18c Amendment - Why or Why Not

I'm not convinced on the amendment proposal. It'll just be a license for the perverse fascists to show an affront and derision.

People are still able to express themselves despite all of 18c but it is the manner in which they'll be able to express their thinking.

You don't have to call an overweight kid a fat, lazy, overeating slob to draw his attention to an issue .

Certainly like to read about different perspective.

 

Any discussion of 18C would be useless without 18D.

 

Exactly, anyone who says their freedom of speech is affected are not looking for freedom of speech, they are looking for freedom to insight hatred. Anyone who has to result to vilification to get their point across didn't have a point in the first place, if they did, they wouldn't need to resort to such depths to make their point clear.

 

With the British shelling of the word " color" as " colour" are you talking about the British constitution?

 

Sure. Then The "Progressives" can jail you for disagreeing with them. We have been down this road before:

A description of the state of our nation in 1917, under President Wilson during World War I. Liberal Fascism:
~
The liberty cabbage, the state-sanctioned brutality, the stifling of dissent, the loyalty oaths and the enemies list--all of these things not only happened in America but happened at the hands of liberals. Self-described progressives--as well as the majority of American socialists--were at the forefront of the push for a truly totalitarian state. They applauded every crackdown and questioned the patriotism, the intelligence, and decency of every pacifist and classically liberal dissenter.
~
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/

 

WOW, you mean if we amend 18c we will be like the US? ...... DON'T AMEND 18c

 

You'll end up with disagreements like this, becoming crimes:

“‘CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting [Dr. Drew Pinsky]’ a source told me. ‘First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.’ What followed was a series of nasty phone calls and e-mails. ‘It was downright scary and creepy,’ a source close to Pinsky said.” Which is why “Dr. Drew loses show after discussing Hillary’s health,” the New York Post reports*.

http://pagesix.com/2016/09/04/dr-drew-loses-show-after-discussing-hillarys-health/

 

Do any damn thing you want. You asked for our opinion, so I gave you mine, then you turned into a 3 year old.

 

That has nothing to do with this, that sort of thing would not be an issue, 18c is to do with racism and bigotry. That wasn't about either, it was about politics.

I also loved that bit ... As a source told me, now that is concrete evidence

 

Colour is the English way of spelling colour, color is the "Americanised" version of English. It will be a very grey day I spell colour color. It's the way I spell it, and have always spelt it, just as I was taught by my MUM.

 

It has to do with the government criminalizing opinions. We don't do that in our country, you will do as you wish in yours.

 

I would hazard to guess that almost everybody on this forum at one time or another has violated under section 18c of the discrimination act. LRL, yourself included.

The problem under section 18c is that it is highly subjective, and subjective laws that are based on personal qualifications are the most dangerous laws of all.

Bigots will always be bigots, only generational change will inhibit its growth. like anything we take something seemingly simple and exploit it for personal gain. This is what has happened under both 18c & 18d. " I know I am over 200kg, but that person described me as overweight, I am offended". Civil suit follows because the fat guy was offended by the truth. Subjective. What destination have we arrived at when the truth is punishable by the law?

Would it be different if the fat guy was called a " fat slug"? The answer is yes, but he could only prosecute the term slug under the amendments.

The problem is that these two laws have been exploited by individuals or groups for personal and political gain. That was not what was intended way back in whitlams time. I think it was introduced under Whitlam, correct me if I'm wrong.

Never underplay " freedom of speech " it underpins every freedom you enjoy. Bigots will always be bigots. They do not respect the discrimination act, and it is not right to condemn the majority of good people for what a small bunch of ignorants do. Much like the Muslim argument, so let us not let double standards get in the way of of a good debate.

 

Hang on, so we shouldn't have murder laws, drink driving laws and stealing laws because we would be punishing the people who do the right thing? Laws are about security and stability or at least a sense of it, especially when action follows.

Calling someone fat is not necessarily true but purely subjective dependent on the size of the other person.

There is no fear of the law, which protects its citizens from an array of hurtful defamations if people are operating within the bounds of law.

As many articles suggest, a study on racial discrimation and vilification cause serious mental impacts including social. If 18c protects certain citizens against hurtful slurs it is certainly a good thing. Hell, even Tony Abbott successfully sued someone for defamation.

I certainly don't have no desire in any of my being to head down the American free speech path, it's that bloody sad. Centuries of free speech have done nothing to stem bad attitudes and divisions. You just have to look at the Trump saga for evidence.

 

Here is an example: (context) Financial assistance to Aborigines.

How people can raise their concern through free speech under 18c: "Why do aborigines receive so much government assistance when the rest of us that are poor get nothing? This doesn't seem fair. This seems like reverse discrimination".

How people can raise their concern without 18c in public: "These bludging coons get everything and yet they sit on their arses all day doing nothing but sniffing petrol and drinking booze. I'm sick of these black c..ts. They should hand them the middle of Australia so they can go kill each other the worthless pieces of Sh!t".


Maybe that's a bit of overkill but you can just imagine the hate and division that would follow.

 

18d looks like it gives a fair bit of leeway. I think the 18c abolitionists are banging on about the idea of absolute free speech, which doesn't exist anyway - except in parliament and then they throw (*)(*)(*)(*) every which way the hypocritical bastards.

 

Exactly, IMHO 18c does NOTHING to curb free speech. Like I said, they don't want the right to free speech, they want the right to denigrate and insight hatred.

 

I agree. The question is often asked but never answered. What is it that those who seek the change want to say that they cannot say now?

 

You are so right, but like most subjects here, they offer a recipe, they tell you theirs tastes good, but when you ask to see the pudding!! NOTHING

 

My wife tells a similar story about me and how I initially lured her in.

 

Trouble is there has to be some way of making hate speech a crime, You only have to wander onto the wrong thread in this forum to realise that hate speech still exists and how vile it is (the other day I hit one where women of colour were referred to as "evil smelling skanks")

Yes there are a few who have made this an issue - I once got into trouble for saying to someone that I could not understand what they were saying because their accent was too strong. Did if offend me that I was in trouble - only a little and only on the academic ground that everyone except the Queen is deemed to speak with an accent but more importantly that person was upset. I doubt it was my words that really upset her as it usually is not just one incident but she was upset. Now more than fairness I believe that sin lies in hurting another unnecessarily and if an apology can brighten a day and make a person feel better - then give it because after all it costs you nothing to give an apology but the relief and gladness it gives another may be priceless

 

Dunno about that. I have heard (which means I can't be arsed looking it up right now) that the original 17th/18th Century English spelling was color. And that the "u" was introduced as it was French and looked a bit more posh.

- - - Updated - - -

But on point. What harm has the legislation done anyone? Andrew Bolt got a smack, so what? Do we really want to be told we can mouth off like bigots without consideration for anyone?

 

18c needs clarification. Just because I call a black man a black man doesn't make me racist, but if he feels that he has been persecuted by the term he can then file suit against me. Now if he hasn't got a job and is indigenous he is able to get free legal help, and I am not even sure that he has to be jobless. It may come to nothing, but it will cost me thousands to defend it with no recourse for compensation. This part of the legislation is an issue. Just because someone calls me a black man doesn't offend me, but my cousin thinks it is derogatory. My cousin is a D!ckhead, but that is not the point.

Now I am not saying get rid of 18c, but it does need to be cleaned up quite a bit. 18d is a whole other matter, and in my opinion needs to be re written using some common sense.

 

I think you may be right to a degree Slippery. Maybe your cousin has had a different experience to you with such terms and maybe because he is a d!ckhead lol. You ever watch blue eyes brown eyes. The dominant force with the backing of authorities certainly brings out various emotions in people. If someone calls me a white whatever, I don't tend to get offended. I think because I probably belong to the dominant force and have never suffered discrimination or racism as such. Maybe I just don't get offended by any terms.

I try to be open minded about how other people feel. For instance, I've never understood Depression and how people feel but sometimes wish I could to get an understanding but certainly wouldn't want to live it the way people have to from their antecdote. Because I have never experienced it doesn't mean depression does not exist.

 

It's about intent. When it happens this is usually pretty clear.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/projects/glance-racial-vilification-under-sections-18c-and-18d-racial

 

A bit of overkill? Did you read Andrew Bolts article that breached the discrimination act? He didnt use any offensive words like your overkill and misleading example did. Bolt was raising an important point about how it is often the members of a minority that are in least need of Affirmative Action that get the most gains from Affirmative Action - like white middle class Aboriginals.

I do think the state does need to control public speech to a point so that Australia does not have offensive jerks like Charlie Hedbo publishing offensive trouble making trash nonsense in Australia - but we should not make it illegal to offend the precious Aboriginals because they are offended by any criticism even if it is fair and constructive. There was nothing wrong with what Bolt wrote about Aboriginals and obviously the laws need to change to protect fair and constructive free speech.