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

[FredLeDeux]

Why's that?

Because there was never any serious suggestion that they had breached the existing 18C *.

The problems were that
- the HRC considered that it did not have the legal power to dismiss the claim as frivolous and was therefore required to go through the mediation process,
- it is possible that the HRC botched and delayed their process, due to confusion over whether they should be dealing with the individual or the QUT as claimant,
- the claimant was utterly recalcitrant, resistant to any reasonable mediation, and determined to push on with court action even after the HRC rightfully (as required when mediation fails) dropped out (and there was more than a hint of mental/psychological issues on her part), and
- the lawyers backing the students "free of charge" seemed to be, presumably for political and publicity purposes, only too happy to keep the balls spinning with counterclaims and cross-proceedings, followed by the pursuit of the claimant (and even her solicitor) for their massive "free of charge" costs, all the time barracked on by the Murdoch press.

You might say it was the perfect storm.

* with the possible exception of the bloke whose facebook?/twitter? a/c sent a message "ITT N***ers"; but he said his a/c was hacked, and the Court appears to have simply accepted this on his say-so.

 

[Lethality]

Because there was never any serious suggestion that they had breached the existing 18C *.

Wouldn't they have escaped even the charge under the new wording as opposed to the old one?

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[Power Raid]

How does the status of 18C affect the average middle class Australian?

Hint hint, it doesn't, which makes idiots like Abetz seem even more stupid in calling it a 'BBQ stopper' or whatever. 18C doesn't change incomes, schooling or the economy, things people actually care about. People who bag on about 18C please tell me how its status or a change of status will positively change your own personal life. Note that I don't necessarily have an opinion either way on 18C, but I just think that, like gay marriage, it is debated way more than its actual importance dictates.

That's a sad way to determine what is important or not important.

So the litmus test for running a nation is BBQ conversations?

 

[JackOutback]

That's a sad way to determine what is important or not important.

So the litmus test for running a nation is BBQ conversations?

How about the hypocrisy test? There are Aboriginal people in jail for offensive language right now. So swearing at a police officer is a jailable offence but racial abuse should be fine and dandy? Speech has never been free, the argument is what society should be willing to accept. Frankly, I'd rather not accept racist kents.

 

[Power Raid]

How about the hypocrisy test? There are Aboriginal people in jail for offensive language right now. So swearing at a police officer is a jailable offence but racial abuse should be fine and dandy? Speech has never been free, the argument is what society should be willing to accept. Frankly, I'd rather not accept racist kents.

It's a shame you only see the racist element as the issue at hand rather than bringing harmony between our laws, the "open to abuse" evidenced by QUT and the interpretation aspect bringing this to an ever narrowing social standard.

I'd also prefer to know who the kents are and what they're thinking. Like Maggie and her views on foreigners wanting the same opportunities to work as Australians.

 

[Gough]

QUT, and Leak are the two cases commonly cited as evidence of the need to change this law. Is that it, are we changing a law on the basis of two examples of it not being applied correctly? Because there have to be plenty of other statutes on the book that are worth revisiting if this is all it takes.

 

[Lethality]

QUT, and Leak are the two cases commonly cited as evidence of the need to change this law. Is that it, are we changing a law on the basis of two examples of it not being applied correctly? Because there have to be plenty of other statutes on the book that are worth revisiting if this is all it takes.

They're not the only two, but it's also confusion over the language, and concern that it is too vague. These concerns are voiced by liberals and conservatives alike.

 

[Northalives]

It would've saved the QUT students a harrowing experience. I also haven't heard any arguments against the new words, just the removal of the old ones. On the other hand there was a lot of concern about the old/current wording, including by the head of the Human Rights Commission.

Harrowing experience! What a load of crap!

Some idiot brought a complaint about them and that complaint was laughed out of court and set the precedence that such frivolous complaints had a snow ball's chance in hell of succeeding so don't even think about it but the knuckleheads, who want carte blanche to say whatever vile racist and bigoted things they desire, they latched onto a non event and turned in a cause célèbre.

What is it that you can now not say under the law as it stands? The law as it stands has been tested in court and is being tested every time a complaint is brought forward and precedences are set. We have a very good idea of what the words offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate mean because they have been tested in the court but now, those champing at the bit to get stuck into anyone and everyone that does not suit their particular dogma, can't wait to have the words 'insult', 'humiliate' and 'offend' replaced by HARASS so they can racially abuse people, call Muslims all sorts, Aboriginals all sorts, call Homosexuals pedophiles, you name it, they want to do it and if anyone wants to challenge them, they'll have to go to court to try and pin down exactly what the rather ambiguous word HARASS means and in the meantime, it's a feeding frenzy for the Bolts of this world.

One word to replace three distinct words, yeah, real bright.

 

[Lethality]

Harrowing experience! What a load of crap!

The judge said it was a tragedy for the students that exposed them to enormous strain. It fits the definition of harrowing.

Some idiot brought a complaint about them and that complaint was laughed out of court

Eventually, and after appeals it was, however it was a difficult and needless experience. Stronger wording hopefully stops it from getting to this stage in the future.

What is it that you can now not say under the law as it stands?

There isn't necessarily anything in particular that people have in mind that they are busting to say as soon as the law changes, nor should there be required to be in order for objection to the current wording to be valid. Those are just the strawmen that opposition to the change has set up. It's enough to say that a) we want to stop incidents like QUT b) we want to make the law clearer to the public c) we want to protect free speech so that racist views are defined and debunked by society and not sanctioned by the courts.

 

[Maggie5]

Here is a quaint idea...
Instead of changing 18c why not modiify or expand protections under 18d?

 

[Power Raid]

Here is a quaint idea...
Instead of changing 18c why not modiify or expand protections under 18d?

Given the issue is 18c and not every eventuality can be considered or identified under 18d, the focus should be 18c.

 

[Northalives]

The judge said it was a tragedy for the students that exposed them to enormous strain. It fits the definition of harrowing.



Eventually, and after appeals it was, however it was a difficult and needless experience. Stronger wording hopefully stops it from getting to this stage in the future.



There isn't necessarily anything in particular that people have in mind that they are busting to say as soon as the law changes, nor should there be required to be in order for objection to the current wording to be valid. Those are just the strawmen that opposition to the change has set up. It's enough to say that a) we want to stop incidents like QUT b) we want to make the law clearer to the public c) we want to protect free speech so that racist views are defined and debunked by society and not sanctioned by the courts.

a) QUT "incident" is exactly the same as someone who has a grievance against a neighbour or the police or a financial institution or whatever else. This person can seek redress in court and if it's thrown out, it's thrown out! It's the media that turned it into a circus. b) Clearer to the public? How much clearer can it be? You want to replace three distinct words whose definition has been just about "pinned down" and replace them with one word, HARASS. What does that mean? Following someone around in the shopping mall and poking your tongue out at them? c) "we want to protect free speech so that racist views are defined and debunked by society and not sanctioned by the courts"? What the f**k are you on about? Debunked by which society? The society of racist, narrow minded, supremacists as encapsulated by Andrew Bolt and Pauline Hanson? Their agenda is to take Australia back to the White Australia days and they are waging a war, with the help of partisan papers like The Australian and the rest of the Murdoch empire, to make Australia White and Christian. The place to "define" racist views is in a court of law, not a Kangaroo court nor should what is and isn't racist and bigoted be left to those with the loudest voices greatest means to "define".

What you are proposing, just like certain members of the LNP and the other extremists is an attack on the basic fundamentals which we strive to achieve in this country, namely egalitarianism and equality. Freedom of speech is a fundamental component of our democracy and in order to have an enlightened and progressive democracy where everyone is deemed to be as valuable and important as everyone else, we need enlightened and progressive laws to protect us from the hate filled speech of those who align themselves with ISIS, hate speech from Hanson and Bolt and Dutton.

Don't you lot get it? In a democracy such as ours that values free speech, the last thing we need is to dismantle our protections from those who reckon they are superior to the rest of us and who seek to foist upon us their dogmas. You want to take us back to the law of the jungle where the strongest and those with the means dominate the rest.

I will remind you as to why the LNP and their flunkies are hell bent on watering down the Racial Discrimination Act. It's all because their mate, the sanctimonious Andrew Bolt, was convicted of being a racist under our Racial Discrimination Act. Bolt used his mass media column to basically say that if you have fair skin, you can't be an Aboriginal and what's more, these "imposters" (my word) use their supposed Aboriginality for financial gain. Federal Court Judge Mordy Bromberg's summary was :
"I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles …
“People should be free to full identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying …
“Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance, just as disparagement directed at the real or imaged practises or traits of those people is also destructive of racial tolerance.”

The judge found that Bolt’s evidence was not to be trusted and Bolt’s comments were “exaggerated” and “unsupported by any factual basis”. The judgement details Bolt’s deliberately misleading cherry picking. If you think that this is an example of free speech then how about this then? "All Christian priest are pedophiles", "All Italians are criminals because they all belong to the Mafia", "All Greek males are homosexuals", "All Chinese people have links to the Triad". Freedom of speech is it? This is the type of garbage that Bolt and others reckon should be OK to say. Is this "HARASSMENT".

 

[Lethality]

a) QUT "incident" is exactly the same as someone who has a grievance against a neighbour or the police or a financial institution or whatever else. This person can seek redress in court and if it's thrown out, it's thrown out!

It would be better if it wasn't a charge in the first place, then they wouldn't have been bothered with this frivolity.

b) Clearer to the public? How much clearer can it be? You want to replace three distinct words whose definition has

It could be a lot clearer, words like insult are subjective and could cover theoretically anything. Harrass and intimidate are much clearer, objective, actions, which don't go into the area of opinions and other expression.

c) "we want to protect free speech so that racist views are defined and debunked by society and not sanctioned by the courts"? What the f**k are you on about? Debunked by which society? The society of racist, narrow minded, sup

Nope, just by people from different points of view, similar to the very discussion that's being had about 18c.

What you are proposing, just like certain members of the LNP and the other extremists is an attack on the basic fundamentals which we strive to achieve in this country, namely egalitarianism and equality.

It's not an attack on equality, not even sure how one comes to that conclusion really.

the last thing we need is to dismantle our protections from those who reckon they are superior to the rest of us

.

Oh lordy. This is typical of the hysteria that has surrounded this debate. Labor are doing it for political gain, but what would your excuse be?

 

[Northalives]

It would be better if it wasn't a charge in the first place, then they wouldn't have been bothered with this frivolity.



It could be a lot clearer, words like insult are subjective and could cover theoretically anything. Harrass and intimidate are much clearer, objective, actions, which don't go into the area of opinions and other expression.



Nope, just by people from different points of view, similar to the very discussion that's being had about 18c.



It's not an attack on equality, not even sure how one comes to that conclusion really.

.

Oh lordy. This is typical of the hysteria that has surrounded this debate. Labor are doing it for political gain, but what would your excuse be?

There is no defence for trying to trash our Racial Discrimination laws and it is offensive to ones intelligence to suggest that somehow, the proposed changes are going to strengthen and make it clearer as to what constitutes racial vilification.

 

[Lethality]

There is no defence for trying to trash our Racial Discrimination laws and it is offensive to ones intelligence to suggest that somehow, the proposed changes are going to strengthen and make it clearer as to what constitutes racial vilification.

It's not about racial villification, there are separate state laws for that.

 

[Power Raid]

a) QUT "incident" is exactly the same as someone who has a grievance against a neighbour or the police or a financial institution or whatever else. This person can seek redress in court and if it's thrown out, it's thrown out! It's the media that turned it into a circus. b) Clearer to the public? How much clearer can it be? You want to replace three distinct words whose definition has been just about "pinned down" and replace them with one word, HARASS. What does that mean? Following someone around in the shopping mall and poking your tongue out at them? c) "we want to protect free speech so that racist views are defined and debunked by society and not sanctioned by the courts"? What the f**k are you on about? Debunked by which society? The society of racist, narrow minded, supremacists as encapsulated by Andrew Bolt and Pauline Hanson? Their agenda is to take Australia back to the White Australia days and they are waging a war, with the help of partisan papers like The Australian and the rest of the Murdoch empire, to make Australia White and Christian. The place to "define" racist views is in a court of law, not a Kangaroo court nor should what is and isn't racist and bigoted be left to those with the loudest voices greatest means to "define".

What you are proposing, just like certain members of the LNP and the other extremists is an attack on the basic fundamentals which we strive to achieve in this country, namely egalitarianism and equality. Freedom of speech is a fundamental component of our democracy and in order to have an enlightened and progressive democracy where everyone is deemed to be as valuable and important as everyone else, we need enlightened and progressive laws to protect us from the hate filled speech of those who align themselves with ISIS, hate speech from Hanson and Bolt and Dutton.

Don't you lot get it? In a democracy such as ours that values free speech, the last thing we need is to dismantle our protections from those who reckon they are superior to the rest of us and who seek to foist upon us their dogmas. You want to take us back to the law of the jungle where the strongest and those with the means dominate the rest.

I will remind you as to why the LNP and their flunkies are hell bent on watering down the Racial Discrimination Act. It's all because their mate, the sanctimonious Andrew Bolt, was convicted of being a racist under our Racial Discrimination Act. Bolt used his mass media column to basically say that if you have fair skin, you can't be an Aboriginal and what's more, these "imposters" (my word) use their supposed Aboriginality for financial gain. Federal Court Judge Mordy Bromberg's summary was :
"I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles …
“People should be free to full identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying …
“Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance, just as disparagement directed at the real or imaged practises or traits of those people is also destructive of racial tolerance.”

The judge found that Bolt’s evidence was not to be trusted and Bolt’s comments were “exaggerated” and “unsupported by any factual basis”. The judgement details Bolt’s deliberately misleading cherry picking. If you think that this is an example of free speech then how about this then? "All Christian priest are pedophiles", "All Italians are criminals because they all belong to the Mafia", "All Greek males are homosexuals", "All Chinese people have links to the Triad". Freedom of speech is it? This is the type of garbage that Bolt and others reckon should be OK to say. Is this "HARASSMENT".

I would have thought it was very different.

A charge isn't laid by an individual, rather by the DPP.

 

[Northalives]

I would have thought it was very different.

A charge isn't laid by an individual, rather by the DPP.

Sorry, I don't understand Power raid. If a person has a grievance with a neighbour or a copper for example, they can seek redress through a number of different channels, that is, make a complaint and even if a relevant authority says that it will not act on the complaint for whatever reason, an individual can lodge a private prosecution.

 

[Power Raid]

Sorry, I don't understand Power raid. If a person has a grievance with a neighbour or a copper for example, they can seek redress through a number of different channels, that is, make a complaint and even if a relevant authority says that it will not act on the complaint for whatever reason, an individual can lodge a private prosecution.

yes true but a private prosecution has checks and balances 18C does not provide

 

[Northalives]

It's not about racial villification, there are separate state laws for that.

What, you mean like the separate laws in Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia etc.?

This is Australia but just like some redneck states in the bastion of racial hatred, the Northern Territory does not have any laws against Racial vilification at all. Then we have places like QLD that don't have an upper house and corrupt bastards like Bjelke Petersen could do whatever he liked so are you seriously suggesting that Australian vilification laws should be left to the States and the States alone? That is absurd!

The LNP and it's smarmy used car salesman are trying like buggery to find a distraction from its utter incompetence and is doing what that side of politics has always done, play the race card, try and set people against each other and whilst we are too busy arguing amongst ourselves as to who has what right to do whatever to someone else, we get shafted en masse by the Tories. Welcome to the 1920's.

 

[Northalives]

yes true but a private prosecution has checks and balances 18C does not provide

Of course it does. Have you ever tried to bring a complaint to court using the provisions within 18C? There are a processes, hurdles to clear before the most drastic of measures, that is, going to court is even considered.

I'm telling ya Power Raid, it's not like you rock up and say, "you know what, that person looked at me in a funny way and I reckon he was having a go at my black skin so I want to bring proceedings against him" and then, hocus-pocus, some poor bastard is in court trying to explain that he didn't mean anything bad and that he's had a facial twitch all his life.

That is not how it works but the hypocrites of the LNP are trying damn hard to put across that it is just soooooo easy to bring proceedings against someone, some persons.

 

[Power Raid]

Of course it does. Have you ever tried to bring a complaint to court using the provisions within 18C? There are a processes, hurdles to clear before the most drastic of measures, that is, going to court is even considered.

I'm telling ya Power Raid, it's not like you rock up and say, "you know what, that person looked at me in a funny way and I reckon he was having a go at my black skin so I want to bring proceedings against him" and then, hocus-pocus, some poor bastard is in court trying to explain that he didn't mean anything bad and that he's had a facial twitch all his life.

That is not how it works but the hypocrites of the LNP are trying damn hard to put across that it is just soooooo easy to bring proceedings against someone, some persons.

again agree but if the person is aggrieved and can demonstrated they are "offended", the the department has no choice but to support the complaint. Any other action is opening the government to recourse.

I guess my position is, I don't believe being offended or insulted is a sufficient threshold for a complaint. I find it frivolous and serves only to feed an agenda.

FTR I don't like people who are racists but feel we need to balance social requirements of being considerate and being tolerant.

 

[Lethality]

What, you mean like the separate laws in Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia etc.?

This is Australia but just like some redneck states in the bastion of racial hatred, the Northern Territory does not have any laws against Racial vilification at all. Then we have places like QLD that don't have an upper house and corrupt bastards like Bjelke Petersen could do whatever he liked so are you seriously suggesting that Australian vilification laws should be left to the States and the States alone? That is absurd!

The LNP and it's smarmy used car salesman are trying like buggery to find a distraction from its utter incompetence and is doing what that side of politics has always done, play the race card, try and set people against each other and whilst we are too busy arguing amongst ourselves as to who has what right to do whatever to someone else, we get shafted en masse by the Tories. Welcome to the 1920's.

Your over the top reaction actually demonstrates that people against the changes don't necessarily have any rational arguments.

 

[Sainteric]

Of course it does. Have you ever tried to bring a complaint to court using the provisions within 18C? There are a processes, hurdles to clear before the most drastic of measures, that is, going to court is even considered.

I'm telling ya Power Raid, it's not like you rock up and say, "you know what, that person looked at me in a funny way and I reckon he was having a go at my black skin so I want to bring proceedings against him" and then, hocus-pocus, some poor bastard is in court trying to explain that he didn't mean anything bad and that he's had a facial twitch all his life.

That is not how it works but the hypocrites of the LNP are trying damn hard to put across that it is just soooooo easy to bring proceedings against someone, some persons.

One would hope your right but unfortunately you are not.
You have read about the QUT case?

 

[kwikfix]

Of course it does. Have you ever tried to bring a complaint to court using the provisions within 18C? There are a processes, hurdles to clear before the most drastic of measures, that is, going to court is even considered.

I'm telling ya Power Raid, it's not like you rock up and say, "you know what, that person looked at me in a funny way and I reckon he was having a go at my black skin so I want to bring proceedings against him" and then, hocus-pocus, some poor bastard is in court trying to explain that he didn't mean anything bad and that he's had a facial twitch all his life.

That is not how it works but the hypocrites of the LNP are trying damn hard to put across that it is just soooooo easy to bring proceedings against someone, some persons.

The quick and easy complaint form can be found here :

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints/make-complaint/complaint-form

Litigants are encouraged by the AHRC website that:

It does not cost anything to make a complaint to the Commission.

Link:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/comp...nt/complaints-under-racial-discrimination-act

The online form takes around 5 minutes to complete and submit.