Toni Lavis,

Point taken. I try to live by that advice, but there is something about LEGO’s hubris that makes discrediting his nonsense so irresistible.

Speaking of ‘hubris’, I’ve been wondering where all those who accused me of it recently have suddenly disappeared to. Surely they wouldn’t overlook LEGO’s hubris just because they’re politically aligned with him? Surely!

---

LEGO,

The reason you get yourself so tangled up, and then accuse me of being evasive (over something I have no obligation to do in the first place), is because you will only accept one answer. I tell you time and time again that I don’t believe that all races are equal, in the sense that they all have different physical attributes and ancestry, but that that, however:

1. doesn’t mean that some are superior to others, and that any perceived superiority or inferiority would be highly subjective, and;
2. it doesn’t mean that they should not be treated as being of equal worth and with equal respect, indeed I think they should be.

However, you don’t like this answer, and so you accuse me of not answering your silly question because what you need me to say is a uselessly-broad and non-specific,

“I believe that all races are equal.”

That way you get to point out ultimately-insignificant differences between races such as physical appearance, and then parade around as if you were right all along about everything else, justified in your harmfully overt bigotry, and brag - to your audience in which you are so narcissistically focused on - that you have ‘defeated’ another stupid lefty.

Oh, how you floor those silly Bleeding Hearts with your ‘formidable’ logic and reasoning!

You need the wriggle room that vagueness provides you because your inadequately-narrow debating tactics and reasoning aren’t sophisticated enough to counter anything beyond the most basic and naive stance from the caricature that is your perception of the typical lefty. Hence your refusal to clarify what you mean by ‘equality’ too.

You mistake, as formidable reasoning and logic, what is in fact nothing more than ignorance and oversimplification.

Whatever is happening with those Section 18C allegations against QUT and some students?

This seems to be latest:

<Cindy Prior: Doctor casts doubts on QUT employee’s 18C racism claim

Comprehensive medical reports question the severity and reasons for a stress disorder affecting an indigenous university staffer who is seeking $250,000 damages from students in a section 18C ­racial hatred case...>
[excerpt from a detailed article]

www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/doctor-casts-doubts-on-qut-employees-18c-racism-claim/news-story/acef2c0721cee62b98c564f837bdbeac

and,

<Human Rights Commission broke rules over race complaint

A Freedom of Information disclosure to students accused of ­racism shows the Human Rights Commission did not follow its own guidelines before the complaint of Cindy Prior advanced to the Federal Circuit Court.

The commission’s handbook has prescriptive procedures for complaints of racial hatred under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which is cited by Ms Prior, an indigenous former Queensland University of Technology staffer, in her $250,000 legal case against students for their Facebook posts.

The handbook cautions staff to “be careful to ensure the neutrality of your approach” when dealing with people who are the subject of such complaints, adding “no assumptions should be made about the validity of the complaint or views expressed as to its substance”.>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/human-right-commission-broke-rules-over-race-complaint/news-story/4205e68f9f1619dbcdf77b18d3dd71f2

The OLO article is timely.

@AJ Philips "You mistake, as formidable reasoning and logic, (for) ignorance and oversimplification."

I see why you'd say that :)

@Toni Lavis IQ tests: Scientists & academics are better than people give them credit for. IQ testing are not like a spelling bee or maths quiz.

Since the 70s 80s there is separate testing for "Intelligence" in Numeric, Verbal, Spatial, Linear, Mechanical, Visual, Conceptual, and more. There is nothing "contentious" about these matters.

Cognitive Sciences has only helped them to make improvements and try new things like every "scientific study" is done.

@LEGO "you disagree with me that races are not equal."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equal

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equivalent

USDoI
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

What does it mean to be created equal?

When the Declaration of Independence proclaims all men to be created equal, it means that all human beings, regardless of religion, sex, or skin color, possess the same natural rights.

The Founders were well aware that different people are unequal in physical and mental capacities.

UDHR - Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, [...]

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights
-

The problem with the "racial discrimination act" isn't section 18C (which is essentially a good measure to prevent hurting others), but its application over people's private life, as opposed to the public sphere. I'm surprised that the good Senator doesn't wish to repeal the lot, or at least modify it extensively, rather than just 18C.

The act's main section (9), states: "It is unlawful for a person to do ...X... which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing ...Y... in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

This nasty bit implicitly declares the above fields as exclusively belonging to "public life", which (other than "political") is untrue!
Further, the act discusses in detail issues that should in fact belong in the domain of people's private matters.

So long as this act (not just 18C) limits itself to what is truly public, I have no problem with it.

Now let's look specifically at the current "18C":
______________________________________________________________________
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"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.
______________________________________________________________________

(continued...)

(...continued)

And this is how I would change it:
______________________________________________________________________
PROTECTION FROM VERBAL ABUSE ACT 2016 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public domain; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public domain.
______________________________________________________________________

It is legitimate and reasonable to create a public sphere/domain where people can feel safe, not only physically but also from verbal abuse. This should be a general courtesy, rather than be limited to issues of race.

On the other hand, no law should limit what people may do on their own property so long as it does not spill over to public domain.

I hope that the author is reading this and will consider my proposed changes which go along with his own libertarian tradition of protecting people's autonomy within their private domain.

If the left whingers can justify the use of 18c to abuse the process, then they can justify keeping the ill defined "offend" in the clause.