Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lebbo73 said:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e/news-story/9d56da3de90a33436e745cc140ae4e25

"That section 18C still exists at all is a broader perversion of our history as the product of the Enlightenment.

There is a reason it was called the Enlightenment. Those great philosophers who wrote about liberty shone a light on the virtues of freedom. They explained how and why liberty, including the right to speak freely, empowers and dignifies what it means to be a human being.

Laws that encourage us to take offence infantilise us. Laws that encourage free speech make us robust and resilient, force us to think more clearly in the face of disagreement, even offensive disagreement.

Good ideas don’t flourish in an echo chamber. A germ of a good idea grows stronger, not weaker, from free-ranging debate. Stupid ideas disintegrate under the weight of reason. That process will necessarily offend some. But speech is only truly free if it includes the right to offend.

Reforming section 18C was never about Bolt. It’s about a handful of QUT students who wrote a few comments on Facebook poking fun at racial segregation at QUT. It’s about the right of the Catholic Church to defend the traditional definition of marriage. It’s about your right to say something I find offensive and vice versa. It’s about bolstering freedom of expression. Prior’s case is a reminder that section 18C and the outrage industry it fuels have taken us into unfree territory.

Feelings are also curtailing the freedom to be funny. In a recent video for The Big Think, an online ideas forum, British comedian John Cleese said he has been advised not to perform at universities because his jokes would be seen as cruel. Cleese pointed out that “the whole point about humour, the whole point about comedy … is that all comedy is critical ... If you start to say, ‘We mustn’t — we mustn’t criticise or offend them’, then humour is gone. With humour goes a sense of proportion. And then as far as I’m concerned, you’re living in 1984.”

Cleese, known for his hilarious capers as part of Monty Python and in Fawlty Towers, quoted psychologist Robin Skynner as saying that “if people can’t control their own emotions, then they need to start controlling other people’s behaviour”.

There’s nothing funny about that. To return freedom of speech to its rightful place as an empowering virtue, rather than an offending vice, we need to remove emotions from our laws. Let’s start with a small but important step and reform section 18C."
Click to expand...
18C was introduced to stop Holocaust denial and rabid anti-Semitic vilification. It wasn't brought in to stop feelings being hurt, it was to prevent the kind of proliferation of material that gave rise to pogroms and other kinds of violent discrimination seen in the first half of the 20th century.
 
coerced said:
18C was introduced to stop Holocaust denial and rabid anti-Semitic vilification. It wasn't brought in to stop feelings being hurt, it was to prevent the kind of proliferation of material that gave rise to pogroms and other kinds of violent discrimination seen in the first half of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

actually it was considered appropriate for the workplace but somehow not limited in the final drafts
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Educate_Savages said:
Political correctness is ruining my right to be a racist!!!1

Idiot.
Click to expand...

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news...rration-shows-18c-problem-and-must-be-changed

"The introduction of 18C was preceded by three significant independent inquiries: The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry, Multiculturalism and the Law.

None recommended the current law. Instead they recommended the law tackle racially based harassment, hostility and violence.

On these pages last year I proposed an alternative wording for the Tasmanian law, but this could equally apply to 18C.

Both section 17 of Tasmania's law and 18C of the federal law were built off a bad adaptation of workplace sexual harassment provisions under the federal Sex Discrimination Act.

They've reapplied the narrow definition of workplace sexual harassment and replicated it across all public acts."
 
Last edited:
Power Raid said:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news...rration-shows-18c-problem-and-must-be-changed

"The introduction of 18C was preceded by three significant independent inquiries: The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry, Multiculturalism and the Law."
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.
A piece written by Tim Wilson (as HR Commissioner) and published in The Australian about how 18C is bad.

Another of Abbott's F ups as PM putting that d!ckhead in charge of the Human Rights Commission.
 
Number37 said:
You can't be serious.
A piece written by Tim Wilson (as HR Commissioner) and published in The Australian about how 18C is bad.

Another of Abbott's F ups as PM putting that d!ckhead in charge of the Human Rights Commission.
Click to expand...

He may not be anyone's cup of tea but he's spot on with the origin of 18C
 
Power Raid said:
He may not be anyone's cup of tea but he's spot on with the origin of 18C
Click to expand...

He is a d!ckhead and should never have been anywhere near the HRC.
As anti-human rights as one can get.
Whatever his opinion on s18C it is premised solely on his political views and thus should be totally disregarded.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Father Jack said:
I'm not really sure what the 'left' are being accused of here.
Click to expand...
I think it is this.
The left want to allow anyone into the country.
The left don't want our jobs going overseas.
It is presented as hypocritical as the former indicates complete freedom, but the latter is nationalistic.
 
Jello_B said:
I think it is this.
The left want to allow anyone into the country.
The left don't want our jobs going overseas.
It is presented as hypocritical as the former indicates complete freedom, but the latter is nationalistic.
Click to expand...

Even if you are only capable of very shallow analysis you are way off which shows that your anti-left bent is premised on something you don't even understand.
 
Jello_B said:
I think it is this.
The left want to allow anyone into the country.
The left don't want our jobs going overseas.
It is presented as hypocritical as the former indicates complete freedom, but the latter is nationalistic.
Click to expand...

So the majority of people on the 'left' want to allow anyone into the country, and the majority of the people on the 'left' don't want our jobs going overseas (and by extension the 'right' have no problem with jobs disappearing to parts unknown)? Is that the situation?
 
Father Jack said:
So the majority of people on the 'left' want to allow anyone into the country, and the majority of the people on the 'left' don't want our jobs going overseas (and by extension the 'right' have no problem with jobs disappearing to parts unknown)? Is that the situation?
Click to expand...
That's what I could gather but don't quote me haha. Not sure about the 'right' extension though.
 
They’re terrified because they know they never won the argument on this issue and are perhaps understandably wary of opening themselves up to one. Leftists tend not to win any of their campaigns or conquests over the rest of us through reasoned debate, or even by building consensus. They win by making the views of anyone who disagrees with them socially unacceptable.

“I’m worried Malcolm Turnbull will just stuff it up,” Mr Shorten said. “He stuffed up the republic referendum….”

In poker playing parlance the reference to the Republic referendum is a large, flaming rotating red light of a tell.

The Left, including Malcolm Turnbull, have never quite recovered from the last time they put their dominance of the culture to a public vote.

In the 1999 Republic referendum every single newspaper in Australia recommended a Yes vote. Academia, the media, the establishment classes were united as one, it seemed impossible that the Left could lose.

Yet they did.
http://www.xyz.net.au/left-frightened-plebiscite/
 
Jello_B said:
I think it is this.
The left want to allow anyone into the country.
The left don't want our jobs going overseas.
It is presented as hypocritical as the former indicates complete freedom, but the latter is nationalistic.
Click to expand...

And yet if anyone says the Libs are to blame for off-shore processing, there is an immediate rebuttal that Labor did it too.

Are Labor 'left' anymore?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
6K
Saint
Saint
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25
Aristotle Pickett
Remove Sam Newman from the Hall of Fame petition.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
448
Views
15K
Chief
Chief
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
barreness
barreness
zeggie
  • Locked
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
2
Replies
29
Views
900
zeggie
zeggie
Chief
Tim Gurner: Tool of the Year, 2023 👽
Replies
16
Views
1K
PT Bar None
PT Bar None
darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
545
Rusty Brookes
R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top