In the wake of the controversy following Dave Pellowe’s public remarks about Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies, the issue has gained renewed attention with reports that a Victorian barrister who refused to recite an Acknowledgement of Country at a meeting was subject to a barrage of insults and criticism.

At a recent meeting of the Victorian Bar Council, barrister Lana Collaris began by acknowledging ‘all Australians’ rather than an “Acknowledgement of Country” ceremony. Shortly after posting the minutes of the meeting on social media, Collaris was labelled a ‘racist’, a ‘visitor’ and ‘an introduced species’, and was publicly condemned by two of her fellow Bar councillors, who told her that she had brought the Victorian Bar into disrepute.

Writing in the Australian newspaper, Collaris has explained the reasons for her objection to Acknowledgement of Country statements:

“Acknowledgements of country are not about showing ‘respect’. They are political statements signalling support for a two-tiered system based on race. They have no place in the law, including in our courtrooms, and the average Australian instinctively knows this”.

She has signalled that she intends to continue with the practice of welcoming all Australians in the future:

“For as long as people continue to make political statements by way of acknowledgements of country, I will continue to acknowledge all Australians, signalling my support for an Australia where we are all equal and subject to the same laws regardless of our race”.

Indigenous commentator Anthony Dillon has defended Collaris, arguing that “overuse of the welcome to country practice is a problem and deserves discussion”.

He maintains that baseless claims of racism will do nothing to help the Indigenous cause:

“For those who disagree with Collaris, they are entitled to challenge her and state their case why they believe it is an appropriate ritual. But to call her racist for declining to do one is unfounded and absurd.”

Christian pastor Dave Pellowe is set to appear before the Queensland Human Rights Commission for a compulsory conciliation meeting this week, following a complaint made in relation to his public comments that Christianity is incompatible with Welcome to Country/Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies.

Mr Pellowe’s objection is based on his religious beliefs.

HRLA is assisting Dave as he defends himself against this complaint.

Dave Pellowe's and Lana Collaris' public positions on this issue are central to a broader debate about whether individuals in Australia should be forced to participate in or support cultural practices that are incompatible with their personal or religious beliefs.

It also highlights the issue of using anti-discrimination laws to punish people who won’t participate.

A healthy liberal democratic society requires freedom to exchange ideas and beliefs and to participate in public debate. The ability to disagree with others is essential.

In many states, vilification laws make it unlawful to incite hatred, disgust, or ridicule against individuals based on specific attributes, including race, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Most people agree that we should not incite hatred against others. But these laws are being misused by activists to target individuals with religious or political views they oppose, effectively stifling freedom of speech.

Vilification laws make speech vulnerable to the subjective feelings of those who may take offence, regardless of whether any offence is intended, whether it causes any actual harm, or even whether the speech is true.

John Steenhof, Principal Lawyer at HRLA, said:

“Vilification laws are particularly difficult because they set such a low bar for an offence. Which means they are easily used by people who want to engage in viewpoint suppression”.

“In many ways, the process is the punishment.”

“The only way we can combat bad ideas is when we have the freedom to contest that with good ideas.”

It is important that individuals like Dave Pellowe and Lana Collaris continue to contribute to the public debate. As HRLA’s John Steenhof said:

“When you show courage, it’s contagious. When you go through these cases it gives other people courage. If you show courage, it means that others have a bit more courage to push back.”