The proposal to repeal 18C caused a lot of debate in our household! As it did in Australia. And how good was that.

Intuitively it appears to be a good thing to have, freedom to say whatever one wants.

And contrary to what Jay of M thinks, the debate is not about the Holocaust, but what that bit of history did teach us, the preceding years beforehand. How what was previously unacceptable to say became less and less shocking until it became acceptable and indeed admirable. It did not take long to demonize an entire group of people within the community and an otherwise decent people supported unspeakable things to happen to other human beings.

Conflating race and ideology is a device to bar an ideology from criticism, rejection, ridicule by pretending that what is under discussion is genetic, not ideological, inheritance. There is nothing in 18C that does this, though a lot of PC discourse attempts frequently to do so. Challenging and rejecting notions of entitlement to Palestinian territory for an exclusive “homeland for Jews” is not racist Jew-hatred. Rejecting Moslem coercion against apostasy or impiety or compulsion of women wear body-bags, or strafing ISIS cut-throats, is not racism against brown people. The PC wannabe thought police could not sustain a case under 18C as it is written (even without 18D). However 18C does protect people from discrimination and insult on the basis of their genetic inheritance or their chosen life arrangements which do not impact on the rights of others, and should definitely remain in place

Yvonne.
Err..nope I'm pretty sure Aktion Reinhard took place in top secret camps out in Polish "Bandit country" as Odilo Globocnic called it.
The program was so secret that there's no evidence Hitler even knew about it much less the German people, Globocnic had to fund the entire operation out of the proceeds of the liquidation of Jewish assets so that the Reich bean counters weren't sticking their noses where they didn't belong.
See Yvonne I'm not a "Holocaust Denier", I'm an admirer of Fascism, when Himmler publicly praised the SS on having the strength to retain their humanity in spite of being surrounded by hundreds of corpses I believe him.
It's my contention however that the Zionists and the Stalinists lied about the Holocaust and the version of WW2 they promote has been utterly discredited, the National Socialist accounts of the "liquidation" of the Jews are rock solid as far as anyone can tell.
At any rate, we'll see how much "new" information appears as the relationship between Russia and the West deteriorates, the Soviets took trainloads of documents away from Germany after the war and they're all still there in the Kremlin archives, the Russian FSB would know where the bodies are buried, both figuratively and literally.
Some Jewish people went into the Reich labour camp systems and were never seen again, others survived to tell stories about putting on plays and concerts and playing football matches on their days off, it's all well documented.

James English's article is a perfect example of a spin piece written by an intelligent ideologue who is not thinking smart. It is a longwinded and convoluted defence of the principle that freedom of speech is a good thing, provided that people do not say anything that James opposes, and speak against his state endorsed social ideology.

Even when that ideology is self evidently failing.

James claims without proof that most Australians are in favour of laws preventing racial vilification. But exactly what is "racial vilification," and why is it that some ethnic and demographic groups are always protected from any criticism (homosexuals and Muslims) while others (Israelis, Jews, White Australians, and Americans) are not?

The Bolt case was a perfect example of why these laws need to be reformed. In a time of economic recession with so many people accessing social security, that the Australian Federal government is finding it difficult to find the money to give to social welfare recipients, it is imperative to determine just who, and who is not, eligible for assistance. This is a serious social issue that must be discussed.

But the Bolt case proved that people who have a special interest in maintaining the flow of taxpayer gold into their pockets can use 18C as a weapon to shut their up their critics and shut down public scrutiny. This is completely unacceptable in a democratic and free society where all issues relating to social policy must and should be discussed.

James English is a well meaning person of zeal who thinks that everybody can live together in multicultural splendour provided that we all apply the three monkey approach to all of the problems that are now manifesting themselves. There were a lot of Commissars in the Soviet Union who thought exactly the same way as James over any criticism of the workers paradise. We in the free world used to laugh at the Sovs for that, now James wants us to emulate them.

Like socialism, there is something fundamentally wrong with multiculturalism if it needs to shut up it's critics through legal sanction.

There seems to be a sort of hierarchy of 'offense' from mild disagreement to outright murder, coloured by the factor of 'intent':

* complete agreement

* mild disagreement

* strong disagreement

* offense

* insult

* ridicule

* humiliation

* vilification

* incitement to violence

* actual violence

* etc.

+ intent.

I suppose each of us has our cut-off point - mine would be somewhere between 'insult with intent' or 'unintentional ridicule', and 'ridicule with intent' or 'humiliate'. In short form between 'insult' and 'ridicule'.

I've got Indigenous kids, and I suspect that they have copped some ridicule and humiliation back in their secondary school days which has stayed with them. Easy, gutless comments deliberately intended to ridicule or humiliate on racist grounds, should be - somehow - punished severely. Perhaps expulsion. Or a year in a reformatory.

But I'm not so sure about ridicule on personal grounds: accusing someone, in comfortable circumstances, of grabbing benefits tacitly designed for others raised and/or existing in difficult circumstances, for example.

It's interesting that Bolt was pinged, not strictly for insulting or ridiculing, but for supposedly getting a few minor facts wrong about a handful of Johnnie-come-latelies, as, I suspect, many in the Indigenous community would have seen them.

But I suppose we can't go there :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Bolt was pinged because he often exposes the complete hypocrisy of the 'progressives' whether it be the gw fantasy, the aboriginal industry, Islam or the atrocious abc bias. Speaking the truth always attracts the ire of the left.