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

[romeoh]

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.

Yep but aren't you being a tad hysterical- 'The courts have held that for conduct to be covered by section 18C, the conduct must involve “profound and serious” effects, not “mere slights”. And the examples given are things such as violent behavior being advocated against Asians. Or calling an indigenous person by whistling instead of a name and giving them all the disgusting jobs. Many of the cases get sorted out in a reconciliation process, some proceed to court but only after common sense is applied- some inconsequential insult might not even get to the initial meeting stage and certainly won't proceed beyond that. We need to have some trust in our systems to use good sense in applying these laws.

 

[medusala]

Yep but aren't you being a tad hysterical- 'The courts have held that for conduct to be covered by section 18C, the conduct must involve “profound and serious” effects, not “mere slights”. And the examples given are things such as violent behavior being advocated against Asians. Or calling an indigenous person by whistling instead of a name and giving them all the disgusting jobs.

Romeoh, this is thing about 18c its not necessary for that. See Bolt case, is it not the case that he could have been done under other legislation? Incitement to violence is already covered. As is libel.

You really want whistling at someone to be in breach of the law? Seriously?

How does one define disgusting? Refugees for example disproportionately have low paid manual labour jobs. That isn't necessarily because they are being discriminated against, its because their English language skills are very poor.

Its the height of absurdity to suggest people should be protected from being offended against. Take one mod on here. He thinks every white person is a racist. Its arbitrary. Can you not see that? You wont something policed that cant be defined

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(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

 

[romeoh]

Romeoh, this is thing about 18c its not necessary for that. See Bolt case, is it not the case that he could have been done under other legislation? Incitement to violence is already covered. As is libel.

You really want whistling at someone to be in breach of the law? Seriously?

How does one define disgusting? Refugees for example disproportionately have low paid manual labour jobs. That isn't necessarily because they are being discriminated against, its because their English language skills are very poor.

Its the height of absurdity to suggest people should be protected from being offended against. Take one mod on here. He thinks every white person is a racist. Its arbitrary. Can you not see that? You wont something policed that cant be defined

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(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

Well the incitement to violence involved disabling the website advocating such things-so maybe there did need to be a separate law to address racial incitements online etc?

Re the indigenous case -sorry, here is more detail- 'by whistling instead of using his name, assigned him ‘bad’ jobs (including lining the toilet pits after use), called him a ‘black c**t, used offensive language when speaking to him and described Aboriginal people as lazy and useless. The complainant also claimed that when he made an internal complaint, the respondent told him this was part of the work culture and that some of that ‘stuff’ was ‘OK’. The complainant said he resigned due to this treatment. The respondents denied the allegations.'

That one got settled by reconciliation discussions. And yes, I do consider whistling someone's name, in combination with the rest of the behaviour, pretty offensive and requiring some attention.
Obviously every white person isn't racist and that is why the courts can be trusted to assess and determine how and whether proceeding is needed.The nature of the cases I looked at suggest that 18 c is valid and helpful in resolving certain behaviour. What is your suggestion for sorting out this indigenous case? Should the indigenous man just ignore it, as has been suggested, because it is only offensive if you let it offend you?

 

[medusala]

Re the indigenous case -sorry, here is more detail- 'by whistling instead of using his name, assigned him ‘bad’ jobs (including lining the toilet pits after use), called him a ‘black campaigner, used offensive language when speaking to him and described Aboriginal people as lazy and useless. The complainant also claimed that when he made an internal complaint, the respondent told him this was part of the work culture and that some of that ‘stuff’ was ‘OK’. The complainant said he resigned due to this treatment. The respondents denied the allegations.'

Covered by employment laws is it not?

That is the point made by many re the Bolt case. 18c was unnecessary. People cant point out behaviour that isn't covered by other legislation.

 

[telsor]

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.

Surely the only fair determination would be the degree of hurt caused, not the cause of the hurt.

 

[romeoh]

Surely the only fair determination would be the degree of hurt caused, not the cause of the hurt.

Nope aren't both things worth considering? Everyone doesn't receive the exact same consequence for an offence because other things are factored in besides just the hurt caused.

 

[telsor]

Nope aren't both things worth considering? Everyone doesn't receive the exact same consequence for an offence because other things are factored in besides just the hurt caused.

So what, if it's something the person can't control, the offense 'counts'?

Hell..I'm Adopted, and while I'm pretty OK about it, if someone managed to offend me, should my feelings be protected?

What about overweight people? Do fat jokes count? Or do you think they're their own victims (should eat less/exercise more)?

 

[benchwarmer5]

"Freedom is not A given, Freedom must be secured"

Apparently introducing draconian laws that crap on civil liberties and protect intelligence agency's from whistle blowers will do this

This is some really sick stuff.
Well played by the agencies though. No real opposition to it in parliament and the community has been successfully whipped up into a frenzy. Better rush it through before their irrational fears subside

 

[Maggie5]

so you don't believe in freedom of speech?

Not if it is going to upset someone and cost me money

 

[Maggie5]

I think that's the wrong attitude Maggie.
And it's not what the RDA can do anyway.

Poor attempt at a joke?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

"Freedom is not A given, Freedom must be secured"

Apparently introducing draconian laws that crap on civil liberties and protect intelligence agency's from whistle blowers will do this

This is some really sick stuff.
Well played by the agencies though. No real opposition to it in parliament and the community has been successfully whipped up into a frenzy. Better rush it through before their irrational fears subside

I'm not a conspiracy theory guy so this always confuses me. What drives it? Obviously the various police/security/whoever dudes want stuff to make their jobs easier but why do they get everything they want? Do the major parties and their supporters consist of that many authoritarian types? Are civil liberties that crazy a concept?

 

[benchwarmer5]

I'm not a conspiracy theory guy so this always confuses me. What drives it? Obviously the various police/security/whoever dudes want stuff to make their jobs easier but why do they get everything they want? Do the major parties and their supporters consist of that many authoritarian types? Are civil liberties that crazy a concept?

Fear
The whole thing seems to have been so strategic and well done.... what party could refuse ? I wouldn't be surprised if they had all kinds of back up plans if they had any resistance to the new powers.
Its not a conspiracy, that's who they are. Some of the new powers probably are needed but this go way past that

The real problem is with your average citizen not being capable of constructing a critical thought....they feel the irrational fear the hardest.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

You can drum up fear any time without bringing in new draconian s**t. Dog whistling does have to accompany big brother legislation does it?

 

[benchwarmer5]

You can drum up fear any time without bringing in new draconian s**t. Dog whistling does have to accompany big brother legislation does it?

But that's the point
It was strategic and the end game is new powers
All security agency's want increased powers of course. This is not a conspiracy view....

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Ok so why does the government want these new powers brought in?

 

[romeoh]

So what, if it's something the person can't control, the offense 'counts'?

Hell..I'm Adopted, and while I'm pretty OK about it, if someone managed to offend me, should my feelings be protected?

What about overweight people? Do fat jokes count? Or do you think they're their own victims (should eat less/exercise more)?

All forms of discrimination are hurtful/offensive -its not nice to discriminate against someone because they are fat, or adopted, or belong to that footy club. But discrimination on racial grounds strikes me as more damaging/more unfair/more widespread and therefore in greater need of regulating than the others. Has anyone gone out and committed genocide on any of the groups you have mentioned? Has anyone enslaved those groups? Have they been excluded from society? or segregated ? Has anyone made negative assumptions about their intelligence? or their hygiene? or their work ethic? or their heritage? Have adopted people been denied jobs? etc These things are not quite the same thing as racial discrimination.

 

[benchwarmer5]

Ok so why does the government want these new powers brought in?

If they don't legislate it and there was a terrorist attack then people would flip their s**t and of course the establishment is not exactly going to hate new powers like this

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Ok I get the covering asses bit but why are the establishment into it? What I'm getting at is that who actually benifits other than the cops/spooks looking into people? What do Tony and Team Australia gain from ASIO watching blackcat on chatroulette sans warrant?

 

[benchwarmer5]

Partly its just a conservative thing but you can go inform yourself and make up your own mind up
I think a better question is, who is disadvantaged by it ?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Partly its just a conservative thing but you can go inform yourself and make up your own mind up
I think a better question is, who is disadvantaged by it ?

You could just say "I don't know" I was jsut hoping someone could fill a gap for me.

Who is disadvantaged by crap laws? Everyone.

 

[benchwarmer5]

You could just say "I don't know" I was jsut hoping someone could fill a gap for me.

Who is disadvantaged by crap laws? Everyone.

I cant say I know but I do have an opinion on it
Just thinking your prob better off getting informed and making your own opinion

 

[Power Raid]

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!

I am asking for balance by highlighting military law which requires an obligation on the victim not to be a victim

that may not work in civy street so let's get the law right by removing the words offended and or insulted

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I'm honestly stumped. Have read a few ideas, none that made enough sense though.

 

[Power Raid]

All forms of discrimination are hurtful/offensive -its not nice to discriminate against someone because they are fat, or adopted, or belong to that footy club. But discrimination on racial grounds strikes me as more damaging/more unfair/more widespread and therefore in greater need of regulating than the others. Has anyone gone out and committed genocide on any of the groups you have mentioned? Has anyone enslaved those groups? Have they been excluded from society? or segregated ? Has anyone made negative assumptions about their intelligence? or their hygiene? or their work ethic? or their heritage? Have adopted people been denied jobs? etc These things are not quite the same thing as racial discrimination.

and that is relevant for the words insulted and offended? I agree with your thoughts and that's why I advocate getting the legislation to cover those areas.

 

[Power Raid]

Partly its just a conservative thing but you can go inform yourself and make up your own mind up
I think a better question is, who is disadvantaged by it ?

Australia and it's people