Brandis: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know."

[Lester Burnham]

Not that I know of.
But it's a great question!

Already addressed. See my post #327.

 

[Floor Pie]

i would say Mundine does run the risk of transgressing under 18c.

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.​

18d provides exceptions, but they may not apply if a judge were to rule, for example, that Mundine had said what he said for political expediency rather than 'in good faith'.

I would like to see Mundine charged so it would it highlight how ridiculous the current law is, without the lefties being able to claquer against free speech merely because a conservative is being cited.

Well, as you pointed out, 18d does provide exemptions.
As follows;
Exemptions
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the personmaking the comment.


So, just because you would like to have Mundine's right to free speech oppressed, just to prove a point, doesn't mean it has a chance to happen.

Already addressed. See my post #327.

Not addressed at all.
When have they ever talked of repealing, outside of Bolt. After the actual law was implemented?

 

[ralphmalph]

I would like to see Mundine charged so it would it highlight how ridiculous the current law is, without the lefties being able to claquer against free speech merely because a conservative is being cited.

Get 'charged'? By whom?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Get 'charged'? By whom?

Marion Scrymgour - she was offended.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I would like to see Mundine charged so it would it highlight how ridiculous the current law is, without the lefties being able to claquer against free speech merely because a conservative is being cited.

Warren Mundine himself is of indigenous background, so the situation is not quite the same as if someone 'outside' the offended racial group was directing insults or perceived insults. Has a Jew ever been accused of anti-Semitism? Do African-Americans calling each other 'nigger' get charges of racism levelled at them? If I'm white caucasian and you're white caucasian and I made ignorant or insulting remarks on how you conduct yourself would I be racist?

It may seem a double standard. I'm standing in a group of African-Americans and they're all high-fiving and saying 'yo nigger'. Yet when I high-five and say it I get stared at? A bunch of Jewish folk stand around criticising Israeli actions and it's fair enough but when I say it my words can be construed as 'anti-Semetic' by some?

Comment from outside versus comment from within racial groups are always looked at as 'different'. When there's a negative outcome it seems unfair.

NOTE: I intentionally evaded the word-change filter on nigger (where it substitutes the word 'fellow' for it) to make a point, and not to racially abuse or vilify. Hopefully any moderators moderating this will see it for what it is.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Well, as you pointed out, 18d does provide exemptions.
As follows;
Exemptions
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the personmaking the comment.


So, just because you would like to have Mundine's right to free speech oppressed, just to prove a point, doesn't mean it has a chance to happen.

Someone said they were offended. A determination of whether the comments were made in good faith would be up to a judge.

Personally, under the current law, I would not take the risk of making those comments and risk being dragged to court at huge expense and inconvenience. Thus free speech is eroded by the fear of the state legislative process.

 

[ralphmalph]

Marion Scrymgour - she was offended.

She doesn't get to 'charge' anyone. Someone who is aggrieved may make a complaint and eventually bring a proceeding but use of the term 'charge' makes it sound like a criminal matter.

 

[ralphmalph]

For those who haven't read the Bolt decision, here's an extract. Remember this is before they even consider defences:

In my view, “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” were not intended to extend to personal hurt unaccompanied by some public consequence of the kind Part IIA is directed to avoid. That public consequence need not be significant. It may be slight. Conformably with what I regard as the intent of Part IIA, a consequence which threatens the protection of the public interest sought to be protected by Part IIA, is a necessary element of the conduct s 18C is directed against. For the reasons that I have sought to explain, conduct which invades or harms the dignity of an individual or group, involves a public mischief in the context of an Act which seeks to promote social cohesion.

It is for those reasons that I would respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by other judges of this Court, that the conduct caught by s 18C(1)(a) will be conduct which has “profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights”: Creek at [16] (Kiefel J); Bropho at [70] (French J); Scully at [102] (Hely J); or, as Branson J put it inJones at [92] “real, offence”.

That was par 67&68.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Warren Mundine himself is of indigenous background, so the situation is not quite the same as if someone 'outside' the offended racial group was directing insults or perceived insults.

You are implying the whole set of people identifying as indigenous are an homogeneous group. So it's somehow ok for members of that group to criticise each other in a way that members outside that group should not.

Firstly, indigenous people tend to identify themselves by tribe, so it could be said that Warren Mundine is a different race to other 'indigenous' people he speaks about.

But, I think more importantly, the notion of race is completely bogus. It's an early 20th century notion that has been completely discredited. People identifying as 'indigenous' may have some ancestry to the people who were originally here before colonisation but it's more about cultural identity. Cultural identity is chosen not inherited. But what culture are these people identifying with? It's gone, with just modern day echoes of the past.

Has a Jew ever been accused of anti-Semitism?

Plenty!

 

[Lester Burnham]

She doesn't get to 'charge' anyone. Someone who is aggrieved may make a complaint and eventually bring a proceeding but use of the term 'charge' makes it sound like a criminal matter.

Pat Eatock brought a proceeding and Bolt had to defend himself. I think you are splitting hairs here.

 

[ralphmalph]

Pat Eatock brought a proceeding and Bolt had to defend himself. I think you are splitting hairs here.

Yep, no one was charged. If you think distinguishing between criminal and civil matters is splitting hairs, ok.

The point is, as I specifically stated, when you use the term charged you make it sound like a criminal matter. It isn't and there is no big bad state authority charging any one for this either.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You are implying the whole set of people identifying as indigenous are an homogeneous group. So it's somehow ok for members of that group to criticise each other in a way that members outside that group should not.

I'm implying that that's the public perception of such criticism from within groups rather than from without, yes. More than implying, actually. I don't know if there's any legal precedents to a charge of racial vilification/abuse from one member of a particular group to another within that same group, though. I don't know how the law would stand, but if Mundine WERE to be changed then it would set an interesting precedent.

Don't you think?

Firstly, indigenous people tend to identify themselves by tribe, so it could be said that Warren Mundine is a different race to other 'indigenous' people he speaks about.

But, I think more importantly, the notion of race is completely bogus. It's an early 20th century notion that has been completely discredited. People identifying as 'indigenous' may have some ancestry to the people who were originally here before colonisation but it's more about cultural identity. Cultural identity is chosen not inherited. But what culture are these people identifying with? It's gone, with just modern day echoes of the past.

Yeah. I mean, we're all the one species under the homo sapiens banner, right? To be honest I haven't ever gone too deep into the 'is race a biological reality or not' question before. I myself believe we're all equal and if scientific proof came about that made the concept of genetic superiority a reality you'd get all kinds of bigotry. I can't abide that kind of s**t, scientific reality or not.

But this website goes through some stuff concerning the Human Genome Project and genetic diversity.
http://www.kenanmalik.com/lectures/race_oslo.html

I'm sensing there's gonna be some thread derailment (or is it expansion, considering the topic is bigotry laws?) now, but whatever. It is what it is.

On culture though - I believe it carries forward into modernity. Indigenous Australians of today can apply what they believe of the Dreaming and various other things without being hunter/gatherers and living in humpies. Some parts change yet cultural indentity itself need never die.

I have Irish Celtic heritage. Those ways aren't the same as they were, even for the people living where their families lived for thousands of years. Culture changes, but I don't think it can die except with memory.

 

[MrCharisma]

Anyone mentioned this yet? (From '06).


"A principal is resisting calls from a Liberal senator to remove a book from his school's library which labels former prime minister Sir Robert Menzies a tyrant.

The book came to Senator Brandis' attention while recently visiting the Good Shepherd Catholic College in Mt Isa in north-west Queensland.

Senator Brandis said the book was an example of the "faddish and trendy" educational tools federal Education Minister Julie Bishop wanted to stamp out.

"The suggestion that communist dictatorships, Nazi dictatorships and liberal democracies are merely different systems of government but one is not morally superior to the others is, I think, a disgraceful notion.

He demanded the high school pull the book from its library shelf.

But school principal Bernard Durie has refused to remove the book, which he says generates debate and critical thinking skills among school children.

"It's just another book in the library which is there to generate discussion and critical thinking among students," Mr Durie told the Age.

Removing the book "would be censoring, we're not into censoring in a big way yet"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...ibrary-book/2006/10/24/1161455704923.html<BR>



George Brandis: "I would defend your right to say things that I consider to be bigoted and ignorant. That is what freedom of speech means.

George Brandis: In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted."



hypocrite
ˈhɪpəkrɪt/
noun

1. a hypocritical person.
   George Brandis.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I like former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's observation;

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie labelled Menzies inclusion "outrageous" but said he believed in free speech and accused Senator Brandis of over-reacting.

"George has always been a bit of a drama queen about these things. The reality is ... I don't think anyone could view Robert Menzies in that way."

and to be fair to Andrew Langley's 100 Greatest Tyrants, its definition of a 'tyrant' is;

men or women whose ambition or discontent has driven them to desperate and often evil deeds.

"The tyrants who feature in this book help us appreciate how one strong-willed person can change the course of history and impact on the lives of millions," it reads.

 

[Maggie5]

"Conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs has warned the Abbott government it risks breaking an election promise if it abandons plans to repeal and re-write race hate laws". Don't know about the bold, would show consistency at least.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...h-flawed-race-law-changes-20140528-394o1.html

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Anyone mentioned this yet? (From '06).


"A principal is resisting calls from a Liberal senator to remove a book from his school's library which labels former prime minister Sir Robert Menzies a tyrant.

The book came to Senator Brandis' attention while recently visiting the Good Shepherd Catholic College in Mt Isa in north-west Queensland.

Senator Brandis said the book was an example of the "faddish and trendy" educational tools federal Education Minister Julie Bishop wanted to stamp out.

"The suggestion that communist dictatorships, Nazi dictatorships and liberal democracies are merely different systems of government but one is not morally superior to the others is, I think, a disgraceful notion.

He demanded the high school pull the book from its library shelf.

But school principal Bernard Durie has refused to remove the book, which he says generates debate and critical thinking skills among school children.

"It's just another book in the library which is there to generate discussion and critical thinking among students," Mr Durie told the Age.

Removing the book "would be censoring, we're not into censoring in a big way yet"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Row-over-tyrant-Menzies-library-book/2006/10/24/1161455704923.html<BR>



George Brandis: "I would defend your right to say things that I consider to be bigoted and ignorant. That is what freedom of speech means.

George Brandis: In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted."



hypocrite
ˈhɪpəkrɪt/
noun

1. a hypocritical person.
   George Brandis.

Are they doing this deliberately?

Does he have no sense of shame, self awareness or irony?

He wants the Liberal party reengineer school curriculum's to something he and Bishop approve of, but is pro freedom of speech and expression. He wants books that include content he doesn't like removed from school library shelves, but champions ones right to be a bigot.

 

[mottrain]

"Conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs has warned the Abbott government it risks breaking an election promise if it abandons plans to repeal and re-write race hate laws". Don't know about the bold, would show consistency at least.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...h-flawed-race-law-changes-20140528-394o1.html

I guess like carbon tax and all other laws and promises never made by Gillard.

 

[madmug]

I guess like carbon tax and all other laws and promises never made by Gillard.

I dont remember much apart from the Carbon Tax.
I think the Mad Monk has her dead to rights when it comes to the 'fibs' department. He's the best I've ever seen.

 

[Maggie5]

I guess like carbon tax and all other laws and promises never made by Gillard.

Still,not over Julia? She would be crushed.

 

[Lester Burnham]

I dont remember much apart from the Carbon Tax.

Let me remind you of a few more.

And today I can assure every Australian that their Budget will be back in surplus in 2013

On the question of asylum seekers can I say this; I can understand that Australians are disturbed when they see boats arrive on our shores unannounced.... I am full of understanding of the perspective of the Australian people that they want strong management of our borders and I will provide it.

Motorists will be eligible for the $2000 Cleaner Car Rebate when they purchase a new, lower-emission, fuel-efficient vehicle, should Labor be returned to Government.

Andrew Wilkie : "The Prime Minister has agreed with me to implement pre-commitment technology on every poker machine in Australia by 2014."​

 

[John]

Let me remind you of a few more.

And today I can assure every Australian that their Budget will be back in surplus in 2013

On the question of asylum seekers can I say this; I can understand that Australians are disturbed when they see boats arrive on our shores unannounced.... I am full of understanding of the perspective of the Australian people that they want strong management of our borders and I will provide it.

Motorists will be eligible for the $2000 Cleaner Car Rebate when they purchase a new, lower-emission, fuel-efficient vehicle, should Labor be returned to Government.

Andrew Wilkie : "The Prime Minister has agreed with me to implement pre-commitment technology on every poker machine in Australia by 2014."​

Not sure about that one highlighted Lester. More a statement of intent that failed. As to the rest of the post you have to love a race to the bottom eh? Tone trying to out do Juliar? Whoda thunk it! Kinda like some club supporters actually wanting the wooden spoon. Whoda thunk that!

 

[Maggie5]

Let me remind you of a few more.

And today I can assure every Australian that their Budget will be back in surplus in 2013

On the question of asylum seekers can I say this; I can understand that Australians are disturbed when they see boats arrive on our shores unannounced.... I am full of understanding of the perspective of the Australian people that they want strong management of our borders and I will provide it.

Motorists will be eligible for the $2000 Cleaner Car Rebate when they purchase a new, lower-emission, fuel-efficient vehicle, should Labor be returned to Government.

Andrew Wilkie : "The Prime Minister has agreed with me to implement pre-commitment technology on every poker machine in Australia by 2014."​

Find it amazing how some people can come to conclusions in isolation.
Abbott: Landslide win, no need for promises to be made that are now broken (can also add more lies if you like)
Gillard: Minority government - compromises needed to be made, policies needed to be negotiated.
End

 

[medusala]

If I'm white caucasian and you're white caucasian and I made ignorant or insulting remarks on how you conduct yourself would I be racist?

So to call someone a pikey/tinker is ok (and amusing that I post after the anti Irish bigot)? Given Jews are not a race then surely they are fair game as well?

It is all arbitrary nonsense.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So to call someone a pikey/tinker is ok (and amusing that I post after the anti Irish bigot)? Given Jews are not a race then surely they are fair game as well?

It is all arbitrary nonsense.

Yeah. I DID cloud the issue, didn't I? Racism and bigotry are related, but one pertains to the promotion or denigration of one race over other, while bigotry refers to denigration or promotion of one ethnic or religious group over others.

Should they be classed as the same? And if we should be free to promote bigotry as brashly as we like should it not be equally well and good to see retaliation dished out in return?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Yeah. I mean, we're all the one species under the homo sapiens banner, right? To be honest I haven't ever gone too deep into the 'is race a biological reality or not' question before. I myself believe we're all equal and if scientific proof came about that made the concept of genetic superiority a reality you'd get all kinds of bigotry. I can't abide that kind of s**t, scientific reality or not.

But this website goes through some stuff concerning the Human Genome Project and genetic diversity.
http://www.kenanmalik.com/lectures/race_oslo.html

Thanks for the link GS. It was an interesting read.

It would seem that attempting to use biology to distinguish race is both unreliable

Races are difficult to define and there are no objective rules for deciding what constitutes a race or to what race a person belongs​

and not particularly useful

what we popularly call races are generally least suited to genetic research. That is because the degree of biological relatedness in Continental groups is barely greater than in a randomly chosen group of people​

In recent times, when we talk about race we are really talking about social divisions.

What race expresses today is not so much an old fashioned belief in the existence of clearly delineated groups of people each with a special, essential quality but a much vaguer belief about the importance of human differences, a sense that what matters are our particular identities, and that preserving and celebrating such differences and identities is essential to the healthy functioning of human societies.

And such a celebration of difference has today become the hallmark, not of old-fangled, reactionary racism, but of modern, liberal anti-racism.​

I find these sentiments quite bizarre. We emphasise cultural differences between people so that we can make a point of saying that we should not discriminate based on those differences?

liberal anti-racism is just as bogus as the reactionary racism that preceded it. I have no problem with people identifying in any way they choose but there should be no emphasis for 'race' by the rest of society eg in the constitution, government policy or AFL Indigenous Round.