Breaking news: 18c to be repealed

The Government Party Room this morning approved reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the Act), which will strengthen the Act’sprotections against racism, while at the same time removing provisions which unreasonably limit freedom of speech.
The legislation will repeal section 18C of the Act, as well as sections 18B, 18D, and 18E.
A new section will be inserted into the Act which will preserve the existing protection against intimidation and create a new protection from racial vilification. This will be the first time that racial vilification is proscribed in Commonwealth legislation sending a clear message that it is unacceptable in the Australian community.

Source.

Here is what we’ll be getting:

Freedom of speech (Repeal of S. 18C) Bill 2014
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is amended as follows:
1. Section 18C is repealed.
2. Sections 18B, 18D and 18E are also repealed.
3. The following section is inserted:

1. “ It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
a. the act is reasonably likely:
i. to vilify another person or a group of persons; or
ii. to intimidate another person or a group of persons,
and
b. the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that person or that group of persons.
2. For the purposes of this section:
a. vilify means to incite hatred against a person or a group of persons;
b. intimidate means to cause fear of physical harm:
1. to a person; or
2. to the property of a person; or
3. to the members of a group of persons.
3. Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.
4. This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.”

I think the political left will be in shell-shock. In one sense this is hardly surprising – for decades they have been on the rampage with little more than a whimper of protest from the right. On the other hand, they completely ‘misunderestimated’ anger on this issue – as Nick Cater explained last week.

They underestimate how deeply Abbott and others of a classical liberal persuasion are offended by the perverse consequences of 18C.

They underestimate the chilling effect the act’s provisions have on those who hold the freedom of expression as a non-negotiable element of a liberal society.

And they underestimate the personal affront Abbott took to the prosecution of Bolt.

What remains is now largely redundant legislation as inciting violence is already a crime.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Breaking news: 18c to be repealed

  1. I think this looks like a good solution. It’s nailed ‘intimidation’ to a specific definition, which is critical. AND it frees up the political debate question.

    Now to see if it will pass the Senate.

  2. C.L.

    Parliament should officially apologise to Bolt.

  3. C.L.

    I think this looks like a good solution.

    You’re still playing the lefty game.

    The HRC must be abolished.

  4. C.L.

    Now to see if it will pass the Senate.

    Is it possible ..?

    Could Shorten go to a DD on a platform of banning free speech and a carbon dioxide tax?

  5. conrad

    “Abbott and others of a classical liberal persuasion”

    Last time I checked, I was fairly sure that Abbott would be best described as conservative.

  6. You’re still playing the lefty game.

    The HRC must be abolished.

    Oh, I’m so sorry. I forgot.

    Shut. It. Down.
    Fire. Them. All.

  7. JC

    Seriously, this is it? What a bunch of pussies.

  8. incoherent rambler

    determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community

    Add that caveat to all laws.

  9. stackja

    I think the political left will be in shell-shock.

    Good!
    Regarding HRC, one step at a time.

  10. Alfonso

    The Liberal’s newly found gonads must be used to promote the changes vigorously….not with the standard apologetic passivity of a Bailleu common to the species.
    Listen to Hadley boys, he’ll show you how to marginalise the Statists in the eyes of the suburban employed.

  11. With those insertions, Bolt would still have offended and been found guilty, unless the reference to public discussion nullifies it.

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing….

  12. Rabz

    Shut. It. Down.
    Fire. Them. All.

    :)

  13. Ant

    OMG! The Libs are full of racists and bigots and bigotted racist and racially vilifying racists and big bigotty bigots.

    Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!!

    What’s going to stop the rednecks from running amok now? Huh!?!

  14. Only a Labor government can save us from the professional bigot Abbott, who rides his bicycle around to the houses of racially affected people and insults them.

    On one occasion, he waggled his bottom at the house.

    He also goes on the television and says their name in a mocking tone of voice.

  15. twostix

    This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.”

    I’ll admit I was hard on the Liberals I thought they were going to swap one bad law for another, but this paragraph pretty much completely neuters the kind of chilling effect the left use the law for against their political enemies and is the first large step back on the road where leftist activist groups use the state to monster their critics.

    No it’s not perfect but they say politics is the art of what is possible and it though would be nice to have the HRC abolished and this legislation repealed in its entirety that’s not how it works. Incrementalism is how these things were implemented and incrementalism is how they have to be repealed, it took decades for the left to implement those laws and it will take decades to get rid of them but at least we’re going in the right direction now.

  16. blogstrop

    Sideshow Bob hasn’t read the above. No mention of insult or offend.

  17. Peter H

    “inciting violence is already a crime.”

    Whatever happened about that little race riot Gillard’s office started on Australia day a year or two ago?

    Kind Regards
    Peter

  18. Tom

    So yet another repeal bill gets stacked up after being voted down in the Senate by the Liars and the Greenfilth. Which bunch of populist gigolos will Abbott have to treat to a night out at Thommo’s Red Turbo Spa Room with Tracie and Alina (happy ending included) to have the popular will acted upon? April 5′s WA Senate rerun will say plenty about the date of this year’s double dissolution election.

  19. Ellen of Tasmania

    So am I reading this correctly if I understand it to mean -

    1. “ It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: …..
    b. the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that person or that group of persons.

    What does ‘do an act’ mean here? (For example, would it be ‘an act’ to set up a Welsh choir or such like?)

    (I obviously do not have a ‘legal brain’.)

  20. twostix

    With those insertions, Bolt would still have offended and been found guilty, unless the reference to public discussion nullifies it.

    This person claims he was the principle of a school.

    Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.

    This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.”

    Gee I wonder if Bolts articles would be protected under those broad and clearly defined terms?

    What a dunce.

  21. Leigh Lowe

    “ It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

    I take this to mean that, if I tell a joke among a small group at a party or at a family wedding, that it will be futile for some dumb prick with smart phone to tape me and sue me?

  22. 2. For the purposes of this section:
    a. vilify means to incite hatred against a person or a group of persons;

    Bolt makes a living out of inciting hatred.
    It’s his raison d’etre….

  23. This person claims he was the principle (sic) of a school.

    What a dunce…..

  24. Joe Goodacre

    What’s being inserted seems pointless…

    Private acts are exempt…

    Public discussion is exempt…

    So what would be caught? If the answer is nothing, well then why bother having anything at all.

    I’m starting to think perhaps a better angle on this debtate to take the heat out may be to defund slowly the enforcement mechanisms and government agencies that are meant to police this rubbish. The laws become less important if there’s no one there to enforce them.

  25. Roger

    Starting with Gillian Triggs at the HRC, Joe.

  26. twostix

    So what would be caught? If the answer is nothing, well then why bother having anything at all.

    I think that’s the point.

    You can’t go up and scream racial obscenities in people’s faces in public or incite violence. That seems to be pretty much it.

    Which is a long, long way from where we were. And it makes Australia pretty much alone in swimming against the current global tide of banning free speech. Yes a full repeal and purge of the HRC would have been the gold standard but the art of politics is doing what is possible and this is a pretty good effort and a good start from the Liberals in my opinion.

  27. Ellen of Tasmania

    big, bigotty bigots

    bigot n. an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory etc.

    (From my Oxford Dictionary.)

    Just wondering how the Labor party, Macquarie Dictionary and associated persons would define it.

  28. H B Bear

    3. Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.

    The man on the Clapham omnibus replaces the self-identifying nig nog in the Valiant.

  29. Roger

    They just need to look in the mirror, Ellen.
    They fit the bill perfectly, do they not?

  30. twostix

    2. For the purposes of this section:
    a. vilify means to incite hatred against a person or a group of persons;

    Bolt makes a living out of inciting hatred.
    It’s his raison d’etre….

    See there’s your problem:

    Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.

    An ugly extremist like you, a self-confessed communist and greens voter who lives in Australia’s safest Nationals seat and who once vilified hard working Filipino immigrants on this very blog is by definition notan ordinary reasonable member of the Australian Community

    You, and the rest of you little extremist malcontents lose.

  31. Peter S

    About time. The legislation has been a land mine ever since framed by Michael Lavach. Coincidently, in the Bolt case, Lavach’s wife was one of the litigants.

  32. C.L.

    OMG! The Libs are full of racists and bigots and bigotted racist and racially vilifying racists and big bigotty bigots.

    Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!!

    LOL.

  33. Roger

    Lavarch, Peter. And the wife is Larissa Behrendt; who once disparaged Bess Price in a particularly tasteless way on Twitter.

  34. politichix

    Ant
    #1238329, posted on March 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    OMG! The Libs are full of racists and bigots and bigotted racist and racially vilifying racists and big bigotty bigots.

    Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!!

    What’s going to stop the rednecks from running amok now? Huh!?!

    lol

  35. Ant

    A congratulations, of sorts, to Andrew Bolt.

    The Left have been creaming themselves for a couple of years now over their abuse of a stupid law to tar and feather him for raising a serious issue of racial identity and how that can be potentially exploited in diabolical ways.

    Looks like they’ll have to wait a few years to get their filthy mitts back into the statute books to use them as their little play things to manipulate society into their idea of Nirvana.

    For now, though, GO THE BIG, BIGOTTY BIGOTS! YEEHAA!

  36. Nanuestalker

    Lavach’s wife was one of the litigants.

    Hmmm … methinks you’re wrong.

  37. politichix

    what about the vilification of bigots?

  38. Luke

    Sinclair you’ve jumped the gun! This is merely something for consultation. It is not even a Bill introduced into the house!

    Given the style, it has not been properly drafted, meaning that it’s not exactly what the government expect the final product to look like. I would expect a watered down version of this (which would be sad).

    Let the submissions begin. Which will include mass produced submission’s from universities and groups like Getup.

  39. Squirrel

    Quite a bit of indignation and outrage over the proposed changes in the House of Reps Question Time today. It was actually quite illuminating, particularly the looks of dismay and bewilderment on Opposition faces – for more than a few, it was probably a reminder of the heady days of student politics.

  40. eb

    I agree with Twostix. This is actually a lot better than I thought they would do.

    Total repeal was never gonna happen!

  41. Senile Old Guy

    With those insertions, Bolt would still have offended and been found guilty, unless the reference to public discussion nullifies it.

    Also, failing to realise that the Judge had to twist reasoning into a pretzel to convict Bolt in the first place.

  42. JC

    Great, great rant.

    An ugly extremist like you, a self-confessed communist and greens voter who lives in Australia’s safest Nationals seat and who once vilified hard working Filipino immigrants on this very blog is by definition not “an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian Community”

    You, and the rest of you little extremist malcontents lose.

  43. twostix

    I agree with Twostix. This is actually a lot better than I thought they would do.

    As luke points out this isn’t cast in stone yet.

    IMO it’s this paragraph that is the hero:

    This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.”

    If they keep that it’s a win, but if they drop it then it’s arguably worse than the existing law. And knowing the Liberals something as powerful as that paragraph is in real danger of being dropped to get the rest through.

  44. kae

    There seem to be laws already to take care of criminal activities, assault, murder, defamation, etc. I don’t understand why these laws are not used.

    Freedom of speech for the people of Australia needs to be for everyone, even the idiots, because then they can be taunted and embarrassed into perhaps thinking about what they’re saying.

    It’s high time that the calls of racism (that’s/you’re racist, shutup) we stopped so that issues can be discussed.

  45. Token

    With those insertions, Bolt would still have offended and been found guilty, unless the reference to public discussion nullifies it.

    Numbers reinforced CL’s point.

    As long as there is some legislation of this type on the books as there is not way to avoid a former ALP candidate who is a member of the judiciary like Mordy running a political action from the benche and choosing to read between the lines & imferring intent from what is not written.

  46. JC

    because then they can be taunted and embarrassed into perhaps thinking about what they’re saying.

    ‘sactly. Look at the fun I’m having on twitter.

  47. Fisky

    With those insertions, Bolt would still have offended and been found guilty, unless the reference to public discussion nullifies it.

    No he wouldn’t. How did he “intimidate” the White Nine?

  48. Fisky

    To those who think this is a government sell-out, I’d be interested in hearing under what circumstances it should be legal to intimidate someone racially?

  49. C.L.

    Perhaps you could start, Fisk, by explaining how one intimidates somebody racially.

    “Give me some money or I’ll call you a gook”?

  50. Fisky

    Arguably, the government could have put in an additional protection to “intimidate” by adding “harass”. That will make it impossible to honestly oppose the changes, given all of the alleged effects of hate speech (intimidation and harassment) would be covered, without the “pre-crimes” staying in there. All that would be Left is a bunch of self-serving ethnic leaders calling for a ban on political discussion (which is obviously what they are really after).

  51. JC

    No he wouldn’t. How did he “intimidate” the White Nine?

    They’re feelings we’re hurt because Bolt suggested some of them looked Irish, whereas we’re supposed to believe white skin/red hair is aboriginal.

  52. Fisky

    Perhaps you could start, Fisk, by explaining how one intimidates somebody racially.

    You could start with that video Bolt posted a week ago of a group of “youths” (euphemistically) surrounding a white man and calling him a “white dog”.

  53. Liberty_One

    The problem with today’s modern Conservative is that they’re playing the Lefty’s game. When you play by THEIR rules, you ALWAYS lose.

    Don’t play their rules. Shit-can the bureaucracies they have created. These only exist to employ their friends and like-minded people who wouldn’t be employed on their own. They leech on taxpayer’s money for a living. (They don’t offer any tangible value to a Nation). More often than not, they are often inexperienced (clueless) of the real world consequences of their ideas. In fact, they don’t even understand why their ideas don’t work out in the real world! They are miffed! It must be something wrong with people. (Never does it enter in their minds that their ideas could wrong!…Only when they isolate themselves from their collective groups and start reading/observing, do they understand they have made a grave error. Eventually, some turn…But some don’t. Especially the hardcore ones.)

    And what happens when you tear down their BS? They will snarl and growl. They will stamp their feet and act like spoiled, entitled children at a toy store; who don’t get their way…In fact, this is what I observe with the modern political Left movement! They act like children when they don’t get their way. They call names and exhibit their foul, thug/bully behaviour (as depicted in “March in March”). More often than not, their way is completely arrogantly ignorant of the consequences. They don’t care. (Despite advocating themselves as caring…They care more about their ideals than for the consequences it imposes on people.)

    I especially despise the way they have made the indigenous play the victim card as a weapon. What the indigenous don’t understand is that playing the victim only creates resentment and improves nothing in the long run. (Just money spent for little or nothing to show for it.) …Some (like Warren Mundine), want out of this mess. Others want this grievence industry to keep going, as they have a vested financial interest. (They make a living out of it. They don’t actually care about raising the indigenous upwards. They want and need victims.)

    The Left claim they care and are for uniting people, in reality (their actions), they are dividing us every time they encourage victim mentality, by constantly focus on race, gender, etc. The more I observe, the more I see them as Western Society’s biggest losers. Their biggest accomplish is to inflict pain to all. ie: Equality.

    To the Left, feeling good is more important than doing good and producing good results. Their rhetoric is never truth-based. Its agenda driven.

    When you look at how Asians do better, you’d realise being a victim achieves nothing. They study hard, work hard, value education, family, etc; there’s little crime from them (lower than everyone else in Australia), and they have money to spend. And what happens when someone tries to rob them? They don’t cower! They fight back. They give the finger to political correctness! They see it as having the right to defend yourselves. From fists to golf clubs! (The latter was used when a thug tried to rob a convenient store, and the store owner’s wife hit back with her husband’s golf clubs! The thug was surprised as he expected easy pickings.)

    As for the repeal of 18C and such, it seems more like the Libs are neutering its effectiveness as an offensive weapon. They aren’t actually getting rid of this redundant nonsense.

    The Left like complex, redundant, and bloat bureaucracies. Besides employing their friends, it makes them feel intellectually competent. (Where as everyone else sees them as annoying, self-appointed, self-righteous, incompetent do-gooders with too much time on their hands.)

  54. JC

    Fisk

    CL is right. You stick the word intimidation in the law and you’ll end up with a leftwing prick like Mordy interpreting in between the lines. You can’t the left any escape.. In fact you need a steal net around every hole as they will use it.

  55. Ant

    “They underestimate the chilling effect the act’s provisions have on those who hold the freedom of expression as a non-negotiable element of a liberal society.”

    The very people who supported this abomination are the very same people who cheered when they saw the filth on the ABC – such as a conservative journalist photoshopped and called a dogf–ker – all taxpayer funded and televised nationally.

    They really are low pond scum and must be singled out to have their hypocrisy wrapped around their throats.

  56. JC

    Another great rant… This time by Liberty one.

    I’m getting th feeling this site doesn’t like lefties much. I could be wrong though.

  57. C.L.

    You could start with that video Bolt posted a week ago of a group of “youths” (euphemistically) surrounding a white man and calling him a “white dog”.

    Provided such louts don’t actually attack somebody, who cares?

    Sticks and stones …

  58. Lord Mord

    I am despondent. My crest is fallen. I am so going to kick the cat when I find it.

  59. C.L.

    Liberty_One nails it – with a nail gun.

  60. harrys on the boat

    Twostixs demolition of numbers should be a liberty quote.

    Liberty_One should have his comment up as a guest post.

  61. Fisky

    Provided such louts don’t actually attack somebody, who cares?

    Yeah, except it imposes a tangible cost on the victim, effectively barring them from accessing a public space to which they have a legitimate right to frequent, and to which they contribute taxes (either direct taxation or indirect). There is no reason why such behaviour should be legal.

  62. Luke

    The creation of a strict offence such as this is rarely ever a good idea. It is never a good idea when the agency responsible for enforcing the legislation has a – stated on the record – personal agenda. While everyone is equal before this law, some will find they are more equal than others.

    As to intimidation, duplication of laws (offences) is never a good idea and is one of the very reasons why we have sooooooooooo many laws on the books today.

    How about just;

    “Subject to a person’s freedom of political communication, a person must not publicly incite hatred against another person, or group of persons, because of the other person or group’s, race, skin colour or national or ethnic origin.

    Prosecution would need to establish that what was done was not within ‘political communication’, that the person acted ‘publicly’ and that they did it ‘because’ of the other person’s race etc. Where the onus should sit for these things. You can thank the High Court for making up ‘the freedom of political communication’, which would be read in there anyway.

  63. C.L.

    Fisk, when was the last time you decided not to go somewhere you really wanted to go for fear of a group of people calling you names? I mean, besides the time you skipped little lunch because a few boys were calling you “stinky Fish”?

  64. James

    For those minorities who oppose any change, imagine they can also be at the accused side of causing hurt feelings and cannot defend themselves as feelings of being offended, insulted and humiliated are subjective.

  65. Fisky

    Fisk, when was the last time you decided not to go somewhere you really wanted to go for fear of a group of people calling you names? I mean, besides the time you skipped little lunch because a few boys were calling you “stinky Fish”?

    Not since I was in high school. But then I’m quite a lot bigger than most people, and don’t require the same protection that others might need. There are a LOT of people who will avoid public places, even railway stations, at certain times because they are afraid of racial intimidation by “youths”. I’m certainly that you must have come across examples in your own circle.

  66. Fisky

    In fact, I am certain that we have discussed the concept of “no go” areas on the Cat before. All of these “no go” areas that we often hear about are based on racial criteria.

  67. James

    afraid of racial intimidation by “youths”.

    Intimidation is covered by the amendment

  68. Fisky

    Intimidation is covered by the amendment

    Yes I know, that’s the whole point of my defending the government on this.

  69. Arnost

    Liberty_One … Thanks! this sort of stuff needs saying regularly.

  70. Dan

    Makes no sense. Why would you ban intimidation of racial and religious groups while leaving say gays, women and transvestites unprotected? The fact it doesn’t need to extend to these groups makes it clear it isn’t needed for other groups some of whom are much less vulnerable.

  71. DrBeauGan

    I can live with this although I would have preferred scrapping 18C entirely. My test is, could you have a public television debate on the motion: ‘Aborigines are intellectually and morally inferior to white people’. If you could, and the hero clause so stipulates, it works for me. I’d love to see it too, with Dallas Scott and Bess Price opposing the motion. It would do more to make us one people than all the speech suppression in the world.

  72. Token

    There are a LOT of people who will avoid public places, even railway stations, at certain times because they are afraid of racial intimidation by “youths”. I’m certainly that you must have come across examples in your own circle.

    Like the mob of poor powerless indigineous boys who were ruthlessly bullied and intimidated by the white male in that video (who Lisa Wilkinson would view as a mysogynist & racist simply due to his gender & skin colour), somehow the providing laws like this “empowers” groups to act agressively with the very valid belief that they are untouchable.

    The whole act should be revoked.

  73. Fisky

    Like the mob of poor powerless indigineous boys who were ruthlessly bullied and intimidated by the white male in that video (who Lisa Wilkinson would view as a mysogynist & racist simply due to his gender & skin colour), somehow the providing laws like this “empowers” groups to act agressively with the very valid belief that they are untouchable.

    Right, but intimidation is not speech. If you gut the rest of the act, their sense of “invulnerability” will disappear. Judging by the level of noise they are making already, they certainly don’t see Brandis as on their side.

  74. James

    Why would you ban intimidation of racial and religious groups while leaving say gays, women and transvestites unprotected

    That’s what Roxon had been trying to do, expanding the RDA to other areas of victimhood…

  75. Fisky

    Makes no sense. Why would you ban intimidation of racial and religious groups while leaving say gays, women and transvestites unprotected? The fact it doesn’t need to extend to these groups makes it clear it isn’t needed for other groups some of whom are much less vulnerable.

    I agree entirely. It is totally unacceptable. Ideally, there should be no RDA, and just a simple law that bans harassment and intimidation against individuals or identifiable groups, and leave it at that. However, no such proposal is likely to be offer, and what is on offer is a sensible compromise by Brandis.

  76. James

    what about the vilification of bigots?

    Bigots is not a race

  77. Rabz

    What remains is now largely redundant legislation as inciting violence is already a crime.

    I’m not convinced that replacing section 18 of the RDA with any grab bag of words is the way to go – just look at the gibberish they’re proposing in the old sections’ place, FFS – and there’s the risk of some pompous, jumped up Mordy type numptie “reinterpreting” any replacement clauses as they see fit.

    Liberty_One got it right – you can’t try and play by their rules as they make them up as they go along. Steyn and Levant pointed this out repeatedly during their heroic battles to have the Canuckistanian equivalent torn up (which it eventually was).

    Existing criminal sanctions should suffice, although I’ve always been uncomfortable with the State being able to harass or incarcerate people on the basis of written or verbal speech, no matter how intemperate, abusive, ‘intimidatory’ or “waaaaacist” it may be.

  78. Fisky

    I’m not convinced that replacing section 18 of the RDA with any grab bag of words is the way to go – just look at the gibberish they’re proposing in the old sections’ place, FFS – and there’s the risk of some pompous, jumped up Mordy type numptie “reinterpreting” any replacement clauses as they see fit.

    Narrowing the scope opens up more avenues for appeal. No law can be totally de-Mordyfied, but more exemptions and defences equals more appeals.

  79. Joe Goodacre

    Fisky.

    I’ve heard of physically intimidating someone, but I don’t know what it means to racially intimidate!

  80. Fisky

    Well, Joe, you could spend an hour at a train station say around 11pm onwards in the Western suburbs of Sydney or the Eastern suburbs of Perth, and find out for yourself.

  81. Toiling Mass

    Maybe they mean to ‘intimate’ a person racially.

  82. Token

    Right, but intimidation is not speech.

    Have you ever seen the definition of assault from a legal sense? I trust we will see the current definition of intimidation perverted in a similar way to the way the left has perverted words like austerity, transparency & accountability, especially a former ALP candidate who is a judicial officer gets to decide upon the definition.

  83. Tintarella di Luna

    The HRC must be abolished.

    In dubitably dear CL

  84. Fisky

    Sure, but again, judicial overextension carries its own vulnerabilities (such as being overturned on appeal). Abbott will have plenty of time to appoint a few members of the Samuel Griffith Society to the High Court before the first test case arrives.

    The other thing we need to consider is Brandis’s real intention here – I don’t think it’s got much to do with public opinion but rather keeping his party room together, especially in the Senate.

  85. Tintarella di Luna

    Just wondering how the Labor party, Macquarie Dictionary and associated persons would define it.

    If there were a woman involved it would transmogrify into the crime of misogyny and Anne Butler would elide her way through her evidence a la Vitrioli

  86. Infidel Tiger

    Perhaps you could start, Fisk, by explaining how one intimidates somebody racially.

    “Your soft pink skin is no match for my melanin rich ebony hide. I challenge you to a sunbake off, you lily white Irishman.”

  87. Tintarella di Luna

    The man on the Clapham omnibus replaces the self-identifying nig nog in the Valiant.

    I’ll take the man on the Clapham omnibus any day especially if he’s reading the Australian

  88. Toiling Mass

    Token, is the definition of assualt still that causes a feeling of apprehension of violence (as opposed to battery, which is actual violence)?

    Wouldn’t the guys preventing a person from accessing an area be covered by nuisance? And if behaving in a threatening manner what I believe is still assault? Covered by state laws as crimes and as torts.

  89. Joe

    And where is the truth in all of this?

  90. Tintarella di Luna

    Hmmm … methinks you’re wrong.

    no Nanu it is spot on — Larissa Behrendt was one of the litigants in the bolt case because he called her liebchen – Behrendt being either Dutch or German from her paternal grandpa. , having had the law explained intimately and in great detail by the man who drafted the legislation — her now husband Michael Lavarch — she no longer goes by the name Behrendt obviously Michael was prevailed upon to make a decent woman of her after she muddied her own name through her vulgarity and grievous insult to the magnificent Bess Price.

  91. Leigh Lowe

    The man on the Clapham omnibus replaces the self-identifying nig nog in the Valiant.

    These days they are likely to be first cousins.

  92. Leigh Lowe

    For the purposes of this section:
    a. vilify means to incite hatred against a person or a group of persons;
    b. intimidate means to cause fear of physical harm:

    There is no way that even a buffoon (and I mean that in a non-insulting kind of way) like Mordy couldn’t have found against Bolt.
    This covers things like, oh, I don’t know, maybe suggesting that an Irish CEO should be shot in the back of the head (part a), or pushing people in the chest and calling them stupid white bigots as they enter are public meeting to hear Mr Wilders speak (part b)

  93. oldsalt

    Where I live at the moment a good many indigenous look white. The behaviour of some of them in public, however, can be indistinguishable from that of their darker skin extended families. Adults and kids alike display the risk taking, rude and offensive drunken loudness and violence that so upsets the rest of the community on public transport and in public places. These white skin indigenous show the telltale signs of an inherited culture of dispossession, discrimination, lack of education, unemployment, hopelessness and alcohol abuse. Their kids need, just as much as dark skin indigenous kids, positive discrimination to give them a leg up up and outta the legacy of invasion and dispossession. Just because an indigenous person looks white doesn’t mean they haven’t come from a bad place, haven’t suffered the same legacy of systemic racism, aren’t entitled to the full range of measures that members of their families with darker skin rightly have access to. Jeez, for people who claim to be well educated some of you can be pretty dumb. Or bigoted.

  94. Tintarella di Luna

    These days they are likely to be first cousins.

    ‘specially ’round where I work.

  95. Joe Goodacre

    Fisky,

    I can’t be sure, but I think I’d be more afraid of what they’d do to me, as opposed to the colour of their skin.

  96. M Ryutin

    Tom posted on March 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    Even though the political landscape is not as favourable for an Abbott government to call a D/D as it should have been, the government must stack up as many qualifying bills as possible.

    In addition I would like them to have a/the Greens-backed new voting procedure for the Senate to limit voting to optional preferential and have it in waiting to encourage the new Senate to think of both the general good of the community AND the prospect of their six year terms lasting a month or three only!

  97. MT Isa Miner

    Tintarella di Luna

    #1238529, posted on March 25, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    The man on the Clapham omnibus replaces the self-identifying nig nog in the Valiant.

    I’ll take the man on the Clapham omnibus any day especially if he’s reading the Australian

    Clapham Omibus-love a classic reference.

    But between you and me and the wall, the old V8 Valiant Valiant Wayfarer, soft top with a top speed of 109mph will do the bus like a dinner.

  98. Joe Goodacre

    Seeing the comments on SMH forums, it would appear to me that the Liberals are going about this the wrong way.

    Rather than arguing of the right of people to be bigots, they should be arguing that the only way to find out what people are really like is for them to speak their mind. If someone’s a racist, do we really want that fact about them hidden? Take a law making it illegal to say something that is factually incorrect. Such a law doesn’t change what people believe – only what they publically say. If they say less, two things happen:

    a) they are unlikely to be convinced to change their mind; and
    b) we don’t know what they truly believe.

    Removing free speech restrictions would seem much more palatable if they are focusing less on our right to say things, and more on our right to hear things.

    I don’t think the Liberals have nailed this sell if Fairfax articles and user comments are anything to go by.

  99. MT Isa Miner

    Leigh Lowe

    #1238553, posted on March 25, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    The man on the Clapham omnibus replaces the self-identifying nig nog in the Valiant.

    These days they are likely to be first cousins.

    Nothing is sadder than that comment. Fear that it’s the dead set truth and that the UK has lost what made it great. Western civilisation great.

  100. brc

    It has a clause for property. So when some ferals deface the fence of a mining company executive, calling him a rich white bastard, then he can take action?

    Classify environmentalism as a religion and I can see some creative uses.

  101. Joe Goodacre

    This goes to why Bolt is a bad face for the campaign. Rightly or wrongly, plenty of people see Bolt as offensive and the discussion becomes about Bolt and the Liberals arguing for the right to offend people.

    This is not a vote winning strategy and sets the seeds for the all this political capital to be for nothing when Labor wins a ‘mandate’ to roll back Liberals ‘right to racism’ philosophy. ‘Check your privilege Brandis’ – the sanctimonious headlines are already written. The Liberals are playing right into Labor’s hands on this issue.

  102. Stephen of Glasshouse

    I wonder if it will affect some of the more incendiary speeches that happen in certain places on a Friday..

  103. Rabz

    This goes to why Bolt is a bad face for the campaign.

    Will you drop it with your anti Bolt idiocy, FFS.

    That case established an appalling precedent and rightly led to calls for 18c to be scrapped – and now it is going to be.

    Get over it.

  104. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238611, posted on March 25, 2014 at 5:27 pm
    This goes to why Bolt is a bad face for the campaign.

    Because you run interference for the ALP. To wit: “80% 2PP for the LNP wouldn’t change anything in SA”.

    We’re sick of your crap.

  105. manalive

    What remains is now largely redundant legislation as inciting violence is already a crime …

    Except that the Racial Discrimination Act is a ‘statuary tort via the human rights dispute resolution’ process, whereas the criminal offences of insulting behaviour, non- violent verbal assault and the like are usually prosecuted by the police and carry a higher standard of proof before a conviction.

  106. Ant

    “…plenty of people see Bolt as offensive and the discussion becomes about Bolt…”

    Come off JG, he’s probably amongst the most erudite voices of reason in the country.

    And exactly who does he offend? All the people who are going to get “offended” when they can’t rebut an argument using reason and knowledge.

    That’s why 18c appealed to them. It gave them ‘legal’ ground to vilify him as a racist when not a single thing he said was “racist” and in fact his key argument was strongly anti-racist saying how wrong it was to exploit racial ancestory because a society’s cohesiveness always pays the price.

    That thinking gave us the ludicrous “sorry” from Rudd in parliament when since then I doubt there has been a single indigenous person this country who’s gained anything materially beneficial from the stunt.

    If his critics were that offended by racism they may have been scathing about Gillard’s behaviour when her office orchestrated a race riot on Australia Day.

    Where the hell were they? Silent, mute and on the defensive, that’s where.

    It was never about race. It was about silencing critics and vilifying them personally by brandishing a stupid law which they only ever intended to apply selectively when it suited them.

    In this entire farce, Andrew Bolt is one gutsy guy who should feel some vindication by today’s events.

    Why should he be silent? He should be the exact opposite and expose the left for the frauds that they are.

  107. Leigh Lowe

    I wonder if it will affect some of the more incendiary speeches that happen in certain places on a Friday..

    In am wondering if that wouldn’t qualify as “being in private”.
    As would, say, Alan Jones speech to a business dinner or sportsmen’s night about, say, terminal parental disappointment or perhaps the utility and efficacy of chaff bags.

  108. This covers things like, oh, I don’t know, maybe suggesting that an Irish CEO should be shot in the back of the head (part a),

    I’ll see you that, and raise you a GAY Irish CEO.

  109. harrys on the boat

    Why would anyone give a flying fuck what the zombies are commenting on over at the SMH?

  110. james

    This will never pass. Far too many “community leaders” will have quiet words in back rooms.

    They will threaten and intimidate the weak willed amongst the lib scum.

    There will then be public speeches about how the Liberals are enacting a law that will cause cross burnings outside aboriginal houses and pogroms in Bondi.

    Free speech is dead, and the weak willed nothings who wear blue ribbons at election time would rather cross the floor and get a pat on the head from the “victim” industry than stand up for principles of any kind.

  111. Yobbo

    All mention of “being offended” has been removed which was the right thing to do.

    Whether or not someone is offended by speech is purely subjective and not something that courts should be able to rule on.

  112. Joe Goodacre

    Dot,

    I’ll say it again – you are a perfect example of why we shouldn’t have any restrictions on free speech. Just think – Labor wants someone like you hiding in the shadows, not free to speak your mind. Open up I say.

  113. Joe Goodacre

    Rabz,

    This is a policy announcement – nothing more.

    No one denies that Bolt and 18C were a travesty.

    The battle for the repeal of 18C though is going to be a long one. With Palmer being a populist loon, I’m not going to count any chickens on this issue.

  114. Leigh Lowe

    I’ll see you that, and raise you a GAY Irish CEO.

    Well, I’ll see your gay, Irish CEO and raise you a gay, Irish, leprechaun CEO with a bung eye.

  115. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238638, posted on March 25, 2014 at 5:55 pm
    Dot,

    I’ll say it again – you are a perfect example of why we shouldn’t have any restrictions on free speech. Just think – Labor wants someone like you hiding in the shadows, not free to speak your mind. Open up I say.

    You have said that voting 80% 2PP wouldn’t result in a LNP victory. We know where your proclivities lay.

  116. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238239, posted on March 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    Dot, 80% 2PP wouldn’t change the situation.

    Gotcha.

  117. Joe Goodacre

    Ant,

    I’ve canvassed in depth in comments on another posting my opinion on Bolt.

    To summarise – I like him, find him not always to be consistent (no ones perfect), but think he’s the wrong person to be pushing this issue for reasons that he was prosecuted (wrongly) on this issue. Why – because plenty of the people on the Left see his proscecution as appropriate.

    So we can all stick to the ‘what happened to Bolt was a travesty and that’s why 18C must go’ approach, but there’s a sizable number of people out there who will manipulate the narrative to being about protecting Bolt’s right to offend. This is not a good long term strategy when polls keep reminding us that at least half the country are lefty’s and some people who vote Liberal may not be up to speed on classical liberalism either.

  118. Mr Rusty

    Time for a spot of Predict the Headlines;

    Abbott to legalise racism
    Brandis gives bigots and Bolts free reign to vilify
    Holocaust deniers to flock to Australia

  119. james

    Joe Goodacre, did you seriously just suggest above that the opinion of Fairfax readers matters in relation to the formulation of coalition policy?

    Either you are deliberately trolling or high as a kite.

    The authors of the comments on the SMH and AGE sites have about as much chance of voting LNP as the non trolling commenters here have of voting Greens.

  120. .

    but there’s a sizable number of people out there who will manipulate the narrative to being about protecting Bolt’s right to offend.

    You are a dishonest turd and enemy of free speech.

  121. Carpe Jugulum

    plenty of people see Bolt as offensive

    Plenty of people don’t, your point being?

    This is not a vote winning strategy and sets the seeds for the all this political capital to be for nothing when Labor wins a ‘mandate’ to roll back Liberals ‘right to racism’ philosophy

    Yes it probably is a vote winner, the average punter loves seeing legislation repealed. Right to Racism, how so?, is it racist to call out a ‘self identifying’ white man who wins an art scholarship for aboriginal women.

  122. I’ll see you that, and raise you a GAY Irish CEO.

    Well, I’ll see your gay, Irish CEO and raise you a gay, Irish, leprechaun CEO with a bung eye.

    I’ll have to fold, Leigh. You win again.

    Curses!

  123. james

    Joe, it doesn’t matter who is the “face” of this campaign.

    It is not a populist measure, and most left wingers cannot even comprehend why the LNP is doing it.

    The dumbfounded looks on their faces are instructive. They are already constructing elaborate conspiracy theories to try and explain it.

    No matter who is the “face” of repeal chosen by the LNP the left would ignore in favour of someone they could paint as worse.

    We live in a occupied country behind enemy lines.

  124. Carpe Jugulum

    Well, I’ll see your gay, Irish CEO and raise you a gay, Irish, leprechaun CEO with a bung eye.

    and a wooden leg.

  125. Joe Goodacre

    harrys,

    Why would anyone give a flying fuck what the zombies are commenting on over at the SMH?

    We live in a country where the polls say Labor/coalition 51 to 49. Like it or not, we need people like them to come around to our point of view. That’s harder if we don’t know what their point of view is.

  126. .

    We live in a country where the polls say Labor/coalition 51 to 49. Like it or not, we need people like them to come around to our point of view. That’s harder if we don’t know what their point of view is.

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238239, posted on March 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    Dot, 80% 2PP wouldn’t change the situation.

    Lulz…Mr Goodacre reckons he’s not running interference for the left. My funny bone just fractured.

  127. Demosthenes

    I’m genuinely impressed. This is a much better bill than I thought would eventuate. Fingers crossed for the Senate.

  128. Joe Goodacre

    james,

    Yes – the opinion of those that disagree with us matters.

    Maybe they won’t vote LNP. Every soundbite though that we give them which sounds like we’re defending the right to offend makes the battle harder.

    If we make the battle about Labor and the Greens helping racists hide in the shadows, then they have to go on the defensive and prove that is not the case. Every time they try and spin around as if we want to offend, we can say deflect by saying we don’t need an Act to prevent us from saying mean things. Why do they?

  129. .

    Every soundbite though that we give them which sounds like we’re defending the right to offend makes the battle harder.

    Or maybe they they get convinced that people have a right to say as they please, and others have the right to ignore?

    No, we can’t have that says Joe. The right has to appeal to the left by becoming the left.

    This pea and thimble hustle is over.

  130. Jessie

    Infidel Tiger
    Welcome to Country now includes acknowledgement of one’s Aboriginal AND Irish ancestors. It is not good enough to name oneself as an Australian. We’ll have to give up Irish jokes soon.

    Your comment on skin colour:-
    As individuals focussed on ancestry have become all too twisted and precious, one-sided conversations enshrined by legislation is ensured. This is at the expense of shutting down open discussion and progress amongst all who see themselves in and contributing to a free society.

  131. Senile Old Guy

    Why would anyone give a flying fuck what the zombies are commenting on over at the SMH?

    We live in a country where the polls say Labor/coalition 51 to 49. Like it or not, we need people like them to come around to our point of view. That’s harder if we don’t know what their point of view is.

    Actually, today’s poll has it the other way around. But even that doesn’t that those that vote Labor favour the policies of the Green/Left.

  132. harrys on the boat

    To paraphrase Tits on the SMH’s readers thoughts:

    I don’t know their exact point of view, but they can go fuck themselves regardless.

  133. Joe Goodacre

    Carpe Jugulum,

    Plenty of people don’t, your point being?

    Politics is about picking the narrative that is most likely between bridging the gap. There is a chasm between the community regarding differing expectations as to what is the appropriate role of government. I don’t think the Liberals are being smart on this issue.

    Yes it probably is a vote winner, the average punter loves seeing legislation repealed

    I don’t think this is correct as a blanket statement based upon the ever increasing size of government.

  134. Jessie

    Carpe Jugulum

    Warren Mundine beat you to it with 10 dot points. Not one wooden leg among the lot.
    Beat that.

  135. Beef

    I’ll have to fold, Leigh. You win again.

    No choice when the stakes are raised to leprechaun. Said to be the ‘son of an “evil spirit” and a “degenerate fairy”.

  136. Carpe Jugulum

    Politics is about picking the narrative that is most likely between bridging the gap

    Joe, this isn’t about a ‘narrative’ it is about peple being able to speak freely, regardless of the fact that what they say may be hurtful or a painfull truth.

    I don’t think this is correct as a blanket statement

    Thats your opinion, you’re entilted to it, but under 18c if you hurt my feelings i can set the mordi litijus tribe on you.

  137. Cold-Hands

    It’s got no chance of passing this Senate. Add it to the list of DD triggers.

  138. johanna

    Joe Goodacre, on what do you base your assertion that Andrew Bolt is the “face” of this proposal? Last time I looked, George Brandis was the Attorney-General.

    And really, reading the comments of readers of the minority and rapidy declining Fauxfacts news outlets is something I do as a penance for a vewwy sewious sin, like not recycling. Those people would sooner stick pins in their eyes get a job than vote conservative.

    You might also be surprised to find that even rusted on Labor voters who are genuinely working class (a declining but still significant minority) are fed up to the back teeth with being told by their “betters” what can and cannot be said.

  139. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1238682, posted on March 25, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    I don’t think the Liberals are being smart on this issue.

    You never will.

  140. DrBeauGan

    Joe Goodacre does have one good point. This would be better sold as the right of all of us to hear who is a bigot and rebut him than as the rights of bigots. This is why free speech matters. We get to see who is a nut and what nuts think.

  141. 2dogs

    Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community

    This point of fact should be determined by a jury.

    The bypassing of section 80 of the constitution must be brought to an end.

  142. Andrew

    The change is very clever by Brandis. It keeps some of the silly bits in S18C which are already in other pieces of legislation but uses the other amended sections to effectively nullify S18C. It is extremely clever.

  143. Tintarella di Luna

    I wonder if Joe Goodacre is from Hooterville

  144. 2dogs

    It’s got no chance of passing this Senate.

    It will probably pass after July, but Brandis will make sure that the ALP gets a chance to vote against it before then. Because from the moment they do, the Bolt trial will undeniably be something that the ALP is responsible for.

  145. Arnost

    It’s got no chance of passing this Senate. Add it to the list of DD triggers.

    Actually – has anything passed in the Senate so far? Someone should compare
    Libs voting in the Senate after 2007 / 2010 and what has happened after 2010.

  146. James B

    Actually, THIS IS A BROKEN FUCKING PROMISE YOU DRONGO.

    They said they would REPEAL IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, and they FUCKING LIED. Just as I suspected, Brandis is a fucking statist dickhead.

  147. Abu Chowdah

    If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings I’m still waiting to hear what your point is…
    … in this country you can be told “That’s offensive!” as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment. Not to me they don’t. And I’m not running for anything so I didn’t have to pretend to like people when I don’t.

    Glad they’re repealing it.

  148. John Mc

    It would seem to me that if ‘vilify’ is defined as ‘speak in a abusively disparaging manner’ this act can still be abused to stifle free speech in much the same way as it currently is.

  149. John Mc

    Maybe better than nothing, but a bit piss weak.

  150. Ant

    It won’t pass the senate because, let’s face it, Bill Shorten is Dr No and the Labor Party is the Party of “No!”.

    As for the Greens, they’re the party of “Nyet!”

  151. dan

    Wouldn’t the guys preventing a person from accessing an area be covered by nuisance? And if behaving in a threatening manner what I believe is still assault? Covered by state laws as crimes and as torts.

    NSW:

    A person who, in a public place or a police station, behaves in a disorderly or offensive manner, fights with another person or uses offensive language is guilty of an offence and liable to a maximum penalty of a fine of $1250 or imprisonment for three months [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 7]. Examples of disorderly behaviour include being abusive to others in the street or smashing beer bottles on the road. For the purposes of these offences, a public place includes any licensed premises or a ship or vessel. – See more at: http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s05s04s02.php#sthash.kXyFP7hG.dpuf

    Riot:

    This is the most serious offence of the offences mentioned here. It is committed when 12 or more people are present together and use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose, and that the conduct of them causes a person (of reasonable firmness) present at the scene to fear their own personal safety. This offence can be committed in a public or private place. Common purpose can be inferred by conduct but the person needs to intend to use violence or is aware that their conduct may be violent. This offence involves both violence and public alarm, alarm in the sense that the conduct is currently or potentially dangerous. Violence here can include violence to property or person. [Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 83B] The penalty is a maximum of 7 years imprisonment for a basic offence and up to 10 years for an aggravated offence. – See more at: http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s05s04s17.php#sthash.LFFlgQed.dpuf

  152. Tintarella di Luna

    Actually, THIS IS A BROKEN FUCKING PROMISE YOU DRONGO.

    They said they would REPEAL IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, and they FUCKING LIED. Just as I suspected, Brandis is a fucking statist dickhead.

    You’ll blow a gasket with all those capitals, the RDA is essentially gutted, the promise is kept because essentially it has been repealed in its entirety except for what’s left which is innocuous

  153. Gab

    The legislation will repeal section 18C of the Act, as well as sections 18B, 18D, and 18E.

    I never thought they had the backbone to do this. Woo-hoo …and then I read this:

    A new section will be inserted into the Act which will preserve the existing protection against intimidation and create a new protection from racial vilification.

    Oh ffs!

  154. I wonder if Joe Goodacre is from Hooterville

    Bet he wishes he was.

    hur hur hur

    Actually, I believe you are thinking of his cousin, Johnny Appleseed.

  155. Tintarella di Luna

    Actually, I believe you are thinking of his cousin, Johnny Appleseed.

    No I was thinking he might be related to Arnold Ziffel

  156. twostix

    The change is very clever by Brandis. It keeps some of the silly bits in S18C which are already in other pieces of legislation but uses the other amended sections to effectively nullify S18C. It is extremely clever.

    Totally agree.

    I’ve been tough on Brandis, perhaps unduly because the reality of this proposal is to cleverly demolish decades of the left’s war on free speech leaving only a fairly minor residual.

    Some people are demanding perfection but that’s not really fair as this is Australia, not the US and free speech matters aren’t clear cut here. The Liberals have to work within the confines of the political reality in Australia and given that global trend at this time is to suppress free speech this proposal is pretty good, like 85 /100 which is really a pretty glorious victory.

  157. twostix

    They said they would REPEAL IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, and they FUCKING LIED. Just as I suspected, Brandis is a fucking statist dickhead.

    Abbott actually said they’d “repeal the worst parts” of the legislation.

    Which this proposal does and then some, (if these paragraphs stay):

    Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.
    4. This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.”

    Those paragraphs would effectively render the entire RDA dead. The only real punishable crime will be to incite violence or scream racial abuse at people in public. Yes the legislation can be abused by corrupt ALP judges but that’s an edge case that could be worked on after this passed.

  158. None

    Except that the Racial Discrimination Act is a ‘statuary tort via the human rights dispute resolution’ process, whereas the criminal offences of insulting behaviour, non- violent verbal assault and the like are usually prosecuted by the police and carry a higher standard of proof before a conviction.

    Correct. This ‘compromise’ is disgusting. Sec 18C will still be used by kangaroo courts and support a bunch of fascist starchambers. LNP wimped out again as I knew they would.

  159. Anne

    Anyone know where I can find the racey, racist, bigolty, pigolty Bolt article?

  160. JC

    Does that sort of thing excite you Anne?

  161. JohnA

    Philippa Martyr #1238659, posted on March 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    I’ll see you that, and raise you a GAY Irish CEO.

    Well, I’ll see your gay, Irish CEO and raise you a gay, Irish, leprechaun CEO with a bung eye.

    I’ll have to fold, Leigh. You win again.

    Curses!

    Nah, I would have called him. He has to produce a real one. I know that you could have put a name to your bid…

  162. Anne

    Does that sort of thing excite you Anne?

    No JC…well…I don’t think so. I thought it had been censored so never bothered to search for it.

    Thanks Gab. :-)

  163. not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.

    This is the bit that will cause the headsplosions across the Leftosphere.

    The cruellest, most sadistic thing we could do to the HRC is not to sack them, not to staple-gun them to the wall and torture them with fire ants, not to have them shot… but to gradually squeeze them, pressure them, hem them in until their deranged Lefty minds can take it no more and they quit in disgust. :P

    Shades of what Newman did when he appointed the head of a loathsome organisation to the task of its dismantling.

  164. Tinta, I think you’re on to something. Although perhaps Arnold is more closely related to Paul Howes.

    Who as we know is actually a sock puppet.

    Paul Howes 1

    Paul Howes 2

    (ahhhhh. It never gets old)

  165. Cold-Hands

    No, not Arnold. He was a she!

  166. Anne

    That’s really funny Philippa! Thanks.

    I swear Paul Howes has the prettiest profile in all Hartfordshire!

  167. Jessie

    It was IPA that took the stance on Freedom of Speech following the Bolt case, and also their commentary on Gillard’s media reforms and changes to the Human Rights Anti-Discrimination legislation.

    IPA’s forthcoming Liberty and Democracy symposium under their Foundations of Western Civilisation program will see more discussion and exchange in free speech and ideas. As will Dan Hannan’s forthcoming book Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking People Made the Modern World.

    The joke below pilfered and unacknowledged.

    Wonderfully British…
    On a train from London to Manchester an Australian was berating the Englishman sitting across from him in the compartment.
    “You English are too stuffy. You set yourselves apart too much.
    You think your stiff upper lip makes you above the rest of us.
    Look at me… I’m ME! I have Italian blood, Greek blood, a little Irish blood, and some Aborigine blood. What do you say to that ?”
    The Englishman replied, “Awfully sporting of your mother, old chap!”

  168. Beertruk

    I know everyone is talking about Andrew Bolt at the moment, but what would have been the implications for the two Pastors from the Catch the Fire Ministries that were dragged through the Victorian Court by the ‘Religion Of Peace Council of Victoria Inc’? If the Federal Government amends/repeals 18c, do the states have to amend/repeal their legislation as well?

  169. JohnA

    “The Englishman replied, “Awfully sporting of your mother, old chap!”

    As in the Goon Show “The Flea” with Ned Seagoon as Samuel Pepys, where Grytpype recounts a certain diary entry:
    ‘December the third. Whilst the King was away, did sport madly with Nell Gwynn.’

  170. james

    The limp Dick libs have half arsed it again..

    Surprise, surprise..

    Soft as bloody butter.

  171. Joe Goodacre

    johanna,

    Joe Goodacre, on what do you base your assertion that Andrew Bolt is the “face” of this proposal? Last time I looked, George Brandis was the Attorney-General.

    This is my impression of the dominant narrative in the media about this. See the Nick Cater article quoted above which indicates that the Left underestimated the personal affront the PM took from Bolt’s case. When Brandis was on Q&A talking about this, the discussion turned to Bolt.

    And really, reading the comments of readers of the minority and rapidy declining Fauxfacts news outlets is something I do as a penance for a vewwy sewious sin, like not recycling. Those people would sooner stick pins in their eyes get a job than vote conservative.

    I don’t know for every rag, but it would appear Fairfax is not alone in their portrayl of this.
    As to never voting conservative – maybe. Since most of us were Lefties once though, I tend to disagree that it’s a lost cause.

    You might also be surprised to find that even rusted on Labor voters who are genuinely working class (a declining but still significant minority) are fed up to the back teeth with being told by their “betters” what can and cannot be said.

    I work with these ‘rusted’ on Labor voters. I think it’s optimistic to think that they are bothered by this issue which affects very few people practically.

  172. Yohan

    Why no analysis of what the wording of this law actually does? The last paragraph is the important factor.

    You can still be prosecuted for vilification and intimidation of another person, but not in private, and not in writing, words or images that are used for public discussion.

    In other words, if you are a journalist, blogger, writer, e.t.c the new insertion does not apply. Andrew Bolt would never have gone to court. This law now only applies in cases of street abuse, such as the people on trains calling people racial names and intimidation when the object of such incitement is located physically.

    The PC cultural left cannot use this law now like they want to, which was never about protecting people from being called boongs or wogs, but attacking their opponents in the culture wars.

  173. Yohan

    With those insertions, Bolt would still have offended and been found guilty, unless the reference to public discussion nullifies it.

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing….

    Yes it does nullify it. This has been carefully crafted. Any post on this blog is public discussion on various political, cultural, social, artistic matters, e.t.c

  174. Joe Goodacre

    From this morning…

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/backlash-over-george-brandis-racial-discrimination-repeal-20140325-35gih.html

    ‘It seems Andrew Bolt may be the only person in Australia pleased by PM’s proposed changes.’

  175. Rabz

    It seems Andrew Bolt may be the only person in Australia pleased by PM’s proposed changes

    Wonderful – Fauxfacts getting it spectacularly wrong, again.

    Yawn.

  176. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1239292, posted on March 26, 2014 at 6:43 am
    From this morning…

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/backlash-over-george-brandis-racial-discrimination-repeal-20140325-35gih.html

    ‘It seems Andrew Bolt may be the only person in Australia pleased by PM’s proposed changes.’

    Joe is a clown. He has learned nothing from the pasting he got in the other thread. Joe considers himself a philosopher, and freely admits to being a racist:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1231343, posted on March 19, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    [...] I’ve already both called myself a racist earlier in these comments and accepted that charge from others.

    Here is some of Joe’s stellar argumentation:

    Govenment benefits have at their premise assumed inferiority/superiority.

    Where benefits put someone above someone else, they assume superiority.

    Where benefits raise someone to the level of someone else, they assume inferiority.

    If you introduce race as a basis for determining access to either of these categories of benefits then you are discriminating based upon assumptions of inferiority or superiority in regards to race – this is racism.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/03/18/marcia-langton-the-nature-of-her-apology/

  177. Joe Goodacre

    Rabz ,

    Wonderful – Fauxfacts getting it spectacularly wrong, again.

    That is tribalism and naive in my view as to the beliefs of most people around us.
    When the debate is framed as if we are for the right to offend the far left think – ‘there go those white, 40, right winger racist nut jobs – how convenient that they want it legal to cause offense’. People more to the centre look at the proposed changes and think – ‘I’m not going to be racist and I don’t want others to be – if you’re not going to do the crime you won’t do the time’. If election results are anything to go by, only a small section of the population believe in small government, large freedom and that being called fat, skinny, black or white isn’t a category of harm justifying state intervention.

    Letting the debate be framed as if it’s appealing to a small section of the right is no different in my opinion than the Tea Party types that demand that it shouldn’t be legal to abort in cases of rape or incest. Sure they’re sticking to a principle, but was that principle necessary to win the debate or are they simply grandstanding to a small number of voters who already agree with them?

    Weimar Germany had restrictions on hate free speech which meant that Hitler wasn’t elected with a mandate to kill 6 million Jews. It might have been better for the Jews for them not to believe that the State was protecting them when prominent Nazi’s were arrested for hate speech. Personally I’d prefer Imams talking about the great Xionist conspiracy in public. It appears to me that making the argument that restrictions on racist speech only hide the racists appeals to a broader base.

  178. Aristogeiton

    Joe, I know I said earlier that I’m not going to converse with you any further, as you are too stupid for it to be meaningfully possible. I will, however, offer you some gratuitous advice: never stop shutting the fuck up.

  179. Joe Goodacre

    Aristogeiton,

    A classic example of playing the man not the ball. Even if your verballing was correct, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

  180. Joe Goodacre

    Aristogeiton,

    Maybe I could learn something from you – I’m open to the possibility. It is interesting that I’ve gotten under your skin thoughto such an extent that you profess to never converse with me again and minutes later have another dig.

  181. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1239340, posted on March 26, 2014 at 8:04 am
    Aristogeiton,

    A classic example of playing the man not the ball. Even if your verballing was correct, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

    A discussion necessitates two participants. I can no more converse with you than with the howling wind. Since the post I was responding to accuses Rabz of naivete and tribalism, would you say that constitutes an ad hominem argument (‘playing the man’ as you so put it), and would you consider shutting the fuck up you bloviating bore?

  182. Dan

    such as the people on trains calling people racial names and intimidation when the object of such incitement is located physically.

    Which would be dealt with under other legislation anyway

    Now if my Jewish friend sees me pick up a dropped coin outside the 7-11 and comments on my doing the Jew-jump he can still be prosecuted if someone is in a bad mood and overhears. That is absolutely ridiculous.

  183. Dan

    Joe and aristo, exchange phone numbers and leave us alone. So sick of anonymous heroes abusing each other on what is supposed to be a political discussion forum.

  184. Aristogeiton

    Let’s not start that ‘anonymous’ thing again.

Comments are closed.