The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Indeed, Mr Abbott, Section 18C is 'clearly a bad law' > Comments

Indeed, Mr Abbott, Section 18C is 'clearly a bad law' : Comments

By Joshua Forrester, Lorraine Finlay and Augusto Zimmermann, published 6/5/2016

After all, international human rights law does not recognize a right not to be offended.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
One of the very cornerstones of democracy, is and remains freedom of expression! And must include the right to offend!

All human progress has been won via the exchange of ideas, sometimes through heated,robust and passionate evocation.

As I understand it, 18c is aimed at limiting racial vilification, cyber bullying, racial profiling and the like; and is not liked by folks who think they're somehow entitled to engage in the same or seek to use positions of power to abuse, intimidate or just gag lawful dissent?

Albeit trying to have brand names outlawed because a decades old brand name (Dr Coon's cheese) has in more recent times been used as a common if ignorant colloquialism to describe some colored folk, is beyond the pale?

I'd have thought a more intelligent approach to the use of this term to describe some folk, would've been to inquire in humorous repartee, tasty, low fat, mature, vintage cheddar or old bitety, care for a nibble? I've some similar tasting toe jam if that's more to your liking, but clearly an acquired taste?

That said, we probably would not be having this discussion if we had a bill of irrevocable rights which among other things guaranteed the freedom of speech, which can never ever include slander or entirely unfounded accusations of evil doing etc!

As evidenced in some of the spurious mudslinging that can and sometimes does, destroys reputations, careers and assassinates good character.

At the end of the day we need to hold the cowards that abuse the freedom of parliament to knowingly and falsely impugn the character and reputations of political opponents, simply because they cannot match them intellectually or in policy creation, to lawful account!

And given all that is so, we need to keep 18c and indeed the intentions of the wordsmiths who crafted it?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 6 May 2016 8:23:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes,yes,yes Allan B, but there is money in them thar hills. So 18c fails dismally .
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 6 May 2016 8:58:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,

Jeez, some of us pre-Boomers would have killed for some toe-jam. If we behaved, our dad used to allow us to use some of his.

Enough disgusting for one day :)

Pushing back the limits imposed by S.18C etc., I would suggest that the use of terms such as 'humiliate', 'ridicule', etc. should be restricted to the actual comments someone has made, rather than to the ethnicity, gender, etc. of the maker: nobody should be able to cry 'Breach !' merely because their opinion is trashed.

And, as in standard legal cases, if someone asserts that there has been a breach of S.18C, or its replacements, then they should have to demonstrate such a breach, and in good time. It should never be up to an accused to have to disprove such a charge. For example, in this ridiculous case of a university staff member ordering students out of an 'Indigenous-only' computer room at QUT, the staff member would have to demonstrate conclusively that what she did had been ridiculed on the basis of her Indigeneity or ethnicity, not just because her actions seemed arbitrary, unnecessary and sheer bloody stupidity.

Mmmmm, just thinking of that toe-jam ;)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 6 May 2016 10:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
s 18C is deliberately aimed at causing the media, authors and the general public to hesitate to offer an opinion and to self-censor.

That is the very opposite of the free speech Australia claims to enjoy.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 6 May 2016 10:29:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very bad law indeed, and Abbott should never be forgiven for reneging on his 'promise' to repeal it. Now, with both major parties left-wing sooks, we are stuck with the obnoxious law until, if, we ever again have politicians with a realistic, not PC, outlook on reality.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 6 May 2016 10:29:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, you are living proof that common sense is anything but common! Cheers, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 6 May 2016 10:53:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,

Common ? Moi ?! Well, yeah:

'How you going, you old bastard ?' There was a time when that greeting was - as intended - a mark of respect and affection.

I hate to disagree with anyone, as is probably well-known, but I'm not so sure that, as ttbn remarks, the 'real' pseudo-left are sooks - I think they know very well that there is a very soft market of ideas out there, (or a market for very soft ideas) and that many, particularly the hot-house Gen Y kiddies, can be marshalled to rise up in indignation, and then dissolve in angry tears, at any opinion which is other than their own.

In that sense, they are fertile ground for co-opting in the struggle against genuine democracy, and of common sense (to the extent that they overlap) - and a necessary part of their defence, a NECESSARY part, is the right - perhaps even the obligation to offend, to shake up the smug, self-righteous notions that anti-democrats so jealously guard, and their demands of others to toe some line.

Take, for example, the BS surrounding the myth of Indigenous Deaths in Custody: as was pointed out even before that Royal Commission got going, the proportion of deaths in custody who were Indigenous (22%) was slightly lower than the proportion of prisoners in custody who were Indigenous (23 % at the time).

Nowadays, twenty five years later, the numbers are respectively 23 % of deaths in custody, and 28 % in custody. Since I don't want Indigenous people dying at all if possible, I'm not inclined to jump to false conclusions which exaggerate Indigenous deaths, (Christ, there's enough of those already) but that doesn't seem to have ever bothered the pseudo-left. After all, the maxim is 'grab anything which can be used as a stick up the arse of the establishment and shove hard'.

Cheers, Alan.

P.S. Oops, I've probably offended someone. Well, stiff: grow a pair.
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 6 May 2016 3:33:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My problem is that what offends me is not taken into consideration.

There are lots of things that offend me. Political Correctness, Boilersuit Feminists who declare they hate men, yet; dress like men, have haircuts like men, speak like men & even smell like men. Now, that really offends me.

There are a myriad of other things as well.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 6 May 2016 8:25:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Common sense is anything but common but arguably the rarest mental manifestation of all Joe.

We shouldn't dismiss toe jam too lightly given some of the finest wines from antiquity had their fermentation process started courtesy of that source of wild yeast; and mixed in as the grapes were trampled?

But for disgusting it's hard to go past earwax. Although as a kid I fell into a fresh and still warm cow pat, and then made the mistake of trying to lick my lips to clean them!

Even today some seventy years on, the still fresh memory starts me spitting incessantly and reaching for that tidal wave in the mouth, mouthwash.

My brother a bit of a card, inquired, did you see that Al? Pointing to the pat with a remarkably accurate reverse mold of my face imprinted in it. Remarking that my ("escape artist") facial contortions, were far more mobile and stretchy than he remembered. "Of course I saw it, I retorted, still spitting. Well why did you dive into it then? he laughed.

I replied, well bro, did you think I was going to choose one of those nearby boulders as a three point nose dive emergency landing strip, when I had a softer option, I replied.

As an aside it stained my light skin a deep golden brown (heaven only knows what Farmer brown, pun intended, was feeding his Swiss browns) that took around three weeks (freckle face) to completely scrub off!

So it was not all bad and served me in later years when I needed to blend in very rapidly with others of a similar hue. Fresh Buffalo pats produce similar results and taste no better, nor do the (oh yuk thpith thipt) thousand or two flies that came with it. Kill one and a thousand come to the funereal!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 7 May 2016 9:05:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont believe any of these race discrimation laws exist for their claimed purpose.

Race laws are, in my opinion, a pretext to suppress free freedom of speech which part of the NWO agenda. They are a form of subversion.
Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Saturday, 7 May 2016 12:44:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with 18C is not in its prohibition to offend, insult and humiliate others in public places, but rather in its inappropriate extension of the word "public".

It is reasonable for a society to create a safe space in its public domain, a space where one may not be hurt, either physically or emotionally. This is plain decency and has nothing to do with race.

However, 18C wrongly pushes itself into the private arena by defining:

{"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.}

Anyone should be able to make their own rules on their private property. Those who voluntarily enter should be aware that as they cross the threshold, it's the owner's rules that apply rather than the state's.

An obvious example is this OLO: this is the domain of Graham Young and he alone should set the rules here. Whether, when and on what grounds we are allowed to offend, insult or humiliate other members and readers, should be entirely up to him.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 8 May 2016 9:43:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Parliamentary Research Group knew that 18c was unconstitutional 20 years ago, why is it only now that we the public are being told of it? Why was it never brought up in any of the media discussions about this issue? There appears to be a conspiracy between our elected representatives, the media, and the legal profession, to keep the public ignorant of what our "superiors" think the public should not know.

For twenty years, people in authority knew that 18c was unconstitutional, and they did nothing. For twenty years, there was in fact a coup against Australian democracy carried out by people who consider the Australian constitution, free speech and democracy, to be inconveniences to the world that they wish to build.

I really don't care if the Human Rights push consider freedom of speech to be right or wrong. Australia is a sovereign country and our laws are not going to be dictated to by a bunch of unrepresentative swill who nobody in this country voted for. You can bet that all of the publically funded Human Rights lawyers knew that 18c was unconstitutional but they kept their mouths shut. Freedom of speech is just another one of their sacred principles that they are willing to ignore whenever they feel that multiculturalism, and their fantasy of a world without borders, is under threat.

If 18c is unconstitutional, and people in authority knew it all along, those people should be identified and prosecuted. The charge should be "treason."
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 9 May 2016 3:37:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take the point of the article. I've never been overly concerned about 18C. I don't think decent people want to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate other people because of their race. I do agree the test needs rethinking.
Why don't the authors challenge this in the high court if they think it unconstitutional? I'd be interested in the high court's view.
Posted by malingerer, Monday, 9 May 2016 10:28:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enough pressure for freedom was built up in Britain to drive the passage of clause 29J which serves as an addendum to laws similar to our 18C.

29J reads "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."

Laws like 18C are appeasement promulgated by dhimmis that further the march of Islam (which is bigotry on steroids) by protecting its flank. Addenda like Britain's 29J reassert the values of the Enlightenment.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 9 May 2016 11:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
that sounds fine Emporer. The Public Order comments are about religion and belief systems while the Australian Act is about race. these seem to be very different things.
Posted by malingerer, Monday, 9 May 2016 11:49:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If a person does something really stupid & gets called a DH or AH what makes a difference. If they are White it gets shrugged off. If they are a minority then it becomes Racist, even though the comment had nothing to do with the persons minority. It was directed at the person themselves. How does that work?
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 9 May 2016 12:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malingerer is right, race and religion are very different things. A pity nobody told the ABC that when it persistently described demonstrators against a mosque in Bendigo as "racist".

And it is true, 18C and the British Public Order Act are about race, not religion. There remain state laws proscribing attacks on religions (specifically Islam), e.g. in Tasmania and Victoria,in the latter case taken advantage of by the Moslem cheer-leaders.

We need national laws, overriding state laws, based on the language of Britain's 29J, entrenching freedom from religion.

Perhaps we need laws proscribing vilification (hate speech) against non-racists, using terms like "racists" or "antisemites".
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 9 May 2016 1:35:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jules,

Yes, it shouldn't be necessary to point out that a criticism of Islam, or of Islamist terrorism, is not an attack on Muslims, but manifestly a criticism of the principles of Islam and of the terrorist ideologies which it has allegedly spawned.

We should be clear too that 'Islamophobia' strictly means the 'fear of Islam', and more particularly of the terrorist ideologies which purport to spring from it. Given the almost daily attacks somewhere in the world by Islamist terrorists, I would have thought that such a fear was very well-grounded.

After all, do ISIS terrorists claim that they take their guidance from the Koran ? Yes, they do. Can they be faulted in that claim ? I don't think so: ISIS terrorist ideology springs directly, and faithfully,from the Koran: every vile act can be justified by surahs or clauses in the Koran.

Should we be afraid ? No, but we must be vigilant to ensure that such principles are never any foothold in Australia, in any guise. To fear Islam is to let the terrorists win, after all: that's precisely the purpose of terror, isn't it ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 9 May 2016 2:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be a phobia, fear of something has to involve the gut, not the brain.

It's instructive to note that two of the originators of the term "Islamophohia" have finally come to involve their brains, to apologise for the term they have used, and to spell out where they had been wrong and why it's right to be hostile to Islam.

See these links:

Appeaser repents
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2015/04/mike-dobbins-gives-public-apology-to.html

Another appeaser repents
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 9 May 2016 3:17:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EmperorJulian: It's instructive to note that two of the originators of the term "Islamophohia" have finally come to involve their brains, to apologise for the term they have used, and to spell out where they had been wrong and why it's right to be hostile to Islam.

Would I be Un-PC to say moslims have Infedelophobia. Or, would that get me in trouble with the 18c.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 9 May 2016 7:46:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy