“The ethnic threat to free speech”

That’s the heading put on today’s article by David Leyonhjelm in the AFR. Me, I won’t say a thing about any of this, but here is how he starts:

When Labor, the Greens and certain Liberals in western Sydney seats seek to explain their reasons for opposing changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, they mostly refer to the concerns of ethnic, religious and racial minority groups.

Representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese groups have joined Jewish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups to oppose any changes apart from procedural, arguing that amending section 18C will unleash a torrent of “hate speech”.

While we occasionally hear half-hearted claims that minorities require special protection from hurt feelings, the main driver of opposition is the political clout of these groups. A dozen or so federal seats are held on margins smaller than the populations of these groups. And in the recent WA state election, certain Muslim leaders openly endorsed the Greens.

And then let me give you the last para as well:

Opposition to changes to 18C is a wake-up call. Australia’s traditional liberal values are under siege like never before. With one side of politics already in full retreat, it is vital the other side steps up to protect those values before it is too late.

Next thing you know, he will start to agitate for us to build a wall across Australia’s north.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues. Bookmark the permalink.

156 Responses to “The ethnic threat to free speech”

  1. iampeter

    Next thing you know, he will start to agitate for us to build a wall across Australia’s north.

    No, no he wouldn’t.

    Because no one who opposes 18C could with any logical consistency also support building a wall to keep people with different beliefs out.

  2. Johno

    ‘Agitate to build a wall across Australia’s north’.
    I’m aware that you have a poor grasp on political reality, but you should be aware that the Lib Democrats favor open borders. Do some homework if you want to be taken seriously.

  3. Jannie

    While we occasionally hear half-hearted claims that minorities require special protection from hurt feelings, the main driver of opposition is the political clout of these groups.

    Multiculturalism and identity politics. Democracy games for power players.

  4. TheDAwg

    Of course you wont “say anything about this” Kates, because you are a gutless little ferret faced fraud. Lyinghome is referring to people like you in his article. That is, people with a voice that gets heard, however unwarranted and misguided, and possessing the balls of a budgie.
    Why talk when you can run?
    How pathetic you are. You and Bolt must be related.

  5. Empire GTHO Phase III

    ‘Agitate to build a wall across Australia’s north’.
    I’m aware that you have a poor grasp on political reality, but you should be aware that the Lib Democrats favor open borders. Do some homework if you want to be taken seriously.

    Except they don’t. The LDP has a misguided discriminatory immigration policy. You might heed your own advice and avoid beclowning yourself.

  6. Combine Dave

    Representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese groups have joined Jewish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups to oppose any changes apart from procedural, arguing that amending section 18C will unleash a torrent of “hate speech”.

    Anyone (esp white leftists!) who opposes free speech must be deported and exiled to Naru regardless of whether they hold Australia citizenship.

    It’s the only way to be sure.

  7. notafan

    I think you mean un

    Representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese groups

    A torrent of hate speech.

    What a load of tosh.

    The whole idea of being offended is so subjective, and so impossible to put a finger on what might cause it next, people can take offence at just about anything these days, or haven’t our betters noticed?

    Toss the whole thing out including the AHRC.

    David was right about the proposed changes, not worth turning up for.

  8. stackja

    Some bodies want silence.

  9. Combine Dave

    Except they don’t. The LDP has a misguided discriminatory immigration policy. You might heed your own advice and avoid beclowning yourself.

    Illegal immigrants who have historically paid upwards of $150k to people smugglers to access Australia could never possible afford an LDP style $50k immigration fee….

  10. John of Mel

    iampeter
    Because no one who opposes 18C could with any logical consistency also support building a wall to keep people with different beliefs out.

    Well, reality points to one inescapable fact of life: the most successful societies/communities have one culture and more or less very similar beliefs for that matter. The question is – what belief(s) are more beneficial than the rest?

  11. Tim Neilson

    Steve,
    Is there anything Leyonhjelm said that is factually inaccurate or logically flawed? If so, please point it out. If not, your argument by sneer can be seen for what it is.
    iampeter
    #2341838, posted on March 31, 2017 at 4:22 pm
    Oh no, not the open borders loon again. Remind me again of how anyone who wants to enter a country should be allowed to unless they’re already known to be a terrorist or criminal, but Europe’s problems with refugees who subsequently commit acts of terrorism or other crimes (Cologne New Years’ Eve come on down) are Europe’s fault because the perps should somehow have been kept out?

  12. Atoms for Peace

    The ALP has been captured by the vote herd; surprise, surprise. Voluntary voting now…
    Fat chance of that happening with Sir Waffles being stirrup dragged by the floundering LNP nag..

  13. struth

    When Labor, the Greens and certain Liberals in western Sydney seats seek to explain their reasons for opposing changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, they mostly refer to the concerns of ethnic, religious and racial minority groups.

    Representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese groups have joined Jewish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups to oppose any changes apart from procedural, arguing that amending section 18C will unleash a torrent of “hate speech”.

    This is so easily argued against, it assures you, that we have collectivist socialist government in Australia.

    “Representatives”
    Really?
    The representatives themselves are the racists and bigots.

    Nobody can “represent” a race.
    No more than I can claim to represent the white community.

    If you think you can, you are a true racist, and to wit, a lying sack of shit.

    “Aboriginal representatives” have been pushing their own personal power grabs claiming to represent a race of people who often as not hadn’t heard of them, let alone voted for them in any democratic process whatsoever.

    That our governments bow to these unelected racists and bigots falsely and ridiculously claiming to “represent” shows the collectivist , and integrity lacking , lost pieces of shit we have in government, who themselves don’t represent the citizens that DID elect them.

    Australia is fucked.

  14. struth

    When Labor, the Greens and certain Liberals in western Sydney seats seek to explain their reasons for opposing changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, they mostly refer to the concerns of ethnic, religious and racial minority groups.

    Representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese and Vietnamese groups have joined Je..ish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups to oppose any changes apart from procedural, arguing that amending section 18C will unleash a torrent of “hate speech”.

    This is so easily argued against, it assures you, that we have collectivist socialist government in Australia.

    “Representatives”
    Really?
    The representatives themselves are the racists and bigots.

    Nobody can “represent” a race.
    No more than I can claim to represent the white community.

    If you think you can, you are a true racist, and to wit, a lying sack of shit.

    “Aboriginal representatives” have been pushing their own personal power grabs claiming to represent a race of people who often as not hadn’t heard of them, let alone voted for them in any democratic process whatsoever.

    That our governments bow to these unelected racists and bigots falsely and ridiculously claiming to “represent” shows the collectivist , and integrity lacking , lost pieces of shit we have in government, who themselves don’t represent the citizens that DID elect them.

    Australia is fucked.

  15. Norman Church

    I have no empirical proof to support my hypothesis but I have always thought that political correctness and identity politics would lead to increased public support for those advocating more extreme positions. As Mark Steyn has noted, if mainstream politicians refuse to acknowledge or discuss the public’s concerns, the public will look to others who are prepared to do so.

    Immigration is a key flash point. In that area, if section 18C and political correctness remove the possibility of debate about issues of public concern after immigration has occurred, it should hardly come as a surprise if a sizeable section of the public decides to support a prophylactic approach that prevents immigration occurring in the first place.

  16. Rayvic

    I am offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated by the misleading and deceptive claims made by Labor, the Greens and certain Liberals (of the Labor-lite variety) regarding the alleged concerns of ethnic, religious and racial minority groups that they would be drowned in a torrent of hate speech, should s18C be amended to make to “harass or intimidate” a person or group the grounds for an offence.

    This amendment actually reflects s18C’s original intent, articulated by then (Labor) attorney general Michael Lavarch, who on 15 November 1994 said:
    “The Racial Hatred Bill is about the protection of groups and individuals from threats of violence and the incitement of racial hatred, which leads inevitably to violence. It enables the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to conciliate complaints of racial abuse. … It calls for a careful decision on principle.”
    (Hansard, House of Representatives, 15 November 1994, p3336.)

    The current grounds for offence, namely to “offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate” a person or group on the basis of their “race, colour, or national or ethnic origin”, are far too broad, and open a way for trivial complaints and vexatious litigants, and curb freedom of speech.

  17. Dasher

    “I won’t say anything about this”……if ever there was a statement against the direction we are taking this is it, copybook example of the chilling effect.

  18. Tim Neilson

    if mainstream politicians refuse to acknowledge or discuss the public’s concerns, the public will look to others who are prepared to do so

    Case study, Holland. Rutte was headed for a debacle at the hands of Wilder, but then Rutte swung round and started to act like he cared about his citizens and thus saved the furniture at the election.

    (Wilder, having forced Rutte to at least appear to stop being a funboy for the jihadists in order to fend Wilder off, still ended up leader of the second largest party in Holland. The media portrayed it as a defeat for the far right – I’d be happy for Australia’s “far right” to suffer a few defeats like that.)

  19. Bruce in WA

    With one side of politics already in full retreat, it is vital the other side steps up to protect those values before it is too late.

    WILLIUM: [Muffled] Ooooh, you’re too late, mate …

    h/t The Goons

  20. Defender of the faith

    John of Mel: most successful societies are monocultural? Let’s take one at random: the US. Composed virtually 99% immigrants. As diverse as one could be. Successful? Not, you say? How about Australia? Again, virtually 95% immigrant. Doing pretty well? Pakistan is quite monocultural. Going well do you think? Or maybe Ghana? Romania? Slovakia? Poland?

  21. Except they don’t. The LDP has a misguided discriminatory immigration policy. You might heed your own advice and avoid beclowning yourself.

    The idea that we are allowing only skilled mrigrants from india total BS. The majority of indians end up driving taxies or washing them.

  22. Confused Old Misfit

    “I won’t say anything about this”…… Why the hell not? If you’re going to wimp out of the debate at least be sufficiently considerate of your putative reader and explain yourself.

    Leyonhjelm is right. Ethnic groupings, have succeeded in shifting the Overton Window, on whatever topic they deem offensive, in their favor. The purported majority does not exist. It is ideologically fractured, socially fragmented and intellectually frustrated. All of this is reflected in our so called leaders who bend and sway like willows in the wind.

  23. Rayvic

    Steve Kates, the link you provide is to an AFR subscriber-only article.

    If today’s Andrew Bolt post on the subject is any guide, it appears you omitted to quote examples of the groups that hide behind 18C:

    “Section 18c is being defended by self-appointed representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Jewish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups.

    These largely self-appointed representatives do not subscribe to Australian values. They are encouraging the groups they purport to represent to reject the path of integration and assimilation that has served so many migrants well in the past. They are encouraging the groups they purport to represent to favour and promote the repressive policies of the places they have come from.

    • We have self-appointed representatives of Islam, who actually represent the Salafist Islamism prevalent in Saudi Arabia, wanting to suppress any counter to the suggestion that Islam is the most feminist religion in the world.
    • We have representatives of Chinese Australians, or at least those Chinese Australians who swell with pride about Chinese authoritarianism, wanting to suppress anti Chinese sentiment.
    • We have representatives of Japanese Australians wanting to suppress all reminders of comfort women.
    • We have representatives of Turkish Australians wanting to suppress claims of Turkish genocide, and representatives of Armenian Australians wanting to suppress the Turkish responses to their claims of genocide.
    • We have self-appointed representatives of Jewish Australians wanting to suppress Holocaust denialism.”

  24. JB5

    Defender of the Muppets

    Nice numbers, I’m sure they match reality in Muppetland. In the real world, however, the percentages I’m sure are a bit lower. Hyper-bowl much.

  25. .

    The best thing of all would be to scrap s18C or the entire Act.

  26. Mark A

    Defender of the faith
    #2341915, posted on March 31, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    John of Mel: most successful societies are monocultural? Let’s take one at random: the US. Composed virtually 99% immigrants. As diverse as one could be. Successful? Not, you say? How about Australia? Again, virtually 95% immigrant. Doing pretty well? Pakistan is quite monocultural. Going well do you think? Or maybe Ghana? Romania? Slovakia? Poland?

    Invites the usual QUE?

  27. iampeter

    Well, reality points to one inescapable fact of life: the most successful societies/communities have one culture and more or less very similar beliefs for that matter.

    Tell that to the Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese and many other societies/communities with one culture which have engaged in total acts of self destruction and record body counts. People speaking a different language to the Chinese didn’t cause the Great Leap Forward.

    The question is – what belief(s) are more beneficial than the rest?

    On that we agree. And the beliefs that are most beneficial are those of individual rights. The most successful societies in human history are those that most protect individual rights. Societies that don’t, will fail to the extent that they violate individual rights.

  28. Mark A

    PS specially Slovakia and Poland, but it applies to a lot of other countries.

    As to Pakistan being a monoculture?
    Even wiki will disabuse you of that notion.

  29. Defender of the faith

    Or you could look it up JB5? Or do you think indigenous folk are more than 1% of the US. Typically your type. You know, the sly, inferential gutless type whose prejudices always come out as if a superior knowledge.

  30. Marcus

    Next thing you know, he will start to agitate for us to build a wall across Australia’s north.

    Hell, yeah. Keep the Queenslanders out!

  31. ned

    Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten.
    ..
    the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent.  The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
    ..
    http://www.hoover.org/research/sordid-origin-hate-speech-laws
    ..
    Totalitarians, whether communists of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, or Islamofascists, neoconservatives, and progressives today, have disingenuously sought to destroy universal human rights of freedom of speech and expression in the name of prohibiting intolerance and hate-speech.
    The roots of this dilemma comes from the fact that political leaders no longer acknowledge that our rights come from our humanity, but insist instead that they come from government.
    ..

    Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts — as opposed to willful criminal acts — is inconsistent with a free society.
    ..
    Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion.


    Hate speech laws usually begin by targeting a few words that almost no one approves. Once the system for controlling and punishing “hate speech” is put into place, there is little or nothing to stop it from expanding to punish more and more types of everyday speech.

  32. cohenite

    Fuck me dead; it’s all about islam; 18C should be eviscerated because it facilitates islam.

  33. Empire GTHO Phase III

    llegal immigrants who have historically paid upwards of $150k to people smugglers to access Australia could never possible afford an LDP style $50k immigration fee….

    Correct, but is still a discriminatory policy. Being flawed, I don’t support it.

  34. Roger

    Multiculturalism needs reform.

    Australian identity should be paramount, regardless of your ethnic background.

    And Islam is incompatible with free speech.

  35. .

    People typically pay 15-30k for people smuggling right now, and the fee the LDP proposes is a floating fee, the value isn’t set at 50k. Nor is it free of other checks and caveats.

  36. Whalehunt Fun

    A wall will be an excellent idea. It will prevent any of them escaping the pogrom. The cleansing will thus be absolute and bilariously the left will have created both the need and the enthusiasm for their murder and the murder of thkse whom they favoured.

  37. A H

    Free speech is objectively better than unfree speech, it’s unnecessary to go into our values vs their values.

  38. Tel

    Australians constantly get told we are the most racist nation on Earth, but what I notice is there’s such a broad diversity of people who very much want to come to Australia. Why would that be?

    Perhaps all of those immigrants think they will have a pretty good life here, which suggests Australia isn’t particularly racist at all.

  39. Tel

    As to Pakistan being a monoculture?
    Even wiki will disabuse you of that notion.

    It’s heading that direction as the hard liners grab political power and the moderates are frightened into silence over it. They are becoming less and less tolerant to the Hindus and Christians.

    Hasn’t gone over the edge yet… but getting there.

  40. Infidel Tiger

    I look forward to one day finding out all the people who opposed free speech, putting them on trains and sending them off to the camps to be gassed.

  41. Roger

    Australians constantly get told we are the most racist nation on Earth, but what I notice is there’s such a broad diversity of people who very much want to come to Australia. Why would that be?

    I may get criticised for generalising- so be it: anyone who’s travelled widely internationally and kept their eyes and ears open will know from experience that ethnic tensions are much less pronounced in Australia than elsewhere in the world. Further, some of our fiercest ethnic tensions are imported courtesy illadvised immigration policies.

  42. Entropy

    Marcus
    #2341956, posted on March 31, 2017 at 6:28 pm
    Next thing you know, he will start to agitate for us to build a wall across Australia’s north.

    Hell, yeah. Keep the Queenslanders out!

    Actually I am keen for a wall right along the tweed. The guns, however, would point southwards, and have automatic backbone detectors. Have one, and you get to enter the promised land. Look like a SJW or other variety of tax eater, and you shall not pass.

  43. Muddy

    I look forward to one day finding out all the people who opposed free speech, putting them on trains and sending them off to the camps to be gassed.

    A bit too resource-intensive. Drive the train over a super-high bridge. Eject subjects from open-sided train trucks (people will pay to be pushers and kickers). Return train. Rinse. Repeat.

  44. Roger

    Actually I am keen for a wall right along the tweed…

    I like the cut of your jib, Entropy.

  45. OneWorldGovernment

    Muddy
    #2341988, posted on March 31, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    I look forward to one day finding out all the people who opposed free speech, putting them on trains and sending them off to the camps to be gassed.

    A bit too resource-intensive. Drive the train over a super-high bridge. Eject subjects from open-sided train trucks (people will pay to be pushers and kickers). Return train. Rinse. Repeat.

    Broken Hill Massacre

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Broken_Hill

  46. struth

    John of Mel: most successful societies are monocultural? Let’s take one at random: the US. Composed virtually 99% immigrants. As diverse as one could be. Successful? Not, you say? How about Australia? Again, virtually 95% immigrant. Doing pretty well? Pakistan is quite monocultural. Going well do you think? Or maybe Ghana? Romania? Slovakia? Poland?

    It’s the culture of the migrants, not the percentage of migration.
    Get your figures right about migration.
    You’re a joke.
    Western migration, Italians, Irish, English, Scottish, Welshmen, Germans, etc made up the majority of migration that made the United States and Canada and Australia.
    This isn’t multiculturalism.
    They were mostly westerners and they didn’t have to assimilate, at the most some would have to learn English.
    Which they quickly did.
    These people weren’t as thick as you.
    Multiculturalism is tribalism and is a whole different ball game.

    Importing people that want to kill you and hates western values, makes a first class traitor.

    Tell that to the Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese and many other societies/communities with one culture which have engaged in total acts of self destruction and record body counts.

    Yes , socialist totalitarian shitholes.
    Try not to shoot yourselves in the foot with your self declared enlightened outlook.

  47. iampeter

    Yes , socialist totalitarian shitholes.
    Try not to shoot yourselves in the foot with your self declared enlightened outlook.

    That was obviously the point.

    It’s almost like “socialism”, i.e. the ideas that people in society hold, has more of an impact on that culture than “one culture”.

  48. iampeter

    Glad you didn’t shoot yourself in the foot though.

  49. jupes

    People typically pay 15-30k for people smuggling right now, and the fee the LDP proposes is a floating fee, the value isn’t set at 50k. Nor is it free of other checks and caveats.

    Fuck me dead Dot you are as dumb as a stump.

    Do you really believe the quality of a Qatari who can afford the 50k will be a better quality Muslim than the reprobates currently paying the 15-30k?

    No seriously. How do you think they will go in Punchbowl Boys High School?

    Do you really – no really – believe Australia will be better off?

  50. .

    ???

    It really is strange that the point was made about the fee that the only average person from the MENA who could afford to come here was Qatar – (620 in our history so far) and you think this is a “Qatari immigration programme”.

    You can’t be that stupid. Nor can you possibly think 400,000+ people go to Punchbowl HS.

  51. struth

    It’s almost like “socialism”, i.e. the ideas that people in society hold, has more of an impact on that culture than “one culture”.

    If the culture you are importing is a totalitarian culture that will not assimilate….whaddayaget?

  52. struth

    You only have two feet.

  53. sdfc

    Free speech for Aaron Stonehouse.

  54. .

    Oh no! Mr Stonehouse is enjoying a holiday before sitting in any Parliament for the first time.

    Terrible stuff eh sdfc? Maybe be he should be on FB changing his profile filter frequently.

  55. iampeter

    If the culture you are importing is a totalitarian culture that will not assimilate….whaddayaget?

    So, you’re going to fight for free speech, a cornerstone of Western civilization, by restricting speech you don’t agree with?

    It’s astounding for someone who throws so many insults at other posters here, just how mind numbingly clueless you are.

    I don’t know how many feet you have, but you certainly don’t have any brains.

  56. Empire GTHO Phase III

    ned
    #2341963, posted on March 31, 2017 at 6:49 pm
    Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten.

    Ned

    The link you provided is a useful history of how the international left endeavoured to restrict freedom of expression in the west via international law and treaty, but omits the story of how Australia and other western nations (US excepted due First Amendment protection) adopted domestic anti-speech laws.

    The genesis of domestic legislation is more recent.

    http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1612

  57. sdfc

    Oh no! Mr Stonehouse is enjoying a holiday before sitting in any Parliament for the first time.

    He’s just won a seat, he should be pumped. He’s got work to do before he hits parliament, why would he be on holidays?

  58. .

    peter

    The argument against Islam is a liberal one, although perhaps a qualified one.

    My concern is that the government will inevitably use laws to protect us – against us.

    It is not a stretch too far to see a Green-ALP (or even LNP these days) government persecuting other religions even if there was a legitimate argument to stop recognising Islam as a religion (among other touted policies).

    I also find the idea that all Muslims want Sharia, the Caliphate or support Jihad or are otherwise lying to our faces utterly paranoid.

  59. .

    Because we perhaps pay politicians too much, sdfc – you seem to have confirmed you think seeking social proof and virtue signalling is better than coming to Parliament rested or better informed.

  60. Turtle of WA

    Next thing you know, he will start to agitate for us to build a wall across Australia’s north.

    Hell, yeah. Keep the Queenslanders out!

    I’d be more inclined to build a wall along the western border of South Australia, stretching along the northern border and across the Victorian border, separating Tassie, Victoria and South Australia. We could call it Green Power Land. Let the bastards starve.

  61. testpattern

    Can be as low as $300 from Mena to Italy. Smuggler advertises on facebook.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/trbrtc/status/845669624419139584

  62. rickw

    The whole ethnic group issue is far worse than just free speech.

    Ethnic groups are voting blocks auctioned to the political bidder willing to spend the largest amount of our hard earned cash.

    For an Australian who isn’t in one of these ethnic voting blocks, it’s a lose, lose, lose proposition.

  63. Snoopy

    Ethnic groups are voting blocks auctioned to the political bidder willing to spend the largest amount of our hard earned cash.

    For an Australian who isn’t in one of these ethnic voting blocks, it’s a lose, lose, lose proposition.

    To add insult to injury, ethnic peak bodies are taxpayer funded. We fund them to milk us.

  64. sdfc

    social proof and virtue signalling

    That’s gobbledegook.

    Gets a big job. Goes on holidays. What more can you say? Excellent work ethic.

  65. .

    To add insult to injury, ethnic peak bodies are taxpayer funded. We fund them to milk us.

    What proportion of the voting public do you reckon knows this?

  66. .

    Mmyes sdfc, he hasn’t started yet.

    Keep on pumping out these FB memes as to why we shouldn’t have freedom in Australia, after all you told me you basically agree with libertarians except when it comes to Keynes…no really you might have been bullshitting us all?

  67. Leo G

    Representatives … oppose any changes apart from procedural, arguing that amending section 18C will unleash a torrent of “hate speech”.

    The implication being that the existence of 18C causes a growing pool of suppressed hate which only requires a minor amendment to open the floodgates. The representatives recognise that 18c should never have existed if the objective was to reduce such hate, but have other reasons to want to maintain the risk.

  68. testpattern

    ‘Nobody can represent a race’

    Because race doesn’t exist.

    Indigenous reps for the most part represent their families and extended families. Together they represent, or wish to, nations. Indig leaders wish to ensure that what happened to their ppl on the past cannot be repeated, and use both domestic and international law to do so.

    This is right and proper, has nothing to do with race, and in contrast to what dickheads like windschuttle say does not lead to separatism. Most indig leaders are aware that any fully sovereign independent statelet would soon come under such economic pressure that they’d quickly lose ownership of the land they’ve fought so hard to reclaim. A form of sovereignty within and protected by the australian state is the least worst option.

  69. sdfc

    After all you told me basically agree with libertarians except when it comes to Keynes…no really you might have been bullshitting us all?

    No I don’t believe I did. I agree with some stuff and disagree with other stuff whether it be libertarianism or “keynesianism” or whatever.

    What has Stonehouse’s lack of enthusiasm for his new job got to do with either?

  70. .

    I told my black armband, leftist, whiter than David Duke, head in the clouds inidg. law teacher that testy and nearly failed the subject.

    FTW I quoted the chief of the Cape York Land council regarding the evils of wild rivers legislation and said autonomy within the Federation would be the best for Arnhem Land, along with allodial title.

    She just stopped marking. After a point where there was several snarky comments, eventually they stopped after getting ever more critical.

    I think I triggered her.

  71. .

    So has he started work yet sdfc? What are you accusing him of? Humility?

  72. sdfc

    I’m accusing him of lacking drive, if he is on holidays as you say.

  73. .

    Drive? No sir we don’t want that. Cathy King MP has “drive” and she is a dangerous, fembot lunatic with a worthless degree in utter bullshit.

  74. Leo G

    ‘Nobody can represent a race’
    Because race doesn’t exist.

    Yes … and no. Race is a stereotypical composite of human characteristics that can be statistically matched with identifiable groups of people, but not definitively with individuals.

  75. sdfc

    So the LDP is happy have drones elected to parliament. None of that pesky drive for them.

  76. Frank

    If you want to fuck up a bureaucrat that deals with such things a good place to start is to get a working definition of ethnicity from them. A definition that can be operationalised.

    They will play ping pong between departments to fob you off before finally being told to piss off in public service speak.

  77. .

    sdfc
    #2342092, posted on March 31, 2017 at 9:36 pm
    So the LDP is happy have drones elected to parliament. None of that pesky drive for them.

    Silence is being a drone? Dude, listen to Cathy King MP (ALP) talk. She’s a fembot.

  78. Because race doesn’t exist.

    Neither does your brain but for some reason you keep talking.

  79. Land of the free

    Folks like Struth clearly don’t read. Or visit other places, like the US. A very large number of our first immigrants were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. A lot were brought here in chains from Africa. Subsequent migration has come from just about everywhere, many from troubled communities. The brothers who built the housing estate I live in are Iranians. My neighbours are from Japan and the family that owns our local market are Syrian. This is what living in the US is. It is certainly not monocultural and only a person with zero knowledge would say otherwise.

  80. Robber Baron

    Most people that I know whisper “I don’t like multiculturalism, particularly the Islamic and African varieties” because if they said it out loud for everyone to hear, they fear being taken to court, beaten up and bankrupted.

    The silence of the majority isn’t agreement with multiculturalism….it is just plain fear of the consequences of openly opposing it.

  81. DM of WA


    5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
    6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
    7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
    8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

    -Genesis 11:5-8 (Authorized Version)

  82. C.L.

    It’s the strangest thing.
    Brown people come here because it’s a paradise built by white people. Rich, rule of law, liberties, secularist. They never flee to Zimbabwe or Iran. And so what do they do? Work assiduously to make the country more like their abandoned home nations. In other words, a police state.

  83. Infidel Tiger

    I’m sad to say but we need to end immigration.

    And we also need to ban Judaism and Islam.

    I have argued all my life in support of Judaism and immigration but I was wrong. Very sad.

  84. testpattern

    ‘I told my black armband…teacher…and nearly failed’

    I’m fairly black armband too, with good reason, and I associate with and sometimes negotiate with indig leaders. Nxt time is the coming month. Apart from a few torres strait islanders I dont know a single one who wants complete separation.

    Native title works. It empowers and enriches those it was designed to. The public will never know how it works because the tribunal gags the parties from speaking to the media and to anyone outside the meetings. If you want an amusing story, a group I’m currently involved with want me to pay $2000 per day for four TOs for food in relation to an on coutry survey. They’ve never eaten $500 worth of food each before and I don’t expect they will this time either. Sigh.

  85. Jimf

    Interesting isn’t it .
    In terms of insult , offend etc I can still call someone a lying c*^t , or a cheating c*^t , and even though these are nasty insults they are not legislated for . Thankfully.
    So in the general scheme of protection of feelings where do we go from here ? If you’re a completely immoral turd who’s correctly identified as such , but who happens to also fall into the protected category of race , you get the green light to pursue with the AHRC.?
    Point being – we all need to be able to speak freely . If we are defamatory or threatening then let the current applicable laws do their thing . Anything other than severe harm to reputation, earning capacity , or
    Physical danger is subjective and therefore surely not valid in a free society.

  86. struth

    What a goose you are test pattern.
    You are a straight up liar.
    People representing race don’t say my family think this and that.
    You will hear them all the time talkiing about things like …aboriginal people feel Australia day is a day of sorrow …invasion day..blah blah.
    You don’t here them say my mum and dad told me they don’t like it but I can’t speak for all my race.

    If there is no such thing as race there’s a hell of a lot of government departments and services set aside for it.

    Iampeter thinks that if you don’t let mussies in you’ll lose free speech.
    We don’t have free speech now because we have.
    Let’s import more that will fix the problem!
    Tell me shit for brains , how did the Americans keep freedom of speech while stopping Nazis emigrating during world war two?

    Are you seriously claiming we should have a non discriminatory immigration policy because somehow I can’t have free speech if I don’t?
    You guys want it both ways and contradict yourself with your own stupidity as you’ve done above.

  87. gabrianga

    Next thing you know, he will start to agitate for us to build a wall across Australia’s north.

    Why? What % of Australians live in the North? How many voters live in the North?

    Possibly the most stupid suggestion in this year of stupid suggestions,mainly from the Left leaning dodo’s who want to hold their seats.

  88. Boambee John

    Johono at 1624,

    I think that Steve was being sarcastic!

  89. Boambee John

    Frank at 2137

    Bit like trying to get a clear definition of indigenous.

    Finally it gets back to the “single drop of (black) blood” definition that wss used in the old south of the US to prevent and punish miscegenation.

    Now, however, the aim is to get on the taxpayer funded gravy train, but generally only for those already doing well in society. Bad luck about those in the outstations.

  90. .

    Native title works. It empowers and enriches those it was designed to. The public will never know how it works because the tribunal gags the parties from speaking to the media and to anyone outside the meetings. If you want an amusing story, a group I’m currently involved with want me to pay $2000 per day for four TOs for food in relation to an on coutry survey. They’ve never eaten $500 worth of food each before and I don’t expect they will this time either. Sigh.

    It would work a lot better if the NTA wasn’t drafted by socialists. If their title exists, they ought to get it allodially and as freehold with full transferability.

    This is the other arm of my near failure – promoting capitalism and pointing out our mineral rights laws are screwed up because of (colonial) government greed.

  91. Jonesy

    Entropy…too late for the wall, a bit of rain and everyone runs around like headless palace chooks 🙂
    As for the act and the threat of race hatred unleashing itself if ever the RDA is disallowed???
    I find that the greatest insult!

    OK a comparison. Leak draws a cartoon, attention directed at Aboriginal dysfunctional society…or…the cashless debit card trial…which is the greatest indictment against aboriginal society?

    Until EVERYONE takes responsibility for their own actions we are heading for a world of racial pain.

  92. Jonesy

    Just to add…the cashless card should be equally be applied to anyone who falls by the trackside.

  93. PB

    ….because not having a wall has worked out so well…as anyone who has had a Sudanese property inspection will tell you.

  94. .

    My friend was an estate agent and had no problems with Sudanese, other than offering undiluted cordial as a “courtesy”.

  95. PB

    “other than offering undiluted cordial as a “courtesy”.”

    There’s the problem……too much sugar!

  96. .

    Yes well.

    Also, this was a long time ago – perhaps genuine refugees compared to what arrives here now.

  97. Rococo Liberal

    And here was I thinking that Steve Kates was having a laugh by making reference to a wall in the North, as he knows that Leyonhjelm is going to be tarred as a new Trump for opposing the PC mafia on 18C
    Yet for some reason a lot of Cats seem to have taken Steve seriously.

  98. Muddy

    OneWorldGovernment.
    Thanks for the link to the Broken Hill ‘incident.’ Very interesting. Of course, today it would be described as an example of mob Islamofauxbia.

    (I refuse to use the ‘pho’ spelling in these labels: I believe that ‘faux’ is more accurate).

  99. struth

    Also, this was a long time ago – perhaps genuine refugees compared to what arrives here now.

    Camels were used in the outback.

  100. DrBeauGan

    When one culture allows people from a different culture into their country there’s an implied contract. ‘You accept our way of doing things and our values, and if you have any good ideas, we’ll copy them.’

    Letting in people who want to take the place over and force their ideas on us is cultural suicide. I’m against it.

  101. Gilas

    testpattern
    #2342076, posted on March 31, 2017 at 9:21 pm
    ‘Nobody can represent a race’
    Because race doesn’t exist.

    Bullshit! (Here we go again). Then why have 18C?

    Because most humans innately recognise group differences, phenotypically and culturally, call them race and act accordingly, to minimise potential harm to one’s own kin.

    Race exists, it is real, and it has real-world consequences.

    You and I may not like it.

    Tough!

  102. .

    Race is an illusion mainly.

    Gene expression comes and goes and everyone can interbreed. The averages for each race are not deterministic for each member. Sure racial differences exist, but so what? A lot of that is cultural and unless you can prove culture is genetically determined…

    It doesn’t matter at all. Thomas Sowell is culturally “white” and poor white southerners are culturally “black”.

    There is no guarantee even in a “racially pure” society that your descendants will look like you at all. Especially in Australia which is different climate to the ancestry most Australians came from.

  103. Race is an illusion mainly.

    And apparently so are your genitals. This whole notion of things are social constructs is asian philosophy misunderstood and misrepresented. What about the average IQ of 65 for aborigines? is that merely an illusory construct as well?

    There is nothing worst imo than taking asian relativistic philosophy and applying it without a shred of real understanding as to what it means.

    You can apply this deconstructionist worldview to even a bus, and of course when it runs you over you will have a socially constructed death. Buddhists play this game with the reality and solidity of things vs thoughts and the outcome is the same, the bus will run you over every time and there endeth your illusory constructed world followed by a socially constructed funeral.

    Race is not an illusion, race is very real. It is genetic clumping, islands of similar traits genetically distant from other clustering. Some may overlap like much of Europe and some are distant enough to be perceived as very different races ie: Aborigines and Europeans.

    Even in Europe genes can be mapped out by distance and overlayed on a map. That is petty cool and tells you that genetic groups diverge rapidly and that people actually don’t mix
    that much or migrate that much.

  104. .

    Phenotype and gene expression are not social constructs. They’re real but they’re not cast in stone.

    Saying culture is genetically determined is pure bollocks.

  105. Barry 1963

    There are some who champion “free speech” because they feel restricted in what they want to say. That doesn’t cut it for me. The proponents of free speech who have real credibility in my eyes fight for the right of those whose opinions they oppose to say what they say.

  106. Tel

    Because race doesn’t exist.

    Exactly! Therefore racism cannot exist, and has never existed!!

  107. Gilas

    Zippy The Triumphant
    #2342484, posted on April 1, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Barry 1963
    #2342502, posted on April 1, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    Spot on, chaps!

  108. wreckage

    LDP immigration policy demands a 10 year naturalization phase with a one-strike-and-you’re-out approach to crime before citizenship, with any and all welfare etc tied to citizenship.

    It’s more open, yet also more restrictive than anything in the mainstream. It’s an excellent policy.

  109. iampeter

    Iampeter thinks that if you don’t let mussies in you’ll lose free speech.

    Nope, no one said anything like that. As is usual with immigration debates here, you are arguing against made up points no one is raising.

    Tell me shit for brains , how did the Americans keep freedom of speech while stopping Nazis emigrating during world war two?

    By fighting a total war against the enemy until they achieved surrender. Nazis were not defeated by immigration policies. Which is kind of the whole point. Islamic terrorism is not going to be defeated by immigration policies either.

    Are you seriously claiming we should have a non discriminatory immigration policy because somehow I can’t have free speech if I don’t?

    If you are supporting a policy that discriminates based on peoples beliefs, regardless of how stupid and crazy they are, then you are NOT a supporter of free speech. So yes to be clear: you cannot both oppose 18C and support something like a “Muslim ban”.

    As is usual, it is you who has totally contradicted himself, in between arguing against straw men of your own devising.

  110. Mark A

    iampeter
    #2342528, posted on April 1, 2017 at 3:57 pm
    If you are supporting a policy that discriminates based on peoples beliefs, regardless of how stupid and crazy they are, then you are NOT a supporter of free speech. So yes to be clear: you cannot both oppose 18C and support something like a “Muslim ban”.

    Rubbish.

    You can believe in whatever you want, doesn’t mean I have to invite you to my BBQ.
    Same on a national level. Migration is not a God given right, and every individual or nation should have the right to refuse entry.

  111. Empire

    If you are supporting a policy that discriminates based on peoples beliefs, regardless of how stupid and crazy they are, then you are NOT a supporter of free speech. So yes to be clear: you cannot both oppose 18C and support something like a “Muslim ban”.

    How you manage to conflate anti-speech laws with immigration policy is known only to your tiny hubris infested brain. It isn’t a package deal.

    Try this:

    I oppose anti- speech laws. I support discriminatory immigration policy.

    You claimed it cannot be done, yet I just did it.

    While you’re at it, any other ridiculous edicts you’d like to issue?

  112. Leo G

    If you are supporting a policy that discriminates based on peoples beliefs, regardless of how stupid and crazy they are, then you are NOT a supporter of free speech

    If those stupid and crazy beliefs include that the believers are called to war with nonbelievers by eternal, unchanging words of God, can you still be a supporter of free speech if you discriminate against those who call for action in accordance with those beliefs?

  113. King Koala

    Multiculturalism is a failure.

  114. iampeter

    Try this:

    I oppose anti- speech laws. I support discriminatory immigration policy.

    But what are you discriminating based on? If you want to stop all Muslims from coming to Australia then you are discriminating based on peoples religious beliefs and are not a supporter of free speech. That’s what free speech means: supporting the right for people to have totally different ideas to you.
    Any immigration policy that is discriminating on anything other than security check (confirming they are not criminals or diseased or something) would be violating free speech.

    I think Conservatives are all out of ideas, so all they have left is the age-old blame the immigrants shtick.

    That’s not going to save us from Islamic Terrorism, in fact any such religious based laws for immigrants will almost immediately be used against Christians just like 18C – they’ll go straight for Conservatives.

    Islamic terrorism is a military threat and will only ever come to an end when state sponsors of terror have been destroyed militarily.

    In the meantime we should be fighting against the big government lefties that dominate our politics from making the most out of the crisis to get even more power.

  115. testpattern

    There is no such thing as race. Nobody can tell me my wife and I are different races. What a stupid moronic thing to believe and to say. The idea of race can’t suvive the first brush with reality.

    Yes tel. That’s why I promote the use of Other and Othering instead of race.

    Zippys just come back from holidays to Colonia Mengele. He should have stayed in patagonia.

    Dot. You need to talk to some indigenous leaders at the coalface of native title and mining. You would be pleasantly surprised. They are forging careers as successful businessmen. Like myself they put the interests of their family first. Sadly, they have to work within the corrupt culture of the wa mining industry. Two very senior public servants with mines resigned around the time there were rumours their dept had been collecting gst illegally. One now acts as a ‘friendly’ picking up leases dropped by explorers and holding them for his paymasters. I know a complaint has been lodged with the ccc and almost certainly going nowhere. You can’t play nice in such an industry and indig leaders using native title to better themselves can’t stand apart from the inherited culture of systemic corruption. They have to push their way in and push their interests first at every opportunity.

  116. .

    Some of them – yes but with a lot not making very little at all.

    Native title is crap. I could have an unregistered equitable interest on crown land that sits higher than native title. Then there is the monopoly buyer position of the Commonwealth.

    You’re blaming the mining industry for corruption of public servants? Really?

  117. struth

    If you are supporting a policy that discriminates based on peoples beliefs, regardless of how stupid and crazy they are, then you are NOT a supporter of free speech. So yes to be clear: you cannot both oppose 18C and support something like a “Muslim ban”.

    If their belief is against freedom of speech, something that they will ban and are trying to do now (and succeeding) not by power of argument but by intimidation, then they should not be allowed in this free speech country.

    This is the old give communists the vote so once they get in power, they stop you voting.

    Totalitarians, be they mussies (Islam means submission and tolerates no disobedience) or communists or other assorted groups who fight against freedom, we don’t need them here.
    There are some basics that must be adhered to.
    Your right is, Iampeter, to dribble the shit you are dribbling and I defend your right to say it.
    Once I try to silence you in anyway, I forfeit the right to live amongst the wealth of a free democratic society.
    If I am born here, you can’t kick me out.
    But if you import more anti free speech activists, you are a traitor and have no inkling of how the west became what it is today.

    We need discriminatory policies with immigration.
    We must discriminate against totalitarians.
    They don’t believe in the core values of the west.
    It is proven around the world again and again.
    They will not submit to the very core values of our society.
    They will oppose free speech violently.

    If you are supporting a policy that discriminates based on peoples beliefs, regardless of how stupid and crazy they are, then you are NOT a supporter of free speech.

    This is where your argument falls down.
    If those stupid and crazy beliefs they want to FORCE on me, and this nation, what the fuck does it have to do with free speech?
    I don’t care what a Mussie says.
    They care about what I say and want to top me saying it.
    I care about that.
    THEIR ACTIONS.
    I want muslims banned , not for what they say, but what they do.
    What’s so hard to understand?

    We have enough native totalitarians to deal with.

  118. struth

    There is no such thing as race. Nobody can tell me my wife and I are different races. What a stupid moronic thing to believe and to say. The idea of race can’t suvive the first brush with reality.

    White men can’t jump.
    Black men can’t swim.
    It’s easy to spot a true full blood aboriginal in a black and white group photo with whites.
    Asians all, without an exception of one, have black hair.

    Call me an absolute racial genius Testes but I can pick an Asian from a white European from an aboriginal from a pacific islander.
    They are also racial geniuses, because they can too, and very specifically do so.

    You may have trouble seeing the bleeding obvious.
    There are different races.
    Of course there are.
    Our problems are created because government sees race.
    Governments should only see citizens.
    Citizens that it treats equally.
    We can all see race, and be proud of our race and heritage.
    We should never allow a sovereign government to notice it.

  119. egg_

    Multiculturalism is a failure.

    What’s been the repatriation cost to the West of Gulf War II?

  120. King Koala

    If you want to stop all Muslims from coming to Australia then you are discriminating based on peoples religious beliefs and are not a supporter of free speech.

    What a load of leftist bullshit. Immigration is not speech. Travel is not speech. Muslims can say whatever the fuck they want in their home countries as far as I am concerned.

    There is no right to immigrate to Australia. Immigration is a privilege and can be denied for any reason.

  121. Zyconoclast

    “Section 18c is being defended by self-appointed representatives of Armenian, Hellenic, Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Jewish, Lebanese Muslim and Arab groups.

    Japanese Poplation in Australia is about 35k.

    What would this relatively small group of high IQ, low crime rate, highly educated, hard working group of people have to fear by the adjustment to 18C.
    With such small numbers, I can’t imagine they would have much electoral clout.

  122. testpattern

    Yes native title could have been better. It could have been freehold like NT land rights. But the Perth lawyers didn’t want that, it would have risked taking their main source of income ie the wa mining industry away. Ask ex minister Johnson.

  123. .

    I blame the left in the Federal ALP. The mining companies didn’t make the Commonwealth the monopoly buyer of native title. Good to see you at least agree it could be better.

  124. iampeter

    I want muslims banned , not for what they say, but what they do.
    What’s so hard to understand?

    It’s not hard to understand, we all understand you perfectly. What you need to understand is that as you sit their reeling off all the ideologies you disagree with that you want the state to ban, you are yourself, the exact same threat to our freedom as those ideologies you are think you’re going to save us from.
    You also forgot to mention Nazi’s. Don’t you think they should be banned too? Let’s turn to Mark Steyn on that:

    During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”

    Inevitably, the Nazi party exploited the restrictions on “free speech” in order to boost its appeal. In 1925, the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Adolf Hitler from making any public speeches. The Nazis responded by distributing a drawing of their leader with his mouth gagged and the caption, “Of 2,000 million people in the world, one alone is forbidden to speak in Germany.”

    How’d that work out?

    Yes, how did that work out?

    Don’t worry I’m sure it’ll be different this time when you give the state the ability to ban Muslims.

    We have enough native totalitarians to deal with.

    Do you not see the irony after what you’ve just posted?

    The only way to defend Western civilization is to embrace the ideas of Western civilization, not reject them at the first sign of trouble in an unhinged, panic to “just do something and to hell with all your highfalutin thinkin”.

    What you need to do is fight for a government limited to just protecting individual rights. The state restricted in this manner cannot be turned on it’s citizens by this or that majority.

    What you want to do is the opposite and grow the state even more, so if the Muslims or the Communists or whoever, ever do get enough numbers they’ll be able to use those police-state laws you helped bring about, against you.

    So yea, maybe before you rush off to save a Western Civilization you don’t really understand you should first calmly learn those “basics that must be adhered to.”

  125. testpattern

    ‘I can pick an Asian from a … Blah blah blah’

    You’d be fucked in Broome.

    Like race, asia is a social construct, variously defined as stsrting at the suez, bosphorous, Greenwich. The Brits still categorise Indians as asian. They hate it. Amerindians of both continents come from ‘asia.’ Pacific Islanders as well. The madagascans. Most se Asian villagers don’t know what you’re talking about if you ask them ‘r u asian.’

  126. Gilas

    King Koala
    #2342605, posted on April 1, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    If you want to stop all Muslims from coming to Australia then you are discriminating based on peoples religious beliefs and are not a supporter of free speech.

    What a load of leftist bullshit. Immigration is not speech. Travel is not speech.

    Spot on KK, it’s quite amazing how illogical otherwise intelligent people can be. I thought that was a province of the leftards, but clearly not.

    There is no such thing as race. Nobody can tell me my wife and I are different races. What a stupid moronic thing to believe and to say. The idea of race can’t suvive the first brush with reality.

    The stoopid, it burns like acid!!
    If one can’t see such obvious group differences, do they need new glasses?
    Or a new brain?

  127. testpattern

    ‘Western civilisation’

    There is no such thing. There is a central civilisation.

    David Wilkinson in comparative civilisation review

    http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=ccr

  128. iampeter

    You don’t get to choose what context free speech applies in.

    You can’t say that students can say what they want, but an immigrant better say what wewant.

    An individuals immigration status, or race, or gender, or employment status, or religion, or any other arbitrary characteristic does not determine what the individual can or can’t think or say.

    That’s not free speech.

  129. Leo G

    An individuals immigration status, or race, or gender, or employment status, or religion, or any other arbitrary characteristic does not determine what the individual can or can’t think or say.

    Are you offfering that statement in justification for the string of non sequiturs you’ve offered on this thread?

  130. iampeter

    Are you offfering that statement in justification for the string of non sequiturs you’ve offered on this thread?

    I don’t think even you know what this question means.

  131. Leo G

    I don’t think even you know what this question means.

    It means your argument that a person’s personal characteristics don’t influence what they think or say is typical of your offerings on this thread.

  132. .

    An individuals immigration status, or race, or gender, or employment status, or religion, or any other arbitrary characteristic does not determine what the individual can or can’t think or say.

    That’s not free speech.

    Peter I am having difficulty following you. Sure that’s “not free speech”, but it doesn’t abrogate that right either. Their ability to be articulate probably is a result of their factors.

  133. iampeter

    It means your argument that a person’s personal characteristics don’t influence what they think or say is typical of your offerings on this thread.

    Then you haven’t understood anything.

    That’s not what I said.

    Some people here are arguing that they oppose 18C but also want to ban Muslims. But you can’t have it both ways.
    They would argue the state can’t ban you from publishing a politically incorrect cartoon but it can ban you from immigrating if you have politically incorrect beliefs.

    This is a glaring contradiction and I’m pointing that out.

    So if you’re going to post smug and dismissive posts maybe try and understand what’s discussed first, to save yourself looking like a complete tool.

  134. Paridell

    John of Mel: most successful societies are monocultural? Let’s take one at random: the US. Composed virtually 99% immigrants. As diverse as one could be. Successful? Not, you say? How about Australia? Again, virtually 95% immigrant. Doing pretty well? Pakistan is quite monocultural. Going well do you think? Or maybe Ghana? Romania? Slovakia? Poland?

    Defender, I can’t imagine any source that would support the claim that the United States is composed of “virtually 99% immigrants” or Australia is “virtually 95% immigrant.” Those figures would appear to leave only 1% and 5% respectively for actual Americans or Australians. They could be arrived at only by defining practically everyone in the country as an immigrant, whether they had actually immigrated or not. Even Donald Trump would count as an immigrant by that standard. After all, Mary McLeod was born on Lewis, wasn’t she?

    As for Pakistan being “quite monocultural”, you are aware that the original Pakistan broke up over irreconcilable cultural, linguistic and other differences? Even West Pakistan, which today is the whole of Pakistan, was made up of the former British territories of North West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, Sindh, West Punjab, a baker’s dozen of princely states, and part of Kashmir. Pakistan has six main languages, plus English, and the very first sentence in the Wikipedia entry for “Minorities in Pakistan” says it all: “Pakistan is a diverse society with various ethnic and religious minorities.” In short, Pakistan is not “quite monocultural” but highly multicultural. As for Ghana, it has eight major ethnic groups (plus ‘Other’) and no fewer than thirteen languages. It would be hard to pick a country that was less monocultural — although, as one can see from the above, Pakistan would have to be in the running.

    By comparison with Pakistan and Ghana, the so-called immigrant societies of Australia and the United States are models of homogeneity.

    Finally, Romania, Slovakia, and Poland are indeed doing quite well. Romania expects to have over three per cent growth this year (thanks to tax cuts), Slovakia (the ‘Tatra Tiger’) is returning to form, and Poland is expected to lead the EU in growth rate up to 2050. Not bad considering they labour under the apparent handicap of being monocultures.

  135. You also forgot to mention Nazi’s. Don’t you think they should be banned too?

    I don’t think we need to ban them (muslims) , we need to slaughter them wholesale on the battlefield.

    That is what it is going to come to eventually, why delay the inevitable.

  136. .

    Um, central Europe certainly is monocultural now, for an obvious reason, and to their detriment.

    Just sayin’.

  137. Islamic terrorism is a military threat and will only ever come to an end when state sponsors of terror have been destroyed militarily.

    Anyone who does not understand and fully agree with this is living in lalaland of delusional and wishful thinking. Islam is a clear danger to the future of civilisation. The 1st world is dying much faster than the islamic world is growing. The end of this century is very dark indeed.

  138. Leo G

    That’s not what I said.

    Take responsibility for your own statements.
    You appear to be arguing the existence of a fanciful positive natural right- some kind of universal right to empathy that overrides the qualifications on human rights which are applied by a government or society.

  139. Empire GTHO Phase III

    But what are you discriminating based on? If you want to stop all Muslims from coming to Australia then you are discriminating based on peoples religious beliefs and are not a supporter of free speech. That’s what free speech means: supporting the right for people to have totally different ideas to you.
    Any immigration policy that is discriminating on anything other than security check (confirming they are not criminals or diseased or something) would be violating free speech.

    You are very confused.

    Australia has always had a discriminatory immigration policy. You support this principle insofar as criminality and disease is concerned. Why?

    The citizens of a nation state are entitled, even obliged to discriminate when it comes to who would be allowed to cross the border. This is entirely compatible with libertarian principles. Protecting the person and property of the nation’s citizens is one of the few legitimate applications of state power. The interests of the citizens trump the wants of aliens.

    For whatever reason, probably indoctrination by Marxist educationalists, you hold that cultural compatibility is not a legitimate criteria on which to discriminate. Islam explicitly denies its followers the right to assimilation. The perfect word of allah must he followed and sharia promoted, by violent means if necessary. This attitude is not congruent with the interests of the nation’s citizens. Persons with other cultural traits and beliefs may also pose a threat to the citizens if they are afforded residency rights.

    Anti-speech laws are not compatible with libertarian philosophy for obvious reasons. Before the RDA, before freedom of expression was circumscribed by leftist racists, we had an immigration policy known as the White Australia Policy. The law was not overtly racist, though practical application typically was. The left fully supported it. So we had free speech and highly discriminatory immigration, a state you claim is not possible, probably because you choose to conflate the freedoms of citizens with the rights of aliens – an internationalist habit.

    Free speech does not mean “supporting the right for people to have totally different ideas to you.”, it means the freedom of expression of citizens shall not be abridged by the state.

  140. iampeter

    Australia has always had a discriminatory immigration policy.

    Yes, we’ve also got arbitrary speed limits that I sometimes don’t bother following too. There a lot of stupid laws that have nothing to do with the governments legit function of protecting individual rights on the books.

    You support this principle insofar as criminality and disease is concerned. Why?

    Because restricting criminals and diseased protects individual rights, which is the one and only legit function of government.

    The citizens of a nation state are entitled, even obliged to discriminate when it comes to who would be allowed to cross the border.

    Yep and you as a citizen don’t have to hire them, sell to them, talk to them, or anything with them. The state does not have that right however, aside from protecting individual rights, which means making sure they are not criminals.

    Protecting the person and property of the nation’s citizens is one of the few legitimate applications of state power.

    Yep and it stops doing this the moment it starts policing based on peoples personal beliefs. Just because someones an immigrant doesn’t mean they can be a criminal and so the state can deny entry. Just like because they are an immigrant, doesn’t mean the government can suddenly start discriminating based on their beliefs and deny them entry if they are not “politically correct”.
    Like you said, the government should protect person and property, that doesn’t mean it suddenly has the right to police speech based on someones citizen/immigrant status.

    For whatever reason, probably indoctrination by Marxist educationalists, you hold that cultural compatibility is not a legitimate criteria on which to discriminate.

    I’m not the one who’s indoctrinated. You’re claiming to support free speech and then call for violation of free speech without seeing the contradiction in your own position.

    Free speech does not mean “supporting the right for people to have totally different ideas to you.”, it means the freedom of expression of citizens shall not be abridged by the state.

    Unless your not a citizen? You’re argument is that then the state is perfectly OK to police freedom of expression?

    With friends like this, freedom doesn’t need enemies.

  141. Empire GTHO Phase III

    I’m not the one who’s indoctrinated. You’re claiming to support free speech and then call for violation of free speech without seeing the contradiction in your own position.

    I did no such thing. You just made that up. You have imagined that I claimed that immigrants, that is people we have already accepted into our country (for clarity – citizens or permanent residents), should be subject to restrictions on their freedom of expression. I don’t.

    You are still conflating freedom of expression of citizens with immigration rights for aliens.

  142. iampeter

    What I’m trying to say is that if you support free speech it means you support the state not been able to regulate based on what a person believes or expresses, etc. This means you cannot support a Muslim ban.

    Some people in this thread though, are claiming to support free speech but also calling for a Muslim ban. They are doing this on the grounds that they are not citizens and so the government does have the right to regulate them based on their personal beliefs.

    That’s not support for free speech. That’s a complete contradiction.

    Free speech for me, but not for thee, as determined by your immigration status.
    Oh you’re an immigrant sir, quick apprehend him and take him to the reeducation center. We must confirm his beliefs are politically correct.
    etc.

  143. Tel

    What I’m trying to say is that if you support free speech it means you support the state not been able to regulate based on what a person believes or expresses, etc. This means you cannot support a Muslim ban.

    The people living in the Middle East and North Africa do not make a habit of obeying Australian laws, nor do they come under the protection of Australian law. This is the established notion of national sovereignty. Any of them can be banned from entry to this country for any reason. While in their own countries, the Australians do nothing to restrict their freedom of speech, although their own governments often do impose restrictions.

    Of course existing citizens of Australia do need to obey Australian law and they also are allowed freedom of conscience in return for their obedience. They are not allowed to kill apostates, nor are they allowed to beat up on people drinking alcohol, nor mutilate young women, nor are they allowed to get married at age 9, nor can they advocate head chopping when they feel insulted. Within those constraints they can believe whatever they want, they are even free to talk about it provide they don’t incite violence.

  144. Empire

    Free speech for me, but not for thee, as determined by your immigration status.
    Oh you’re an immigrant sir, quick apprehend him and take him to the reeducation center. We must confirm his beliefs are politically correct.
    etc.

    A well described odious police state.

    We have this now with the AHRC and 18C, though the victims seem to be native. Bolt and Leak were both born in Adelaide.

  145. Leo G

    What I’m trying to say is that if you support free speech it means you support the state not been able to regulate based on what a person believes or expresses, etc.

    What other commenters say is that a right to free speech is a concession by government and society to allow expression without arbitrary interference. It necessarily implies a valid basis for government and society in establishing the bounds of that concession.
    Accordingly, the right to free speech is not generally recognised as an absolute positive natural right, such as personal liberty, but as a prescribed and limited negative human right.
    If some commenters believe that some further constraints on Muslim immigration are necessary, that does not in itself imply the imposition of restraints on the right to free speech of any Muslim. If society acts to further limit Muslim immigration that does not further reduce the right of free speech to any Muslim.
    On the other hand, you are very close to a position of calling for others to use self-restraint in expressing their views about Muslim immigration.

  146. Empire GTHO Phase III

    What other commenters say is that a right to free speech is a concession by government and society to allow expression without arbitrary interference. It necessarily implies a valid basis for government and society in establishing the bounds of that concession.

    Society yes, government no. The state provides mechanisms (eg. criminal justice for incitement and civil action for defamation) to protect rights in person and property of the individuals of the society.

  147. Up The Workers!

    Infidel Tiger at 7.25pm said:

    “I look forward to one day finding out all the people who opposed free speech, putting them on trains and sending them off to the camps to be gassed.”

    A truly worthy motive.

    But, given that resource companies are currently flogging off our gas reserves to foreigners at such a rate that there soon won’t be sufficient gas to serve the requirements of the domestic market, you may have to settle for electric ovens, rather than gas ones. (i.e. IF ‘Dodgy Dan the C.F.M.E.U. Man’ and Jay Weatherdill of the A.L.P. [Anti-Light & Power] don’t succeed in criminally vandalising the remainder of our ageing National Power Grid).

    Electric ovens may result in a more ‘chunky’ outcome than gas ones in the circumstances, but you can always reprise Paul Keating’s mantra of: “doing them slowly”!

  148. King Koala

    What I’m trying to say is that if you support free speech it means you support the state not been able to regulate based on what a person believes or expresses

    Wrong. Free speech means I support the state not being able to regulate the speech of its CITIZENS. A states only duty is to serve its native citizens. Non citizens of Australia are guests and their welcome can be revoked at any time, for any reason.

    Iampeter, if you invite me around to your house do I have the right to call your wife a whore, tell your daughter to suck my dick and tell your son I will chop his head off?

  149. Fisky

    Some people in this thread though, are claiming to support free speech but also calling for a Muslim ban. They are doing this on the grounds that they are not citizens and so the government does have the right to regulate them based on their personal beliefs.

    Nothing wrong or unusual about that at all. We already screen out all kinds of immigrants, with a strong bias against migrants with no qualifications/skills/experience, etc. That doesn’t mean it is illegal to have no qualifications in Australia. Just that we prefer other kinds of migrants. Not a very difficult concept to grasp.

    Also, autism.

  150. mh

    College Kids Say the Darndest Things: On Identity

    FPIW visited the campus of the University of Washington to see if students would affirm or reject Joseph Backholm’s new chosen identity: a 6’5″ Chinese woman

  151. iampeter

    Guys it’s really simple: free speech includes the right to be a Muslim. If you want to ban Muslims, you don’t support free speech.

    All the justifications here to try and have your cake and eat it too, are just like a leftist who says “I support free speech, but…“. Sorry, there are no qualifiers, it’s simply a matter of principle. You either support free speech in this country or you don’t. If you want to ban Muslims, you don’t support free speech.

    Radical Islam is a serious and militaristic threat, it will not be solved by expanding 18C legislation to focus on immigrants.

    And once the state can ban Muslims we will be well on our way to having the state ban any other ideologies they deem to be “dangerous”. Hint, the most unpopular one in Australia starts with “C” and ends with “Conservative”.

  152. Leo G

    Guys it’s really simple: free speech includes the right to be a Muslim.

    Why be satisfied only with expanded US Constitution First Amendment rights? Let free speech include the whole US Bill of Rights without the compromises and throw in the CDHR.

  153. Empire

    And once the state can ban Muslims we will be well on our way to having the state ban any other ideologies they deem to be “dangerous”. Hint, the most unpopular one in Australia starts with “C” and ends with “Conservative”.

    Do you have a stutter?

Comments are closed.