Search This Blog

Sunday, November 28, 2021

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

By Ranting Panda, 28 November 2021


The Australian federal government recently unveiled its Religious Discrimination Bills. In summary, the Bills propose protection for people to discriminate if their religion gives them the excuse. As an example, the Bills allow certain organisations to fire or not hire people who are LGBTIQ+, or for schools to expel or not enrol LGBTIQ+ students (Elphick & Taylor 2021). The Bills can be viewed at https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/religious-discrimination-bills-2021.

The object of the Bills is to recognise 'the freedom of all people to have or adopt a religion or belief of their choice, and freedom to manifest this religion or belief either individually or in community with others ...'(s 3, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). This may seem fine in that people should be able to practice their religion or beliefs, however, religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. Well ... Christian religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. It's a different story for people of other faiths who have been persecuted, lambasted and demonised for their religious beliefs. This has particularly been the case for Muslims, who are often the target of horrendous vilification at the hands of right-wing media commentators, Christians and others, who feel empowered to act out their bigotry and xenophobia.


The Religious Discrimination Bills were proposed in the wake of the marriage equality plebiscite, when some Christians were called out for discrimination against and persecution of LGBTIQ+ people. The plebiscite was about equality, which is a bridge too far for many Christians. In a nutshell, a lot of Christians felt persecuted because they couldn't persecute others. The plebiscite resulted in marriage equality for LGBTIQ+ people, who were given the same rights to marry that everyone else takes for granted. Why did Christians feel persecuted? Because they wanted the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ+ people, based on a twisted interpretation of scripture. 

Marriage is not the only area they wanted to be able to discriminate. Christians wanted the right to force their values on others, such as in the area of abortion, and ironically, religious belief. After all, instead of simply loving their neighbour, they only have to love their neighbour who is Christian, not Muslim, not LGBTIQ+, or requiring an abortion. Funnily enough, the bible is very critical of divorcees. Up until the mid-20th century, divorcees were anathema to the church, but now the church is highly accepting of divorcees. There will also come a time when LGBTIQ+ Christians can attend church and be open about their sexuality, gender identification and relationships. 



The Bills make it legal for a religious school to require all staff AND students to be adherents of that religion 'if such a requirement is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people of that religion' (s 7(1), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). How weak does your religion have to be, that your feelings may be hurt or your beliefs susceptible to injury by allowing someone not of that religion to work at the school? Similarly, s 9 of the Bill allows for religious hospitals, aged care providers, and disability services providers to discriminate based on faith. What value does it add if a Physics teacher is a Christian or not? Teaching English, Physics, Biology and so on, has nothing to do with the teacher's religious beliefs. Obviously, if the class is a religious education one, it may help for a teacher to be of that religion, but other subjects should not be even discussing religion, let alone requiring the teacher to adhere to that faith.  

The Bill does however, state that while people can make statements of belief that could be seen as discriminatory, they can't make those statements if they are malicious, threatening, intimidating, harassing, or vilifying others (s 12(2), s 15(3), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). 

The Bill is part of a package of three Bills. One of those is the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, which amends various federal legislation, including several human rights laws, namely Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Marriage Act 1961, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Charities Act 2013Age Discrimination Act 2004, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. To be fair, some of the amendments reaffirm the universality of basic human rights. However, if enacted, these amendments would allow for such things as educational institutions being able to refuse to provide goods, services or make facilities available for LGBTIQ+ people. 

Not every Christian or Christian organisation agrees with the Religious Discrimination Bill. For instance, the Uniting Church in Australia released a media statement on the Bill, which included the comment, '... we maintain any permission given to individuals or religious organisations that allows them to discriminate on the basis of religious belief must be carefully balanced against the rights of people to be free from discrimination and live with dignity. It is our view that the Religious Discrimination Bill does not achieve that balance' (Uniting Church in Australia, 2021).

By contrast, on 3 December 2021, the Victorian Labor government passed the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, which amends Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act (2010) to make it unlawful for schools and religious bodies to 'discriminate against an employee because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or other protected attribute'. In other words, they can't sack people for being LGBTIQ+ or discriminate in their hiring practices. Additionally, they can't refuse service on these grounds either. (AAP-SBS, 2021). If the Commonwealth's religious discrimination Bills are passed, they would override Victoria's much fairer legislation. 

The Commonwealth's discriminatory Bills come at an interesting time for people of faith. Most of the people who support the Bills are right-wing conservative Christians. For many years, these same people have been forcing their beliefs on others. It is one thing for people to have the right to practice their beliefs without harassment, it is entirely something else for those same people to force those beliefs on others. Yet, that is exactly what has been happening. They have forced women to have unwanted pregnancies, forced LGBTIQ+ people to hide their true sexuality and identity, forced LGBTIQ+ people to comply with the myopic view of marriage that many Christians have (i.e. marriage can only be between a man and a woman), forced other religions out of an area (such as campaigns that prevented construction of mosques), and attempted to tell other religions what they could eat or wear (such as campaigns against halal food and religious clothing, particularly burqas). 

It's not Christians in Australia who need protection against discrimination, it is the people who Christians discriminate against who need that protection. 


Unfortunately, far too many Christians live selfish lives. They wouldn't know what the Bible said if it bit them on their self-absorbed arses. The Bible is clear about sharing wealth with others, yet this is socialism in the minds of many of these Christians, who practically worship capitalism. The Bible says to care for others ... but again, socialism. Caring for the welfare of others is anathema to much of conservative Christianity. 

Coincidentally, it is right-wing conservative Christians who have been particularly vocal and active in anti-vaccination protests across the globe. Vaccinations help to protect the community, particularly those most vulnerable to respiratory conditions, but caring for others isn't high on the list of priorities of these Christians. They vociferously argue against being forced to be vaccinated, claiming it is a violation of their human rights. What privilege it must be to never have experienced human rights abuses, and then claim such abuse when asked to help the community

They carry placards claiming 'my body, my choice', which is particularly ironic, considering that these same people have been actively campaigning against abortion, in which pro-abortionists argue 'my body, my choice'. For Christians, other people's bodies are only important when it is their own. Choice is only important for them, not for others who may want to make different choices. 

In fact, the involvement of Christians in anti-vaccination protests highlights that their only concern for human rights is when it is their own. They have never protested against the treatment of refugees, such as Australia's mandatory detention policy, but make a vaccine mandatory and they lose their collective minds. There's a big difference between getting a little prick that will save lives and help protect the community, to being locked up for years without charge for committing no crime while being denied the very basic rights to freedom that most of us take for granted. Yet, these so-called Christians are more concerned with being forced to protect the community, then actually doing something to protect the community. They are more concerned with being given life-saving medication, than caring about the persecution and torture of innocent people. First world problems, much!

(Moore & Risso, 2020)

Many right-wing conservative Christians are selfish. They have no concern for anyone else's rights but their own. No wonder they attend anti-vax rallies and also support the discriminatory Racial Discrimination Bills.

They claim to be pro-life when they oppose abortion, but show they are pro-disease and pro-death when they attend anti-vax rallies to stop people from being given life-saving vaccinations. They want Jesus to save them, but reject life-saving vaccinations. Perhaps Jesus sent the vaccination ... 


Then there are those completely deluded kool-aid drinkers who see mandatory Covid vaccinations as the Mark of the Beast articulated in the Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, verses 16-18. In case you're not familiar with that particular scripture, it states, 'It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666'. The Covid-19 vaccination is apparently the Mark of the Beast. I kid you not. 

Mind you, those who claim this have been eagerly awaiting the anti-Christ because they believe that we are in the end-times prophesied in the Bible ... just like many others before them for the last 2,000 years or so. They have rattled off a plethora of candidates for the anti-Christ. This litany of superstars includes The Pope, Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev, and pretty much every American president since the founding of the US, except for Donald Trump, who these right-wing conservative Christians have practically lauded as being Christ incarnate. This hall of fame extends way back for millenia, and incudes Napoleon and the various Caesars. Every generation has claimed they are in the end-times, so pardon me if I'm a little sceptical that this generation is the last one before the Apocalypse ... but I digress ...


There is no reasoning with people who have this mentality. For them, everything is a conspiracy. If you quote fatalities from Covid, they will argue it is government propaganda. If you present evidence of the efficacy of vaccinations and that they save lives, these mental giants will quote some obscure and entirely fictional finding that they saw on YouTube or social media. If you criticise their selfishness in opposing the vaccine, they will argue that they are freedom fighters. Of course, they never argued for the freedom of refugees and asylum seekers who faced mandatory detention, even though the Bible considers refugees and asylum seekers as the 'least of these', and calls for their care and concern by Christians. Matthew 25:31-46 states that, 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'.

In fact, this is the parable of the sheep & the goats, which states that the sheep are those who are concerned for others, while the goats are those who are only concerned for themselves. The parable goes on to explain that the goats will be sentenced to eternal punishment. Funnily enough, the selfish anti-vax Christians accuse pro-vaxxers of being sheep. Oh well, this would make the anti-vaxxers the goats in this parable ... I guess they better start cranking up their heaters & get used to fiery torment. They tend to also not believe in climate change, so perhaps their support for carbon emissions is their way of practicing for an overheated eternity in the fires of hell. Just sayin' ...

Through their support for the Racial Discrimination Bills, anti-vax protests, end-times conspiracy theories, the lies and bigoted fear-mongering of Donald Trump and Scott Morrison, locking up refugees and asylum seekers, or vilifying other races and religions, it is clear that many right-wing conservative Christians lack the ability to love their neighbour, lack grace and humility, lack wisdom, lack critical reasoning, yet abound in selfishness. They wallow in a persecution-complex, while having the freedom to persecute others.  

The Racial Discrimination Bills are not needed. It would be more accurate to rename them the Privilege Protection Bills. The last thing that Australia needs at this time is to further empower discrimination of others. If anything, the government should be providing greater support and strength to those who are truly discriminated against, persecuted and vilified, instead of empowering the privileged and sanctimonious Christian-class. Instead of these unnecessary and damaging Bills, the Australian government should be focussing on the important challenges facing Australia, including equality for all, climate change and Covid. 



References

AAP-SBS, 2021, Victoria has passed new laws that make it unlawful for schools to sack LGBTIQ+ staff, SBS News, 3 December, viewed 3 December 2021, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victoria-has-passed-new-laws-that-make-it-unlawful-for-schools-to-sack-lgbtiq-staff/45e09ac5-f7eb-411b-83cf-d6fc240a7ed7.

Elphick, L, & Taylor, A, 2021, Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse, ABC News, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-26/religious-discrimination-bill-lgbtq-students-teachers-religion/100651222.

Moore, G, & Risso, A, 2020, Anti-vaccination and 5G protesters defy COVID restrictions, 7 News, 30 May, viewed 26 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/anti-vaccination-and-5g-protesters-defy-covid-restrictions-c-1069448

Uniting Church in Australia, 2021, Religious Discrimination Bill must protect all, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://uniting.church/religious-discrimination-bill-must-protect-all-people/


Updated 4 December 2021














Sunday, November 21, 2021

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

By Ranting Panda, 21 November 2021

Are you woke? You know, alert to the needs of others and, in particular, to the discrimination or persecution that others may be experiencing. Of course, if you're right-wing, you probably disparage those who are woke as being politically correct do-gooder snowflakes who are trying to take away your right to discriminate or persecute others. Many right-wingers will blurt out the old dog-whistle, 'Wake Up, Australia' ... or whatever their country of choice is. They want others to wake up but not be woke. 

Woke is often used in relation to racism, which seems to trigger those right-wingers who like to portray themselves as never being offended by anything. Yet, the moment that someone criticises one of their sacred cows they splutter and choke like an old hand-cranked car trying to start on a cold morning. Case in point is the removal or criticism of statues of prominent people from days gone by. Many of those people were slave-traders or slave owners, massacred innocent people, or committed other human rights abuses. The woke who raise these issues are accused of 'rewriting history'. The offended conservatives who make this accusation conveniently ignore or are ignorant of the fact that this isn't rewriting history, it is telling history as it was. Removal of a statue is acknowledging the real history, not rewriting history, not glossing over or sanitising it like naïve conservatives would like.

Confederate statues in the United States are treated as sacrosanct by many conservatives. Yet, these statues were not installed by the Confederacy during the American Civil War that raged between 1861 and 1865. They were installed during three critical periods in US history in which racism and slavery were revered. The first period was in the 1880s to 1890s, some 20 years after the civil war, in order to crush reconstruction efforts and continue the disenfranchisement of black people following the end of slavery. The second period was from the 1900s to 1920s, following the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, which saw a dramatic increase in lynching of black people and the establishment of Jim Crow laws that legitimised discrimination on racial grounds. The third period was in the 1950s and 1960s, which coincided with the centennial of the civil war and was used to counter the civil rights movement that was fighting for equal rights for black people who still suffered from racist laws and institutions in the US. This period celebrated white supremacy and installed further confederate statutes. 

The civil war was fought over the right to keep slaves. Conservatives don't like to hear that, so will often argue that any teaching otherwise is rewriting history. However, they are the ignorant ones who refuse to face facts. In defending confederate monuments, they are defending racism, slavery and murder. In 1931, sociologist and civil rights campaigner, W.E.B. Du Bois, commented that monuments to Confederate leaders should be inscribed with 'sacred to the memory of those who fought to Perpetuate Human Slavery'. (Palmer & Wessler, 2018).

This acknowledgement of history is an important element of Critical Race Theory. It challenges the sanitised version that has been taught in schools and which national pride is often based upon. It's obviously much easier to have pride in the nation if it was founded on a wholesome and benevolent settlement in which native populations welcomed colonial settlers with open arms, where everyone was invited to work in harmony for the betterment of a society based on love, equality and unity. Of course, the reality is that most colonisation was based on rape, massacre, subjugation, racism, and white supremacy, often in the name of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, whose teaching of 'love thy neighbour' seems to have been confined to the four walls of church buildings and never applied in the actual encounters with others who may have been of different cultures, beliefs or colour. 

So, what actually is Critical Race Theory (CRT)? It is the telling of history as it actually happened and it goes further to explain the origins and perpetuation of racism in society to identify solutions to dismantling racism. While some may like to think that everyone is treated equally, the fact is that there is still significant racism, and rather than being non-existent, it has been normalised. Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, is one who regularly spouts racist, and often highly inaccurate, vitriol against indigenous Australians and other minorities. It's no great surprise that Hanson put forward a motion in Australian parliament to reject CRT. Disturbingly, the motion succeeded (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021).

CRT is not just a matter of studying history, but in studying the impacts of it in the context of structural and institutional racism. It originated in the 1960s and 1970s by scholars researching the cause and continuance of racial disparities in the areas of legal and criminal justice, education, employment, and wealth (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021). Anderson & Gatwiri (2021), describe some of the principles of CRT as being:

  • Race is a social construct, rather than a genetic one. That is, racial differences are based on social experiences, rather than biology.
  • Systemic racism perpetuates white supremacy through practices of people and institutions, whether deliberately or not.
  • People are not defined by one aspect of their identity, but instead by multiple, intersectional aspects, such as race, gender, religion, age, class, disability, nationality and so on. 
  • CRT aims to educate people about discrimination and privilege, to question who benefits and who suffers from existing systems.
Many on the right-wing oppose CRT because they claim it is aimed at making white people hate themselves, or as historian Geoffrey Blainey once described this approach, as a 'black armband view of history'. CRT is not trying to demonise white people, which would be counter-intuitive to its purpose. It aims to address existing racist structures and practices, and identify ways to address them. 



It is also important to understand what CRT is not. After all, opponents of CRT will often make outlandish claims about what CRT is trying to achieve. Trump inaccurately described CRT as a '... Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression, and that our entire society must be radically transformed' (Karimi, 2021). The following list describes what CRT is not (Ketchell 2021). 

  • CRT does not assert that 'one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex'.
  • CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.
  • CRT does not assert that 'an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex.
  • CRT does not assert that 'an individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex'. 
  • CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
  • CRT does not assert that 'an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex'. 

One of the many arguments put forward against Critical Race Theory, or for that matter, any attempt at addressing systemic racism, is that people of today are not to blame for the actions of people a century or more ago. However, if those systems are still in place, then they should be dismantled. This can be challenging for some people, particularly those who benefit from those systems. Just because one person has the privilege of not experiencing racism or discrimination, does not mean that others don't experience it. When indigenous people in Australia campaigned for land rights so they could restore their connection with their traditional lands, there were many conservatives who sincerely believed that indigenous people would be legally granted the right to throw them off the land and to take over people's dwellings. You know, just like white settlement did to indigenous people. This acknowledgement of massacres, slavery and displacement is not rewriting history, it is the correct telling of the history of Australia. Some of the racist laws in Australia have been removed, such as the policy of Terra Nullius that was used to displace indigenous Australians, the White Australia Policy that actively segregated and disenfranchised indigenous people, and many other laws and policies (Pearson & O'Loughlin, 2021). Racism continues in the way that policing is conducted, in recruitment practices of some employers, in the attitudes and casual racism of many non-indigenous Australians, as well as in the language used by certain politicians to further their racist agendas in order to secure conservative votes.  

Another argument by opponents of CRT is that people should stop living in the past. Hmm ... those same people usually make a big deal of commemorating Anzac Day, Remembrance Day or other national days of significance. It's not those who which to discuss history who are rewriting history, it's those who refuse to discuss it outside their myopic knowledge of the past. Discussions around Australia Day, usually result in conservatives white-washing history, refusing to acknowledge the past or wanting to understand why anyone is still upset with forced displacement or racism. When Yassmin Abdiel-Magheid dared to raise some less than savoury elements of Australia's military past on Anzac Day, she was literally driven from the country following threats of rape and death by conservatives who refuse to acknowledge that perhaps there have been some unsavoury events in Australia's military history. 

Australia may no longer have a White Australia Policy and terra nullius may have been over-ruled, however, that doesn't mean that racism no longer exists. Racism isn't only confined to indigenous people. For instance, the political discourse in Australia, and for that matter in the United States and many European countries, is full of xenophobic fear-mongering and racist dog-whistling. The danger of this is that it empowers casual and overt racism. For example, Australian senator, Mehreen Faruqi, has described the horrendous racist abuse that she has experienced in Australia, even though as a senator, she is working hard for the betterment of Australian society (Faruqi, 2021). Mehreen is Muslim and was born in Pakistan. She isn't the first or only overseas-born politician in Australian parliament. However, politicians such as Julia Gillard, Larissa Waters, Tony Abbot, and Mathias Cormann, have not suffered the racism that Mehreen suffered. Those politicians are white and born in western nations. Another Australian politician, Anne Aly, is a Muslim who was born in Egypt. She has also reported horrendous racism in Australia. She was called an 'ISIS whore', and threatened with being 'gassed in ovens like Holocaust victims' (Christmass 2021). 

Racism is not something that exists only in the past. It is very much alive in today's society. The first principle mentioned above, regarding race as being a social construct, is extremely important to understand. It considers that while geography does help shape a person's identity, it isn't the only thing. However, we often see racists judge people based on their nationality, colour or religion. They may label black people as lazy, Muslims as terrorists, or, as we saw with former President Donald Trump, label Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals and rapists. Trump got away with it because racism is normalised and accepted. 


A high-profile example of systemic racism was that of Kyle Rittenhouse, a then 17-year old boy who crossed state-lines to attack Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse was armed with an assault rifle, which he used to shoot protesters; killing two and severely injuring a third. A few days ago, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges, including murder. Disturbingly, many conservatives supported Rittenhouse, seeing him as a patriot. Had it been a Muslim who fired shots, it would likely have been treated as terrorism. Meanwhile, there have been thousands of examples of black people who have been shot dead, simply for the crime of being black. Rittenhouse was white, affording him the privilege of benefiting from the systemic racism inherent in the criminal justice system of the US. Rittenhouse has been photographed with white supremacist group, the Proud Boys, giving the white power hand signal (Hayne, 2021). In the trial, the judge banned referring to Rittenhouse's victims as protesters, and stated that they were to be referred to as 'looters, arsonists, or rioters' (Hayne, 2021). This immediately validated Rittenhouse's actions as self-defence. If it was truly self-defence, if the protesters were truly the ones doing the attacking, then how come it was only Rittenhouse who fired on them? The judge was biased and did not afford an objective trial, even allowing Rittenhouse to select his own jury; a job usually left for a clerk of the court (Graham, 2021).

It is clear that systemic racism still exists in Australia, the United States, and other countries. It is important to acknowledge our racist history and the consequences of it, in order to stop the perpetuation of racism. It isn't just that certain individuals are racist, it is the systems that normalise that behaviour, and perpetuate racism and injustice throughout the criminal justice system, education and employment. 





References

Anderson, L, & Gatwiri, K, 2021, The Senate has voted to reject critical race theory from the national curriculum. What is it, and why does it matter?, Southern Cross University, 22 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.scu.edu.au/engage/news/latest-news/2021/the-senate-has-voted-to-reject-critical-race-theory-from-the-national-curriculum-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter.php

Christmass, P, 2021, Muslim PM Anne Aly details horrific stories of racism, sexism and death threats, 7 News, 19 March, viewed 21 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/muslim-pm-anne-aly-details-horrific-stories-of-racism-sexism-and-death-threats-c-2388662

Faruqi, M, 2021, For eight years I’ve served Australia. The racist hate and disgusting abuse still crushes me, The Guardian, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/30/for-eight-years-ive-served-australia-the-racist-hate-and-disgusting-abuse-still-crushes-me.

Graham, J, 2021, Was it fair to have Kyle Rittenhouse pick the numbers that determined his jury?, Deseret News, 17 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/11/17/22787727/kyle-rittenhouse-selected-his-own-jurors-in-a-lottery-is-that-fair-or-a-form-of-punishment-kenosha.

Hayne, J, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of killing two people at Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, ABC News, 20 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-20/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-protest-shooting-kenosha/100603512

Karimi, F, 2021, What critical race theory is -- and isn't, CNN, 10 May, viewed 21 November 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html.

Ketchell, M, 2021, Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn’t, The Conversation, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752.

Palmer, B, & Wessler, SF, 2018, The costs of the confederacy, Smithsonian Mag, December, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731/.

Pearson, L, & O'Loughlin, M, 2021, 10 things that you should know about systemic racism, Indigenous X, 2 February, viewed 21 November 2021, https://indigenousx.com.au/10-things-you-should-know-about-systemic-racism/