I agree totally that 'racist!' is an offensive race-based insult that ought to be punishable under 18C. A letter of mine to that effect was published in The Australian just a few days ago ("Nothing highlights more the absurdity of 18C and the hypocrisy of its supporters than the impunity with which anyone can hurl the insult ‘racist!’ at whomever they please.") Perhaps when that message sinks in more people will start to see that 18C must be abolished in its entirety.

The author has conveniently forgotten that one of the tenants of all our law is to completely exonerate anyone who says they are "Aboriginal" from any of this legislation. Yes we have racist laws and are now being asked to enshrine this in the Australian Constitution.
Makes up my mind about supporting any sort of "First peoples" inclusion in the Constitution.
We need to define "Race" first I think. Then everything follows from that surely?

It was Barry Goldwater, who stood for president of the United States against Richard Nixon who said, "You cannot make someone love his neighbour by passing a law" or words to that effect.

Stan Grant also needs to be reminded who his forebears were, as do most of his fellow travelers.

David

The awful, superficial and egotistical Grant got his boost and oxygen from a taxpayer-funded national broadcaster that figures itself 'Progressive' and dabbles in social reengineering. It has a secondary informal editorial policy that is often at odd with its declared editorial policy of independence and so on, virtues that are largely ignored by its array of socio-political programs, such as Q&A, that poses as news and current affairs but is anything but.

Therein lies the answer, where a national broadcaster has upwards of $1.3 billion compulsorily taken from taxpayers to do its hip 'Progressive' international socialist propaganda and it is spreading those messages 24/365 and where politicians concede and cater to its ferocious, adversarial, left-leaning Mastiffs, what is the public, especially vulnerable youth, to believe?

Either the SBS or the ABC has to go and what remains has to cater for community services made by and for the local communities around Australia. The large funds received by the ABC should in major part be distributed by it to the small community stations, largely volunteer driven. That should be the role of the ABC, to identity suitable local community media that are run by and are for the purposes of local communities and to provide funds to foster their role and contribution. That might even include TV/radio run by school students, which would make a very positive contribution to the education and welfare of the underrepresented youth of Australia.

I think the 4 university students commenting on apartheid practices know more about racism than most Aussies.

Leoj: “The awful, superficial and egotistical Grant got his boost and oxygen from a taxpayer-funded national broadcaster that figures itself 'Progressive' and dabbles in social reengineering. It has a secondary informal editorial policy that is often at odd with its declared editorial policy of independence and so on, virtues that are largely ignored by its array of socio-political programs, such as Q&A, that poses as news and current affairs but is anything but. …

Either the SBS or the ABC has to go …”

Given today’s plethora of news and current affairs providers, there no longer is justification for the Government to continue to fund the ABC and SBS, both of which now fail to follow a policy of independence in any case.

Preferably they should be privatised, or failing that, wholly funded by subscription from their faithful listeners/viewers

Of course, there is racism against Aboriginal people in Australia, but perhaps it goes much deeper than Stan Grant realises. And paradoxically, it may be unintentional. Or maybe not.

Affirmative action for Aboriginal people can have unintended effects: I've tried to tell my kids not to tick the box, which supposedly will open up jobs for them - BUT it also automatically shuts them out of mainstream employment, i.e. the 98 % of employment opportunities, and locks them into the Indigenous box. Since their qualifications are not easily incorporated into the Indigenous domain (they could be, but usually aren't), they have had trouble ever since they graduated.

Of course, there would be a simple way around this: if 'affirmative action' wasn't a matter of 'either/or' but of 'both', i.e. the mainstream opportunity structure AND the Indigenous opportunity structure.

But I'd still advise my kids not to tick the box, just to be on the safe side.

Of course, this has been around for a long time. I recall an Indigenous graduate, in Secondary Science Teaching, who may have been told, with extreme and sincere regret, "We're dreadfully sorry, dear, but we don't have any Indigenous secondary schools in SA." She got a job as a social worker. But imagine: how valuable as a role model would a female Indigenous Science teacher have been back in 1990. Christ protect us from our 'helpers'.

So, yes, there's racism around, all right.

And there's more than forty thousand Indigenous university graduates now, so there's a LOT of it around.

Joe

This article provides a good reason for the repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. As the author says, Jurisprudence regarding 18C is all over the shop; everything or nothing could be found in breach. Even the proposed modification suggesting the removal of the offences 'insult', 'humiliate', and 'offend' to be replaced by the higher test of 'harass'is too nebulous, leaving the way open for a wide range of interpretations.

To call Stan Grant's speech "hate speech", however, stretches any interpretation of what "hate speech" is. The speech was a passionate and factual account of how racist attitudes have destroyed his people and are continuing to cause harm and disadvantage to indigenous Australians. Its tone is inclusive, rather than condemnatory. "But we are better than that...And one day, I want to stand here and be able to say as proudly and sing as loudly as anyone else in this room, Australians all, let us rejoice".

I can't speak on behalf of Stan Grant.
Nor can I criticise his feelings concerning
what he and his family have experienced.
I am white of European ancestry and have not
experienced the type of abuse of which Stan
Grant speaks. I know that words do hurt as
does exclusion and not being accepted for
whatever reason. Today we can know a great
deal about the conditions that many of our
Indigenous people have lived with for years.
And the prejudices that they encounter in
their daily lives. I like to think that
for most of us tolerance and understanding has
broadened out and that bigotry is in retreat.
However, I can't really speak on behalf of
Mr Grant.- All I can do is try to
understand the points he's making and try to
be part of the solution and not the problem
by condemning him.

Some wise person once said words to the effect
that:

Not everyone thinks the way you think, or knows the
things you think you know, or believes in the
things that you believe, nor acts the way you act.

Therefore it is best to remember that and you just
might go a long way in getting along with people.
No matter who they might be.

The crux of this discussion is that the HRC did not go around looking
for someone to make a complaint against Stan Grant.

I wonder why ?

Could it be that the HRC is itself a racist organisation ?
That would have made for a really good cartoon for Bill leak.
If only I could draw !

Stan Grant has done very well for himself in 'racist' Australia; his father, too, an unskilled labourer, managed to achieve the 'Australian dream' by buying his own home in Canberra.

What I find strange is that anyone living in Australia even uses the words 'racist', so much has the word been misused and abused by the bullies. To the lunatic Left, anyone who disagrees with them on immigration or multiculturalism is a 'racist'. These semi-literate yobs don't event know the difference between religion and race, particularly when it comes to the religio/political organisation of Islam, whose adherents are made up of many different races, although the blame for Islam lies fairly and squarely with the Arab race, or some of the Arab race, as there are Christian Arabs.

In 632, when the Tuareg hordes conquered Egypt, the population of that country was 99% Christian; now it is 6% Christian. Same race. Different religion (if we must call Islam a religion).

Another tip for Australian knuckle heads: there is no such thing as an aboriginal race. The aboriginal population of what is now called Australia, were Australoids, called such to differentiate from Negroid. There are no 'Aboriginal' Australians. The the common noun, 'aboriginal', describes the original population of ANY country. Our lot was glorified with proper noun status for purely political reason by the viciously divisive Left. There were about 600 separate tribes, many of them little more than the one family. These tribal names are proper nouns, just as the those of aboriginals in other countries: Sioux, Apache etc in America, Cree in Canada, Ainu in Japan. Calling all Australian people descendant from of the many tribes (A)borignal and not (a)boriginal is an absurd piece of social engineering and abuse of the English language.

Until we stop the multiculturalism bulls..t and start seeing ourselves as Australians only, we will remain a bunch of idiots who deserve to lose the country too many people have died and worked for - most of them white fellas, whether some of you like it or not.

I think the whole 'accusing others of being racism' argument is misleading, and I'm kind of getting fed-up with the whole politically correct side of things.
I can almost imagine myself wearing a T-shirt with 'I'm racist' plastered in big letters across the front of it as some kind of affront to society, to the stupidity of it all; and so that I don't have to ever be unfairly accused of it.

I see news articles of immigrants doing the wrong thing, if I speak up I'm racist right?
Doesn't matter whether I actually am racist or not.

Half the people being accused of racism probably aren't actually racist but have good reasons to criticise immigrants for the way the lack of respect towards our country.
And these people either lack the literary skills or either don't care for putting their concerns in a politically correct manner.
Maybe some genuinely are racist, who knows.

I don't like the way Muslims accost primary school kids and force them to convert to Islam and read the Koran.
I MUST be racist.
I don't like the way people are being attacked on or in their own homes by machete wielding psychopaths.
I MUST be racist.

I don't like the way I'm accused of an offense for speaking up for what is right.
I MUST be racist.

.

Dear Tombee,

.

You wrote :

« Nothing highlights more the absurdity of 18C and the hypocrisy of its supporters than the impunity with which anyone can hurl the insult ‘racist!’ at whomever they please »
.

Your thinking is a bit muddled there, I’m afraid, Tombee :

Hurling that somebody is a racist - if it's true - is not an insult. It's a fact. It's an insult only if it's not true. You make a sweeping statement about “whomever they please” - which implies that it could be anybody and everybody, indiscriminately – both racists and non-racists. But it cannot possibly be, as you assert, an insult to both. It could only be an insult to non-racists.

Also, hurling that somebody is a racist does not “highlight … the absurdity of 18C and the hypocrisy of its supporters …”. Again, the person hurled against is either a racist or not a racist. If he is a racist, then the hurler has every right to express his indignation with force.

If, on the contrary, the person hurled upon is not a racist, then 18C does not apply and has nothing to do with the matter, as you mistakenly indicate. The hurler may possibly be pursued in the courts for defamation under the uniform Australian Defamation Act 2006 - provided a suit is brought before the courts within one year (or three years if the court is satisfied an action could not have been brought within one year).

Unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, we Australians have no right to freedom of expression under the Australian Constitution.

That's just one of many reasons why I, personally, consider that we badly need an entirely new constitution including an embedded bill of rights.

So far, we’ve managed to blunder along with a more and more outdated and less and less appropriate document, full of holes, insufficiencies and inefficiencies – just fit to be put on display in a museum with the skeletons of prehistoric animals.

It's not the same country it used to be !

.

BP says, "It's a fact. It's an insult only if it's not true."

Tell that to Bill Leak. His now famous cartoon hit the nail on the head. He clearly pitched it at the situation in remote communities, not urban aborigines who were the loudest in their condemnation of him.

Some have said there is no basis for reviewing 18c. The QUT and Bill Leak cases are all that is needed as an indication that PC has been taken a step too far.

If I am called a racist, by anyone, simply because I am a member of the white Caucasian race, I am offended.

Incidentally, I have heard the the word used by young people in the same pejorative way they use the term "gay", i.e. this or that's gay/racist. I have no idea how this come's about, but it may be a reaction to the casual overuse of the term "racist" to deflect any real criticism by someone prepared to stick their head above the PC parapet to tell the truth, such as Pearson or Leak.

Banjo Patterson:

The fact that somebody is a racist is immaterial until they do racist things. It is racist actions which should be targeted and such actions should have consequences for the victim which are clearly discernible.

This is how our law operates. It is about actions and consequences and not about how victims feel. Subjective feelings are just that - subjective. No one can tell if what someone else feels is true or whether they are trying to manipulate the law to get some advantage which they do not deserve.

We have to protect the way we constitute our laws for the sake of everyone in society and the burden of proof is a fundamental principle of those laws. 18C does not uphold that principle but seeks to protect certain people from racial offence. People may be hurt by racial slurs but the need to protect our justice system is much more important than their hurt.

We all get hurt in one way or another but we do not all demand special protection which would jeopardise our fundamental legal principles. We put our hurt into perspective and find other ways to deal with it.

Stan Grant being a racist simply puts him in the same moral position as a white man that is racist. Maybe I should lodge an 18c complaint against him.

The only problem is that I don't care enough.

Perhaps then "prove your feelings were hurt", could be a defence.
If hurt feelings could not be proved that would be the end of it.
The problem though seems to be that the HRC is a racist organisation !

.

Dear Luciferase, Dear phanto,

.

There comes a time when there are so many holes in the rusty old bucket that you just can’t fix it anymore.

Our old colonial constitution was drafted in the 1890’s. Population was about 3.5 million in those days. But we are no longer a British colony. We abandoned the White Australia policy in 1973 and have since become one of the world’s most multicultural societies, including indigenous peoples.

Our rusty old bucket (the constitution) is so old and fragile it is full of holes and beyond repair. We tried to patch it up 44 times since it was drafted 120 years ago but only succeeded 4 times.

The only way it can be fixed is by referendum and that’s such a long and difficult task it is almost certain to fail. Howard knew that. That’s why he used it to preserve royalty and prevent the country from becoming a republic.

I agree with Tombee that there’s no sense in trying to patch-up 18C, but I do not agree with him that it should be abolished altogether.

I note that even the regretted Bill Leak himself clearly identified the problem as a lack of protection of Free Speech under the Australian constitution when he wrote in the final paragraph of his submission in 2016 :

« I wish the Joint Parliamentary Committee well in its deliberations on this critically important issue of ‘Freedom of Speech in Australia’ »

The problem is not 18C. The problem is that our rusty old bucket has too many big, gaping holes in it. Freedom of expression (speech, cartoons, etc.) has fallen through one of them. The Prime Minister has fallen through another one. There is nothing in the constitution about a Prime Minister. It says the British Crown is the head of state.

The only sensible thing to do would be to wrap our old colonial constitution in fine silk tissue paper (just plain white would be nice) to carefully conserve all the dusty bits and pieces - and get a new one.

.

"The Tipping Point" that turned me from an anti racist into a racist, was the self evident fact that those who claim to be anti racist, are in fact very racist towards white people. The Stan Grant rant is just another example of a very clear double standard where, if the words "white" and "non white" were reversed, it would clearly be a racist statement.

The world of the so called anti racist is full of double standards. Non whites may not be stereotyped, labelled and prejudged. But these things can be done to white people all of the time and nobody blinks an eyelid. Sweeping generalisations of non whites is absolutely wrong but perfectly acceptable to non whites. Having separate black and white water bubblers in Mississippi is racist. Having separate black and white study centres in Queensland university is not racist. (It's a wonder that QUT didn't have "Nyet Blancs" outside the "aboriginal only" study centre.) Discriminating against hiring people by race is illegal in business, but perfectly OK in government departments staffed by "'aboriginals" only.

But the most blatant and unacceptable aspect of "anti racism" is the constant blaming of whites for the dysfunctions of those races and ethnicities who are notoriously prone to endless dysfunction, no matter much taxpayer money and "positive discrimination" is involved in "closing the gap." Blaming one race for the problems of another is exactly what Hitler did to the Jews. We recognise Hitler's premise as a clear case of racism, then look the other way when Stan Grant does the same thing to white Australians.

Every impartial person with an open mind can only choose between two racist explanations for minority dysfunction. One is, "It's always the white guys fault". The other, that races and ethnicities are not equal. They are not equal in physical appearances (scientifically provable), physical abilities (scientifically provable), median intelligence levels (scientifically provable), or personalities (debatable.)

An intelligent person would choose the explanation which is the most probable, has the most evidence to support it, and which does not need constant contradictions to keep propagating it.

Thank you Banjo for participating in the discussion. It is most appreciated.

You wrote "Hurling that somebody is a racist - if it's true - is not an insult. It's a fact. It's an insult only if it's not true. You make a sweeping statement about “whomever they please” - which implies that it could be anybody and everybody, indiscriminately – both racists and non-racists. But it cannot possibly be, as you assert, an insult to both. It could only be an insult to non-racists. Also, hurling that somebody is a racist does not “highlight … the absurdity of 18C and the hypocrisy of its supporters …”. Again, the person hurled against is either a racist or not a racist. If he is a racist, then the hurler has every right to express his indignation with force"

We respectfully disagree. 18C says you can't label a whole group with an offensive stereotype, based on their race. That is divisive hate speech. It's no defence arguing that maybe some of the people in that group do exhibit that stereotype. We are meant to treat people on the basis of their individual character not on the basis of their race.

For example, instead of saying dream, lets say aspirations for a better life for themselves their children and their community. And instead of the offensive slur of calling someone a racist let's call them a child abuser; both very offensive terms. Let's consider what Stan Grant said: "The Australian dream is rooted in racism. It is the very foundation of the dream".

Now let's make a direct substitution. Imagine the absolutely justifiable outrage if someone made the claim that (equal to that made by Stan Grant) that: "The aspirations of aboriginal people are rooted in child abuse. It is the very foundation of the aspiration". That WOULD be incredibly offensive and there WOULD and SHOULD be outrage at such an offensive race-based stereotype.

We need to be just as outraged at the divisive rhetoric of Stan Grant.

Hey Mike,
Is there any distinction between stating it as a matter of opinion rather than stating it as a matter of fact?

Take your example above.
It's a statement of fact; you're stating something.

"The aspirations of aboriginal people are rooted in child abuse. It is the very foundation of the aspiration"

But what if you instead said 'I believe' or 'I think' at the beginning of each sentence?

"I believe the aspirations of aboriginal people are rooted in child abuse. I think it is the very foundation of the aspiration".

Now it's an 'opinion' rather than a 'statement'.
Are you not now covered by 18D for making that statement so long as it represents your true beliefs?

"We need to be just as outraged at the divisive rhetoric of Stan Grant"

Well said.

.

Dear Mike,

.

You wrote :

« … Stan Grant said: "The Australian dream is rooted in racism. It is the very foundation of the dream" … We need to be … outraged at the divisive rhetoric of Stan Grant »
.

Before we condemn him, let’s try to understand what he’s talking about - what he means by “the Australian dream”, for example. He doesn’t use the term in the same sense as the “I have a dream” of Martin Luther King – which was about the future. Stan is talking about the past and the present :

« The Australian Dream is rooted in racism … It is there at the birth of the nation. It is there in terra nullius. An empty land. A land for the taking. Sixty thousand years of occupation … None of it mattered because … we were not here according to British law … Captain Arthur Phillip, a man of enlightenment … was sending out raiding parties with the instruction: "Bring back the severed heads of the black troublemakers" …By 1901 when we became a nation, when we federated the colonies, we were nowhere. We're not in the Constitution, save for 'race provisions' which allowed for laws … that would take our children, that would invade our privacy … tell us who we could marry and … where we could live … In 1963 when I was born, I was counted among the flora and fauna, not among the citizens of this country »
.

From my (limited) knowledge of Australian history, Mike, that seems to be correct. If so, the “divisive rhetoric” you refer to appears to correspond to historical fact.

Martin Hinton QC, Solicitor General of South Australia wrote an interesting article on the constitutional deficiencies and the need of a common national identity :

http://www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/LSSA/Lawyers/Publications/Articles/Is_Australias_Constitution_Racist.aspx

As for Stan’s critical remarks about our national (colonial) anthem, I see it was originally composed in 1878. I, personally, voted for "Waltzing Matilda" in the 1977 referendum.

In addition, Australia “fair” sounds too much like Australia “white” for my liking.

.

"Australia “fair” sounds too much like Australia “white” for my liking"

How can a brown, sun-burned land be white? If there was an enduring vision of Australia for settlers it was of a place where the fairness that had not applied previously in their lives could bloom and they had a fresh start. Your very odd, negative connotation says more about you than the anthem. Why would you not accept the first and preferred dictionary definition anyhow?

"fair
adjective
1.
treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.
"the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members"
synonyms: just, equitable, fair-minded, open-minded, honest, upright, honourable, trustworthy"

If there is to be equality and the same standards 'Progressives' (regressives' expect of their despised 'whites' are to be applied to indigenous, indigenous would be accused of xenophobia and racism themselves, as well as the other 'Progressive' epithets applied to 'whites', for rejecting immigration and diversity, hogging and reserving a very largely unpopulated and poorly used country to themselves.

Michael Keene could have saved himself, and us unfortunate enough to have read that piece of garbage, a lot of time and trouble by acquainting himself with Section 18d of the Racial Discrimination Act.

ttbn = total troll being nasty. Yep that pretty much sums it up.

.
 
Dear leoj,
 
.
 
You ask :

« How can a brown, sun-burned land be white? »
.

We do have some odd expressions, don’t we, leoj? The “lucky country”, for example, is an expression attributed to Donald Horne. But, again, one may ask “how can a brown, sun-burned land be lucky”?

In his follow-up book “Death of the Lucky Country”, Horne explained:

« When I invented the phrase in 1964 to describe Australia, I said: 'Australia is a lucky country run by second rate people who share its luck.' I didn't mean that it had a lot of material resources … I had in mind the idea of Australia as a [British] derived society whose prosperity in the great age of manufacturing came from the luck of its historical origins … In the lucky style, we have never 'earned' our democracy. We simply went along with some British habits »

Commenting on Horne’s first book, “The Lucky Country”, the author of a Wikipedia article notes :

« In the decades following his book's publication, Horne became critical of the "lucky country" phrase being used as a term of endearment for Australia. He commented, "I have had to sit through the most appalling rubbish as successive generations misapplied this phrase" »

Of course, there was no “lucky country”, nor “White Australia Policy”. The latter expression was coined to describe a series of restrictive immigration laws that were in force for 72 years from federation in 1901 to 1973. It was aimed, originally, at keeping-out the Chinese and the Pacific Islanders. Prime Minister Curtain reinforced it during WW2, saying "This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here … to establish … an outpost of the British race".

As we European-Australians could hardly claim to have been “fair” to our Aboriginal compatriots and other non-whites, it seemed logical to me that the “fair” in “Advance Australia fair” meant “fair-skinned”. That seemed consistent with our “White Australia Policy” and the colonial mentality in 1878 when our national anthem was composed.

.
 

Thank you to Armchair Critic and minotaur (who raised the issue slightly more bluntly :) ) for raising 18D.

No, if Stan Grant was held to anywhere near the standard of, for example, Andrew Bolt then 18D would not prevent the sanction of Mr Grant under 18C.

There is, and has been, an interesting legal debate about how liberally to interpret 18D. And that is definitely something to discuss when discussing the issue of 18C.

Mike Keane, have you even bothered to read the judgement from the Bolt case? It seems not so I'll help you out. Bolt's articles were found in breach of the law because, and I quote from the judgement summary, 'they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.'

In simple terms, Bolt was found to have lied, deliberately misled and sought to inflame racial prejudice.

Minotaur I thought the judge felt that what Bolt said was not what he really meant? How ironic using others feelings to back up personal prejudice. Still Judges are gods and just have to be obeyed. Unless of course they say something about a husband being rougher than usual to their wife then it is on for young and old.
If you want to be outraged by lies take on that idiotic and arrogant Triggs creature and her continuing lies.