.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« I don't quite understand how 18C of the Racial Discrimination
Act restricts our freedom when Section 18D of the Act provides
exemptions. It states that 18C does not render unlawful anything
said or done reasonably and in good faith for various purposes,
including artistic work and responding on events or matters of
public interest »

That’s correct, Foxy, and that’s how it should be. But I received a clip from Malcolm Turnbull’s office in Sydney on 22 March explaining his initiative in the following terms :

« … over the past months, cases involving the late cartoonist, Bill Leak, and the QUT students have shown that section 18C has not been working well. We’re making changes to restore confidence in the Racial Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Commission … [this] … will better target and prohibit the conduct which is at the heart of racial vilification. We’ll also introduce the “reasonable member of the Australian community” as the objective standard by which section 18C should be judged … ». Here is the clip :

http://www.facebook.com/malcolmturnbull/videos/vb.53772921578/10155219691906579/?type=3&theater

The late Bill Leak’s submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry last December also sheds some light on the problem. Here is the link - Bill Leak’s submission is N° 169 :

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Submissions

.

Neither 18C nor 18D mention anything about “freedom of speech” or “freedom of expression”. Both terms are employed indifferently by politicians, though the latter is obviously broader and more appropriate than the former.

Also, most commentators invariably deny that Australia is racist. That may be so, but if it is (and I sincerely hope it is), it is a relatively recent development. British colonisation began in 1788 (230 years ago) and only ended completely and definitively 198 years later, with the Australia Act 1986 – though the British Crown remains our Head of State.

I think it’s true to say that the colonial period was tainted with a certain amount of racism - particularly since the White Australia policy was in force from federation in 1901 to 1973.

.

.

Perhaps I should add that the White Australia policy ended with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which came into force retroactively on 1 January 1974.

This is the Racial Discrimination Act that Malcolm Turnbull attempted to amend - happily, without success.

.

where is 18C when you need it. That's right its racism is only from whites.

Ladies child is to white to be accepted in ' multicultural group' Yep in Australia. The left dogmas are putried. I suppose Triggs is still looking for guns where there is no guns. What a waste of space is our ' human rights commission.'

ww.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/miranda-devine-reverse-racism-is-now-acceptable-in-australia/news-story/98d895ff84f8014bb3a0a5141e24f6ac?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=DailyTelegraph&utm_medium=Twitter

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You for your post and explanations.
They are appreciated. At least there is a debate
happening currently about people's rights and
hopefully the government will (with enough
political pressure) get it right sooner than later.

Dear AJ,

You wrote: Apparently police who try to move them on are threatened with lawsuits (some have even hypothesised that the church (Westborough Baptist Church) is nothing more than one big legal scam pretending to be a church).

Here you express a thought which is used by the followers of Abrahamic religions to deny some of the nature of their religions. The WBC is not a scam. It expresses the prejudice of Christians toward those who don’t share the beliefs of that branch of the religion. When one judges Christianity by its horrible record in history Christians have various defence mechanisms:

“The people who have done those horrible things aren’t really Christians.”

The WBC are really Christians. They are no more a scam than the rest of Christianity.

“Don’t judge Christianity by what people who call themselves Christians do. Judge Christianity by the ideals it aspires to.”

The problem with the latter defence is that people suffer from what people who call themselves Christians do – not from the ideals. One can questions why those people who call themselves Christians aren’t inspired to conform to the ideals.

A defence shared by all the Abrahamic religions is that they are carrying out the will of God. Some Jews claim God has granted them all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean so they have a right to settle anywhere in the area. The Muslim claims are more extensive. The lands controlled by Muslims are called Dar es Salaam (abode of peace) and those outside of their control are called Dar al Harb (house of war).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam

Robert Ingersoll in the nineteenth century was a power in the US Republican Party. He would not fit into the party currently. Here is what he had to say on the Abrahamic belief in an afterlife.

“I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that promises dividends only after the death of the stockholder.”

Dear Foxy,

It is quite possible that the government will never get it right.

Dear David f.,

Then it's up to us, the voting public to make
sure that they do.