Faustino:

Thanks for your comment. I agree with you about 18(c), and about the use of it to silence comment. Who is to say what is offensive?

Hey everyone,
What I want to know implicitly is do you people think it is within my free speech to say that I believe Israel brought its Palestinian problem on itself?

Just in the same way I feel its within my rights to say Europe brought its refugee problem on itself by supporting Western efforts to remove Assad?

I'm saying it in good faith because that is what I believe, and I don't intentionally wish to offend anyone, though I understand a lot of Jewish people may feel offended by this statement.

It could be alleged that I deliberately set out to cause offense.

I think I'm within my rights to say it, but I expect I'm going to be attacked and called names for saying it nonetheless.
In this case, I'm the one who ends up being attacked, slandered and victimised for doing what should be with my rights.

What's the consensus on this particular issue of free speech?

Moral absolutes have a way of biting their proponents on the bum, by virtue of the fact that taken to extremes, almost anything can become a parody of what it wants to defend.

But the right to free speech on social issues not covered by the Official Secrets Act, comes pretty damned close to being a moral absolute. The right to explore and debate any social issue is fundamental to the existence of any free society. No free society can remain free unless the right to examine any subject conducive to the social stability of that nation is absolute. People must be free to re examine the social mores which hold their countries together, as changing times alter the values upon which the existing social mores are based.

The idea that free speech should be curtailed to prevent "offending, insulting or humiliating" any other section of society is extraordinary. Such a premise would have effectively prevented free speech about subjects such as Evolution, whether the Earth orbited the Sun, or whether the Earth was flat.

The most effective counter to the present politically correct idea that minorities must be protected through censorship, is that legal statutes like 18C are so selectively applied. Say something unkind about Muslims and the PC thought police will be all over you like a rash. But the PC Left can say whatever they like about the Catholic Church, the Exclusive Brethren, or the Hillsong Church.

Offending ethnicities is limited to those the PC left protect. The most reviled and offended ethnicity which is fair game to all, is the white heterosexual male. The white heterosexual male is responsible for every damned thing that ever went wrong with the world. You can offend, insult, intimidate, and humiliate white heterosexual males to your heart's content, and the motley collection of Human rights commissars will suddenly become The Three Monkeys.

It is all pure hypocrisy.

As a side note: In the distant past didn't they use court jesters and of 'specifically making fun of things' in order to see things rationally and make smart decisions?
Offending, insulting or humiliating - they actually once used these things to make better decisions for themselves.
Don't they also do this (to a small degree) in parliament?

18c would become acceptable if and only if accompanied by a clause which the British have attached to their own version of our 18c:

“The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”