Morrison says amending 18c will not create one job!

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by truthvigilante, Mar 2, 2017.

  1. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Basically two wrongs don't make a right. Who is worse, Abbott for leading politics into the gutter, or Shorten for following and continuing the trend?
     
  2. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Is Shorten continuing Abbott trend? Of course not!

    Abbott went way beyond populist politicking, he was the wrecking ball of epic proportions.

    Comparing Shorten with him is a little too extreme.Is Shorten chasing popular vote... Yeah, of course! If he didn't they'd never get a leg in. Will he actually become a leader or populist if successful at next election? I'd hope, along with many people that he leads. Do I actually wish Turnbull would lead...yes, yes , yes.
     
  3. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,342
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I guess it is a matter of opinion.

    I think Shorten is no better. Do you not remember Mediscare? That was gutter worthy, and he presided over it.

    One thing I do give Abbott over Shorten is the fact he has openly dictated who he is and what he stands for. He makes no bones about being an ultra conservative God Botherer who is so hard he eats onions with the skin on. Shorten on the other hand seems to have so many lovers in bed with him, it is hard to know whether he is lying face up or face down. He doesn't even know what end of a sausage to eat first, so it takes it from the middle, just so he wont offend either end.

    I know I jest somewhat, but boy if it was not so serious..... Terrible choices we have.

    As I said a matter of opinion I guess.
     
  4. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    We don't want politicians shoving their own personal moralities on us. On the whole Australia is secular.
    I'd rather someone try to "balance" their personal beliefs with the mood of Citizens than someone carrying their own bigoted morals and thrusting it on us all.

    And Slippery, don't tell me that Abbott wasn't all over the place. He was the man who said before the 2013 election "how about a simple tax on carbon".

    At the end of the day Abbott was all over the place and lied with a smirk on his face! ( not the manner of a God fearing man). And what you are talking about is political leanings. I'm sure Shorten makes no qualms that he is a member of the left in the political divide like Abbott wore his ultra conservatism on his sleeve!
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
    Sallyally, m2catter and LeftRightLeft like this.
  5. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Okay, as long as you don't harass or intimidate, it is alright to offend or humiliate! So the new coalition amendment goes!

    Turnbull doesn't know whether he is Arthur or Marther on anything. There is no doubt he is balancing his leadership based on the pressures coming from the ultra conservative faction. This certainly isn't leadership but a case of gutless politics with no conviction. His Prime Ministerialship is a waste to our country and in the very instance that he can't make his own decisions and tactfully take his team with him on his journey. I've never seen or heard of a PM so gutless that he is brown nosing everyone desperately in his bid to hold on to power. It just goes to show that he is not a leader but a Sh!t kicker and hostage to the nutters in his party. Politics is a pastime to this clown who has enough money to make him wealthy over 20 lifetimes!
     
    m2catter and LeftRightLeft like this.
  6. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Now I have generally ignored this thread as from the very premise of the title, this issue is a minor point at present where there is far more to be dealt with. However, since the Greens and the ALP wish to make an issue from this by creating committees to look at the system one has to wonder of the hypocrisy of those who want to argue it.
    http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/03/24/10/04/race-hate-inquiry-blocks-indigenous-group
    Personally I don't think this issue rates as some sort of crisis for Australia, I do feel that 18c is wrong in the aspect that a person could be prosecuted due to a possibility of offending others and as Hanson-young clearly demonstrated in debate in the senate yesterday she has no problem breaching 18c with he remarks on Hansard telling senator Leyonhjelm 'The only parasite in this place is a middle-aged white guy drawing a huge wage from the taxpayer.'. The interesting point was that majority in the debate discussed some proposed changes and this warthog comes out against the changes while breaching the law not just once but no less than THREE times.
    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...roved-by-the-senate.html#sthash.hIl36nGe.dpuf
    The hypocrisy is just astounding...

    Clearly it is fine as long as it does not effect them...
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017
    slipperyfish likes this.
  7. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    18d has clear provisions. 18c protects against racial slurs!

    Hanson-young is white and slurring another white person who is far from being marginalised and not likely to be racially discriminated against. No issue, I say! It's marlarkey as far as I'm concerned!
     
  8. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually that is incredibly incorrect.
    I would have considered the green Troll would have tried to defend the indefensible. But hey of course it has to be the resident bigot...
     
  9. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You've just got an unhealthy set on Hanson-young and that is all it is!
     
  10. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Maybe, but not sure how you can claim a comment designed to offend is not offencive as you want to do...
     
  11. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Do people really have to tediously take you on the journey of context. She didn't say "you middle aged white men are all the same"! She was talking about his personal position in context to the discussion.
     
  12. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh dear, you want to now attempt the context game… Perhaps, if you heard the comment and the context it was in, you might just get a clue.

    The context of the comment was intention to offend. Now I am not sure to exactly why, because as she referred to her interpretation of what was said or that an interjection was cast. I heard no comment in the debate to give rise but as many interjections were made I cannot stand and lay claim that no interjection was made.

    So, the comment was made intentionally offensive and in context, to suggest it is not offensive when it was deliberately made to be is just ignorance. Regardless of motivation for such, she breached this legislation directly.

    So next flip flop, you clearly don't understand what happened are trying to pretend some superior understanding.
     
  13. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not at all. You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and that's all you are doing
     
  14. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You know McDonald played a very bad trick on the greens years ago. I know he should have been nice and told them he was just being facetious but the ALP should have been nice too. Telling them they are Australia’s MI5 department was just cruel. Senator Di Natale as M and Ludlam as Q but the cruellest of all was telling Sarah Hanson-Young she was 007 licensed to break laws.

    Now we know the greens believe they are exempt from laws due to the fact they are just so good that laws they demand everybody else to obey are just for the masses and these activists just don’t have to follow them, because they are too restrictive.

    However, no I am not making a mountain out of a mole hill, I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who flatly refuse to discuss the issue and try to shut down any discussion by breaching the very law they pretend needs to be retained just as you do here.

    First, it does not breach the law which is to prevent bigotry in public, it is not specific to racism but bigotry. Then it is not offensive because it is out of context, now it is a superficial point so all should ignore.

    True enough, the issue itself has low priority, but it is still important to address the issue. But it your own heroes are prepared to breach the laws in such ways then it should be change so nobody will breach it or everybody should hold them to account.

    IT all comes down to the level of acceptance, not what your idealistic intention is…

    Next flip-flop...
     
  15. WittySocrates

    WittySocrates Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It's ridiculous.

    He is so desperate to hold onto the leadership he gives into the conservative wing of the party again and again, on issues that either won't pass parliament (18C changes) or a losing issues for conservatives (same-sex marriage). I understand why he needs to give them something but he is giving up the centre for issues that won't inspire anyone other than conservatives and even then they will never accept him in the same way as someone like Abbott or Dutton.
     
    truthvigilante likes this.
  16. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hit the nail on the head. I just don't think this is an issue that needs to take time out of parliament. Have public debate sure, but economy, welfare in all its forms, and general social issues should take precedence over such as this

    I thought that was what the OP was alluding, strange how vehemently it is being fought...
     
  17. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Nicely said Witty. It's the ultra right wing for mind. They have been the ruling faction for quite some time and now couldn't stand for giving up some ground, even for party greater good.
     
  18. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think many people from all walks will be relieved that 18c amendments were dismissed by the senate. At the end of the day it was push from a couple of polititians and certainly wasn't as a consequence of a ground swell of support from the people.

    The question will be, what other fight do Bernardi and Brandis have up their sleeve. I would like to recommend that they begin working for the people and not there own silly little bigoted agendas.

    Maybe Bernardi could work on doing something about catholic priests or tax free concessions for churches.
     
  19. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Truly, after what happened last week one really has to wonder. As I thought, this really was never an issue, just a tool to get deals for other policy.


    Rather despicable really to waste the parliaments time but who do you blame??? I think this is a point that all these politicians need to take some credit. The clear demonstration of belligerence of the parties...
     
  20. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why would it create jobs? Has anyone ever claimed that it would? Was that person me? Then I couldn't care less.

    18c should be seriously altered if not repealed along with 18d. You are not entitled to not be offended. Anyone can take offense at whatever they like. People should have the freedom to call someone a ****ing bogan **** or some coon bloke. Walk away.

    However, since the government has failed to even amend this travesty, perhaps we should have a bill removing the "sticks and stones may hurt my bones" song from pre-primary. It is no longer relevant to our society.
     
  21. scarlet witch

    scarlet witch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    11,951
    Likes Received:
    7,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes I think Turnbull is making a huge mistake amending 18C, he's basically clearing the path for Hanson and others to increase and intensify their hate speech. Why would he do that? Did he even think this through?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2017
  22. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Sorry disagree outright Steady. Restriction on free speech has worked well in Australia and promotes much more civil discussion, as opposed to some nutjob telling the world why he hates certain sections. There are many ways to address societal issues than going down the kiddies track of throwing sticks and stones.

    Now, Free speech regarding government is fair game and anyone who suggests that free speech in this arena is in jeopardy is yanking it a bit too hard.

    There are plenty of avenues for people to query and discuss various issues such as this forum.
     
  23. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Bill never passed. Turnbull wasn't keen on bill, it's a case of keeping the ultra right steady and keep his position.
     
    scarlet witch likes this.
  24. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No problem.

    I thought 18c was supposed to not be a restriction on free speech?

    "It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people"

    My objections to this law are as follows:

    1. The only sort of speech which needs protecting is offensive speech. Free speech protections for popular views or those which offend no-one are in no need of free speech protections, even in the most despotic of regimes these opinions are allowed to propagate.
    2. The law is supposed to be specific, but 18c is deliberately vague. Anything which a protected class considers offensive can be subject to it.
    3. It is subject to the whim of the alleged victim. Anyone can be offended by literally anything. The law is supposed to set the boundaries of prosecution, not the victim. This is a fundamental conflict of interest.
    4. It stifles legitimate discussion over important issues. The QUT students for instance had a very legitimate point about computer labs being racially discriminatory, and in future such people will be careful not to speak their opinion in public lest they are restrained by the Ministry of Truth.
    5. The bar to initiate proceedings is deliberately low, and the proceedings themselves are a strong penalty irrespective of the result. Simply being subject to a claim against you in effect results in automatic punishment.
    6. It provides legal privileges under the law to protected classes of citizens when we are supposed to be equal under the law. I would not be successful if an Aboriginal lady called me a white trash cracker, but she would have a decent crack if I called her a coon bludger. The prejudices of society color the application of the law.
    7. It pushes actual racists underground where their opinions go unchallenged. I want racists to out themselves so we can have a civil discussion where I kindly remind them why their opinions are ****ing retarded.
    8. It creates a persecution complex among detestable people under which their ideologies can flourish. Holocaust denial is rife precisely because it is illegal

    My point was that it's hypocritical for the government to run schools in which they're teaching kids "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", when the law provides legal penalties for what is perceived to be offensive speech. The nursery rhyme is outdated. Either it or 18c needs to be abolished.

    Isn't that a sad place to be? Where ****ing children's nursery rhymes are no longer applicable? We can't even take the advise we give to 5 year olds anymore.

    Nonsense. 18c advocates clearly aren't very well versed in the literature on freedom of speech. I would advise you start with John Stuart Mill. Read On Liberty. The only effective counter to false speech is an equal dosage of correct speech. Moreover, it is never clear to you, me, or especially government which opinion is the correct one. Politicians rarely make good philosophers.

    Taking offense is not harm. Nobody can injure you with their words. Grow a spine and challenge them, or move on with your life.

    "If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."

    "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."



    Free speech is not only that directed toward government and to suggest it is is patently ridiculous, even by the left's own standards. Especially by the left's own standards! Who stood up when NWA's debut record was under threat from censorship? The left! And I would have stood right next to them.

    Unfortunately, a lot has changed since then and now. The left has since abandoned its strong liberal tradition of free speech in favor of social conservatism and and intolerance for differing opinion.

    It's a shame. A real ****ing shame. Who am I supposed to side with now? The Coalition? On free speech? What a joke. What happened to you guys, you used to be cool.

    This is a public place and is therefore not subject to exemptions provided in 18d, therefore, any speech which is illegal to say on the street is also illegal to say here. So your assertion is incorrect.
    [/LIST]
     
    garry17 likes this.
  25. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Of course 18c has certain restrictions. The racial discrimination act doesn't just cover minority groups but in fact white Australians have used 18c as far as I understand. So it is equal in its purpose.

    I think people who advocate for unrestricted free speech aren't able to articulate convincingly. There is much to say on the internet but that just becomes a populist view that is being dragged along by people who are driven by nonsensical fear of government.

    18c isn't vague in so much that it caters for many variables. As is quite clear, there are very few cases that make it past the human rights commission, who are essential mediators and not law enforcement.
    The QUT student example is well overused in this debate and was an issue of process and resources as opposed to the 18c fulfilling its function it seems more and more. It was extremely unfortunate for those young people, but it does make one want to discuss issues in a querying manner rather than making irrational and harsh statements. In this instance it seems these young people didn't say anything offensive but may have queried the situation, and if it is the case it required an opportunity for the Uni to respond to allegations, perceptions or restriction reasons.

    Is breaking 18c a criminal offence?

    In any instance you are oversimplifying things a little. If you can't help being who you are e.g white, black, woman, gay or lesbian then you should not be freely slandered on this basis. However, people of minority groups are at the mercy of a majority therefore do need protections. Again, religion and politics and anything else outsid that are fair game!

    The unfettered free speech argument is BS. It hasn't done anything for America but divided you more.

    People grow out of civility and certainly don't have to have a civil f&@king war just to settle on what is right.....gee whiz.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2017

Share This Page