The Forum > Article Comments > Draft discrimination bill draws unfair fire > Comments
Draft discrimination bill draws unfair fire : Comments
By Alan Austin, published 31/1/2013Bolt simply fabricated many of his allegations against the Aborigines.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 1 February 2013 2:55:41 PM
| |
Hi Alan,
<< Can you suggest where this has happened in Australia since the RDA was enacted?>> Perhaps I can help Jay out--here's something I witnessed. Not too long ago I was in the assembly hall of a very large govt organisation when it was giving its staff a briefing on the anti-harassment legislation.The organisation had its anti-harassment /anti-discrimination spokesperson—who just happened to be an “indigenous Australian”--tell all the assembled how committed the organisation was to the new policies. And to illustrate how serious it took such matters, he told the assembly how they just the previous week sacked two employees who violated the code.The two employees concerned had been having their lunch in the organisations canteen and were talking about how they would, quote: “fix the Middle East problem”. Another employee, quote: “sitting nearby overheard them and took offense reporting them” And they were, quote: “ both sacked”. Posted by SPQR, Friday, 1 February 2013 5:36:34 PM
| |
Alan.
Anti discrimination legislation is the muscle behind the current plague of public apology and self abasement for ill considered acts or statements, people apologise for trivial transgressions against good taste because they don't want to end up like Andrew Bolt. As SPQR pointed out, there are professional "Hatefinders" and your everyday workplace toadies and snitches looking to advance their own prospects at the expense of others, Anti discrimination laws are the "or else" component of "do as I say or else". You've been around the block, you know that anti discrimination laws don't protect White Australians because they were never designed to protect us, this is why we see them as a threat. As I said, I'm not worried about other ethnic groups misusing the laws, thus far they've mostly acted in good faith, the people who I'm worried about are the HR types, the professional griefers and fanatical anti racists,as we say on the radical right "The people who look like us but have no loyalty to us". People like Marcia Langton or Robbie Thorpe are outspoken, sometimes abrasive but they're reasonable and seem to have both feet on the ground, "Anti Racists" who look like me vary in temperament from malicious to unhinged, they are completely unreasonable, any transgression results in an "outing" anonymous calls to the person's employer threatening "consequences" for employing "racists": This is the sort of thing I'm talking about: http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/ And no this isn't just some obscure blog, it's proprietor has appeared on SBS TV and commercial radio as an "Anti Racism activist", an expert in the field in other words. Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 1 February 2013 8:15:46 PM
| |
Alan,
To continue, when it comes to "Anti discrimination" and both institutional and vigilante Anti Racism the rules are completely stacked against White Australians, in the mind of the "anti Racist" it's permissible to stalk ,bully, threaten and harass a young White girl if she's made an ill informed Facebook post concerning Muslims. What if some nutter took things too far? These Anti Racists post addresses, phone numbers, workplace details, there haven't been any really serious assaults here yet, but it's only a matter of time. As we saw last year in the U.S this sort of "Anti Racist" activity has serious consequences when unstable people are indoctrinated, do you recall the case of Nkosi Thandiwe, the South African immigrant who, inspired by his college courses on White privilege and black oppression decided to shoot three young White women, one girl died,another was paralysed the other recovered. http://www.vdare.com/posts/congratulations-splc-tim-wise-atlanta-black-gunman-nkosi-thadiwe-says-he-shot-three-white-girl I'm guessing Alan that you knew nothing about these shootings, you would of course know the name Wade Michael Page, another mentally unstable man who after being exposed to a different type of racial propaganda decided to gun down a group of Sikhs. As I keep saying Anti Racists are just as dangerous as Racists, they're both a really nasty type of person. Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 1 February 2013 8:42:18 PM
| |
G’day SPQR,
Thanks for that example. Intriguing. It depends, however, on the actual “fix” proposed, who overheard it and the speaker’s intention. The unchanged exemption clauses in the Act protect private comments – which wouldn’t apply in a cafeteria. They certainly protect reasonable comments made in good faith in any discussion held for any genuine purpose in the public interest, or expression of genuine belief. If it was a racist attack intended to humiliate, intimidate or bully someone from the Middle East, however, then that protection may not be there. But would we want that protected? So the outcome may have been just. Not sure. Need a bit more info perhaps, SP. Jay, thanks for your further input. Would you agree the findings in the Bolt matter actually bolster the view that the Act does not impede “ill-considered acts or statements” or “trivial transgressions against good taste”? Bromberg found serious damage done to the reputations of Bolt’s selected victims which Bolt had consciously intended to inflict. Bolt had effectively accused them of intentional financial fraud – a fairly serious criminal accusation. The judge found in Bolt’s articles “gratuitous references” based on “a selective misrepresentation” and omissions which “meant that the facts were not truly stated”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous”, asserted facts “untrue” and several contentions “incorrect” or “grossly incorrect”. There is nothing trivial or accidental about the offence Bolt caused in those two tawdry articles, is there, Jay? Re: “you know that anti discrimination laws don't protect White Australians because they were never designed to protect us, this is why we see them as a threat.” Hmmm. Yes and no, Jay. That the laws serve to protect minorities seems fair. But I can’t see how they are a threat to White Australians who intend to make fair comment on matters of public interest with expressions of genuine belief. I’m yet to see an instance of the Act being used to thwart mere expression of opinion anywhere. Or accidental or trivial offence given. But open to being shown one. Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 1 February 2013 9:23:36 PM
| |
Alan,
As I noted in my posts, it's not purely the act itself which is the problem it's that it gives a licence, or a moral foundation for "Anti Racism", which is just a code word for Anti White. "Hate Laws" make White people uneasy because they can see the numerous examples from here and overseas where other White people have been given ridiculous punishments for trivial offences. Brendan O'Connell from Perth received almost four years in prison for verbally harassing two young Jewish men, videotaping the encounter and posting it on youtube with supplementary comments edited in. Yes, it's distasteful,ignorant and nasty but four years is ridiculous,on the day he was sentenced another man was given three months for GBH while a man convicted of possessing child pornography was let off with a fine. Anti discrimination laws require that a complaint be made, as we saw in Canada there arose a type of professional complainant, those I term "Hatefinders". I repeat, I'm not concerned about Indigenous or immigrant people misusing the law, I'm worried that the new proposals put too much power into the hands of these vigilantes, and human rights griefers.The culture of "Anti Racism" isn't nice, it's as bad as the people it supposedly targets, the "Racists", in many respects it's worse. ("Griefer" is a video gamer's term for someone who habitually enters online games to upset, harass or intimidate other players, this behaviour also includes repeatedly reporting false accusations of "Racism" or "Sexism" against other players in an effort to have them banned by the gaming service provider). Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 2 February 2013 6:02:13 AM
|
Thanks for this perspective. Just unsure what you mean by this:
“the problem is that anti-discrimination laws are used as a stick by the elites and bourgeoisie as a political tool to threaten White Australians and to prevent them standing up for their own ethnic interests.”
Can you suggest where this has happened in Australia since the RDA was enacted?
Thanks, Jay.
Good grief Anthony, you are doing it again!
“In his ham-fisted way Bolt was trying to say that and was punished.”
No, that is wrong. Bolt lost because he concocted false allegations which he asserted were true. His deliberate malicious lies were highly damaging and were challenged. As they deserved.
He was NOT punished for his ideas, his opinions or for advancing any argument in a ham-fisted way. Please read the judgment, Anthony.
Regarding Mortimer and Aitkin, the RDA's free speech section (18D) remains completely intact. Aitkin only has to point to parts (b) and (c).
It is absolutely clear that it’s not at all unlawful to offend someone with comments made “reasonably and in good faith (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or (c) in making or publishing … (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.”
Aitkin’s comments were perfectly genuine, true, accurate, reasonable, fair and spoken in good faith. Bolt’s weren’t. Bolt is a liar, a fabricator and now a proven racist.
Aitkin is home free. Mortimer knows this. Christopher Bantick would know this if he had read Judge Bromberg's judgment.
Re the doctrine of separation and distinction, Anthony, some believe the greatest triumph of the Hawke-Keating years was establishing ATSIC, the greatest evil of the Howard years was dismantling it, and the most profound disappointment of the Rudd-Gillard period has been the failure to reinstate it.
Perhaps that’s a discussion for another day …
Cheers, AA