I would think this article very ironic coming from a university academic, when universities have become one of the main centers for discrimination, bigotry and prejudice in the country, perhaps highlighted a few years ago when an academic described a large number of people as being “surplus to requirements”, and then that academic was given an honorary doctorate by a university in this country.

There was also the academic from a so-called Australian university who described all men as being potential rapists, and that academic has been given more awards from universities than even she could count.

In fact, anything at all can be said by any academic in this country and it will be completely accepted by their university, as long as it is negative of the male gender.

And there has been been a small competition arranged on OLO a number of times for anyone to find an academic from a so-called Australian university who has said something positive about the male gender (who constitute 50% of the population and most of the taxpayer base).

I don't think anyone has succeeded, and everything found was negative or discriminatory of the male gender.

What does that rant have to do with anything in the article, vanna?

Dilan, thank you. Speech is an act with consequences like any other act, something all too often denied by the "I defend unto the death" monkeys; it's nice to see it considered as one.

There's a more useful (I think) definition of racism that doesn't buy into the simple equation of racism and prejudice (with ethnic background as a motivator) but defines it, rather, as prejudice PLUS power. If those in charge of matters relating to Aborigines are all white, then white people possess power to which the addition of prejudice is going to be dangerous in a way that, say, an Aboriginal kid dissing average white Joe on the street is never going to compare.

If Aboriginal representation in powerful institutions (government, schools, media) is low, surely it's important that those who work in them be vigilant about keeping prejudice out.

People fearing being labelled racist have failed to speak the truth on many matters. Some States put public at risk when criminals are not identified by Police and media simply for pc reasons. It appears when it comes to aboriginal affairs only the leftist black arm band of history has any credence. Those holding to the warmist faith are also trying to stop free speach. I am surprised that these fools have not tried to legislate. Andrew Bolt speaks more truth in one day that the National Broadcasters do in a decade. Good to see the people of NSW have put Hanson above the extremist family hating Greens.

Rebe, I see your not averse to a little vilification yourself with you remark about the "I Defend unto the death" Monkeys.
The difficulty is the misuse of vilification laws to silence people you don't agree with.
I do not think that these laws are necessary at all. When I grew in the 70's it was perfectly socially acceptable to be racist, homophobic etc. This changed due to social attitudes changing, not due to law enforcement. People expressing racist views will be shouted down by the majority of Australians regardless of any racial vilification laws.
Other than that there is no need to protect people from being offended. Why should my neighbour be able to legally abuse me over the fence by calling me a 'fat bastard' but if I refer to him as a 'black bastard' I should be prosecuted? Both are equally offensive if your on the receiving end. But neither should be illegal.

Runner, sad news for you mate;your hero Hanson did not make it!

Dilan Thampapillai has made a good case for racial villification laws--if they are applied equally to all ethnic groups. Decisions such as in Mcleod v Power certainly don't help to legitimise these laws within the 'Western European' community. Don't the PC ideologues understand the double standard at work?

Of course there should be strong laws against racial vilification. But any healthy democracy also must have strong laws protecting freedom of speech. The difficulties would concern precisely where the boundaries of each should be.

The right of free speech is worth nothing if it doesn't include the right to make offensive statements, statements offensive to SOMEBODY.

On the other hand, racial vilification would certainly include any incitement to violence or physical action against a particular group, or to action that leads to violence. That moron who burnt the Koran, for example: why isn't he being charged with accessory to murder ?

And actually, one could easily find repetitions of Andrew Bolt's assertions within the Aboriginal community itself: they might characterise such people as 'coming out of the woodwork', 'Johnny-come-latelies', claiming benefits which are, tacitly, available for Aboriginal people who have really copped it, not just for those who discover as adults that they had an Aboriginal great-grandfather.

On that subject: the first generation of Australian-born whites formed organisations across the nineteenth century - the Sydney Natives' Association, the Australian Natives' Association - as soon as they were mature enough, to position themselves against the British-born toffs and hot-shots who were being given the plum jobs. Similarly, in Latin America, the local-born whites called themselves 'criollos', 'creoles', a term which was taken up by the NEXT class of underdogs, once the original Spanish-born hot-shots were displaced from power.

So many Australian-born whites called themselves 'natives', even on their death certificates, well into the twentieth century. How many people, with a 'native' grandparent or great-grandparent, now think they are Aboriginal ?

It's a complex world .....

Loudmouth,

Racial villification laws shouldn't apply in the case of religious belief,if they did, free speech would be extinguished.

The 'moron' who burnt the Koran is not resonsible for the resulting atrocity, religious fanatics are. Whether Jones is barking mad or not is irrelevant, he has a right to burn the Koran, Bible or any book he chooses.

Rebe,
"What does that rant have to do with anything in the article"

Get some of the statements made about men from a university academic and slighly change the wording.

For example: "Blacks are surplus to requirements".

Obviously such a statement would cause immediate outrage from within the ranks of academia, but take out "blacks" and insert the word "men" and the person making the statement then receives an honorary doctorate.

While certain university academics like to lecture Australians and accuse them of racism, universities are one of the main areas for discrimination and bigotry in the country.

'What's wrong with being offended? Since when did "sticks and stones may break my bones" stop being relevant?' - Steve Hughes.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the debilitating consequences of multiculturalism, or on any other subject involving racial differences, without risking prosecution by government organisations claiming "race hate" speech. The prosecution of Andrew Bolt, who is simply pointing out that many people are of dubious ancestory are claiming to be aboriginal in order to claim aboriginal only benefits, is a case in point.

A motley collection of official "Human Rights" and "Equal Opportunity" organisations will prosecute anybody who dares to make any accusation about the members of any non white minority group. These organisations are hardly bastions of liberal thought. They only agree with the concept of "Freedom of Speech" when it comes to ideas which they agree with.

The laws as they stand in the various states simply say that a person making a statement has only to "offend" a member of a minority group to constitute "race hate speech." Even the most ardent anti racist on OLO can see that such generalised laws can mean damn near anything, and constitute an unacceptable threat to one of our most cherished democratic values.

I am a racist, I disagree with the concept of human equality, and I find it incredible that a democratic society like Australia will persecute me for expressing rational ideas without being hauling me before the Inquisotors and showning me the instruments of torture, in order to make me conform to a false ideology whos irrational premises can never be challenged.

LEGO,

Stating you are racist and then claiming you 'express rational ideas' is as about as contradictory as one can get.

clownfish "'What's wrong with being offended?" exactly, as Rhys Jo9nes says, it is not very nice, but should not be illegal.

There is a culture now of tolerance to the intolerant, people can now demand censorship, because of their "offended" feelings.

I'm constantly offended by things around me, but do not come from a culture that is intolerant, what has happened to the minority groups in Australia is the offense they feel, is now used to bash anyone they please, into silence.

Is that what we want?

Some countries, like France and the Netherlands have realize how far down those paths they went and are reversing, there will be blood shed, in the Netherlands already, from the intolerant.

This is non trivial, and we may have to come to bloodshed here to reclaim from the whining left, our right to free speech, because it is going out the window.

Dear Mr McReal, at least I am prepared to defend my views through reasoned argument and critical analysis, while you apparently think that submitting sneery one liners is the epitamy of intellectual achievement.

What basis in reason do you have in your premise that "all men (persons) are equal", other than that you were inculcated in school to believe this holy premise, and it is now the sacred infallible doctrine that all must believe in?

LEGO,
Though all persons are equal before God and the Law they are not equal in intellect and ability. However they all equally serve a purpose in community, though the purpose is not equal in remuneration.

Freedom of speech is a safeguard against unjust rule. People should be free to criticize the laws of their community and the policies of their government. A government is less likely to impose unjust laws on people who can openly criticize its decisions. Without freedom of speech, people cannot have complete political freedom. In a democracy, freedom of speech is a necessity.

Having said that however, I would like to add that people who enjoy the rights of free speech also have a duty to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others, for example their right to maintain their good reputation and their right to privacy. Most societies put various limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they believe might harm the government or the people. But drawing a line between dangerous and harmless speech can be extremely difficult.

However, most democratic countries have certain laws and restrictions on free expression. Laws covering things like libel and slander. Laws against urging violence prohibit speech that endangers life and so on.

The development of freedom of speech in most Western countries has been brought about through the growth of democratic government based on the rule of law because it has been determined that this is the best political and social policy. This is what most people need and want. It's what works best in a civilized society for the equal benefit of all.

"These laws clearly serve a useful purpose."

Yes, stifling debate about immigration and multiculturalism.

I really can't believe any sane person can defend these laws.
Violence?
If words lead to violence, you arrest the person being violent.
If words don't lead to violence, they're just words.

You are not criminalising violence. That was *already* illegal.
You are criminalising *words*.

If there are consequences to words, then address the consequences.
If there are no consequences, there's nothing to address.

And including Bolt's statements about pseudo-Aborigines under the name "hate speech"?
Unbelievable!

"In a liberal democracy people have a right to be free from racism."
No, you do not.
I am so sick of people claiming that some ideological *preference* of theirs is a "right".

We are living through a New Inquisition.
The heretics are "racists".
And just like the original Inquisition, it doesn't really matter whether you're a racist/heretic or not.
Just the slightest possible whiff of "racism" (as defined by your accuser) is enough to get you burnt alive.
You will agree with the PC Church's opinions OR ELSE.

Congratulations Philo, you made a much better job of it than Mc Real, who seems to have left the arena since he can do little but heckle.

You say that people are not equal in intellect and ability, and of course you are right. But then you claim that “everybody equally serves a purpose in the community”.

Could you please explain just what “equal purpose” criminals and dole bludgers serve in a community? Are you suggesting that criminals and dole bludgers are the equal of employers, tradesmen, scientists and doctors?

Now, (I hope I don’t get burned at the stake by the HREOC Inquisitors for Heresy by saying this), since certain ethnic groups, notably gypsies, Lebanese, Pacific Islanders, black Africans, and aboriginal people are noted for their very high rates of criminal behaviour and welfare dependency in every western country in which they are present, do you think it would be a wise course of action for western governments to exclude people these ethnicities from emigrating to their lands?

If not, why not?

LEGO,

The poor actually form a highly diverse group. Many poor people work full-time at unskilled jobs that will never pay much - domestic cleaners, dishwashers, sweatshop labourers and so on. Many live in areas of chronic unemployment such as depressed rural regions or decaying urban neighbourhoods where industries are in decline. Many have only recently become poor, and most don't stay poor for long. Each year, about one-third of the nation's poor families manage to climb out of poverty, only to be replaced by newcomers. And of course some of the poor form an underclass who are trapped in long-term poverty.

Some people believe that the poor are in poverty because they are "idle" and prefer to live on "handouts." This view is fervently held even by people who don't know poor people, and have never tried to raise a family on welfare payments, and haven't the faintest idea what poverty is really like. Opinion polls repeatedly show large sections of the population favouring cuts in welfare spending, or favouring plans to "make welfare recipients go to work."

These attitudes bear little relationship to reality. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics more than 60 percent of welfare recipients are children, aged people, disabled. Most of the rest are mothers with young children, and less than 3 percent are able-bodied men, most of them unskilled workers in areas of high unemployment.

Other myths abound - that welfare recipients are mostly foreigners or black - (nearly two-thirds are locals and white): that they have many children (most have two or fewer) and that they are on welfare
indefinitely (most receive it for less than two years) and that welfare is a terrible burden on the taxpayer. Welfare represents 2 percent on the federal budget.

There are few complaints however, about how the country pays out far more in "handouts" to the nonpoor than the poor. This fact generally escapes attention because the benefits take the form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions rather than the direct form of cash payments.

LEXI.

Every society over 200 people has divided themselves up into “classes”, this is because in complex societies, skill specialization requiring different levels of intelligence and different types of intelligence (talents) creates different social standings. Generally speaking, people with high intelligence are upwardly mobile while people with low intelligence are downwardly mobile.

Your premise that one third of people from the disadvantaged class are upwardly mobile could well be true. Such people would be more intelligent than able bodied people who remain in the disadvantaged class.

As a former member of the disadvantaged class, whose family found itself impoverished by circumstances, I know that there are people in the disadvantaged class who are upwardly mobile. However, I was also aware that there are very large numbers of people with low intelligence and personality disorders who have no intention of working at all. Some of these people were once my friends, and some of them are my relatives. My niece has had four children by her former husband, and two by her husbands son (a product of a previous liaison.) Every one of them is on the dole.

For you to imply that poor people are all desperately looking for work, and that dole bludgers are a figment of the imagination, makes me wonder what sort of sheltered existence you were raised in. My direct observations from living in a Housing Commission block of flats with 84 units that had a very high proportion of healthy young dole bludgers who went surfing every day, completely contradicts your preconceived notions of what reality ought to be. And there are just too many people like myself who have seen first hand that large numbers of dole bludgers do exist, for you to do anything other than influence people like yourself who have a social conscience but who have no idea what is happening down the wrong end of town.

Finally, your premise that foreigners are not the primary welfare recipients can easily be dispelled by the simple expedient of walking into the Parramatta Social Security office next Monday and playing “spot the Aussie.”