Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION: Malco & Ors -V- Massaris & Ors [1998] NSWEOT COMPLAINANT: Malco, Velosky, Delkou RESPONDENT: Massaris, K Publications Pty Limited, Kaldis NUMBER: 226-229 of 1996 Mr K Raphael ( Judicial Member ) TRIBUNAL: Ms K Greenhill Mr O McDonald GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: DATES OF HEARING: 11/24/1997; 11/25/1997 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1998 Complainant: Mr I Taylor (Counsel) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr C Vertzayias, McDonnell Vertzayias JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF: Respondent Three Australians who emigrated to this country before the second world war and each of whom fought for Australia in that war come to this Tribunal pursuant to s.20C of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 as complainants in respect of an alleged act of racial vilification arising out of the publication of an article in the Greek language newspaper O Kosmos on Friday 6 May 1994. All these claims are identical save that Mr Veloskey the complainant in matter No. 227 of 1996 has provided particulars of loss which are unique to his own position. History In the state which was formerly called Yugoslavia there was a province known as the Republic of Macedonia. It was not an independent state. When the Yugoslav state broke up this area which had the city of Skopje as its capital or principal town took the name of the Republic of Macedonia and sought to be admitted to the United Nations under that name. The state of Greece in its modern form has a northern province which is called Macedonia. It was from this province that the three complainants hailed. The province is inhabited by persons of Hellenic and Slav origin amongst others. The three complainants are of Slav origin. They speak a language as their native tongue which is not Greek and has much in common with Bulgarian. This language is also spoken in the state which calls itself Macedonia to the immediate north. The state of Greece objects strenuously to the use of the name Macedonia by the new republic and has sought by diplomatic means to have that country excluded from the United Nations under that name. These problems have been ongoing since about 1988 and became particularly troublesome after an April 1993 decision by the United Nations pursuant to which the new republic was admitted under the acronym FYROM (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia). Greece thereupon blockaded FYROM and for much of 1994 tempers ran hot not only upon the Peloponnese Peninsula but also in those many countries throughout the world to which Greek people and people from the former Yugoslavia had emigrated. One such country was Australia. Australia not only has a large community of ethnic Hellenes but also a substantial minority of Greek citizens from the province of Macedonia. Some of these people sympathise with the aspirations of FYROM, some do not. In February 1994 Australia recognised FYROM following debate in the Federal Parliament. Regrettably, this led to an outbreak of inter ethnic violence which was unusual for Australia with both parties accusing the Government of not being sympathetic to their cause. It was against this background that a letter was written by two of the three complainants under the heading of the Macedonian - Australian People's Ex-Servicemen League. The letter was dated 31 March 1994 and was addressed to the Honourable Paul Keating, then Prime Minister of Australia and was distributed to every parliamentarian in New South Wales. We are obliged to set out this letter in extenso because it was the trigger for the alleged act of vilification, namely the publication of an article on the front page of the O Kosmos newspaper about the letter. It is also important for the consideration of other claims and defences that have been raised in these proceedings 31 March 1994 To: The Hon. Paul Keating Prime Minister of Australia Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 From: The Macedonian-Australian People's Ex-Servicemen League PO Box 400, Castle Hill NSW 2154 Michael Veloskey, President, Phone (02) 344 5897 338 Maroubra road, Maroubra NSW 2035 Iliad K.D.E.O' MacEdon, Secretary Lazo Tzavellas, Treasurer Dear Sir We pray with this direct and Open Appeal to forthwith stop all anti-Macedonian propaganda from Greece and in particular from those "Greek agent-provocators" operating throughout Australia. Our recent warnings to you and to the Human Rights Parliamentary Sub-Committee have not only been ignored by you and your Government, but fuel was added to the raging ethnic Greek-fire by your ministers. We also appeal to all politicians and political parties not to involve themselves directly or indirectly in this quagmire because Human Rights violations have been taking place for years against the Aussie Macedonians. It is rather noticeable that after more than 10 cases of bombing and arson against the Macedonian churches and offices in Melbourne alone, the police apparently have not solved a single case. Where are our ASIO and ASIS to brief you correctly? However, we can assure you and all your true believers of various multicultural background that its NOT a Macedonian custom or traditional paranoia to commit suicidal harakiri. It is regrettable that you did not forewarn us, say 12 months ago, so that appropriate armed security precautions could be arranged for life and property protection, of course it would have been more correct to set the alarm immediately upon betrayal of the Macedonian communities when those promises were given to the Greeks, as stated clearly last month by the Premier of Victoria. Premier Kennett addressed those co-ordinated Greeks outside "his" Parliament surrounded by those black garbed Phanariots, spelling out your "3 promises" thus: 1. Not to use the word Macedonia. 2. Not to use that ancient Macedonian flag. 3. "Skopje" to cease territorial pursuits on Greece, evidently a reference to southern Macedonia under Greek rule. Let us examine that in reverse: The northern Macedonian Republic has never made, requested or demanded any territory from Greece officially or un-officially. What is worrying the Greeks is the demand by those southern Macedonians for their Human Rights and freedom of expression. The ancient ethnic cleansing philosophies and practices are not welcomed by the people of this war ravaged peninsular, be they: Macedonians, Greeks, Paleo-Macedons, Slavo-Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Wallacians, et al. Muslims and Jews if any of the latter are still there. Many of the Salonika Jews were saved by the local Macedonians hidden in the countryside from the Gestapo and their Pontian "Greek" collaborators, some of these collaborators migrated to Australia and are now actively organised here and some of their children have been acquainted with those brutal Gestapo methods, as seen on t.v. in the anti-Macedonian pogroms. Many of these Salonika Pontians became wealthy from the plunder of Jewish jewellery and property. The Australian colonel Alex Sheppard's memoirs when serving with UNRA in Macedonia soon after World War II should give sufficient "phanariotic" light on this subject. What is worrying the ordinary Aussie is that there is no Statesman-like clarification by Senator Evans, evidently Minister for "Greek" Foreign Affairs as to why: ..."the Australian Government fully understands and sympathises with the feelings of the Greek people on the Macedonian issue and that we (sic) have BENT OVER BACKWARDS (sic again) to meet these concerns on the terms of our recognition" of FYROM. Who was the "clever Greek" who invented such an acronym for the former Macedonian Republic of Yugoslavia or was this a "great diplomatic" leap by Gareth like a "Slav" Greek? Shame and greater SHAME of Senators Evans and Bolkus, not a word of understanding and sympathy with the feelings of the Macedonians. Without straining their backs or bending forward, what is required first and foremost is an upright stand on Human Rights Principles in the interest of all Australians. All those strings attached on recognising the Macedonian Republic have made a laughing stock of Australia and especially the people of our sun-blessed continent. Evidently since the Greek arm occupied southern Macedonia in 1913 without provocation or invitation, that ancient Macedon emblem of the rising sun is claimed by the invaders. The recently desecrated and robbed grave of that "barbarian" Slavo-Kelt PHILIP or MACEDON, whose sacred remains were flaunted around the world especially in Australia as a Bicentenary 'gift' hearse without even a wooden horse, parading Ancient Macedon as a Greek war trophy. No wonder some Macedonians cried while others protested at such an infamous Greek provocatory conduct and wondered how can the Australian government be so gullible to permit such a sacrilegious act. Not only the flag but the very sacred name of Macedonia not to be used as dictated by Athenian Prime Ministers (be they conservative or socialist) urging others to emulate by adopting double-barrel standards for external and internal use respectively. Surely there is an ancient Greek heritageous emblem that can be used by the Greeks with the adopted Bavarian white and blue colours. All kind of imperial forces have tried to change the name of Macedonia without success, even as recently as 1913 when southern Macedonia was occupied by the Greek army, the forceful graikonization started by renaming villages, towns (eg Koukoush to Kil-Kis when the army burnt it to the ground), even the names of those Paleo-Makedoni were changed. That is why so many who settled in the Americas and Australia reverted to their ancient Makedonian names and many preferred to be Kelticized even with Orpheic oaths than take those suppressive pagan philosophies and undecipherable Greek "gospels". You can be assured when everything is analysed that there are more Macedonians in Australia than Greeks. The Macedonians never had nor will ever take part in rambo nationalism or put up with demonsthenic vitriolics either blasphemous or eloquent philippics from Evans, Kennett or the multi-gene Photios, the latter perhaps a genetic victim of de-tribalisation. The Macedonian churches in Melbourne were evidently burnt because they were not established with approval by Greek Ministers and "Sts" Gareth, Bolkus and Theo-phanis the non-Australian foreign policy makers. You should send those Greek co-ordinators packing and tell them it is discriminatory to spread imported propaganda to smear this sun-drenched country with that falsified historia. It should be made clear to one and all that Australia is not a receptacle for discredited philosophies. Some people simply ignore burning of the Aussie-Macedonian churches just before Easter and prefer to either swim at Bondi beach or buying their heads in the sand in order not to smell the stinking ill-wind with those covert "understanding" which enhance ethnic cleansing while the political provocators are pouring out the verbal bulldust. In the name of Humanity and Democracy Stop that filthy anti-Macedonian propaganda NOW! For the Macedonian-Australian Peoples' Ex-Servicemen League: Michael Veloskey, President Iliad K.D.E.O' MacEdon, Secretary Lazo Tzavellas, Treasurer cc: Leaders of Political Parties & selected research media" A copy of this letter was provided to Mr Kaldis, the Third Respondent. Mr Kaldis is a member of the New South Wales Parliament and is associated with the O Kosmos newspaper for which he occasionally writes. He provided a copy of the letter to the newspaper and on 6 May 1994 the First Respondent published an article written by the Second Respondent in Greek. The version below is the agreed translation. "A small part only of the propaganda that was distributed in the N.S.Wales Parliament. THE "SKOPJIANS" INUNDATE PARLIAMENT WITH PROPAGANDA. "GREEKS ARE BARBARIANS" The Skopjians have inundated the New South Wales Parliament with propagandist material which can only be characterised as outrageous. More or less they are accusing Greeks of being Barbarians who stole their emblems and their civilization. The columnist of our paper and senator Mr Takis Kaldis told us that the propagandist material that was distributed to all the politicians emanate from the newly appeared organisation of the Skopjian veterans calling itself "The Macedonian-Australian People Ex-Servicemen's League". The propagandist documents contain a forwarding letter, an appeal to the Prime Minister Mr Paul Keating and a copy of an article by an Australian newspaper. Among other things the Skopjians make the following hilarious claims: *That Greeks are responsible for the church fires. *They are accusing the Government of not protecting them, pointing out that had they been informed of the Government's decision, they would have taken... "armed measures to protect animals and property"!!! *They are disputing the Greek origin of the "Pontian" charactering them as German collaborators, responsible for the genocide of Jews! *The Barbaric Greek Army is occupying Macedonia since 1913 and changed by force all the names of villages and cities The "example of" Kilkis is also mentioned, which was burned down by the Greek Army, whose proper name, they say, is "Koukoush1" *The Skopjians are now using a new name - they are talking about .... Old Macedonians. *In their appeal they make a hideous attack on Australian politicians. *They maintain that there are more Macedonians than Greeks in Australia. *And the preposterousness continues in each paragraph of the documents competing against the other for its hilarity. The appeal is signed by Michael Veloskey (President), Illiad K.D.E. O'MacEdon (Secretary) and Lazo Tzavellas (Treasurer). On or about 25 October 1994 a complaint was made to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales alleging racial vilification against the First and Second Respondents. On 19 November 1995 a further complaint was made against the Third Respondent. On 21 December 1995 the President of the Anti-Discrimination advised that the complaint against Mr Kaldis had been declined under s.90(1) as lacking in substance. On 8 January 1996 the complainants requested that the complaint against Mr Kaldis be referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal and on 2 September 1996 the complainants requested the complaints against the First and Second Respondents be referred to this Tribunal. The complaints have had a rather leisurely passage through the Tribunal but eventually came to hearing on 24 and 25 November 1997. On 25 November 1997 the Tribunal dismissed the complaint against Mr Kaldis pursuant to s.111(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act and under s.111(2) awarded Mr Kaldis his costs noting, as requested by the complainants, that Mr Kaldis had not been present in the Tribunal on either day of the hearing. The Issues In an Amended Points of Claim filed on or around 19 June 1997 the complainants' case was well pleaded. It states: "11. The article contains or is based on a number of false statements or inaccurate statements or contains false statements or inaccurate statements. The purpose of these false or inaccurate statements is to incite hatred of, serious contempt for, and ridicule of, Macedonians. Particulars (a) The article describes Macedonians as "Skopjans." The "Skopjans" inundate parliament with propaganda" The "Skopjans" have inundated the NSW Parliament with propagandist material which can only be described as outrageous" "Our papers columnist and senator Takis Kaldis told us that the propaganda material... comes from a newly formed organisation of Skopjan Ex-Servicemen call Macedonian-Australian People Ex-Servicemen's League. (b) The article accuses Macedonians of distributing "absurd propaganda" to Australian politicians. "The skopjans have flooded the NSW Parliament with propaganda material which can only described as absurd." "Our paper's columnist and State Senator, Mr Takis Kaldis told us that the propagandist material that was distributed to all the politicians emanates from the newly appeared organisation of Skopjan veterans calling itself the "Macedonian-Australian People Ex-Servicemen's League." (c) The article accuses Macedonians of waging a "hideous attack" on Australian politicians. "In their appeal they make a hideous attack on Australian politicians." (d) The article accuses Macedonians of making absurd and ridiculous claims. "Among other things, the Skopjans make the following hilarious claims" "and these preposterousness continues each paragraph of the documents competing against the other for its hilarity." (e) The article misquotes certain documents: The article wrongly states that "our documents" say that the Greeks are responsible for the church fires. The article wrongly states that our documents say that the Greeks are Barbarians. (f) The article wrongly states that the Macedonian Australian People Ex Servicemen's League is newly formed. The Respondents filed a defence in which they deny that the publication of the article constituted an act within the meaning of s.20B(c) and 20C of the Anti-Discrimination Act . The points of defence also allege that Macedonians do not constitute a separate race known to anthropologists and they are not a race as defined in the Anti-Discrimination Act . The defence further stated that the publication of the article by the Respondents fell within s.20C(2)(a) and (c) in that the Respondents were (i) reporting a public act committed by the complainants; and (ii) informing its readers of the complainants' actions in the public interest. By the time the matter came before this Tribunal a number of matters had been agreed but despite the fact that one of these agreements related to the ethnic identity of persons of non-Hellene descent who describes themselves as Macedonians there was no admission that these persons constituted a race as defined in s.4 of the Anti-Discrimination Act . However, the concept of race is a broad one, see Ealing London Borough Council v. Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342. In N.S.W. the definition includes ethnic or national origins. That phrase was considered in King-Ansell v. Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 where Richardson J held as follows 4593. "... a group is identifiable in terms of its ethnic origins if it is a segment of the population distinguished from others by a sufficient combination of shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from a common or presumed common past, even if not drawn from what in biological terms is a common racial stock. It is that combination which gives them an historically determined social identity in their own eyes and in the eyes of those outside the group. They have a distinct social identity based not simply on group cohesion and solidarity but also on their belief as to their historical antecedents." This authority was approved by the House of Lords in Mandla v. Dowell Lee [1983] All ER 1069. Professor Peter Hill who gave evidence for the Respondents identifies Macedonians as a race because, he states, " they are both a nationality and an ethnic group within Australia ." He states " if people can be described as a nationality where they identify as national group. Within the group of people who speak Macedonian there are those who identify themselves as Macedonians rather than groups or Bulgarians. The Macedonians have a shared Macedonian heritage ." He goes on to say " Macedonians are a recognisable ethnic group in Australia ." He states, " there is a chapter in the publication The Australian People; an Encyclopedia edited by James Jupp which contains a chapter on Macedonians ." He states that " the Australian Government publishes material in Macedonian and there is an SBS radio programme in Macedonian ". He states that " most Macedonians who identify themselves as such also identify themselves as belonging to the Macedonian Orthodox Church of which there are 18 in Australia ." This evidence of Dr Hill was not seriously challenged and this Tribunal is of the view that Macedonians including those persons of Greek nationality who identify as Macedonians constitute a race for the purposes of the Anti-Discrimination Act . Because the Respondents have raised the defence as set out in s20C(2) the Tribunal is required to decide whether or not the publication of the original letter constituted a public act. The original letter was addressed to the Prime Minister of Australia and was sent to a large number of parliamentarians. In s.20B of the Anti-Discrimination Act a public act is defined to include: (a) any form of communication to the public, including speaking, writing, printing... In Hurst v Vestcorp Limited (1988) 12 NSWLR 394 Kirby P at p403 quoted from Denman J in Securities and Exchange Commission v Sunbeam Goldmines Co 95 F 2d699 (1938 CA 9 Cir). "In its broadest meaning the term "public" distinguishes the populous at large from groups of individual members of the public segregated because of some common interest or characteristic. Yet such a distinction is inadequate for practical purposes; manifestly an offering of securities to all redheaded men...is no less "public" in every realistic sense of the word than an unrestricted offering to the world at large." The publication of a letter addressed to the principal politician in the Commonwealth and to a large number of other politicians within a state in the Commonwealth is inherently unlikely to have been undertaken for a private purpose. Indeed, the most likely purpose of the circulation of the letter was to enlist the sympathies of such politicians to take the matter up in a public place such as the New South Wales Parliament or to take the matter up publicly with members of the Commonwealth Parliament or its Ministers. This Tribunal finds that the publication of the letter to have been a public act as defined in s.20B. The statement of facts in dispute which was admitted as Complainants Exhibit 4 asks in its numbered paragraph 3 whether the article incited hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group. It then set out a series of instances in respect of which it asked that question. It did not become clear at any stage whether the Tribunal was being asked to look at these matters individually or cumulatively in order to decide whether the article in its totality constituted the unlawful incitement prohibited by s.20C(1). In the circumstances the Tribunal will consider the complaints individually and then, if they do not constitute the unlawful incitement on that basis will consider whether cumulatively they do so. The first complaint was described in the statement of facts in dispute provided by the applicants as follows: " Whether the article Incited by : (a) the use of the word "Skopjans" to refer to the applicants and people like them, particularly whether; (ii) the word is used to suggest that the applicants and people like them are agents of or supporters of the Republic of Macedonia; (ii) the word is used to deny those who identify themselves as Macedonians their heritage and nationality and/or the right to so identify themselves, particularly with respect to those who come from what is now known as Northern Greece; and (iii) the word is used with the intention or the knowledge that it sounds like the word "skopen" which means castrated. This allegation was the one most seriously debated by the parties before the Tribunal and was the subject of expert evidence on both sides as well as cross-examination of the first respondent and the tender of documents. In the book " The Macedonian Conflict " Danforth, L.M., Princeton University Press 1995 part of which was exhibited as Exhibit C13 Loring M Danforth posits that Helenic Greeks have difficulties in accepting the concept of pluralism because of the strong " nationalist identification of the Greek nation with the Greek state" (Danforth p110). This has led to attempts to alienate the Slavs- Macedonian community in northern Greece from the rest of the Greek nation and to identify persons who identify as having a Macedonian ethnicity as Skopjans. The evidence is that inside Greece the word "Skopjan" is used to describe persons who are citizens of FYROM and persons who identify with that state but who live in northern Greece. There is of course nothing inherently insulting about the word "Skopjan". It is a valid universal description of persons who live in the town of Skopje or its environs. Does it become a word which is likely to incite vilification when applied to persons outside that immediate geographical area and does it have any other offensive connotations? Dr Hill in his statement suggests it does in that it identifies persons who are disloyal to Greece. He states: "To use the word "Skopjan" to refer to an Australian who identifies as a Macedonian is highly offensive and a deliberate insult. It intends to refer to them as lackeys of the foreign government. Further, it denies them their right to identify themselves as Macedonians." The problem which we have with this analysis is that it appears to be subjective. There is no objective evidence that the word was deliberately chosen to have that effect and the result is that any description of these people other than "Macedonian" would be claimed to have the same effect. In Wagga Wagga Aboriginal Action Group and Ors v Eldridge (1995) EOC 92 701 at p78-266 the Learned Judicial Member stated: "Section 20C does not make unlawful the use of words that convey hatred towards a person or group of persons on the grounds of race of that particular person, or members of the group; nor does it make unlawful the expression of serious contempt on the grounds of race of a particular person or groups of persons; nor does it make unlawful severe ridicule on the grounds of race of a particular person or groups of persons. The use of such words may be found to be unpleasant and obnoxious, but this section does not make their use unlawful. The dividing line arises when by public act a person incites others to have hatred towards, serious contempt for, or to severely ridicule a particular person or group of persons on the ground of race". The evidence from the respondents was that the use of the word "Skopjan" was common in Greece and was the preferred descriptor for persons of Slav Macedonian ethnicity. The first respondent also admitted in cross-examination that he was aware that the term was disliked by those about whom it was used, presumably the degree of dislike increasing with geographical distance from the city of Skopje. But is using a descriptor about an ethnic group which it dislikes but which is in itself totally innocuous likely to incite others? This Tribunal believes not. Unless the word can be said to have other meanings which are themselves vilifying the use of this label would not in our views breach s.20C(1) of the Act. In the particulars of complaint set out above it is argued that the use of the word denies those who identify themselves as Macedonians their heritage and nationality. This may be the case but it is not the test. The use of the description " Macedonian (Slavonic) for the language that is spoken by people living in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, or originating from it ," was considered by the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission in Australian Macedonian Human Rights Committee (Inc) v State of Victoria (Unreported Decision of Sir Ronald Wilson 8 January 1998). In that matter the complainants alleged that the addition of the word "Slavonic" to the word "Macedonian" was insulting and offensive. It was alleged by the complainant that the directive from the Victorian Government containing these words involved " a distinction, restriction or preference based on the ethic origin or alternatively the decent of the people represented by the complainant.... the directive has the purpose and/or effect of impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of a number of human rights and fundamental freedoms ." The HREOC Hearing Commissioner held that he was not required to decide whether or not these complaints were made out or breached s.9(1) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (CTH) because he found that the government directive which was the subject matter of the complaint was produced by the respondent in performance of its duty to advance the peace, order and good government of Victoria and that the impugned conduct was not based on ethnic origin. This Tribunal is therefore unable to obtain any assistance from that Decision. There was alleged one instance in which the use of the word "Skopjan" could have a meaning which was itself directly derogatory in character. That is that the word was used with the intention or the knowledge that it sounded like the word "Skopen" which means castrated in Macedonian. There was much evidence on this point from the experts called by all parties. In the end the Tribunal formed the view that there was agreement that the use of this word if linguistically possible i.e. if it indeed was pronounced in a way which sounded like "Skopjian" would only be recognisable to a Macedonian speaker. The persons reading the newspaper and the article complained of were almost universally Greek speakers as the article was written in Greek. Further there was no evidence that the writer of the article had any knowledge of the alleged meaning of this Macedonian word and the Tribunal finds that this claim is not made out. In addition to the other matters of complaint set out as (b) to (g) above there was also a complaint in respect of the headline which read "Greeks are barbarians". It is understood that the complaint here is that the article intended to incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule by indicating that the letter which was being commented upon described the Greeks as barbarians. The thrust of the argument by the complainants was that the article did not describe the Greeks as barbarians and that this was a deliberate misquotation. It is the view of this Tribunal that this headline was a reasonable comment upon the letter made in good faith in connection with a discussion or debate about an act or matter, namely the letter itself. The actions attributed to the Greeks in the letter could well be said to be barbaric and in our view the editor was doing no more than making this public comment upon the terms of the letter itself. In the Hellenic Council of New South Wales v Gigor Abalesky and the Macedonian Youth Association( EOT) unreported 25 September 1997 the Tribunal held that an advertisement which contained the words: " well no more! we can only take too much !! fellow Australians, you have read the facts, now its time we stood up to these hostile fascists" fell within the provisions of s20C(2)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal in that case did not appear to have the benefit of having read the Wagga case (supra) and had it done so might have taken a less robust view of that provision, however, it is the view of this Tribunal that the article complained of in this case is not as inflammatory as the advertisement complained of and not found to be in breach of the Act in the Hellenic Council case. The Tribunal finds that the allegation concerning Skopjan veterans or Skopjan ex-servicemen was not likely to incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule. The Tribunal finds that the references in the article to the applicants disseminating propaganda is a reasonable comment and falls within paragraph 20C(2)(c) as does the references to the applicants waging "the hideous attack" and the references to the applicants acting in an "absurd or ridiculous manner". The Tribunal finds the complaints (f) and (g) are merely repetitious of the previous complaints. The Tribunal has considered the evidence given by Mr Voloskey and in part documented, which he claims establishes that incitement to hatred and severe contempt took place. This is the evidence of the hate mail which he received and the telephone calls. Although pressed Mr Voloskey was unable to draw a clear connection between the appearance of the article in O Kosmos and these actions. That they occurred at all is disgraceful and they point to the need for the type of legislation with which this Tribunal is currently dealing. Mr Voloskey was a self described Macedonian activist who was in the thick of an imported and heated dispute between people of his ethnicity and Hellenic Greeks. There are many things he could have said or done in public which may have triggered the writer of the hate mail or the instigator of the telephone calls. The nature of that mail indicates that it came from a person of minimal education and a deranged mind. This Tribunal is unable to infer a direct connection between it and the article. Finally, the question must be asked as to whether, even though the Tribunal has found that the individual complaints do not in themselves constitute unlawful vilification the article as a whole does so. The Tribunal is of the view that the purpose of the article was to show outrage at the letter produced by two of the complainants and in that it succeeded. Whilst it is always possible for an article expressing outrage to cross the line into itself inciting hatred or contempt this Tribunal believes that for the reasons expressed above it avoids that trap. If, however, we were wrong in this it is necessary to consider whether the whole article could be considered a fair report of a public act and thus obtain the benefit of s.20C(a). In Thom v. Associated Newspapers (1964) 64 SRNSW 376 at 380 the learned Chief Justice Heron CJ and Ferguson J said in respect of a defence under s14(1)(d) of the Defamation Act: "There can be no doubt that a fair summary of Court proceedings published in good faith for the information of the public has the protection of s14(1)(d). The report need not be verbatim, but to be privileged it must accurately express what took place. Errors may occur; but if they are such as not substantially to alter the impression that the reader would have received had he been present at the trial the protection is not lost. If, however, there is a substantial misrepresentation of a material fact prejudicial to the plaintiff's reputation, the report must be regarded as unfair and the jury should be so directed." In Leslie v. Mirror Newspapers (1972) 125 CLR 332 Barwick CJ held that there should be referred to a jury for consideration as to whether or not a report was "a fair report" an article in which: " There is no doubt that the newspaper report was not verbally identical with the reasons given by the Magistrate; also there was a headline which placed emphasis on what in my opinion may be thought to be an interpretation of those reasons." The gravamen of these authorities is that a decision as to whether or not a report is "a fair report" is to be decided by the triers of fact. In respect of proceedings before this Tribunal the Tribunal itself is the trier of fact. The Tribunal has considered the article in question and whilst agreeing that it is not a verbatim repetition of the letter, note that the learned editor of Fleming on Torts (8th Ed. page 583) states: "The report need not be in full, because otherwise the protection would be virtually illusory.... headlines must give a fair idea of what follows. And above all else, it must be substantially accurate." This Tribunal is of the view that the report meets those criteria and is therefore protected by the defence contained in s.20C(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act . The Tribunal dismisses the applicants' claims. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.