Section 18C should be scrapped; it is an outrageous attack on freedom of speech, and Lisa Singh is a politician making a political comment that she should be making in parliament.

Politicians have more than enough opportunities to air their views without putting their oars into one of the few areas where the citizenry can have a say.

Go away, Senator. The insidious and fascist Section 18C has nothing to do with your waffle about cricket.

The good Senator is not content with earning a disgusting amount of wages and a superannuation deal that is totally ridiculous but also wants to spout off here.
Whenever I see the Senate there are none of these drones there? Must be lounging around enjoying their ill-gotten gains.
If this joke is against this change then I am firmly for it!
Senator do you appreciate the contempt we have for you and your ilk?

OK, I admit I’m biased; whenever I see the words ‘racism’, ‘diversity’ and ‘sustainability’ (at least the good Senator should be congratulated for not using that last one) I head for the exit. But this time it’s different, for Lisa Singh has just presented me with a beautiful example of why the word racism should be expunged from all intelligent discourse and certainly from the statutes.

Cricket, she argues, is a competitive activity where pretty much any kind of offence from verbal abuse should be tolerated – except when it’s of the racial variety. Then it is beyond the pale and punishable.

So tell me Lisa, what rules do you reckon should cover sledging in a cricket match between Australia and Israel? Or England and Israel? Not so far-fetched, as one can see precisely that combat at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7xWJGrbF6c.

It’s not that I think abuse is a good thing. The problem is that the term racism no longer means anything, or else it means whatever you want it to. Are the Poms a race? Are Jews a race? Are Israelis a race? And how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?

Abuse is generally unpleasant and unproductive and is more often than not a reflection of the abuser’s stupidity and ignorance. Now there’s a useful project for the ALP, or perhaps the Greens: ban stupidity and ignorance.

"Racial equality is at the heart of genuine sporting contests. Only when all people are welcomed to the game can we have a genuinely international contest. And only when sport is played without prejudice can we witness a genuine challenge of human endeavour.".

Absolutely!
If people want to continue happily watching Australia play teams such as the West Indies, Pakistan and India, then we do have to try and crack down on the disgusting, cowardly racial abuse screamed at their players from the crowd of mindless morons.

We would expect the same treatment for our players in those countries.

In today's sports world, we are more mindful of racism in sports, and there are plenty of adverts about the problem, so no one should be surprised if they are chucked out of sporting venues and banned from them if they shout racial abuse.

There is an extremely fine line between racial abuse and freedom of speech...

[Deleted for abuse.]

When your basic freedoms are threatened by the likes of Senator Singh, I suppose strong language is justified.

It is frustrating to see this example of the toxin of political correctness presented as if it were acceptable comment.

The effect of Section 18C was demonstrated in the Andrew Bolt case, where he made a true comment and was penalized when someone offended by a truthful comment was able to take punitive action against Bolt because of the pernicious effect of this legislation.

Thankfully we now have a government which will repeal this section, but it should never have been enacted.

Oh god, another one.

Not only is this one a ratbag lefty, she comes from Tasmania, the failed state, only afloat by the generosity of other Australians.

Even worse, she was one of those who presided over the failure of that state.

At least with that knowledge, we can take anything she advocates as a very bad direction to take.

Could it be that the Tasmanians are finally wising up a bit? Could they have exported her to Canberra to get her out of their lives, & government?

Tasmania is living proof that a major defect of Federation is that State of tiny population is over-represented by politicians, dammit! ;(

And BTW there are two things I hate - racial vilification and those goddamned WASPs.

ditto ;(

I completely agree that racial equality is at the heart of genuine sporting contests, and support the ICC’s measures against racist abuse by players and spectators. But this is in a context where people come together voluntarily to compete on the basis of skill and talent. Although they are being lost, a degree of mutual respect and courtesy have always been part of cricket’s culture. It’s entirely appropriate for the sport to set for itself rule about how its participants should behave.

The author’s leap from this to the assertion that “Behaviour that isn't acceptable in sport certainly shouldn't be acceptable in everyday life” is spectacularly poor logic. My local bowls club bans swearing, so I shouldn’t drop the occasional “F” word? My local boxing club allows people to hit each other, so its ok to bash someone? Shane Warne was banned for using diuretics, so I can’t either?

The author also fails to distinguish between behaviour that is “unacceptable” (I agree, racial abuse is never “acceptable”) from behaviour that should be prohibited by the law. Much though I loathe racism, I think the danger posed to our society by the suppression of free speech is greater than the danger of allowing people to make racist comments. We should let racists know loud and clear that racial abuse is unacceptable. But we should not prohibit them from expressing their views.

Lisa it is not a good idea to post a comment or essay on OLO, as most of the OLO posters are leftovers from "The Australian"; who do not allow comment from the public (Unless they pay).
Hence why this lot of Murdoch worshippers, let their vitriolic frustration out on OLO!
Sad! I agree !!

International sports contests are not a "society".

You are trying to equate the interactions of international teams with the interactions of citizens *within* a nation.
Those are two very different things.
In fact, most international teams are probably mono-racial, since most nations' populations are predominantly mono-racial.

Our laws should not be influenced by what any sports "authority" has to say about anything.

And to treat the *fans* as though they are subject to the same "authority" as players is even more absurd.

I am so sick of private organisations acting as a law-unto-themselves.

Why should only racial discrimination receive such a reaction?
How can we take their "principles" seriously, when they are intrinsically sexist?

No women are permitted to play in the same teams as men in most sports.
People in glass houses...

I have not posted in this forum for some time and upon this my first

for 2014.

To be very honest I secretly hoped (perhaps naively) that the

intellectual capacity of fellow posters to understand the difference

between 'discrimination motivated by racism' and expressing a strong

opinion without resorting to overt or covert racial profiling would

have improved. Alas it has not. Its seems white Australians will do

anything to protect what they consider to be a right to racially

vilify and discriminate. They will avoid at all times any questioning

of their understanding of both the theory and practice of racism

because its seems they are the world’s self-appointed experts. (Just

ask them!) Nonetheless, I congratulate the Senator's attempt in this

article to re-educate and inspire change. All is not totally lost.

Rainier, "without resorting to overt or covert racial profiling"

Judging by your obvious prejudice against "white Australians" that is not advice you would take take yourself.

Now that the culture war has been won it is no surprise you would rarely alight from the gravy train you most likely ride to scold others for challenging the prevailing political correctness.

Meanwhile, do carry on. The "white Australians" you love to hate and disrespect can be relied upon defend your freedom of speech. They died in thousands in Europe and the Pacific defending the freedoms you would deny them and anyone who disagrees with you.

Rainier, your 2014 post is a failure, try again in 2015.

The scurrilous epithet “racism” should be consigned to the trash bin, where it belongs. Its sole use is to attack people who tell the truth, and it is a recent invention, having no authenticity or place in civilized discussion..

It is not only white Australians who require the right to speak the truth without fear of unjustified attacks based on political correctness. There are fair minded people who are not white.

The author’s attempt to advance the poison of political correctness is the very opposite of an “attempt to educate”. It is an attempt to stifle the truth and freedom of expression

'We should not accept the excuse that racially motivated vilification is an ordinary and acceptable part of living in a democracy. '

as abhorrent as I find racism, is not this statement by Lisa so totally undemocratic. It seems to me the average Aussie wants to be free to express his/her thoughts. I have more admiration for those who outrightly tell me how much they hate Christians than the slimy pc brigade who use weasel words to cover their intolerance.

It is not right to racially abuse someone else, no matter what.
If you don't agree with that statement, then you are racist.

Runner, as we are being honest here, can I say I severely dislike people who are intolerant of non-Christians, and those intolerant of others who want to freely express their non-belief in any religion.

Suseonline
I agree with you, but do you think that regigious and/or racial abuse should be prohibited by law? To my mind, because something is unacceptable does not mean it should be illegal.

'It is not right to racially abuse someone else, no matter what. '
and who said it wasn't? Good that you believe in some absolutes. I would also say it is not right to murder the unborn no matter what.

I think if we are saying we definitely shouldn't be racially abusing others, then there should be laws about it........why not?

I agree the unborn shouldn't be murdered too Runner.
It isn't murder if it is a legally obtained abortion though.
Get it right Runner
And ...this thread isn't about abortion!

Suseonline, you seem to base morality on what's legal or illegal.
Wrong way around.

Everything considered immoral/unethical *must* be made illegal?

As far as the racial "abuse" under discussion, we are just referring to *words* here, not violence.

Should people really face fines or prison merely for "offensive" words?

It's not like they're ripping them to pieces with sharp implements (like your beloved abortionists do).

Ok then Shockadelic, if words are no problem to others then we should be allowed to swear extensively at others in public then?

We can scream verbal abuse at each other because these words won't physically hurt us, ok?

What happened to the great book's famous words:
"Thou shalt not swear" and "Love thy neighbour"?

Many people equate racial abuse to swearing.
I agree with them.

<the federal Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, pledged during the election that he would amend or repeal Section 18C because, in his view, it violates freedom of speech>

Fair enough! It would be undemocratic to frustrate a government that is implementing a major plank of its electoral platform.

What about the Galaxy Poll which found that 82 per cent of Australians believed a right to freedom of speech is more important than the right to not be offended?

Egalitarian Lisa Singh has written this article where she seriously compares the hurling of racial insults to respected journalist Andrew Bolt's article in a newspaper where he commented upon a matter of serious public concern.

Look Lisa, if you don't like the western concept of free speech then what are you doing in my country? Perhaps you would be better of returning to the Punjab where freedom of speech is entirely limited and where raping females appears to be the national pastime? As an Australian I am insulted that a person of obviously Indian descent should come to my country and start telling Australians how freedom of speech is so bad it should be curtailed. You have just confirmed to those Australians who you accuse of racism that people like yourself have no place in an advanced society.

And if you want to get all antsy about racism, why not write something about the glaring racism always hurled at white people who are customarily blamed for the condition of every dysfunctional race and ethnicity in the world?

Suseonline "We can scream verbal abuse at each other because these words won't physically hurt us, ok?"

Not if they constitute "assault" we can't, which is already illegal.
Therefore, no need for special "racial" assault laws (verbal or physical).

The ten commandments don't include swearing, only using the Lord's name "in vain".
You of all people shouldn't want our laws based on the Bible.
Ripping babies to pieces isn't exactly kosher.

"Many people equate racial abuse to swearing.
I agree with them."

That still doesn't mean either should be *illegal*.

Just because something is distasteful, unpleasant, vulgar, obnoxious, regrettable, does not justify criminalisation.
That should require a serious violation, damage, threat, not mere "offense".

And in the context of sport, it is not truly serious.
It is just mind games, intended to put the player off their game.

No different to making slurs about their mother, or implying homosexuality (I note no prohibition on homophobia from our enlightened officials).

I fart in your general direction!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits Shockadelic...

Dear Shockadelic,

We're all firm believers in letting loose.
It's freeing and healthy. However if you're
a bit uncomfortable with doing so you should
place toliet paper in your butthole in order to
stifle the sound of your fart. Although I suspect
from your quote you believe in letting your
opinions ring, you free-spiritied trombonist, you!

First off, Lisa Maria Singh is an Australian born and bred.(when in doubt "Google").

That said I dos't agree with her and as one of Irish descent (although many wog nations are also in the blood}, and bearing a distinctly Irish name I do miss the racial vilification that had been hurled at us in the past.
It was character and thick skin building and should be allowed, provided also that the utterer is prepared to wear a bunch of fives as a payment for the right of their version of free speech.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have
a duty to respect other people's rights. A person's
freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others.
All modern societies, including democratic ones, put
various limitations on what people may say. They
prohibit certain types of speech that they believe
might harm the government or the people. We have laws
covering libel, slander, public decency, hate speech,
violence, and so on. The Racial Discrimination Act
has been supported by consecutive governments in this
country and terms that once reflected the feelings of
some Australians today these "outmoded" words are no
longer accepatable to most people. Words such as "ni**er"
"dago" "wog" "boong" and so on.

We also have, in NSW, signs in left hand lanes on our highways that tell motorists to CHANGE LANES and are hung on the same pole as the LEFT LANE ENDS sign.
These signs are about as useful as laws against racial abuse.

Is Mise "I do miss the racial vilification that had been hurled at us in the past. It was character and thick skin building"

Yes, part of our psychological/social development is learning that (a) not everybody loves you and (b) how to deal with that.

How thick are today's kids' skins going to be, growing up in a world where they're never supposed to be exposed to conflict or exclusion of any kind.

Generation Wuss.

Foxy,

One of my Army mates was an Aboriginal Australian and he was a well respected soldier, both by his peers and by his officers.

His nickname was 'Boong' but that got changed to 'Boongra' as his surname ended in 'ra'.

Did Andrew Bolt call any aborigines in his famous article "coons", "boongs" or "niiggers"? No he did not. What he did was express his OPINION that too many people who had only the merest trace of aboriginal blood were accessing generous government funds, that were intended to aid aboriginal people.

Ms Singh's article was not meant to address racial vilification. It is an article meant attack freedom of speech by equating it with racial discrimination. What section 18c of the racial Discrimination Act does, is to effectively prevent anyone from expressing any opinion pertaining to certain minorities favoured by the publically funded Human Rights Organisations in Australia. As such, the law is an affront to freedom of speech. No socially identifiable group of people should be beyond valid criticism.

Every person has multiple group identities with a national identity being one of the most important. This is not always so. Many people, even those born in a country, may consider their ethnic or religious identities as being much more important than any sense of national identity. To them, the word "Australian" is nothing more than a geographic address, a word on a passport, and a right to access the fruits of Centrelink. To others like myself, the word "Australian denotes a particular culture that is an extension of the culture of the North European Protestant/agnostic people who turned this country from a howling wilderness into one of the best countries in the world to live in.

Ms Singh is apparently unaware that freedom of speech, which entailed the right to give opinions on any social matter, is one of the reasons why this country prospered while so many others floundered. If she can not appreciate that fact, then I can not consider her an Australian, because she is opposed to a fundamental concept within western European Australian culture which to my mind defines her as an Australian.

LEGO.

Whilst I generally agree with your post above, I must point out one little error.

"Australian denotes a particular culture that is an extension of the culture of the North European Protestant/agnostic people who turned this country from a howling wilderness into one of the best countries in the world to live in."

You forgot the Catholics and particularly the Catholic Irish.

They gave us, among other things, the idea that acceptance of rent was a landlord's acknowledgment of the tenant's right to occupy a property and not an acknowledgment of the landlord's rights over the tenant.

There is a big difference!

Hi Mise.

The reason why the protestant nations of the world rocketed ahead of every other culture was because we were the first people to look for natural laws of nature to explain everyday reality instead of relying entirely on religious ones. For over 100 years, between 1800 and 1900, almost every important technological advance and scientific discovery was made by white protestant men.

The Southern half of Europe was essentially catholic, and it took a hundred years before they even started catching up. They began to catch up because they began to stop thinking like Catholics and instead started thinking like protestants.

The Irish in Australia did contribute to Australia's development and they were easy people to integrate in to the protestant way of thinking. But is was not Catholic culture which defined Australia's progress. As a matter of fact, the catholic church was instrumental in holding back important reforms like equality for women, equal pay for women, divorce, abortion, and birth control.

Today, even Italy has abortion, divorce and birth control. The catholic church's opposition to clerical marriage should be applauded by the whole human race. They have been genetically eradicating religious fanaticism within their own church for over 2000 years and that might have something to do with recent catholic enlightenment.

Lego,

Mainly true, but none the less contradictory of your original statement that Australia owed its progress solely to the Protestant/agnostic ethic, and whilst Catholic teachings may have held us back in some fields Anglicanism helped, abortion law springs to mind.

In fact the outlook that probably most shaped Australia was Anglican, and Anglicanism was notable for its persecution of Protestants.

It is a little known fact that the Catholic Church in Australia owes its official existence to Anglicans even to the point of Governor Macquarrie laying the foundation stone of the first St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney.

In the field of education, particularly for the poorer classes Catholics, particularly Irish ones were pre-emminent, my distant relative Mary MacKillop springs to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_MacKillop

The fields of charitable work and politics in this country have also benefited from Catholic involvment

I have no idea how else you could describe someone who feasts on the host organism other than a 'parasite'. The Senator in question could resign today and retire on 79K pa for the rest of her life, with undoubtably a lot of other hidden benefits. Like a lot of other Australians, I don't see politicians as ever having a real job, so I did not mean to use the word parasite as a metaphor at all. If something walks like a parasite, talks like a parasite, and acts like a parasite, then they probably bloody are a parasite!



I work in the mining industry, and I work very long hours for not really a lot of money. If I don't 'produce', then I don't have a job, a simple but effective concept really, but one that I think would be lost on any Australian politician. I, and many others in this industry are constantly bombarded with utter rubbish from mining executives and politicians that there exists a 'skills shortage' that can only be rectified by importing huge amounts of labour on 457 visas. Believe me, there is NO skills shortage - how can there be when so many mismanaged mines are closing down? There is a 'common sense shortage' in the ivory towers of academia, body politic and big business.

I do not see how you can brand me a 'bigot' either, simply because I don't agree with the prevailing ideologies of 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' that have been foisted on the Australian People from above, and have very little grass roots support outside of academia. Multiculturalism is simply the covert asianiation of Australia, and all the verbal posturing in the world will not hide that. I suggest you look at the immigration figures themselves and exercise your mind by examining reality rather than exercising it by jumping to conclusions.



Simon P

Above is a response to the Editor who removed my comment for 'abuse'.