(il)Liberals for 18c

Matt Kean is the State Liberal (!) MP for Hornsby and NSW Parliamentary Secretary for Communities.

There is no doubt that freedom of speech is important but it is important because of the role it plays in our democracy. Freedom of speech ensures that when you or I go to the ballot box we can make an informed decision about who to vote for. Freedom of speech is necessary so that as a community, we can debate political ideas and so that individuals can have a say on decisions that affect them.

Section 18C ensures that everyone has a role to play in that debate.

A flourishing society also requires more than just freedom of speech; it requires security, stability, a just legal system and a vibrant economy.

That is why freedom of speech is not absolute. In this country, it is criminal to disclose secrets which risk the lives of Australian soldiers. It is likewise a crime for a corporate executive to disclose market sensitive information to his mates. The law protects us from slander and protects privileged comments made to our lawyers.

As a society, we recognise that these restrictions do not hurt our democracy or way of life. Indeed, we understand that they are necessary to maintain it. And laws against hate speech are no less necessary, because racism and bigotry tear at the heart of our social fabric.

That was republished in Indian Link after he gave a speech in the NSW Parliament.

I have never before heard the argument that freedom of speech especially undermines “security, stability, a just legal system and a vibrant economy”.

A man with these views would be better suited for the ALP or The Greens. Hopefully the voters in Hornsby now have enough information to retire him at the next election.
(HT: Sukrit)

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Hypocrisy of progressives, State Politics, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to (il)Liberals for 18c

  1. Robbo

    Once upon a time the Liberal Party was the strongest defender of the three great freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. What has changed so much in the Party that it now endorses the candidature of someone who seriously qualifies his belief in freedom of speech? Does he also have qualifications on those other two freedoms? It seems that he is either not a true liberal or the party itself has changed for the worse. Hopefully it is the former rather than the latter.

  2. Infidel Tiger

    In a vibrant, well ordered society this ignoramus would be executed for displaying such rank idiocy.

    The Liberals are disgusting filth. I hope they all burn in raging hellfire.

  3. Fisky

    What the hell is a parliamentary secretary for ‘communities’?

  4. Tim Neilson

    Apart from anything else, his comments about “privilege” in client/lawyer relationships are misleading and deceptive. That privilege doesn’t entitle the government to punish anyone for anything they say. It entitles private citizens to decide whether or not what they say to their lawyers shall or shall not go any further. It is entirely open to the client and the lawyer to decide by private contract whether privilege will or won’t constrain the lawyer, and the government (rightly) has no say in that. The “privilege” never constrains the client, and it constrains the lawyer only to the extent that the contract of engagement incorporates privilege doctrines (which it will be presumed to do by default unless they are negatived).
    He is either displaying his ignorance or engaging in misrepresentation.

  5. because racism and bigotry tear at the heart of our social fabric.

    Matt Kean, you idiot.

    What the left calls ‘racism and bigotry’ are the natural defences of our social fabric, the hard edge that kept communities coherent and secure.

    They only reason that they ‘tear’ at our social fabric is because they have been prevented from doing their uncomfortable, slow, but necessary work for a generation or more by the perversity of 18C and similar legislation. You now have a build up of unresolved societal tension that will, at some point, come to blows.

  6. Andrew

    Unfortunately, the public doesn’t want 18C repealed. They’re either indifferent or violently opposed to repeal. If they ever thought “yes, that law went too far” they were quickly told this was incorrect thinking and they must think differently.

  7. C.L.

    There is no doubt that freedom of speech is important but

    Ah, yes. Liberal Party Kim Kardashianism twerks its fatty flesh once again.

    The Big But.

    It was at that point – at that word – that I reached for my Browning.

  8. candy

    After George Brandis’s right to be a bigot comment, nothing can be changed. Even that totally innocuous bit about offending or some such cannot be changed. The whole thing has taken a life its own. Libs will need to drop this for quite some time.

  9. MartinG

    That is why freedom of speech is not absolute. In this country, it is criminal to disclose secrets which risk the lives of Australian soldiers. It is likewise a crime for a corporate executive to disclose market sensitive information to his mates. The law protects us from slander and protects privileged comments made to our lawyers.

    Slowly but surely he destroys his own argument. None of the above have any bearing on 18c which deals with peoples hurt feelings whereas his examples can lead to material loss including slander.

    And laws against hate speech are no less necessary, because racism and bigotry tear at the heart of our social fabric.

    Who get’s to define ‘hate speech’? Those who declare themselves a minority due to their gender, colour or sexual preference. 18c gives protection to cowards who hide behind a law that allows them to game the system and cry about their hurt feelings when someone calls them out on it.

  10. dan

    In this country, it is criminal to disclose secrets which risk the lives of Australian soldiers

    I don’t know whether they are stupid or pretending to be so, but it is perfectly obvious that there are differences between political or social commentary on the one hand, and actions on the other hand which may involve some form of communication.

    If A holds a gun at B’s head and tells B to kill C or B will be shot himself, the fact that speech was involved has no relevance to the question of whether freedom of speech is desirable. But these politicians lump political speech together with acts of violence, or acts directly causing violence as though they are connected.

  11. C.L.

    … it is criminal to disclose secrets which risk the lives of Australian soldiers. It is likewise a crime for a corporate executive to disclose market sensitive information to his mates.

    Mmm. Mmm.

    So obviously this means that somebody telling a boong joke at the RSL on bingo night should be dragged before a magistrate. What a fucking nimrod.

  12. dan

    The law protects us from slander

    Bullshit, it just defines what is (well, usually) a statutory tort in civil law. A plaintiff is obliged to protect himself at his own expense albeit with some ground rules defined in statute. There isn’t a Slandered Individuals’ Rights Commission with overpaid do-gooders working to help out Chris Kenny et al.

    Furthermore the laws regarding slander go back 2000 years if I recall rightly as opposed to this nonsense invented a few years back. It is a non sequitur to argue that the ancient rights to pursue a party for slander somehow justify something completely different like this.

  13. Gab

    Is English Matt Kean’s second language?

  14. dan

    Freedom of speech is necessary so that as a community, we can debate political ideas and so that individuals can have a say on decisions that affect them.

    Section 18C ensures that everyone has a role to play in that debate.

    Read that carefully. I swear I just had a real creepy feeling like someone from the Politburo was speaking in the NSW Parliament.

  15. hammy

    Unfortunately, the public doesn’t want 18C repealed.

    Of course they don’t. Over 90% of the public cheered the great verdict against Bolt. Most wish there had been criminal punishment to go with it.

    Bolt must be the most hated public commentator in Australia because of his bigotry against aboriginals and Moslems.

    His appalling campaign against Fairfax and the ABC needs to be prosecuted at law. Mike Carlton should sue him for his recent insulting campaign, that presented Mike as anti-semitic because of a quite appropriate cartoon accompanying an article that deplored the genocide against Gazan children.

    The right in this country has moved to fascism, as Carlton correctly points out.

  16. candy

    Hammy, the maiming and death of children is distressing to all. Let’s not bring it down to Bolt vs. Fairfax.

  17. Most wish there had been criminal punishment to go with it.

    Nothing like a public humiliation to compensate for the leftist wannabes’ lack of talent/skill/moral terpitude/humanity, eh, Kero?

  18. C.L.

    Bolt must be the most hated public commentator in Australia because of his bigotry against aboriginals and Moslems.

    His appalling campaign against Fairfax and the ABC needs to be prosecuted at law. Mike Carlton should sue him for his recent insulting campaign, that presented Mike as anti-semitic because of a quite appropriate cartoon accompanying an article that deplored the genocide against Gazan children.

    Liberty quote.

  19. Where would be we be without Hammy?

    He actually WATCHES Bolta, just to get mad at him.

  20. The Liberals are disgusting filth. I hope they all burn in raging hellfire.

    Liberty Quote.

  21. Taxpayer

    From the Indian Link: The Cronulla riots similarly reminds us how quickly what we have achieved can be put at risk.
    I believe that the Cronulla riots took place because there was no outlet of free speech to condemn the perpetrators that assaulted the lifesavers. Anyone who mentioned the race of the perpetrators was deemed to be racist. Neither the government nor the police were inclined to pursue a criminal case due to multicultural sensitivities linked to Labour seats in the western suburbs which left the locals no option but to become vigilantes lest others befall the same treatment.

    We need free speech to call out those who offend society in an effort to peacefully seek redress. If those who truly believe in forced multicultural coexistence don’t provide free speech as a safety valve then violence will occur as I am sure that will happen with the protests of pro-Palestinian supporters who are becoming more aggressive each day knowing that anyone who opposes them will be held to 18c as racists, bigots and whatever other terms the lefties want to apply. Protesting is a one-way street in this country thanks to stupid laws. Too many foreign interests are given priority over majority view. That is not democracy but thugocracy.

  22. Leigh Lowe

    Where would be we be without Hammy?

    He actually WATCHES Bolta, just to get mad at him.

    Must be re-runs on his VCR.
    He reliably informed us in March, April, May that Bolt was finished on Ten.

  23. A couple of this young bloke’s examples are bewildering but you do have to wish that parts of his wider message were taken on board; that freedom of speech is not just about 18C ,

    Defamation laws are an issue too. Even now, you have to take some care describing some grubby fascist antisemite like George Galloway, to seize on an example entirely at random, as the disgusting nazi racist he is. This is because the vile pig ignorant bigot might sue you for defamation. His backers in Qatar and elsewhere have deep pockets and unless you are an undischarged bankrupt, or something else convenient, the whole process could prove to be distracting no matter the merits of the case.

    In the meantime, the sleazy, corrupt , thieving, Hamas arse sucking lecher and pervert is free to make racist observations about Jews in general, and Australian Jews in particular, which we really all should know by now are far far more damaging than “hurt feelings”.

    OK repeal 18 C. There will be no tears from me. But how about a right of action in defamation against some arsehole who defames and damages your reputation by defaming the class of person of which you are identified? Defame Jews. Defame blacks or Arabs. Fine. No statutory remedy for said Jews, Blacks or Arabs.

    But individuals who have been defamed by the attack on the group? Let them sue too. Along with the antisemites like Galloway.

  24. bobby b

    You’ll take note that the operative term has always been “freedom of speech”, not “freedom of bad speech.”

    And, really, who benefits from someone spouting wrong speech, or hurtful speech? Nobody, that’s who, so it deserves no protection under our advanced concept of freedom of good speech.

  25. Derp

    And, really, who benefits from someone spouting wrong speech, or hurtful speech? Nobody, that’s who, so it deserves no protection under our advanced concept of freedom of good speech.

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    Please list exactly what you determine is bad speech.

  26. MT Isa Miner

    candy

    #1403325, posted on August 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    After George Brandis’s right to be a bigot comment, nothing can be changed. Even that totally innocuous bit about offending or some such cannot be changed. The whole thing has taken a life its own. Libs will need to drop this for quite some time.

    Fuck, Fuck , Fuck , she’s right.

    Brandis is an idiot. Kean is an idiot. Why are they getting paid in real money?

    Hammy fuck off.

  27. Blair

    “a quite appropriate cartoon accompanying an article that deplored the genocide against Gazan children”
    The SMH which published the article and cartoon didn’t think so.
    “It was wrong to publish the cartoon in its original form.
    We apologise unreservedly for this lapse, and the anguish and distress that has been caused.”

  28. manalive

    hammy, you’ve broken your our law, send yourself to jail.
    bobby b, you’re an idiot.

  29. Senile Old Guy

    It seems that he is either not a true liberal or the party itself has changed for the worse. Hopefully it is the former rather than the latter.

    It is unambiguously the latter. With the exception of occasional lapses, like OSB, the LNP and ALP are becoming indistinguishable on policy.

  30. George Brandis thanks for NOTHING

    as Carlton correctly points out.

    Gold! Well done Hammy.

    Kean is confused. Free speech is about the freedom to express an opinion. Restrictions on speech aimed at preventing one from damaging national security and profiting from insider trading are about controlling the flow of facts.

    Active participation in our democracy requires us to form opinions. The only way we can test, correct and sharpen those opinions is to engage in debate. Restrictions on free speech, such as 18C, curb our ability to participate in our democracy in an informed way.

    But that’s the Liberal Party of today: a social democratic party more concerned with entrenching Labor’s legacy than with promoting economic, political and social freedoms.

  31. Robbo

    “Mike Carlton should sue him for his recent insulting campaign, that presented Mike as anti-semitic because of a quite appropriate cartoon accompanying an article that deplored the genocide against Gazan children.”

    Now that Fairfax has come out and apologised for the cartoon being published do you still think it was “quite appropriate” Hammy? You have to be the worst kind of hater there is because you are so blindingly obviously stupid and hypocritical. By the way the record clearly shows that Carlton is anti semitic.

  32. hammy

    By the way the record clearly shows that Carlton is anti semitic.

    No evidence at all to back this stupid opinion. Carlton is one of the most astute of Australian media commentators. His comments are all well thought out and based on evidence and basic morality.

  33. George Brandis thanks for NOTHING

    Hammy – enough!

    Our cup runneth over!

  34. Tel

    Where would be we be without Hammy?

    He actually WATCHES Bolta, just to get mad at him.

    And you guys watch the 7:30 report for educational purposes?

  35. Myrddin Seren

    It seems that he is either not a true liberal or the party itself has changed for the worse. Hopefully it is the former rather than the latter.

    I agree with Old Salt.

    I have met Matt. He is what the Liberal Party is now – nice guy but a careerist politician.

    Hornsby is not blue ribbon Liberal, so he is obviously looking to cement support amongst ethnic voting sectors ( blocs I guess is what they are all hoping will be delivered – lockstep roll out of low information, English-as-a-second-language groups following orders from their community leaders ).

    I am guessing the political class thinks 18C is a cheap giveaway to buy ethnic votes.

    I am further guessing the reason that organised ethnic group spokespersons are so keen on 18C is that the broad category of

    the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend,

    That is a recipe for unlimited lawfare – not a defence against rampaging hordes of red neck conservatives running around the Clock Square at Hornsby screaming insults at the vast array of immigrant folk there – which never occurred anyway.

    Buy the votes now – consequences are someone else’s problem down the track.

    P.S. – State election in NSW next March. I am expecting Labor-Lite, pseudo-Greens softcockery as far as the eye can see.

  36. entropy

    candy

    #1403325, posted on August 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    After George Brandis’s right to be a bigot comment, nothing can be changed. Even that totally innocuous bit about offending or some such cannot be changed. The whole thing has taken a life its own. Libs will need to drop this for quite some time.

    Fuck, Fuck , Fuck , she’s right.

    Brandis is an idiot. Kean is an idiot. Why are they getting paid in real money?

    Brandis’ comment makes sense when you realise he did it deliberately. He certainly isn’t an idiot. The arsehole actually doesn’t want to do anything about 18c, and this was how he killed any amendment proposal off.

  37. Normal Norman

    @Candy and @hammy: Sadly, the clear examples are Fairfax and Bolt. In recent days we have Fairfax editors publishing a cartoon that is very plainly anti-Semitic. Yesterday, Bolt’s column did exactly the same thing in respect of Muslims.
    Most people do not distinguish their neighbours in terms of religion. Most don’t make much of race. Sadly, the forces at work in Israel and Palestine define themselves absolutely by religion.
    People in media should not promote sectarian division. It ought to be seen as a crime, given its history .

  38. Gab

    Yesterday, Bolt’s column did exactly the same thing in respect of Muslims.

    Bolt has two pieces up yesterday, one on Paid Parental Leave the other climate alarism. To which one are you referring?

Comments are closed.