Tonmbee’s post is extremely apt. and decisive. He says ‘deciding the balance: the harm to the individual from feeling offended; the harm to the minority group to which the offended person belongs; and the broader harm to society due to loss of free speech’. But I question whether abolishing 18 c involves loss of free speech. At an extreme, it should only involve the loss of the right to "offend' and "insult." In any case, the right to free speech is not inviolate . We need to put many restrictions on free speech. The most clear-cut example of a limit on free speech is censorship, particularly in criminalising the dissemination of objectionable material, such as child pornography. Also inciting to terrorism

Peter Bowden

Old Man,
I do not follow your argument. Of course you should not be prosecuted for telling the truth. But your statements are proven. They are in the history books. Bolt's were not.He made accusations which were just that - unproven assertions . That is wrong .

JP says “So really all we have to work with is law and not morality per se ..Whoever can get the numbers to introduce a law that they happen to like can use the power of the state to enforce it and they can even pretend that it represents a moral position’ But I believe that the law should reflect a moral position. There are many laws that seem distant from this position. For instance , the legal requirements for listing on the stock market ,seem far distant from moral requirements. But , I suspect without exception, they are designed to prevent harm occurring to some other potential investor .That prevention of harm is a moral requirement

Peter Bowden

Winton Bates writes “ to reduce the happiness of another as unethical you should not seek advancement at work or engage in any business activity because that may harm competitors”. Competition, in sport, or the work place, is a mutually agreed field of human activity. It may, of course, cause an opponent to be harmed. If I have agreed before our boxing match that if you hit me and break my jaw, then that is OK. But if you hit me unexpectedly on the street, that is not OK. Similarly on a whole host of activities. If you sell a product that may be harmful (cigarettes ,for instance) and you do not tell me that it may be harmful, then that is immoral.

Peter Bowden

I've watched this topic evolve into something far more academic than simply a matter of common sense. I believe DAVID F and ONTHEBEACH earlier on had best described the impact of removing S.18c from the relevant statute, and that's precisely nothing.

We all live in a Nation that values 'free speech', that free speech applies to us all, not just one section or a minority, all of us without exception. As a retired detective sergeant, you can believe me when I say, there are certain small groups who can say literally anything, notwithstanding how hurtful, injurious, or threatening that may be. Yet should a copper, unintentionally describe somebody in a manner that's perceived as politically incorrect, well look out Commissioner of Police, a lawsuit is looming !

On another completely different note; Has anybody heard from our esteemed friend and colleague 'FOXY' ? The last I've heard, she was due to undergo another 'procedure' in Hospital ? I do sincerely hope she's OK and just taking a rest ? Furthermore, I've not heard from either POIROT or SUSEONLINE either ? POIROT has had a close family bereavement, of which she needed to deal with ? Although she's an immensely strong, pragmatic and intelligent lady, she's nevertheless human, and I do worry about her, as do others I'm sure. In fact I do like to verify that our highly valued trio of distinctly erudite ladies, are all well and life's treating them agreeably, we sure need 'em !

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to act in a manner that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.

Again, in my opinion, this clause is all about stifling free speech. The fact that the law seems to say:

.... "a manner that is REASONABLY LIKELY to “offend."

what a dead giveaway that is, I rest my case.

Try using education to achieve the aim of 18c not legislation.