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

[kwikfix]

Nah? is that the best you can do? One day you will have to expand on your replies or give yourself a red card.

 

[Chief]

Nah? is that the best you can do? One day you will have to expand on your replies or give yourself a red card.

Nah.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

All that to return to your "threshold is too low" theory.

If all it takes is a word change - a change which will not affect the application of the law - to stop the racist cartoons then they should go ahead and do it.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

You do appreciate this is what many have been calling?

What did you think the debate was about?

 

[Chief]

You do appreciate this is what many have been calling?

What did you think the debate was about?

Raising the threshold. But now I see that you don't want to raise the threshold I'm fine with it.

Nothing will change legally and the pointless, incessant whining will stop.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lebbo73]

Nah.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah...... 4 letters is greater than 3. I win!

 

[JackOutback]

Bullshit chief! Bill leak was provoking debate about a problem that has for to long been swept under the carpet. You and your ilk are part of the problem.

Bullshit. The problems in indigenous communities are well known and plenty of people are working to solve them. Lazy stereotypes do nothing to provoke debate but does plenty to provide succour to intellectually lazy people.

 

[Moo]

Bullshit. The problems in indigenous communities are well known and plenty of people are working to solve them. Lazy stereotypes do nothing to provoke debate but does plenty to provide succour to intellectually lazy people.

Firstly, I don't think the s**t that is going on is well known....I'm currently up north and I'd say most metro Aussies have NFI of how big these problems are and whatever we are doing it's not enough/not working.

Where I agree with you- if Leak has set out to raise debate on this point- well he has failed miserably with his shitty, unfunny & basically easy target cartoon. It wasn't thought provoking - just pandering to a fixed audience who just want to believe it's all their own fault.

However all this 18C crap has done is give him more of a platform.

Personally I don't think this is racial discrimination that warrants Govt interaction. Leak remains a *head of the highest proportion and in my freedom of expression a racist preaching most likely to other racists.

I'll not spend 1c on his paper until he's gone - that's my personal protest.

 

[kwikfix]

Bill Leak a racist ? Listen to this from the 2.30 minute mark.
http://www.6pr.com.au/news/leak-vindication-20161021-gs7rby.html

 

[Moo]

Bill Leak a racist ? Listen to this from the 2.30 minute mark.
http://www.6pr.com.au/news/leak-vindication-20161021-gs7rby.html

So when do we expect the cartoon of a Police Commissioner and his meth addict son?

It is not exclusively an indigenous problem and it's shitty and insulting to the majority of loving indigenous parents.

As a Police Commissioner the fact that he has willingly stepped into this minefield says more about him than Leak.

Discuss the problem but don't be divisive- especially when you are in such an important position.

 

[kwikfix]

Did you listen to the whole interview ?

 

[Todman]

Did you listen to the whole interview ?

Don't be silly,
attention span 30 seconds tops.

 

[Moo]

Did you listen to the whole interview ?

Yes.

 

[Moo]

Don't be silly,
attention span 30 seconds tops.

Another valuable contribution to the debate.

 

[medusala]

Fact-free zone, indeed.

Unfortunately like Wilson and his report evidence is hardly a prerequisite for the hand wringers.

Terri Butler was out of line with the facts of the case. Good on the kid for taking her to task for it. Then she whines about hypocrisy!

One wonders how far up the greasy pole she got at Mauries.

 

[medusala]

They're lucky, a less judicious person might have just kicked their heads in for using that word. Hope they learned their lesson.

Stay classy.

 

[Moo]

Unfortunately like Wilson and his report evidence is hardly a prerequisite for the hand wringers.

Terri Butler was out of line with the facts of the case. Good on the kid for taking her to task for it. Then she whines about hypocrisy!

One wonders how far up the greasy pole she got at Mauries.

Yep but he's got the apology- now he's just being an attention whoring dickhead by wasting everyone's time....not to win just to be in the spotlight.

 

[medusala]

Yep but he's got the apology

Imagine getting called a paedo by a paper, then having a small apology on p2. I doubt you would be chuffed.

As for spotlight, i would be surprised if his case wasn't being funded by others. Lets hope taxpayers don't have to fund that of hers.

 

[Moo]

Imagine getting called a paedo by a paper, then having a small apology on p2. I doubt you would be chuffed.

As for spotlight, i would be surprised if his case wasn't being funded by others. Lets hope taxpayers don't have to fund that of hers.

True but he wasn't called a pedo just an insinuation that his MO could be to lie about the racist incident and he got a letter not a page 2 retraction.

I understand why he hit back, however to take it to court whilst simultaneously preaching free speech...sorry dickhead factor is high.

 

[medusala]

I understand why he hit back, however to take it to court whilst simultaneously preaching free speech...sorry dickhead factor is high.

That's her stupid line. Free speech has never been absolute and noone argues for that. It's long been subject to property rights.

You can't just run around falsely accusing people of being thieves, paedos, liars etc. There is zero hypocrisy in believing in protection of both property rights and free speech.

 

[Moo]

That's her stupid line. Free speech has never been absolute and noone argues for that. It's long been subject to property rights.

You can't just run around falsely accusing people of being thieves, paedos, liars etc. There is zero hypocrisy in believing in protection of both property rights and free speech.

No it's my line.

He talks tough but what's his MO here - causing trouble, misusing the courts and being a little turd.

Feel free to defend him but I can't help but think this is based on your political view - I'd be kicking him if he was wasting time like this regardless of colour, religion etc.

 

[Gough]

Stay classy.

Take a stroll through Brixton, and call someone a n*****, I reckon you'd prefer a long, and drawn out court case to what they'd dish out to you. This whole issue is about consevatives taking umbrage at being asked to take some responsibility for words, and actions, nobody, nobody at all has been able to articulate a case as to what they might want say that is being prevented by this law, all we hear is whinging about freedom of speech like it's the right to say absolutely anything regardless of consequences.

 

[CM86]

yes if the reason for the decision was solely the location of where the person lived.

any discrimination not relevant to the persons ability to do the job is discrimination.

In Australia, we have institutionalised discrimination in our constitution, laws and policies such as the right to work. We have done this for a variety of reasons in history which included stopping aborigines from voting, preventing white mans money going to black (tax distributions to the states), the famous recognising aborigines change in the constitution was really a con to allow special treatment like food stamps instead of the dole for aborigines, allegiance concepts for politicians and protectionism or labour.


In your example we can consider whether the person discriminated against has the right to work in Australia or not separately but before we do let's look at the difference between the US and Australia. In the US their discrimination acts specifically covers this issue and makes it illegal to ask the individual of their nation of origin and immigration status. In Australia we allow discrimination to protect the labour force.

The history behind this is, in Australia we had a number of race riots where Australians killed or attacked italians and chinese for taking white people's jobs. The government in response had little choice but to enshrine racsim or face being voted out. As a result we introduced the white Australia policy and enshrined employment laws blocking the right to work and thus we can discriminate based on protectionist policy where the US can't. but just because legally you can discriminate, it doesn't mean it's not discrimination.



Further certain other examples have come up for debate recently such as the dual citizenship issue, for politicians. The government reviews have concluded this is discrimination, this is discrimination not relevant to the job and recommended changes to the constitution to reflect modern Australia. but as you'd appreciate this requires a costly referendum and could be divisive and ugly as it drags out the racists like yourself who were quick to jump on Abbott for his dual citizenship. This is extremely relevant as it highlights how hard it would be to remove unnecessary discrimination from the fabric of our society.



Please remember I am not suggesting discrimination isn't a part of life. In fact I think discrimination is necessary in certain circumstances. What I am suggesting is discrimination, necessary or not, is offensive. As such how can we have a threshold so low in 18c, yet have the hypocrisy of racism and discrimination enshrined in our constitution, our laws and our policies? Governments need to be more accountable than individuals, not less.

Thanks for the long drawn out reply that didn't actually answer the question.

I asked if you thought it was racist. And if yes how.
Not if it was discrimination.
We are talking about the Racial Discrimination Act.

We've already established that you think discrimination is picking one thing instead of another. The literal definition of discrimination.

"Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another"​

So under your terms. Anyone who is married, is discriminating. They've chosen one person over everyone else. You claim to be married, so you are discriminating.
If I buy a coke instead of a pepsi I am discriminating.
If I shop at Coles instead of Woolies, I am discriminating, and you think they can haul me to court under the RDA.

Your stance is ridiculous.

You add "I am not suggesting discrimination isn't a part of life" "I think discrimination is necessary in certain circumstances". Which actually contradicts your whole position.

any discrimination not relevant to the persons ability to do the job is discrimination.

So it's discrimination if I hire an Indonesian mechanic, who lives next to my Car repair shop. Instead of sorting out a visa, flying in, finding accommodation, settling and then hiring an Indonesian who lives in Indonesia?

Of the two people, if I pick one instead of the other, it's discrimination. Regardless of who I pick.
That's how substance-less your position is. But you seem to think you're on to a winner.

What I am suggesting is discrimination, necessary or not, is offensive. As such how can we have a threshold so low in 18c

Because we have 18D that states that it has to be done deliberately to insult.
Not just because someone finds it upsetting.

You really should read the act, because it doesn't seem to matter how many times you've been shown 18D, you still always seem to forget about it.
Almost like you know you don't have a leg to stand on, so you're consciously avoiding it.

Governments need to be more accountable than individuals, not less.

So Joe Smith up the road is more accountable than the Government?
Bullshit.

 

[CM86]

I find the word unnecessary and offensive but

What penalty would you deem necessary based on your discrimination of dual citizenship status?

My discrimination of dual citizenship status? Please point out my discrimination.

Oh, are you talking about Abbot, our former PM, being a dual citizen while he was our PM? Where there was speculation that he would have to have stepped down as PM because you can't be a dual citizen while also being the Prime Minister?

I'd say that about all PMs who had dual citizenship in the same situation. How am I discriminating?

Further how many of the boys used that word and how many ended up going through the process?

I was replying to the post about how they were all factual statements. Is that all you've got? To try and twist it into something else? Meh.

As far as I know, wasn't he the one who's parents paid a settlement?
The costs that everyone keeps referring to. Wasn't it him, that paid anything? And it's because he used that word to describe Aboriginals?

Several went through the process, because there was a failure in the system, not because of the system.
They were not alerted to the case in time to respond. So it was defaulted to the next stage.
If the system had worked properly, they would have received the notice, responded, and had it all thrown out.
Instead of it being all thrown out at a later date as it was.

 

[CM86]

The 'N-word' comment was by far the worst of the three - but why should the others have been dragged through the mud for three years? They were lucky they got free legal representation to defend this frivoulous case against them.

Wait, you knew about that comment when you called it "an honest opinion based on a fact"???

 

[Freo Big Fella]

You can't just run around falsely accusing people of being thieves, paedos, liars etc. There is zero hypocrisy in believing in protection of both property rights and free speech.

Hilarious. Poor old moneyed-up delicate flowers like Chris Kenny and Joe Hockey using the courts for a handout because they're a bit embarrassed by comedians and/or journos.

You'd be screaming from the rooftops if some no-name did the same thing through the HRC.