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

[romeoh]

that's lazy

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

Haha give it a spell PR. That is an excellent % and in any case highlighting these issues through the courts is an enlightening experience for all of society. That is part of the role of a court.

 

[Power Raid]

Haha give it a spell PR. That is an excellent % and in any case highlighting these issues through the courts is an enlightening experience for all of society. That is part of the role of a court.

oh dear

I trust you have never paid for it then

 

[romeoh]

oh dear

I trust you have never paid for it then

Lighten up. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that 3% is actually stuff all.
I imagine Rupert managed Bolt's legal fees with no worries whatsoever.

 

[Power Raid]

Lighten up. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that 3% is actually stuff all.
I imagine Rupert managed Bolt's legal fees with no worries whatsoever.

You might be right that 3% is F all and you might be right the legal bills for TV stations, bolt and murdoch are stuff all but we don't make laws specifically for them or societies entertainment or enlightenment

we should get our laws balanced and right.

being offensive or insulting are ridiculously low hurdles

 

[romeoh]

You might be right that 3% is F all and you might be right the legal bills for TV stations, bolt and murdoch are stuff all but we don't make laws specifically for them or societies entertainment or enlightenment

we should get our laws balanced and right.

being offensive or insulting are ridiculously low hurdles

Of course laws are not specifically for enlightenment, but certainly part of the purpose of the court is to protect and 'enshrine' behaviours a society ought to value-as is being done here.
Lets leave it there-we are not going to agree-I see that number as so low, I have no issue with it. You don't. Fine.

 

[MrCharisma]

being offensive or insulting are ridiculously low hurdles

What about flashing your genitals?

 

[Floor Pie]

I'm glad this is the most important act for us to focus on!

Who cares how low the 'hurdles' are for skipping the process of court with these new terrorism laws. 18C is the dark stain on Australia...

Use whatever talking points you have found. At the end of the day, the only people who care about the removal/reduction of 18c, are those that follow Bolt, or those who don't understand it.

 

[medusala]

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

Which part of the judgement made that clear? I read the below and just shook my head that such PC dribble can be regurgitated in a court of law. Then again given the judge in question, perhaps its not so hard to understand. Mindbogglingly pathetic.

In reaching those conclusions, I have observed that in seeking to promote tolerance and protect against intolerance in a multicultural society, the Racial Discrimination Act must be taken to include in its objectives tolerance for and acceptance of racial and ethnic diversity. At the core of multiculturalism is the idea that people may identify with and express their racial or ethnic heritage free from pressure not to do so. People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying. Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance, just as disparagement directed at the real or imagined practices or traits of those people is also destructive of racial tolerance.

 

[Floor Pie]

Which part of the judgement made that clear? I read the below and just shook my head that such PC dribble can be regurgitated in a court of law. Then again given the judge in question, perhaps its not so hard to understand. Mindbogglingly pathetic.

In reaching those conclusions, I have observed that in seeking to promote tolerance and protect against intolerance in a multicultural society, the Racial Discrimination Act must be taken to include in its objectives tolerance for and acceptance of racial and ethnic diversity. At the core of multiculturalism is the idea that people may identify with and express their racial or ethnic heritage free from pressure not to do so. People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying. Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance, just as disparagement directed at the real or imagined practices or traits of those people is also destructive of racial tolerance.

Can you explain how it is "PC dribble"?
Also, can you explain where a court ruling hasn't been thorough enough to avoid as many loopholes as it can? You might find that it's actually quite often, which is why the excessive language is needed.

 

[Power Raid]

Can you explain how it is "PC dribble"?
Also, can you explain where a court ruling hasn't been thorough enough to avoid as many loopholes as it can? You might find that it's actually quite often, which is why the excessive language is needed.

"just as disparagement directed at the real practices or traits of those people is also destructive of racial tolerance."

WTF?

"People should be free to fully identify with their race without loss of esteem for so identifying."

WTF?

 

[Floor Pie]

"just as disparagement directed at the real practices or traits of those people is also destructive of racial tolerance."

WTF?

So, attacking someone at the real or imagined traits or practices, means that you are spreading the rumour that the average Aboriginal makes more than the average wage, without ever working a day in their life.
That is an imagined trait that has been doing the rounds for at least 15 years.
On top of that, if it is done out of context, simply to disparage, this is destructive of racial tolerance. It causes as us vs them situation.

"People should be free to fully identify with their race without loss of esteem for so identifying."

WTF?

Public disdain or loss of self esteem.
You should use [sic] if you are quoting someone, when omitting parts.

So fear of public disdain, or loss of self esteem.
Once again, a loophole closer for the courts. Can you prove that the entire public was disdainful? No? Well, you can prove the loss of self esteem.

 

[Gough]

For those who think this is not some sort of sop to Bolt, it's instructive to mess around with the dates of your Google search and see how often 18c of the RDA is mentioned prior to 14/4/2009, the date of that article. The Adelaide Institute don't see that keen on it nor does Larry Pickering, there's the odd obscure court case, but there's sweet FA from the IPA or the Liberal Party on the subject.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...dr:1,cd_min:1/1/1975,cd_max:14/4/2009&start=0
It's almost as if they didn't know it existed.

 

[Power Raid]

For those who think this is not some sort of sop to Bolt, it's instructive to mess around with the dates of your Google search and see how often 18c of the RDA is mentioned prior to 14/4/2009, the date of that article. The Adelaide Institute don't see that keen on it nor does Larry Pickering, there's the odd obscure court case, but there's sweet FA from the IPA or the Liberal Party on the subject.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=18c racial discrimination act&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=7iC&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&channel=sb&biw=1440&bih=777&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/1975,cd_max:14/4/2009&tbm=#q=18c racial discrimination act&safe=off&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&channel=sb&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/1975,cd_max:14/4/2009&start=0
It's almost as if they didn't know it existed.

I think that is the problem now. it is linked to bolt thus the battle lines are drawn.

it is a shame that the legislation can't be fixed because of the focus on a dick like bolt.

 

[Gough]

The legislation doesn't need fixing. Bolt rightly ran afoul of it because he is a racist fool, and then used to his influence to bleat about how his feelings were hurt and that the law needed changing, up until then it was a barely used, almost completely ignored statute.

 

[Power Raid]

The legislation doesn't need fixing. Bolt rightly ran afoul of it because he is a racist fool, and then used to his influence to bleat about how his feelings were hurt and that the law needed changing, up until then it was a barely used, almost completely ignored statute.

that is true but now that it is not, let's get it right

 

[Gough]

that is true but now that it is not, let's get it right

So what's changed, how was it different before yer man wrote his article? Andrew Bolt has been forced to realise he can't just make things up and vent is ignorant, ill educated spleen so we have to change the law?

 

[The Coup]

This is one man's battle against the reality of his own status as a dickhead, nothing more imo.

 

[Power Raid]

So what's changed, how was it different before yer man wrote his article? Andrew Bolt has been forced to realise he can't just make things up and vent is ignorant, ill educated spleen so we have to change the law?

1) it should have nothing to do with bolt
2) if it is so obscure and ignored then repeal it. I would disagree with that position as I believe it is an important Act. As it is important, it is important we use the right language and thresholds. Abuse tick, threatened tick, intimidated tick, insulted no, offended no. Even those against change will use the language of abuse, bullying and threatening rather than insulted and offended.

 

[The Coup]

I think insulted and offended are important to remain. As a hypothetical, if someone was found to have published literature that said "All <insert> are dirty and their women are unfulfilled sexually" that should be a crime in the form of having to make a retraction and donate a nominal fine to a charity.

Not for the purpose of protecting anyone, but for the purpose of deterrent. Those kinds of views are just not acceptable to be published or broadcast in public. Some people can not get over tribalism, and we do need to make an example of them. I'd go for a good old fashioned tar and feather myself, but a small fine and an apology will do in this age of political correctness.

 

[Power Raid]

I think insulted and offended are important to remain. As a hypothetical, if someone was found to have published literature that said "All <insert> are dirty and their women are unfulfilled sexually" that should be a crime in the form of having to make a retraction and donate a nominal fine to a charity.

Not for the purpose of protecting anyone, but for the purpose of deterrent. Those kinds of views are just not acceptable to be published or broadcast in public. Some people can not get over tribalism, and we do need to make an example of them. I'd go for a good old fashioned tar and feather myself, but a small fine and an apology will do in this age of political correctness.

I find it hard to defend a comment like that as I too find it offensive. But I do question whether it should be treated any different a non-racial equivalent. Without knowledge of a particular law, I would be surprised if that wasn't already covered by the telecommunications act.

 

[Power Raid]

I had one situation where some dip s**t came up to my wife and I and said to me "don't date g@@ks (or something similar), kill them". I turned and looked at the guy, assessed the situation and felt laughing at him was the most appropriate action.

I think most people who make such offensive remarks are either mentally ill, jealous, intimidated or ignorant. How can you possibly be offended by someone with these characteristics? I think we all have a responsibility to rise above a situation like that.

 

[The Coup]

I find it hard to defend a comment like that as I too find it offensive. But I do question whether it should be treated any different a non-racial equivalent. Without knowledge of a particular law, I would be surprised if that wasn't already covered by the telecommunications act.

Well it would apply to religion, ethnicity etc as well as "race"

Its basically any time you demonise or offend a group based on some shared characteristic outside their control.

Now saying "all unionists are dodgy" is inaccurate and offensive, but not criminally offensive.

I reckon we're capable of figuring it out.

 

[The Coup]

I had one situation where some dip s**t came up to my wife and I and said to me "don't date g@@ks (or something similar), kill them". I turned and looked at the guy, assessed the situation and felt laughing at him was the most appropriate action.

I think most people who make such offensive remarks are either mentally ill, jealous, intimidated or ignorant. How can you possibly be offended by someone with these characteristics? I think we all have a responsibility to rise above a situation like that.

That's different than the 18c legislation though. As horrible as that example is, of course.

 

[AM]

The following comments from one of the people the Mad Monks crew appointed to ".....review what our nation's kids will be taught in English classes" A pseudo government that just keeps on giving.

In email correspondence that spans more than two years, Barry Spurr, the nation’s leading Professor of Poetry, describes Aboriginal people as ‘human rubbish tips’ and “Abos”, and rails against the prevalence of Aboriginal culture in school curriculums, and within politics. But the exchanges are not just limited to First Nations people.

Professor Spurr also takes aim at “bogans” “fatsoes”, “Mussies” and “Chinky-Poos”, and laments the reality that Australia is less white than it was in the 1950s

http://tinyurl.com/mpzhhda

 

[Floor Pie]

The following comments from one of the people the Mad Monks crew appointed to ".....review what our nation's kids will be taught in English classes" A pseudo government that just keeps on giving.




http://tinyurl.com/mpzhhda

Watch out, this was talked about in the history syllabus thread. And there was the usual poster working hard to defend the man, and deflect the situation onto Labor or Unions.