentally different from, fundamentally inferior to the person
imposing the discrimination. Discrimination involves one persons rejection of
another person as a full human being who is equal in dignity and rights to all other
human beings. That is what makes discrimination a great evil.

Discrimination and refugees

Asylum seekers and refugees in Australia experience discrimination in law and

practice. They can experience discrimination on several of the proscribed grounds,
most significantly race or ethnic origin, religion and status. The meanings of race,
ethnic origin and religion are clear enough. Status is a more general term. There is
no detailed international definition of its meaning. Rather, international authorities

have considered the issue on a case by case basis and have identified certain
situations as falling within the scope of other status.[8] Other status would
include both the status of refugee under the Refugee Convention and a particular
immigration status (or lack of immigration status).

The nature of the discrimination experienced by refugees in Australia mirrors that of

others who experience discrimination. It can occur in any area of public life,
including employment, access to accommodation and access to other goods,
services and facilities. It can involve harassment, vilification and at times actual
violence. The most recent refugee arrivals in Australia have been predominantly
from Afghanistan and Iraq and they have been predominantly Muslim. They have
experienced discrimination on these bases along with other Muslim and Middle
Eastern residents of Australia. The NSW Police Commissioner recently reported a
great increase of attacks on Muslim or Middle Eastern residents of the state since
the Bali bombing on 12 October. The attacks have included harassment, vilification
and assaults in public places, particularly on women wearing a veil. They have also
included stones thrown through the windows of the homes and shops of Muslims.

Refugees have been especially at risk of these kinds of attacks not only because of
an unfair reaction to the bombing but also because of the persistent demonisation
of refugees by senior government leaders over many years. Boat people have been
accused of queue jumping, being criminals, presenting health risks, attempting to
deceive and mislead immigration officials. After terrorist attacks in the United
States on 11 September 2001, the then Defence Minister even suggested that they
could be terrorists threatening Australias national security. This claim was well
publicised at the time. Less well publicised was an appearance before a Senate
committee by the Director General of the Australia Security and Intelligence
Organisation, Dennis Richardson, in June this year. The Director General was asked
how many security checks of boat people ASIO had conducted and what the results
of those checks were. He replied that from 1 July 2000 until the date he appeared in
June 2002 ASIO had checked 5986 boat people of whom not a single one presented
a security risk.

The government attitude towards these asylum seekers is reflected in laws that are
themselves discriminatory. The laws may be indirectly discriminatory on the basis of
ethnicity and religion but they are certainly directly discriminatory on the ground of
status, that is, status as a refugee who came to Australia without prior
documentation to seek protection. Those who come here on valid visas, even if only
a 24 hour transit visa, and then seek protection are permitted to remain free until
their status is determined. Those who come across the seas without prior approval

by Australian immigration authorities must be detained indefinitely, without

prospect of court review or release, until their status is determined and they are
either accepted or deported. Since changes to the law in 1999 and 2001, boat
people accepted as genuine refugees are entitled to no more than a succession of
temporary residence permits, not to permanent settlement. Refugees who come
here through official programs for re-settlement, by contrast, having being carefully
selected by immigration officials, come as permanent residents and potential
citizens. So boat people suffer discrimination on the basis of their status, contrary to
human rights commitments. They are also penalised on the basis of the manner of
their entry into Australias jurisdiction, contrary to the requirements of the Refugee
Convention. As temporary protection visa holders they are denied access to many
settlement services and supports and, most importantly of all, denied family reunion

What local government must do: the legal obligation

What are the responsibilities of local government in this situation? In general terms
they are the same as its responsibilities in any area in which discrimination is
prohibited. Its first responsibility is a legal obligation to obey the law. State and
federal anti-discrimination laws apply to local government in this state. Local
government councils must not discriminate on any proscribed ground under those
laws in any area of public life. That is the simple answer. They must not discriminate
on any of the proscribed grounds in relation to employment or access to Council
services and facilities.

Councils, as part of our governmental structure, should be model employers that

respect the rights of their employees regardless of an employees ethnic or cultural
background and religious and political beliefs. In the last week or two, one council,
the North Sydney City Council, passed this test with flying colours. One of its staff, a
Muslim immigrant, was the subject of critical media reporting when at a public
meeting he expressed unpopular views on the relationship between Muslims and
the broader community in Australia. The Council was identified in the media as his
employer. In the emotional atmosphere of the last month some argued that the
Council should do something about this employee. But instead the Council stood
by him, disagreeing with his views but supporting his right to free speech within the
law.

Of course, what happens if a council does discriminate on a proscribed basis is

another matter entirely. Anti-discrimination laws play important roles in addressing

and reducing incidents of discrimination but unfortunately they are not the most
effective laws we have. Few of those who experience discrimination actually take a
complaint to one of the anti-discrimination bodies established by those laws. Even
fewer recently arrived immigrants and refugees become complainants. Holders of
temporary protection visas are among the least likely to complain. Their
immigration status is provisional and can be not renewed or even revoked before it
expires. They are afraid to do anything that will draw attention to themselves or
their families in case it leads to loss of their visa.

Those who do complain encounter great difficulty. First, they might look long and
hard for any effective remedy. The NSW Act does not cover discrimination based on
religion or status and the relevant federal Act, while including these grounds of
discrimination, does not provide a right to a judicial hearing with compensation,
only the possibility of a report to parliament.

If they complain of discrimination on the basis of race they will struggle to establish
their case. Australian courts and tribunals have had far greater difficulty in
identifying situations of race discrimination than situations of sex and disability
discrimination. Some years ago, a review of experience after twenty years of
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) indicated that of those discrimination cases
that went to hearing 54% of sex discrimination cases were found to be
substantiated but only 29% of race discrimination cases.[9] Only 17 cases in those
twenty years resulted in an award of damages. It seemed that judicial and quasijudicial decision-makers had difficulty in recognising and accepting the significance
of gestures, implications and nuances that reveal race discrimination. There seems
to have been little change since then.

There has also been little change since that review in the nature of the remedies
provided when discrimination has been proved. Those who succeed in their actions
are likely to receive barely token damages. Under the Anti-Discrimination Act
1977 (NSW) a ceiling of $40,000 is fixed on compensation orders but awards rarely
come anywhere near that limit. Under federal race, sex and disability discrimination
laws there is no limit on compensation but again compensation tends to be minimal.
Of the 17 cases that resulted in an award of damages in the first twenty years of
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), the award exceeded $20,000 in only two.
In ten the award was less than $2000. But only one of the 44 sex discrimination
cases in which damages were awarded resulted in an award of under $2000.
[10] Compensation in conciliated cases tended to be significantly more than in
cases that went to full hearing but again the level of compensation was
comparatively small. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

undertook a comparison of conciliated results in three recent years, 1998, 1999 and
2001. It found that the median settlement amount in conciliated complaints of race
discrimination varied from $1410 to $9000, in sex discrimination complaints from
$5000 to $5500 and in disability discrimination complaints from $1500 to $3000.
[11]

These kinds of results from conciliation and from judicial hearings make a mockery
of the legislation. Of course it is difficult to estimate what an appropriate level of
compensation for an act of discrimination should be. But the same difficulty
confronts courts in other types of cases every day and they generally arrive at far
higher verdicts. The comparison between the levels of damages in discrimination
cases and those in defamation cases presents a stunning contrast. It seems that a
persons reputation is far more highly valued than the persons very identity as a
human being. That, I remind you, is what discrimination is an attack on the
integrity of a persons very identity.

I have been waiting for a long time to see compensation in discrimination cases
reach more realistic and more appropriate levels but it seems I have been waiting in
vain. When so few people who are native born in Australia and familiar with our
system bother to vindicate their rights under anti-discrimination laws, we should not
be surprised that very very few refugees do, even though the extent of the violation
of their rights is so much greater than that of the rights of most others.

Councils therefore have little to fear from anti-discrimination laws as they are
drafted and applied at present. However, that does not and should not lead them to
ignore their legal obligations. It simply means that they should do so out of
commitment to human rights and to human beings rather than fear of the
consequences of breach.

What local government must do: the moral obligation

The moral obligation, therefore, is far more important than the legal obligation and
calls for a far more generous, far more compassionate and far more responsible
response. Councils have obligations to the residents of their areas, both citizens and
non-citizens, whether born in Australia or born overseas. And they have
responsibilities to their own communities, responsibilities of leadership. Many
councils have accepted and acted upon these broader responsibilities in a number
of significant ways in the interests of refugees and asylum seekers.

First, some councils have sought to shape opinions and attitudes, not simply react
to them. Australians have a natural cynicism towards all levels of government but
they take their governments seriously and they respond to the leadership
governments offer. When governments deliver negative messages, people respond.
So when senior political leaders misrepresent, vilify and demonise refugees and
asylum seekers, popular attitudes reflect those views. And where positive leadership
is offered, people respond positively. An excellent example of that can be seen in
the support given by the Sydney City Council and the South Sydney City Council for
gay and lesbian community initiatives, such as community services and social
events like the Mardi Gras and the Gay Games. Local councils have contributed to
greater acceptance of gays and lesbians in the broader community and greater
respect for their rights.

Many councils have shown similar leadership in relation to refugees. In Young the
local council has been very public in supporting refugees who have settled in town
and are contributing to the local community. Some Sydney councils have placed
large banners across their main roads saying that the council supports refugees and
asylum seekers, a small gesture that challenges prejudice. Councils can influence
attitudes and opinions if they are prepared to show leadership.

Second, councils can provide services that address the needs of refugees in their
areas. Refugees are often isolated. They are often traumatized, not only because of
the treatment they received before fleeing persecution but because of the
treatment they received after arriving in Australia. They may need specialist
counselling. They may need places to socialise with other members of their own
community and with members of the broader community. Their children may need
opportunities for play, sport and recreation and places to meet and mix with other
children. Sometimes they may need food and clothing. Church, charitable and other

non government organisations have responded to these needs and many councils
have too. In areas of western Sydney councils have offered new community services
to support the large refugee populations. In eastern and northern areas
of Melbourne councils have been particularly active in helping refugees on
temporary protection visas, in spite of the determination of the federal government
to abandon them with as few supports and services as possible.

Third, beyond providing practical services councils can also advocate on behalf of
refugees. Local government is the level of government closest to refugees. It is best
able to see, understand and analyse their situations. This requires a good research
capacity and social policy skills among council staff or at least the willingness to buy
those skills for the particular task. The Brisbane City Council has been especially
active in advocating on behalf of refugees. It has published material about their
situations and paced its political weight on their side. In Melbourne the Darebin City
Council has supported researchers from Deakin University and the Victorian Arab
Australian Association who have brought to public attention the sufferings of
refugees on temporary protection visas. For refugees this kind of advocacy by
councils is more than mere support. It is recognition and affirmation of their
humanity by an official governmental authority in a context in whichAustralias
federal government has denied it.

Conclusion

I have spoken specifically today about discrimination affecting refugees and what
councils can and should do to address it. My comments, however, apply equally to
what councils can and should do in relation to all forms of unjust discrimination.
Councils have responsibilities and they have opportunities. There is much they can
do. There are responsibilities and opportunities to offer leadership to change public
attitudes and prejudices that underpin discrimination. There are responsibilities and
opportunities to provide services to those who need them desperately. And there
are responsibilities and opportunities to advocate with and on behalf of those who
suffer injustice. You have legal obligations. But far more important than that, you
have moral obligations.

Discrimination denies the humanity of the person against whom it is practised. It

attacks the very identity of the person. Few tasks are of higher priority and greater
urgency than eliminating discrimination. The good news for local government is that
you have important parts to play in that task.

Racist attacks grip Australia

By Malcolm Cummins
Published Dec 21, 2005 7:42 AM
A racist lynch mob numbering about 5,000, punched, beat, and stomped people
who looked Middle Eastern or Muslim on a beach in Sydney, Australia, on Dec. 11. A
woman had her head scarf torn off and had to flee down the beach to escape the
frenzy. Some of the mob screamed to one young man, Watch out, hes got a bomb,
he might blow himself up.
In response to the attacks, 1,500 anti-racist protesters marched through central
Melbourne Dec. 16, and on Dec. 17, 3,000 marched through Sydney in a
demonstration organized by the National Union of Students. Racist violence wont
be tolerated, said student organizer Osmond Chiu.
The bigoted mob had been summoned to Cronulla Beach for a bashing day by
cell-phone text messages, the tabloid press, and shock-jocks like radio station 2GBs
Alan Jones and Brian Wilshire, who helped advertise the Aussie Pride rally. They
are fueling racial division, said Lebanese-Australian spokesman Keysar Trad about
the shock-jocks.
Cronulla is located in Sutherland Shire, a white enclave surrounded by water. The
Shire as it is known, has long had a reputation amongst Sydney-siders for the
insularity and racism of some locals. Knowing this, neo-fascist groups like the
Australia First Party and its youth wing, the Patriotic Youth League, mobilized for the
day, turning out at least 100 provocateurs who helped whip up the mob.
Neo-fascist flyers called for a crackdown on refugees, contract labour, overseas
students and illegals, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Even though they
had been forewarned of the violent gathering, the police kept a relatively low
profile, giving the mob virtually free rein.
The next night, when Lakemba Mosque was threatened with attack, 500 people
came out to defend it. The mosque is the symbolic heart of Sydneys Muslim
community.

Cops impose police state

State parliament was then called into emergency session to pass legislation that led
to the imposition of a virtual police state in the Sydney area. The cops locked down
most beaches in a 125-mile stretch north and south of Sydney. They had complete
discretion to seize vehicles and cell phones, close businesses, particularly pubs, and
conduct mass arrests. They didnt go after the neo-fascists, however, as of this
writing. Not one leader was known to have been arrested. It was later announced
that the measures would be extended through the summer.
The beach communities in Sydney are mostly white, and like Cronulla have a
reputation of being hostile to people of color. The Middle Eastern community is
concentrated in Sydneys southwest. On Sundays, people wanting to escape the
summer heat drive or catch the bus east to the ocean. It was this movement of
people that the police sought to stop, keeping the beaches almost entirely white.
Thirty-five hundred extra cops were mobilized for Dec. 17 and 18.
Even this was not enough for State Premier Morris Iemma, who threatened to call
another special parliamentary session to abolish bail. Not to be outdone, at least
four other states with major metropolitan areas announced similar measures,
though on a smaller scale.
Role of the federal government
The federal government of Prime Minister John Howard has created a poisonous
environment, attacking immigrants, especially from the Middle East, Indigenous
people and Muslims. Howard, who sent troops to Iraq to support Bushs war, has a
history of creating or manipulating events to push his reactionary, pro-war agenda.
With opposition growing to his racist, anti-refugee policies during the 2001 election,
he invented a story about immigrants on a ship throwing their children into the
ocean in order to gain entry into Australia.
More recently, Howard announced an anti-terrorism alert, saying the government
had specific information that an attack was about to occur. Five days later, 850
police mounted raids in Sydney and Melbourne and arrested 17 Muslim men on
vague charges. It was later revealed that the police had been watching the men for
18 months.
The federal government just passed an anti-sedition law, misnamed the AntiTerrorism Bill 2005. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the laws were so
wide they could be used to prosecute the ACTU secretary, Greg Combet, for his
remarks urging opposition to the new industrial laws, and could be applied to those
who had supported resistance movements including Fretilin { in East TimorWW}
and Nelson Mandelas African National Congress.

The new laws allow the authorities to detain someone for a week of questioning,
followed by 14 days of preventative detention and a year or more of house arrest.
Any organization that advocates, praises or counsels a so-called terrorist act
can be outlawed.
The Howard government is also proposing to ease restrictions on calling out the
military. According to the World Socialist Web Site, the changes could permit the
armed forces to be called against many traditional forms of political protest, such as
mass demonstrations, blockades and picket lines.
Considered together, these actions by the various governmental bodies amount to a
considerable strengthening of the repressive state apparatus, both the military and
the police. They come as a resurgent union movement recently organized the
biggest workers protest in Australian history, with over half a million hitting the
streets to protest Howards changes in the industrial relations system, in favor of big
business. The war on terrorism and the war in Iraq also remain deeply unpopular
with broad masses of the population.
The events in Cronulla and the police response must be seen in this light. Whatever
the role of the government in the racist attacks is ultimately shown to be and only
an independent investigation can determine this, the authorities have used them to
establish police state-like conditions in wide areas of the country. If there were a
general strike or some other form of militant mass protest, would the Howard
government seek the imposition of martial law in Australia? The movement there
will need to be on guard against this possibility.

Whites Still Vote for Whites

The 2012 presidential election brought forth a problem. Of the people who voted for
Mitt Romney, 81 percent of them were white. That's a problem. Throughout
Obama's first time, he had to deal with tons of people who felt he was doing things
to undercut a white society when he stood up for those who are impoverished.
Discrimination is alive and well.

Discrimination against African-Americans and other races

Hello I am 13 years old, and my grandfather was killed by white people because he
was black this upsets me so much. I want him back he died 5 weeks ago, and the

white people are in jail now. The fact that discrimination is around, still bugs me
today IT NEEDS TO STOP PEOPLE

Yes, extremely prevalent and definitely more prevalent in certain

states in America, Ohio for example.

I see it every day and racial discrimination is still very prevalent in a different way
but, with the same impact. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen horrible
gender discrimination to this day. There is a caste system in America in a different
way than there was in India but, people discriminate based upon by favoring people
who are more affluent or were born into more affluent families than those who were
not. There is background discrimination and religious belief discrimination or
favoritism. The bottom line is people are not brought up to view others as their
brothers and sisters, like blood. If we were, no matter what was different about the
other person, we would all still be family, the human race family. It may not stop
but, would probably diminish. We need to be individuals, yes, but...As a whole or as
one.

Why hate on others?

Discrimination is a big problem there are people in this world that are still racist.
Making fun of people that are of different races. Not knowing how hard it has been
for those people. What they've been through all the taunting and the criticism. They
should really stop. It's not funny but serious.

Yes, it's still around.

Discrimination and hatred towards another race is still around today, sadly. Around
the world, and still here, even in America. It's gotten better in a lot of ways, but it's
still not to the point where we can just easily sit down together at a lunch table and
not even think about someone being different from us.

Separate but Equal; Or is it?

From the time of the 1800's to the common everyday America, people across the
globe experience discrimination. This is a form of thought, that either one is better
then the other; or that one just simply does not fit the standards. This is a cruel and
harmful way of thinking. There are constant violent, verbal or physical, forms of
discrimination taking place as we speak. If it is because a person is of a certain
race, religion, or gender, it is illegal and unjust to act in this manor. Overall, a
person is a person; and like the famous man said "an eye for an eye makes the
whole world blind. Find someone else to pick on, there is no reason.

Discrimination is as Common Now as Ever Before

Here in America, discrimination is just as common now as ever before, just in

different ways. Although racism has been heavily suppressed, discrimination against
religion, social status, and age is just as common as ever. Social status and religious
discrimination are often recognized as bad, but age discrimination, or agism, is
almost invisible to society, it seems. The worst part about agism is that, like race,
age cannot be changed at all, and is something that one is stuck with. There are
many older people who are refused medical treatment just because of advanced
age, and there are many younger individuals that do not get the same human rights
just because the "dominate age group" refuses to let them have them. I believe all
humans shroud be treated equal, regardless of age, race, gender, social status,
religion, or ethnicity.

It Most Certainly Is!

Discrimination is widespread in America and all over the world, even today. Simply
take a look at the median income of middle-class white v. Black families; or the
incarceration rates of whites v. Blacks, additionally check out the percentage of
judges who are white; take some time to look at the differences in educational
attainment; explore the representative percentages of white v. Black at socially
'high-performance' jobs (e.G., doctors, lawyers, professors), what about the
percentage in law enforcement? The point is--the numbers exist and they are
unequivocally significantly significant. One must only search to see.

It IS a PROBLEM

Many people may say, "no, discrimination isn't a problem in today's society". I
strongly disagree. Yes, the rate has gone down extremely, but I still see various
religions getting hate for something they weren't even apart of. Lets take the
Muslims around the word for example. Now one of my best friends is Muslim, and
they're very nice people. Why do others hate on them? Because of something ONE
person did. Osama Bin Laden was an individual that caused 9/11. Imagine if he were
Christian, Chinese, any other religion? Would this be treated the same way? Would
you all hate on the other religion too? What if people were calling you a terrorist
down every corner? DISCRIMINATING you as you mind your own business? I for one
know no one would like that, and my friend goes through this everyday. Muslims are
people too. Don't judge a person by their race, judge them by their actions, judge
them by the type of person they are despite what they chose to believe in.

Is there discrimination today?

Discrimination in today's world is still alive. People who say there isn't just choose
not to notice. Discrimination come in all forms it is not just racism anymore. It may
not be the same as it was before, but it still exists. People go through discrimination
everyday, but they might not make a big deal about cause they may not think about
it but that does not change that it is wrong. Before discrimination had to do with the
hurting of others due to their race, and etc., while today people are discriminated by
being excluded from organizations, groups, and etc., causing not physical hurt but
emotional which leads to the physical harm of a persons self. There are still some
cases in certain areas where people are still being discriminated in a physical way,
and this has got to STOP! Its been many years and if we have been able to advance
our world and technology we should be able to advance and improve ourselves. We
are not born with discrimination in us but we are taught it overtime by society. WE
as a society need to teach our children not to discriminate people and to not care
about their outside appearance but their personality.

Discrimination of Women Throughout the World

Discrimination of women in the world is still a very real problem. Even though we
have made huge strides against it here in America it is still devastating throughout
the world.

The United Nations Women's Treaty was implemented a few decades ago was
supposed to give women an right to take part in their nations political and public life
but that hasn't changed much. In many countries women are still unable to
purchase their own property, vote or even wear what they want. In Africa there is
still female genital mutilation. Throughout Asia, the former Soviet Union, Latin
America, Africa and central and eastern Europe trafficking is still a huge problem.
It is estimated that over 700,000 people are trafficked each year although it is not
known exactly how many are women. Most of these women are trafficked for sexual
exploitation. The most disturbing is that in parts of the Middle East, honor
killings are still practiced. These killings can be brought on by women engaging in
homosexual acts or sexual acts outside of marriage, wanting to end or prevent and
arranged marriage or even dressing too provocatively. In Turkey, there is no
protection for women being abused, there are no shelters or help for women in
these dangerous circumstances.
In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive. Yemeni women are some of the
least empowered women in the world. In Nepal if a woman is raped or assaulted the
perpetrators are not punished, they aren't even arrested. These are all examples of
extreme discrimination of women throughout the world but we can find more subtle
examples of discrimination here in the United States. Even though females have
higher education rates and work more than men in the same profession they still
get paid less in America.
There is still a twenty percent pay gap between men and women working in the
same field. There has however been progress. The pay gap has decreased since it
was 28 cents on the dollar in 1988 to now being 11 cents on the dollar in 2007, but
in 19 years the only decrease was 17 cents. If we can keep shedding a light on the
discrimination of women throughout the world we can hopefully change things for
the better.

Eliminating racism & racial discrimination

The institutional reforms to eliminate racism and racial discrimination are actually
quite straightforward if the government has the political will to carry them out.
These include:

1. Basing affirmative action on need, sector or class and certainly not on race;

2. Enacting an Equality Act and establishing an Equality & Human Rights

Commission;

3. Outlawing racism and incitement to racial hatred with appropriate and effective
legislation;

4. Ratifying the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

(CERD) and the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR);

5. Providing non-racial alternatives to national development based on justice,

equality and human rights;

6. Promoting unity based on integration through greater democracy and shared

facilities among communities.

And to ensure that pogroms such as May 13 and Kampong Medan never happen
again, all it takes is the political will to implement these necessary measures:

Forming and swiftly deploying a Special Multi-Ethnic Peace-Keeping Force to keep

order if such incidents occur in future;
Establishing, with urgency, a neutral Commission of Inquiry into any such incidents
and charging the culprits responsible for murder;
Implementing the Independent Police Complaints & Misconduct Committee.
To conclude, for Malaysia to take its seat in the Security Council and to assume the
chair of Asean in 2015, it must live up to the expectations of the world community
by eliminating racism and racial discrimination in our society. If we succeed in
achieving this, then we can truly begin the task of national reconciliation and
reconstruction...

Menghapuskan perkauman & diskriminasi kaum

Pembaharuan institusi untuk menghapuskan perkauman dan diskriminasi kaum

sebenarnya agak mudah jika kerajaan mempunyai kemahuan politik untuk
membawa mereka keluar. Ini termasuk:

1. Mendasarkan tindakan afirmatif kepada keperluan, sektor atau kelas dan sudah
tentu bukan bangsa;

2. Menggubal Akta Kesaksamaan dan menubuhkan Suruhanjaya Kesaksamaan &

Hak Asasi Manusia;

3. mengharamkan perkauman dan hasutan kepada kebencian kaum dengan

undang-undang yang sesuai dan berkesan;

4. mengesahkan Konvensyen Antarabangsa mengenai Penghapusan Diskriminasi

Kaum (CERD) dan Perjanjian Antarabangsa mengenai Hak Sivil & Politik (ICCPR);

5. Menyediakan alternatif yang bukan perkauman kepada pembangunan negara

berdasarkan keadilan, kesaksamaan dan hak asasi manusia;

6. Menggalakkan perpaduan berdasarkan integrasi melalui demokrasi yang lebih

besar dan kemudahan yang dikongsi bersama di kalangan masyarakat.

Dan untuk memastikan bahawa pembunuhan kaum seperti 13 Mei dan Kampong
Medan tidak pernah berlaku lagi, ia hanya memerlukan kesungguhan politik untuk
melaksanakan langkah-langkah yang diperlukan:

Membentuk dan pantas mengerahkan Peace-Keeping Force untuk menjaga

ketenteraman jika insiden tersebut berlaku pada masa depan Khas Multi-etnik;

Menubuhkan, dengan segera, satu Suruhanjaya Siasatan neutral ke mana-mana

kejadian seperti ini dan caj mereka yang bertanggungjawab untuk membunuh;
Melaksanakan Aduan Polis bebas & Jawatankuasa Salah Laku.
Kesimpulannya, bagi Malaysia untuk mengambil tempat duduk dalam Majlis
Keselamatan dan untuk mengambil alih kerusi Asean pada 2015, ia mesti menepati
jangkaan masyarakat dunia dengan menghapuskan perkauman dan diskriminasi
kaum dalam masyarakat kita. Jika kita berjaya mencapai ini, maka kita benar-benar
boleh mula tugas perdamaian nasional dan pembinaan semula ...

There is no official law that bans women from driving but deeply held religious
beliefs prohibit it, with Saudi clerics arguing that female drivers "undermine social
values".
In 2011, a group of Saudi women organised the "Women2Drive" campaign that
encouraged women to disregard the laws and post images and videos of
themselves driving on social media to raise awareness of the issue in an attempt to
force change. It was not a major success.
Saudi journalist Talal Alharbi says women should be allowed to drive but only to take
their children to school or a family member to hospital. "Women should accept
simple things", he writes for Arab News. "This is a wise thing women could do at this
stage. Being stubborn won't support their cause."