Liberals don’t get free speech

On Saturday night Tony Abbott announced what the Liberals in government proposed to do about the Andrew Bolt case. This morning it was reported in The Australian

The plan, which has been unveiled by Tony Abbott, promises that a Coalition government would repeal the key provisions that led a Federal Court judge to order a correction to what he said were Bolt’s unlawful articles.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis told The Australian the Coalition would remove the provisions in the act that prohibit the use of words that offend or insult.

“We consider that to be an inappropriate limitation on freedom of speech and freedom of public discussion — as was evident in the Andrew Bolt case,” Senator Brandis said.

“Offensive and insulting words are part of the robust democratic process which is essential to a free country.”

They would strengthen the defences and give community standards a central role in determining liability, instead of giving priority to the views of people who say they have been vilified.

That article gives a very misleading impression of what the Liberals intend to do. What Abbott said on Saturday night was that a Liberal government would remove the words ‘offend’ and ‘insult’ from section 18c of the Race Discrimination Act but would retain the rest of the section and would strengthen the defences in section 18d. In other words the Liberals would retain race-based rights in the law.

This is a minimalist approach to the problem – a judge would still be able to convict Andrew Bolt with an appropriately drafted judgement. It also presumes that the problem in the Bolt case is a poorly drafted piece of legislation – true – but that judicial activism and political opportunism had nothing to do with it. The problem isn’t a poorly worded section but the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race.

The IPA has just launched a Repeal 18C campaign. There you’ll find email addresses for Julia Gillard, Bob Brown, and Tony Abbott.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

240 Responses to Liberals don’t get free speech

  1. Fred

    Strengthening the defences doesn’t solve the problem. As has been put by others – ‘the prosecution is the punishment’.

  2. Ivan Denisovich

    I’m really becoming concerned about the cowardice of the Opposition and am fast forming the view that an Abbott Govt would indeed mirror the appeasement of the Fraser Govt.

  3. .

    Repeal the whole damned thing. Racism is uneconomic and vile. It will die.

    People shouldn’t get dragged into court for a mean spirited loss of composure and they certainly shouldn’t go to court for sticking up for real Aborigines.

    Don’t get rid of this comment Sinclair, they can sue me instead.

  4. JamesK

    Thanx for this informative post Sinc.

    As usual Abbott goes softly softly.

    Hopefully it is because of liberals in his own caucus rather than fear of the MSM.

  5. C.L.

    Brandis often talks tough but he’s a bit of a luvvie bed-wetter underneath it all. I’m sure he actually believes in this bullshit.

  6. Infidel Tiger

    The very best we can hope from the Liberals is that they defeat the ALP. Then we all must work very hard to defeat the Liberals.

  7. JaneM

    It’s head spinnning stuff indeed. One can apply for funding based on racial identification yet no-one can question how an application for racial identification is achieved.

    On one hand people can state how proud they are of identifying with a race and on the other such declarations are called racist.

    This is the law in a supposedly enlightened state of mind and legislation.

    Discrimination under another name. This is meant to achieve what?

  8. hammygar

    It’s amazing that the Right thinks its OK to insult someone who belongs to a race or a religion other than the dominant one. I don’t think it should be illegal to insult or denigrate anglo-saxons or christians as they are still dominant in our society and can look after ourselves. They are, and should be, capable of absorbing these things. Minority groups are different and need our protection, not our denigration.

  9. papachango

    Sounds like a pretty woosy effort.

    It’s true that the Liberals are not always the staunch defenders of free speech that their name implies they should be. They equivocated for a long time on Conroy’s Internet Censorship, and unbellievably allowed the Greens to position themselves as the only real defenders of free speech (this was before Bob brown started trying to shut down News Limited)

    What does 18d say, and what parts of it are they strengthening?

  10. hammygar
    What about if in your job you are white and 90% of the other workers are not is it still ok for them go have a go?

  11. JC

    Hamster;

    We also need protection from you for being an imbecile. No kidding I’m deeply offended with your stupidity and in a fair world I ought to be able to sue you for exhibiting this level of moronic behavior and subjecting people this such oppression. Should we be able to sue you?

    Go preach your oppression Marxist bullshit elsewhere, you wanker.

  12. C.L.

    It’s amazing that the Right thinks its OK to insult someone who belongs to a race or a religion other than the dominant one.

    So you’d agree that the Iron Pact partners of Julia Gillard should be arrested for their anti-Jew boycott beliefs.

    Right?

  13. Gab

    I don’t think it should be illegal to insult or denigrate anglo-saxons or christians as they are still dominant in our society and can look after ourselves. They are, and should be, capable of absorbing these things.

    That comment, and it’s author, win Stupid of The Year award.

    The contest is now closed. No other applicants need apply.

  14. Hammygar,

    Your last line exposes the problem. One that you may not ever have considered.

    “Minority groups…”

    Name ONE minority group that is not a left wing voting bloc.

    A significant part of the problem is that the left deliberately promotes policies that allow groups that should be integrating into society to Balkanise instead (aka multiculturalism) and then see themselves as victims of the larger society when the negative effects of this self-isolation take hold.

  15. Infidel Tiger

    How the hell do people with hammygar’s level of impairment type?

  16. papachango

    Minority groups are different and need our protection, not our denigration.

    No they don’t. They just need the same law as everyone else. To do anything else is just patronising them, and actually racist and/or bigotted in itself.

    To give them specuial treatment based on some nebulous concept of how ‘oppressed’ or ‘victimised’ they are is patentl;y ridiculous, and leads to stupid outcomes like how’s it’s now illegal to legitimately criticise a bunch of privileged white academincs who happen to ahve a small amount of Aboriginal ancestry.

  17. like a pack of wolves on poor hammygar

  18. m0nty

    What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”? Ethnicity is an integral part of personal identity in a multicultural society. I am proud of being of Irish descent, for example, without repudiating my Australian citizenship. Most people gain some sort of sense of who they are by understanding their racial background.

    You can argue about the intricacies of how this translates to law, sure, but the philosophy itself is not a “problem”.

  19. Irving J

    It’s a general problem with conservatives. Read some Abbotts writing about “gradual” change. They take the conservative rubbish too literally.

  20. papachango

    oh my mistake. Trying to reason with hammygar. I think he needs speical protection too, as utterly stupid people are also a minority group.

  21. m0nty

    Name ONE minority group that is not a left wing voting bloc.

    The 1%. ;)

  22. Hugh

    “I don’t think it should be illegal to insult or denigrate anglo-saxons or christians as they are still dominant in our society and can look after ourselves. They are, and should be, capable of absorbing these things.”

    Perhaps you don’t think it should be illegal to assault big strong people on the same grounds?

  23. papachango

    It’s a general problem with conservatives. Read some Abbotts writing about “gradual” change. They take the conservative rubbish too literally.

    Yep, and it’s why i say I’m a libertarian not a conservative. The current restrictions on free speech need a radical response, not a conservative, evolutionary change.

  24. C.L.

    Name ONE minority group that is not a left wing voting bloc.

    MENSA?

  25. Infidel Tiger

    Name ONE minority group that is not a left wing voting bloc

    Taxpayers?

  26. papachango

    What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”? Ethnicity is an integral part of personal identity in a multicultural society.

    No problem at all with that, m0nty. As Bolt said, you can identify as Bhuanese for all I care. The problem starts when you want special treatment based on your status as a Bhutanese. Opens up a whole can of worms, that does.

  27. papachango

    Name ONE minority group that is not a left wing voting bloc

    Jews. I’m guessing their voting patterns are similar to the general population. Funnily enough this is one minority group these leftist nutjobs seem perfectly fine with insulting, offending and humiliating.

  28. JC

    What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?

    Nothing wrong any of of that, Monster.

    It’s asking for money or getting the nose into the trough that matters, you idiot.

    Now, you can get the entire head into the trough and you have Judge Mordy to protect you.

  29. Driftforge

    Anti-discrimination of any kind is an abomination. Discrimination is a necessary means for society to defend and reinforce the values that it holds.

    If you take away the ability of a community to discriminate, on whatever basis they choose, then you take away the ability of a community to resist the degradation of society and its values.

  30. “multicultural society”

    This must be defined. If the definition is that you can maintain all the culture of your former home or even you ancestors home this is wrong. If it means you can eat what you want pray to whoever you want but consider Australian law above all other law including any religious beliefs and norms of Australian society such as respect to others who do not believe what you believe. This with some minority groups that are within minority groups like say a muslim who thinks that people who drink are bad people because they drink is not the case and is very bad. Being called a skip if you happen to live in an area that the majority ethnicity is not white christian is no different to someone that calls them ragheads. This behaviour is not acceptable by either group but this has nothing to do with something like the Bolt case.

  31. papachango

    Mark Steyn is brilliant at pointing out the problems with all this identity politics bullshit.

    You end up with a hierarchy of protections, based on some assumed level of victimhood or status of oppression.

    He cites the case of a lesbian group in the UK calling a Muslim group bigots for saying that lesbianism is a perversion. They got done for Islamophobia.

    Muslims clearly beat lesbians in the victim hierarchy.

  32. ilibcc

    Christians dominant? As a practising Christian working in media, I’m as much a curiosity as a Galapagos duck walking down Collins Street.

    People’s eyes just about drop out when you admit to attending Mass on Sunday mornings.

    Leftists and inner urbanites should stop positing ‘anglo-saxons’ and Christians as the dominant cultures and admit that the left won the cultural war years ago. The Howard years were just a setback. The education and most other bureaucracies are now totalitarian states.

  33. Peter Patton

    While a lot of the illiberal shit from the Liberal Party doesn’t surprise me anymore, this one is a real shocker. The trouble is, there’s a hardly a ‘liberal’ among them. Tony Abbott is just a carbon copy of the parliamentary ALP. Apart from a spell as a trainee monk, he was a student pollie, then bummed around as a political staffer until a safe seat came up. He’s a low rent version of Tanya Plibersek and Nicola Roxon. Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy. He’d be great at my local carwash to shoot the breeze with until the car’s clean.

  34. John of Mel

    utterly stupid people are also a minority group

    Judging by the polls – not really.

  35. bobby b

    “Minority groups are different and need our protection . . . “

    Well, maybe just the inferior ones. All of the schools tell us that the Asians seem to be doing fine on their own.

  36. Harrys on the Boat

    hammygar is trying to do an Alene Composter, but failing miserably. Dramatically overplaying the hideous lefty to be genuine. However if you pulled this sh*t over at Crikey, they’d lap it up.

    Although the sad (but not unexpected) thing is mOnty whole heartedly agrees with everything he writes.

  37. John Comnenus

    Hammygar thinks: ‘It’s amazing that the Right thinks its OK to insult someone who belongs to a race or a religion other than the dominant one. I don’t think it should be illegal to insult or denigrate anglo-saxons or christians as they are still dominant in our society and can look after ourselves. They are, and should be, capable of absorbing these things. Minority groups are different and need our protection, not our denigration.’

    I am pretty sure that was the argument in South Africa – those blacks can look after themselves as they are so numerous and dominant. We whites need special laws that give us as a minority special legal rights only available to us in this minority.

    Giving a minority special rights over the majority is the very definition of apartheid. Apartheid is about giving special legal privilege to a particular minority. That is why I am against these laws, precisely because people like you think they don’t and shouldn’t protect me. Unlike you I believe in equality before the law.

  38. “utterly stupid people are also a minority group

    Judging by the polls – not really.”

    If Labor wins the next federal election we can assume that smart people are in the minority and should deserve special rights for that.

  39. C.L.

    You end up with a hierarchy of protections, based on some assumed level of victimhood or status of oppression.

    Yes, they need some sort of table for this.

    Muslims beat lesbians; lesbians beat homosexuals; homosexuals beat heterosexual men; heterosexual women (only if they’re black) beat homosexuals; blacks beat Asians; Asians beat whites (unless the white is a homosexual); Muslims beat Jews; Jews beat Christians (except where the Christians are negro southern Baptists); Africans beat everyone (unless they’re expressing their continent’s cross-cultural loathing for homosexuality); Native Americans beat whites (unless they’re selling cheap cigarettes online); Aborigines beat everyone (except Muslims and possibly homosexuals, unless the homosexuals are non-white); Etc etc.

  40. RichardM

    “What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?”

    Just. Wow.

    The Nazis were certainly on board with that sentiment.

    How often the Left inadvertantly shows its true colours.

  41. Winston SMITH

    There’s a marketing opportunity for you papa. A deck of cards with the victim groups on it. Does four Queens beat a full mosque?
    The permutations are endless. And can change whatever day it is. A Full Mosque beats a Flush of Jews.

  42. “Yes, they need some sort of table for this.”

    So you would always pick the ceo of a company to be a black lesbian muslim if you can find one so she would be untouchable.

  43. Winston SMITH

    ..the Queen of Spades is obviously a higher rank than a Queen of Hearts…

  44. m0nty

    “multicultural society”

    This must be defined. If the definition is that you can maintain all the culture of your former home or even you ancestors home this is wrong.

    Rubbish. Culture is an entirely personal thing, which any libertarian should support as being completely free to practise. No government should impose any cultural practices on anyone. Where culture intersects with the law of the land then the law wins, obviously, but as long as someone is not hurting anyone else or breaking any laws by practising their cultural traditions, no libertarian should censure them.

    If it means you can eat what you want pray to whoever you want but consider Australian law above all other law including any religious beliefs and norms of Australian society such as respect to others who do not believe what you believe. This with some minority groups that are within minority groups like say a muslim who thinks that people who drink are bad people because they drink is not the case and is very bad.

    In a free society, a Muslim should be perfectly able to hold a view that people who drink are bad. S/he can not impose that view on others, of course.

  45. m0nty

    Congratulations Richard M, you win the Godwin Medal For Automatic Loserhood today.

  46. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – perhaps you could respond to Richard M’s comment rather than invoke Godwin and run away.

  47. Winston SMITH

    “In a free society, a Muslim should be perfectly able to hold a view that people who drink are bad. S/he can not impose that view on others, of course.”

    And of course, that doesn’t happen, does it monty?

    Planet Neutronium is calling monty. Time to go home.

  48. Fisky

    I don’t think it should be illegal to insult or denigrate anglo-saxons or christians as they are still dominant in our society and can look after ourselves. They are, and should be, capable of absorbing these things. Minority groups are different and need our protection, not our denigration.

    Right, so we have a slanging match between an Anglo-Saxon lesbian and a male Muslim. Which one should be hauled up before Judge Mordy in your opinion, and why?

  49. RichardM

    Better than winning the Cretinous Hypocrite award, mOnty.

  50. Yes, they need some sort of table for this.

    Muslims beat lesbians; lesbians beat homosexuals

    Yes. Yes they do.

    Lawyer: Lesbians’ assault on gay man can’t be hate crime

  51. Gab

    In a free society, a Muslim should be perfectly able to hold a view that people who drink are bad. S/he can not impose that view on others, of course.

    Or how about

    In a free society, a Muslim person should be perfectly able to hold a view that people who drink rort the system designed to assist Aborigines who are not middle-class urbanites are bad. S/he can not impose that view on others, of course.

  52. JC

    Better than winning the Cretinous Hypocrite award, mOnty.

    He wins it most years.

  53. ar

    Sammy Hagar,

    I don’t think it should be illegal to insult or denigrate anglo-saxons or christians as they are still dominant in our society and can look after ourselves.

    Ourselves? Well, there’s an insult right there…

  54. JC

    Rubbish. Culture is an entirely personal thing, which any libertarian should support as being completely free to practise.

    right, so?

    No government should impose any cultural practices on anyone.

    right, so?

    Where culture intersects with the law of the land then the law wins, obviously, but as long as someone is not hurting anyone else or breaking any laws by practising their cultural traditions, no libertarian should censure them.

    Right, so?

    In a free society, a Muslim should be perfectly able to hold a view that people who drink are bad.

    Right, so?

    S/he can not impose that view on others, of course.

    right, so?

    Monster, what’s your freaking point?

  55. RichardM

    “He wins it most years.”

    Years?

    I’d have thought that a paragraph-by-paragraph proposition.

  56. Monty
    Culture is behaviours and the examples I gave were that you can do what you want so long as it respects the Australian law. Maintaining modern Greek culture for example for a new immigrant is not acceptable. The culture there according to the media and interviews within Greece is corruption and tax evasion which would not be acceptable but eating souvlaki or going to an orhodox church is ok. With the muslim example the muslim can think what he wants but can’t act on it and in particular consider Australian law above sharia law.

  57. hammygar is trying to do an Alene Composta, but failing miserably.

    That’s what I reckoned when I first saw him/her/it over at Bunyip’s.

  58. Peter Patton

    This thread is testimony to the wisdom

    Whenever I hear the word ‘culture’, I release the safety switch on my Browning.

  59. m0nty

    m0nty – perhaps you could respond to Richard M’s comment rather than invoke Godwin and run away.

    He called me a Nazi. That was his thesis. What’s to respond to, Sinclair? Do I need to say I’m not a Nazi? Where does the argument go from there?

    Godwin’s Law exists because calling someone a Nazi is the laziest, most brainless debating tactic on the Internet, and is so dumb that it does not merit a reasoned response.

  60. Irving J

    Unlike you I believe in equality before the law.

    well said!

  61. Nic

    hammygar is trying to do an Alene Composta, but failing miserably.

    That’s what I reckoned when I first saw him/her/it over at Bunyip’s.

    I second that.

  62. warren raymond

    Papachango sez:

    Name ONE minority group that is not a left wing voting bloc

    Jews?!

    80 % of American Jews voted for the Obamessiah.

  63. JC

    The is an important issue to me. If the libs are too softcock to repudiate the law in its entirety they don’t deserve my vote.

    I know what they are playing at and it won’t work. This game of 1/2ies is simply asking for trouble. It can’t be defended in any possible way.

  64. m0nty

    Monty
    Culture is behaviours and the examples I gave were that you can do what you want so long as it respects the Australian law. Maintaining modern Greek culture for example for a new immigrant is not acceptable. The culture there according to the media and interviews within Greece is corruption and tax evasion which would not be acceptable but eating souvlaki or going to an orhodox church is ok. With the muslim example the muslim can think what he wants but can’t act on it and in particular consider Australian law above sharia law.

    I think we’re actually in furious agreement here, kelly.

  65. RichardM

    “He called me a Nazi.”

    Wrong.

    I merely showed you what was wrong with the philosophy, as requested.

    Would you have got the point more readily had I pointed out the basis for the Left’s objections to Apartheid South Africa (for example)?

    But that’s moot. You got the point.

    Godwin was merely your attempt to evade your slip.

  66. Monty I know but maybe my language skills aren’t the best at times.

  67. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – he did not call you a Nazi. He indicated that race based policy was Nazi policy. Perhaps you could explain how this particular race based policy isn’t Nazi policy.

  68. RichardM

    “…Is so dumb that it does not merit a reasoned response.”

    The simple reality is that you don’t have a response, other than abuse.

    Typical Leftist.

  69. Peter Patton

    JC

    On this one, I am with you 100%. This issue should not even be worth discussing among liberals. It should be so bloody obvious. If this becomes ‘contested’ or ‘controversial’, then the Libs might as well use as their motto in the next camapign

    “Nationalize Everything! Now!”

  70. Gab

    If you dispel the “race” differentiation – which in itself is a social construct as we all belong to one race only, human – then the RDA is simply reduced to a means of officially moaning “he called me names and I feel insulted”.

  71. Harrys on the Boat

    No, he didn’t call you a nazi, you cretin. You bought up the argument that its ok for society to define and treat people according to race. RichardM then listed a society that did just that. Another commenter mentioned SA as another example.

    You were not called a nazi. Your lazy, brainless mind thought that as you have no debating tactic whatsoever.

  72. m0nty

    My argument, RichardM, is that there is no “problem” with people practising personal cultural beliefs, even if they are foreign to the country they are a citizen of, as long as they are not breaking any laws. No libertarian should be advocating the imposition by government of cultural beliefs.

    I can’t see how you twist that around to paint me as a Nazi, or a supporter of apartheid. You are just smearing with no substance.

  73. Gab

    Stop with teh victimhood schtick, m0nty. He never called you a Nazi.

  74. Fisky

    The Libs should actually expand the law, not repeal it. The law needs to be extended to restricting Leftist speech as well, given the proven tendency of Leftism to lead to violence. All the regimes that Leftists swear by have been brutal and murderous, and much poorer economically than non-Leftist countries, and don’t think that it can’t happen here too. Better to cut off the problem at the source – i.e. when the ideas are expressed, not when it’s already too late and they are in force.

  75. m0nty

    m0nty – he did not call you a Nazi. He indicated that race based policy was Nazi policy. Perhaps you could explain how this particular race based policy isn’t Nazi policy.

    Who’s talking about “race based policy”? Not me. You’re building a straw man, Sinclair.

    I was talking specifically about the philosophy of personal cultural identity, not government policy. Don’t twist my words.

  76. m0nty

    You bought up the argument that its ok for society to define and treat people according to race.

    No I didn’t, Harry. I was talking about personal cultural identity, not about society or government policy. You are all reading into my words things that are not there.

  77. What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?

    That’s what you asked, Monty. And a few people have answered quite aptly.

  78. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – that’s fine then. I’m happy for you to self-identify as Irish (or whatever). I don’t see why the government should enforce that self-identification.

    So you’re happy for the Liberals to abolish the RDA in toto?

  79. RichardM

    “My argument, RichardM, is that there is no “problem” with people practising personal cultural beliefs,”

    That’s not what you said. You said:

    ““What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?”

    If this is not what you meant, then feel free to retract.

    “I can’t see how you twist that around to paint me as a Nazi, or a supporter of apartheid. You are just smearing with no substance.”

    Evasion. Again.

  80. Token

    The Libs should actually expand the law, not repeal it. The law needs to be extended to restricting Leftist speech as well, given the proven tendency of Leftism to lead to violence.

    I like the idea in principle, in practice it scares me.

    Sounds like a good idea until the advocate judges get their handso on the law. They will then define right as left and progressive as not left and use it as a club to attack people they do not like.

    In 2010 that pompous over-indulged group discussed employing lobbyists in a serious way:

    SENIOR judges in NSW have discussed appointing someone to fight attacks by the media and politicians because a tradition of attorneys-general defending the courts is breaking down.

  81. Viva

    “What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?”

    Well nothing at all if race baiting is your political weapon of choice and one has a compulsive need to rescue – after all you need someoneto receive your ministrations don’t you? How else can you demonstrate your moral concern?

  82. The law needs to be extended to restricting Leftist speech as well

    No. We need more free speech, not less.

  83. “The Libs should actually expand the law, not repeal it.”

    Take it one step further Just ban the ALP and Greens parties but make sure the case is better than when they tried to ban the Communist party.

  84. papachango

    The trouble with ‘victim poker’ is where to put people who are members of multiple victim groups.

    Are the victimhood points additive, incremental or do you take the same status of the most victimised group you happen to belong to?

    In theory a black, lesbian, Muslim should be one of the most victimised people on the planet, and deserving of extra special protection

    In practice I know of at least one black lesbian Muslim, who, while she certainly needs special protection, has the ‘wrong’ political views, which cancels out all of her victimhood points.

    I don’t think even the left believe their own bullshit here

  85. m0nty

    m0nty – that’s fine then. I’m happy for you to self-identify as Irish (or whatever). I don’t see why the government should enforce that self-identification.

    So you’re happy for the Liberals to abolish the RDA in toto?

    That is a separate argument. I don’t think people should be discriminated against based on their race as a fundamental human right, so no, I think the RDA has some value.

    As to the specific clauses that tripped Bolt up, they are poorly drafted and could be handled via defamation law so removing them wouldn’t be any great loss. But in a defamation case Bolt would have been up for a six-figure sum (or more) instead of just an apology, so what benefit would that have been for Bolt? The way I see it, he got off lightly. Defamation law is too powerful as it is in this country, I’d support more such laws that had an apology as the remedy instead of cash money.

  86. John of Mel

    Whenever I hear the word ‘culture’, I release the safety switch on my Browning

    Like it or not, but culture is the most important thing in a country’s life. Economy is not as important as culture. In fact culture defines everything else.

  87. Lloyd

    The Coalition’s approach is reflective of Abbott’s philosophy as described in Battlelines. His is an incremental approach to reform. He does not rule out further reform in the future.

    I suspect he is mindful of a number of elements. One, the media and the Government are itching for a reason to castigate him as a redneck reactionary. Two, there are no doubt elements within his own Party which tend to the bleeding heart side of the political spectrum. Three, he would not wish to see his carefully constructed relationship with non progressive Aborigines destroyed in an impulsive rush to right a perceived wrong.

    This is probably as far as the Coalition can go on this issue at this time. What they propose is sellable with likely a minimum of political repercussions. My guess is that they will revisit the issue once in power.

    Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. It’s no doubt small consolation to Mr Bolt but nothing the Coalition does on this issue will change the outcome of his case, especially if they fail to win government.

    Lastly, I take comfort from the fact that Abbott and his team are treading carefully on this sort of issue. I believe it displays a sensitivity which belies Labor’s charge that he is a wrecker. Compare his approach to theirs on say IR legislation. Who would you say is the wrecker?

  88. m0nty

    That’s what you asked, Monty. And a few people have answered quite aptly.

    The reasonable responses have been that there’s nothing wrong with it, as long as people don’t impose their cultural views on others. Which I completely agree with. So there’s no need to be calling each other names (pun intended).

  89. Fisky

    I don’t think even the left believe their own bullshit here

    That’s right – they don’t believe it at all. They would be happy for a black former Muslim like Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be murdered, in fact they would celebrate in the Guardian if she were. The entire purpose behind the Left’s concern trolling on “vulnerable minorities” is to shut down non-Leftist speech, pure and simple. There is nothing more to it than that.

    Which is why we should just ban the Left without remorse.

  90. Woolfe

    Winston,
    In your brilliant card game idea where would a Mordy sit?

  91. I’d support more such laws that had an apology as the remedy instead of cash money.

    When you punish someone by having the State force them to apologize, how sincere do you think that apology would be?

    You don’t actually want the State to force citizens to apologize for having hurt someone’s feelings; you want to see people who say things you don’t like hearing dragged through the courts and publicly humiliated.

  92. Fisky

    This is probably as far as the Coalition can go on this issue at this time. What they propose is sellable with likely a minimum of political repercussions. My guess is that they will revisit the issue once in power.

    Stephen Harper took the same approach – wait till you have a safe majority and then do what needs to be done. I’m glad Abbott isn’t frightening the horses yet.

  93. JC

    LLyod:

    There is a difference between incrementalism and sellout softcockery.

    If Abbott is too worried about being branded (name your own abuse) then he ought to get off the podium and allow someone else to take over.

    There us nothing incremental about standing up for the basic right to free speech.

    1/2ies is was Fraser’s game. How exactly did that work out, remind me?

  94. Winston SMITH

    Please Sinclair can we have a monty free thread?
    This self obsessed fool is either incapable of getting the message, or is trolling to be the winner of this centuries most disliked person.
    Just this one. Please.

  95. papachango

    Ogh yes I forgot about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    They hate her too. One wackjob (could have been Monbiot but not sure), said that her status as an actual victim of genital mulitaion, gave her views an ‘unfortunate air of legitimacy’. FMD.

    But they could argue she’s just another non-Muslim being islamophobic.

    Irshad Manji is an actual practicing Muslim who is strongly critical of the way the religion is praciced in most countries, so she’s harder to dismiss. I suppose they could try an insult like coconut, used for Noel Pearson.

  96. Infidel Tiger

    There us nothing incremental about standing up for the basic right to free speech.

    Exactly.

    He’ll only be annoying lefties wuith this policy anyway. Might as well annoy the fuck out of them.

  97. Winston SMITH

    Woolfe, where would a Mordy sit?
    On his arse.
    In a High Dungeon.

  98. Oh come on

    Winston Smith: as if. SoB has that one totally sewn up.

  99. RichardM

    “So there’s no need to be calling each other names (pun intended).”

    Says the person who started it.

    Right, so back to your statment:

    “““What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?””

    Let’s repeat, just so we’re all clear: “defined by race“.

    Your words.

    No mention of ‘culture’.

    Do you retract?

  100. Adrien

    Hammygar – They are, and should be, capable of absorbing these things. Minority groups are different and need our protection, not our denigration.

    And so it’s okay to insult Anglo-Saxons because they are dominant but not, say people of Irish ancestry? Or Chinese? But what if the Irish start breeding and become the dominant group? Can we rely on them to alter the law so that Anglo-Saxons are now protected?

    If you attempt to resolve racial prejudice by using the law to change people’s minds you often exacerbate the problem.

  101. Adrien

    The Liberals want to retain the law against humiliating and/or intimidating certain ‘groups’ and they want to muscle up on the exemptions given to sanctioned speech. They draw a new wiggly line.

    In other words it’s fiddling with a bad law in response to specific incident where an ally got punished. Minimizing hassle and maximizing confusion. This is not the way to write a law.

  102. Fisky

    The problem is that the Liberals have not built an intellectual case for repeal and the ALP will run a scare campaign that their real intent is to legalise violence against minorities. So going softly is a good idea for now. Remember Stephen Harper.

    If the Liberals really want to destroy the law, they should remove the clauses granting free speech exemptions to “religious purposes”. Then it would be illegal to preach the Koran, as it surely would be under any consistent application of anti-incitement law, and Labor would be stuffed. How would they possibly argue that it should be legal to call for violence against women, for Jews and Christians to be fought and for polytheists to be exterminated? The answer is that it is illegal to incite these things, as indeed it should be regardless of whether it is on religious or secular grounds.

    The Left have absolutely no answer to this argument, again because they didn’t reach their position through logic but rather through a mixture of emotion and expedience.

  103. hammygar

    It’s amazing that a thread so full of shit about “free speech” wants to ban mOnty and myself. The irony. The hypocrites.

  104. .

    You dumb shit hammy.

    A court ordering you to shut your trap is not free speech.

    Being berated for stupidity or being told to stop using someone else’s property as a mouthpiece is not a violation of free speech.

  105. m0nty

    Right, so back to your statment:

    “““What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?””

    Let’s repeat, just so we’re all clear: “defined by race“.

    Your words.

    No mention of ‘culture’.

    Do you retract?

    I guess what we’re arguing here is what the missing agent is, given that the phrase is passive. If you add “by society” to that phrase, then we’re in agreement that the premise would be wrong. It appears you and others have made the assumption that that is what we’re talking about. I was assuming that the phrase was talking about individuals self-identifying by their race, as part of their cultural heritage. So no, I don’t retract my statement in that context.

  106. Fisky

    What the Right need to do is give Abbott a pass for now. Then, when he is in office, run a bunch of Breitbart-style antics. Organise some activists across the country to stand on soapboxes in public places calling for homosexuals to be killed, Jews and Christians to be fought, and wives to be beaten. There will be lots of angry members of the public calling for them to be charged, and the Labor Party will agree. Then announce that, actually, all we were doing was quoting from the Koran, we are devout Muslims, and our religion tells us to fight Jews and Christians, and beat our wives.

    The absurdity of the Left’s position will be exposed and the government will have the moral case for repeal.

  107. Infidel Tiger

    It’s amazing that a thread so full of shit about “free speech” wants to ban mOnty and myself. The irony. The hypocrites.

    I don’t want you banned. I want you executed in the Town Square for blasphemy.

  108. Fisky

    Actually, I should change that a little – don’t get them to call for Christians to be fought, just Jews. Better still, use the “Zionist” euphemism and see how many Greens can be rope-a-doped.

  109. Lloyd

    JC, IT

    It’s easy for us on the sidelines to to scream for this and that. I imagine it’s very different when you’re in the hot seat.

    If I had my way, I’d like to see lots of the rights agenda repealed. I have my pet beefs with the current Privacy agenda for instance. But I’m not in politics nor would I want to be.

    Don’t forget that Abbott has spent lots of time with “ordinary” Aborigines instead the likes of Lisa Behrendt. I’m betting that quite a few had grievances to air and that he’s taken some of that perspective on board.

    Besides, Abbott is supposed to be one of the most hard line people in the Coalition. Who would you suggest would have the stones and the nous to win an election and repeal this legislation if not Abbott?

  110. Andreas

    Rubbish. Culture is an entirely personal thing, which any libertarian should support as being completely free to practise. No government should impose any cultural practices on anyone.

    Why do people think that somehow the law and culture are not related? Where do laws come from if not from the culture of the people?

    In a free society, a Muslim should be perfectly able to hold a view that people who drink are bad. S/he can not impose that view on others, of course.

    Yes they can, we live in a democracy. They can impose their view via the ballot box. The law is not immutable, nor are cultures limited to what clothes you wear, or what eat, or what holidays you celebrate, they are absolutely linked with sets of values – whether women are equal with, or subordinate to men, for example. If you change the culture, you will change the law, because the law flows from the culture of the people.

  111. m0nty

    Andreas: if your culture is so weak that it can’t stand a minority holding different views, then it’s not much of a culture, is it?

    In any case, our culture includes allowing freedom of religion and other freedoms which enable citizens to hold and practise personal cultural beliefs. If we abrogate those freedoms then we are going against our own culture.

  112. .

    I don’t want you banned. I want you executed in the Town Square for blasphemy.

    I want the pro RDA people charged with asebia and creating new religions and to be forced to drink hemlock.

  113. JC

    Andreas: if your culture is so weak that it can’t stand a minority holding different views, then it’s not much of a culture, is it?

    Which was the better culture in your mind, when Islam rampaged through Hindu India.

  114. Winston SMITH

    “It’s amazing that a thread so full of shit about “free speech” wants to ban mOnty and myself. The irony. The hypocrites.”

    Monty reminds me of my youngest brother. Totally self centered to a pathological degree. Generally we hated him, because he was such a dick. Any conversation, when Dennis arrived, would immediately turn into a discussion about him and how badly the world treated him. He joined the army when he was eighteen, and got a psych discharge six months later. He’s been smacked in the mouth in every pub in NSW for being a total idiot.
    He’s 55 now, and even his cardiologist has torn him a new one for being a dick in a cardiology unit where he told other patients to take or not take other medications because of what he was on.
    Monty is the same: If he isn’t being the center of attention, the subject is skewed until he is. It is never him that’s wrong, it’s everyone else.
    Montys only exercise is moving goal posts.

  115. RichardM

    “It appears you and others have made the assumption that that is what we’re talking about.”

    Not we. You.

    “I was assuming that the phrase was talking about individuals self-identifying by their race, as part of their cultural heritage.”

    Sorry. No banana. As confused as this explanation is (especially given your initial question recycled the word ‘philosophy’; an extremely dangerous choice, given the context and the original use of the word, which was quite carefully selected), you’re just wriggling now.

    In reality, I think you merely failed to think through the inevitable consequences of the position.

    And you’re not alone.

    This legislation’s original champion didn’t think them through, either.

  116. Winston SMITH

    Dot, I’m getting nervous about you and your attempts to criminalise hairless mice.
    What’s wrong with hairless mice?

    Steve, shut up. This isn’t an invitation for you to crap on about your manscaping.

  117. Winston – m0nty is arguing reasonably, and not taking the opportunity to slag off a family member in public.

  118. Winston SMITH

    Go away Steve – my brother deserves slagging off at.
    Go trim your nose hairs.

  119. Fisky

    As to the specific clauses that tripped Bolt up, they are poorly drafted and could be handled via defamation law so removing them wouldn’t be any great loss. But in a defamation case Bolt would have been up for a six-figure sum (or more) instead of just an apology, so what benefit would that have been for Bolt?

    No, you don’t know that at all. There is no evidence that Bolt would have been up for a six-figure defo payout. As no damage to the complainants was proven, there is no case for making Bolt apologise.

  120. Fisky

    So we are agreed that m0nty sees “no problem” with the intellectual foundations of Apartheid, then?

  121. Lloyd

    The country is really fucked up when a union boss can use a union credit card to hire hookers on the grounds that there were no guidelines prohibiting such use, yet a man who claims certain Aborigines aren’t really Aborigines because they look European I’d found guilty of a race based crime.

    Funny how the Aborigines at the tent embassy identify white people as being non Aboriginal…

  122. JC

    So we are agreed that m0nty sees “no problem” with the intellectual foundations of Apartheid, then?

    Yep. Pretty obvious really.

  123. JC

    That’s hilarious Winston.

  124. I think the Coalition’s incremental approach is thoughtful, sensible and reasonable. They can always re-visit the issue when in government.

  125. Fisky

    Back to Hammygar’s comment:

    It’s amazing that the Right thinks its OK to insult someone who belongs to a race or a religion other than the dominant one. I don’t think it should be illegal to insult or denigrate anglo-saxons or christians as they are still dominant in our society and can look after ourselves. They are, and should be, capable of absorbing these things. Minority groups are different and need our protection, not our denigration.

    Hammygar’s position is not theoretical. It has already been implemented in the UK with a recent judgment that legitimised racist abuse against a young White girl.

    The four defendants shouted “kill the white slag” as they attacked Rhea Page after dragging her to the ground.

    Ambaro Maxamed, 24, her sisters Ayan, 28, and Hibo, 24, and their cousin Ifrah Nur, 28, faced up to five years in jail after admitting causing actual bodily harm.

    But Judge Robert Brown gave them six-month suspended sentences after deciding that the attack in Leicester city centre was not racially motivated.

    He heard in mitigation that the four were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

    Miss Page, who needed hospital treatment after the attack, said outside court: “They were taking turns to kick me in the head and back over and over. I thought they were going to kill me. I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can’t think of any other reason.”

    That’s Leftism for you. It begins by biasing the law in order to “protect vulnerable minorities”. It ends by allowing people to yell racist abuse at a woman while kicking her in the head. All because, as Hammy said, “Anglo-Saxons can look after themselves” and can take a few sharp blows to the head.

    Given that Leftism, by its very nature, is a dishonest, vile and violent philosophy, there is nothing for us to do except to ban it and to place people who exhibit symptoms of Leftism in the care of psychiatric experts.

  126. Andreas

    M0nty a minority can turn into a majority in a relatively short space of time. If I lived in Europe it wouldn’t be sea levels in the year 2100 I’d be worrying about. (As well it doesn’t necessarily require a majority to start to impose your will on the people, the Greens seem to be doing well with just ~10% of the vote).

    Also just because we allow freedom of religion doesn’t mean we should accept carte blanche everything about a religion (or other culture) where it clashes with our own cultural values. Consider Mormons being forced to abandon polygamy as part of their religion before Utah could become a US state and before the LDS church was accepted as a religion. Why can we not get something similar to the 1890 Manifesto from Muslims today before we accept their religion?

  127. Fisky

    To quote Hammy, “They are, and should be, capable of absorbing” a torrent of kicks to the head. Don’t be under any illusion that Hammy was referring to anything else.

  128. Andrew

    Hammygar: What everyone else said about you. +1

    The scary part is he may actually speak for GetUp! – it appears with all their anti-Catholic dog-whistling that they actually believe this filth to be true!

    (Due to greater longevity, approx 51% of the population is female – can we look forward to the Left bringing back sex discrimination, on the theory that the majority can take care of itself?)

  129. JC

    The scary part is he may actually speak for GetUp!

    He sounds like a GetitUp zombie, doesn’t he.

  130. papachango

    a man who claims certain Aborigines aren’t really Aborigines because they look European is found guilty of a race based crime.

    It’s worse than that. He never said they weren’t Aboriginal, in fact he explicitly said they they have every right to identify as Aboriginal.

    He just pointed out that they couls also choose to identidy as Irish, German, Scottish or simply Australian, and wondered why they chose to focus on only Aboriginal, and made the factual observation that a random observer wouldn’t be able to tell whether they’re Aboriginal anyway.

    He even expressly said that, while they did receive many taxpayer funded grants reserved for Aborigines, he didn’t think that that was the reason they chose to identify as only Aboriginal.

    He was then found guilty of a race crime because of the ‘tone’ rather than the content of his written words.

    This was all from a lefty interpretation of 18C. It needs to be completely repealed. The only way to get these lefties to see some sense is to get a bunch of them charged with hatecrimes for criticising Israel.

  131. Ivan Denisovich

    He never said they weren’t Aboriginal, in fact he explicitly said they they have every right to identify as Aboriginal.

    He just pointed out that they couls also choose to identidy as Irish, German, Scottish or simply Australian, and wondered why they chose to focus on only Aboriginal, and made the factual observation that a random observer wouldn’t be able to tell whether they’re Aboriginal anyway.

    Aint that a bit racialist? Is it coz I is black?:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNi-BB-j0u0 (from 4m15s)

    Some of you aint never seen a black man before:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ6k8tddDxg&feature=related

  132. Fisky

    Here is a video of the vicious attack on the White British girl by a gang of racist Somalis. The attack lasts about three minutes as the four of them kick her in the head over and over again while her boyfriend tries to protect her in vain. They received a six-month suspended sentence for this, and the judge insisted that it was “not a racist attack” despite their yelling “kill the white slag”.

    As Hammygar said, “(Anglo-Saxons) are, and should be, capable of absorbing” a steel-capped boot to the temple.

    Should we debate people who are this ill, or should we place them under medical supervision? Most moderates would lean towards the latter.

  133. Lloyd

    I had followed the case and did a poor job summarizing, but I stand corrected.

  134. JC

    Should we debate people who are this ill, or should we place them under medical supervision? Most moderates would lean towards the latter.

    Hamster definitely requires proper psychological counseling that’s for sure.

    Hamster, we know you’re reading all this. Stop being a coward, face up to what is being said and apologize.

  135. Harrys on the Boat

    Fisky (although you were responding to hammygar – a pointless exercise), the recent judgement you highlighted shows exactly where m0nty, Steve et al want our race laws to end up.

  136. Fisky

    This was all from a lefty interpretation of 18C. It needs to be completely repealed. The only way to get these lefties to see some sense is to get a bunch of them charged with hatecrimes for criticising Israel.

    You could extend the act to cover foreign policy advocacy. Anyone who advocates the BDS program could be charged with “discriminatory intent” if they aren’t already on record for criticising Israel’s opponents. Another way is through the Koran angle. The Koran incites discrimination and violence against women, Jews, Christians and polytheists. Taking away the religious exemptions from the Act would essentially make the Koran illegal.

    When the Left are recovering from the shock of this, you can then do a switcheroo and repeal the Act entirely.

  137. m0nty

    M0nty a minority can turn into a majority in a relatively short space of time.

    That’s what this is really all about, isn’t it Andreas? Fear of the white European majority becoming the minority. You shouldn’t worry so much. Have faith in the strength of your culture.

    Why can we not get something similar to the 1890 Manifesto from Muslims today before we accept their religion?

    Tell me Andreas, what are the illegal acts that Muslims are doing now in Australia that you think they need to stop doing? Polygamy is illegal in Australia, so you are going to need to point to actual illegalities being committed by Muslims in Australia to justify using the 1890 Manifesto as a reference point.

  138. papachango

    Not only that but the prosecutorin the trial smeared Bolt by comparing him to the instigators of the Holocause, and suggesting he is homophobic (he is no such thing), but was apaprently immune from any race crime or defamamtion.

    Utterly appalling.

  139. JC

    All good points Fisky. It would be fun turning the tables a little. The BDS’ers would cop a walloping.

  140. C.L.

    That’s what this is really all about, isn’t it Andreas? Fear of the white European majority becoming the minority.

    A perfectly valid concern if the descent into the toilet of South Africa and various precincts of Paris and London is anything to go by. The idea that white/Western/Christian peoples – alone amongst all the peoples of the globe – ought to be indifferent to their countries becoming unrecognisably non white/Western/Christian is pretentiously phony, illogical nonsense.

  141. Fisky

    You shouldn’t worry so much. Have faith in the strength of your culture.

    Tell me Andreas, what are the illegal acts that Muslims are doing now in Australia that you think they need to stop doing? Polygamy is illegal in Australia

    You obviously haven’t made the connection that if Muslim culture were the majority culture in Australia, quite a few currently illegal acts would suddenly become legal.

  142. Fisky

    m0nty’s position is actually that there is no correlation between culture and law. That’s why you are just as likely to find a government of Ayatollahs in Europe or China as in the Middle East.

    Leftism – it can’t explain anything about the world, but it can do a lot of damage. We should ban it at once.

  143. m0nty

    A perfectly valid concern if the descent into the toilet of South Africa and various precincts of Paris and London is anything to go by. The idea that white/Western/Christian peoples – alone amongst all the peoples of the globe – ought to be indifferent to their countries becoming unrecognisably non white/Western/Christian is pretentiously phony, illogical nonsense.

    At least you’re being honest about it, CL. This is not about freedom at all, in fact your motivation is to impose restrictions on immigrants because you are afraid that your dominant culture will be changed. There are no principles at stake on your side, just racial self-interest. It’s healthy that you would admit that.

  144. JC

    We should ban it at once.

    We could make a start right here, by banning Monster. In any event I thought he was only allowed in the open thread.

    Hey Fisky, thinking about it a little more… we could offer the least insufferable protagonists say home detentions with ankle bracelets etc.

  145. Infidel Tiger

    mOnty, I’d imagine the majority of immigrants wouldn’t want this country turning into a gigantic ethnic sewer either.

  146. C.L.

    …in fact your motivation is to impose restrictions on immigrants because you are afraid that your dominant culture will be changed.

    I’m not personally “afraid” but why would it be illogical or bad for people to fear the wipe-out of their culture? Doesn’t the left call this “genocide”?

    And I don’t support any racial restrictions on immigrants and never have. I do think Muslims should be banned because they’re dangerous lunatics.

    I favour Eastern Europeans and Asians, especially Asians – with abolutely no Britons.

    Aa for defending white/Western/Christian culture – which has been the greatest force for advancement and civilisation in human history – I favour fecundity as the ultimate solution.

  147. Fisky

    This is not about freedom at all, in fact your motivation is to impose restrictions on immigrants because you are afraid that your dominant culture will be changed. There are no principles at stake on your side…

    The maintenance of a culture does not have anything to do with principles?? Oh dear, dear me.

    So according to m0nty’s argument, a culture has correlation with law, and also has nothing to do with principles!

    You really are all over the place today, aren’t you m0nty.

  148. m0nty

    mOnty, I’d imagine the majority of immigrants wouldn’t want this country turning into a gigantic ethnic sewer either.

    What the hell does that even mean, IT? This thread is a terrible argument for freedom of speech. Look at what you clowns do with it.

  149. Fisky

    So according to m0nty’s argument, a culture has no correlation with law, and also has nothing to do with principles!

  150. m0nty

    I’m not personally “afraid” but why would it be illogical or bad for people to fear the wipe-out of their culture? Doesn’t the left call this “genocide”?

    You’re being irrational, CL. No one is wiping out your culture. You’re not a victim of genocide. Get a grip. Western culture is the strongest in the world. Most people in the world want to be a Westerner. Have faith in it.

    And I don’t support any racial restrictions on immigrants and never have. I do think Muslims should be banned because they’re dangerous lunatics.

    I favour Eastern Europeans and Asians, especially Asians – with abolutely no Britons.

    Yeah… stick to currency trading, lad.

  151. JC

    This thread is a terrible argument for freedom of speech. Look at what you clowns do with it.

    Monster… I’m 100% free speech but one huge qualifier now that we’ve seen the left in full monty after the calling of the media ‘quiry and the judge Mordy episode.

    My idea is free speech with payback. In other words before we get back to free speech I want to see payback escalated to the point where we have leftwingers like you screaming for mercy with a promise you will never try this shit again. If it means quite a few of you end up doing long stretches in the slammer for such transgressions as referring to Abbott as the Mad Monk, or the BDS’ers attacking Jews then so be it.

    Fisky could be in charge of deciding who gets charged, as I think he’d be quite good at this.

  152. Andreas

    That’s what this is really all about, isn’t it Andreas? Fear of the white European majority becoming the minority.

    No that’s not what it’s about. It is not about whiteness or race, it’s about culture. I don’t care if the people of Europe are white, black, purple or green, I do care if they think polygamy is acceptable or that a woman is worth half of a man or that gays should be executed. Why is the left unable to distinguish between race and culture? Is it deliberate, so they can shout “racism!” so they can shut off debate?

  153. Fisky

    No one is wiping out your culture.

    You can’t even define culture, you ridiculous goose. Your contortions on this thread are amazing.

    Most people in the world want to be a Westerner.

    What on earth are you talking about? Is there a Pew Research Poll showing that a majority of the world’s population answered “Yes” to the question “Would you like to become a Westerner?”

    You are the most ignorant, provincial monoglot idiot I’ve ever met on this blog. You know absolutely nothing about anything outside fantasy football, let alone any foreign cultures.

  154. wreckage

    This thread is a terrible argument for freedom of speech. Look at what you clowns do with it.

    So? People use freedom of association to hang out with dickheads, freedom of the press to publish sensationalist crap, economic freedom to buy trash, free elections to vote for populist sharks.

    There is no freedom which is not abused – none. The perceived misuse of a right, especially in pathetically weak corner-cases of “misuse” like this thread is not a valid argument against that freedom.

    The fact that there’s anyone alive that’d call something like this thread offensive enough to require censorship just shows how dangerous censorship and “sensitivity” laws are.

  155. m0nty

    I was being facetious with that line, wreckage. Relax.

  156. Winston SMITH

    Fisky could be in charge of deciding who gets charged, as I think he’d be quite good at this.

    I’d be better JC.
    And cheaper. Hemp rope is cheap. And recyclable…

  157. C.L.

    No one is wiping out your culture.

    I didn’t say they were, systemically, but in fact important elements of our culture have been wiped out and are being wiped out to appease and placate Muslims and angry pale ‘Aborigines,’ for example. Things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press, for example. I was responding to your dumb criticism that anyone who opposes immigration policies or ‘multiculturalism’ has an irrational “Fear of the white European majority becoming the minority.”

    It’s not irrational at all. Your phony bourgeois indifference is what’s irrational.

    This has actually happened in large swathes of Paris, to take another example, and the results are not good for ‘our’ culture – meaning the culture where freedom of speech, artistic expression, press, association and women were heretofore paramount.

    But you don’t care about that, do you, because your Lefty Grievance Table tells you that Muslims outpoint cartoonists and women.

  158. JC

    There’s room for a large number in my Department of Left wing prosecution, Winston, as i would imagine the number of briefs would be huge at the start. There are a large numbers of cases to get through.

  159. Fisky

    m0nty to CL:

    There are no principles at stake on your side, just racial self-interest.

    m0nty upthread:

    What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?

    I’ll be fair and give m0nty a full day to untie all the knots he’s got himself in. Then he can come back on here and try again.

  160. JC

    I’ll be fair and give m0nty a full day to untie all the knots he’s got himself in. Then he can come back on here and try again.

    Keep it for the brief and let him answer the charge of leftie stupidity in an open court in front of his peers superiors.

  161. JC

    Fisk

    on serious note.. if the left has basically made taking offense a legal charge answerable to court in front of judge Mordy, I see no reason why a charge of left wing stupidity can’t be fronted to court either.

  162. .

    monty is always facetious when he’s wrong.

  163. papachango

    Don’t get me wrong. Those BDS nutcases should be allowed to criticse Israel and the Jews as much as they like, and even do their own boycotting (but certainly not harass Jewish-owned businesses or otherwise break the law)

    However I’d like to see them prosecuted under the RDA 18C just to prove a point. Ideally I’d like the prosecutor / complainant to secure a conviction then turn around and immediately say the conviction is unjust, and donate any damages to a campaign to have the law repealed.

  164. Fisky

    I’m all for an expansive interpretation of the law, JC. Look at m0nty for example.

    He said that there was nothing wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race” (the basis for both Nazism and Apartheid), then he accused CL of advocating “racial self-interest”.

    Now he’s implying that the discussion on this thread should not really be legal (“This thread is a terrible argument for freedom of speech. Look at what you clowns do with it.”).

    But of course, m0nty was the one who legitimised the ideology of racism (the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race).

    He also thinks that “most people want to be Westerners”.

    What a ridiculous, clownish half-wit m0nty is. He can’t even remember what he’s writing from comment to comment.

  165. m0nty

    You doth protest too much, CL. Whose freedom of speech has been “wiped out”? So Bolt has chosen not to insult white-skinned Aborigines any further, well boo hoo. He’s got plenty of bile and vitriol to spread around elsewhere. He’s still got regular columns in the biggest selling newspapers in the land, a popular blog, and a weekly TV show all of his own. It seems to me that he is a candidate for the person who enjoys the most freedom of speech in the whole country. (You lot do an excellent job of vilifying white-skinned Aborigines on here anyway.)

    Freedom of the press, how has it been “wiped out”? The press are all still here and are reporting what they like, though maybe not for much longer, for economic rather than cultural or legal reasons.

    You are playing the victim on behalf of your race, CL, but it doesn’t wash. We are part of the dominant culture and despite your protestations, it is in no danger of being supplanted by sharia law. You are just being silly because of your unfounded fear. Have a Bex and a good lie down.

  166. JC

    Fisk

    In your court, Monster should end up getting 15 years hard labor for stupid left wing comments. Anything less would be a crime against humanity.

  167. Quentin George

    What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?

    Simple. It is a ludicrous idea to defend, because, in essence, race does not exist at all. It barely existed as an idea before the 19th century, and has now become so overstretched as to practically mean nothing. It has become a catch-all word for a variety of things including physical appearance, cultural background, ancestry, religion and identity.

    But scientifically, the idea of it is bullshit. It is one of the many stupid mind worms the human species has infected itself and now, at a time when we should be ridding our self of the idea, self-interested idiots keep trying to keep the zombie alive.

    Since race doesn’t really exist, any policy based on it will eventually go to ludicrous attempts to defend it, from Bolt’s trial, the “paper bag” test in the US, all the way to Nazis walking around measuring peoples noses.

    If race is to be a mere form of self-identification, as monty seems to want it to be, then lets treat it as such. We don’t put laws into place to protect the feelings and self-esteem of Star Trek fans. (how dare you say Nemesis sucked!) Similarly, insulting ones cultural identity is irrelevant.

    Racial anti-discrimination laws are supposed to be there to stop people judging on entirely irrelevant but unchangeable physical characteristics or other facts (sex, skin colour, ancestry) which an individual does not choose. Extending it to the subjective nonsense that is the definition of “race” is futile and harmful for the ideal of a post-racial society. Seriously, we seem to be just obsessed about race as we ever were – if we don’t stop and admit the silliness of it all, we’ll never get past it.

  168. m0nty

    Nemesis did suck, though.

  169. papachango

    Unfortunately stupidity is not illegal. If it was the jails would be full.

    What is illegal (but shouldn’t be IMHO)is ‘offending’ someone if it could be interpreted to be racially based by an activist judge.

    If you found the right activist judge, you could lock up Lee Rhiannon, the tend embassy protestors and that Marrickville Greens woman for race hate.

    It would be worth doing just to get the law overturned. Despite the claims of hammy-whatever (whoIi’m now convinced is doing a bad impersonation of Alene Composta), nowhere in the RDA does it say that white Anglo Saxon, or indeed Jewish people can’t be discriminated against or offended.

  170. JC

    Unfortunately stupidity is not illegal. If it was the jails would be full.

    But some strands of it could be, after all taking offense by race is, so I see no reason why left wing stupidity could not be prosecuted with full 100% prejudice and intolerance.

  171. Fisky

    We are part of the dominant culture and despite your protestations, it is in no danger of being supplanted by sharia law.

    Sharia courts are already operating in Britain, supported by many key figures in the Establishment, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are substantial restrictions on free speech in Britain, particularly where Muslims are likely to be offended.

    Indeed things are now so dire there, that there now actually have to be lobby groups, such as One Law For All, a multi-faith and multi-ethnic organisation, to oppose the creeping use of Sharia in Britain.

    There are other organisations dedicated to helping ex-Muslims avoid physical attack and community ostracisation in Britain, which of course are justified via the Koran. Honour killings, forced marriage (often to family members), FGM, you name it – it’s becoming increasingly frequent in England.

    In other words, the fact that these developments are happening in the home town of our own head of state, and are entirely bad things, makes a mockery of your claim that our culture is in “no danger” of being supplanted by sharia law.

    That’s not to say it will be supplanted (I tend to think it won’t), but to say, in the face of actual developments on the ground in Europe, that it is “in no danger” of doing so is exactly the sort of pig ignorant rubbish I’d expect to hear from a half-educated clown like yourself.

  172. Quentin George

    I’m taking you to Judge Mordy for that comment, monty.

  173. JC

    It’s just common sense really, as communists, Tubby Milne and Mad Dog Bob often say.

  174. papachango

    JC – would you change the law to ban left wing stupidity?

    Better get bigger jails for all the Greens and the ALP, evgen some Libs.

  175. C.L.

    m0nty to CL:

    There are no principles at stake on your side, just racial self-interest.

    m0nty upthread:

    What exactly is wrong with “the philosophy that individuals can and should be defined by race”?

    LOL.

  176. Gab

    Better get bigger jails for all the Greens and the ALP, evgen some Libs.

    Better still, send them to work in coal-fired electricity plants and the mines. Also, a few could be put to stationery bicycles connected to the power grid.

  177. Entropy

    The paper bag test? Was that a test for assessing women at a bar?

  178. Fisky

    Whose freedom of speech has been “wiped out”?

    m0nty is now officially the stupidest person in the world. Here.

    An evangelical Christian ministry that made fun of Islamic beliefs has been found to have vilified Muslims in a landmark test of Victoria’s three-year-old racial and religious tolerance laws.

    The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has criticised the Catch the Fire Ministries, its pastor, Danny Nalliah, and speaker Daniel Scot over a March 2002 seminar in Melbourne and a church’s newsletter that attacked Islam.

    And in case anyone wants to run the argument that it was right to charge Scot and Nalliah for “vilifying Muslims”, here is what the Koran has to say about non-Muslims. The Koran, obviously, is not banned under the same Act.

    008.055
    YUSUFALI: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
    PICKTHAL: Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.
    SHAKIR: Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

  179. Gab

    Who was the ‘shock jock’ taken to court because he accurately described prophet muhammed and his 9 year old wife? Was it Alan Jones?

  180. wreckage

    I was being facetious with that line, wreckage. Relax.

    And I was just using it as an opportunity to make a point. I am relaxed. Sometimes it’s hard to tell though.

  181. Quentin George

    The paper bag test? Was that a test for assessing women at a bar?

    It was to see if black people were too black to join black fraternities.

  182. Gab

    Whose freedom of speech has been “wiped out”?

    It’s being restricted more and more on grounds of “offense” FFS. There’s a general erosion happening every so slowly right now. Wait until the press inquiry publishes it’s findings and recommendations..

    m0nty’s the type who waits for free speech to be a thing of the past and then he stands up and says “whahappened?”

  183. Jim Rose

    The Canadians are living proof of the way progressive censorship rules come back to bite the constituencies that endorse them.

    British Columbia has an extremely broad hate speech law that prohibits the publication of any statement that “indicates” discrimination or is “likely” to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.

    Professor Sunera Thobani of the University of British Columbia faced a hate crimes investigation after she delivered a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy.

    Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalist activist, remarked that Americans are “bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.”

    The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans, who are a minority in Canada.

    Source: D. Berstein, Defending Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 100 (2003)

  184. .

    Jim Rose

    Canadian law seems to be written for the lulz.

    The prodigal arse biting is, as we say on the cat, “hilarious yet tragic”.

  185. papachango

    The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans, who are a minority in Canada.

    Good. We need an example like this in Australia to show the left how silly it is. Maybe an arrest of Catherine Deveny for anti-Catholic, or ani-bogan bigotry.

  186. Token

    The watermelons are not happy their moves toward totalitarianism may be thwarted by an Abbott government

  187. Kelly of Kenmore

    Free speech is wasted on the likes of Abbott. The man can barely string together a coherent sentence.

    Loser.

  188. Jim Rose

    The man can barely string together a coherent sentence

    imagine how far behind the ALP would be if abbott could talk and walk at the same time.

    Fraser was much more negative and unpopular than abbott as opposition leader – blocked supply even – and still won in a landslide.

  189. Ellen of Tasmania

    Monty cannot really believe that there is no connection between the laws and culture of a people?

    Cultures never change overnight, but they do change, and therefore, so do their laws. Our laws changed as we abandoned our druid/pagan past, and it is changing now as we abandon our Christian past. Secular Humanists have a different set of beliefs and our laws and cultural behaviours are reflecting that change. The influence of the Muslim society will also bring about changes.

    How strong is a culture? How strong are its laws? As strong as the people make it; as strongly as they believe the worldview that undergirds it.

  190. Peter Patton

    Fraser was much more negative and unpopular than abbott as opposition leader – blocked supply even – and still won in a landslide.

    The economic conditions that facilitated that landslide are nowhere to be seen on our horizon.

  191. Adrien

    Monty – You doth protest too much, CL. Whose freedom of speech has been “wiped out”?

    Monty, you miss the point. In your efforts to thwart the likes of Andrew Bolt you misunderstand that his conviction has made him a free speech martyr whereas what should have happened is that his views should be countered with reasoned discourse and perhaps defamation action. The results of his flouting of the Racial Discrimination Act are that the entire act and not just the Keating amendment are now considered with ill favour.

    What gets me about this issue is that the Left simply refuse to concede the central point. The Left takes civil liberty as a given ignoring the number of times it has been revoked, sometimes for centuries.

  192. Peter Patton

    Adrien

    That is a good point. Before the Bolt case, I had never had a beef with the RDA, but then I had no idea of the Lavarch-Keating s.18 amendment. After reading that amendment, the politics behind it being passed in the first place, then Judge Mordy in Bolt v Eatock, I am no longer a fan of that legislation at all.

  193. m0nty

    Monty cannot really believe that there is no connection between the laws and culture of a people?

    I did not say that. You lot take great joy in beating up straw men with my name on it. Verballing me is not going to work, and only shows how desperate some in this thread (not you Ellen) have become.

  194. Judge Mordy in Bolt v Eatock, I am no longer a fan of that legislation at all.

    No-one in their right mind would expect anyone would twist the legislation the way the learned Mordy did.

    It was over-reach by a political activist. For how long are we going to have to live with the threat of what tone an activist can read into a statement and what that activist believes should have been written?

  195. Peter Patton

    I loved his attempt to argue that “hate” doesn’t mean, er, hate.

  196. m0nty

    Monty, you miss the point. In your efforts to thwart the likes of Andrew Bolt you misunderstand that his conviction has made him a free speech martyr whereas what should have happened is that his views should be countered with reasoned discourse and perhaps defamation action. The results of his flouting of the Racial Discrimination Act are that the entire act and not just the Keating amendment are now considered with ill favour.

    Martyrs generally die at the stake, Adrien. They do not continue to be given freedom of speech across mass media outlets in newspaper, radio, TV and the Internet.

    Bolt is not a martyr. He had to apologise for going too far in the culture wars and breaking the law. It doesn’t necessarily matter that it was the RDA rather than defamation law that the Nine eventually used, the effect was largely the same: that Bolt was shown to have gone too far. That is all. Calm down.

  197. JC

    No-one in their right mind would expect anyone would twist the legislation the way the learned Mordy did.

    Mordy is an absolute disgrace. He actually didn’t find against Bolt for racial discrimination.

    The lunatic basically tied the provisions of the act dealing with offense etc to Bolt’s few points that were wrong and required Bolt to apologize. He found bad faith!

    Bolt actually won the big point of the case, obviously because the lunatic judge didn’t want the case to go to the High court and have both the act and his ridiculous decision thrown out over implied free rights.

    That’s basically what prevented Bolt from appealing. There was little or nothing to appeal against.

    What a mendacious prick of a judge Mordy is.

  198. JC

    Bolt is not a martyr. He had to apologise for going too far in the culture wars and breaking the law. It doesn’t necessarily matter that it was the RDA rather than defamation law that the Nine eventually used, the effect was largely the same: that Bolt was shown to have gone too far. That is all. Calm down.

    You’ll be screaming like a squealing pig when the shoe is on the other foot soon Monster.

  199. Peter Patton

    And I would to see Larissa Behrendt’s claim she ‘was raised an Aborigine’ litigated. All those Aboriginal tribes in the Sutherland Shire and all.

  200. Kelly of Kenmore

    Bolt lost. The market ruled through the court.

  201. Gab

    He had to apologise

    He did? When?

  202. Peter Patton

    That is, I would love to see…

  203. Infidel Tiger

    They do not continue to be given freedom of speech across mass media outlets in newspaper, radio, TV and the Internet.

    What a stupid answer. Do you think Bolt should be banned from writing and broadcasting before he can be said to have had his freedom of speech denied?

  204. hammygar

    Bolt is still sulking on his blog. His comments have virtually become non-operative to all who don’t suck up to him. Anything even faintly critical of News Ltd is banned. Even right-wingers should feel totally embarrassed by this man’s childish reactions since his conviction. He totally exaggerates the effect of the case on his so-called “freedom of speech”. Grow up Andrew Bolt.

  205. Peter Patton

    From everything I have read about the case, the strategy used by Bolt’s counsel is incomprehensible.

  206. Infidel Tiger

    Kelly, you don’t happen to be a bipolar transexual with a good friend on the northern NSW coast do you?

  207. Gab

    Anything even faintly critical of News Ltd is banned.

    If it’s banned then how do you know?

  208. Kelly, you don’t happen to be a bipolar transexual with a good friend on the northern NSW coast do you?

    When you read between the lines and read the tone, it does seem Kelly’s writing style is very similar.

  209. squawkbox

    Better still, send them to work in coal-fired electricity plants and the mines. Also, a few could be put to stationery bicycles connected to the power grid.

    Hey GAb, I work on the mines. You want me to mix with those douchebags? What have I ever done to you?

  210. Banger

    Bolt is a zionist mixed economy neocon.

    On his blog today he was decrying the end to subsidies of private health insurance.

    What kind of a conservative complains when the government sticks its nose OUT of an industry.

  211. .

    Bolt actually won the big point of the case, obviously because the lunatic judge didn’t want the case to go to the High court and have both the act and his ridiculous decision thrown out over implied free rights.

    Come on then. Let’s fund a challenge to it.

  212. JaneM

    Based on the premise that each and every one of us wants a better world for our children there is no such thing as a minority group.

    “Positive discrimination” is a contradiction in terms, be definition it cannot exist.

  213. Georgina

    I have been reliably informed that, from the islamic point of you, atheists breathing is offensive.

    It is therefore irrelevant whether I actually speak or what I say, any use of oxygen is an offense.

  214. observa

    Personally on the broader topic, I was kinda wondering how exactly the new push by the white sorry compo crowd for reconciliation due to ‘forced adoptions’ of their illegitimate bubs through the 50s, 60s and into the early 70s is going to gel with the black ‘stolen generation’ meme. I can see a wee contradiction of their own making looming on the horizon for the historical revisionists and 20/20 hindsighters.

  215. observa

    Well let me put it more succinctly to the ‘stolen generation’ black armband mob, since my now deceased parents were part of that racist, genocidal lot and I did grow up in cosmopolitan Darwin with aboriginal and ‘half caste’ kids among a rather multicultural and mixed bred lot of Asians, Indos, Timorese, etc. and it was certainly a bit of a culture shock to hit the City of Churches in 2nd Yr High School.

    Definitely a pommy fish and chips set with nary an Asian restaurant to serve Asian cuisine like the Don Hotel in Darwin where my folks took us regularly. No salty plums or other such fascinations from the Orient via Sue Wah Chin’s amazing aromatic store, when you nicked the sixpence you were supposed to put in the Church collection plate and wagged Sunday School to avail yourself of such Heathen delights. Unfortunately the Devil delayed us one time and God’s wrath was waiting back at Church and penance was to sit at the front of Sunday School Class thereafter.

    Yes those were the days of hushed adult whispers about fallen women and shotgun weddings and who had disappeared down south all of a sudden. Supporting Parents Benefit I hear you ask? Strictly Widows Pension please, we’re British and in that moral and social environment what do you think they thought of low moral whitefellas taking advantage of poor native girls and leaving them up the duff with half caste children the tribe didn’t want? Naturally they were as ashamed of such white male behaviour as they were of young white females showing such tell tale signs and in good Christian fashion what do you think they did as a result? They gathered up the suntanned white, the pale black and the ginger and white products of such behaviour to give them a good and moral Christain upbringing.

    And who got left behind? The pure black children who belonged to a different tribe and culture and it would somehow be wrong, to take them away from their parents’ particular ways and social mores, other than to try and impress upon their tribe what was necessary to get ahead in this world. Now deny that black armbanders and historical revisionists.

  216. Fisky

    I did not say that.

    It is precisely the basis for everything you have said on this thread, idiot. If law and culture were intimately related, then your cheery nonsense about how who resides in Australia makes no difference to Australian liberty would be bunkum. If not, then everything you’ve said is a non sequitur. I’m not surprised that you haven’t worked this out, but that’s your problem.

    It doesn’t necessarily matter that it was the RDA rather than defamation law that the Nine eventually used, the effect was largely the same

    Aside from the “six figures” you cited up the thread, then “the effect is largely the same”.

    Fuckhead, do you even read the stuff you have already written before going onto the next comment, or is it just a blank slate with the same moniker for each comment?

  217. Fisky

    The market ruled through the court.

    My God, just when you thought we were over quota, we have another retarded, drooling Leftist idiot on this thread. What the hell does a punitive court action, in no way related to actual damages because no such damages were proven via a defo action, have to do with the “market”?

    Just when you think the average Leftist IQ has fallen below that of a malnourished foetus, it incredibly manages to fall further.

  218. JC

    See Fisk.

    Now I get accused of being abusive towards leftwingers because i find their stupidity intolerable.

    See what I mean.

    It’s impossible to untangle this level of stupids.

  219. C.L.

    Oh, I see.

    There was a market for a Bolt prosecution and the White Nine and Judge Mordy were merely entrepreneurs who manufactured and sold the product.

  220. JC

    There was a market for a Bolt prosecution and the White Nine and Judge Mordy were merely entrepreneurs who manufactured and sold the product. And the product was defective. The consumers complained but Bolt Ltd. didn’t respond, so they brought their case to the consumer watchdog who found for them and made Bolt ltd apologize. It was market failure.

  221. Fisky

    JC, their stupidity is insulting to all bipeds. I really feel sorry for all chimpanzees who might share a common ancestor with these people.

  222. observa

    Essentially leftists have a bee in their bonnet about racism over all the isms by which individuals choose to discriminate and choose as they go about their daily lives, not least when they go to the shops, choose a restaurant, or a tradey to work around their home. Instead of taking the view that we’re all responsible adults with such rights to our own particular isms, they want some higher moral authority to stamp on particular isms they don’t like. That’s all very well but they certainly didn’t like it when Joe McCarthy was doing that with their particular ism and therein lies the problem for us all as free individuals with such a prescription. It’s why people drown in leaky boats to get away from the omniscient policers of particlar ‘bad’ isms elsewhere and the very thought processes and universal belief systems that support such tyranny.

    To totalitarian leftists all I’d say is be careful what you wish for and take heed of your shocking record in the past. If you can’t convince individuals what makes up the good society then you don’t have an argument worth listening to. We work it out by doing in a free and competitive marketplace for ideas. If a Greek or Thai restauranteur wants to only serve their Greek or Thai racial group, that’s fine with me, but it aint gunna happen on any scale worth worrying about. Same if they engage in racism or nepotism with their offspring in the family biz. If the budding Ronald MacDonald or Colonel Sanders is a commie, the McCarthyists want him out of there while the lefties are squabbling over who among FWA and the Racial Discrimination police are up for the job. Get the picture idiots?

  223. observa

    If any rational intellect can see ranking particular isms and policing them is the slippery slope to tyranny, then those who believe in adult (as distinct from children)individual responsibility and self determination are not quite out of the woods. Essentially it’s your fundamental right to discriminate with your particula ism and rant and rave to get me to change my wicked ism, but your right ends at the tip of my nose and the paint on my front fence, as does the converse. All very well in a free market where consumers get to vote freely with their dollars as to which is the outcome of the best ism at the time, but what of Gummint?

    That’s where we have to differentiate and Gummint needs to set the example of PS selection on merit rather than any particular favourite ism flavour of the month. All those Gummint rules and regulations to facilitate equal opportunity to achieve selection of the PS by merit BUT that’s where the rules and regs should stop. Furthermore that’s the quintessential argument for minimal Govt with all its stultifying rules and regs necessary for the ‘fair’ communal task, which can naturally oppress the brilliant spark of individualism and a free hand that benefits us all and drives the good society forward. Now do you get it lefties?

  224. Rococo Liberal

    I would like to put forward for comment some simple rules that I suggest that we all should remember when discussing discrimination.

    Number one: Discrimination can only be morally wrongful where it is directed against a characteristics that cannot be changed. Thus it is morally wrong to denigrate someone on the basis of his sex,disability, sexuality or race. All other denigration may be offensive, nasty or cruel, but is not immoral.

    Number two: There is no right against being offended

    Number three: There is no moral problem with denigrating a cultural custom. Hence, if I say I can’t stand the Sydney Mardi Gras, I am not discriminating against homosexuals, even though many lefties would try to say that I was.

    Number four: Culture and race are two diffrent things

    Number four: A person’s relgious beliefs are a part of his culture and therefore have no moral exemption from denigration by others. ‘Islamophobia’ is therefore not a plausible moral slur.

    Number five: Any discrimination that is not morally wrongful should be encouraged as it is a contribution to the debate on our culture.

    Number six: Wrongful discrimination should be separated from any unlawful act that that it causes. Hence, the real crime that occurs when a thug beats up a gay man is the battery, not the taunting that goes with it.

    Number Seven: The State should only deal with unlawful acts, not unlawful thoughts or words, thereby all anti-discriination laws should be repealed.

    Number Eight: All people of good faith should do their best to be civil and avoid giving offence gratuitously.

    Number Nine: Those who take offence when none was meant should be shunned and mocked viciously by everyone.

    Number ten: Relax, it is usually a too rabid focus on discrimination that causes racial tension.

  225. observa

    But let’s throw up the lefties straw man argument and see their straw man. The only one they have left. Racism is a special class of ism because it leads to violence. Essentially you can’t trust individuals not to get violent about their race and look at the history of racism.

    Yeah well look at the history of Catholicism and Protestantism. Want to wipe that out now they’re behaving like civilised folk again? Better to ban Sunnism and Shiism as a first order priority. Perhaps they need to be converted to Salafism to see the error of their ways eh lefties? Then the clincher for them. What about the true believers in communism among our ranks given its past and ongoing record of violence lefties? Right about there racism pales into insignificance among their pet isms folks.

  226. observa

    “Number one: Discrimination can only be morally wrongful where it is directed against a characteristics that cannot be changed.”

    Sounds neat but it runs into the nature vs nurture argument and the need for positive discrimination to overcome the inseparable in practice. What about the white 5 footers that can’t jump having access to all that dough in the tall black American NBL? It’s not fair and the Gummint orta do sumpink!

  227. observa

    Apartheid anyone? Or like the disabled Olympics where I seem to recall some questions being raised about the qualifications of some of the Spanish basketball team as to whether they were really C+ cerebral palsy or some such while some of us were looking in vain for the 55-60 year old, 40 a day smokers, 20M walk race results.

  228. observa

    Fer gorsakes stop laughing, these lefties are serious!
    As always the demise of any ism is in the free and unfettered marketplace for ideas but look away now lefties or you’ll be shocked by it.

  229. Peter Patton

    Number two: There is no right against being offended

    Yes, there is. See s.18 of the RDA

  230. Peter Patton

    Number one: Discrimination can only be morally wrongful where it is directed against a characteristics that cannot be changed. Thus it is morally wrong to denigrate someone on the basis of his sex,disability, sexuality or race. All other denigration may be offensive, nasty or cruel, but is not immoral.

    You are – wrongly – conflating ‘discrimination’ and ‘denigration’.

  231. Peter Patton

    The ironic thing about the culture/race distinction is that Larissa Behrendt could only claim cultural vilification if someone was denigrating the culture of Carrie Bradshaw or Clueless, as these were the culture Behrendt was raised in.

  232. .

    Maybe she can sue Kathy Lette.

  233. Peter Patton

    Kathy Lette is probably her aunt.

  234. kae

    Fisky 3:48

    They received a six-month suspended sentence for this, and the judge insisted that it was “not a racist attack” despite their yelling “kill the white slag”.

    Yeah, mitigating circumstances being the girls doing the beating are muslim and were drunk and being muslim weren’t used to alcohol…

    Yeah. That makes it OK then.

  235. Sam

    Great it means people will have to stand up for thier believes, with no avenue for recourse the guilt is gone when cracking the heads of the racist, the system has a way to deal with this but now im free to sort my own justice, people do the wrong thing knowingly everyday, thats why we build more and more prisons, I will enjoy wiping the racist scum off the face of the earth, you reap what you sow, (now sook and whinge like aussies are known for) cant wait to have runnings with these keyboard warriors, trolls will be the reason we lose freedom of the internet, backwards is the new forwards in Australia ,even the world realise we are backwards

  236. Pingback: Don’t forget Mordy at Catallaxy Files

Comments are closed.