The Forum > General Discussion > Racism in Australia
Racism in Australia
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Page 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- ...
- 44
- 45
- 46
-
- All
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 21 March 2014 6:34:59 AM
| |
Foxy, how many times do I have to say it?
Whether Bolt made *false* statements is IRRELEVANT. Bolt wasn't sued for libel/defamation. The judge was applying the standards of an inapplicable law (libel). He should know better. *This* law (racial discrimination) says nothing about whether your statements are "factual", only whether they are "likely" to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate. Even the truth could offend someone. Should truth be illegal? Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 21 March 2014 10:53:55 AM
| |
Foxy and Paul,
Do you believe that truth or substantial truth should be a defence under these laws? Section 18D doesn't say so. It just gives a defence of reasonableness or good faith, substituting a subjective test, which a possibly activist judge gets to apply, for an objective one. In the Victorian Catch the Fire Ministries case I referred to in my previous post, the pastors weren't even able to raise the accuracy of what they had said in the offending seminar. Westerners find female genital mutilation (FGM) abhorrent and a very serious violation of human rights. If either of you did it to your daughter or had it done, you would find yourselves in prison for a very long time, probably in protective custody. If I say that FGM has 98% prevalence in Somalia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country in the context of a debate about, say, whether Somalis make desirable immigrants, should I be liable under Section 18C, especially if I encounter a judge who is more concerned about community harmony or silencing "racists" than the truth? Remember also that "the process can be the punishment", even if people end up being cleared. In the Bolt case, Bolt may well have laid himself open to an action for defamation by not getting his facts right, but he was hardly vilifying people for just having a small quantum of Aboriginal ancestry (and not trying to unfairly take advantage of it). Why is it racial vilification when Bolt says it, but not when people who are obviously Aboriginal say it themselves? Posted by Divergence, Friday, 21 March 2014 11:24:14 AM
| |
Dear Shocker and Divergence,
For your information the following link provides the Racial Vilification laws regarding the Bolt case from a state perspective and explains the judges decision: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parliament/publications.nsf/key/Racialvilificationlaws:theBoltcasefromaStateperspective/$File/Racial+vilification+laws+E+Brief.pdf Posted by Foxy, Friday, 21 March 2014 1:30:43 PM
| |
Having related an Aboriginal racist example it's only fair that I tell one against 'Whitey'.
I went into a small "Fish and Chips" establishment on the NSW North Coast. The proprietor was a friendly chap and we had a bit of a yarn as I paid him and he prepared the fish and chips (both fresh cooked--good place!). As I was waiting four young aboriginals came in, I knew one of them and also knew his family well as his uncle and I had been on active service in the same Regiment and had first met overseas. I hadn't seen young Mick for a while and we gave each other a bear hug and he introduced me to his mates and we shook hands and chatted a bit. SLAM! went my wrapped order on the counter, "ERE'S YER FISH 'N CHIPS". We all got the message and have had more than one laugh over it. Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 21 March 2014 2:27:45 PM
| |
From Foxy's intended link,
<However, on the broader issue of the interpretation of s 18C, (David)Marr was in general agreement with George Brandis, stating: The anti-vilification provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act used to attack Bolt are drafted far too broadly. They outlaw speech that is merely offensive or insulting. Vigorous public discussion in a free society is impossible without causing insult and offence. Marr went on to conclude that "short of abolishing these anti-vilification protections entirely, no amendment of the law would have helped the hapless Bolt"> Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 21 March 2014 3:00:49 PM
|
Tim said; "Unfortunately, the debate reflects significant misunderstanding of how the act works. For example, it is frequently asserted that people can be “prosecuted” or “convicted” under the Racial Discrimination Act. It is regularly said that section 18C serves to protect hurt feelings at the expense of free speech.
Neither assertions are true. Just as you can't be prosecuted or convicted for civil negligence or defamation, you can't be subject to criminal penalty for racial vilification under section 18C. And when it concerns hurt feelings, the courts have interpreted section 18C in a clear and consistent manner since the 1990s. Unlawful conduct must cause “profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights”.
"It is also strange that section 18D now appears to be targeted for amendment. This is one of the few provisions in Australian law that explicitly protects freedom of expression. The section protects anything that is done reasonably and in good faith when it involves artistic expression, scientific inquiry, or fair comment and reporting."
I do question the motives of those wanting 18C and 18D repealed. Is it about the right of free speech, or as seems to be evident, the right to racially vilify others?
The Abbott/Brandis line on this does fit in with this governments attitude to racial vilification from the outset. With people like Morrison placing asylum seekers into a "special class" and Abbotts well known racist comments towards Aboriginals, even claiming the first Australians were "chosen by the finest judges in England", completely dismissive of Aboriginal occupation of this continent for 40,000 years. Free speech or racial vilification, you be the judge.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/no-case-to-change-racial-discrimination-act-20140320-3555y.html