Posted by Winton Bates, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 10:22:13 AM

" ... The moral test should be about whether the conduct infringes the rights of others. ... "

And in the absence of a Bill of Rights, what exactly are our rights?

" ... In terms of social norms it seems to me to be desirable to encourage people to draw a line in terms of their personal conduct to avoid giving offence gratuitously. ... "

I would say that there needs to be exceptions to this. For example, think of the case of child abusers in positions of power who are restricting the flow of pertinent information. If one needs to verbally abuse the abusers as one strategy amongst many in order to pierce the "veil of darkness" and draw people's attention to the grass roots reality of what is occurring then I would say that the ends justifies the means when special circumstances exist.

..

" ... In terms of what conduct should be legal, the requirement that conduct should not offend others is far too restrictive in my view. The law should not give people an incentive to pretend to be offended in order to seek legal redress for impolite behavior. ... "

Perhaps it could be linked with another condition, say for example what is illegal could be "insulting with a view to intimidate and or threaten" and not merely insulting.

Re the above section of quote again though I recall the guvment's response when the report from the Council of Churches stated that the treatment of children in detention constituted child abuse. They simply replied that it was offensive and neither they nor the media gave it due consideration.

I would also point out that Australia is a signatory to conventions such that "national security" or "secret squirrels" is not a defense to any accusation of human rights abuses or crimes against humanity. Any tin pot abusive regime can claim these things and regularly do.

Hi Joe.

What I was referring to was this odd bit of cognitive dissonance which social justice warriors like Mikk can never recognise. Mik thinks that anybody who has a different opinion to his own is a bigot, and he can not see that his attitude is bigotry itself.

Of course people have a right to be bigots, or racists, or multiculturalists, or socialists, or Nazis, or anything else. In western secular counties they are supposed to have a right to put their points of view on the table and discuss them and may the best argument win.

But what we saw in the Bill Leak cartoon was a self evident piece of truth. Everybody in Australia knows that the reason why so many aboriginal children are completely dysfunctional is because they have parents who are completely dysfunctional. These parents do not care if their kids go to school, behave themselves, or even if they are fed. That is the truth. But under 18C it is illegal to tell the truth or even pu8blish a cartoon which hints at the truth.

Some liberal Mikk is. He has become the very thing he once fought against when he was young. When did you sell out your liberal principles to conform to your utopian ideology, Mikk?

Hi Dream On
I don't think a bill of rights would be helpful. When we want to engage in conversations with other people we recognise their right to be treated with respect. We don't set out to offend them. That is just old fashioned politeness. There should be more politeness in public debate in my view.

However, attempts to legislate to protect people from being offended have had a chilling effect on public debate of some important issues because people have been able to close down discussion by claiming to be offended.

Your suggested amendments to 18c would be an improvement in my view, but I doubt whether an amended version of 18c is necessary to prevent threatening behaviour.

Posted by Winton Bates, Friday, 19 August 2016 10:26:01 AM

" ... I don't think a bill of rights would be helpful. ... "

Why, and if not something codified and straight forward, it still leaves the majority of the population ignorant (to one degree or another) of what exactly our rights are, does it not? Perhaps they should teach "rights & responsibilities" in the big world before they let the kiddies loose.

" ... When we want to engage in conversations with other people we recognise their right to be treated with respect. ... "

Do we? And where exactly does that right stem from? In asking that, as a general rule I do not disagree with you. However .. there are exceptions in my book and consequently, there are times when it is appropriate to set out to do more than just offend people.

" ... Your suggested amendments to 18c would be an improvement in my view, but I doubt whether an amended version of 18c is necessary to prevent threatening behavior. ... "

Perhaps someone who is versed in criminology or similar could enlighten us as to whether or not there is still any kind of victimisation which is occurring of a kind which 18c is trying to ensnare and which is otherwise falling through the net of pre-existing protections. Perhaps it could indeed be that 18c is really just superfluous?

Dream On,
It doesn't help to think of our individual rights as being granted by governments. Some governments recognise rights, but rights continue to exist even when governments deny them. Please read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, on this question: http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/second-treatise

Posted by Winton Bates, Friday, 19 August 2016 9:38:51 PM

" ... It doesn't help to think of our individual rights as being granted by governments. ... "

Doesn't it? And why not? If we consider that the prevailing majority wish to be represented by some form of government, to perform the functions that they want, then assuming that this same guvment is largely fulfilling the will of the people then it follows that the rights that we have at law are those rights that we want to have.

Unless of course for other reasons the majority are merely slavishly following their representatives.

As for your link, I had a quick look but it is not really my thing. Was there a particular point you were trying to make?