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

[Rotayjay]

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

I wasn't referring to the student who used the N word, I was referring to the one who began the thread with 'just got kicked out ...' and the other who said 'Where's the white supremacist computer room?' Both were comments attempting to be humourous, based on the fact that the uni had an unsigned Indigenous computer room. The case against the N-word-using student was dismissed too, by the way.

 

[Power Raid]

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.


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.



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.


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

You do know the racial discrimination act is not just about race?

I think many don't appreciate that as they don't read any further than the title.



.....and no, 18d does not say that. I would happily support you, if that was the amendments you are proposing.

 

[Power Raid]

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?


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.

The government reviews have concluded it is discrimination and recommended the constitution changed.

Do you disagree with the government review that your behaviour and position has discriminated and as per the review concluded an unnecessary discrimination?

Out of interest, do you believe in the concept substance over form or the other way around?

 

[Todman]

I don't discriminate , I have standards.

 

[Power Raid]

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.

I tend to agree but at the same time his motivation may be to clear his name. The only way to achieve that is to go for the kill in a very public manner.

in the post above, by CM, it reads as if he said it (the N word) which suggests mud does stick. Does he get on with life with a tarnished brand or does he put the politician through the wringer to clear his name and ensure politicians appreciate the stress and pain caused by needless legal action?

 

[Chief]

I tend to agree but at the same time his motivation may be to clear his name. The only way to achieve that is to go for the kill in a very public manner.

in the post above, by CM, it reads as if he said it (the N word) which suggests mud does stick. Does he get on with life with a tarnished brand or does he put the politician through the wringer to clear his name and ensure politicians appreciate the stress and pain caused by needless legal action?

LNP is "supporting" him in his action. Without question he is getting special attention and encouragement.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

LNP is "supporting" him in his action. Without question he is getting special attention and encouragement.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

LNP? Do you have a link?

My punt would be newscorp

 

[medusala]

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.

That is utter nonsense. Giving offence is a completely arbitrary notion. As is good faith.

Likewise your point about the "right to say absolutely anything regardless of consequences" is piffle. How many times does it have to repeated that noone is arguing for absolute freedom of speech at the expense of property rights? Who are all these right wing sorts calling for defamation to be scrapped?

Its straw man after straw man in defence of this vile nonsense.

NB how do you reckon the mardi gras would go in Lakemba? Would all the gay blokes getting bashed be "asking for it"?

LNP is "supporting" him in his action. Without question he is getting special attention and encouragement.

I would be amazed if you arent right (and funding as well as encouragement)

 

[medusala]

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

His case is far more defendable in terms of wasting court time than that of those who had a crack at Bolt over his article. Lets put it that way.

 

[ralphmalph]

His case is far more defendable in terms of wasting court time than that of those who had a crack at Bolt over his article. Lets put it that way.

Bollocks. It was clear that it was open to Eaton et al to pursue Bolt in defamation.

By the way, who says property rights are sacrosanct?

 

[Moo]

His case is far more defendable in terms of wasting court time than that of those who had a crack at Bolt over his article. Lets put it that way.

Declare Meds ....turd or not in your opinion?

 

[Chief]

By the way, who says property rights are sacrosanct?

Popcorn.gif


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[medusala]

Bollocks. It was clear that it was open to Eaton et al to pursue Bolt in defamation.

By the way, who says property rights are sacrosanct?

So why did they choose 18c then? Pretty redundant piece of law then

Seriously? What sort of person doesn't believe property rights are sacrosanct outside of third world despots?

Declare Meds ....turd or not in your opinion?

Turd cubed. Turd upon turd. One would also hope that the individual who complained in the first place is dismissed given her statements about having to face white people and her dubious reasons for sick leave.

And yet people defend this stupidity. Its a very nasty stain on Australia.

 

[CM86]

You do know the racial discrimination act is not just about race?

You do know that in the question you keep avoiding actually answering directly, I stated racism, not discrimination.
But trying to get a straight answer out of you is like trying to catch a greased up weasel.

.....and no, 18d does not say that. I would happily support you, if that was the amendments you are proposing.

Without quoting the act or someone else, can you, in your own words, explain what 18D does say?

The government reviews have concluded it is discrimination and recommended the constitution changed.

Do you disagree with the government review that your behaviour and position has discriminated and as per the review concluded an unnecessary discrimination?

Out of interest, do you believe in the concept substance over form or the other way around?

Lots of questions to avoid answering mine. What a surprise.

Have you got a link to this review so I can have a look?

So, me questioning the PM's legibility to be the PM, when at the time it was possible that holding a dual citizenship meant that you might not be able to hold the position of PM, is discrimination. And you're comparing it to outright racism?

Do you think Gillard was discriminated against, and if so, how?
Why do you discriminate against unions? You think they do it, so it's only fair that you do it?

 

[Todman]

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.

For those of you who would like to read Calum Thwaites' reasons on why he rejected Terri Butler's apology here is the link.

http://www.xyz.net.au/watch-out-left-cry-racism-at-your-peril/

 

[Power Raid]

You do know that in the question you keep avoiding actually answering directly, I stated racism, not discrimination.
But trying to get a straight answer out of you is like trying to catch a greased up weasel.

please read the racial discrimination act, further than the title, and you will find the legislation is much broader than just race. Please, please read the act.

you will note much of our legislation, policies and constitution have enshrined racism and discrimination. Most of this has a historical bearing related to patriotism, nationalism, white australia policy, race riots, the treatment of aborigines, fear and the "need" to protect the australian way.

Many of these issues were relevant for the time and thinking at that time. However we have evolved but changing laws and constitutions is not easy, cheap or in some cases possible.

and yes you did refer to racism in your post but the issue at hand was clearly not racism as both were Indonesians. rather than highlight your mistake, and for the benefit of readers, the correct issue at hand related to discrimination in employment. Specifically the issue was where the person lived and then a secondary variable being the immigration status.

It should be noted in many RDAs around the world, it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on immigration status. In Australia, like many of our other laws, policies and constitution, we either enshrine discrimination or in this case silent on the issue. Legal advice received, specifically states care should be taken to avoid discrimination based on immigration status despite court rulings to the contrary to date. The reason being, it is not relevant to the persons ability to do the job.

Without quoting the act or someone else, can you, in your own words, explain what 18D does say?

I am sure you can google 18D and this is attested to you posting 18D in the past. Your comment of:

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

is factually incorrect and if it were correct, then we probably wouldn't being having the debate re 18C.

18D is too limited as the wording requires a positive test. In short one has to prove it was artistic, public interest, genuine academic interest, scientific, fair report of public interest (not just a fair report), fair comment of genuine held belief. Changing the legislation to your proposal, would completely simplify the act. GOOD SUGGESTION!

 

[Power Raid]

Lots of questions to avoid answering mine. What a surprise.

Have you got a link to this review so I can have a look?

I have posted this many times in the past


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

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

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

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


and no link as it is a word doc final report of the constitutional commission 1988 - We recommend that sections 44(i.) and 44(iii.) and 45(ii.) be omitted and not replaced.
http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/s44-constitution.htm

So, me questioning the PM's legibility to be the PM, when at the time it was possible that holding a dual citizenship meant that you might not be able to hold the position of PM, is discrimination. And you're comparing it to outright racism?

unnecessary discrimination is exactly that........unnecessary. We need to discriminate in a number of circumstances and this despite being necessary may be offensive.

The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to reduce or stop unnecessary discrimination.

Do you think Gillard was discriminated against, and if so, how?
Why do you discriminate against unions? You think they do it, so it's only fair that you do it?

you really do struggle with the concept of discrimination.

Gillard was very vocal and complained of discrimination based on her sex. So yes, I take her comments in good faith and accept she felt discriminated against.

I don't discriminate against people who are part of a union, as legally that is a breach. I do strongly advocate people not join unions, especially the unions known for association with criminal activity like the CFMEU and maritime union.

 

[CM86]

please read the racial discrimination act, further than the title, and you will find the legislation is much broader than just race. Please, please read the act.

I've read the act, and I've schooled you on it plenty of times.
Why are you saying I need to read the act, in response to my question?
I'll post it again because as with most things... you're lost.

Do you think it's racist for a person of any race, living in Australia, to be employed ahead of another person of the exact same race, not living in Australia?

If yes, how?

For example. Hiring an Indonesian who lives in Australia, ahead of an Indonesian who lives in Indonesia. Is that racist? If yes, how?
​

And I see how me asking you to explain 18D in your own words... had you reply with telling me to google 18D...

The reason you do this boring avoidance is because you know how weak your position is.
You get called out for your lack of knowledge, and pretend it's someone else that had the lapse.

 

[Power Raid]

I've read the act, and I've schooled you on it plenty of times.
Why are you saying I need to read the act, in response to my question?
I'll post it again because as with most things... you're lost.

Do you think it's racist for a person of any race, living in Australia, to be employed ahead of another person of the exact same race, not living in Australia?

If yes, how?

For example. Hiring an Indonesian who lives in Australia, ahead of an Indonesian who lives in Indonesia. Is that racist? If yes, how?​

​

and yes you did refer to racism in your post but the issue at hand was clearly not racism as both were Indonesians. rather than highlight your mistake, and for the benefit of readers, the correct issue at hand related to discrimination in employment. Specifically the issue was where the person lived and then a secondary variable being the immigration status.

It should be noted in many RDAs around the world, it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on immigration status. In Australia, like many of our other laws, policies and constitution, we either enshrine discrimination or in this case silent on the issue. Legal advice received, specifically states care should be taken to avoid discrimination based on immigration status despite court rulings to the contrary to date. The reason being, it is not relevant to the persons ability to do the job.

And I see how me asking you to explain 18D in your own words... had you reply with telling me to google 18D...

The reason you do this boring avoidance is because you know how weak your position is.
You get called out for your lack of knowledge, and pretend it's someone else that had the lapse.

Your comment of:

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

is factually incorrect and if it were correct, then we probably wouldn't being having the debate re 18C.

18D is too limited as the wording requires a positive test. In short one has to prove it was artistic, public interest, genuine academic interest, scientific, fair report of public interest (not just a fair report), fair comment of genuine held belief. Changing the legislation to your proposal, would completely simplify the act. GOOD SUGGESTION!

 

[Chief]

​

and yes you did refer to racism in your post but the issue at hand was clearly not racism as both were Indonesians. rather than highlight your mistake, and for the benefit of readers, the correct issue at hand related to discrimination in employment. Specifically the issue was where the person lived and then a secondary variable being the immigration status.

It should be noted in many RDAs around the world, it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on immigration status. In Australia, like many of our other laws, policies and constitution, we either enshrine discrimination or in this case silent on the issue. Legal advice received, specifically states care should be taken to avoid discrimination based on immigration status despite court rulings to the contrary to date. The reason being, it is not relevant to the persons ability to do the job.



Your comment of:

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

is factually incorrect and if it were correct, then we probably wouldn't being having the debate re 18C.

18D is too limited as the wording requires a positive test. In short one has to prove it was artistic, public interest, genuine academic interest, scientific, fair report of public interest (not just a fair report), fair comment of genuine held belief. Changing the legislation to your proposal, would completely simplify the act. GOOD SUGGESTION!

Wait you want 18D changed now? What about 18C?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GuruJane]

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.

Rubbish. Terri Butler needs to read that apology out on live national television before a Q and A audience on before it can be accepted. And she should put it into her own vernacular first, not a lawyers.

 

[Moo]

Rubbish. Terri Butler needs to read that apology out on live national television before a Q and A audience on before it can be accepted. And she should put it into her own vernacular first, not a lawyers.

Have you seen the apology?

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Rubbish. Terri Butler needs to read that apology out on live national television before a Q and A audience on before it can be accepted. And she should put it into her own vernacular first, not a lawyers.

As the kids say......LOL


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

Wait you want 18D changed now? What about 18C?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I have been consistent in my position

 

[Chief]

I have been consistent in my position

I don't know what your position is now.

You said the current threshold for 18C is fine, it's just the words that need changing.

Now 18D is wrong?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app