From the National Indigenous Times:

The sorry saga of the ‘ES Nigger Brown Stand’
Thursday, 4 May 2006

The fact we’re even having the debate says a lot about our nation. White Australia is fighting for the retention of the word ‘Nigger’ writ large on a grandstand in Toowoomba. CHRIS GRAHAM urges you to check your IQ at the door and make sure you’re sitting down for an in-depth look at the ridiculous saga that is the ‘ES Nigger Brown Stand’ debate.

It’s one of the most famous television ads in Australia, run by the federal government in the lead up to the Centenary of Federation celebrations in 2001.

The ad was designed to prick the conscience of Australians and highlight the fact we know so little about our past.

It began by asking: “What kind of a country would forget the name of its first Prime Minister?�

The answer?

The same country that can stage a riot in Sydney to ‘win back the beaches’ from Muslims and ‘Lebo’s’ but claim it was not racially motivated.

The same country where the parliamentary secretary for Immigration, Andrew Robb last week foreshadowed the introduction of a compulsory test on English language and Australian customs for prospective immigrants.

Australia’s distant past is a troubled one. But our recent past seems no better.

Of all the racial struggles in Australia, none sums up the national identity better than the ongoing controversy over the ES ‘Nigger’ Brown grandstand in Toowoomba.

And the good news is, it’s about to flare up again.

Aboriginal academic, author, politician, campaigner, activist and soon to be film-maker Stephen Hagan is heading back to court in yet another bid to force the removal of the offending word from the sign.

In one sense, Hagan’s fight has been ‘arse-about’.

He’s already fought and lost in the Federal Court and the High Court. He’s even been to the United Nations, where he won.

Ironically, Hagan is fighting his latest battle in Queensland, having lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commission (ADCQ). In addition to an alteration to the sign, Hagan is seeking an apology from the Toowoomba Sportsground Inc. - for the offence it has caused.

But we’re skipping ahead a little.

The Nigger Brown saga began way back in 1960, when the Toowoomba community decided to honour one of its favourite sons by naming a grandstand after him at the local footy oval.

About the only thing all parties can agree on is that Edward Stanley ‘Nigger’ Brown was a pretty special guy.

Ted was born more than a century ago and went on to play in the 1921 Australian Kangaroos side. He was a sporting legend in Toowoomba and went on to become a community and business leader.

Ted was a model member of the community, a generous man who gave both time and money to the betterment of Toowoomba.

At the age of about three, young Ted was nicknamed ‘Nigger’ because of his extremely extremely pale skin and hair.

It was a name he carried for the rest of his life - everyone in Toowoomba knew him simply as ‘Nigger’. In fact many people never even knew his real name so it seemed appropriate to include his initials and his nickname on the Toowoomba grandstand.

But it’s not just the sight of the sign that has offended - if you go to the footy in Toowoomba, announcers at the ground regularly shout the name of the stand over the loudspeakers, as in ‘Joe Smith is tearing down the wing past the Nigger Brown stand’ or ‘Get yourself a hot dog next to the Nigger Brown stand.’

It’s all pretty confronting stuff.

Enter, Stephen Hagan, a brash Aboriginal man in his late 30s, who in 1999 had finally had enough.

Ironically, Hagan was born the very year the Nigger Brown stand was erected. A member of the Kooma and Kullilli Tribes, he grew up in a town camp called the Yumba which is on the fringes of Cunnamulla, a small, tough country town in south-west Queensland.

Hagan comes from a long line of fighters.

His grandfather started a small general store to service the Yumba mission. It was highly unusual at the time for an Aboriginal man to work in - let alone run - a community store.

Hagan’s father, Jim, was the first chair of the National Aboriginal Congress, one of Australia’s earliest black political voices.

Jim was the first Aboriginal Australian to address the United Nations, a forum which would years later host son Stephen.

But first, Hagan Jnr had to do battle in the Australian courts.

On June 23, 1999, Hagan formally asked the Toowoomba Sportsground Trust to remove the word ‘nigger’ from the sign.

A hastily called public meeting passed a resolution: “That the name ‘E.S. Nigger Brown’ remain on the stand in honour of a great sportsman and that in the interest of the spirit of reconciliation, racially derogative or offensive terms will not be used or displayed in future�.

The Toowoomba community was offering a ‘compromise’. But it wasn’t just coming from whitefellas.

About 35 Aboriginal people at the meeting supported the motion. ‘Unanimous support’ for the retention of the sign was claimed, although that now appears to be in dispute.

But regardless of the figures it was pretty clear at the outset - and it remains clear today - that Hagan has, at best, mixed support among Aboriginal people in Toowoomba.

At worst, he has bugger all.

In May 2003, the Pacific Rim Bureau Chief of CNSNews.com, Patrick Goodenough, filed a lengthy feature on the Nigger Brown saga. He interviewed a Toowoomba Elder who is a highly respected member of the local community.

The Elder told CNS.com the sign had “nothing to do with race� and should remain in honour of a great sportsman.

He also noted that Hagan had taken the campaign up on his own bat - he never consulted anyone before he complained about the sign, not least of all the local elders.

“We didn’t agree with what he was doing, so we opposed it,� the Elder said.

Having lived in Toowoomba for 34 years, the Elder told CNS.com that he could recall a time when Toowoomba did “bear signs of a racist town�.

Like most black people, he’d been barred from pubs and other premises because of his race.

“But you have racist white people, you have racist black people - so what? What can you do? We’ve learnt to accept what’s here.�

Hagan has not.

He dismisses the elder’s statement - along with every other Aboriginal person in the region who opposes his campaign - as the views of people who want to please the white establishment.

In fact, CNS.com reported Hagan as saying: “We call them coconuts - black on the outside, white on the inside.�

It’s not too hard to imagine why Hagan enjoys so little local support today, but then local politics are often very passionate.

So without the help of his community, Hagan decided to take his fight to a higher authority.

In 2000, Hagan appeared before the Federal Court alleging the failure of the Toowoomba Sportsground Trust to remove the sign breached the federal Racial Discrimination Act. He lost.

The Court ruled that Hagan had not demonstrated the decision to erect the sign (in 1960) was an act “reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate an indigenous Australian or indigenous Australians generally�.

The court also found the erection of the sign was not “done because of the race… of the people of the groupâ€?.

In other words, it wasn’t erected to vilify Aboriginal people, it was erected to honour a local hero.

The fact that it clearly does vilify Aboriginal people by its very presence is, at least according to federal law, irrelevant.

In addition to that, the court found the Racial Discrimination Act did not extend to protecting the “personal sensitivities of individuals�.

In laymen’s terms, that means it takes more than one person to find something offensive for the protections of the RDA to kick in.

Hagan’s lack of local support had, in part, contributed to him losing a court case that might otherwise have seemed like a sure bet.

In 2002, Hagan appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, asking it to find the original judge had erred.

He lost again.

Undeterred, Hagan sought permission to appear before the High Court of Australia to overturn the Federal Court ruling.

He was rebuffed there as well.

It was a well reported case, not least of all because Justice Mary Gaudron advanced the theory that “pink� people might also find the use of a term like ‘Pinky’s Porkies’ offensive, but that didn’t mean the Racial Discrimination Act had been breached.

Some might suggest there’s a marked difference between the words ‘Pinkies Porkies’ and ‘Nigger’, but in Gaudron’s defence, she was arguing on a matter of law… and the law doesn’t always make sense to the common man.

The United Nations, by contrast, didn’t have to consider such weighty matters as Australian legislation.

In March 2003, Hagan took his case to the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

CERD presides over the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, an international treatise to which Australia is a signatory.

Eighteen experts on racial discrimination from countries as diverse as Egypt, Algeria, China, the United Kingdom and France - meet twice a year to hear complaints from all over the world.

You can only get into the CERD after a court in your own country has ruled against you.

On this occasion, it probably didn’t help Australia’s cause that a ‘Ms Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill’ was sitting on the 62nd session of the CERD.

Ms January-Bardill is from South Africa. And she’s black. She has a remarkable resume and apart from her work with the UN, she’s served as South Africa’s Ambassador to Switzerland.

Ms January-Bardill also used to run a private consultancy firm in South Africa called Change Management, which was “motivated by the enormous transformation of South African society after the demise of Apartheid�.

Our point being, Mr Hagan’s complaint was not just heard by white legal minds.

The 18 members of CERD issued a lengthy statement, reading in part: “The Committee considers that the memory of a distinguished sportsperson may be honoured in ways other than by maintaining and displaying a public sign considered to be racially offensive.

“The Committee recommends that the State party take the necessary measures to secure the removal of the offending term from the sign in question, and to inform the Committee of such action it takes in this respect.�

That ‘state party’ is Australia.

Rather than address the actual issue, Australia responded by attacking the UN.

A spokesperson for federal Attorney General, Daryl Williams told media: “The government’s serious concerns regarding the quality and standards applied by U.N. complaint bodies are a matter of public record. In the absence of real reform of the U.N. treaty body system, those concerns remain.�

As a nation, Australia remains unmoved by the UN’s recommendation.

And so does the sign.

Ernst Willheim is a visitor in the law program at the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University in Canberra.

He’s a retired barrister specialising in constitutional and international law and is well known in national and international legal circles for his advocacy on human rights, particularly Aboriginal issues.

Willheim has argued before the UN and he was a key figure in the Hindmarsh Islands affairs in South Australia, when Aboriginal people were falsely accused of fabricating ‘secret women’s business’.

Willheim was Hagan’s pro-bono barrister during his appearance before High Court Justice Mary Gaudron.

He’s not only appalled by the Nigger Brown sign, he’s stunned by Australia’s snubbing of the UN finding.

“The UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has found against Australia,� Willheim says.

“CERD is not a court - it’s not legally binding - but it’s surely deserving of respect.

“ To not do so diminishes Australia’s international standing as a nation that respects human rights.�

Willheim makes the point that Australia, particularly of late, has expressed strong public views about other nation’s adherence to core human values.

“Human rights has been a major aspect of Australia’s foreign policy,� he says.

“Australia has attached importance to, and commented on, failures by other states to comply with their human rights obligations.

“The failure to implement the recommendation of CERD calls into question Australia’s continuing commitment to, and respect for, human rights.�

Not surprisingly Hagan - the man who also ran an unsuccessful campaign to have the cheese brand Coon renamed - agrees.

“What appals me is Australia is quite prepared to invade a sovereign nation [Iraq] on the basis of a UN resolution.

“But when it comes to abiding by another UN resolution, Australia chooses not to do so.

“That typifies the extent to which racism is entrenched in this country.�

But if international opinion won’t sway most thinking Australians, then perhaps they might like to consider what sort of people they’re jumping into bed with.

At this juncture, the phrase ‘lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas’ seems appropriate… although if you woke up next to one these guys, you’d probably chew your arm off to get away.

The Stormfront.org website is a bastion of white supremacy and unbridled hatred.

News of the resistance shown by Australians to the removal of the sign was greeted enthusiastically by Stormfront ‘bloggers’.

After the UN finding, a forum guest called ‘melting_pot_massacre’ from Sydney wrote: “Stephen Hagan Sounds Like A Complete Knob End. I Hope He Gets Cancer And Dies Painfully.� Eloquent stuff.

Stormbird, location unknown, chimes in: “Yep, and I have an issue with Jatz Crackers… but do you think that the thought police at the anti-discrimination politbureau will fall in behind me with my quest?â€?

Chookah from Brisbane warns: “Should he win, I will hereby start a class action against all ‘cracker’ manufacturers, and if we lose, we can argue that the judge is a racist.�

Chookah ends his post by saying: “We as Australians, need to band together to ensure the futures of our children.�

Some might suggest that the white warriors from Stormfront probably shouldn’t breed.

Others might imagine that given how much of a serve “poofs� come in for in the blog forums, they’re all seriously conflicted closet homosexuals and would be unlikely to breed if given the chance anyway.

Either way, enter Martin, who removes any doubt about the intelligence of the average ‘White Pride Australia Wide’ forum member.

“Weird, i’ve never associated Aboriginal people with the word “nigger� because i’ve always used it for American blacks and so on. I’ve always used different words for Aboriginals. A couple people i messaged on msn think the same.�

Martin also signs off: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children!� and then includes a link to a site called MuslimsOut.org.

Ozboz, a forum member from Perth, provides a link to a picture of Hagan, who he describes as a “pathetic PC wanker�, and then writes: “D’you see this? [Pulls down shirt to reveal huge swastika tattoo on his chest]. This means ‘Not welcome’.�

Ozboz also includes a cute one-liner sign-off designed to give the illusion of intellect: “Si Vis Pacem, Para Belum.�

Unfortunately, he got the spelling wrong.

Ozboz meant to spell ‘Bellum’ with two L’s, which translates to ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’.

Perhaps Ozboz and melting_pot_massacre should link up some time.

Of course, there have been more ‘moderate’ views expressed on the internet about the Nigger Brown saga. But while they don’t call for people to ‘get cancer and die’, they also don’t exactly fall into the category of ‘compelling arguments’ either.

This one from a Mr ‘J Williams’ of Bathurst NSW, who had a letter to the editor published in Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph in May 2003, typifies the sort of arguments that have been levelled against the removal of ‘nigger’ from the sign.

“Does Aboriginal activist Stephen Hagen (sic) really think he is doing his cause any good with his ridiculous campaign to have the ES “Nigger� Brown stand at Toowoomba renamed, or is he just trying to make a name for himself? He is bringing ridicule on himself, and giving the Aboriginal race bad publicity.�

So one Aboriginal man does something Mr Williams doesn’t agree with and it brings the whole Aboriginal race into disrepute?

Interesting logic, but we digress. Back to Mr Williams’ letter.

“ES Brown was not even an Aborigine so Mr Hagen (sic) cannot claim it is a slur directed in any way at one of these people. Brown was a Caucasian Australian and not an Aborigine, and no doubt revelled in the nickname, for really that is all it was.

“Even the UN admits the name was not designed to demean anyone. Does Mr Hagen (sic) also want to do away with any names beginning with Black. There are many thousands in the phone books, let alone the world. Then we could start on those beginning with white or green.

“And then we could pick on all dogs named Blackie, Whitey, all cats called Sooty etc. What about goldfish, should they be given a more neutral name?�

We’ll stop you right there, Mr Williams.

Mr Hagan (not Hagen) doesn’t want to do away with the name Black. He wants to do away with the word nigger, which is not a name.

And for the record, there are no listings for a Mr and Mrs Nigger anywhere in the Australian White Pages nor are there any listings for the term ‘nigger’ anywhere in the Australian Yellow Pages.

In fact, NIT searched the online international phone book - it seems nowhere in the world does anyone have the surname ‘Nigger’.

Apart from the man himself, probably only Mrs Williams - if there is one - will know if foam was spraying from Mr Williams’ mouth by the time he finished his letter. But his argument - as ludicrous as it begins and ends - and the passion with which it was delivered are an excellent example of what is surely the dumbest debate in Australian history.

Unsurprisingly, the saga has brought columnists like Piers Akerman out of the woodwork.

“Stephen Hagan wants to defy history and change the name of a stadium honouring Toowoomba’s first rugby league international, Edward Stanley “Nigger� Brown,� Ackerman wrote in The Daily Telegraph in July 2003.

“He has called in the UN (don’t they all) but the problem is that Brown was known to all his fans as Nigger - not Ned, or Eddie or Stan - and he was a white bloke. The UN has no jurisdiction but suggested that some other name be put on the plaque. Hagan says those objecting are rednecks but perhaps they’re just people with a higher regard for the facts than politically correct revisionists like himself.�

And it brought other people out of the woodwork who want to be like Akerman.

This one is from Michelle Tydd of the Illawarra Mercury from June 2003.

“Look at the kerfuffle over the grandstand in Queensland named in honour of 1920s rugby league international player ES “Nigger� Brown.

“The debate divided even the Aboriginal community and went as high as the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination after several Australian courts ruled the name could stay.

“Geographically Wollongong would be in hot water if the word police ever came to a suburb near you.

“Fairy Meadow [the name of a suburb] could be seen to be taking a snipe at our gay community.�

Even some of the ‘moderates’ among us seem to think the whole thing is ridiculous.

In a column railing against the racist attitudes of white South Africans, Jane Fraser wrote in The Weekend Australian in May 2003: “It was recently suggested that the E.S.�Nigger� Brown Stand in Toowoomba be renamed so as not to give offence. Fortunately the idea was pooh-poohed; things can be taken too far, especially in a country where there is a cheese called Coon and a plant referred to as wandering Jew.�

Perhaps that’s part of the problem?

It’s a fact not lost on Ernst Willheim.

“In what other country in the world, would nigger be allowed on a sign on a public football stadium?� he asks.

The answer is none.

Of course the word ‘nigger’ is offensive and of course it should be removed from a grandstand in Toowoomba.

It’s hard to imagine anyone credibly arguing otherwise… unless, of course, you have a political interest in doing do.

Hagan’s fight is by necessity a legal one because politically, he’s gotten no support from mainstream leaders.

The Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has the power to demand the Toowoomba Sportsground Inc. remove the word ‘Nigger’ from the sign and instead leave ‘ES Brown Grandstand’.

It doesn’t seem like such a big ask, but Beattie - a man who described himself in 2000 to an ABC journalist as a “media tart� - is not budging.

Beattie knows a ‘winner’ when he sees one, and in Queensland dumping all over blackfellas is a pretty popular cause.

Responding to calls to bring the sign down, Beattie says, “[The word nigger] would be inappropriate today, but it is not inappropriate in terms of history.�

ment changed the names of several road signs, including “Nigger Creek� and “North Nigger Creek� in Herberton in Far North Queensland.

But Hagan’s lack of political support isn’t just restricted to a state level.

Federally, the two major political parties are similarly underwhelmed by the whole ordeal.

Greens Senator Bob Brown moved a motion on the floor of the federal Senate on December 7, 2000.

It read: “That the Senate, in the interest of reconciliation, requests the Toowoomba City Council to remove the offensive term ‘Nigger’ from the name of the E S ‘Nigger’ Brown stand at the Toowoomba sports ground.�

Senator Brown’s motion received just nine ‘ayes’ - from the Greens and the Democrats.

The Liberals voted against the motion, including the future Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Amanda Vanstone.

Most of the ALP didn’t even bother to show up, although a few did.

Senators Kim Carr and Kerry O’Brien - both future Opposition spokesmen on Indigenous Affairs - voted with the government.

So did Trish Crossin, a woman who traditionally has supported Aboriginal causes and whose electorate is 30 percent Indigenous.

A spokesman for current Opposition spokesman on Indigenous Affairs, Chris Evans explained to NIT that the ALP voted against the motion because “… it was felt to be a local government matter and it would be unusual for federal Labor to dictate to a local government about the naming of a sports standâ€?.

The upshot is that Hagan can expect no mainstream support for his campaign, regardless of its obvious merits.

So his remaining options are legal ones, and that brings us back into Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, where Mr Hagan will appear in the coming months.

Having exhausted federal laws, and winning what seems to have amounted to an empiric victory in an international forum, Hagan has decided to target state laws.

The argument, according to his barrister Andrew See, will focus on a few interesting questions about race and region.

One test of Queensland’s racial discrimination legislation will be how the Tribunal views the issue of location.

Is it, for example, racially discriminatory to have a sign in Toowoomba that, while accepted by locals, might be offensive to people from outside the community who visit? Do Queensland’s racial discrimination laws protect people in Cairns from a racist sign in Toowoomba?

And is the word ‘Nigger’ only offensive to Aboriginal people? What about the growing Sudanese community in Toowoomba? Do they find it offensive? Should they be protected from it?

Hagan’s argument in the Tribunal, rather than focusing just on his Aboriginality, is likely to expand to take in ‘all people of colour’, ironically an insensitive term in its own right, but one which is relevant to the Nigger Brown saga.

But win lose or draw, Stephen Hagan has no plans of giving up.

“The racist boofheads don’t intimidate me. I’m big and ugly and black. I don’t scare easily.

“I’ve faced bigger and rougher folk than some of those people who masquerade around at night with bed sheets.

“I’m not a physical man or a violent man but I feel very strongly about the rights of Indigenous people.�

If history tells us one thing it’s that nations inevitably evolve, albeit some slower than others.

The ES Nigger Brown sign will eventually come down, it’s only a matter of time.

But amidst the dumbest debate in our nation’s history, you have to wonder what our forebears - our political leaders, our media, the man on the street - would think of our refusal today to accept that the word ‘Nigger’ appearing in massive lettering on a public grandstand could be considered deeply offensive, regardless of its context.

Well, perhaps not a lot.

There’s this from The Bulletin magazine on July 2, 1887: “All white men who come to these shores - with a clean record - and who leave behind them the memory of class distinctions and the religious differences of the old world… are Australians… No nigger, no Chinaman, no lascar, no Kanaka, no purveyor of cheap, coloured labour is an Australian.â€?

And this from Billy Hughes, who served as Labor Prime Minister until 1923: “Our chief plank is a White Australia. There is no compromise about that. The industrious coloured brother has to go and remain away.�

And what would Edmund Barton (our first Prime Minister, in case you forgot) make of it all?

Actually, he’d probably be bursting with pride.

Barton was a shocking racist and the architect of Australia’s infamous White Australia policy, which he introduced into law in 1901.

During a parliamentary debate defending the Immigration Restrictions Bill, Barton remarked: “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and Chinaman. There is a deep-set difference, and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever being effaced. Nothing in this world can put these two races upon an equality. Nothing we can do by cultivation, by refinement, or by anything else will make some races equal to others.�

It was also Barton’s cabinet that legislated to prevent “black labour� from being employed on mail boats arriving in Australia.

And then this: “We are struggling among ourselves for supremacy in a world which we thought of as destined to belong to the Aryan races and to the Christian faith… We shall wake to find ourselves elbowed and hustled, and perhaps even thrust aside by peoples whom we looked down upon as servile, and thought of as bound always to minister of our needs.â€?

And finally, amid opposition to his shameful policies, Barton proposed to restrict the arrival of ‘coloured people’ in Australia by making immigrants sit a 50-word dictation test.

Sound familiar?

The more things change, the more they stay the same… No wonder we forget the name of our first Prime Minister.