It is an interesting debate. In my opinion it is not the law itself that is the issue. As DV has said, it is fairly plain and simple. It is what we as a society have deemed racism to be. I see it on here all the time. If someone disagrees or puts forward an alternative viewpoint they are apparently racist or biggoted. And it is this crap that has blurred the law itself. In my opinion it is not racist to call an Aborigine a blackfella. He is a fellow and he is regarded as black, even to his own people. but under this law it is an offence to call him a blackfella, unless of course you are a blackfella too. Then again if it is not offensive to the said blackfella, is it really an offence under the letter of this law? No. The law is too subjective and that makes it dangerous. Laws should never be subjective, or at least not viewed in a subjective manner. Societies thoughts and interpretation change like the seasons, so subjective laws like this one always cause grey areas. It is not the law that is the problem, it is our interpretation of the word racism. Please excuse the errors as I am on the phone. Big thumbs and small keypad equal bad typing.
Why they are using the Bolt case to show the problem with the law is the ruling was based on http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/28/bolt-decision-guilty-of-discrimination-judge-declares/ In other words: Bolt had an opinion that was based on errors in fact and distorted truths as well as inflammatory and provocative language. Thus, if you have an opinion that is wrong due to the facts you base them on, you are in direct contravention of 18C of the racial discrimination act. As Slippery points out, that is entirely subjective so should be addressed. BUT again, this act at present provides anybody who feels anything anybody states is offensive has a case. The intent of the law is decent enough but is open to interpretation of the beholder and due to that interpretation is open to destructive attitudes. I notice that those who adamantly oppose any change have been guilty of breaches of this very act before. One even ventures to cross that line in this thread and yet they believe it is fine for them but not for others. The irony of these people is just staggering...
You poor thing. There exists 'a direct attack' on taking away your right to attack others? It's a wonder you sleep at night. What an injustice. Seriously, what a dim-witted argument. Muzzle the white people? Yeah, cos white people are SO oppressed that the bigger majority of people (oops!) targets them for vilification. Yeah, they'll come after you claiming your grandfather wasn't white and saying you're not white and vilify you for 'pretending' to be white like Bolt did to the aboriginal women whose grandfather was full aboriginal and not 'German' as Bolt had LIED. Garbage he'd spewed all over the place. Lies, misrepresentations, bigotry and racism. Your posts are Un-Australian. Grimy.
high values are not God given, they are hard work. It took us two hundred years, to reach the level we had. Within a couple of months, an extreme racist hatred right winger government shovels everything down the drain.....
Just maybe if some of you do-gooders took off your rose coloured glasses; open your blinds, and looked outside your window, you might discover that you have been pointing your fingers of hate and discrimination in the wrong direction, and its not "just" coming from the people you think it is. But God will chuck a lightening bolt at anyone, if they accuse another race besides white people of hate and discrimination crimes. If multiculturalism works, and everyone loves everyone else in your inrealistic utopian world, then why after thousands of years do we still have independent countries and countries divided into States? Why is the world NOT one united planet of people? The planet is not ONE united planet of people, because multiculturalism (different races of people living together permanently in the same country) didn't work; doesn't work, and won't work. If it worked, there would be no need for geographical lines on a map dividing the planet into countries and States - would there? When you try to introduce or combine two completely different cultures into one country, one culture will always try and dominate the other culture - that's just human nature. WTF do some you people think is going to happen; we are going to present someone with a welcome gift basket who obviously has NO intentions of becoming part of our culture. Now you pack of morons want to impeed our rights to verbally object to someone who wants to dominate our culture and who doesn't want to be part of our culture. If you respect their culture over ours, then p.i.s.s off over to their country, and see how you get on.
It shouldn't be a criminal offense to offend someone with an opinion, that's ridiculous. Since there is no such thing as an Aboriginal race, it's completely absurd to take someone to court for saying they don't think someone is aboriginal enough. Defamation is a totally different issue and a completely separate law and not criminal
Who else has been taken to court under section 18c besides Andrew Bolt? People aren't getting taken to court on a regular basis for saying insulting, racist remarks. The reason Bolt did is because his influence means that these remarks can have a far more profound effect. The Australian Human Rights Commission says this regarding the background to sections 18C and 18D: "Sections 18C and 18D were introduced in response to recommendations of major inquiries including the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. These inquiries found that racial hatred and vilification can cause emotional and psychological harm to their targets, and reinforce other forms of discrimination and exclusion. They found that seemingly low-level behaviour can soften the environment for more severe acts of harassment, intimidation or violence by impliedly condoning such acts." It seems to me those sections were functioning exactly as intended when Bolt got pulled up for his remarks.
This reminds me of a dog breeder who tried to sell me a German Shepard that looks 99% like a poodle, with only 1% german shepard in it. Bolt definately raised a valid point in his comments, and taking him to court over this matter just demonstrates how desperate Aborigines have become to get attention and sympathy, because I think they realise people are finally waking up to their money hungry scams.
Is this not an absolute load of garbage, in that we are not even following the scientific evidence that supports human evolution? The current scientific data suggests we all originated from Africa along an evolutionary path to arrive at human beings. Would not that data suggest that human beings are all pre-disposed to the same genetic mtDNA, and no group of individuals can claim they are different from another group of people unless they can scientifically prove it? Why the hell are we allowing one group of people say they are different from another group of people, and getting financial benefits for this, without any proof? Why is one group of people able to claim special financial benefits over another group of people because of their skin colour - is that not racial discrimination against the group of people not being able to claim the special benefits? What people fundamentally don't understand, is that when you introduce discrimination to protect someone, you are discriminating against someone else, and should not be acceptable, because the act itself is contradictory in terms.
It was a case of defamation and racism. Bolt didn't get his facts right no doubt, on purpose - in order to prop up his bigoted taunts / false accusations. He attacked their very personhood. What makes you think he was taken to court just for saying they weren't aboriginal enough? He publically named each person, taunted them, lied about them. His premise for questioning their aboriginality was in order to further attack them to claim they were 'rorting'. The following quote from Bolt: Did he pull that out of his bum? No German in her family. None. Irresponsible, nasty, bigoted piece of rubbish. Professional Aborigine? Meaning what? Bigoted, thats what.
No, it could have been a case for defamation, and it should have been. I never said he went to court "just" for that, but that's what made it racial discrimination and criminal rather than defamation. He didn't attack their "person hood", he attacked their legal racial status and access to benefits. I just find it completely ridiculous that these privileged middle class "fair skinned" academics exploit what is clearly an extremely racist government system of racial classification and benefits, and at the same time take someone to court for "racial discrimination". I am far more appalled by their behaviour than the ramblings of Bolt.
Bolt wasn't rambling, he was simly stating that these 1/40 (white) Aboriginals know how to exploit the Government financial system, because of their 1/40 Aboriginality, and the Aboriginals with black skin, who need the assistance the most, never seem to be the recipients of the Government schemes. Someone with a brain needs to put a stop to this racial discrimination bullshyte; its just gone too far, and its now out of control. FFS, Imagine taking someone to court over the colour of someone elses skin colour; as if we don't have more serious and pressing problems to address within out society. I think this just demonstrates that Aboriginals are looking for any excuse to take anyone to court to make a quick buck. If we allow this kind of non sense and rubbish to keep going, I can see a day in my lifetime where it will be illegal to even say the word "black" or even question Aboriginals about anything. These do-gooders riding on the Aboriginal sympathy train have been so completely brain-washed into hating their own culture in favour of other cultures, that I seriously believe they require psychological help.
So if Captain Cook had sex with an Aboriginal girl in 1770 Her child would be 12 in 1782, if some white person had sex with them ...1/2 Her child would be 12 in 1794, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/3 Her child would be 12 in 1806, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/4 Her child would be 12 in 1818, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/5 Her child would be 12 in 1830, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/6 Her child would be 12 in 1842, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/7 Her child would be 12 in 1854, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/8 Her child would be 12 in 1866, if some white person had sex with them .... 1/9 Her child would be 12 in 1878, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/10 Her child would be 12 in 1890, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/11 Her child would be 12 in 1902, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/12 Her child would be 12 in 1914, if some white person had sex with them .. 1/13 Her child would be 12 in 1926,if some white person had sex with them .... 1/14 Her child would be 12 in 1938, if some white person had sex with them .... 1/15 Her child would be 12 in 1950, if some white person had sex with them .... 1/16 Her child would be 12 in 1962, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/17 Her child would be 12 in 1974, if some white person had sex with them ... 1/18 Her child would be 12 in 1986, if some white person had sex with them ...1/20 Her child would be 12 in 1998, if some white person had sex with them.... 1/21 Her child would be 12 in 2010, if some white person had sex with them... 1/22 Her child would be 12 in 2022 and they would only be 1/23 but of course a 1/10 could have had sex with a 1/4, hmm is that 1/40. Oh dear help me oh mighty one, I am trying to figure out your 1/40, maybe it's just a load of crap like most of your replies eh?
Every year I attend the highland games in Aberdeen (NSW Australia) and most of the people there raving on about being Scottish are only so because many generations ago their ancestors were, and the only Scottish thing about them is their surname usually. But thats ok, they aren't black, they are allowed to have their culture. IDIOT
Jeeeezzzzz DV, you got that wrong. The percentage, if no further aboriginal blood is added, halves each generation. So after 5 generations it is 1/32, after 6 generations 1/64. Not very good for someone who claims to be scientist....
No, DV knows your numbers are arbitrary numbers, we all do. DV also knows his genetics, he wanted to see if you did. LMAO It was fun The other day I was talking to a policeman friend of mine who just happens to be married to an Aboriginal woman, you know, one of the thousands of Aboriginals who work, have good marriages, don't drink or do drugs and live much as you and I do. He said she has been trying to have her Aboriginality recognised for years. It is very hard thing to get actually, we are looking at ways of making it easier by having some sort of National recognition.
Is it really so bad to just be an Australian ? All this horsesh!t about being a poopteenth Scottish, 1/16th Iranian Jew, or 1/2 Mongoloid Budhist, is exactly that....... Horsesh!t !!! Do you all really think it makes one scrap of difference when you are all cold and full of worms what percentage this or that you once were ???????????? Just get on with it I say !
What do you mean "National recognition"? There is no such thing as the "Aboriginal Race". If she works, has a good marriage, doesn't drink or do drugs and lives "much as you and I do", then why bother to get her "Aboriginality" legally "recognised"? Just to access benefits? Presuming this referendum to abolish the Race Powers Act ever actually happens, the legal Aboriginal "test" will have to be abolished.
Well, yeah it is a reference to every single tribe/nation and clan in Australia who were the original inhabitants. I hear that many people's applications are rejected by Indigenous organisations based solely on the fact that they don't identify. A traditionally looking aborigine also has to provide proof of identity prior to application for whatever benefits are available. If a person of aboriginal heritage wants to receive benefits that is their right when you consider how far they were set back generationally based on their heritage. As an Anglo-Saxon person who never grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth do not begrudge a people or descendants of a people who where heavily discriminated against in the only land that they know as home. They didn't come to this land voluntarily on the back of a visa, they were here for tens of thousands of years!
It has nothing to do with accessing benefits, it's to do with heritage, being proud of who she is. We came here and became Australians, our heritage lies elsewhere. Her ancestors lived here for thousands of years, she doesn't have to become anything. We don't have to accept her, she has to accept us.
And at the same time make it illegal to organise boycotts against companies on environmental concerns. There's what he thinks of your free speech.
'WE' didn't come here mate, 'WE' were born here same as aboriginals who were born here. My great, great, great grandfather came here same as the ancestors of todays aboriginals came here.
