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

[Power Raid]

"People do have a right to be bigots, you know." was the answer that the Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis gave to this question; "...I ask a further supplementary question. I refer the Attorney-General to comments made by the member for Hasluck, Mr Wyatt, who told Fairfax media: … what I wouldn't like to see is a regression that allows those who have bigoted viewpoints to vilify any group of people at all … Won't removing section 18C facilitate vilification by bigots?", asked by Senator Peris in the Senate on Monday the 24th of March, 2014.

All Italians belong to the mafia and therefore they are all criminals.

All Greeks are homosexual; they invented it. Alexander The Great was a NTTAWWT.

The gene that makes people black also makes them less intelligent than white people.

All Asians have dog for dinner at least 3 times a week.

Everything was brilliant in this country before interracial marriage.

All Jews are cheap and greedy.

What kind of a f*****g country does Medieval Tony and his depraved henchmen want us to live in?

Under Abbott, we have gone from being one of, if not the most respected countries on earth to a pariah state in the matter of months! We are an absolute laughing stock.

Freedom of speech without responsibility is the domain of Fascism and Communism. It is what allows/allowed people like Bolt, Goebbels, Mugabe, Stalin etc. etc. etc. to foment hatred and loathing.

how do you feel about the opening post and title now?

or do you feel you partisan bias justifies pathetic threshold tests in important legislation? please quote Tony and Bolt in your pathetic response.

 

[Play by Numbers]

how do you feel about the opening post and title now?

or do you feel you partisan bias justifies pathetic threshold tests in important legislation? please quote Tony and Bolt in your pathetic response.

I'm not sure what you are so angry about?

The public backlash against muslims, could be far worse now if media hysteria had been less constrained.

Also, this is the one act of removing impediments to liberty that the little fascist Brandis seemed to get behind. He has probably done more to erode rights in this country than any other modern figure before him.

 

[mottrain]

I'm not sure what you are so angry about?

The public backlash against muslims, could be far worse now if media hysteria had been less constrained.

Also, this is the one act of removing impediments to liberty that the little fascist Brandis seemed to get behind. He has probably done more to erode rights in this country than any other modern figure before him.

Right Brandis is not being a facsist he has simply said that the idea is people should say stuff without having to worry about penalties even if he has no desire to agree with the content.

 

[benchwarmer5]

The public backlash against muslims, could be far worse now if media hysteria had been less constrained.

Less constrained ? Media hysteria is still media hysteria...

 

[The Coup]

Right Brandis is not being a facsist he has simply said that the idea is people should say stuff without having to worry about penalties even if he has no desire to agree with the content.

Even if what they say places other people in danger?

 

[mottrain]

Even if what they say places other people in danger?

Things that can have the same effect can be said towards redheads now but apparently when it is on race it is bad bad.

 

[The Coup]

Things that can have the same effect can be said towards redheads now but apparently when it is on race it is bad bad.

I have long thought that picking on red heads cause of their hair colour was rough.

Then I found out they DO have souls, and they get a new freckle for each soul they steal.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm not sure what you are so angry about?

The public backlash against muslims, could be far worse now if media hysteria had been less constrained.

Also, this is the one act of removing impediments to liberty that the little fascist Brandis seemed to get behind. He has probably done more to erode rights in this country than any other modern figure before him.

it is always disappointing to hear that people won't support positive change just because they are blinkered by politics. There is so little debate arguing that the thresholds aren't inappropriate. Even people against the change suggest abuse and threatening are better hurdles than insulting and offensive.

and why add the distraction of muslims and brandis?

 

[Power Raid]

Things that can have the same effect can be said towards redheads now but apparently when it is on race it is bad bad.

I'm not so sure

18B includes colour to be taken as race. they may have meant colour of skin but it could be argued they meant hair as well, especially given red hair relates to a small gene pool of the scots and pix.

 

[The Coup]

Yeah in theory I see nothing wrong with redheads doing the same.

 

[romeoh]

Things that can have the same effect can be said towards redheads now but apparently when it is on race it is bad bad.

Yep and that assumption would be correct.
Redheads might get teased but nobody is going to abuse them at the supermarket or set up websites inciting people to act violently towards them.
Nobody is going to be seriously persecuted or placed in danger for being redheaded, or adopted, or from that footy club, or for being fat.
Can we try to be a bit realistic please?

 

[Power Raid]

Yep and that assumption would be correct.
Redheads might get teased but nobody is going to abuse them at the supermarket or set up websites inciting people to act violently towards them.
Nobody is going to be seriously persecuted or placed in danger for being redheaded, or adopted, or from that footy club, or for being fat.
Can we try to be a bit realistic please?

Again you have taken the debate way beyond the part of the legislation in question

 

[romeoh]

Again you have taken the debate way beyond the part of the legislation in question

Yep but am not the one bringing up redheads and adoptees!
Have pointed out that the courts have the common sense and expertise to assess the validity of an 'insult'/ 'offence' and so forth.

 

[Power Raid]

Yep but am not the one bringing up redheads and adoptees!
Have pointed out that the courts have the common sense and expertise to assess the validity of an 'insult'/ 'offence' and so forth.

But that's the point

1) it is a waste of time and resources for our courts
2) it is a waste of legal fees and a lawyers paradice
3) judges have no choice but to prosecute as they do know what is an insult and that threshold is too low

 

[romeoh]

But that's the point

1) it is a waste of time and resources for our courts
2) it is a waste of legal fees and a lawyers paradice
3) judges have no choice but to prosecute as they do know what is an insult and that threshold is too low

Nope because most of the cases don't reach the courts-it gets 'mediated' beforehand. So not really a waste of resources and an exercise in educating ignorant people is quite valid use of time for mine.

 

[Power Raid]

Nope because most of the cases don't reach the courts-it gets 'mediated' beforehand. So not really a waste of resources and an exercise in educating ignorant people is quite valid use of time for mine.

So you think insulting and offensive thresholds is fine? Or like most of the feedback from posts believe abuse, intimidation and bullying is more appropriate?

 

[Malifice]

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.

But neither of those comments are prohibitions of the RDA Act. The Bolt case was clear on that.

 

[Power Raid]

But neither of those comments are prohibitions of the RDA Act. The Bolt case was clear on that.

but both could be considered insulting and offensive and thus could be taken to court. So the question is about the threshold of insulting and offensive rather than the example provided.

 

[Malifice]

but both could be considered insulting and offensive and thus could be taken to court. So the question is about the threshold of insulting and offensive rather than the example provided.

This is where context comes into play mate. And intent.

 

[Power Raid]

This is where context comes into play mate. And intent.

agree, but that is not how the law is drafted and the "golden rule" does not give judges any flexibility to interpret the law in any other way other than as drafted.

So why not re-draft it so they can do as you propose.

 

[Malifice]

agree, but that is not how the law is drafted and the "golden rule" does not give judges any flexibility to interpret the law in any other way other than as drafted.

So why not re-draft it so they can do as you propose.

The Judge in the Bolt case was clear that context and intent play a part. So (by common law) thats already 'in'.

Why redraft the legislation seeing as thats already part of the law?

 

[Power Raid]

The Judge in the Bolt case was clear that context and intent play a part. So (by common law) thats already 'in'.

Why redraft the legislation seeing as thats already part of the law?

so one has to hire a defence team, go to court and then rely upon one individual to get it right? this is a waste of court resources and legal fees.

how about we get the legislation right?

being racially offensive and insulting should not be treated different to ordinary offensive and insulting behaviour regardless of how pathetic the person is responsible for the poor behaviour.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

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

To muzzle the few remaining sections of the media that question the government, as well as those pesky whistleblowers (have busted the nefarious goings on of our intelligence services of late). Providing immunity to the very same intelligence organisations. And of course, the thing that matters the most to Tony and his merry band of troublemakers, a bounce in the polls. Tough on Terror Tones is chest beating his way outta the post-budget gloom and leading Team Australia to victory in the next election

 

[romeoh]

so one has to hire a defence team, go to court and then rely upon one individual to get it right? this is a waste of court resources and legal fees.

how about we get the legislation right?

being racially offensive and insulting should not be treated different to ordinary offensive and insulting behaviour regardless of how pathetic the person is responsible for the poor behaviour.

Less than 3% of racial hatred complaints proceeded to court under 18c in 2012- 2013.

 

[Power Raid]

Less than 3% of racial hatred complaints proceeded to court under 18c in 2012- 2013.

that's lazy

let's get it right as courts are a place of law not justice. so let's get the legislation right.