Senator Dean Smith (Liberal, WA) on 18c

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

30 Responses to Senator Dean Smith (Liberal, WA) on 18c

  1. Helen

    no, twas my pc wanting to replay TGTBATU.

  2. Alfonso

    That’s what Dean says…now how does he vote on the floor.

  3. Helen

    And here we have the Moderate Muslims growing a pair. A small pair, but it is a start.

  4. Wozzup

    Very well said and about time. Why is it that no other Coalition member is articulate enough to be able to speak convincingly and coherently on this (or just about any) subject. Sadly Abbott sounds unconvincing on pretty well every topic he speaks about. And the Attorney General George Brandis’s poorly worded rebuttal of criticism of plans to abolish 18c – that bigots have rights too was just a gift to the opposition. For crying out loud Liberals get some speaking coaches o r hire some mouthpieces who can open their mouth without you putting your foot in it. Or better still, hire Senator Dean Smith to do the talking for you – he at least seems to have it together.

  5. Gab

    It is rather instructive that the Senator distanced his remarks from the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Human Rights and “should not be taken as the views of that committee”. Very telling indeed about the direct the Committee wants to take in terms of limiting free speech by government diktat.

  6. Infidel Tiger

    Sadly Abbott sounds unconvincing on pretty well every topic he speaks about.

    He’s quite convincing when he’s agreeing with socialism.

  7. Over-Boots

    “Attorney General George Brandis’s poorly worded rebuttal of criticism of plans to abolish 18c – that bigots have rights too was just a gift to the opposition”

    But Brandis was correct in what he said, That is the whole point of freedom of speech.

  8. Gab

    But Brandis was correct in what he said,

    Pity his actions don’t live up to his words.

  9. .

    It is an insult in this country that we even have to debate the concept of free speech.

    Free speech is sacred.

  10. George Brandis thanks for NOTHING

    Where’s George??

    For that matter, where’s the Prime Minister??

    Is it truly possible that neither the Prime Minister nor the Attorney General can make a coherent, logical and persuasive case in favour of broad freedom of speech, free of government interference, that can reassure the community and cause them to swing behind legislation guaranteeing free speech??

    It would seem so.

    Howard’s B-team. What a tremendous disappointment.

  11. Andrew Reynolds

    I have known Dean for a long time. He is one of the good guys.

  12. Wozzup

    ” “Attorney General George Brandis’s poorly worded rebuttal of criticism of plans to abolish 18c – that bigots have rights too was just a gift to the opposition”

    But Brandis was correct in what he said, That is the whole point of freedom of speech.”

    I agree with you that Brandis was perfectly correct. I even agree with him because its only by allowing racists to speak up that we can “out” them. But the wording he used was so clumsy that to the opposition it was what golfers call a “gimme”.

  13. It is an insult in this country that we even have to debate the concept of free speech.

    Free speech is sacred.

    Yes, but it is as sacred as this?

  14. .

    Yep, even more sacred than that!

  15. But Brandis was correct in what he said

    No, he wasn’t. It’s the assumption by others that another’s comment is bigoted that gives credence to those who would ban freedom of speech. Who gets to decide what is and what isn’t bigoted? Such determinations are subjective and no one has the exclusive right to make such determinations.

    Freedom of speech implies equality, that anyone’s point of view has the same right to be expressed as anyone else’s. Anything else is the powerful censoring the weak, a reward to be bestowed on anyone who climbs to positions of power by any means.

  16. Andrew

    Dean Smith is one of the up-and-comers in the Senate for the Liberals. One to watch. The problem Brandis has (who I do not blame for any watering down of the laws) is that there is widespread backlash to these laws from pretty much all the marginal seat holders in Western Sydney and elsewhere. He doesn’t have a lot of support in cabinet either for change. Considering that Brandis, who is from the left-faction of the Liberals, is one of the few people arguing the libertarian free speech line cabinet, I think that says it all about the cabinet and the Libs themselves.

  17. Clam Chowdah

    Good stuff.

    But I do wish the senate would switch off the microphones of those not speaking. WTF was all that emphysema-like huffing and puffing every half minute?

  18. Ubique

    “Bigots must have freedom of speech too” – of course they must, otherwise how are we going to know they are bigots and be able to respond to them accordingly?

  19. George Brandis thanks for NOTHING

    Dean Smith is one of the up-and-comers in the Senate for the Liberals. One to watch. The problem Brandis has (who I do not blame for any watering down of the laws) is that there is widespread backlash to these laws from pretty much all the marginal seat holders in Western Sydney and elsewhere. He doesn’t have a lot of support in cabinet either for change. Considering that Brandis, who is from the left-faction of the Liberals, is one of the few people arguing the libertarian free speech line cabinet, I think that says it all about the cabinet and the Libs themselves.

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    He blundered in presenting the case, and hasn’t emerged from his office/library since!

    Why didn’t he prepare a strong case while in opposition, and march hither and yon promoting it?

    The ‘Western Sydney’ argument is lame. If it’s immigrants worried about racial vilification, make the case that they are already protected by law, that the amendments wouldn’t remove these protections, and that everything that made them think Australia was a better prospect than their land of birth is down to the rule of law and representative government, neither of which can function without freedom of speech.

    Agreed about the quality of his cabinet colleagues. But, if that’s the case, the only way to change their minds is to win the argument in public. The cabinet will soon follow.

  20. George Brandis thanks for NOTHING

    Remember, this isn’t some minor amendment to the procedural rules, or amendments to regulations governing lino floors in bingo halls. This is FREEDOM OF SPEECH we are talking about. It’s worth fighting for.

    Where is the fight? Where are the fighters?

  21. Andrew

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    He blundered in presenting the case, and hasn’t emerged from his office/library since!

    Why didn’t he prepare a strong case while in opposition, and march hither and yon promoting it?

    The ‘Western Sydney’ argument is lame. If it’s immigrants worried about racial vilification, make the case that they are already protected by law, that the amendments wouldn’t remove these protections, and that everything that made them think Australia was a better prospect than their land of birth is down to the rule of law and representative government, neither of which can function without freedom of speech.

    Agreed about the quality of his cabinet colleagues. But, if that’s the case, the only way to change their minds is to win the argument in public. The cabinet will soon follow.

    He made a blue on the ‘right to be bigots’ line but other than that, I think he fought it out as well as he could.
    The ‘Western Sydney’ argument is fair when you have migrant groups vandalising offices as a result of the draft legislation. These changes are much hated in those areas and as much as I agree with abolishing the RDA as a whole, people do not see things the same way you or I or any other rational human being does on this argument. People on these sorts of forums have to remember electoral and political reality in this debate.

  22. Demosthenes

    If it’s immigrants worried about racial vilification, make the case that they are already protected by law, that the amendments wouldn’t remove these protections, and that everything that made them think Australia was a better prospect than their land of birth is down to the rule of law and representative government, neither of which can function without freedom of speech.

    Well said. There are many people who have good reason to worry about racial or religious hatred, because they or their family have lived through its worst forms. Their mistake is thinking that any watering down of the RDA and its equivalents takes us to one step away from pogroms.

  23. Alfonso

    Brandis deliberately white anted the case by using the word ‘bigot’…….he has previously said in Opposition that S18C has some merit.
    Now LibLab can claim the ethnic cacophony/vote makes freedom of speech impossible.
    It’s come to this and there might well be no way back.

  24. Rococo Liberal

    I recall that in 1996 people were saying the same sort of things about teh Howard Government as I am reading here.

    The problem is that Government has become so bloody complex and the media so all-pervasive that no-one can really mater things.

    But what I would suggest that our right wing politicians all do is hit back when they are asked to accept lefty pieties. If someone accuses you of being right wing, sexist racist or whatever, revel in the charge and say that you are merely reflecting the view of most of society which is, according to lefties, racist, sexist etc.

  25. Rococo Liberal

    Surely the real problem is the case where a statement that most of Australians find anodyne is criminalised because the powerful left-wing minority in the media decide they don’t like the idea behind the statement.

    This isn’t about protecting bigots, but about inventing bigots, or more importantly about the real bigots (lefties) using the law to silence non-bigots.

  26. nerblnob

    Where is the fight? Where are the fighters

    ?

    Where are the votes?

  27. MT Isa Miner

    Andrew

    #1361850, posted on June 27, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    He blundered in presenting the case, and hasn’t emerged from his office/library since!

    Why didn’t he prepare a strong case while in opposition, and march hither and yon promoting it?

    The ‘Western Sydney’ argument is lame. If it’s immigrants worried about racial vilification, make the case that they are already protected by law, that the amendments wouldn’t remove these protections, and that everything that made them think Australia was a better prospect than their land of birth is down to the rule of law and representative government, neither of which can function without freedom of speech.

    Agreed about the quality of his cabinet colleagues. But, if that’s the case, the only way to change their minds is to win the argument in public. The cabinet will soon follow.

    He made a blue on the ‘right to be bigots’ line but other than that, I think he fought it out as well as he could.
    The ‘Western Sydney’ argument is fair when you have migrant groups vandalising offices as a result of the draft legislation. These changes are much hated in those areas and as much as I agree with abolishing the RDA as a whole, people do not see things the same way you or I or any other rational human being does on this argument. People on these sorts of forums have to remember electoral and political reality in this debate.

    Where are the fuckign coppers when this vandalising is going on. Young blokes are tapped for a bit of argie-bargie in the streets ( not talking about off ya face headbutts) but the coppers and the lawyers are shit scared of the muslims.

    No contempt of bloody court either when the traitorous shits won’t stand for the magistrate either.

    ” They just want equality” . Despite berating the 44-year-old for his “disrespect“, Ms Milledge then went out of her way to placate him – working out a compromise so he could stay in the court

    Well I want equality too. And I’m not seeing it.

  28. Billy the Kidder

    The easiest and sanest thing to do is to repeal the act entirely. It serves no other purpose than to allow members of “special” groups to beat up the majority and whine alot.

    If a whitey bashes a blackie for racist reasons, how is this anymore hateful than the aforesaid whitey bashing for the purpose of robbery based on jealousy and greed?

Comments are closed.