Maybe I’m thick but I find it difficult to distil a clear message here. Let me try to make it easy.

To my mind, the issue with 18c is simple, practical and logical, though the logic probably does need to rest on a threshold premise, that freedom of speech is intrinsically valuable.

I value free speech. I want the law to allow someone to offend me with their words, even though it might hurt. I demand the law allows me to respond. One doesn’t need too much imagination to devise examples where the statute that makes their words unlawful will make my responses unlawful too. I won’t offer examples because they will likely be unlawful in themselves. What kind of a law is that?

So the simple message is, the law must allow us to fight words with words. It’s simple, practical and logical. Let’s get this fixed

I'm not sure anyone is actually prevented in saying it like it is by 18C? Nor am I sure we are prevented by at times, offending a few legitimately with satire, humor and just taking the piss?

Even there, some folk will be immensely offended by terminology like angry white male, elderly white male, rich white male with a permenant suntan? And so on.

None of that stuff is even marginally offensive, whereas deliberate abusive invective is, whether or not it is racially motivated, or the last resort of scoundrels unable to match wits with more rational minds?

That said, we've had 18C for some years and moderated by, I believe, 18D? That being so, I believe, it's a case of, if it ain't broke don't fix it! Or if amendments are proposed, leave it until after the promised plebiscite!

The are dozens of far more pressing first order issues that need to be tackled first!? Or put another way, it's the economy stupid!
Alan B.

18C needs to be amended, and quickly. We don't need to read long-winded pieces to know this. 18C, along with the HRC kangaroo court, is a festering sore of suppression in a country which was once a democracy, but is no longer because of the Abbotts, Turnbulls, Shortens, di Natales and Xenophons in our rotten political cabal. We, the voters, could have seize freedom of speech back, but we don't have the guts, the brains or the interest to do so. The adage they we get the politicians we deserve has never been truer in Australia.

Yes, the author is right that Andrew Bolt slightly missed the real point. Of course, Indigenous people can be fair-skinned and still entitled to benefits. The questions are: who benefits, who knows about possible benefits, benefits in what form, and how much ?

To illustrate: many years ago, say 2001, I somehow (I conveniently have forgotten exactly how) was able to peruse documents relating to one university's Indigenous program's management of scholarship funds, thousands of dollars p.a. per person. The scholarship selection committee was made up of most of the Indigenous staff at the university. Lo and behold ! - year after year, they chose fellow-staff-members to receive the scholarships.

In following years, the lucky recipients were in turn on the selection committee, other staff going off it and - would you believe ?! - THEY then received scholarships. Year after year, staff gained scholarships, not students or anybody outside the charmed circle. It's called 'self-determination'.

On another occasion, an Indigenous staff member at a university was given the duty to select a candidate for a lucrative PH. D. scholarship. After very careful and impartial deliberation, she chose herself.

Some Indigenous people know about scholarships and other benefits and how to apply for them; many don't. The intention behind most benefits is that they go to the most needy, the most disadvantaged, one would think. Not to those who are already on the inside, and doing pretty well.

And that may be what Bolt was on about. Maybe we should both do time, for sarcasm.

Joe

As mentioned before I feel very conflicted with this. However I think the real problem is not so much 18C it's how it is applied.

the general perception is 18C and other laws like it seem to be used to protect very body except white Anglo-Saxon males.
They have the effect
that the only culture that can be openly criticized is Western culture.
The only religion that can be criticized is Western Christianity.
Only males are sexist.
Only white people can be racist.

Now there are lots of problems in Western culture, but it is by far the freest, the fairest and the most democratic, the most compassionate.
That simple fact is the reason why most people in the world want to live within it and it has been enriched by those people. But it's creators must be able to argue for it.
The flaws in other cultures must be able to be spoken about.

but I think above all else you must remember you can not have a rational conversation about anything of substance on tweeter.

18 C hasn't prevented investigative journalism nor exposure of fraud real or imagined? Nor exposure of racially motivated nepotism or the huge comparative and quite extraordinary cost of housing inside some communities, managed exclusively, it would seem, by an elder elite?

And if 18C in ny way inhibits that exposure, or nefarious criminal fraud, then there is a clear cut case for amendment! Particularly if any fraud can be legitimately sheeted home to, too clever by half European white collar crime!
Alan B.

Something I want to add is about websites, media, facebook that will self censor and steer us in whatever direction they want anyway no matter what rules we as a nation decide.
Even if speech is within the rules some politically correct websites delete your comments anyway, only publishing comments they find favourable or that reinforces their own belief system.
These sites are then pushed as representing the people when in fact they may just represent a minority absent of criticism.
I see these types of websites as a bigger danger to free speech because they not only decide themselves what speech is and isn't acceptable but they also try to steer the entire community in that politically correct direction.
Unfavourable (but legal) opinions should stand.
I oppose site censorship and cherry picking users comments.

There are currently three kids being dragged through the Kafkaesque court system that is the HREOC for doing nothing more than criticise and mock a clearly racial policy of the Queensland University of Technology.

Four others have already paid the tribute required to avoid this nightmare.

Any law that permits such a thing to happen is definitionally wrong and must be changed. That politicians are prepared to sit on their hands and play politics and allow what some have called legal blackmail to continue speaks volumes for the type of person drawn to the exercise of power.

Quite apart from all the evidence that 18C suppresses speech and causes self-censorship throughout society, the notion that people can be sued as racist for pointing out racism is absurd.

We as a society are poorer for having 18C and those who support it show their true colours by doing so.

Armchair: I don't always agree with Graham, but on reflection find him scrupulously fair, even handed and very tolerant in what is allowed, including often rambunctious robust debate.

Most deleted comment is removed for profanity or abuse! Steer clear of those two and you stand less chance of having courtesy costs nothing, civil comment removed! Have a nice day.
Alan B.

Australia is a surveillance state.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/05/glenn-greenwald-says-australia-is-one-of-most-aggressive-in-mass-surveillance

The country is not ruled by the people, but ruled by political parties, and political parties know most things about members of the public.

All it takes is for a political party to state that saying anything negative about that political party or about the government is an offense, and 1984 has arrived in Australia.

Hi Alan,
I wasn't referring to this website.
I agree with you completely regarding the tolerance and fairness given on OLO, and am grateful for it.
I've actually never had a comment deleted here, though I'll admit a couple I made in response to your comments recently may have been deserving.
Although technically 'legal', they weren't all that respectful and for that I apologise.

the article was well written and makes some good points, but I think the author draws too long a bow about some things. He says "Ironically, Leyonhjelm’s approach would also render democracy unworkable. Democracy requires a public sphere in which people can participate and speak without fear of humiliation, intimidation and offense." That is simply not true. The USA has a workable democracy and their free speech is guaranteed by the constitution.
We can insult and humiliate people about being fat, stupid, ugly, drug users, White, rednecked, bigoted etc perfectly legally and I haven't seen any shortage of fat, bigoted rednecked stupid people engaging in democracy. Which raises the question, why should there be one particular characteristic that is out of bounds for discussion?
Some people won't engage in public discussion because they cannot bare listening to anyone say anything they disagree with. Thats fine.
Lots of people don't like playing contact sports because they don't like getting hurt. It shouldn't stop the rest of us enjoying robust debate about important issues

The Author goes on to say how bolts ideas were just fine, but the way they were written was the problem. That is even worse because it reserves discussion and debate for those with sufficient intellect, skills and education to produce the necessary words to discuss these issues without offending anyone. Well unfortunately that excludes most of the population. Debate would be left for that select group of elite highly educated people like the author. The rest of us uncouth ignorant yobbos have to just remain silent.

Let us get one thing absolutely clear about 18C. 18C was enacted solely to do one thing, to prevent criticism of our new state sponsored ideology of multiculturalism. It is very easy to criticise multiculturalism, just point out the negative consequences of importing ethnic and religious groups who are causing serious social strife within Australia.

But under 18C you can't do that. By pointing out the negative effects that some imported groups are having, you are supposedly "offending, insulting, and intimidating" them. So no discussion, or else.

The stupidity of such a policy can best be seen in Sweden. Like Australia, it is illegal in Sweden to point out that Sweden is now the rape capitol of the world, and the overwhelming majority of offenders are recently imported Muslims and black Africans. Under Swedish law it does not matter if this is a fact and absolutely true, you can not say it. You must not speak the truth. Recently, a Swedish politician was arrested and charged for saying it.

Any legislation which suppresses the truth is, under western secular thought, immoral legislation. Anyone who uses spurious logic to justify suppressing the truth is under western secular philosophy, an immoral person.

The western world became the most inventive, prosperous and admired culture on this planet because we 500 years ago began to reject the notion that any religion, idea, or social theory was beyond criticism. I find it incredible that this principle, already a done deal for so long, now needs to be defended again from the zealots of today who do not want their ideologies examined and criticised.

If multiculturalism needs to stop people speaking the truth for it's continued propagation, then there is obviously something fundamentally wrong with it. It is just as morally bankrupt as every other ideology or religion which needed state sponsored repression to make it work.

Hi LEGO,

When Boas and Benedict and Mead were defending their notion that 'all cultures are equally valid in their own context', I think they meant 'in their own societies, environments and ethical frameworks'. Even to them, 'race' was immaterial. Surely they didn't mean validity at all times and places: that if it was 'valid' for nine-year-old girls to be married off in tribal societies, it didn't necessarily mean that it was okay for the nine-year-old children of migrants to other countries, with different ethical, legal and moral frameworks, to be married off.

Whether they were right even in the first place is debatable. Is burning for witchcraft ever 'valid' ? A bloke from Papua-New Guinea has just been given sanctuary in Australia as a refugee, after fleeing from his homeland after accusations that he was a sorcerer. A teacher in Bougainville has recently been beheaded as witch.

As an internationalist, I'm very wary of arguments for, say, the stoning of women for adultery in countries where it is a 'valid' cultural practice, or the marriage of under-age girls, i.e. their trading between families, just because it is part of 'culture'.

But if nothing can be done about such barbarism, at least in Australia, we can - and must - be vigilant that the rights of all, especially women and children, are protected, and that intolerable cultural practices elsewhere are not brought into Australia in the luggage of immigrants.

Enlightenment values may have been developed, painfully and slowly, in the West, against a range of reactionary forces, the churches, 'custom', and yes, 'culture'. Their implicit intent was to be freely applicable for all societies: after all, why should equality before the law, equality of women and men, the right to vote, etc. be reserved only for Western societies ? Wouldn't that be the most blatant racism ?

[TBC]

{continued]

Values and 'culture' are not 'racial': 'race' is irrelevant in discussions about values and culture. Those with poor arguments against criticisms of cultural practices of course try to blur these factors. Criticism of cultural practices is not hatred of the people practising them, and certainly not 'race hate'.

But such criticism necessarily involves offending some, particularly those who benefit from them, usually men. Culture, after all, is power inscribed in social relations between men and women, and therefore usually favours men. In that sense, the Enlightenment and 'culture' are always potentially at odds, antagonistic to each other's roots. So the possibility of offending someone is integral to the expression of Enlightenment values and is perfectly justified by them.

To criticise cultural practices, and the constant, covert attempts to import them, is to challenge male power in those ethnic groups which practice them. They may see criticism, and probably quite rightly, as insulting, even denigrating, their 'culture', i.e. the power structures within the practising group.

But, in Australia, the subordinated sub-groups within those ethnic groups are Australian, like you and me, dear reader: they are entitled to the opportunities and protections of the Australian law. Whatever cramps their exercise of those rights fully deserves to be criticised and insulted and they should be enabled to liberate themselves from the shackles, if that's what they are, of oppressive 'culture' and unequal power structures.

Cheers,

Joe

To the author: thank you for an excellent analysis, and to all posters for a stimulating read which I have enjoyed immensely.

@Loudmouth, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 11:32:06 AM

Howdy Joe.

I think your comment:

"...that may be what Bolt was on about. Maybe we should both do time, for sarcasm." is right on the money.

It always seemed to me that Mr. Bolt was clearly angry at what he perceived to be rorting the system by a certain group or class of persons, but unfortunately for him, it was largely his sarcasm IMO that landed him in strife.

At the same time, I am much inclined to agree with Rhys Jones, Thursday, 1 September 2016 7:27:19 PM when he comments that: "I do think that Debate would be left for that select group of elite highly educated people like the author. The rest of us uncouth ignorant yobbos have to just remain silent." That's a pretty good summary of where we are at presently and perhaps reason enough why Section 18C needs revisiting.

I think the author's reference to the remarks of Judge Ronald Sackville is appropriate and welcome.

In conclusion Joe, I have read your long post of Monday, 5 September 2016 wish to take this opportunity to thank you for an exercise in clear thinking. A bit of that goes a long way.