Australian disability law already punishes discrimination based on imputed attributes

Evidence

Discrimination law, including in Australia, already recognizes that the wrongfulness of discrimination cannot be limited to actions because of a person’s identity but can also include acts of stereotyping and prejudice that underpin discriminatory actions regardless of whether a person in fact has a protected attribute. This idea is particularly well developed in the context of disability discrimination. For example, s 4 of the Australian Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) defines disability as including a disability that ‘is imputed to a person’ (subsection k). By recognizing that a person does not actually need to have a protected attribute, the law acknowledges that the wrong of discrimination lies with the ableist beliefs, stereotypes, assumptions, and prejudices of the discriminator. — Mareike Riedel, Islamophobia, Racial Discrimination…, 76

Categorization

• XREF: The DDA’s imputed-disability provision (s4(k)) is the closest existing doctrinal template for an ‘imputed race’ standard that would cover Muslims without full racialization.
• SEED: Essay/policy angle: ‘Extending the Imputed Attribute Model to Race’ — disability law beat race law on perceived attributes; what would an analogous imputed-race provision require?
• SHARE: A specific person working in Australian anti-discrimination law would care that s 4(k) DDA defines disability as including imputed disability — a mechanism race law lacks.