Dear David,

Let's first take law-enforcement out of the equation: as it stands, almost anyone who wants to discriminate finds a way to either bypass or break the existing law. If one is ever caught doing so, they end up paying compensation and firing the person they don't like, or at worst pay them to stay home.

Also, let's take taxation out the equation: I was not arguing here against tax or its use.

Now employment need not be by businesses: individuals can also employ others for their private/domestic needs and unincorporated groups of individuals can employ others for their common pursuits - but even a business is not necessarily part of public life, unless it is an incorporated company or involves public funds and/or other public privileges. Some businesses may not even offer their services to the public: they could for example already have an established closed group of clients, possibly not even in Australia.

(I am however inclined to believe that when a business employs someone other than purely for the purpose of doing a job best, thus providing income for the business, then to that extent such employment should not be recognised as a tax-deduction)

Whether everyone is entitled for "a fair chance to earn a living" is a huge issue for another thread, but even if they are, nothing entitles them to obtain that chance from any other private individual. When a business is completely private (or as above, not truly a business), the owner can close it at any time and is not obliged to employ anyone: she doesn't owe anyone a job.

Giving something to another to which they are not entitled (by the giver), is a favour or a gift. Failing to do a favour may be considered unfair, but is not a "hurt". It may legitimately bring disrepute on the withholder and possibly also be considered in heaven's tribunal after one dies, but not by a human court below.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am weary of our interchange so will stop.

Dear David,

<<I am weary of our interchange so will stop.>>

Thank you for this personal example.

I wish I could say the same on other threads when I feel the same.

I often am weary myself, but keep going anyway, sacrificing my health, my sleep, my work and other things as I feel it's my duty to respond.

Well Done!

Bolt can give offence so why can't he stand being at the receiving end? I am truly sorry he has received death threats, because I feel for anyone that happens to, however he has deeply offended a number of Aboriginal people and appears to be completely ignorant that the very essence of racism is the dominant group defining the "race" of others for them. As Marcia Langton said on Q & A - which I did watch that night - Bolt has made allegations that particular people are not Aboriginal due to colour of their skin, making them feel that their family history - their parents and grandparents - are being erased. On a related point, the court case that Bolt lost on this issue could have been a defamation case except that the Aboriginal litigants chose to make the case under 18c of the anti discrimination legislation.

Freedom of speech should not protect the right to broadcast lies and deceptions, and that in the end was what Bolt was found guilty of. 18C -balanced with 18d- really ain't that tough.
While “offence” is very much more in the hands of the offendee than the offender , the problem of who has the right to be offended is addressed by the test of reasonableness in 18d.
(Remember how a canny Indonesian politician put Keating right in his place and directed a gullible media away from his own misdeeds, merely by choosing to be “deeply offended” by the term 'recidivist'?)
The monocular attitudes of the righteous right never cease to amaze. It seems to be the same people who demand “balance” in the climate change issue complain the loudest over bias in the ABC.
Since 95% of the people who actually study climate issues support AGW, wouldn't fair balance be 95 articles for, and 5 against? Why do the tiny handful of ratbags (who incidentally represent corporate interests) get at least 50% -if not more- media coverage?
As for balance in the ABC, why do they have to be objective, and the corporate side not? If the corporate side has the right to publish and broadcast the corporate perspective, surely the ABC has not only a right but -in the name of 'balance'- an obligation to expose the counter view?
Who else will stand against the corporations?
Democratic governments are not the greatest threat to future freedom...
Except when they're in bed with corporations.

Grim – Nobody has the ‘right’ to be offended either you are or you are not. A right is something given by someone or a group to someone else it is also something that can be taken away. Offended means hurt – feeling pain. No one can give you the right to feel pain or take away that right anymore than they can take away your right to feel tired or sick or hot or cold.

No one is suggesting that people do not feel pain when certain opinions are expressed but exactly what causes that pain? To say that there is always a direct cause between what is said and what is felt is to lack understanding about the nature of human beings. Human beings feel this type of pain because they already have that pain in their bodies. In most cases it has been there since childhood and it gets triggered when they hear certain things. Another adult under the same circumstances may feel nothing at all. We are not dealing here with people’s rights but with their feelings. They feel a pain and want speech curtailed so that they no longer have to feel that pain but that runs the risk of silencing so many otherwise perfectly reasonable opinions. Limiting free speech does not help either the offended or the society. There are many other ‘unprotected’ groups who can claim offence and if everyone gets their way we will have a society where we are all afraid to open our mouth for fear of litigation.

This argument is not about protecting Aboriginals from discrimination it is about helping them deal with the pain they feel when certain things are said even if those things are deliberately meant to harm. Someone who has faced their own feelings and owned what has happened to them would not be offended by Bolt. They probably wouldn’t even bother to listen to him since most of his opinions are not worth hearing.