The Coalition Of Cowards

A great piece at Quadrant Online that sets out the choice:

Feckless and afraid, the alleged conservatives now galloping away from their promise to scrap or amend Section 18C present those who believe in free speech with two choices: Hold your nose and vote for them anyway, or hold these Quislings to account.

Read the whole thing.

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

217 Responses to The Coalition Of Cowards

  1. stackja

    ALP/MSM are the problem. They want 18C.

  2. Infidel Tiger

    What do those milksops believe in?

  3. Andrew

    Feckless and afraid, the alleged conservatives now galloping away from their promise to scrap or amend Section 18C present those who believe in free speech with two choices: Hold your nose and vote for them anyway, or hold these Quislings to account.

    They aren’t galloping away from their promises. Many of them never believed in it.

  4. Rabz

    I was at an IPA function last year and spoke at length with various Government MPs who were present.

    Had I known that events would transpire in this fashion I would have been having a ‘proper’ word in their shell-like.

    Another monumental betrayal.

    They will be taught that this is not acceptable behaviour.

  5. Rabz

    various Government MPs

    Who were in the opposition at the time.

    Dishonest, expedient deadshits.

  6. Gab

    Will the LNPbreak yet another election promise, that has nothing to do with the budget? Yes.

    Will the LNP back down on section 18C repeal/draft amendments? Yes.

    Has the LNP been brow-beaten by community leaders – who represent a tiny minority of the population – to back down on their election bravado and fine words spoken at IPA functions? Yes.

    Are the members of the LNP populist cowards? Yes.

    Will I vote for them again in future? Hell no.

  7. As Gab pointed out in the open thread, solar rebates are still in place. Why? Is this coalition policy? The carbon tax is still in place. spending has not been reduced (I hesitate to use the word ‘cut’ which has two meanings in budgetary parlance). Even the wealth tax (er, sorry… debt levy) is an example of cowardice, because they pre-emptively attacked the rich in fear of being criticised for favouring the rich. But criticised by who? Whose ire did they fear? The left!

    Their policies seem to all be designed with the question, how would I justify this to the QandA audience?

  8. Duncan

    I am a member of the Liberal Party and have already made my state a federal members aware of my serious alarm at the development. They are fobbing me off with pathetic and trite comments that are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    I thought of resigning, but better to be in the tent and seated at the table where one’s voice is louder, than outside where one can be more easily ignored.

  9. 3d1k

    Sad to say, these dudes are looking like the B team.

    Fighting the wrong fights (eg PPL) and surrendering the right (eg 18c).

    They have consistently underestimated the media preparedness to undermine, circumvent or misrepresent Government policies – and have kicked too many own goals in regard to policy contradiction. I have to say, having had a little experience in successful campaigns, this has been a most lacklustre beginning.

    They need to wise up. This is war. The media, most MSM and social, are openly hostile, misrepresenting or misleading any policy. Lift the game, cogently argue the case and – I know the experts say it best they don’t – unleash a comprehensive effective advertising campaign – ‘cos they are losing this battle.

  10. from the article.

    If the Canadian Parliament can repeal Section 13, which was used to prosecute Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, why can’t we do the same with Section 18c and take a stand for personal freedom alongside Canada and the United States?

    They could have done it. They could have had the repeal drafted and voted on last year.

    However it’s clear now that Brandis never wanted to repeal it. The politics has been managed in such a way as to make repeal impossible. that wasn’t Labor or the Greens’ doing; that was the coalition.

  11. val majkus

    solar rebates are still in place

    are they? Not sure about that, I thought they were canned

  12. Andrew

    However it’s clear now that Brandis never wanted to repeal it. The politics has been managed in such a way as to make repeal impossible. that wasn’t Labor or the Greens’ doing; that was the coalition.

    Brandis wanted to repeal it. The problem is that he was rolled in cabinet and by marginal seat holders who kicked up a shit about the whole issue. Many MPs offices have been vandalised because of the draft laws. That is not excusing the decision, but don’t blame Brandis from folding as it is his colleagues who should be holding their heads in shame.

  13. Gab

    Not according to this ad which I saw in the SMH just now, Val.

  14. val majkus

    thanks Gab, I am surprised because I thought they were canned last year and all those people who wanted me to get solar power stopped calling too
    I’ll do a bit of digging

  15. Piett

    I’m coming late to this, but what the heck, here’s my 2 cents …

    If the LDP, or libertarians in general, are going to get any traction whatsoever, they have to pick issues where there is an obvious failure of policy.

    With drugs, for example, you can point to all the waste and shattered lives created by prohibition, crime, and punishment. There is something to work with here — a real and tangible problem.

    But what’s the failure with border control at the moment? The boats have been stopped; we have a large and successful skilled migrant program; we have a large (by international standards) humanitarian refugee program.

    The only failure, from the libertarian perspective, is that the system does not correspond to libertarian theology. Otherwise, it’s working fine.

    Sorry, LDP and libertarians, you have no chance here, nothing to work with, and will only push people back into the arms of the LNP.

  16. Gab

    I thought it canned too, Val which I why I asked the question. I checked the site and they are doing quotes for all states, so it’s national.

  17. James B

    They’ll persevere with “necessary” policies like the fuel tax reindexation and the “rich people’s” tax, but stripping away attacks on free speech is all too hard.

    [Small edit. Sinc]

  18. Piett

    D’oh, silly me that was meant for the refugee thread, sorry.

    For what it’s worth, if LDP makes a big issue out of border control, I think the issue would cost them more votes than they’d gain via the section 18C free speech argument.

    I fully agree with the free speech side, but it’s really a marginal issue for 99.9999% of the population, who are never likely to face prosecution by the HRC.

  19. NOT repealing Section 18C will do more damage to our society than repealing it.

    We need to be having these conversations in public, unafraid, right now. You’d think that all the people who are most afraid of ‘right wing parties taking over Europe’ at present would realise that it’s in direct proportion to the clampdown on discussions of issues of race and immigration.

  20. val majkus

    https://www.solarmarket.com.au/learn/rebates/

    In a Nutshell:
    •There is still a rebate given by the Federal government for installing solar
    •The rebate is given as a discount on the price of the system by your installer.
    •The installer claims the rebate on your behalf

    But there’s a puzzle:

    Relative to the rest of the Coalition’s climate change election promises, the Million Solar Roofs rebate program is incredibly unambiguous – rebates of $500 will be provided to households to install a solar water heater or photovoltaic system up to a maximum of 100,000 households per annum for the next 10 years. This policy commitment is now clearly stated in a federal government’s Environment Department policy document A Plan for a Cleaner Environment.

    Yet when the mid-year budget update (MYEFO) was released in December there was not a single mention of the policy. It wasn’t exactly hard to formulate the budget – simply multiply 100,000 by $500 to give an annual budget of $50 million. No need for further policy development because the budget is set out in black and white.

    Perplexed about this, Climate Spectator followed it up with Environment Minister Hunt’s office in the new year to attempt to clarify exactly what was going on. A spokesman responded that, “The government indicated prior to the election that the funding would be via ARENA.”

    This immediately set-off alarm bells because the Coalition Government, rather than increasing ARENA’s budget by $50 million per annum or $150 million over the forward estimates (years 2014-15 to 2016-17) had instead slashed the ARENA budget from $776.2 million down to $341.3 million in November.

    Now $341.3 million is still a useful kitty of money. But ARENA and its predecessors had already committed to funding 181 projects prior to this budget cut which tied up a substantial amount of this remaining money.

    At the time the funding cut was revealed Labor claimed that these cuts had left ARENA with no money to fund any new projects over the next three years. However, an ARENA spokesperson informed Climate Spectator at the time that they still had around $200 million of uncommitted funds. Then in the December MYEFO funding was reduced by a further $40 million leaving ARENA with $160 million of uncommitted funding.

    If a Million Solar Roofs is funded from ARENA’s remaining budget it leaves $10 million or just $3.3 million per year over the next three years.

    Given this would leave ARENA essentially defunct, Climate Spectator sought to confirm with Minister Hunt and then Minister Macfarlane’s office whether in fact the $150 million for solar roofs would come at the expense of the $301 million allocated to ARENA in MYEFO. Neither have been prepared to answer what would seem an elementary ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

    Yet ARENA continues to promote programs whose money would seem to be locked up in the Million Solar Roofs

  21. JC

    So let’s picture this… Brandis stands up in the senate and shouts people have a right to be bigoted (as a poor imitation of Voltaire) in defence of scrapping 18c and now he backs away from scrapping 18c inferring people don’t have that right.

    What a bunch of clowns.

    Squid have a tougher backbone.

  22. .

    But what’s the failure with border control at the moment? The boats have been stopped; we have a large and successful skilled migrant program; we have a large (by international standards) humanitarian refugee program.

    It is expensive and cutting off welfare could work better.

    Thankyou for non hysterical, on topic criticism, even if it is in the wrong place.

  23. .

    What we need against s18C is a constitutional challenge.

    Before Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission, people thought NSW could not be challenged on the implied right to the presumption of innocence (which they had removed with a reverse onus of proof under the old OH&S Act).

    The High Court has in the last 20 years read the constitution to recognise common law rights at 1901 as implied rights. This is a good sign and we ought to have a legal fund to keep this going.

  24. Baldrick

    The Liberals have become a pack of kowtowing, cheese-eating, surrender monkeys. They’re no better than the pathetic rabble they replaced.

  25. candy

    Offence to “offend or insult” etc will be taken out in due course, it’s so petty and just silly.

    The rest of 18c as it is causes great concern to ethnic and other groups. The government is wise to heed that.
    You just can’t deny that is happening. The government cannot just ride roughshod over that. If they get so many petitions about it and so on, should they ignore it? isn’t government there to listen?

  26. JC

    Candy

    They ran a campaign about its repeal! Full stop. Nothing else matters.

  27. val majkus

    I am disappointed about 18C but there other things like scrapping the carbon tax which I hope will get through the incoming senate
    If not …. well I think this ‘being a PM for all Australians’ should be scrapped and replaced with a dogged persistence on productivity, welfare and debt

  28. David

    I have written to Brandis putting it straight to him as to his intentions.

    Posted on Wednesday last and waiting on a reply – hope I live long enough.

    Gutless pricks.

  29. incoherent rambler

    It now seems quite likely that the Abbott Government will surrender. These are dark days indeed.

    It now seems quite likely that tThe Abbott Government willhas surrendered. These are dark days indeed.

    How many forms of betrayal does the constituency need to suffer before they accept that they have been betrayed?

    Jobs for ALP mates, quarantining the ABC, solar rebates, the RET are betrayals.

    18C is a betrayal worth a fight.

    (In the words of Sir Rodney) Give me liberty or give me death!

  30. Gab

    I think this ‘being a PM for all Australians’ should be scrapped and replaced with a dogged persistence on productivity, welfare and debt

    If he actually did that – dogged persistence on productivity, welfare and debt – then he really would be a PM for all Australians.

  31. David

    The rest of 18c as it is causes great concern to ethnic and other groups

    Free speech, even offensive free speech, is something that our mostly English forebears fought for over centuries. I do not subscribe to the “lets be sensitive to other ideas” on our home soil.

    I have had many heated discussions with my co-religionists about limiting free speech as it, as an example, encourages “holocaust denial”. My constant answer is present the compelling evidence to the contrary to prove they are wrong. If it is not accepted then at least you know who your enemies are.

    Free speech is a concept continually worth fighting for. If some don’t like it then let them find some repressive little hell hole where they can live happily under censorship.

  32. littledozer

    Bought this up with a number of Vic libs and the only fight they are up for is the one amongst themselves. None want to repeal it that I have spoken too.

  33. .

    I have had many heated discussions with my co-religionists about limiting free speech as it, as an example, encourages “holocaust denial”. My constant answer is present the compelling evidence to the contrary to prove they are wrong. If it is not accepted then at least you know who your enemies are.

    The Holocaust was possible in part because of a lack of free speech and a free press. Your friends should realise this.

  34. incoherent rambler

    Can someone ask Abbott the question:

    As a politician, do you find it better to live on your knees, rather than die on your feet?

  35. val majkus

    dogged persistence on productivity, welfare and debt – then he really would be a PM for all Australians.

    he’s never going to please everyone so give it up for the good of the nation – but there are so many sectional interests – just look at the medics on the medicare co payment (who knew they were so stuck on the public teat) and I saw an ad sponsored by the nurses union today complaining all those who can’t afford it are going to end up in emergency and will give them less time to concentrate on emergency cases

  36. David

    The Holocaust was possible in part because of a lack of free speech and a free press. Your friends should realise this

    I agree totally but sometimes it is like the elderly Jew praying at the Temple Wall in Jerusalem saying, “For all the good it does I may as well be speaking to a f—-ing wall”.

  37. MartinG

    Tony Abbott has entertainment value for about another year. After that he will be so hated by the conservative base that Scott Morrison could piss all over him and get a standing ovation.

    Perhaps though it might be better to leave it until six months before the next election. Bill Shorten would/is a gibbering idiot, the greens will have nothing to offer other than to farrow your lands with a wooden mattock and the university brats will sing his praises by reminding us what a heartless bastard he is.

  38. Andrew

    It is expensive and cutting off welfare could work better.

    Work better, in what sense? Watching people nominally accepted as refugees starving to death / turning to crime? Or having our leftist churches take them on as charity, and strip the same amount of finite resources from AUS poor? Once they realise they get a healthy living wage (exorbitant, by their standards) they’re all on the teat.

  39. Joe Goodacre

    The Liberals didn’t have the right game plan with this from the start. So it’s good that they are retreating – better to retreat and regroup after barely make the battle field then to push a losing position.

    It’s not a big issue while Liberals are in charge for the same reason howard did nothing about the racial discrimination act when he was in charge.

  40. Andrew

    Nobody out there cares about 18C. People either
    - think its rewrite would bring back Hitler
    - don’t care or
    - are told what to think.

    Even the Joooooos want to keep it. I’ve only ever encountered one real world supporter of the policy, and hundreds of ordinary people horrified.

    It was terrible politics, and terrible policy. They linked it to Bolt – why???? Why be seen to write a new law for one person.

    My view is it should stay. Keep it, as 99.9% of offenders are of the Left. Use it. Fill the courts. Wherever a Green offends a Jooooooooo with BDS, charge them. Including the parliamentarians. Dare them to keep all their anti Semitism for the Senate – it’s such a great look when they’re too scared to repeat it outside.

  41. It’s not a big issue while Liberals are in charge for the same reason howard did nothing about the racial discrimination act when he was in charge.

    Except that it was part of the election campaign and an election promise.

  42. My view is it should stay. Keep it, as 99.9% of offenders are of the Left. Use it. Fill the courts.

    You’re deluded if you think that strategy is possible.

  43. Except that it was part of the election campaign and an election promise.

    And if the changes are so unpopular, why did they campaign on it? And how come it didn’t hurt them during the campaign? Seems like Labor somehow missed a big bullseye on their backs, by not exploiting the repeal’s unpopularity.

    It’s true the changes are unpopular now, yes, but that’s because Brandis has cleverly shifted popular opinion on the matter.

  44. Robert O.

    Why not go the whole hog and scrap the Racial Discrimination Act as well as the Human Rights Commission too? Plenty of laws left to use, defamation, libel etc., and save some more taxpayers money (in view of the budget crisis).

  45. Well, It would be all over then? Time to look for suitable spots for that hole that is the last refuge. Stock it with the ammo, food and supplies. And “wait till ya see the whites of their eye’s” Tyranny is’a'comin’ There is now no choice of direction or the chance of change. Just either slow or fast decline! I prefer the fast kind, which is why Gillard should have stayed. But, this still confirms the trend!

  46. Fisky

    If the Canadian Parliament can repeal Section 13, which was used to prosecute Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, why can’t we do the same with Section 18c and take a stand for personal freedom alongside Canada and the United States?

    That’s easy. Section 13 was being used to shut down opponents of Islamic fanatics, such as Steyn and Levant, and basically the cases were indefensible even to the intellectual Left. That’s an easy sell because the interests of Islamic fanatics are irreconciliable with those of nearly everyone else. And also the people who got done in by Section 13 represented a more powerful cross-section of interests (Steyn, the most famous conservative columnist in Canada, and Levant, the leading conservative Jew, really are heavy hitters who can cover a lot of bases between them) than just Bolt on his own. Cutting 18C is a much harder sell, because a lot of people who pose no ideological threat to Australia, such as Chinese, Koreans and so on, could potentially have their sensibilities protected by 18C. And the only major test case so far was Bolt.

  47. incoherent rambler

    Abbott cowers before leftist dogma. Who in the LNP does not?

  48. Foggyfig

    If the AFL is a private business the federal govt should stop all grants to it. Like the other companies they have said no to, they should start saying no to the AFL

  49. .

    I agree totally but sometimes it is like the elderly Jew praying at the Temple Wall in Jerusalem saying, “For all the good it does I may as well be speaking to a f—-ing wall”.

    LOL

    I forgot:

    Free speech is sacred.

  50. .

    Foggyfig
    #1328936, posted on June 2, 2014 at 12:13 am
    If the AFL is a private business the federal govt should stop all grants to it. Like the other companies they have said no to, they should start saying no to the AFL

    Correct. Footy in Victoria is so popular the idea is needs propping up is just bizarre.

  51. Foggyfig

    Whoops, did I even put this in the right thread? Too many open :( (

  52. egg_

    It’s true the changes are unpopular now, yes, but that’s because Brandis has cleverly shifted popular opinion on the matter.

    Did he only use the ‘bigot’ term once in Govt?

  53. egg_

    Tony Abbott has entertainment value for about another year. After that he will be so hated by the conservative base that Scott Morrison could piss all over him and get a standing ovation.

    A change of hands too close to calling an election may not be enough, have to win back swinging voters not just the disenchanted base.
    Better to do it early and build up the voting base.

  54. cynical1

    To paraphrase Bernard Lewis, they have shown themselves to be harmless to their enemies but treacherous to their friends.

    Money quote.

  55. Denise

    Their policies seem to all be designed with the question, how would I justify this to the QandA audience?

    +1

  56. MartinG

    A change of hands too close to calling an election may not be enough, have to win back swinging voters not just the disenchanted base.
    Better to do it early and build up the voting base.

    Yes but why throw Morrison in the shit pile Abbott has built? A change of leader just before the next election will give the disenchanted new vigor. He starts with a clean slate and and doesn’t have to promise anything without Labor and the greens outlining how they will destroy the economy.

    If Malcolm Turnbull should somehow be leader at the time, Morrison will be seen as the savior of the nation.

  57. Robert Blair

    So:

    The Greens are basically loonies who would wreck the country by destroying our industry and economy to appease Gaia.

    Labor would wreck the country by wild and reckless spending on welfare (including corporate).

    The Nationals would do the same as Labor, but for their own favoured clients – plus introduce some repressive social measures.

    The Libs are, it appears, Labor-lite. Keep the spending at full throttle, retain the repressive multi-culti apparatus (including 18C) and succor the establishment left in the public service and the ABC.

    And the LDP are determined to remain a tiny party of Academic dreamers, presenting completely naff policies that will be scorned by 99% of the voting population.

    So that leaves maybe the DLP, or Family First.

    We do seem to have the worst political class. Ever.

  58. rickw

    the alleged conservatives

    There’s your problem…

  59. ella

    Not long ago I stood behind a woman in a shop who wanted to purchase an item. She was offered a free choice between two. The longer she stood there gazing at the two items the more visibly anxious she became.

    What is it about freedom of choice that causes so many of the current batch of Australians so much anxiety?

    What is it about the choice of true free speech that causes so many Australians to become anxious? In fact, so anxious that he or she feels the need to petition the government to retain a clause that makes it wrong to insult or offend.

    Don’t be a coward Brandis. Step in and make the choice for them.

  60. Crossie

    We do seem to have the worst political class. Ever.

    I have never been so disappointed in my side so quickly, even Malcolm Fraser took three terms to get to this point.

    Tony Abbott is not timid, he was decisive enough against Pauline Hanson.

  61. Joe Goodacre

    Except that it was part of the election campaign and an election promise.

    It wasn’t a strong element of the campaign – this is circumstantial of course however I can’t remember it being spoken about much in the lead up.

    They can practically achieve the same effect (i.e making it a toothless tiger as it was under Howard) by changing the composition of the commission. To my mind it seems pretty unlikely that the commission would prosecute anyone under a Liberal government. Better that the stay elected and s18C stay in place, then they lose, 18C stays in place all the same and conservatives become targets under a future Labor/Greens government.

  62. Greigoz

    This i why Australia needs it own version of a charismatic and forceful UKIP Party leader (and no I don’t mean Clive).

  63. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1329192, posted on June 2, 2014 at 8:04 am
    Except that it was part of the election campaign and an election promise.

    It wasn’t a strong element of the campaign – this is circumstantial of course however I can’t remember it being spoken about much in the lead up.

    They can practically achieve the same effect (i.e making it a toothless tiger as it was under Howard) by changing the composition of the commission. To my mind it seems pretty unlikely that the commission would prosecute anyone under a Liberal government. Better that the stay elected and s18C stay in place, then they lose, 18C stays in place all the same and conservatives become targets under a future Labor/Greens government.

    So much stupid in this.

  64. Rabz

    Why not go the whole hog and scrap the Racial Discrimination Act as well as the Human Rights Commission too?

    I have been advocating this for years – seriously, who of any consequence would give a rodent’s backside?

    An added bonus would be the interminable squealing of leftie luvvies and dunderheaded ethnic dolts, who seem to have come to this country with the express aim of turning it into the type of shit hole they left.

  65. WhaleHunt Fun

    Time to start prosecuting the left. Direct action against the ECM using 18c to drive them bankrupt. Abbott should use taxpayers money to prosecute thousands of the left into penury through their legal fees for defending trivial complaints.

  66. Woolfe

    If 18c is in place can we have a vigorous debate about recognition of 7th day Adventist in the constitution? No ,as it might offend someone.

  67. Greigoz

    Tony Abbott has packed up his forcefulness and natural aggression into a box and slid it under his bed. He now believes that being a gentleman is enough… maybe even his ‘good blokedness’ will win over his detractors. This while the Left/ALP/Greens are making new ground daily.

    As an example, when discussing the boats, he is measured while trying to come across as humane. Crikey! In a debate about morals, ethics, human rights, anything, he simply needs to stare into their face and repeat – 1000 dead, 1000 dead! There is no more debate.

  68. Did he only use the ‘bigot’ term once in Govt?

    It wasn’t just the ‘bigot’ reference; the whole thing about seeking community input was designed to foster community opposition to the change, as ethnic interest groups were the main respondents. You know, “community leaders”.

    As soon as they started seeking input, I knew something was up. I don’t see them going around asking for community input about whether to remove the carbon tax. Mind you, the carbon tax is also still in place.

  69. Rabz

    Mind you, the carbon tax is also still in place.

    Thanks to labor and the greenfilth.

  70. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    The National Green Laboral Party does it again betraying Australia and its People has become the norm in professional politics,self interest over all else,lying and deceit becomes acceptable.make politics a part time job with no perks or super make it a patriotic duty.The present politicians would then have to join the Other Mafia,you know the slightly more honest one .On second thoughts would the other Mafia want these grubs besmirching its “good name “?

  71. .

    And the LDP are determined to remain a tiny party of Academic dreamers, presenting completely naff policies that will be scorned by 99% of the voting population.

    So that leaves maybe the DLP, or Family First.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about champ. There may be some valid criticism on small doses in the other thread on the fee immigration idea, but the errors by the critics and omissions about the “perfect” OSB is alarming. They can’t even get the comparison of the UKIP and LDP correct.

    LDP policy and article on free speech

    http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/news/108-admin1/1032-not-evil-just-wrong

    “Free Speech – No Compromise”

    Support repeal of S18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and oppose any similar legislation

    • Oppose internet filtering or censorship unless undertaken voluntarily (eg by parents)

    • Oppose the establishment of any government overseer of the media

    • Believe no film, book or game should ever be banned outright except where its making involved the commission of a crime, such as abuse of children

    • Support legalising the sale of X-rated pornography

    • Support the introduction of adult ratings for video games, thus legalising games that have previously been banned

    • Support a review of current film and game classification criteria, taking a rational rather than morality driven approach to classification.

    Indeed – free speech is sacred.

  72. MT Isa Miner

    Thankyou for non hysterical, on topic criticism, even if it is in the wrong place.

    .

    #1328750, posted on June 1, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    What we need against s18C is a constitutional challenge.

    Before Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission, people thought NSW could not be challenged on the implied right to the presumption of innocence (which they had removed with a reverse onus of proof under the old OH&S Act).

    The High Court has in the last 20 years read the constitution to recognise common law rights at 1901 as implied rights. This is a good sign and we ought to have a legal fund to keep this going.

    True words Dot. We need to fight on the important fronts: the money is one where it hurts most.
    Some of us would be under the hammer with s18C if we had money.

    Those NSW OHS laws shifted power to unions because they got a $% of the fines. Nice bloody witchhunt. The judges were union appointed and it was easiest to cop a negotiated fine than take them on with the deck stacked : ” the union says you’re guilty-business owner now prove you’re are innocent!’

    Trouble is the lawyers are mostly greenfilth sympathetic. Dyson looks like he is hard as flint because he stands his ground and has the brains to back him but he’s like the Spartans, outbloodynumbered.

    Cross on Evidence should be used like the coppers used to use phonebooks- apprentice lawyers get the choice : read the book/reasoned argument or b. cop the book.

  73. Robert Blair

    Dot:

    You don’t know what you’re talking about champ

    Thanks Dot – I’ve never been a champion before.

    If the LDP is never in a position to influence legislation (because they are un-electable) who really cares what their position on free speech is?

    And Dot, I say this as a financial LDP member.

  74. Robert Blair

    Dot:

    A couple more points:

    The main comparison between the LDP and UKIP is that there is none.

    The UKIP have articulated a comprehensive set of policies that apparently appeal to a broad range of English voters.

    The LDP labors mightily to produce the Open The Door policy. A policy to address a problem that is seen by the general public as fixed, and that manages to piss off both sides of the debate.

    I know how LDP meetings go – and I can see exactly how this policy came about. Which is why I am saying that the LDP, as currently structured, is likely to remain an off-campus debating club with no real impact on the direction of the country.

    After the initial euphoria it appears that DL’s election was an artifact of the arcane Senate voting process. That the major parties will collaborate to resolve.

    DL is likely to remain the one and only LDP member of the Australian parliament.

  75. Max

    Under 18c I wonder if you can use the Phase:

    “Islamic Terrorism”

    surely that is going to upset someone’s feelings?

  76. Alfonso

    And Truth is no defence in S18C.

    Just the way they want it, zero defence at law.

  77. struth

    If certain ethnic or culural lobby groups have a problem with free speech, and do not want this law repealed in it’s entirety, they are just proving they are a problem that needs to be talked about.

  78. .

    http://www.ukip.org/issues

    They have similar ideas like user pays and time limited work visas for TRs.

    OSBs as I have said has worked fairly well but I don’t think we can ignore the large ongoing cost it has and the few genuine refugees it may exclude. If people don’t get how the fee works, that is bad luck for us because we’re promoting user pays and privatisation etc is something else we support.

    UKIP don’t mention a tonne of things people expected the LDP to mention, then they say “but only if you guys were like UKIP”

    In the UKIP manifesto the concerns are the same – criminal checks/backgrounds and the ability to support yourself.

    In the EU election manifesto, they don’t want to be bound to international rules. The LDP was criticised for suggesting we do so.

    Are you saying the LDP is unelectable or UKIP is?

    You don’t think they are similar in any way though so it is probably not fair to ask you that. I believe I’ve shown some similarities.

  79. .

    Alfonso
    #1329296, posted on June 2, 2014 at 9:48 am
    And Truth is no defence in S18C.

    Just the way they want it, zero defence at law.

    I thought Bolt basically lost because he confused someone’s paternal and maternal grandparents. His argument was equally valid, but this was rather absurdly and illogiclaly used as “fact” against him.

  80. Alfonso

    Bolt effectively still has a proscribed speech order on him. Mordy ensured he cannot discuss the matter again in his own terms. The trivial grandparent stuff had no bearing on his argument.

  81. David

    Good one Mt Isa Miner. A good phone book and Cross on Evidence are essential tools in the rational enforcement of law and prosecution of malefactors.
    :-)

  82. .

    Err, that is, go to the end of the judgement. It makes a mockery of all of Bromberg’s blather.

  83. iamok

    The AFL is a non profit company limited by guarantee (ffs). Luvvies the lot of them, playing with other people’s money. Sound familiar?

  84. Vicki

    What we need against s18C is a constitutional challenge……….
    The High Court has in the last 20 years read the constitution to recognise common law rights at 1901 as implied rights.

    I would be dead scared of the implied right to freedom of speech being read down by interventionist judges who see their role in life as interpreting the evolving mores of the community.

    Maybe I’ve been spooked by James Allan’s “Democracy in Decline”. But if a challenge failed – it would be “curtains” for for any further attempted repeal, surely?

  85. gabrianga

    I saw amendments to 18c fly out the window as soon as Brandis gave his “bigotry” speech.

    Will the real “little rodent” please stand up?

  86. Aristogeiton

    Vicki
    #1329357, posted on June 2, 2014 at 10:48 am
    [...]
    I would be dead scared of the implied right to freedom of speech being read down by interventionist judges who see their role in life as interpreting the evolving mores of the community.

    Read down? The ‘implied right’ was read in by interventionist judges in the first place.

  87. Rabz

    I thought Bolt basically lost because he confused someone’s paternal and maternal grandparents. His argument was equally valid, but this was rather absurdly and illogically used as “fact” against him.

    Those arrogant bastards Mordy and Merkin claimed that getting the grandparent facts wrong called into question the validity of all his other arguments.

    Kind of like how that staggeringly stupid syphilis addled knobgobbler the spudpeeler seizes on peoples’ typos to try and discredit their arguments.

    There is a special place in hell for such types, I tells ya.

  88. .

    I would be dead scared of the implied right to freedom of speech being read down by interventionist judges who see their role in life as interpreting the evolving mores of the community.

    We don’t have a right to free speech. It is a legal challenge or constitutional reform, or repeal or anti speech laws and hope no one else ever passes such laws again.

    Maybe I’ve been spooked by James Allan’s “Democracy in Decline”. But if a challenge failed – it would be “curtains” for for any further attempted repeal, surely?

    They can reverse a decision and there is Parliamentary supremacy to a limited extent.

    The decision in Kirk v Workcover shows that you’re wrong.

  89. gabrianga

    Just as many of us sought Amendments to the Land Rights (N.T.) Act from Fraser and Howard without success it looks as if the “promised” 18c Amendments are down the gurgle.

    The silence from the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, is deafening as if someone had gagged him.

    Surely not?

  90. .

    Aristo

    I found the statement about being read down a bit awkward at first too.

    judges who see their role in life as interpreting the evolving mores of the community.

    They should do this. If they don’t their sentences won’t align with community standards – which is exactly what happened in the Bolt case.

  91. Vicki

    Read down? The ‘implied right’ was read in by interventionist judges in the first place.

    You are, of course, right Aristogeiton. My intended point was that I am fearful that the same world view that initiated the RDA in the first place might be maintained in a High Court decision.

    They can reverse a decision and there is Parliamentary supremacy to a limited extent.
    The decision in Kirk v Workcover shows that you’re wrong.

    Yes, yes. But in the context of the present hysterical reaction to the repeal of of part of 18C, I just can’t see that happening if the High Court had made such a ruling.

  92. As we mentioned last night:establishment conservatism bleeds electoral support when it seeks approval from those who most hate it.

  93. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1329373, posted on June 2, 2014 at 11:01 am
    Aristo

    I found the statement about being read down a bit awkward at first too.

    judges who see their role in life as interpreting the evolving mores of the community.

    They should do this. If they don’t their sentences won’t align with community standards – which is exactly what happened in the Bolt case.

    Well, I don’t subscribe to the Hayekian view of the law, and don’t agree that judges should have this role generally; in the end this makes the judge master and not the legislature.

    On the other hand, in my home state, one of the sentencing principles is:

    “[T]o make it clear that the community, acting through the court, denounces the sort of conduct in which the offender was involved”.

    I don’t think that sentences handed down in many cases (particularly violence offences) accords with that principle.

  94. Viva

    Again, like the budget, remember that that the proposed repeal of 18c has ranged against it a vast cultural edifice – this time that of political correctness instead of the culture of equality/entitlement (the two are related).
    If you consider the following prescriptions for successful culture change you may appreciate the difficulties of applying these strategies when you don’t have enough votes in the Senate to move quickly, when your budget proposals already mean you are on the nose and you have the press ranged against you so it is difficult to prosecute your case for change. Under these circumstances the “old rules” stilll rule.

    But again the armchair pollies at the Cat sit and sneer.

    Culture change strategies

    • The old culture is designed to protect itself! Change the old ways of doing things and it’s like waking a sleeping giant. Remember the definition of insanity: doing things the same way expecting a different result? Well, trying to change the culture using the old rules is taking a step toward insanity—the rules themselves are part of the problem!
    • Culture change requires a unique combination of passion, courage, conviction, audacity, and determination—people need to see that you’re on the move and that you are bone serious about the effort.
    • Consequently, your early moves must be strikingly bold, lightning fast, and out of character as far as the old rules are concerned!
    • You must gain momentum quickly. People need to see your conviction and resolve or you’ll never overcome the sluggishness, apathy and resistance that set in when change hits.

    http://www.freibergs.com/resources/articles/change/8-culture-change-strategies/

  95. Brandis stands up in the senate and shouts people have a right to be bigoted (as a poor imitation of Voltaire)

    What a moron. He undermined his own argument by admitting that views disliked by leftists Are in fact bigoted! It is not for Brandis or anyone else to decide in advance whether another’s point of view is bigoted or not. It elevates one person’s opinion over another. It assumes privilege.

    I reject such a notion. If you dislike what I think, go to hell. You don’t have to like it, but it is morally reprehensible to silence me by force. Why are politicians so stupid? (Crickets chirping, frogs croaking…)

  96. James

    And how come it didn’t hurt them during the campaign?

    The Jews hadn’t said anything at the time and Brandis hadn’t shot himself in the foot with his bigot comment.

    The call for Freedom of Speech is well and good until we have to draw a distinction between racial abuse and having a frank discussion on topics related to race.

    The government cannot rush this through. They do not have the numbers and certainly not voter support. The issue has turned a lot of ethnic community voters against them.

    Brandis draft needs to be further refined. Support for 18 C change does not equal to support for this particular draft. Addressing the concerns of racial abuse and supporting freedom of speech should not be mutually exclusive.

    As in Hansard:

    Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): Racism has no place in Australian society, no place whatsoever. Racism is absolutely abhorrent. Racism has no place in our society and neither do unreasonable restrictions on free speech. As the House would know, we have called for debate, we have sought community input, we are considering the submissions that we have received and we will be responding in due course.

    The point is how to get the balance right.

  97. Aristogeiton

    James
    #1329452, posted on June 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    [...]
    The call for Freedom of Speech is well and good until we have to draw a distinction between racial abuse and having a frank discussion on topics related to race.
    [...]
    The point is how to get the balance right.

    You bloviating sycophant.

  98. .

    Oh I am sneering am I?

    lately I have been told that I am a leftist (!) for believing in individual sovereignty and that libertarians should write policy in light of any orgy of stupidity the ALP engages in the future and that to demand repeal of any of this won’t work because leftists will oppose this.

    I am beginning to suspect many of the so called conservatives here are actual left wing concern trolls.

  99. .

    The point is how to get the balance right.

    There is no balance. Free speech is sacred. It has been paid for in a blood price.

  100. Free speech is sacred.

    Misogynist! islamophobe! Wacist!! Homophobe!!…..bigot!!!

    I prefer to song to comedy, delightful songs such as this .

  101. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1329459, posted on June 2, 2014 at 12:15 pm
    Oh I am sneering am I?

    lately I have been told that I am a leftist (!) for believing in individual sovereignty and that libertarians should write policy in light of any orgy of stupidity the ALP engages in the future and that to demand repeal of any of this won’t work because leftists will oppose this.

    I am beginning to suspect many of the so called conservatives here are actual left wing concern trolls.

    The LDP will remain irrelevant unless and until they renounce their dogged and dogmatic adherence to the ideology of individual liberty and accept that compromises need to be made in order to ensure that a future Labor government won’t repeal their policies. They also need to address the vicious cancer that the personal religious beliefs of others represent; I believe in religious freedom, but it’s about getting the balance right between the right of individuals to practice their religion in peace and the right of others in society to express their preference about what views should and should not be held by their fellows.

  102. Megan

    Not sure why, since I have no respect for politicians of any colour (not a racist comment) but I am beyond disillusioned by this pathetic government’s failure to deliver on this particular promise.

  103. .

    I can’t stop laughing at what Aristo wrote in jest. Liberty Quote!

  104. James

    But again the armchair pollies at the Cat sit and sneer.

    +1

    The government is on the nose because they are challenging the status quo and there are people (including their own supporters) who resist change.

    If they just go with the flow and do nothing, there might be less noise but that would defeat the whole purpose of changing the government after all.

    There are things that need to be done, but do not fit any political narrative and please no one. And there are things that people want in everyday rants from either side of politics, that are simply unworkable.

  105. .

    Fuck the “narrative”, why do we need to engage in left wing media management, what about our heritage of liberty and first principles?

  106. incoherent rambler

    Wrong blog James, I think you meant to post at the Liberal Party Daily.

  107. James

    The Left presents a much more united front, given their group think of feel good intentions.

    The non-Left are prone to arguing amongst themselves.

    You can see that with the Obama re-election. No matter how bad he is, the Republicans simply cannot come up with a candidate with the cut through and land any blow to incumbency.

  108. .

    Mitt Romney is not a reason not to have free speech in Australia.

    FMD everyone who turns up here has an A+ in rhetoric and a F- in logic.

  109. Yon Toad

    I wrote to Brandis and Abbott last Wednesday. I have so far received the usual “Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister” courtesy of the mailbot and nothing from Brandis. I ain’t holding my breath.

  110. incoherent rambler

    Mitt Romney is not a reason not to have free speech in Australia.

    FFS, repealing 18C is not such a hard sell. It just takes a competent salesmanpolitician.

  111. James

    our heritage of liberty and first principles

    Don’t get me wrong. I am in support of 18C change, but you have to consider how this is perceived in the public sphere in order to garner the support.

    The public is neither Left or Right. The change has to make sense to them first.

    How do you get support for the right to hurl abuse at people? It’s a tricky thing to argue. It’s no use insulting everyone who raises this question. The key to bring people to support change is to draw a distinction between racial abuse and frank discussion of topics related to race. If the purists insist freedom of speech is equal to freedom to abuse people, that is alienating people.

  112. Aristogeiton

    James
    #1329492, posted on June 2, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    The Left presents a much more united front, given their group think of feel good intentions.

    The non-Left are prone to arguing amongst themselves.

    You can see that with the Obama re-election. No matter how bad he is, the Republicans simply cannot come up with a candidate with the cut through and land any blow to incumbency.

    Sure. Harold McMillan’s ‘middle way’ was the reason that Margaret Thatcher’s was the most successful Tory government of the modern age. /sarc

  113. Dr Faustus

    “The government is on the nose because:”

    - It has never, in opposition or government, laid out an authentic, coherent narrative of where it intends to lead Australia;

    - It has in practice demonstrated that it is following a ‘whatever it takes’ strategy – which makes clear to the punters of all persuasions that it is more about occupancy than delivery;

    - It has played the politics directly into the hands of its ideological opponents in parliament and the media.

    This all leaves it in a position where its agenda will be dismantled in the Senate without any real support, or respect in the community – hardly a trivial issue when you are a government trying to work with a bicameral system.

  114. Senile Old Guy

    The government is on the nose because they are challenging the status quo and there are people (including their own supporters) who resist change.

    They are on the nose with their opponents because…they were always going to be.

    They are on the nose with their supporters because of backing away from or breaking key promises.

  115. James

    repealing 18C is not such a hard sell.

    It takes an effective argument that would make sense to the general public.

  116. Aristogeiton

    James
    #1329526, posted on June 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm
    repealing 18C is not such a hard sell.

    It takes an effective argument that would make sense to the general public.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

  117. egg_

    They are on the nose with their opponents because…they were always going to be.

    They are on the nose with their supporters because of backing away from or breaking key promises.

    Yup, self-imposed wedgie.

  118. .

    How do you get support for the right to hurl abuse at people?

    Most people support free speech. We have a halfway implied constitutional right to it. We don’t need to sell shit. We need to ignore special interests.

    Most people accept Voltaire’s dictum.

    Can you name any democracy that has explicitly voted to reduce free speech? Do you think s18C would stand up in a simple plebiscite? Why do you think Bolt has so many supporters now?

    Free speech is sacred. Accept no compromises on this principle.

    Giving up free speech is a betrayal to our servicemen.

  119. Viva

    How do you get support for the right to hurl abuse at people? It’s a tricky thing to argue.

    I wouldn’t put it quite like that but conservatives/libertarians have always been counter the prevailing Culture of Feelings. It’s in the workplace – everywhere – if someone feels something then that is sacred and not to be challenged.

    Conservatives have never been afraid of being called racist – but the penalties are not just judicial if you are deemed to have said or done the perceived “wrong thing” even in private as we have seen with Mozilla and Sterling in the US (although some here seem to support this kind of societal constraint as an acceptable alternative to legal sanction).

    There is hysteria around the issue that has grown worse as time goes by. It’s almost like repealing 18C is like repealing laws against paedophilia.

    Turning around political correctness and toughening people up is going to be a long process – there are no quick fixes on offer although that is what Cats demand. In the meantime one can only hope that the regular abuse that are heaped on posters in the Internet will serve as the requisite toughening up of the sooks at there who go on about hurt feelings. They should all have to spend some time at the Cat. Perhaps Sinc could offer a free desensitising training course – run by JC of course.

  120. Max

    It takes an effective argument that would make sense to the general public.

    How about –

    1) immigrants have come to Australia
    2) they created immigrant political lobby groups to further their own communities interests
    3) now they seek to limit your freedoms and dictate what you can and cant say

  121. Robert Blair

    Real multicultural societies cannot support free and open speech. Openness and freedom generally are antithetical to multiculturalism. There should be enough evidence there to make it a truism.

    Some examples of real multicultural countries are India and Malaysia.

    Historically Australia, Canada and the USA were not multicultural, but assimilation-ist countries.
    They have abandoned the melting pot and are rapidly becoming full multicultural countries.

    This causes a serious loss of social trust and openness. Basic freedoms of all sorts are negatively impacted. It will impact finance and trading, innovation, education.
    Because we are being split into competing tribes, where the government will become the “divider of the spoils” between the tribes.

    Note that there are many countries that are not multicultural, like China, Japan, Botswana. Whatever other problems they have, they are not facing these problems.

    You guys are buzzing around trying to get people to agree to put out one of the fires started by Godzilla. Meanwhile he charges on, knocking everything down while you jabber.

  122. incoherent rambler

    egg_ #1329566, posted on June 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    +120%

  123. Max

    You guys are buzzing around trying to get people to agree to put out one of the fires started by Godzilla. Meanwhile he charges on, knocking everything down while you jabber.

    brilliant

  124. Rabz

    Perhaps Sinc could offer a free desensitising training course – run by JC of course.

    And if they don’t like what they read here, they can avail themselves of the suicide hotline.

  125. Aristogeiton

    Rabz
    #1329598, posted on June 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm
    Perhaps Sinc could offer a free desensitising training course – run by JC of course.

    And if they don’t like what they read here, they can avail themselves of the suicide hotline.

    Last time I called I was instructed to kill myself immediately for the benefit of mankind.

  126. Joe Goodacre

    repealing 18C is not such a hard sell. It just takes a competent salesmanpolitician.

    It is a hard sell. All arguments of the right are hard sells. That’s why most people are lefties without even knowing it.

  127. .

    I don’t know why people get so hot under the collar about multiculturalism.

    All we need do is to stop the government promoting culture at all.

    Has anyone ever found any sport, art, literature, cuisine or tradition which comes from bureaucracy or Parliament and is something of value?

    The end result is monolithic and brutalist communist art and architecture and contrived social gatherings involving sub standard entertainment and food.

  128. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1329603, posted on June 2, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    repealing 18C is not such a hard sell. It just takes a competent salesmanpolitician.

    It is a hard sell. All arguments of the right are hard sells. That’s why most people are lefties without even knowing it.

    Nonsense.

    Name one society which has removed or curtailed its right to free speech in a referendum.

  129. I am the Walrus, Koo Koo K'Choo

    I have never been so disappointed in my side so quickly.

    Not sure why, since I have no respect for politicians of any colour (not a racist comment) but I am beyond disillusioned by this pathetic government’s failure to deliver on this particular promise.

    Yes, me too. This mob are beginning to make Malcolm Fraser look like a visionary and a competent administrator.

    FFS, repealing 18C is not such a hard sell. It just takes a competent salesmanpolitician.

    Yep, agreed. Good luck finding one in the government ranks.

    They are on the nose with their supporters because of backing away from or breaking key promises.

    Yup, agreed.

  130. Token

    It is a hard sell. All arguments of the right are hard sells. That’s why most people are lefties without even knowing it.

    Seems pretty easy once enough people of substance stand up & help the government by writing well thought out articles like this:

    There seems no end to opportunities today for people to take offence, claim they are traumatised, and make someone else responsible for their suffering. Taking offenc­e is all too often simply a ploy to silence opponents.

    With regard to Aboriginal politics, it gets more ridiculous. Consider the recent example reported on ABC radio, where Warren Mundine said, “traditionally ceremonies like funerals did not last for weeks and cultural obligations should not be an excuse to avoid responsibilities to go to school or work”. For those holding a romanticised view of Aboriginal culture, Mundine’s words are uncomfortable. But this is an important topic that needs to be discussed.

    In response, former Northern Territory indigenous affairs minister Marion Scrymgour is reported as being offended by Mundine’s words. If Scrymgour disagreed with Mundine, why not simply point out what she believed were errors in his claims?

    When faced with words from others that we don’t wish to hear, it is too easy to just say, “I’m off­ended”, as a way of silencing them.

  131. Viva

    Real multicultural societies cannot only support free and open culturally appropriate speech

    The worst thing you can do is to act “inappropriately”.

  132. Twodogs

    I am offended that the left is offended about me making offensive remarks… about them…

  133. Robert Blair

    Dot:

    All we need do is to stop the government promoting culture at all

    Let me know how you go with that Dot.

    By Government I guess you mean the whole governing apparatus, not just the current majority Parliamentary party.

    That’s the thing that I called Godzilla – a dim-witted, half blind, out-of-control Leviathan stomping all over Australia, caring naught for what it demolishes.

  134. Viva

    The official rule book

    Social cohesion = controlled immigration mainly from similar cultures (including other migrants who have skills and will more easily adjust) PLUS assimilation policies

    OR

    Social cohesion = larger numbers of unskilled migrants from third world countries in the immigration mix PLUS multicultural policies PLUS culturally appropriate speech enforced by law PLUS suite of anti discrimination legislation PLUS diversity training etc. etc.

  135. hannah

    Hi – you know this great piece, published yesterday, is based on news from a month ago (2nd May)- can’t we have more up to date discussion on RDA amendments? Thanks.

  136. MemoryVault

    It is a hard sell. All arguments of the right are hard sells.

    Come election time governments are not judged on their intentions.
    That is how we judge oppositions.
    At election time governments are not even judged on their actions.
    They are judged on the results of their actions.

    If 18c is repealed now, and all hell breaks loose, the government will be judged on that result.
    The meeja and the vocal special interest groups will ensure that judgement is harsh.
    Conversely, if 18c is repealed now, and pretty-much nothing happens, which is the most likely outcome, at election time it won’t even be an issue.
    The meeja and the vocal special interest groups will have to find something else to attack.

    There is no need for a “sell”, soft or hard.
    “Selling” intended policies is part of the election campaign process, NOT the process of government.
    Just DO it.
    If there are unintended consequences, fix them.
    If not, count it as a victory, and rub it in the opposition’s face.

    Attempting to run a country based on the constantly changing opinions of special interest groups, and the output of the latest focus session, ultimately produces results that please no one, and is a sure ticket to a one term government.

  137. Joe Goodacre

    Name one society which has removed or curtailed its right to free speech in a referendum.

    What a useless test of the issue. North Korea haven’t restricted free speech in a referendum therefore everyone must be pro it?

    People say they’re for free speech, but when it comes down to it they go… oh not hate speech. No, not against gays, or minorities. You can’t lie about global warming either. Who said that you can say Muslims aren’t integrating as well as Buddhists. No defammatory language either. But of course people shouldn’t be able to buy votes.

    At the end of this they’re still for free speech though and they didn’t vote to remove free speech in a referendum either, so by your metric everyone’s happy.

  138. stackja

    Liberty Quotes
    When the far Left was a global force, the mainstream liberal Left had to draw dividing lines and defend itself from its attacks. Now that the far Left threatens no one, the borders have gone. The media would hound from public life any conservative who shared platforms with members of a neo-Nazi group. But respectable leftists can now associate with those who would once have been regarded as poisonous extremists — and no one notices.
    — Nick Cohen

    18C helps keep the Left safe.

  139. outsider

    They bloody well had it all ready pre-election, even had a public stance on the matter, reasonably well-expressed and understood by anyone interested. It’s very simple – just do it asap upon getting the big tick from the Aust electorate – and for anyone moaning, refer them to the policy taken to the election and enunciated before that event, that successful event.

    Aust politics is moving so fast and is so debased by the Liars and Filthers, even eight months constitutes a new era – maybe one in which you don’t look so good, and it’s harder to get things done (i.e. now). That critical euphoria period is when your enemies are weakest – in disarray – so press your advantage.

    Except they, er, went off into the back room and the world moved on in their absence, moved away from favouring them. If the deadshits really had no intention, backbench whatever – they have no scruples nor respect for their own policies and principles, and deserve what they have coming to them.

  140. Slayer of Memes

    MemoryVault
    #1329719, posted on June 2, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Hear, hear this man!!

    +1000000000000000000000000

  141. egg_

    If 18c is repealed now, and all hell breaks loose, the government will be judged on that result.
    The meeja and the vocal special interest groups will ensure that judgement is harsh.
    Conversely, if 18c is repealed now, and pretty-much nothing happens, which is the most likely outcome, at election time it won’t even be an issue.

    Yup, same case with ‘cuts, cuts, cuts…’ but they blinked.

  142. .

    Memory Vault is utterly correct.

    Joe Goodacre
    #1329811, posted on June 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm
    Name one society which has removed or curtailed its right to free speech in a referendum.

    What a useless test of the issue.

    You are fucking insane, Goodacre.

  143. Fisky

    I know how LDP meetings go – and I can see exactly how this policy came about.

    You only have to see how LDP types argue online to understand how they can effortlessly craft policies that start off with a hypothetic plurality of voters and then wind up appealing to nobody in all the confusion and dogma.

    Just watch – $100 says they’ll try to get an NRA pro-gun float on at the Sydney Mardi Gras. That’s their idea of “reaching out”.

  144. Fisky

    Or they’d turn up to the Christian Coalition dinner lauding their pro-drugs policies. “Ravers for Jesus!”

  145. Rabz

    Or launch their euthanasia policy at a Retirement Home.

  146. .

    Robert Blair
    #1329631, posted on June 2, 2014 at 1:49 pm
    Dot:

    All we need do is to stop the government promoting culture at all

    Let me know how you go with that Dot.

    So you do you disagree with the idea or do you just agree the objective is aiming high?

  147. Fisky

    Or launch their euthanasia policy at a Retirement Home.

    Don’t give them ideas, Rabbsie!

  148. .

    Very droll Fisk but Pink Pistols and the JFPO are some of my favourite US political grassroots organisations.

  149. Fisky

    Or launch their euthanasia policy at a Retirement Home.

    Or get a close relative of Australia’s most notorious serial killer campaigning for the LDP’s firearms policies. Oh wait, they already did that!!!

  150. Fisky

    Milat campaigns on gun laws

    SERIAL killer Ivan Milat’s sister-in-law is contesting the seat of Hume in the Federal Election on August 21.

    Lisa Milat, who married Ivan Milat’s brother Walter, is a Hilltop resident and member of the Liberal Democrat Party, The Macarthur Chronicle reports.

    The organisation supports nuclear power, lower taxes, the relaxation of gun laws and the right for individuals and businesses to decide if people can smoke on their premises.

    Such a shame the LDP never thought of recruiting someone from the Dahmer family to push food deregulation!

  151. .

    Fisk

    We have a policy on most issues. What are going to do, exclude people? I’m not sure we legally can.

  152. It is a hard sell. All arguments of the right are hard sells. That’s why most people are lefties without even knowing it.

    That’s the myth that is driving the Liberals right now. The belief that the electorate are fundamentally left wing drives them to appease left wing sensibilities.

  153. What are going to do, exclude people? I’m not sure we legally can.

    You don’t have to run her as a candidate. On the other hand her family associations shouldn’t count against her.

  154. Joe Goodacre

    I don’t want to use hyperbole HOWEVER.

    Anyone who thinks that it’s easier to argue that we have a right to be mean, bigots, racists, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers than not is drinking the kool aid.

    The most obvious indication that arguments of the left are easier to sell is given by the fact that it is a common story of the intellectual heavyweights of the right that they started on the left. How many people of the left started on the right and can rationally argue why they changed?

  155. Joe Goodacre

    Aussiepundit,

    That’s the myth that is driving the Liberals right now. The belief that the electorate are fundamentally left wing drives them to appease left wing sensibilities.

    Yep – all these people in the polls are indicating that they prefer Labor as a protest against how left the Liberals have become. When will the Liberals learn – go harder to the right and people will stop voting Labor.

  156. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1329895, posted on June 2, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    I don’t want to use hyperbole HOWEVER.

    Anyone who thinks that it’s easier to argue that we have a right to be mean, bigots, racists, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers than not is drinking the kool aid.

    Easier to argue than what? You’re a bloody slave Joe, and a left-wing concern troll.

  157. Aristogeiton

    Let’s not forget, Joe, you yourself freely admit to being a racist.

  158. .

    When will the Liberals learn – go harder to the right and people will stop voting Labor.

    The Liberals enacted fiscal expansion and are the highest taxing government in our history.

    This turned people off them, but these facts elude you.

    You must actually want the Liberals to become leftists and “so people will vote for them”.

  159. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1329895, posted on June 2, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    I don’t want to use hyperbole HOWEVER.

    Anyone who thinks that it’s easier to argue that we have a right to be mean, bigots, racists, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers than not is drinking the kool aid.

    Stop taking the piss mate. You used North Korea as an example to prove that they didn’t vote for free speech so it mustn’t be popular.

    You are really off your beam today.

  160. Joe Goodacre

    Dot in all seriousness, it would be fascinating to see what bubble you occupy.

  161. .

    Yeah pal, a freely self identifying racist who brags about being beaten as a child and thinks free speech is an unpopular idea – no sir, no bubble for you at all.

  162. incoherent rambler

    I asked Tony Abbot not to lie to me, but he said he could not.

  163. Joe Goodacre

    and I suspect I’ll find you slaving in the cotton fields, no control over your destiny, no responsibility for your choices and under the thumb of the evil masses who prevent you from claiming an income, liberty or property (for those who don’t speak libertarian – living in Australia).

  164. Fisky

    Anyone who thinks that it’s easier to argue that we have a right to be mean, bigots, racists, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers than not is drinking the kool aid.

    Exactly. No company advertises a product by stressing its downsides, so it’s rather odd that politicians feel the need to do this on policy.

    I immediately knew the Labor Party were going to lose the debate over asylum seekers when elements of the commentariat, such as Bernard Salt, as well as the IPA’s chief ideologues, actually linked asylum seeker policy to the “Big Australia” talk that was fashionable at the time. A population of 36 million people!! Millions of them asylum seekers!! Terrific campaigning there.

    I wonder if there are any Asperger’s patients around here to explain that there was nothing wrong with that line so long as we stress that Australia’s social services were to be eliminated first!

  165. .

    Free speech is sacred.

    Fisk and Goodacre object to free speech, and its inviolability and popularity. We must therefore enact the Gillardian legislative agenda now to stave off leftism.

  166. Fisky

    I’d love to start up a libertarian advertising company. Just think of the campaigns!

    “Pantene pro-V – if you drink it, it will kill you!”

  167. .

    Fisk

    Joe Goodacre agrees with you. I think this indicates you are likely wrong. He has called me a leftist (for believing in in individual sovereignty) and has previously called me “numbers”.

  168. Joe Goodacre

    When one is slaving in the cotton fields all day it can’t all be blood sweat and tears – the aspiring slave needs some entertainment and what better way then knocking up a few straw men in the field.

    People can be pro free speech while recognising that it’s a tough sell in a political environment that isn’t well versed as to what free speech actually means and why it’s beneficial for a society to have it.

    It’s crazy dingbats like yourself out there claiming to be individual sovereigns and ‘how dare you tell me what I can and can’t say’ that voters thoughts turn to when they poll in support of parties that will keep free speech restrictions. ‘Better keep this loon silent’ they think when they put a number next to the Labor rep… ‘only people who do the crime do the time’…

    Fisky nails it as well, the dialogue seems to never be about why free speech in all its form is good for society, it’s always about rights, and in your case, give it to me otherwise I’m a slave.

  169. Joe Goodacre

    You’re the first person I’ve met who is pro individual sovereignty yet a fan of the WTO and its judgements by unelected bureaucrats.

    Are the two consistent? Of course if your principles boil down to where it benefits me good and where not I’m a slave. How can one argue with that – no surprises that the LDP is polling at above 50% with arguments like that.

  170. Fisky

    Fisky nails it as well, the dialogue seems to never be about why free speech in all its form is good for society, it’s always about rights, and in your case, give it to me otherwise I’m a slave.

    I don’t quite understand what that means. But pro-free speech campaigns work when they are able to communicate to the broadest range of constituencies, a) how existing restrictions are banning speech that is not actually damaging, and may even have intellectual merit, b) how they too could fall afoul of the speech restrictions, not just people they don’t approve of.

    Brandis had no strategy for selling 18c at all.

  171. Joe Goodacre

    I have also enjoyed with hilarity how easily your eyes dart like a goldfish to follow flashy things (i.e. when I made the comment that when I was younger my cousin used to get hit with the ironing chord, another chap mentioned I’d be beaten by iron prongs and you concluded ‘wait, did someone say that Joe got beaten with iron prongs’). Or how you proclaim to be of the right yet are remarkably totalitarian in your language on any issue. With principles like yours, I would not be surprised if suddenly you became a totalitarian because ‘I gave everyone an opportunity to agree with me, they didn’t so I’ve just decided to run society how I want it anyway.’ It’s telling that probably the only time you wouldn’t consider yourself a slave would be if everyone else was a slave to you.

    June’s shaping up to be become Dot season for me. Spot the little targets put up by the goose and take a shot.

  172. .

    You’re the first person I’ve met who is pro individual sovereignty yet a fan of the WTO and its judgements by unelected bureaucrats.

    The WTO can’t tell me what to do. The State and Commonwealth do. I cannot opt out.

    The Commonwealth can bind itself and the states to WTO rulings (but it doesn’t have to)

    This is not a difficult concept.

    Fisky nails it as well, the dialogue seems to never be about why free speech in all its form is good for society, it’s always about rights, and in your case, give it to me otherwise I’m a slave.

    This is correct. People who don’t have free speech are not free.

    This logically true and pro freedom conclusion offends you.

    Nor do you have a right to deny my rights to me.

  173. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1330026, posted on June 2, 2014 at 6:56 pm
    [...]
    June’s shaping up to be become Dot season for me. Spot the little targets put up by the goose and take a shot.

    You don’t have the intellect mate.

  174. .

    Or how you proclaim to be of the right yet are remarkably totalitarian in your language on any issue.

    Oh you poor darling. Surely this is a matter for Justice Bromberg!

    With principles like yours, I would not be surprised if suddenly you became a totalitarian because ‘I gave everyone an opportunity to agree with me, they didn’t so I’ve just decided to run society how I want it anyway.’ It’s telling that probably the only time you wouldn’t consider yourself a slave would be if everyone else was a slave to you.

    I would be oppressing people by giving them free speech? A US President vetoing a bill that restricted free speech would be oppressive?

    Note you thought asking what countries have voted way a right to free speech in an unambiguous referendum was absurd and you answered the question with North Korea as an example.

    Utter nonsense Joe.

  175. Aristogeiton

    Dot proclaims to be of the right? For a given value of ‘right’, I suppose.

  176. .

    Yes, if right wing only means Mises, Rand, Nozkick or David Friedman f0r example.

  177. Joe Goodacre

    I cannot opt out

    I agree with you – you’re a slave. Of course slaves can’t opt out. What sought of concentration camp would let it’s victims change the leadership or leave the camp.

    What I like about your slavery model is its efficiency. You make the cost of being a slave owner very very low. Most slavery models start with some capital investment – some guards, or at least a lock on the gate. No, the new Dot Slavery Model requires no guards or no locks. What is the secret to this remarkable low cost innovation in the field of slavery? I don’t know – we’ll have to ask Dot. Dot, what is the secret for convincing slaves to stay within a system that needs neither guards nor keys? Do they hold your family hostage? See all these other schmucks in Australia can be forgiven for being slaves – unlike you they don’t know what it’s like to be free. You however know that we’re all slaves. How does the Man keep you down?

  178. .

    You don’t have any libertarian inclination at all Goodacre.

    You used NORTH KOREA as an example to argue why it was irrelevant to ask which countries have ever voted to destroy free speech in a simple referendum.

    You tell people who agitate for freedom to leave.

    You tell people who agitate for freedom doing so will result in more socialism and curtailment of civil liberties because the idea of freedom is so repulsive libertarian candidates can only ever be elected if they become socialists.

    This is absurd, Kafkaeqsue nonsense.

  179. Aristogeiton

    Did that sound intelligent in your head?

  180. Aristogeiton

    Joe thinks the state, in loco parentis, would never flog him as hard as his own.

  181. Joe Goodacre

    People who don’t have free speech are not free.

    A visit to Dot’s museum of the history of slavery shows how this scourge on humanity has existed across the years.

    Our eyes flicker back in forth… Negros on cotton farms, Allied war prisoners building the Death railway and Australians… captive in this desolate country bound by the chains of s18C.

    Though the photos don’t quite make out the chains binding these poor soles to their plight, Dot’s museum helpfully assists with a captions under the photos… highlighting that though the chains are more metaphorical, they’re still there.

    Fortunately there’s also three cans for each of the remembrance funds where patrons can choose to support charities dedicated to remembering the tragedy of those three unholy transgressions of humanity on freedom.

    Thanks Dot for this service. You’re not a muppet at all.

  182. Joe Goodacre

    Dot,

    North Korea’s looking to adopt your new low cost slavery model – can you be a pal and let them know the secret to this new no lock, no guard slavery system employed in Australia?

    Patent pending?

  183. Aristogeiton

    I liked you better when you pretended to humility. Which is to say, not at all.

  184. .

    We’re not free simply because of regulated speech alone. Andrew Bolt has been silence about race issues based on a draconian ruling from the bench.

    We are freer than some, but we are not free. The revelation of this unsettling fact makes Joe Goodacre angry.

    I can’t work it out if it is misplaced patriotism or because of support for such liberty restricting law and policy.

  185. Joe Goodacre

    I think you jubajitsued it out of me.

  186. Token

    You don’t have any libertarian inclination at all Goodacre.

    Is the process of babysitting making you better at communicating your point Dot?

  187. .

    Joe is actually making fun of oppression to point out we still have some freedom.

    What the fuck is this guy’s agenda?

  188. Joe Goodacre

    So who is free in this world Dot?

    Where is a caged peacock forlornly to look?

  189. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1330121, posted on June 2, 2014 at 7:46 pm
    I think you jubajitsued it out of me.

    Yeah, because that’s where I’m vulnerable. Your instincts about people are as spot on as your political sensibilities.

  190. .

    Probably very few. Those in New Hampshire, USA are amongst the most free, hence why the FSP chose it as a target.

    You don’t take this seriously.

    You think regulated speech is an issue to be ignored. You think the reversal of the burden of proof doesn’t matter. You think majority jury verdicts, the end to a presumption of innocence or a right to silence doesn’t matter.

    You don’t think high taxes matter. You don’t think regulating workers out of jobs even with previous qualifications doesn’t matter. You don’t think spending money on job destroying make work policies matter.

    I suggest we change this, you suggest I leave.

    I suggest to you that your agenda is not freedom orientated.

  191. Joe Goodacre

    Nice misdirection – what sort of deadbeat uses the same language and woe is me attitude normally reserved for describing actual slavery and an actual lack of freedom.

    So where does Dot the caged peacock forlornly look when he searches for the example of someone actually free in this world?

  192. Pusnip

    18C’s failure is just common sense winning out over right wing zealotry.
    Good ridden’s to inconsistently applied, simplistic right wing ‘free (sic) speech’ nostrums.

  193. Robert Blair

    Dot:

    do you disagree with the idea or do you just agree the objective is aiming high?

    I admire your debating energy Dot. I actually agree with the principles you are espousing so valiantly here.

    In your terms I am saying your objective is too high.

    But I think the real problem is that your comment was so other-worldly, eldritch even. You are disposing of a huge and potentially insurmountable problem with a flip, dismissive throw-away line.

    I see you wrapping other folks in this thread with similar, slick, gotcha’s, throw-aways and straw men. It actually looks pretty impressive, and it seems to rile them good.

    Sadly, hard-core Libertarians are usually pretty good that way.

  194. laugh out loud

    Ho ho ho – I never had any illusions about Abbott and Co – nothing but fakes and chancers retailing empty slogans as policy. But for those on this site the scales are only now falling from their eyes. Face it, you have been had by the B team from the fag end of the Howard years who did no policy work during their six years in opposition. Lazy and clueless, and now you wonder now why it is all falling apart. You supported this bunch of clowns last year, and now you own them 100%. Ha ha ha. Prepare for more disappointments.

  195. Tom

    The 12-year-old girl is back. Do your parents you’ve been visiting adult sites?

  196. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1330143, posted on June 2, 2014 at 7:56 pm
    Nice misdirection – what sort of deadbeat uses the same language and woe is me attitude normally reserved for describing actual slavery and an actual lack of freedom.

    So where does Dot the caged peacock forlornly look when he searches for the example of someone actually free in this world?

    I answered your question fully and honestly and all you have is invective.

    I mention several real world examples Australians have seen in the last two decades of their liberties being curtailed. You don’t even care to discuss them.

    You simply don’t care about freedom.

  197. Joe Goodacre

    Very good, they do say the first part of facing a problem is admitting you have one.

    So NH has more freedom than here.

    What lock on the gate is keeping you here? No actually don’t disclose that – I know the secret to the Dot Slavery Model is patent pending.

    There’s people in history who have faced real persecution, so much so that they risked everything to find freedom (like the pilgrims).

    You talk earlier about blood being the price of freedom and you throw these lofty terms around yet in reality freedom is apparently not even worth the price of a plane ticket and a greencard application to you.

    Instead you sit in your ivory castle of individual sovereignty, plump on the sacrifices of others spouting of this deadbeat rhetoric that bridges no gap with anyone and dumps on anyone who thinks differently than you. All your lofty rhetoric does nothing other than disguise the fact that you want the Mayflower to come to you and you make sure that you let everyone know you’re morally better than them. Well excuse me if I think your kool aid tastes a little bitter.

  198. .

    Robert

    All we need do is to stop the government promoting culture at all

    Was not a throwaway line.

    Nor was my response to you. I was surprised the idea isn’t supported more enthusiastically. Government created food, booze, art, architecture, literature and tradition are gauche and disgusting.

  199. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1330168, posted on June 2, 2014 at 8:10 pm
    [...]
    Instead you sit in your ivory castle of individual sovereignty, plump on the sacrifices of others spouting of this deadbeat rhetoric that bridges no gap with anyone and dumps on anyone who thinks differently than you.

    Where’s your sense of irony? I couldn’t think of a better description of you, you bloody deadbeat.

  200. .

    What lock on the gate is keeping you here?

    I want Australia to be more free, not just live somewhere which is more free.

    You think we should give up our freedoms slowly because it seems benign. I mentioned several legislative repeals of common law rights (one of which has been overturned) and you don’t mention them at all. You don’t think this is serious. Because we don’t live in a wholly oppressive authoritarian state, we have nothing to complain about. Disagreeing with this and you, you have called me a fascist and even said I’d be a fascist leader if I ever was elected.

    You’re hysterical.

    You actually think that an agenda of taking back and preserving our rights is offensive.

    America must truly sicken you.

  201. Joe Goodacre

    Another little straw man.

    I share the most if not all of the positions you do:

    a) complete free speech, no restrictions at all;
    b) government only involved in courts and police;
    c) no labor market interference;
    d) no trade interference; and
    e) no restrictions on the use of property other than nuisance.

    We disagree on drug policy in a welfare state and may disagree on the free movement of people in a welfare state because I think it has cultural implications whereas you would probably be for it.

    The difference is that whereas I try and find common ground with people who don’t agree with me, and try to make the pitch for freedom from why it benefits them, you come at it with this holier than though ‘look how moral I am’ which is simply ridiculous as evidenced by the fact that you value freedom less than the price of a plane ticket and a greencard application. I admit to those on the Left that we make tradeoffs – you apparently make those same tradeoffs and then want to whinge about the deal.

  202. Joe Goodacre

    You took my sense of irony with your pink-belt jubajitsu as well.

  203. .

    The difference is that whereas I try and find common ground with people who don’t agree with me, and try to make the pitch for freedom from why it benefits them, you come at it with this holier than though ‘look how moral I am’ which is simply ridiculous as evidenced by the fact that you value freedom less than the price of a plane ticket and a greencard application.

    I’ve listed several curtailments of liberty that made us less free, and you have totally ignored them.

  204. Joe Goodacre

    Anyway that was me unleashing against your general unpleasantness and ridiculous moral posturing. It’s been quite cathartic but time to get back to the renovations. Good night.

  205. Robert Blair

    Dot:

    Can you see what you did there? The problem I spoke about was the insidious effect of Multiculturalism.

    What you really said was:

    I don’t know why people get so hot under the collar about multiculturalism.
    All we need do is to stop the government promoting culture at all.

    So smoothly segue-ing over to “Government created food, booze, art, …”.

    Very slick – most people won’t even notice that sort of sly word-play, especially if they’re a bit hot under the collar.

    Now I know you’re not a stupid boy dot, so I’m not going to lecture you about the actual meaning of Multiculturalism as entrenched government policy.

    Instead I am congratulating you on your superior debating skill. May it succor you through good times and bad.

  206. .

    So smoothly segue-ing over to “Government created food, booze, art, …”.

    I had “tradition” there for a very important reason. Leave it in and I agree with you. You leave something out and think I’ve tricked you?

    I’m also serious about the art. Worthless shit.

  207. Robert Blair

    Dot:

    Still at it?

    Somehow “Government created … tradition” makes your argument valid and responsive, and not the slick little debaters trick it always was? Or does someone really have to give you the Multiculturalism 101 lecture?

    C”mon Dot, you can’t have it both ways.

  208. .

    You are reading way too much into something that was completely innocuous.

    I don’t know what you are going on about anymore.

  209. Denise

    Greigoz
    #1329214, posted on June 2, 2014 at 8:34 am

    Tony Abbott has packed up his forcefulness and natural aggression into a box and slid it under his bed. He now believes that being a gentleman is enough… maybe even his ‘good blokedness’ will win over his detractors. This while the Left/ALP/Greens are making new ground daily.

    As an example, when discussing the boats, he is measured while trying to come across as humane. Crikey! In a debate about morals, ethics, human rights, anything, he simply needs to stare into their face and repeat – 1000 dead, 1000 dead! There is no more debate.

    I still can’t get my head around the change Greigoz. Do you think someone’s got pictures of him punching a wall in his youth?

  210. .

    I have to agree with Greigoz and Denise.

  211. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1330192, posted on June 2, 2014 at 8:23 pm
    Anyway that was me unleashing against your general unpleasantness and ridiculous moral posturing. It’s been quite cathartic but time to get back to the renovations. Good night.

    He’s taken his bat and (single) ball. Quel dommage!

  212. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1330182, posted on June 2, 2014 at 8:18 pm
    [...]
    The difference is that whereas I try and find common ground with people who don’t agree with me, and try to make the pitch for freedom from why it benefits them, you come at it with this holier than though ‘look how moral I am’ which is simply ridiculous as evidenced by the fact that you value freedom less than the price of a plane ticket and a greencard application.

    You’ve comprehensively established your credentials as an appeaser, don’t worry.

Comments are closed.