My think tank submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Free Speech that Section 18C ought to be completely removed from the act. https://aip.asn.au/2016/12/submission-to-federal-government-free-speech-inquiry/

One reason is that it actually makes racial divides greater. News that a Japanese group is taking a Uniting Church congregation and a Korean group to the HRC for a monument on the treatment of comfort women underlines this as a problem. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/war-womens-memorial-in-18c-complaint/news-story/f4a13f4a10fede4b1c19c96e403679aa

Not that I think this action will succeed, but the process will be punishing for those involved. And the fact that the act creates this action for hurt feelings actually encourages people to get upset and legitimises it.

when you make it financial rewarding to be a victim you are going to end up in the mess we have today. Of course the Human Rights Commission and its employees benefit from stirrring up dissent. I mean imagine that we were all treated as Australians with a right to an opinion. Overnight industries that rely on victimhood would dissappear. Why not fine every white australian male yearly. We know they are all bigotted, commit domestic violence and are full of hatred. Maybe tax them an extra $500 a year. It would be a lot cheaper.

I'm inclined to agree with Graham, that justice must be served, the opinions of all Australians should be allowed to be aired, but that the displaying in Australia of a monument to Korean sex-slaves, i.e. 'comfort women' [comfort for whom ?] may be inappropriate.

It may be quite appropriate for such monuments to be built all over Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere, since that is where so many women were held captive to serve the vile demands of Japanese aggressors, fifty and a hundred times a night for many years in many cases. But not in Australia. The Japanese seem to nee to be constantly reminded of their wartime atrocities. And to label such captive women as 'prostitutes' is utterly appalling, as someone did last night on the 7.30 Report.

Multiculturalism doesn't mean that people bring their (quite legitimate) grievances with them, that they leave them at the door, as it were. Otherwise, the Irish here could build monuments to condemn the brutal rule of the English, and their role in the Great Famine; the Scots could mount dioramas portraying the callous Clearances perpetrated by the English; the Greeks could build monuments displaying the long, brutal rule of the Ottoman Turks. And so on, ad infinitum. But multiculturalism shouldn't be allowed to divide Australians.

My heart goes out to the Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Burmese people, and so many others, for what they suffered at the hands of the Japanese. We should never forget what happened during the War. But Australia is not the ground for such monuments.

Joe

Hi Graham,

I see no reason to alter or remove 18C. We have 18D -
which takes care of the "Freedom of Speech" argument.
I fear that altering or removing 18C would give way
open slather on racial intolerance. I believe that
freedom of speech does not confer a right to malisciously
misrepresent or vilify. And the further altering or
removing 18C would send a disheartening message to
minorities. Not everyone loves their neighbour as
Tim Soutphommasane wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald
article listed below.

Tim writes, "We are on any objective measure, a highly
diverse, but highly cohesive society.
We are entitled to celebrate our story of multiculturalism.

Legislation has been one handmaiden of this success.
Over 41 years ago today, the Racial Discrimination Act came
into effect as our first national human rights law. It has
provided every Australian with the assurance that they
should be treated fairly, regardless of their colour or
background.

As we mark its anniversary, the act remains as important as ever,
especially for those most vulnerable to experiencing discrimination."

Tim also states that it also has a cultural purpose. In 1975, then
PM Gough Whitlam sand the Act would help to entrench new
attitudes of tolerance and understanding in the hearts and
minds of people.

Surely most of us would hate to see this change.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-racial-discrimination-act-is-as-important-as-ever-20151029-gkm646.html

I have mixed feelings about this, and I'm not the only one a bit confused.

Joe, if it's only appropriate to build monuments where the event happened, what are we to do with all the existing war memorials in Australia to Australians who suffered overseas? Would it be OK to build a memorial in Australia to Australian women who were used as sex-slaves, or is the problem that the memorial is to Korean women?

As a descendant of Irish who were mistreated, and of Scots who were on the losing side at Culloden I also have mixed feelings about memorials here in Australia to those events. After all I'm only here in Australia because my ancestors lost out there. The difference is that while the English caused the problem there and mistreated my ancestors, they also provided the method of escape, for example the Bounty migrant system from Scotland. And then we all intermarried - so we (the oppressed) are also them (the oppressors). A memorial in Australia to the Irish famines and the Scottish clearances could be quite positive: yes, it was terrible, but hey, we survived! Should there be such memorials here? Well, in fact there already are: http://www.irishfaminememorial.org/, http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/landscape/settlement/display/21953-maclean-bicentennial-memorial-cairn. Do you think these 'divide' Australia?

If it's OK for Irish and Scottish Australians to have such monuments to atrocious events elsewhere, why not Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Indonesian, Vietnamese and Burmese Australians (and all the rest)? Perhaps because some events are more recent and so more sensitive? But they are sensitive to the sufferers as well as the perpetrators. Whose sensitivity takes priority?

No easy answers.

Joe,

" Otherwise, the Irish here could build monuments to condemn the brutal rule of the English, and...."

This fits the bill!!

There is a 1798 Memorial at Waverly Cemetery in NSW, over the tomb of Michael Dwyer, the "Wicklow Chief" and his wife Mary that has, among other reminders:

"On the rear wall are 76 names of men and women, priests and ministers, who took part in the 1798 Rising. Below them are the names, added in 1947, of those who were executed after the 1916 Rising. In 1994 the Irish National Association, to whose care the Monument is entrusted, placed a plaque behind the monument to commemorate the ten Irish Republican hunger-strikers, who died in the Maze prison, Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1981.

The Irish National Association holds a ceremony at the Monument every Easter Sunday afternoon."
http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/1798_memorial_waverley_cemetery

Some of the Easter Sunday speeches are not kind to the English, the gathering at the Memorial is an expression of solidarity with the cause of Irish freedom and the ultimate reunification of Ireland and a veneration of those who, over the centuries fought and died in the cause, particularly those patriots murdered by the English after the 1916 Rising.

Éirinn go Brách!!

Yes. 18c must go; it has no place in a democracy but then, Australia is no longer a democracy in the true sense of the word. The Americans, a more polygot lot than we are, survive without 'hate speech' laws. We are fast becoming a global joke, too frightened to go to the toilet without permission from the U.N or the unelected busybodies of the AHRC and the High Court, both of which are standing in for our stupid politicians.

Ah, ttbn, so the Americans 'survive' without hate speech laws. Well, they do have hate crime laws (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-federal-law-draws-a-line-between-free-speech-and-hate-crimes/).

'Survive' in America? Depends on who you are of course. I reckon I'd much rather be here with hate crime laws than in America without!

Cossomby & is Mise,

A little bit precious :) Of course, if events overseas directly affected Australians, then it's appropriate for monuments to be built here to commemorate them. And if people came from overseas and were remarkable for something they did here, likewise.

But where would it stop if we erected monuments to everyone or everything that someone in Australia felt was important ? Public monuments should reflect the public, i.e. Australia-wide, interest in some event. The Bengal Famine of the early 1940s, and that in Ethiopia in the 1970s, were terrible tragedies, but their commemoration in Australia may be inappropriate.

O course, I'm still slightly in two minds about this :)

Joe

Considering all the words that have been said around 18c can anyone
put their hand on their heart and say it has improved trust in others ?

Clearly not, or we would not be having this discussion.

Similar laws in Europe are causing real anger.
The Dutch politician Geert Wilder has been convicted because he asked
a political rally "Do you want more Moroccans or less ?".

A statement like that here could see an 18c action I think.

Graham; Some of the statements made on OLO would definitely lead to 18c.
Have you considered whether the contributor or yourself would be liable ?

We ought to have only ONE culture that can accept every race, opinion and freedom of expression. Those that cannot live with tolerance of these values should not be citizens and our laws should consider them criminal.

I have a Japanese friend, and I like the Japanese in general. However, those wanting to sool the AHRC onto the Uniting Church (which I thoroughly loathe) must have lost their marbles. The Japanese military did use the women in question as unwilling prostitutes - that is absolute fact - and these tools should be too ashamed of their ancestors to make such an ostentatious fuss about a statue of a little Asian woman sitting on a chair. And, to be honest, I am thoroughly pissed off by foreigners using the worst Australia law ever (18c) against my fellow Australians, even if they are loony Lefties, not tough enough to be Presbyterians.

A gentle reminder here. "The English" is a really abusive term when the average Joe never had the vote till 1918 in the UK and the average Josephine in the 1920's. The people of the British Isles were as put upon by royalty, the aristocracy and the rich as the Irish and Scots.
Yes I know the Irish and Scots had their land stolen but they have been running their own affairs for some time so if it is a grievance then sort it out and stop putting this on "The English". Or at least the general poor English.
Do what you like with the aristo's who would treat you with utter contempt anyway.

If events overseas affect Australians then of course
Memorials should be allowed as part of historical
facts. Japan did use Korean, Chinese, Dutch, and
Australian women as sexual slaves in WWII.

I do not believe that a Memorial is in breach of
section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
The intent was not to offend, insult, humiliate
or intimidate any person or group of people.
Rev. Bill Crews - the Uniting Church-run Foundation
Gardens in Ashfield who's allowed the statue to be
placed in the Gardens states quite clearly that" -

"This is not a diatribe against Japan. It is about
the way women get treated in wars..."

It is about calling an end to war and violence and the
security of human rights.

None of us should accept violence against people, Or
of people being abused and sexually exploited.
The statue sends the message that this is wrong.

History should not be whitewashed.

cont'd ...

Anyone remember the 1997 film - "Paradise Road"
directed by Bruce Beresford, starring Glenn Close.
It was about English, American, Dutch and Australian
women captured by the Japanese in Sumatra during
WWII?

Just jogging some memories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Road_(1997_film)

cont'd ...

Ooops, I made a mistake.

I'll try again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Road_(1997_film)

Have the Movie. They were treated inhumanely. Horrific!

JB,

Just to be pedantic,

"The people of the British Isles were as put upon by royalty, the aristocracy and the rich as the Irish and Scots."

The Irish and Scots are people of the British Isles, the British Isles includes Ireland and Scotland is a part of the main island.

"Yes I know the Irish and Scots had their land stolen but they have been running their own affairs for some time ...."

The island of Ireland is still divided into the Republic of Ireland and British Occupied territory so the Irish do not entirely control their own affairs, Westminster still has a say, politically and militarily, and as the seat of most power is in London then blaming "the English" is geographically and politically appropriate.

Just to finish off,
"Do what you like with the aristo's who would treat you with utter contempt anyway"
The members of the British Aristocracy that I know have been really nice people and all have taken seriously their responsibilities towards their tenants and in the case of the Scots ones their duties towards the extended family that is their Clan.
Not all members of the Nobility are by any means rich or even well off.
A retired postman from Tasmania, who took his seat in the House of Lords for one day, in borrowed regalia, springs to mind.

Ise Mise, you are quite right my Lord! A thousand apologies to you and your high born friends. The other points were correct also but I thought you would get my drift? Apologies again you were not as quick as I thought.
Regarding you and your noble friends I am reminded of the horse fly who was reared in a Derby winners dropping and who used to boast of his noble origins. Sorry, I am just being smart, have a happy Christmas mate and leave the poms alone for a bit.

JB,

Points taken!! And have a happy Christmas yourself and a very good New Year.

PS. I did know the postie and, on occasions was his Bannerman at Scottish getstogether.

In my view we shouldn't be having this discussion, because people should be free to raise memorials to anything they like. I don't understand your problem Joe (ps congrats, I see you have a book out - perhaps you should do a forum post on that, or write an op-ed for OLO to publicise it).

Because 18C exists an idea has taken root that we are not allowed to say certain things. It is foreign to the culture of our civilisation, and it is an impediment to progress and civil discourse. We already have an overly punitive defamation law, but apart from that the law should only concern itself with actions.

Any of the really bad things that 18C purports to protect against are already covered by other laws.

But worse than any of this 18C also only extends its protection to people who fit particular racial categories. So it is a law which discriminates, which is ironic when it is an an anti-discrimination act.

Graham said;
Because 18C exists an idea has taken root that we are not allowed to say certain things

It is wider than "certain things".
It is "anything that offends".

I could say I hate the way this or that race puts its tattoos on their face.
It seems the only proof needed is that they are offended.
The only reason the students got out of it was because they never
mentioned Ms Prior and they referred to the QUT not a race.

Hi Graham,

I don't have any misgivings over this monument on the grounds of 18 (c) but on the grounds that it may not be appropriate to put up such a worthy monument in Australia, unless Australian women were enslaved to the lusts of multitudes of Japanese solders. I'm not sure what 18 (c) has to do with any of it: my point is that, since a multitude of evils have occurred, even within recent memory, on every continent and in half the countries of the world outside of Australia, if monuments were put up to all those atrocities, often necessarily involving vile attacks by people from one ethnic or 'racial' or national group against another, whose members may now be living in Australia, we could be importing some of those battles, to be re-invigorated here.

Yes, there ARE limits to this line of argument: I would strongly support the monuments, such as the Holocaust Museum in Melbourne, against the most dreadful atrocities of the twentieth century; and a monument to the Armenian people (and Kurds and Yazidis) wiped out by the Ottoman Turks in 1915-1916. In a way, these are universally-human tragedies, on such a scale that they should never be forgotten.

Perhaps a similar monument could be raised to the people murdered in Rwanda in 1994, and the Bosnian people through the early nineties and Kosovar in the late nineties, as monuments against tribalism and fascism.

But inevitably such monuments would stir up friction between people in different communities now in Australia. Perhaps such friction would serve to highlight the fact that multiculturalism has its problems, and that a condition for moving to Australia is that people quickly learn to adopt the general values of Australians, Enlightenment values if you like, and leave some of their 'culture', their values, with their old hatreds, at the door: a new country should mean a new start.

Joe

The other side of stirring up friction, is stirring up better understanding. At Lake Victoria in western NSW, there are two memorials, side by side. One is to the Aboriginal people who died there in what is known as the Rufus River massacre in 1841, the other to the trainees of the RAAF No.2 Operational Training Unit who died there in 1941.
The massacre (originally called battle) was actually the end of several months of frontier conflict in which both Aborigines and Europeans died and are buried there. One plane and its crew were never recovered from the lake. Effectively the lake is a multiple war grave. And along the road is a memorial to Warrant Office Len Waters, the only Aboriginal pilot to serve in WW2; he had trained with the 2OTU but survived both the training (52 deaths, war cemetery in Mildura) and the war.
Personally I think these parallel memorials tell much about Australia: we fought against each other, then we fought together. Isn't this the story of the world? One minute we fight against each other, the next we're on the same side - cf Japan, Germany? Perhaps Japan could learn from Lake Victoria - that it's possible to commemorate past conflicts between peoples but still develop reconciliation and good relations? But they already know this, since the Hiroshima memorial does that too, even though the US could take exception to it.
While the events commemorated at Lake Victoria took place in Australia, is it not understandable that Australians from other backgrounds (apart from the Irish and Scots) might wish to commemorate the past tragedies of their ancestors, especially those of recent memory which in many cases led them to seek refuge in Australia. We can all learn from this; maybe the occasional friction stirred is part of the learning process.

Hi Cossomby,

Yes, it may be understandable but also inflammatory: each side in any of those conflicts will feel slighted and wronged by any monument put up by the other. If they involve Australians, well and good, but unless they do so, they should be left at the door, so that people can get on with their lives, and new lives at that.

For anybody interested in the Rufus River battle, see www.firstsources.info, on the South Australian Protector's Letters page, 1841, for a first-hand account. If it was a 'massacre', then it was more or less the only one in South Australia, by the way. It is also covered in 'Voices From the Past', a commentary on the Annual Reports (1837-1950s) of the Protector, by Crooks & Lane, available now on Amazon and Book Depository. Incredibly good value.

Joe

Dear Cossomby,

I totally agree with you.

We can learn a great deal from history and it
should not be whitewashed.

Rev. Bill Crews who has allowed for the statue
to be placed in the Uniting Church run Foundation's
gardens in Ashfield said -

"This is not a diatribe against Japan. It's
about the way women get treated in all wars. It's
about the dark side of human nature.
We don't accept violence against people, we don't
accept people being abused or sexually exploited.
The statue says this is wrong."

Japan used Korean, Chinese, Dutch and Australian
women as sexual slaves in WWII.
Anyone having doubts in this regard - should
take out the DVD - "Paradise Road," (1997 film)
directed by Bruce Beresford - starring Glenn
Close, Cate Blanchett, Wendy Hughes ...

The statue is about calling an end to war and
violence and the security of human rights.
It's a shame that the Japanese Community in
Australia can't come on board.

Foxy,

There are several aspects to 18c that make it simply bad legislation.

Firstly, legislation is meant to be objective, and the terms "offend" and "insult" are purely subjective which leaves it up to the judge to determine what is reasonable. The result of which are many cases where this is being used to extort money, for example the recent case of Ms Prior who used the threat of legal action to extort money from some QUT students. That she lost in court did not stop the students racking up $200 000 in legal fees, which they are unlikely to retrieve from Ms Prior.

Secondly the "defense" offered in 18D is no defense against huge court costs and an activist AHRC that encourages frivolous court action.

Finally, making offending someone unlawful, makes free speech unlawful which is a crime against humanity in itself.

That you rail against the Japanese have filing a complaint is hypocrisy as it is a clear case of "what is good for the goose.."

I am so glad that Jesus was into actions rather than token gestures usually with a left leaning political dogma attached to it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I fully respect your opinion and those of others
who find fault with 18C. Each of us for a variety
of reasons have different opinions on the subject.
The following link explains why do some politicians
want 18C changed:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/what-is-section-18c-and-why-do-some-politicians-want-it-changed/7806

I happen to be one who does not want it changed.
If my opinion disagrees with yours - this does not
mean that we will not be able to agree on issues in
the future. We'll simply have to agree to disagree
on this one.

Interesting development on 18c.
Ms Prior's barrister is arguing in the appeal that 18c makes it an
offence to criticise a situation that promotes discrimination !
The judge is puzzled.

The whole thing makes a plot for Gilbert & Sullivan.

Dear Bazz,

It is a controversial issue - and there's
so much on the web, so many different opinions.
This one speaks to me: -

Taken from the web:

"We are on any objective measure
a highly diverse but highly cohesive society.
Legislation has been one handmaiden of this
success. The Racial Discrimination Act came
into effect as our first national human rights
law. It has provided every Australian with the
assurance that they should be treated fairly,
regardless of their colour or background.
To me at least, this act remains as
important as ever, especially for those most
vulnerable to experiencing discrimination."

Foxy do you really think those QUT students were treated "fairly" Do you think Prior treated them "Fairly" by threatening and extorting money from them? Do you think the AHRC treated them "fairly" for dragging the whole thing out for years and then gave them a few days notice to appear?
If so I would appreciate you telling us what is fair.

I've already stated that I felt the judge in the
Prior case made the right decision. It was a weak
claim and was dismissed as it should have been.

Foxy it was an absolute disgrace from that whiny little blackmailing snowflake Prior, through the AHRC and the courts. It was a disgusting racist oppression of a bunch of blokes who had done nothing to warrant it.
It was not fair and this act has to be repealed and people have to be told if "It" offends you then too bad.
Personally I am offended by all of this nonsense but but being white, male and old totally disqualifies me from any support from these dicks!

Dear JB.,

I understand your anger regarding this particular
case. The judge made the right decision.

Foxy I wish you a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year and will not prolong this argument but the judge should have noted the injustice caused by delay.
Apparently there is no stopping Cyndi who was said to have fled to Germany but now appears trying for an appeal. Determined to make a tawdry quid.

The appeal is on extraordinary grounds.
If granted it would mean that you could not criticise the Klu Klux Klan
or the apartheid laws of Sth Africa. Hitler would be off limits also.
I think it means that you cannot offend anyone in any way.

The appeal judge has expressed puzzlement.

Dear JB and Bazz,

I don't think that Ms Prior's appeal has any chance
of being granted.

May we all have a very Merry Christmas, and a Healthy,
Safe, and Happy New Year.

Suppression of felt ideas because of PC will spill over to voting Trump. It is a reaction to having allowed nonsense and PC to rule society. It is government by fear to deny the free expression of ideas.

Oh yes, you may not be able to criticise Pauline Hanson because it
might offend her. It could be considered offensive to redheads.

Cannot see it happening but PC madness is everywhere.
It must be a virus.

Foxy,

You would do well to read the articles to which you link. The left whinge aligned opposes the changing of 18c and sites several examples of vilification, none of which would be affected by the proposed changes.

I have yet to find a cogent argument for Keeping "offend and insult" in 18c.

Dear SM,

My link explained why some politicians want 18C
changed. That was its aim. You obviously agree
with these politicians. I do not as I stated
earlier. I have nothing further to add.

Foxy,

I never thought that you would support unfair legislation.

Of course, 'offend' and 'insult' should be removed from Section 8 (c), perhaps to be replaced by 'vilify'.

On another thread, one dealing with Aboriginal history, missionaries have been 'vilified' without evidence. Many people have no trouble doing that, people who have done nothing for anyone else, and who would not be worth a gram of the scanty droppings of the average nineteenth-century missionary.

One major problem is that the Conventional Aboriginal Narrative is replete with undemonstrated vilifications: the assumption that all whites are bastards is what strings it all together. Without any of its unproven components however, it collapses: all the bits are necessary - massacres, driving people off their land, herding onto missions, rape, brutality, cruelty, etc. galore. Each piece is vital to the whole.

So when I tell people, old friends, that, in the nineteenth century in South Australia, there was only one employee in the 'Aborigines Department', i.e. the Protector, they immediately understand the implications for the Narrative and turn away. Goodbye, old friends.

So, in a fundamental sense, has Australian - or at least, South Australian - history been vilified ? If some people can 'explain' to themselves our history only by vilifying one entire population, without actually knowing much at all, then haven't we got an enormous task to then try to get across the truth of our history, using that rare commodity, evidence ?

Otherwise, how can there ever be genuine, truth-based, reconciliation between Black and white in Australia?

Joe

Joe, you wrote "So when I tell people, old friends, that, in the nineteenth century in South Australia, there was only one employee in the 'Aborigines Department', i.e. the Protector, they immediately understand the implications for the Narrative and turn away."

Maybe I'm slow today, but I didn't "immediately understand the implications for the Narrative". Maybe you could spell it out?

Hi Cossomby,

Maybe I've been at this business too long :(

IF there was only one employee in the so-called Aborigines Department in South Australia (in fact, right up until about 1932, apart from a couple of office staff), then who was - according to the Narrative - driving people off their land, or herding them onto Missions ?

His main task was to provide rations - a pound of flour, a pound of meat, etc. per day (have you ever tried to eat a pound of meat each day for, say, a week ?) and to arrange for free health services around the State (one doctor worked from the Ghan between Oodnadatta and Hawker for many years, free). On weekends, he waited for people to arrive by coach, or by rail, to take them to hospital or to accommodation. He issued travel passes. On my web-site, swww.firstsources.info, on the Protector's Letters Page, there are Depot Ledger files - they are huge, so give the file time to come up.

So, if some of these props in the Narrative fall over, what did occur that accords with the Conventional Narrative ? No, (at least in SA), no massacres. What other acts of unspeakable horror did white people commit against Aboriginal victims ? White bastards ! So different from us now ! No.

Aboriginal people had rights to use the land as they had done traditionally recognised at the outset, and in legislation from 1851. Those rights still apply.

Cossomby, can you see that the Narrative depends on the existence of vast numbers of employees of an 'Aborigines Department', that, without that mythical vast, brutal, all-powerful semi-military force, much of the Narrative collapses ? Nobody being forced off their land ? Nobody being 'herded' onto missions ? Everybody being fed at fifty ration depots all over the State - ESPECIALLY during droughts, when the able-bodied were also fed. So what effect on culture might such ration stations have had during long droughts, when instead of scattering to the four winds, people could congregate for years near one point ?

Cheers,

Joe

For NSW, I only know of one 'employee' of the Aboriginal Protection (later Welfare) Board, the Secretary. He sent out instructions about rations, clothing, reserves etc. Who to? The police, who did the work on the ground.

So the idea that things were fine, on the grounds that there was just one employee who could not have been herding people all over the state does not hold water for NSW.

Having said that, in NSW the police often looked after the interests of Aboriginal people well. The police were directly responsible for the 'reserves', where Aborigines could live without direct supervision; on the 'stations', with managers and teachers, there was much more control, some of it quite coercive. Both reserves and stations were and still are colloquially called 'missions' because the first were set up by missionaries, but in the 1880s were taken over by government (who then expanded the system). This is 40 or so years after the 'massacre' period of the 1830-40s. So the good intent and sometimes good actions of the reserve phase cannot be used to deny the fact of massacres.

Being forced off the land? That can happen directly, at gun point, or indirectly by government policies. In WNSW Aborigines were collateral damage from the subdivisions of the pastoral empires that employed Aborigines on their country, to small family stations where there was no room for Aborigines. The boom in reserves related to this, particularly the soldier settlements. In fact there are cases of pastoralists lobbying for refuges for Aborigines, sometimes out of sympathy but perhaps also because there was still a need for seasonal labour. Whatever the reason, Aboriginal people were still 'forced' off their land.

Reading the Protection Board minutes, the language can be chilling. Girls in their very early teens were sent out from the Aboriginal Stations as servants often in response to a letter asking for one. The term used for sending off a girl is 'disposed of'. If they ran away, due to mistreatment or loneliness, they were apparently refused re-admittance to the Station where their family lived.

Re those who are taking umbrage over the statue commemorating the way the Japs behaved where they ruled at gunpoint, they should harbour not a skerrick of fellow feeling for them. Is it some sort of "call of the blood"? The Jap war criminals had no right to storm over Asia and the Pacific murdering their betters, they had no right killing Australians or anyone else defending their own and others' right to self-determination, they had no right attacking Australian cities or American and Australian ships. They had no right to inflict multiple rape on captured women. It wasn't some obnoxious cloud labelled "war" that committed these crimes against decency, it was self-willed and self-propelled Japs, taking the law into their own hands while committing the despicable crime of armed aggression. And in Japan they still have shrines commemorating those scum as "heroes".

80C rightly forbids insults based on race, but it doesn't protect cultures. It's up to the individual whether or not to close ranks with the Banzai culture.

EJ: The Japanese didn't think Europeans were their 'betters'. Why should they? By their standards, Europeans, at least most of the ones they saw in Japan in the 19th and early 20th century, were quite uncivilised. Anyway, everyone thinks they are the top dogs on the planet.

They were actually emulating the Europeans. If Europeans can have empires and colonies, why shouldn't we Japanese have them too? If Europeans can fight each other and take over each other's colonies, why can't we do the same? They had 'no right'? From their perspective, they had just as much right as anyone else; they were insulted by the fact that Europeans regarded them as a lower class of people with lesser rights (there is a degree of deja vu in your comment). And when countries go to war to acquire power, resources, territory, people get killed.

Japan had some similarities with Britain: a small island nation with a growing population, strong on some resources, low on others. Both had a culture which glorified military prowess and believed they were the most sophisticated and advanced people in the world. Unlike Britain, however, Japan kept itself closed off from the world until very late, while Britain looked outwards, taking over/invading/colonising land around the world. If Japan had done that in the 16-17C rather than waiting to try it on in the late 19-20C, the world today - the Americas, Australia - might have been very different. People on this continent might have been speaking Japanese for centuries and fending off 20C European invasion.

This is not condoning the cruelties inflicted by the Japanese, and it would be good if they genuinely owned up instead of being defensive. But no cruelties in war, by anyone, can be condoned. I am just suggesting that from the Japanese perspective, by going to war, they were just doing what they saw Europeans do, and wanted what they felt was their share of the pickings.

Cossomby, people defending their own and others' right to self-determination are VASTLY better than the Jap garbage whose message was not just "we are here for your resources" but "we are here to kill you by the million, rape and kill your women and destroy your civilisation".

That was the Japs' de facto message, put unrelentingly into practice by lowgrade uniformed mongrels, to millions of their betters from Manchuria to Australia. Their bleating "they did it too" about someone else somewhere else (primarily resource thieves working more through cunning than through main force) a couple of generations ago can't deflect eternal contempt and condemnation of the invaders and any of their kin who erect shrines to them.

NOBODY else except the lowest of the Germans ever did ANYTHING like that in recent history. Even the Thief of Normandy a millennium ago.
A war of aggression and conquest and killing and rape and plunder launched over an area of thousands of square miles and dozens of homelands. They and those of their descendants who obscenely "honour" them were and are ultimate lowlives.

Dear EJ,

Two words for you:

Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

We have nothing to be self-righteous about.

Hi Cossomby,

Just because police were involved in giving out rations, doesn't on its own mean that they were also 'herding people onto Missions' etc. - you may need some extra evidence than 'might have' or 'could have
'. Just a skerrick might be enough :)

As for the Japanese, no, I don't see how their whinge about a Korean sex-slave statue is even relevant to section 18 (c). After all, truth is a pretty strong defence.

My reservations about the statue are on different grounds: unless there were Australian sex-slaves, I'm concerned about importing an issue from overseas, no matter how dreadful, to Australia. Otherwise we could have monuments to the Polish officers murdered by the Russians at Katyn, to Bosnian men murdered by the Serb fascists at Srebrenica, an anti-apartheid monument to the sixty Africans murdered in South Africa in 1960 at Sharpeville, and so on, ad infinitum.

Joe

And why not Joe? We have thousands of monuments to Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by the Romans in AD 33 or thereabouts for crimes against the state. If people want to put up monuments, and they can find someone to erect them, who are we to say what is relevant enough or not. I think the obscure Jew is still relevant, 2000 years later. Some of my atheist acquaintances disagree. Tough luck.

Joe
A few Australian women were victims.
also
Truth is not a defence for 18c.

The Serb and Boer racists had not attacked Australia and the nearest brush we had with the Soviet NKVD was when Beria's man Vladimir Petrov, who had been bullying Soviet embassy staff under NKVD authority, suddenly found himself without protection on the unexpected execution of his boss Beria, and in panic made a deal with Menzies and the Australian political police to tell a scripted story to a Royal Commission here. It was great to see our agents flattening Soviet stooges at Darwin Airport who tried to smuggle Petrov's wife Evdokia out of the country.

The Jap onslaught killed many Australian, American and British soldiers in addition to countless other also much better people than the Jap soldiers in Manchuria, China and places south. That makes it our direct historical business. Lest we forget.

Btw, if truth is not a defence under 18C it's high time this clause was amended to make it so.

The Japanese complaint based on 18c is just as legitimate as any other. The Japanese are offended by this, and have just the same right to challenge the statue as Cindy Prior did to challenge the students, and to drag the artist and council through $100 000s of litigation until they remove the statue. Even if the council wins the legal fees could bankrupt it as the Japanese society that brought the case simply folds and walks away from any costs if it loses.

18c is an ambulance chasers wet dream, and will continue to generate lucrative "victims" for many years to come.

Well, so far the judges involved in the cases
brought before them concerning 18C
have all made the right decisions. Be it Andrew
Bolt or Ms Prior

Certainly in the case of Ms Prior.

What about the hundreds that have been extorted that didn't go to trial. For example the 3 students that coughed up $5000 for a case they clearly would have won, but could not afford.

Australia would become a very inhospitable place for any Japs who used 18C to claim our soldiers died for nothing on the Kokoda trail and in other theatres.

Dearest Foxy,

While justice may prevail eventually, so will the obligation for somebody to pay all associated costs. And sometimes the price of greed and stupidity can be very high: Cindy Prior now has a bill for $ 200,000 for one trial, and by launching an appeal to the decision in that one, has opened herself up to another few hundred grand.

One interesting, if appalling, facet of how many people live their lives is that, no matter what happens or what chaos they may cause, they are never in the wrong. They externalise all problems, including those that they have caused: it's always somebody else's fault - in this case, usually some white fella's.

Hence, as many people see it, the current Aboriginal situation - after all, how else do you explain how things got this say, but by white bastardry ? Drunkenness in remote Aboriginal settlements ? Whites supplied it, as part of a colonialist plot. Sexual abuse and domestic violence ? Colonialism, obviously. Suicide ? Colonialism. Unemployment and lack of skills ? Colonialism. Poor health through lousy diet and no exertion ? Colonialism.

I envy people who are always on the side of the angels :)

Dear Joe,

Cindy Prior should have either be given or sought
better legal advice concerning her claims.

Just imagine if a public institution had a rule denying Aborigines access to any of its facilities. Yet a rule denying non-Aborigines access to a QUT facility is what the racist Cindy Prior has been defending against dissent. Good that she's being bankrupted. If law had any relationship to justice QUT could be made to defray some of her costs which arise from its own inclusion of a racist facility on its premises. We have seen enough of "history (or God) made us special by birth" in the Middle East, and should rigorously exclude such racism from Australia.

Cindy Prior had crap legal advice in the form of Gillian Triggs.

Re Foxy: You seem to suggest that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a US crime of some sort. Both were a direct result of the Jap aggressors' war of conquest against the rest of the world, and their onslaught stopped dead in its tracks following the nuclear attacks. Countless decent soldiers were spared death at Jap hands in future fighting to bring the mongrels to heel. Two nukes and the Japs threw in the towel. Good on Harry Truman. Pity Macarthur's meddling meant Hirohito was not tried and executed or driven to suicide in a bunker as his Nazi counterparts were.

Dear Joe,

As for the Aboriginal situation?

There are so many sides to that story -
and unless you've got the time and the
inclination understanding all the complexities
is not an easy task for anyone. There's always
more than one side to be debated. At the moment
I'm interested in getting hold of a copy of
your book, "Voices From The Past," and also of
Bain Attwood's, "Telling the Truth About
Aboriginal History".

As for being right?

I like the old adage, "I'm right and you can be too." ;-)

Or perhaps you'd prefer JFK's - "Let's not seek to
fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own
responsibility for the future."

Unfortunately accepting our responsibility for the future includes identifying and confronting injustices of the present.

Dear EJ.,

The point that was being made with the reference
of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was as stated earlier,
that in war we also have nothing to be self-righteous
about. During WWII the American and British forces
were also guilty of
atrocities. Sustained bombing of German cities -
Dresden in particular comes to mind, and of course
Hitler's bombing of London, and British cities.

"War is not healthy for children and other
living things."

cont'd ...

Abraham Lincoln said it quite well:

"You can't accept the responsibility of tomorrow
by evading it today."

And Eleanor Roosevelt added:

"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words.
It is expressed in the choices one makes ...
and the choices we make are ultimately our
responsibility."

I have visited Hiroshima, and it was not a very nice experience; yet, I still felt no qualms about the way America put a stop to the war. Remember, they had to do it twice! I would not bat an eyelid if similar action was found necessary against North Korea or Iran. There is no such thing as 'nice' when it comes to our survival. Neither is there anything nice about the potential threats against Australia and the Western World in the present time.

Dear ttbn,

Here's something I wrote a while back:

"I had a dream the earth was red
Its charred remains cried out and bled
Nothing was living on its face
What happened to the human race?

This darkening vision pronounced life gone
In its place the embers shone
A crimson red like the setting sun
Flames extinguishing one by one

Every night this dream returns
Its dying flame ignites and burns
And with the flame the same quiet fear
There's nothing living on this sphere

A desolate place the earth appears
Its shadow grows as the darkness nears
Suddenly I wake in fright
Having dreamt this vanquishing dread all night

'What is this dream?' I shudder and cry
What I should really ask is, ' WHY!'
Why does it haunt me every day?
Is it my future tenement of clay?

As I lie dreaming and can't rise
Am I foreseeing my own demise?
And then to simply ward off these blues
I go and read the daily news..."

Here's an excerpt from an article I put in an Australian Democrat publication before the Democrats shot their feet off with a bazooka:

Pacifists share some peculiar insensitivities with warriors.

Both proclaim that all use of armed force is morally the same. They are unconcerned whether the purpose is to impose rule on an unwilling population or to resist it. They are unconcerned about whether the combatants are liberators or overlords. Pacifists undiscriminatingly reject the combatants' actions, warriors undiscriminatingly honour them.

All these advocacies are a retreat from pursuit of justice. Justice and the right of peoples to self-determination are low on the totem pole both for pacifists (less important than peace) and for warriors (less important than winning).

To pacifists and warriors alike the aggressive hordes who poured over Europe and Asia in the 1940s to butcher populations should be accorded the same respect as those who gave all to resist and defeat them. Even the great Winston Churchill was mired in that trap when he recoiled in horror at Stalin's proposal at a leaders' meeting to execute all SS officers. ("But they're fighting for their country" the justice-blind Churchill expostulated though Roosevelt was supportive of Stalin's proposal.)

If either pacifists or warriors had prevailed in the last two millennia then there would be no such thing as democracy or human rights, only pacifist obsequiousness and warrior bullying. If our species still existed at all.

During and after the war of the 1940s it was sung of the Allied soldiers:

All they had hoped for, all they had they gave.
To save mankind, themselves they scorned to save.
(Inscribed on a memorial in Leicester)

A timeless truth. Every human being owed them and still owes them.

The scornful corollary dedicated to the Axis soldiers (whom both warriors and pacifists would equate with ours):

All they had hoped for, all they had they gave.
To enslave mankind, themselves they too enslaved.

Another timeless truth.

Hiroshima? Dresden? The mongrels shouldn't have Banzaied and Sieg Heiled their Tojos and Hitlers and soldiers before and throughout the war.

Dear EJ,

I fear that our world can become so obsessed with
the problems of hatred and aggression that it will allow
peace and love to be regarded as soft and weak. Yet
our survival depends on their dominance otherwise
Stephen Vincent Benet's prophecy will come true:

"Oh where are you coming from soldier,
gaunt soldier
with weapons beyond any reach of my mind
with weapons so deadly
the world must grow older
and die in its tracks if it does not turn kind."

Christopher Marlowe had this to say:

"...Accursed be he that first invented war,
They knew not, ah, they knew not simple men,
How those were hit by pelting cannon shot,
Stand staggering like a quivering aspen leaf."

(Tamburlaine the Great. Act 2, Sc.iv.)

In a nuclear war however, there will be nobody standing
and, there will be no leaves remaining to quiver.

John Dryden said it equally well when in, "Alexander's
Feast," he wrote:

"War, he sung, is toil and trouble;
Honour but an empty bubble,
Never ending, still beginning,
Fighting still, and still destroying,
If all the world be worth the winning,
Think, oh think, it worth enjoying."

HI EJ,

Re Hiroshima etc.:

As you say, as ye sow, so shall ye reap. In mid-1945, it was assumed that the war in the East might take another two or three years, at around half a million casualties (mostly civilians in China) per month. The bombs saved millions.

I knew a gentle old bloke thirty odd years ago. It turned out that he had been an English POW in a Japanese coal-mine at the time of the explosions. He grew very animated remembering his slave-labour days, and the flash that, he implied, saved him.

Yes, the Russians had swept through Manchuria and were about to invade Japan from the West. Yes, the use of the Bomb thus had a complex political side. With hindsight, what might have happened in the region if the Bomb hadn't been used and if Japan had been partitioned like Germany ?

Dresden ? Guernica. As ye sow ....

We can't undo history, no matter how much we regret or castigate it. We should learn from it, of course. It seems, for example, that (at least until now) everybody has learnt that there can never be a reason to use the Bomb. Hopefully, one day, the Japanese will come to learn that there was never a good reason to enslave hundreds of thousands of women for the lusts of their men (and dispose of them once they had reached a use-by date). Come to think of it, there's something very primitive, almost sub-human, about that need to degrade the 'Other' so much.

Joe

Foxy's post seems to duck and weave around the questions of right and wrong which are at the core of all warfare. Countries get attacked by aggressors bent on mass murder. It has happened to countries whose people we really, really don't want to see exterminated. Especially our own country. Stuff about counterposing hate with love has never been known to stop them. Letting them do it is throwing their victims under the bus - an appalling betrayal. Do we betray them or don't we? Do we meekly welcome armed invaders or not?

By their own deeds the Japs demonstrated repeatedly that they were bent on pouring over borders to commit mass murder. So did the Huns. It is specious to try to balance Allied atrocities against enemy atrocities or to cop out by claiming that war itself is an atrocity - the atrocity is LAUNCHING war.

I think Foxy's pacifism seems to be demonstrating what I have claimed - that pacifists and warriors are joined at the hip. Working in concert they are a deadly agent of species extinction.

Regardless of how anyone feels about 18C, I don't understand how people think that acceptance can be legislated. You can make as many laws against vilification and discrimination as you want but you cannot legislate people's feelings.
All laws like 18c do is divide people and create a "them and us" mentality that is causing a bigger rift between between cultures than ever existed 50 years ago.
The only way to promote tolerance is for people not to be allowed to segregate or have access to services based on race or culture. Acceptance comes from understanding that in the end, the vast majority of people, regardless of culture, have the same basic needs and desires.
People who judge others based on racial grounds are the ones who have a problem, not the recipients of their comments. We shouldn't let the target of those comments turn it into their problem by encouraging recognition of any such comments.