Reading an article by a prominent Australian commentator, I was stunned to read his opinion that Australia's major parties are probably the "most elite", "undemocratic" and "authoritarian" in the Western world.

Does this seem accurate?

YES, but the USA is #1 leader of the pack who is miles in front on that score.

But I am sure with your help here on the IPA ttbn there's still a chance we can beat the USA -- hands down.

All we need is more gullible non-thinking unintelligent uninformed fools like you ttbn being allowed a Vote and continue to destroy public discourse in Australia.

Keep at it mate.

I'm not sure we ever had it ttbn.

I've shared my thoughts on democracy before but I'm happy to repeat it.

There needs to be a balance of power between 'us' and 'them'.
If they make the rules for us, then we should make the rules for them.
We need to build a prison, to put them in when they do the wrong thing.
They need to keep their election promises and not lie.

They need to put Australia first every time, not sell us out to globalist agendas or foreign money or for their own aspirations after domestic politics.

I was just talking with someone earlier today about how Americanised we are now.
I'm not sure there's much difference anymore, and it's concerning.

All things told I think the situation is dire.
The country we once knew is slowly being pulled out from under us.

We honestly don't have leaders worth a crap and we don't have any kind of plan.
If we did surely something would've shone through.

But take a look at the bigger picture - Its the same everywhere.
Name a western country where the people actually like their leaders and think they are doing a good job.
There's no such thing is there and you have to ask why the hell is that?
It can't be a coincidence.

We're all being managed more than what we think; steered in a direction someone else wants us to go.
Played for the fools that the majority are; and THAT'S OUR DEMOCRACY.

But don't worry there's a new mosque coming to a neighbourhood near you.

No, ttbn, I don't support totalitarianism. But the right of free speech is not absolute and under the current there are genuine threats to freedom of the press, and people are prosecuted for revealing information that's clearly in the public interest. Those are in much more urgent need of fixing than 18C.

As far as I can see, none of the things that make free speech so important are banned by 18C – some may seem to be when considered in isolation, but 18D makes it clear that 18C does not extend to those. If a counterexample exists, show me and I may well change my views on this topic. But I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric about free speech that ignores the reasons for its importance.

___________________________________________________________________________________

runner, it hasn't stopped the ignorant right from spitting out hate on a regular timeframe either. It only covers what's said on the basis of race, and even there it's quite narrowly focussed.

Aidan,

18c is purportedly about stopping hate speech, but actually goes much further, criminalising the far more subjective "offensive" comments as can be seen in the worst case of abuse of process Australia has seen in decades in Queensland where a gold digger is trying to extort $250 000 from students and the University on some of the most flimsy examples of "offense" I have ever seen.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that this is OK? If not then 18c has to be modified.

The written comments were racist in nature when the room was for obviously dis-advantaged people having assistance. A room for skill-learning without problems of hearing such comments. There are other rooms for particular groups ( women , graduates ) which probably exclude other people without any fuss. Who would object to spending funds on bicycle lanes only for bikes?
Free speech ?

Slander - the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Libel - a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Assault .. attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person's consent,

Spitting upon another person. Spitting is treated as a fairly serious form of the offence.

Re: s 18 c. From what I read of the 'ACT' it seems to relate primarily to the meaning of "person" and the words: "...been an immigrant" and more specifically, the meaning of: "public place".

Once the meanings of these are amended/changed within the act the whole section either loses any punch or it becomes a monster with ramifications reaching into other aspects of our life in "public".

The IPA has interesting results - see: http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/

at: Essential polling: strong support for changing section 18C
by Morgan Begg on September 14, 2016 in Freedom of speech.

Meanwhile back in the Top End, our democratic 'Sausage Sizzles' have been banned within 100 metres of an official polling place. As they sang years ago: "It's a long way to the shop if you wanna sausage roll..."