18c Amendment - Why or Why Not

Well, we really won't know unless it was tested.

The thing that gets me regarding people like Bolt is that he will base his assumption purely on raw information. I happened to be in discussion with a group of people, which included 2 light skinned aborigines. It was just an open discussion about inheritance. What slammed me in the face was that 4 of us were in line for significant inheritance, whereas the "light skinned" aborigines were most likely to be in debt at the passing of their oldies. One of their guys parents was raised on a mission and despite working hard most of his life never owned a house. In fact he had to claim back money from QLD government for lost salaries which was a pittance. His mum was a light skinned aboriginal lady who grew up confused with who she was and worked as a cleaner for various educational reasons. My point is, is that these light skinned aborigines have been affected by generations of racism and discrimation, even if it wasn't them directly.

I'm an Aussie....what makes me an Aussie? The fact I was born here and have the accent and use Aussie words? No, not really, it is what I identify with. It is who I am. An Aussie can be red, black or yellow....yes it's nationality as opposed to race but we can all have a choice. These light skinned aborigines we talk about have culture, family connection that has been existent for more than sixty thousand years. There close relatives no doubt resemble the aborigine more than themselves. If you talk to many long term Aussies, they really don't know what European race they belong to but simply call themselves Aussies......this is absolutely fine but I hope you get my drift about this silly skin colour argument.

If something looks obvious, you can just about guarantee its not. Steven Covey actually helped me to look at my world differently when he spoke about a father on a train with his kids running wild upsetting other passengers. He approached the man to see if he could help settle them when he got the reply from the father saying"oh yeah, apologies I probably should settle them" and the to go on to explain how his wife, the kids mother had died just an hour ago. The obvious response from a one dimensional thinker is that he is a hopeless father but for the real thinker you suspect other factors.

 

I went to school with a heap of white skinned Aboriginals. Not 'light skinned' - white skinned. And all of them came from wealthier families than I do - and the government would send them money for being black and their families claimed Aboriginal benefits. None of these people needed welfare yet they take it because society tell them that they have a right to take it. Why are middle class - and middle class is the operative word here - taking welfare that they do not need? The white ( not light ) middle class Aboriginals that I know and have known are white and do not look Aboriginal in any way so it would be impossible for anyone to discriminate against them for being black. I am talking about people that have blonde hair and blue eyes but are a percentage of Aboriginal. My nephew is a white Aboriginal. His father has blonde hair and blue eyes and my sister has light hair and blue eyes - and my nephew has blonde hair and blue eyes - yet he is an Aboriginal and can claim Aboriginal money from the government. This is utterly insane and that is what Andrew Bolt was saying. These middle class white Aboriginals do not need affirmative action welfare and shame on them for taking it. Shame on them for taking scholarships and grants in front of actual Aboriginals that are in poverty and actually need welfare. Shame on insincere liberals that push this divisive nonsense. And how do you think modern Aboriginal children feel on naidoc week or whatever the hell Aboriginal day you want to choose when some Aboriginals come to their school and dance around like cavemen hitting sticks together and blowing didgeridoos? Different? Embarrassed? Maybe white kids should have cavemen come to schools and embarrass them too just in the name of equality. These liberal scumbags couldnt give a %$% about Aboriginals. You look at pictures of Kevin Rudd after he said sorry on behalf of Australians where he has Aboriginals hanging off him for photos and tell me how comfortable he looks. These liberals that exploit Aboriginals for political gain are complete and utter scum.



Is Aboriginal 'bridging the gap' affirmative action a form of compensatory action? What are they being compensated for? For being black/white Aboriginal? Welfare needs to be based on need. I do not support land rights. I do not support a 'treaty'. If Aboriginals are Australian then they should be Australian. The original idea of assimilation for Aboriginals is the only way to go, so they think of themselves as being Australian just like the rest of us Australians. William Barak was an idiot and wrong. And so are these scumbag liberals.

“I want to suggest three things why you should bother about the Aborigines. Firstly, we belong to great family of God and he had made out of one blood all nations of men. Secondly, why you should bother about the Aborigines, we’re a part of the great British Commonwealth of nations. And thirdly, we want to walk with you, we don’t wish to walk alone.” - Pastor Sir Doug Nicholls.

Thats the stuff.

And I am not sorry for a *******n thing. I have not harmed Aboriginals and I do not owe them a thing. The British helped Aboriginals advance and become part of civilized society but even if some Aboriginals have a problem with it - that is not my problem - it is in the past. If your Grandfather had wronged my Grandfather would I hold it against you? Of course not because that would be ridiculous. Aboriginal compensatory action is ridiculous.

And when these *******n scumbag liberals call the Australian public racist - it is them projecting. These scumbag liberals are the most racist dogs the world has ever seen and most of them are fully aware of that fact and fully aware of what they are doing when they exploit Aboriginals for their own political gain and agendas.

The left is the clear enemy of so-called 'minorities'.

[video=youtube;ejorQVy3m8E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E[/video]

 

1. Just read it. Here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

2. I have extremely strong views on freedom of speech. I do not support libel, defamation or slander as the legitimate business of the law. You are not entitled to the pleasant views of others, nor your reputation. Clearly, I am not going to support a law which makes it prohibited to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people".

3. 18c of the RDA is categorically different from those current civil offenses anyway. Those offenses involve demonstrable injury to your finances or person. 18c prohibits speech which is purely offensive, for no other reason than the offense taken. Hence the Queensland Uni staffer who took months off because of the "mental anguish" of being told that "segregation is segregation", seeking compensation.

4. 18c is discriminatory. It only provides protections for "race, colour or national or ethnic origin", and forgets all other groups. It is not uniform: it is a way for the state to provide privileges to its favored issues in exchange for political capital.

5. "Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith" - how exactly are you supposed to insult someone "reasonably and in good faith"? It outlaws all dissent, disagreement, and insult. It is a totalitarian act. It lowers us as Australians and human beings.

6. I don't want to live in a world where "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a legally incorrect nursery rhyme. I don't want to live in a country like that.

[hr][/hr]

I really cannot say how strongly opposed to sections 18c and 18d I am, and the whole damn act.

I do not trust the politicians to fix this at all. Even if the Liberals whip up a political storm over it for their benefit, they won't substantially abolish or amend the act. It is a failure of democracy; the public pressure is too great. I think it indicates why we need a very rigidly interpreted bill of rights.

 

because; we only need Ten Amendments or Ten Commandments. more laws don't do anything more in that regard.

 

And I dont know where you come from but knowing your ancestry is as simple as a last name a lot of the time. Since Australia had the White Australia Policy in place early a great many Australians are British stock and most are aware of this. A huge amount of Australians are Irish-Australians and like I said it is easy to pick that from surnames. Where I am from has a lot of Irish-Catholics and you can tell they are Irish from the surname. Its not that hard - and most people in fact do have knowledge of where they come from. But I do not see what that has to do with a "silly skin colour" argument. The entire point of the leftist racism nonsense is that blacks are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. my blue eyed, blonde haired, white skinned Aboriginal nephew is never going to have someone discriminate against him for being black - but a racist Aboriginal or leftist may discriminate against him for being white. White skinned Aboriginals that do not look Aboriginal cannot be discriminated against on skin colour - plus we actually have anti-discrimination laws that prevent discrimination of people that have black skin. You may say that cant work 100% but some people hate fat people and wont give a job to one of them, some people hate gingers and wont give a job to one of them. The fact is that society has laws in place to prevent discrimination and most Australians are not racist like the leftists tell us we are. Most Australians would not give Nova Peris Kneebone a job just because she is a famous black person - we would give her a job if she was the best person for the job. Do you honestly think that there are not more deserving and more capable Aboriginals that the Labor party could embrace and invite to their party? They gave Kneebone a job because she is a sporting celebrity with name recognition. This kind of tokenistic dishonest stunt is what we get from these scumbags - because they are racist as hell.

plus like I said - it is more than a 'skin colour' argument - the problem is white Aboriginals that have never been discriminated against on race - and are middle class and in no need of welfare taking scholarships and grants and goodies ahead of Aboriginals in poverty that actually need it. There is also the fact that many black and white Aboriginals suck welfare when they dont need it in front of all other races of children and people that are Australians in poverty. I used to work as a tutor at an Aboriginal homework centre and the school was in a lowsocioeconomic area that had a high percentage of Aboriginals at around 30% but most of the children at that school were just as poor as a poor black kid. Poor is poor whether you are an Asian-Australian or an African-Australian or a so-called evil 'white-Australian. So the government funded this homework centre for Aboriginal children to help them with school and a lot of them did seem to need some extra help - yet there was no homework centre for non-Aboriginal Australian children that were going to the same school in this same lowsocioeconomic area. So Aboriginal children get government money to help them but if you are a non-Aboriginal child and need help the government says suck a lemon. The government would prefer to help middle class Aboriginal children that do not even need or probably want help than non-Aboriginal children that actually do. Do you really think that is fair and just? Do you really believe that this is how welfare should work? If it is compensation that we are paying these Aboriginals then lets call it that instead of this so-called 'bridging the gap' nonsense and lets debate that. The reason these Aboriginals want to hide behind the discrimination laws is because they know that if they do have to debate this stuff without protection from liberals and the establishment then they will be exposed and lose.

And dont think that Aboriginals themselves are not upset about white Aboriginals taking slices of the compensatory action pie - when I worked at that Aboriginal homework centre the Aboriginal committee for the school held a meeting on 'Aboriginality' because they were worried that some of the white Aboriginal children that were claiming Aboriginal affirmative action pie at the school were either not Aboriginal enough - or not Aboriginal at all. I was invited to the meeting because I was staff at the after school homework centre. I was being employed by ATSIC. Unbelievable pay for the job. It was a really good job. I dont know how I got the job being non-Aboriginal but they didnt even ask me at the interview. Maybe they thought I was a white Aboriginal. I think I got the job because I agreed to ride with the kids on their bus trip home after the homework centre had finished and I wasnt payed for the hour or so that it took. The guy that drove the bus was from some church and he refused to ride alone with the children because the kids didnt like him and would cut up his seats with knives and things. I never had any trouble with them at all. I liked them and they liked me. I think the do-gooder churchy bus driver was a racist and the kids could tell.

edit - And the reason most Aussies call themselves Aussies and not 'Irish-Australian' is because we are Australian not Irish and we dont give a $%$ about Ireland. We are Australian.

 

I think the word "offend" is wrong, because offence is perceived and what offends one may not offend another

 

Did you see the word 'reasonably' in there? That makes it an objective test.

 

I still think it's better to determine "insult" than whether someone has been offended.... again what's "reasonable" for you may not be "reasonable" for me

 

Yea because lawyers need the work, and we all have equal ready access to legal services..... I'd prefer the language to be sufficient to delineate acceptable and non-acceptable, rather then leaving it up to the judiciary to assess whenever someone with enough money takes offence enough to argue it successfully in a Court. It needs to have clear intention as a form of attack... offend seems out of place IMO.

 

Okay. Who do you suggest ought decide the issue? Is it not the very reason Courts exist that these sort of interpretation and application issues are resolved there?

 

Let the slave masters decided for the people. Let them make the decision to fine me $200 for offending one person in 300 for saying the word "bum" instead of "bottom".

Some people really need to get a life, and stop being so thin skinned about everything.

If this is humanity progressing, then I want no part of it. Whinging & whining about what people say about you has turned human beings into a bunch of big "cry-babies" instead of adults.

I think I will invest in the adult dipper market.

 

You cannot offend someone unless they choose to be offended and too many people nowadays choose to be offended for no other reason than they want to be considered a victim.

It's a choice people willingly make.

 

Classic example of how the world has changed..
Cant remember the link, but this prominent American was talking about how
young allied soldiers gave their lives for their countries as they were shot to
death on the beach at Omaha in 1945..
and then made the comparison that today, the same young people are saying..
"Oh dont call me that name, you might upset me.."
The do-gooders of the world are turning us all into a bunch of whimps....
Hence 18c is created...pft...

 

My mate Enrico the plumber from Erskinville told me once that he was telling a blue
joke to a gathering of about 100 people, and they all pissed themselves laughing, except
this one person who lodged a complaint against him...that person was offended...she
chose to be offended..and Enrico was disciplined for telling a blue joke that 99 people
laughed at...Enrico told me the joke.....and I laughed.....aah well..

 

I honestly do not understand why some people constantly choose to take offence at the small stuff. They need to loosen up. To exist as a perpetual victim cannot be a healthy way to live.

 

This guy is very funny....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

 

LOL!!!

 

If you or anyone else is interested in stand up comics, try also Russell Peters and Jeremy Hotz

 

Compared to similar laws in the UK, the Aussie version of the Racial Discrimination Act is very loosely enforced and not all ethnic slurs are considered to be offensive. In a British case, a man who started ranting about the Jews in a bar was charged and convicted. I think authorities should only apply this law to serious hate crimes, rather than making all ethnic slurs illegal. The Act is poorly worded because it was grudgingly enacted just after Australia ratified the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination in September 1975 and the Aussie government had less than three months to prepare for it.

 

Thanks, I will check them out.

 

You just can't have people carrying like lunatics abusing the hell out of people in derogatory manners. Next minute you'd have a fight breaking out, then retaliation and retribution and before you know it the extended feud between groups of people will make everyone feel unsafe.

People can raise concerns without all the other carry on surrounding slurs.

 

18c was created to cover and hide the truth. People just don't like hearing the truth anymore, and that is a childish attitude; not an adult attitude.

 

18C is a dog whistle issue for the right, similar to asylum seekers.

The fact is that 18C has lead to few convictions (under 1% of cases bought), doesn't apply to factual statements (e.g Aboriginals are less healthy and work less the the population at large) contains other exceptions that would eliminate most public discourse from the act.

In the end, if you treat people with respect you won't violate 18C so I have no sympathy for those who have been prosecuted under the act.

 

Getting rid of 18c is simply a license to defame others without factual evidence. Bernardi is chomping at the bit to share some fairytales he has stored up.

 

It would be interesting to know how much it costs per annum to the public purse to pursue the countless frivilous claims.

By in large, the marginalised in this country tend to be from the lower socio economic demographic and therefore get current access to legal representation paid for by the state. I wonder what this cost is?

Also what about reasonable compensation to the defendant to fight these countless frivilous claims? Currently there is no recourse to pursue fair and reasonable compensation. Being called a racist these days seems to be the same as being called a sex offender. Mud sicks! Currently there is nothing in 18c that allows the falsly accused any recourse. You can be reasonably offended by being called a black bastard, but currently if you are falsly accused of being a racist, under 18c apparently you can not be reasonably offended. Just doesnt make sense, and basically supports the notion of one way racist policy.

If i was called a racist i would be deeply offended, so i have to pursue 18d which is just plain old watery porridge.

I am sure that my views over this legislation are pure, when it comes to politicians I am not so sure.

What I do know is that you will only ever get equality when every individual is treated exactly the same. In the history of mankind this has never happened. It may all be pie in the sky to believe it ever will.