AMA VICDOC Autumn 2024 - Magazine - Page 100
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT
-
A standard has been set in Victorian
legislation that in some circumstances
statements made regarding race or
religion can be unlawful. The Racial and
Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) makes
it unlawful to incite hatred against/ serious
contempt for / revulsion or severe ridicule
of a person on the ground of:
» race of the person or class of persons
(s 7); or
» religious belief or activity of the person
or class of persons (s 8). 7
In Chief Commissioner of Police v
Police Appeals Board [2012], the Victorian
Supreme Court clarified that “vilification”
must involve conduct of a “quite serious
nature”.8 In Catch the Fire Ministries Inc
and ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc
and anor (2006), the court interpreted
the provisions to include inchoate or
preliminary conduct, whether or not the
conduct has caused the kind of third party
response it is calculated to encourage.9
The effect of vilification must be assessed
from the view of a reasonable member of
the class of persons to whom the conduct
is directed.10
Under s 9 of the Act, the person’s motive
and dominant ground for engaging in any
conduct is irrelevant.11
Currently, there are limited precedents
on the application of the Act. The leading
precedent is Catch the Fire Ministries
Inc and ors v Islamic Council of Victoria
Inc and anor (2006) which dealt with
alleged religious vilification in relation to
statements by Pastors and subsequent
publications by a Christian association
on the religion of Islam. The Victorian
Supreme Court of Appeal ultimately found
contravention of the religious vilification
provision and upheld the previous orders
of corrective advertising and prohibition of
republication of vilifying material.
A contravention of the Act does not
create any civil or criminal liability unless
the act is considered as serious vilification.
It would not be necessary for a social
media post to contravene the Act for the
Board to take disciplinary action against a
doctor. The MBA could initiate disciplinary
action if it determined that statements or
comments made on social media breached
the Code of Conduct by reflecting or
promoting personal views about issues
that may be offensive to a group of people
or may impact on someone’s sense of
cultural safety or could lead to a patient or
members of the community feeling judged,
intimidated or embarrassed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
See ‘Social media: How to meet your obligations
under the National Law’ at https://www.ahpra.
gov.au/Resources/Social-media-guidance.aspx.
See ‘Social media: How to meet your obligations
under the National Law’ at https://www.ahpra.
gov.au/Resources/Social-media-guidance.aspx.
Ellis v Medical Board of Australia (Review and
Regulation) [2020] VCAT 862 at [15].
At [87].
Fidge v Medical Board of Australia (Review
and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 1137 at [70].
At [71].
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic)
ss 7-8.
Chief Commissioner of Police v Police Appeals
Board [2012] VSC 105 at [50].
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc and ors v Islamic
Council of Victoria Inc and anor (2006) 15 VR
207 at 212.
At 231-214.
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) s 9.
Level 9 | 360 Elizabeth Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000
Australia
T: +61 3 9498 6699
