The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > So, what went wrong with section 18C? > Comments

So, what went wrong with section 18C? : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 10/1/2017

None of what the (then) Government appears to have intended or proposed is what section 18C says or does.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
nicknamenick:

It is never reasonable for it to cause offence. It can only cause offence if the offended person agrees with the attitudes that are expressed by the person trying to offend.

If a racist slur causes you to feel uncomfortable it is because you are not secure enough in your own attitudes to race. No one chooses their race and so no one can take responsibility for the race they were born into. If someone wants to deride me for my race then why should I take offence at something over which I have absolutely no control? It is totally unreasonable.

If I am offended then the problem is mine. I cannot be responsible for my race but I am responsible for the way I think and feel about race. I am responsible for what I think is up to me to do something about and my race is never anything I should try and change for any reason.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 10:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Disagree Phanto, You are right inasmuch as nobody is responsible for their race or circumstances of birth! None of which gives any other, so called civilized human being, the right to abuse or discriminate!

"Least we forget" the racial hatred that resulted in the mindful, deliberate, and horrific extermination of 6 million Jews! Or the almost countless examples of state approved ethnic cleansing!

If 18C needs to be amended then let those proposing that make it a first order issue for the very next election and after the nation has effectively voted on marriage equality!

Arguably it's marriage equality alone that has raised a storm against 18C? And indeed, the most vociferous homophobic opposition to it? Gotcha?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 10 January 2017 1:59:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only reason 18c is getting a run is Bolt or Blot which ever appeals,who got done by the law for making stuff up,18c had nothing to do with it had more to do with the fact Bolt stuffed up at googling,then printed falsehoods, bad luck Bolt maybe proof read before publishing.
Among all this confected outrage which is led by the the OZ version of the Völkischer Beobachter backed by the rest of the Murdoch pack of liars & stenographers.
Anything that sends the Murdoch owned papers into a tizzy and upset the rest of the RWNJs has my blessing,but one thing is for sure,one of the real as opposed to made up freezes on Free Speech are our very restricted defamation laws.
I don't see the same papers getting their nickers in a twist over that try fixing that first you might sound more convincing
Posted by John Ryan, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 5:16:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B.:

So without 18C we are heading straight into another Holocaust? That's a bit dramatic isn't it?

In order to have another holocaust we would have to start killing people. Killing people has its own laws that must be obeyed. There is no need for 18C to stop Holocausts.

Can you show exactly how a racial slur would definitely lead to a holocaust?
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 5:31:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So where in this discussion does Grahams occasional propensity to remove posts and ban people? Isnt that just the same as relying on 18c?
Are some things too offensive? Or is OLO a bastion of censorship and unreasonableness?
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 5:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is one basic problem with 18C. It is that there is such a thing as truth.

If the truth offends the person offended must put up with offence.

E.g. Mohammed married his youngest of his wives when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9.All duly recorded in Arabic in the hadiths ( or more correctly the plural is ahadith)

It no doubt offends Muslims to say that if Mohammed were alive to day in Australia he would be in gaol as a paedophile.

Mohammed defeated a tribe of Jews and beheaded every adult male in the tribe (duly recorded in a hadith). If he were alive today, in Australia or Europe, he would be in gaol as a war criminal. In the Koran he expressly authorises the killing of prisoners of war who will not convert to Islam

If those statements offend many Muslims, I am a racist and subject to penalty for stating them. Is that the law? If so, the law is wrong. Repeal it. The truth is the truth is the truth!

It would be also true to say that people following the teachings of Mohammed are following the teachings of a person who today would be considered a paedophile war criminal. Is that not the truth? Does it offend? have I committed an offence? Can Australians no longer tell the truth ?
Posted by Old Man, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 6:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy