Victory is in sight!

The Joint Committee on Human Rights is investigating removing the hated s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and restoring freedom of speech to Australia!


The committee is accepting submissions from members of the public – and we need THOUSANDS of Australians to contact them and demand reform!

Use our form below to instantly make a submission to the committee to demand action.


We are closer than we have ever been to reform – but unless thousands of Australians contact the committee we will not succeed. It is vital that all supporters of liberty fill out this form – and share it with all their friends.


This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Guest Post, Oppressive government. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Guest Post: TAKE URGENT ACTION TO REPEAL 18C!

  1. Rossini

    Done like a ducks dinner!

  2. A Lurker

    I signed a week or two ago.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    Edited the text with some additional comments, hit the Submit button but nothing happened.
    Either my browser settings are causing a problem or three copies have been now submitted…

  4. Victory is in sight!

    Yes! Of course it is! I’m sure the Libs will wake up tomorrow and led by champion of free speech Malcolm Turnbull, recall Parliament and with Panzergruppe Steiner lead the victorious charge to…ummm…what was it again? Oh yeah..lead us to victory by filling out a form for a Committee which will glance at it, sign in triplicate, send in, send back, query, lose, find, subject to another (outcome already decided) public inquiry, lose again, and finally bury in soft peat for three months and recycle as windmills. Victory is on the horizon! Steiner! Steiner! Steiner! The free speech ration is being increased to 25 words! Quick, someone get to work on the “We did it!” poster for the imminent removal of two words from Section 18c of the RDA because we are just so close to victory!

  5. herodotus

    Hinch will vote for it to be amended, but will “ask” Malcolm to stay it for two years or so.

  6. Kel

    Submitted mine too.

    Browser button appeared not to respond, but it did go in as I received an acknowledgment soon after.

  7. Muddy

    Done, but sceptical. I think that the Corpse Party needs to be actively undermined (a polite way of saying ‘incinerated’) rather than just politely nodded at.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle

    Browser button appeared not to respond, but it did go in as I received an acknowledgment soon after.

    No acknowledgement for me yet.

    I rarely put my name to such things as the Left are vindictive bastards, but the RDA sect 18C is one of the worst pieces of legislation I’ve had the misfortune to see in my time upon this planet. It should be repealed before it does even more damage.

  9. Botswana O'Hooligan

    #2227851, posted on December 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm
    Submitted mine too.

    Mine too, same browser prob but it was acknowledged soon after.

  10. I would much prefer to have a direct address supplied, rather than access something that goes through a third party, in what is effectively a form mail. These things work much better if they come from an individual written in their own words.

    I don’t know anything about the Australian Taxpayers Alliance, who they are aligned with and who else may get my details. If Catallaxy supports this, can we have alternative contact details? I guess I can go looking for it, but if this is being advertised anyway, why not let others know as well?

  11. struth

    I changed the wording and sent it.
    It worked for me.

  12. Rebel with cause

    Excuse my bluntness, but given the left views politeness as deference and the establishment right is all about not making a fuss, not making a scene, if I was to make a submission it would be something like:

    Fuck off with your PC bullshit before we tell you all to get fucked at the ballot box.

  13. Far Right Heretic

    Repealing 18C is a start but the whole act really needs to be scrapped.

  14. Bruce in WA

    Sent … but with little hope.

  15. Justin

    What you really need is a thousand or more racially offended complaints to flood the HRC and grind them to a halt.

  16. A laudably efficient scheme to harvest emails by a grifting organisation. Free market capitalism in action!

  17. classical_hero

    I agree with FRH. Just removing one part of the act is not good enough. Signed

  18. Siltstone

    Modified text a little and successfully submitted

  19. stackja

    Thank You for your Submission – The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance
    Your message has been forwarded to the Inquiry.

  20. BorisG

    I made my submission two weeks ago. Wrote my own text. It is reproduced below (without italics and bold fonts):

    I am BorisG. I immigrated into Australia in 2001 from a non-English speaking country, and now live in Perth, Western Australia.

    Hereby I submit my opinion that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 imposes unreasonable restrictions of free speech and should be abolished or amended.

    My opinion is that the whole section IIA of the Act (sections 18B-18F) should be abolished. But as a minimum, the words offend, insult or humiliate should be excluded from 18C as these words are extremely vague and subjective. Arguably the word intimidate is less subjective.
    I fully support the provisions of the Act that make discrimination based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin unlawful.

    However I believe the provisions of Section IIA, and specifically article 18C, are restricting free speech. Section 18C says that an act is unlawful if it is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people if it is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin. The problem with this section is that the words reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate are extremely vague and their interpretation is extremely subjective and hence open to infinitely broad interpretation.

    A Bill Leak cartoon depicting a scene involving a policeman, an Aboriginal teenager and his father is a case in point. Many indigenous and non-indigenous people found the cartoon racist and unacceptable, and it is clear that it offended and insulted many people, who would claim that it was promoting racial stereotypes and hence was done because of their race. By all accounts, it is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend or insult a group of people, namely Aboriginal people.

    Yet many found that the cartoon was designed to draw attention to the problems with parenting in many Aboriginal communities, and while confronting, it triggered an important debate. Some may suggest that in these circumstances the author and the publisher of the cartoon have a defence of the section 18D, which excludes from operation of section 18C acts done reasonably and in good faith. Yet the words in good faith are even vaguer and subject to interpretation that the words insult and offend. It in the eye of a beholder. Arguably, if a national newspaper publishes an article or a cartoon, it believes it is doing so in the public interest. However, different people may see it differently. By providing an exclusion 18D, the law delegates to the judiciary the interpretation of this provision, which is extremely subjective and essentially depends on their political and cultural views.

    One can argue that had the Leak cartoon case gone to court, it would have been dismissed due to 18D. I am not sure, and in any case, it is the process the author and publisher should not have been subjected to in the first place. It is right and proper to discuss, criticise and even condemn the cartoon if some people are offended. But this should not be subject to legal restrictions.

    The problem with sections 18C-D is not only the damage done to a number of people such as Bill Leak, who have to go through the mud and expense of the legal process to prove their innocence or good faith. The problem is with self-censorship: this section intimidates journalists and publishers, and forces them to avoid publishing anything even slightly controversial or provocative on any subject somehow related, however loosely, to the issues of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

    It has also been suggested that it was the application of the law by the Human Rights Commission and other authorities, and not the law itself, that triggered recent high profile cases involving 18C (and in the end justice and common sense prevailed). However I would argue that
    1. The law that is so easily misapplied is not a good law.
    2. That justice prevailed after months and years of litigation is cold comfort to the defendants.

    The biggest damage from this law is that it quite likely to be used to silence legitimate debates on important issues of public interest.

    My opinion is that the whole section IIA of the Act (sections 18B-18F) should be abolished. But as a minimum, the words offend, insult or humiliate should be excluded from 18C as these words are extremely vague and subjective. Arguably the word intimidate is less subjective.

  21. Siltstone

    Got to get up early to beat Slayer!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *