Racial Discrimination Act

[CM86]

Who cares, its not relevant as to the decision making of who you sue.............you only sue people with deep pockets or where you want to shut something up for strategic reasons

 

[CbayT]

What is the total amount ($) that has been awarded to the victims after findings from the RDA?...

Since the law was enacted.

Its not litigation that's why it will never be used much other than by groups who can get pro bono or govt paid for legal services. It used as it was in this case because they couldn't sue because it was did not meet the criteria.

 

[ralphmalph]

Its not litigation that's why it will never be used much other than by groups who can get pro bono or govt paid for legal services. It used as it was in this case because they couldn't sue because it was did not meet the criteria.

Most commentators have suggested defamation was open to the claimants in the Bolt case. Do you say otherwise?

 

[ralphmalph]

So you value the ability to promote lies as truth then, as Mr Bolt was found to have done? This whole thing isn't about Andrew Bolt's concerns, but how he presented them, and the unsubstantiated falsehoods he brought to bear in his articles.

We've dealt with each other here without falling back to insults, mockery or making s**t up about each other Lester. Was it hard? Would it be harder to maintain an even tone if you found out I was black? Or Asian? Or a woman?

How difficult is it to maintain respect even while being critical? Do you think its impossible?

Most of this was covered in the "Brandis says people have a right to be a bigot" thread. Worth looking back on, if you can be arsed. Apologies if you contributed to that - I can't recall and I'm half cut and on phone so can't provide link.

As much as I disagree with Lester's view, at least he is willing to engage with the text i.e. the complete decision rather than relying on secondary sources.

As discussed in that thread, much of Bromberg's decision was not novel. He applied previous decisions in his judgment. Hence accusations of bias have limited merit.

This is worth linking again: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/2004/10.html

Note it was written in 2004 and there have been decisions since then that are relevant to the proper interpretation of the relevant sections of the Act.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Most of this was covered in the "Brandis says people have a right to be a bigot" thread. Worth looking back on, if you can be arsed. Apologies if you contributed to that - I can't recall and I'm half cut and on phone so can't provide link.

As much as I disagree with Lester's view, at least he is willing to engage with the text i.e. the complete decision rather than relying on secondary sources....

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...a-right-to-be-bigots-you-know.1054559/page-48

Yeah, page 48 has me and Lester talking about it - I didn't know a TENTH about the case back then, but I feel like I could recite the whole bloody thing backwards now

I don't actually know what way Lester leans politically - but there are plenty who worry about free speech in general even though they might be the furthest thing from a racist as you can get. His concerns are legit. I understand the 'If I have to self-censor every word I write, what's the point in having an opinion?' thrust of his argument, now that I've had time to think about it.

I do. I totally get that aspect of it. And I agree - people need to confidently be able to express a viewpoint without fear of censorship.

I also believe in a duty of care, however. Journalists and opinion-editorial writers and news presenters and such need to be held to a higher standard - these people help shape opinion, and an opinion formed from untruths and misrepresentation can be dangerous.

This goes for left, right AND centrist opinion-shapers.

As discussed in that thread, much of Bromberg's decision was not novel. He applied previous decisions in his judgment. Hence accusations of bias have limited merit.

This is worth linking again: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/2004/10.html

Note it was written in 2004 and there have been decisions since then that are relevant to the proper interpretation of the relevant sections of the Act.

Exactly. ALL court decisions involve weighing precedents against the current case being considered, as far as I know.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent

Precedent

A court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases.

The Anglo-American common-law tradition is built on the doctrine of Stare Decisis ("stand by decided matters"), which directs a court to look to past decisions for guidance on how to decide a case before it. This means that the legal rules applied to a prior case with facts similar to those of the case now before a court should be applied to resolve the legal dispute.

The use of precedent has been justified as providing predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law. Reliance upon precedent contributes predictability to the law because it provides notice of what a person's rights and obligations are in particular circumstances. A person contemplating an action has the ability to know beforehand the legal outcome. It also means that lawyers can give legal advice to clients based on settled rules of law.

The use of precedent also stabilizes the law. Society can expect the law, which organizes social relationships in terms of rights and obligations, to remain relatively stable and coherent through the use of precedent...

 

[Maggie5]

Sicko, what makes you think everyone/thing is worthy of respect? They most clearly are not.

Take for instance the Turkish failure to recognise what happened to the Armenians. Extraordinarily shoddy and they cut up VERY rough when its mentioned.

Just as many Jews do when its pointed out that in all likelihood the majority of holocaust victims were NOT Jewish.

Even simpler take the most boring internet argument known to man - Palestine/Israel

A huge amount (if not the overwhelming majority) of comment by either side is offensive and would be in breach of the Act (well depending on how you decide ethnicity etc)

Should Australian courts take in interest in that? I do not think so.



Ah so the legislation doesn't matter as long as fines are small. FFS. That's how it starts

What was the rate of income tax when it was first introduced?

My word you really are having a train wreck of a thread.



What do you mean? You want free speech even further curtailed? Seriously?

I seriously don't know why you and others go on and on about 18C, yet there is no comment when from any of you an article like this appears:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-multimilliondollar-bond-20151030-gkmspv.html

"Charities working in immigration detention centres were asked to pay multimillion-dollar bonds that could be forfeited if they spoke out against government policy, as the Coalition sought to maintain secrecy over border protection." Further even if you don't accept the report by Gillian Triggs, the Moss Report (government instigated) found: 'no specific evidence that Save The Children staff had encouraged asylum seekers to self-harm'.

For mine this is of greater concern, even though you may support the current policy surely if freedom of speech is that important then this organisation and others have been badly treated and you should be giving them your support.

Unless of course you intend to knowingly want to make comments that may cause offence or harm.

I can't ever see myself in breach of 18c. In fact like many others had never heard of 18c before Bolt.

 

[Lester Burnham]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...a-right-to-be-bigots-you-know.1054559/page-48

Yeah, page 48 has me and Lester talking about it - I didn't know a TENTH about the case back then, but I feel like I could recite the whole bloody thing backwards now

I don't actually know what way Lester leans politically - but there are plenty who worry about free speech in general even though they might be the furthest thing from a racist as you can get. His concerns are legit. I understand the 'If I have to self-censor every word I write, what's the point in having an opinion?' thrust of his argument, now that I've had time to think about it.

I do. I totally get that aspect of it. And I agree - people need to confidently be able to express a viewpoint without fear of censorship.

I also believe in a duty of care, however. Journalists and opinion-editorial writers and news presenters and such need to be held to a higher standard - these people help shape opinion, and an opinion formed from untruths and misrepresentation can be dangerous.

This goes for left, right AND centrist opinion-shapers.

I don't think we are that far away from each other's position. I think where we would differ might be

- there is a price to be paid for permitting freedom of speech and that can mean some people might be offended by what someone else says
- published untruths are already addressed by defamation laws
- we should not have a special category of laws for taking offence based on 'race' - which have become a de facto separate category of defamation laws based on race with a lesser standard of proof
- the law does not distinguish between popular columnists and posters on Bigfooty
- the laws are complex and vague so it needs a high court judge to decide what can be said. In these circumstance, the common man would (should) restrict his opinion. And also the criticism might be that laws determined by unelected officials are undemocratic.
- Bolt was punished for expressing these views because he is a white conservative. The hate for him amongst lefties was palpable. The lawyers lined up pro-bono to take this on. Yet nothing directed at Aborigines who had expressed similar opinions.

 

[Power Raid]

You're confused old boy. That's the Liarberals.

*Think we've found Andrew Bolt loitering here abouts*

you're not reading the developments in the RC regarding unions?

 

[Power Raid]

If this is the case, then why aren't we seeing the courts inundated with outraged people?

Why is the Bolt case the only one of any repute, (that I know of), where 18c was pursued and upheld?

Oh, that's right...because what you're implying here simply isn't the case at all.

Thin edge of the wedge my giddy aunt!

Robust democracy and free speech?...what utter tripe.

Don't make s**t up based on race and then plaster it all over a high circulation newspaper and 18c will never be heard of again.

agree

let's change 18c and remove words like offend and add the words "make s**t up" and similar

we will both be happy

 

[apparentlydead]

no