Uncomfortable
Comfort women. It’s such a non-threatening term. It engenders thoughts of caring women comforting people or perhaps helping them. For those, particularly in South Korea but also in China, Taiwan and the Philippines, the term has less pleasant connotations.
Comfort women is also a translation for of the Japanese ‘ianfu’ which is a euphemism for prostitute. During the second world war comfort women was the term given to women who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army.
The numbers involved are staggering. Whilst the Japanese destroyed much of the documentation pertaining to the practice historians have been able estimate the number to be between fifty and two hundred thousand women (1).
The sheer brutality of their treatment is confronting. Approximately three quarters of those forced to serve died. Most of the rest were left infertile as a result of trauma or disease. Each woman ‘serviced’ between twenty-five to thirty-five soldiers a day. Forced abortions were the norm, beatings common.
A small number of these women were from Dutch, American or Australian origin. The Ashfield Uniting Church acknowledged this with a small statue on their grounds. In response to this the Australia-Japan Community Network has lodged a complaint under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (2).
The Australia-Japan Community Network has suggested that the memorial has offended, insulted and humiliated Japanese Australians. They have suggested that the monument risks generating community conflict. They have suggested it is politically motivated. One member even suggested that there were only twenty thousand comfort women and that they were not forced into slavery at all.
In response the Reverend Bill Crews, of the Ashfield Uniting Church has called the complaint outrageous. He has refused to remove the statue. He is readying to contest the claim. I say good on you Bill!
I’d add that perhaps some of these comfort women were regular prostitutes. There is also an abundance of evidence which supports the theory that many comfort women were sex slaves. The theory that the majority were sex slaves is the consensus view.
A parliamentary committee is currently looking into the reform of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It states that it is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people and the act is done because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person.
Based on the farcical use of this legislation I have just described it seems it’s in desperate need of amendment. Furthering the case for change is that this latest claim is not the only time this legislation has been used to promote the ridiculous.
Earlier this year well known cartoonist Bill Leak was the subject of a complaint over a cartoon he drew which was published in The Australian (3). The cartoon itself implied that Aboriginal fathers were not as engaged with their children as they could be.
I can understand how a person who identifies as one of the traditional owners of Australia could be offended by the cartoon. The cartoon itself remains accurate. This view is supported by the findings of the repeated inquiries into the many issues confronting remote aboriginal communities. The complaint was duly withdrawn a few months later.
The Bill Leak complaint came hot on the heels of an earlier complaint lodged by Ms Cindy Prior. She was seeking $250,000 in compensation after an alleged breach of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (4).
The case itself resulted from an incident in 2013 where three students attempted to use a computer lab at the Oodgeroo unit at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Ms Prior asked if the students were indigenous. When they replied that they were not she asked them to leave as they were in an indigenous space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait students.
The students left peacefully. One of the students then complained on the universities Facebook page that the QUT is stopping segregation with segregation. The university investigated. The student’s affidavit explained that he was appalled to learn that racial segregation was being practiced on the campus of his university. The university asked that the Facebook post be removed. It was and no further action was taken.
Ms Prior suggested she feared a violent racist attack by students and that this was preventing her return to work. As the students left peacefully and as the Facebook post was in no way violent her view seems difficult to qualify. The student was eventually cleared of any wrong doing (5).
All of these cases have a common thread. The complainants have all been ‘hurt’ by truthful statements. The Imperial Japanese Army employed comfort women. Many Aboriginal fathers frequently don’t engage with their kids. Baring entry to a facility based on race is segregation.
The truth often hurts. Some emotional pain isn’t always a bad thing. However, it seems that our society is becoming less willing to accept this. Most societies have at one time or another engaged in deplorable behaviour in the past. Whilst being reminded of this can be uncomfortable I’d argue it’s crucial to prevent the re-emergence of poor behaviour.
With regards to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act I find myself conflicted. In one sense I agree that it seems to impinge upon the right to free speech. On the other hand, this legislation has brought to light some interesting discussions. We’re a stronger society for dealing with them. In all three situations the correct decision has been made.
We must remember that whilst the correct decisions have been made so far we cannot guarantee that this will remain the case into the future. Do we really want a society where you can be jailed simply for saying something offensive? I don’t. For that reason, section 18C should be removed from the Racial Discrimination Act.