Its a difficult ethical dilemma for those opposed to these legislative attacks on our freedoms to use the very legislation as a tool. How can you oppose 18c and then use it against your opponents? But I think that the good Senator has hit the right note here by using the legislation to mock the legislation and to make the point that it isn't being used and was never intended to be used in an equal fashion. It was always intended as a tool to allow the so-called disadvantaged to hit back at the so-called advantaged.

Of course its always been sold as being entirely fair and open to all citizens to assuage their offense and insulting behaviour, but it is, in reality a tool to enforce 'progressive' attitudes. Leyonhjelm has simply pointed out that the emperor has no clothes and the problem for the 'progressives' is that, if they reject his claims, they are effectively conceding that point.

A similar dilemma faces those opposed to censorship. How can those opposed to censorship use it. Bill Leak does a cartoon that offends the sensibilities of those of a certain bent and they race off to the press council to complain. There is no dilemma for them since that is what the press council was created for - to suppress certain views. But censorship opponents can't or don't call in the 'umpire' when offended by "Death to those who oppose Islam" signs because they are opposed to censorship. Thus the field is open to the censorious.

Its quite a dilemma and clearly just arguing the case against 18c or press censorship from a freedom of speech perspective is largely futile because the supporters of 18c and censorship only pay lip service to freedom of speech.

So the Leyonhjelm suit hits just the right mocking note. It'll be interesting to see the outcome.

LEGO,

So what’s the difference between people who are on the Left and Right, and those who support Leftism and those who support Rightism?

<<…so that any impartial reader can see for themselves the difference in intellect between those who support leftism, and those who are on the right.>>

More importantly, why did you compare “those who support leftism” with “those who are on the right”? If there’s a difference between those who ‘are’ and those who ‘support’, wouldn’t it make more sense to compare the ‘ares’ with the ‘ares’ and the ‘supporters’ with the ‘supporters’, rather than the ‘ares’ of one side with the ‘supporters’ of the other?

Speaking of intelligence, studies suggest that both those on the Left and those who support Leftism (whatever the difference there may be) are, on average, the more intelligent ones.

http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf

TLDR: Conservatism is evolutionarily hardwired into us, so something as novel as a concern for billions whom are not related, requires a unique intelligence.

Leftism: because you can make anything sound like a crazy ideology if you just add an -ist or an -ism.

"Speaking of intelligence, studies suggest that both those on the Left and those who support Leftism (whatever the difference there may be) are, on average, the more intelligent ones."

Yes, use iffy IQ estimates to prove the group you belong to is more intelligent. Never mind the inherent and enormous uncertainties in that data.

BUT use less iffy IQ estimates to 'prove' that some races are less intelligent than others? That the black race is the least intelligent of all the races? Best not go there.

LEGO
You called me a leftie but my posts are about law and order under Police vigilance. Aboriginal cultural rights are..not leftie are they?

@LEGO pg2, let me help.

Satire, the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Satire is not Sarcasm. Sarcasm is not Satire. I use Satire and Irony often. I can also speak straight to the point, provide supporting references, it depends. I also crack 'jokes' but humour is in the ear of the hearer. I educate. I teach by example and "role playing" what it would look like 'IF xyz'.

Lego says: "Lefties can make sarcastic racist jokes, but white people may not." Plus: "You made a sarcastic racist statement ..."

There is a serious flaw in Lego's logic: I'za white boy bro - celtic anglo saxon french bavarian dna. I'm related to Prince William going back to Henry VIII and signatories of the Magna Carta. Not only can I count, I am a Count. :-)

I am no "leftie". I am a Moderate. I 'fit' the great silent majority of Australians. Moderate in views, behaviour, typically law abiding, hard working, family orientated and respectful/tolerant of our fellow Australians.

Moderates make political voting decisions based upon issues. What they know of the facts relying upon personal values, social cohesion, and not on narrow ideologies.

Political ideology is a belief system no different than fundamentalist religious beliefs, usually includes a high degree of bigotry and narcissism by default. It typically refutes reason, critical thinking, and evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Moderates vote for all Political parties, the Liberals, Nationals, LNP, CLP, Labor, Greens, LibDems, Christian parties, Shooters Fishers, Independents, One Nation, Xenophon and so on.

It's a well known fact that most attracted to politics on internet forums come from the extreme limits on 'the Bell Curve' iow fundamentalists of various persuasions.

I'm very different, I come here to spread the enlightened word of the great unwashed, that Silent Moderate Majority of Australia. The Voters who decide when a change in Government is required - the Swingers Party? ;-)

I support Leyonhjelm making this HRC complaint. Should I repeat that?
-

mhaze,

I’m well aware of the problems with IQ scores. Apparently you're not, however.

I’ve tried to explain to LEGO many times why IQ scores are problematic when he uses them to support the idea that other races are more stupid than us, but he refuses to acknowledge the problems. So he shouldn’t have a problem acknowledging the results in the study that I linked to above. At least not if he wants to remain consistent.

<<BUT use less iffy IQ estimates to 'prove' that some races are less intelligent than others?>>

Less iffy? How do you figure they're less iffy when used to compare races?

So long as studies use samples with an even distribution of education levels and people from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, comparing IQ scores on the political spectrum is far less problematic.

<<That the black race is the least intelligent of all the races? Best not go there.>>

Why not? Plenty have. Apparently.

There’s nothing wrong with doing so, so long as one can acknowledge the reasons as to why the differences exist (e.g. cultural differences, education levels, socioeconomic statuses). But if it were purely genetic, as LEGO believes it is, then African Americans must be evolving quickly (and along with their education levels too, coincidentally). At the rate they’re going, they’ll have ‘evolved’ to become smarter than white Americans in about 30 years.

Of course, your “best not go there” comparison is flawed anyway because, unlike a political position, race/ethnicity is something that people are born with and cannot change. LEGO used to make the same mistake. When he was posting as 'redneck', he thought he had caught Lefties out when they commented on how he really was a redneck. The nom de plume was used to bait Lefties. What LEGO didn't realise, however, is that the comparison was flawed because being a redneck is a choice, whereas being born a certain race isn't.