The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Group rights are inimical to human rights > Comments

Group rights are inimical to human rights : Comments

By Graham Young, published 29/3/2017

These are disputes that should never be allowed to result in litigation, gumming up the courts and diverting some of the best legal minds from much more significant issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Thanks Graham
An excellent piece
Posted by Jane Grey, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 1:54:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not leave 18c etc as it stands and install a death penalty for perportrators of the act.
Not too far fetched to imagine the extension of its madness and badness!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 2:20:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to maintain the right to speak the truth rather than pc bulldust. Though all people are equal, all cultures are not. It is obvious by the fact that millions want to immigrate to Aussie that not all cultures are equal. Look at how many people want to immigrate to Iran or Saudi Arabia. Though people are free to choose their sexual activity, highlighting the health risks is not only wise but also a duty of care. Denying children a father is nothing short of child abuse. It seems that 18C while maybe well intentioned became a tool for the incompetent HRC to justify their existance. They have shown themselves to be a disgrace.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 3:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justice Holmes of the United States Supreme Court granted no one the right of speech which would present a clear and present danger. Any speech that does not present a clear and present danger is therefore allowed under US law. Examples of speech presenting a clear and present danger would be yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre or inciting a lynch mob. The defamation laws of Australia would not be possible under the criterion of Justice Holmes. They are an unreasonable restriction of speech. Banning speech because someone may be offended by it is also an unreasonable restriction of speech. I think the position on free speech of the Supreme Court of the United States is reasonable. 18c would not be legal under US law.

I wrote “Self-Determination and Human Rights” which was published by the Indian Ocean Centre for Peace Studies of the University of Western Australia. It makes the case that self-determination, a group right, is inimical to individual rights.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 6:17:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,

I disagree that Australia’s defamation laws are unreasonable. I think Australia’s defamation laws do a better job of balancing the right to free speech with the right to protection of reputation than those of the US.

In the US, the claimant must prove malice on the defendant’s behalf. In practice, this is virtually impossible. So, in effect, what results is the ability to defame others with virtually no chance of any repercussions. And don't some know it!

Similarly, 18C is balanced by 18D. But you won’t hear about 18D around here.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 6:57:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article by Graham, exposing the flaws in 18c.

The trouble with it, was straight away demonstrated by some groups
who sort to use it to shut down ligitimate debate on issues they didn't
want discussed and didn't want to acknowledge.

This will always be the trouble with it, if it is not changed.

In the case of Bill Leaks, the courts should have tested for evidence of truth in his cartoon before making any charges against him.
A simple search of findings by government committees including Aboriginal representatives,that had already assessed that dysfunction(a nice word for Alcoholism and child abuse)
was one of the main causes of Aboriginal criminality in young indigenous offenders.

I don't know the whole story, if Bill Leaks was summoned to court under18c, I do think
the courts should have investigated whether the question he asked in that cartoon, could be backed up with any evidence, before they harassed the man. Surely they could have realised that the government had investigated Aboriginal Crime causes.
Wouldn't have taken much to obtain a copy of it
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 7:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy