Section 18C and D - Freedom of speech is doing as well as can be expected.

[remember54]

I'm not suggesting minorities should rely upon defamation. I'm suggesting that 18C thresholds are too low and 18D defences are too limited meaning the government and the law have unnecessary broaden their power to become the thought police.

In a healthy society there is an equal obligation on people to be considerate (not be offensive) as there is to be tolerant (not be offended). No doubt we have all learned this growing up with family and close friends where boundaries are crossed as the normal course of life. Just like in families, there is no need for the government to get involved in trivial matters like someone being offensive/ offended. It is the responsibility of individuals to resolve these matters.

Intimidation etc is a completely reasonable threshold and sarcasm should be a perfectly reasonable defence.

Yes, I think we're largely in agreement as to the need to set a balance, and I'm personally not fussed if the words 'insult' and 'offend' were removed from s 18C. The HRC also needs to do a better job picking cases with merit, rather than wasting government money whenever someone has a sook at a Bill Leak cartoon or a Facebook comment with the word 'segregation' in it.

However, I'm not supportive of arguments (of some people) to remove the Act entirely, since it's a useful alternative action for people who can't afford a defamation suit. Section 18D is also pretty robust in providing a defence for discussion of issues - Bolt lost his case primarily because he made up a bunch of s**t rather than for anything he was saying regarding handing out scholarships and grants to middle class Aboriginals.

is satire a defence?

It sure is:

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith ... (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest

 

[Power Raid]

Yes, I think we're largely in agreement as to the need to set a balance, and I'm personally not fussed if the words 'insult' and 'offend' were removed from s 18C. The HRC also needs to do a better job picking cases with merit, rather than wasting government money whenever someone has a sook at a Bill Leak cartoon or a Facebook comment with the word 'segregation' in it.

However, I'm not supportive of arguments (of some people) to remove the Act entirely, since it's a useful alternative action for people who can't afford a defamation suit. Section 18D is also pretty robust in providing a defence for discussion of issues - Bolt lost his case primarily because he made up a bunch of s**t rather than for anything he was saying regarding handing out scholarships and grants to middle class Aboriginals.



It sure is:

100% agree

 

[Chief]

you don't think it is discrimination?
you don't think it is offensive?
you believe it is in the public interest as somehow an individuals allegiance, morals or judgement changes based on an administration process and a piece of paper?

com'n Chief

Even if someone shouts "oh noes, I was not let into Australia because I have no visa, dat is dicriminayshun!" they don't fall under 18C.

You're trying to call immigration laws hypocrisy due to the RDA.

Relevant immigration Act sorts that out.

They don't have standing to sue under this Act. Being offended at the fair application of immigration laws falls short of what is required.

My neighbour is a vegan Hindu, and wants a clean barbecue plate to cook his vege burgers. Discrimination! I am teh hurt! What is wrong with the plate I cooked meat on? Racist!

 

[CM86]

why do you think it is relevant given it is a breach of the law to be asked this question in a job interview?

So, knowing that you cannot show that it is hypocritical, you're now trying to be more obscure.


You made the statement. Back it up.

As usual, you can't.

Now we are talking about some question in a job interview...

Go back to you Bad Setanta alias.

 

[Chief]

Yes, I think we're largely in agreement as to the need to set a balance, and I'm personally not fussed if the words 'insult' and 'offend' were removed from s 18C.

Thing is, this would be cosmetic as the words are defined either in the Act itself or by judicial interpretation later.

Getting annoyed that the local shop doesn't stock African foods is not a high enough level of offence.

In other Acts an "offender" could be anything from a parking law violator to a murderer.

 

[remember54]

Thing is, this would be cosmetic as the words are defined either in the Act itself or by judicial interpretation later.

Getting annoyed that the local shop doesn't stock African foods is not a high enough level of offence.

I agree on this as well - I think I wrote earlier that while there's room to tweak the Act, I don't see it as so pressing that we need to waste time and legislative effort changing it.

If there was case after case of people being hauled through the courts for stupid reasons (i.e. many more examples of QUT) I think there would be a more pressing need to tighten the threshold so that people can't make (stupid) claims in the first place. But for now, the only examples of the RDA failing in this respect is the QUT matter (which I hope will result in the plaintiff being forced to cover all the legal costs of the defendants)

 

[CM86]

I agree on this as well - I think I wrote earlier that while there's room to tweak the Act, I don't see it as so pressing that we need to waste time and legislative effort changing it.

If there was case after case of people being hauled through the courts for stupid reasons (i.e. many more examples of QUT) I think there would be a more pressing need to tighten the threshold so that people can't make (stupid) claims in the first place. But for now, the only examples of the RDA failing in this respect is the QUT matter (which I hope will result in the plaintiff being forced to cover all the legal costs of the defendants)

Don't forget, the only reason the QUT one got so far, was because the process wasn't followed properly.
If it had been implemented properly.
So the QUT situation isn't an example of the RDA failing, it's an example of human error, not following the system properly.

 

[remember54]

Don't forget, the only reason the QUT one got so far, was because the process wasn't followed properly.
If it had been implemented properly.
So the QUT situation isn't an example of the RDA failing, it's an example of human error, not following the system properly.

How did they screw the whole thing up? I've read articles that make clear how ridiculous the whole thing was, but they never explained how the process was undermined along the way

 

[FredLeDeux]

I agree on this as well - I think I wrote earlier that while there's room to tweak the Act, I don't see it as so pressing that we need to waste time and legislative effort changing it.

If there was case after case of people being hauled through the courts for stupid reasons (i.e. many more examples of QUT) I think there would be a more pressing need to tighten the threshold so that people can't make (stupid) claims in the first place. But for now, the only examples of the RDA failing in this respect is the QUT matter (which I hope will result in the plaintiff being forced to cover all the legal costs of the defendants)

Including the one who posted "ITT N....rs"?

 

[CM86]

How did they screw the whole thing up? I've read articles that make clear how ridiculous the whole thing was, but they never explained how the process was undermined along the way

Basically, once they receive the complaint, they contact the other party/parties, to inform them of the complaint and hear their side/response. If they don't respond, or don't get a valid account, then it can proceed past mediation straight to court.

They didn't contact the parties until I think the day of the deadline, so it was moved forward instead of being chucked out.

 

[Power Raid]

Your absurd arguments collapse because they are based (again) on your own idiosyncratic and factually incorrect interpretation of the RDA.

The Courts have expressly ruled that acts of discrimination or vilification on the basis of nationality or citizenship are not the same thing as acts based on "national origin" and are not prohibited by the RDA.

The prohibition on foreign citizens sitting as MPs is enshrined in the Constitution; it is not discriminatory, it is simply based on the principle that an MP's loyalties should be to Australia, and that a man cannot serve two masters.

Bruce Ruxton of the RSL shares your view but do people have allegiance to any nation let alone two?

two masters for citizens

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...rary/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0001/01CIB05

"The Committee, chaired by Labor Senator Jim McKiernan, recommended the repeal of section 17, on the grounds that it was both outmoded and discriminatory. The Committee rejected the 'allegiance' argument on the grounds that there was little evidence to suggest a lack of loyalty amongst those Australians who hadn't relinquished their former nationalities."

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...rary/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0001/01CIB05

This was repealed as it only required passage through the upper and lower house



two masters for politicians

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...rary/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0001/01CIB05

"An issue of dual citizenship of particular interest to parliamentarians is section 44 of the Australian Constitution, which provides for the disqualification of intending Members of Parliament or Senators who hold the citizenship of another country. This issue was explored by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal And Constitutional Affairs in 1997,(1) and most recently by the High Court of Australia in the Heather Hill case.(2) This issue is not addressed in this paper, except to note that the Australian Citizenship Council has argued that dual citizenship should be allowed for parliamentarians as well as for other Australian citizens, and that another measure of their loyalty to Australia-besides single citizenship-should be found."

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...rary/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0001/01CIB05

this was not repealed as it requires a referendum to change the constitution


The legal advice provided to our HR departments is they can not ask about citizenship status unless it is relevant to the job. It is important to highlight that the reasons why one may have to ask this information is because discrimination is institutionalised in our laws limiting employment opportunities to non-citizens. If it is not relevant, then it is unlawful to ask about ones citizenship status.

In the Abbott case, it is fair and reasonable to hold him to account for his poor performance but it is clearly discriminatory to call him out on his dual nationality.

At his job interview (the election) he was found by the electorate to be a suitable candidate and that his policies and conduct attested to his allegiance to Australia and office. Yet somehow his dual nationality brought this into question. This is definitely a case of people wanting to see form over substance. Or more bluntly blatant discrimination, as the question was not relevant to situation. This position is supported by politicians and parliament who will not call for action under s44.

 

[Power Raid]

https://www.adcq.qld.gov.au/resources/guidelines/discrimination-in-employment

Case study:
When Tranh attended an interview for a sales position he was asked about his citizenship, the size and whereabouts of his family and his religious beliefs. Sometimes employers need to ask about citizenship because it is a legal requirement of the job. However, the position Tranh had applied for had no such legal requirement. Furthermore, although the interview panel did not comment on his responses to the personal questions Tranh thought the questions were discriminatory. It is against the law to ask for unnecessary information during interviews. Details of Tranh's family and his religious beliefs make no difference to Tranh's capacity to do the job. Tranh could make a complaint of discrimination.

 

[Gough]

If Abbott was/is a dual national he's ineligible for the job under law, it's no different to me being not being able to become US President on account of not being born there. It has nothing to do with either discrimination, or the RDA.

 

[Power Raid]

If Abbott was/is a dual national he's ineligible for the job under law, it's no different to me being not being able to become US President on account of not being born there. It has nothing to do with either discrimination, or the RDA.

exactly Gough. That is my point, that we institutionalise discrimination. Albeit many of these were institutionalised during a period where discrimination was far more acceptable.

This institutionalised discrimination is offensive and this then raises the question why the bar is set so low in 18C.

 

[CM86]

exactly Gough. That is my point, that we institutionalise discrimination. Albeit many of these were institutionalised during a period where discrimination was far more acceptable.

This institutionalised discrimination is offensive and this then raises the question why the bar is set so low in 18C.

Lol.

Yeah, questioning if our Prime Minister is a dual citizen is 'institutionalised discrimination'.
You're clutching at so many straws, so rapidly, you're likely to start a fire.

So, knowing full well what 18d states.
How does supporting the RDA, but questioning if Abbott was a single or dual citizen...make me hypocritical?

State specifically how it is so.

 

[Chief]

exactly Gough. That is my point, that we institutionalise discrimination. Albeit many of these were institutionalised during a period where discrimination was far more acceptable.

This institutionalised discrimination is offensive and this then raises the question why the bar is set so low in 18C.

Offensive to who?

You keep repeating this silliness no matter how often the law is explained.

You're just trolling now, IMO.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

Offensive to who?

You keep repeating this silliness no matter how often the law is explained.

You're just trolling now, IMO.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

offensive to the person discriminated against

 

[Power Raid]

Lol.

Yeah, questioning if our Prime Minister is a dual citizen is 'institutionalised discrimination'.
You're clutching at so many straws, so rapidly, you're likely to start a fire.

So, knowing full well what 18d states.
How does supporting the RDA, but questioning if Abbott was a single or dual citizen...make me hypocritical?

State specifically how it is so.

perhaps you could explain how institutionised discrimination is any less offensive than an individual's act or language which discriminates? especially given an individual's impact is most likely less than the state.

 

[Number37]

perhaps you could explain how institutionised discrimination is any less offensive than an individual's act or language which discriminates? especially given an individual's impact is most likely less than the state.

Going by your logic section 18 of the Crimes Act discriminates against murderers.

 

[CM86]

perhaps you could explain how institutionised discrimination is any less offensive than an individual's act or language which discriminates? especially given an individual's impact is most likely less than the state.

Perhaps you could explain how supporting the RDA and questioning Abbott's dual-citizenship, is hypocritical...
You know... the statement you made, that I've been asking you to back up for a couple of pages now...

Let me show you how idiotic your logic is.
'People claiming rape, are discriminating. No one should be able to say no to sex, because it is discrimination.'

 

[Gough]

PR, as a supporter of OSB, and our strong border policy, how do you reconcile this crap you're dribbling, and your support for a policy that clearly discriminates against a certain group of people, and prevents them from settling here? I mean surely you must support an open border policy, otherwise there's discrimination going on, and clearly you're Dr. King when it comes to fighting that sort of thing.

 

[pazza]

The aforementioned Mr. Leak got served by the RTBU.

 

[Power Raid]

PR, as a supporter of OSB, and our strong border policy, how do you reconcile this crap you're dribbling, and your support for a policy that clearly discriminates against a certain group of people, and prevents them from settling here? I mean surely you must support an open border policy, otherwise there's discrimination going on, and clearly you're Dr. King when it comes to fighting that sort of thing.

I have been very consistent on this matter and as disclosed there is a need to discriminate in life. The reasons for wanting a controlled immigration policy, rather than an uncontrolled policy, have been discussed in other threads.

Regardless of reason though, discrimination is offensive and I accept my position on boats will offend. What the left can't seem to get their head around is their policy discriminates and offends.

Now apply this acceptance that discrimination is institutionalised for what ever reason in our constitution, IR laws, immigration etc. Then accept or don't accept that this will offend those that are discriminated against or others.

Then ask oneself why should 18C stand with words like "offend". why is an individual or corporation any different to government, especially when governments have done more harm with discriminating policy than any individual.

 

[Power Raid]

Perhaps you could explain how supporting the RDA and questioning Abbott's dual-citizenship, is hypocritical...
You know... the statement you made, that I've been asking you to back up for a couple of pages now...

Let me show you how idiotic your logic is.
'People claiming rape, are discriminating. No one should be able to say no to sex, because it is discrimination.'

Parliament has suggested that discrimination based on citizenship is discriminatory and lead to the changes of s17 of the australian citizenship act. this was easily repealed as it only needed to pass the two houses of parliament.

Some people who were against the repeal cited that you can have only one allegiance where common sense suggests this was an antiquated and outdated view.

Similarly we have s44 in our constitution which was drafted in a time where unnecessary discrimination was an accepted part of life. After all, who would want some foreigner running the country....right? As foreign citizens are incapable of such jobs......right?

Unfortunately this requires constitutional change which entails an expensive referendum. It would also create debate which would be divisive as it highlights our institutionalised racism and of course mobilise racists in our community that feel foreign citizens do not have the same rights or capabilities as Australian citizens.


http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm

The meaning and scope of the provisions are unclear and their effects discriminate unfairly against some potential candidates. In the Committees view there is a clear need to address the problems inherent in the provisions…

The likelihood of a referendum being held on section 44 of the Constitution alone is probably remote, but in the context of the forthcoming Constitutional Convention, and other recent debates on the contemporary relevance of the Constitution, it is possible that amendments to section 44 could be put to the people as part of a larger package of reforms. Whatever the pathway to constitutional change, it would appear from the deliberations of this Committee that there is a real possibility of bipartisan political support for amendments to section 44 of the Constitution.

http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm



after all of that how is it hypocritical?

1) you feel it is OK to discriminate on a criteria not relevant to the ability of Abbott to do his job.
2) discrimination is offensive
3) 18C low thresholds of discrimination as it includes the word offensive
4) definition of hypocritical - pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually posses

 

[Number37]

I have been very consistent on this matter and as disclosed there is a need to discriminate in life. The reasons for wanting a controlled immigration policy, rather than an uncontrolled policy, have been discussed in other threads.

Regardless of reason though, discrimination is offensive and I accept my position on boats will offend. What the left can't seem to get their head around is their policy discriminates and offends.

Now apply this acceptance that discrimination is institutionalised for what ever reason in our constitution, IR laws, immigration etc. Then accept or don't accept that this will offend those that are discriminated against or others.

Then ask oneself why should 18C stand with words like "offend". why is an individual or corporation any different to government, especially when governments have done more harm with discriminating policy than any individual.

18D makes it clear that it is OK to talk about why people may by different but draws the line at allowing people to say stuff that is said for no reason other than to insult, intimidate, offend, humiliate them because of their differences. (18C)