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

[Floor Pie]

What the *....

 

[Power Raid]

What the ****....

when a child or some dopey prick gets angry at someone, they say "you made me angry". this is a rubbish statement as they got angry because they couldn't control their emotions.

same with being offended. someone might have said something offensive but it was the fault of the person being offended for not simply ignoring the ignorant statement and being offended. No one controls how you feel other than yourself including being offended.

We need to stop blaming others and take responsibility for ourselves. This law does the exact opposite and encourages childish emotional responses, encourages a victims mentality and removes any responsibility of individuals to control their own emotions.

It takes two to tango and the courts should punish them both or ignore them both.

 

[Floor Pie]

when a child or some dopey prick gets angry at someone, they say "you made me angry". this is a rubbish statement as they got angry because they couldn't control their emotions.

same with being offended. someone might have said something offensive but it was the fault of the person being offended for not simply ignoring the ignorant statement and being offended. No one controls how you feel other than yourself including being offended.

We need to stop blaming others and take responsibility for ourselves. This law does the exact opposite and encourages childish emotional responses, encourages a victims mentality and removes any responsibility of individuals to control their own emotions.

It takes two to tango and the courts should punish them both or ignore them both.

You must be taking the piss now!

You think the RDA is too strict... but on the other hand you are advocating charging people who take offense to being racially abused?

Ridiculous!

 

[romeoh]

when a child or some dopey prick gets angry at someone, they say "you made me angry". this is a rubbish statement as they got angry because they couldn't control their emotions.

same with being offended. someone might have said something offensive but it was the fault of the person being offended for not simply ignoring the ignorant statement and being offended. No one controls how you feel other than yourself including being offended.

We need to stop blaming others and take responsibility for ourselves. This law does the exact opposite and encourages childish emotional responses, encourages a victims mentality and removes any responsibility of individuals to control their own emotions.

It takes two to tango and the courts should punish them both or ignore them both.

Actually it doesn't take two to tango. Abuse and bullying and vilification-generally occurs without provocation, and always unjustified.
To say the offensive remark is not offensive if it is just ignored-???

 

[medusala]

I know, one of the fine things about our system, even people as undeserving as Bolt can access a legal defence.

That Bolt can afford a lawyer has NOTHING to do with this.

Its the old logic failure and hypocrisy. Aussie ok, Jap/abo not ok. Arbitrary nonsense.

. Abuse and bullying and vilification-generally occurs without provocation, and always unjustified.

Absolute nonsense. Vilification laws deal with people taking offence. What you are attempting to argue that any criticism no matter how valid = bullying / vilification.

That is absurd.

 

[telsor]

Actually it doesn't take two to tango. Abuse and bullying and vilification-generally occurs without provocation, and always unjustified.
To say the offensive remark is not offensive if it is just ignored-???

Agreed, but who does racial offense get protection, but not gender related offense? (for example)

 

[Floor Pie]

Agreed, but who does racial offense get protection, but not gender related offense? (for example)

Can you give similar examples of each, that would end up with very different results due to the RDA?

 

[telsor]

Can you give similar examples of each, that would end up with very different results due to the RDA?

You want me to make offensive comments on 2 hot topics? I'm sure the mods would love that.

Mind you Power Raid was right in saying that taking offense is, in part, a matter of the recipient. Hit the right spot and a generally inoffensive comment could cut someone very deeply.

 

[Floor Pie]

You want me to make offensive comments on 2 hot topics? I'm sure the mods would love that.

Mind you Power Raid was right in saying that taking offense is, in part, a matter of the recipient. Hit the right spot and a generally inoffensive comment could cut someone very deeply.

No, I mean can you give an example of a situation of racial offense, and a similar example of a gender offense, in which the racial offense ends up with a different result to the gender offense, due to the RDA.

 

[mottrain]

No, I mean can you give an example of a situation of racial offense, and a similar example of a gender offense, in which the racial offense ends up with a different result to the gender offense, due to the RDA.

Writing an article saying all men are rapists and explaining why can put large amounts of women against men on this basis. Writing all Blacks are rapists will get you RDA action.

 

[telsor]

No, I mean can you give an example of a situation of racial offense, and a similar example of a gender offense, in which the racial offense ends up with a different result to the gender offense, due to the RDA.

How would Gender offense be prosecuted in a similar way?

If general laws apply, then there is no need for the RDA section, if not, then they're treated differently.

 

[romeoh]

That Bolt can afford a lawyer has NOTHING to do with this.

Its the old logic failure and hypocrisy. Aussie ok, Jap/abo not ok. Arbitrary nonsense.



Absolute nonsense. Vilification laws deal with people taking offence. What you are attempting to argue that any criticism no matter how valid = bullying / vilification.

That is absurd.

Nope that is not what I said-I said abuse, bullying or vilification are never ok.
Some criticisms are ok but if it is taken to the next level-which I think those words imply, then it is not ever justifiable.
Don't know what you are on about in your first remark. Sorry old thing.

 

[romeoh]

Agreed, but who does racial offense get protection, but not gender related offense? (for example)

Maybe- what would be an example of gender related vilification?

 

[telsor]

Maybe- what would be an example of gender related vilification?

People can't be offended on gender issues?

(no, I'm not going to give examples of offensive comments).

 

[romeoh]

People can't be offended on gender issues?

(no, I'm not going to give examples of offensive comments).

Yep they can be very offensive- maybe that should be illegal too? And to a degree it is-sexual harassment is a form of offensive gender behaviour.

 

[medusala]

Nope that is not what I said-I said abuse, bullying or vilification are never ok.
Some criticisms are ok but if it is taken to the next level-which I think those words imply, then it is not ever justifiable.
Don't know what you are on about in your first remark. Sorry old thing.

Romeoh, this is the point though, the legislation merely talks of someone being offended. I don't think anyone has an issue with the law dealing with bullying.

Again, back to the whingeing Pom comment. Someone of English origin may get offended. Does use of that term by itself constitute bullying? No of course it doesn't.

Another obvious example is the factual statement that Mohammed was a paedo. Plenty of Muslims would be offended. Again its hardly bullying to state that.

Ditto if someone were to make the obvious statement that some people identify as aborigine for the economic benefit. Bullying? I don't think so. Offensive to those involved? Quite possibly.

 

[Power Raid]

Actually it doesn't take two to tango. Abuse and bullying and vilification-generally occurs without provocation, and always unjustified.
To say the offensive remark is not offensive if it is just ignored-???

Again I don't want to defend racists nor do I want to defend bullies.

It is simply the pathetic tests of offended and insulted being the thresholds within the legislation that are inappropriate.

Let's increase the thresholds to abuse and bullying!

 

[telsor]

Yep they can be very offensive- maybe that should be illegal too? And to a degree it is-sexual harassment is a form of offensive gender behaviour.

Where do you draw the line?

If someone is deeply hurt over comments about their football club, should that be illegal?

 

[Floor Pie]

Writing an article saying all men are rapists and explaining why can put large amounts of women against men on this basis. Writing all Blacks are rapists will get you RDA action.

Notice you said "all men are rapists and explaining why" and said "all backs are rapists".
So what would the different outcome be, if someone wrote a news article saying all men are rapists, compared to if they wrote that all blacks are rapists? In terms of the law.

How would Gender offense be prosecuted in a similar way?

If general laws apply, then there is no need for the RDA section, if not, then they're treated differently.

You said one is protected, and the other isn't.
I thought you might have an example?

 

[mottrain]

Notice you said "all men are rapists and explaining why" and said "all backs are rapists".
So what would the different outcome be, if someone wrote a news article saying all men are rapists, compared to if they wrote that all blacks are rapists? In terms of the law.

You said one is protected, and the other isn't.
I thought you might have an example?

Even if they explain why all blacks are rapists then it won't make any difference. The same comments using black instead of male will get you possibly prosecuted under 18c.

 

[telsor]

You said one is protected, and the other isn't.
I thought you might have an example?

There are additional laws to protect against Racial offense.

Either these provide extra protections or they're meaningless laws.

If it's the former, then why does race get additional protection? If it's the latter, then the laws should be removed as they're a waste.

 

[The Coup]

How could you possibly explain that?

 

[Floor Pie]

Even if they explain why all blacks are rapists then it won't make any difference. The same comments using black instead of male will get you possibly prosecuted under 18c.

What would the different outcome be?...

And can you back that up with anything?

 

[Floor Pie]

There are additional laws to protect against Racial offense.

Either these provide extra protections or they're meaningless laws.

If it's the former, then why does race get additional protection? If it's the latter, then the laws should be removed as they're a waste.

Why do people want them removed? Is it because they attack our freedom of speech? Or because it is an act that isn't needed?

What's so special about the RDA, apart from the Bolt crusades?

 

[romeoh]

Where do you draw the line?

If someone is deeply hurt over comments about their football club, should that be illegal?

Nope-well I suppose there has to be a degree of common sense applied. To say nasty things about a footy club is annoying, hurtful, possibly slanderous. But that is a different thing from offensive remarks based on race-something one is born as. And to criticize a footy club- it is based on a lack of competency, a failure to take action, etc rather than a criticism based on skin colour-something one has no control of, and there is an inherent suggestion that your race impacts on you/and others? in a negative manner.