We are asked to believe that the following tweets are not “a racial thing”. You be the judge:

“Shut the f**k up ni**er”

“So I can bash your tall black ass”

“A black ni**er”

The person to whom those tweets were directed to was one of Perth’s favourite sportsmen, Nic Naitanui. The person who wrote those tweets was someone named Vinh Nguyen. Based on the name of the writer there is a high degree of probability that he is of Vietnamese origin. His justification for the tweets was as follows:

“It wasn’t a racial thing. I was trying to tell him that i didn’t like him. It’s basically trolling and people are trying to make out like it was racist”.

No, Mr. Nguyen, it was racist and you have perpetrated the act of racism and justifiably and appropriately you will, if charged and convicted, be penalised appropriately. This matter falls for consideration under the Racial Vilification provisions of the WA Criminal Code. In 2004 I was significantly involved with the then Premier and Minister for Multicultural Interests Dr Geoff Gallop in advancing the progress of amendments to the Code to toughen up the penalty provisions and the evidentiary requirements of the relevant part of the code. The sections in question are sections 76 to 80 of the code and specifically relate to the acts of racial vilification.

Under the provisions that existed up to that point the penalties for racial vilification were 2 years and around $20,000 as a monetary penalty. Those provisions had been implemented during the days of Jack Van Tongeren and his acts of racism towards people of “Asian” origin. One of the major deficiencies of the provisions was that it was necessary to prove the intent of the perpetrator of an act of racial vilification. Under those provisions Mr. Nguyen would probably have been scot free. However, the amendments that were passed by the houses of parliament separated the offence into two parts. For ease of understanding the offences are divided into a serious one and a less serious one. Under the provisions as enacted, for the charge of a less serious offence to be sustained it was no longer necessary to prove the intent of the perpetrator. The penalty for a less serious offence was now increased to 5 years in jail and a monetary penalty of $24,000. In the case of the more serious offence the intent of the perpetrator needed to be proven. If it was, the penalty provided was up to 14 years in jail and a monetary penalty of $50,000.

The relevant sections of the code are reproduced below:

Section 76 says: Conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassment

Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years

And Section 78 says: Conduct likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment

Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

And further section 80 says: Conduct likely to racially harass

Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to harass a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

As is clear the first of the sections cited above requires the intent of the perpetrator to be proven. The second does not. In other words, Mr. Nguyen’s intention is irrelevant. If his actions are, in outcome, achieving the result of conduct that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards or harassment of a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

I believe it is well established the use of words such as “Nigger” is racist. As Dictionary.com defines it:

The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. 

The senses labeled Extremely Disparaging and Offensive represent meanings that are deeply insulting and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. It is so profoundly offensive that a euphemism has developed for those occasions when the word itself must be discussed, as in court or in a newspaper editorial: “the n-word.” 

Quite rightly, the West Coast Eagles have referred the matter to WA Police for consideration. Hopefully there is some positive action on the part of the relevant section of that agency to bring the charges under the sections outlined above.