Oppressed anglo saxon sits alone on white sand.

Oppressed anglo saxon sits alone on white sand. Photo: Jonathan Wood

It’s not easy being of Anglo-Saxon origin.  My morning news is a carnivalesque horror show of Anglo-Saxons burdened by their positions of power: making laws, running companies, owning everything. Crushed under the weight of shared global responsibility.

I turn on my television for some repose only to see a kind of white slave trade in blonde actors forced to represent the national culture: Neighbours, Wonderland, The Time of Our Lives. ‘Please’ I howl into the void ‘Give us freedom or give us death!’

Stepping outside into my leafy Eastern Suburbs enclave I seek solace in my harbour views only to be overpowered by the scent of my own oppression: SPF 50. Suddenly it dawns on me: I’m living in a white ghetto. I turn to food, to comfort eating, and find only quinoa.

Wonderland.

Wonderland.

Shepherd’s Pie, fellow Anglo-Saxons, Lest We Forget.

A life of little pigment is a life half-lived. Which is why I was delighted to find that we have laws to protect our race. Laws that have inadvertently come to act as a shield against the slings and arrows of bad genes. These laws are the racial anti-vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

I know, I know. You thought that these were there to protect racial and ethnic minorities, right? You thought that they were intended to provide redress for the very real physiological and psychological harm inflicted upon disadvantaged ethnic groups by racist words. You might have read studies showing how racist words often precede violent attacks. And if you’re philosophically inclined you probably pondered the fact that one person’s freedom to speak shouldn’t come at the expense of another person’s freedom to live without fear or violence. And after all this you probably concluded that these laws are there to protect society’s most vulnerable members.

WELL THINK AGAIN! Unbeknownst to most Australians, these laws can also be utilised by Anglo-Saxons. Round eyes rejoice! No longer does anti-discrimination law have to be a zero sum game where the more minorities get, the more we lose.

I came to this realisation recently when a friend told me that she was being sued for racial vilification. Now, I’d never liked this friend. She was a self-hating Anglo who wrote for the newspaper.

In one article she said that Anglo-Saxons had terrible skin tone and bad teeth. I gasped and felt nauseous upon reading it. And I wasn’t the only one.  Some friends murmured darkly about how her views could slide into auto-genocide.  

Luckily, a fellow Anglo-Saxon decided that it constituted assault and went to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) about it. Brave, brave cracker! He claimed it was hate speech.

While I liked his pluck, I didn’t like his chances of success. HREOC have to investigate every complaint so I knew that he’d get a response, but the chances of them pursuing the matter were slim.

Some chattering class, bunyip elite, bleeding heart, do-gooder lawyer would say that it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money; that the laws were there to redress historical and contemporary discrimination against minorities. But no! They decided to pursue the matter to the point where my self-loathing Anglo friend had to get lawyers to draft submissions to the Commissioner. Yes, they took it seriously.

This made me wonder how many other courageous snow-flakes there had been out there willing to face the fires of liberal hell to stand up for our rights.

So I did some research and found that in fact one of the earliest cases heard by the Commission for racial vilification was by a fellow Anglo Saxon called Bryant who in 1995 charged the Sunday Mail, or the Queensland Newspapers Group, with racial vilification because they published articles and letters that referred to English people as ‘pommies’ or ‘poms’.

Yes, that’s right: Pommies. God I can barely write those loathsome words without thinking of the violence, the hatred, the vilification Anglo-Saxons have endured under their name.

Sadly Bryant lost. Sir Ronald Wilson who presided over the case said that while he can accept that Bryant was personally offended, the test was whether a reasonable person would be offended by the word pommie.

Wilson said no. He also said that ‘the notion of hatred suggests the section allows a fair degree of journalistic licence including the use of flamboyant or colloquial language.’ Well Ronald, you call it flamboyant and colloquial, I call it murderous and cruel.

My self-hating friend also had her case dropped. She cheered and I wept, for all my oppressed white brothers and sisters.

So what can we learn from this story? That in Australia it is possible for Anglo-Saxons to sue for racial vilification and that your complaint about being called a pommie or being told you have bad teeth will be taken seriously. You may not win, but public money will be spent on an investigation.

But if you're Arab, you'll probably get nothing because the kind of hate speech you're most likely to receive will be tied in with the fact that people assume you're Muslim and racial hatred laws don't cover religion. So people can be as Islamaphobic as they want. Which as far as I’m concerned is a good thing, given that they swan about with their luxurious beards and dashing robes like self-appointed high-clerics of Australian society while we Anglos can’t even walk into a shop without people thinking we’ve got a bomb in our Country Road bag. 

So raise your warm beer and let’s drink to laws that protect the status quo!