18c Amendment - Why or Why Not

It is funny because it is hyperbole and a parody of an extreme position. It does not though negate a basic truth. "Sin" lies in hurting another person unnecessarily. Discrimination. True discrimination is hurtful and when repeated day after day after day damaging beyond belief. Telling a kid he is "Nothing but a worthless Abo" is hurtful but is not a lifetime scar. What causes the life time scar, loss of self esteem, depression,self failure is hearing those words day in day out. self fulfilling prophesy is one of the strongest psychological tools around and it ruins lives

 

Silly me for even proposing the idea that white people and cultures never get bullied. Never get discriminated against. Never on the receiving end of racist comments.

What you are are suggesting can be seen with Pauline Hanson. Constantly being accused of racism without any proof. But because she is white, she has no legal way of defending herself against the claims.

Change her skin colour to black, and her cultural background, and it would be an entirely different story. She would be able to take those "whities" to court and make them financially pay for offending her.

This is heading down the same insidious path as the "Spanish inquisitions" - where right is wrong, and wrong is right.

 

The whole push for abolition of 18c was as a consequence of Andrew Bolt's conviction for defaming those people based on race and accusations that they were abusing the system. His mate Bernardi to the rescue.

Family and culture are distinct. The colour of skin does not determine who someone is. My brother has redish hair and blue eyes and I have blond(going grey . ) and bluey grey eyes. He has a significantly darker completion from working in construction industry, along with being a long boarder for years. I'm 6'3 and he is 5'10.
No one ever suspects us being brothers from the same mother and father. Now because he doesn't look like me I guess we are going to have to ask him to turn his back on his family and deny that he was ever related. Why should he receive any inheritance.....he bloody doesn't look like us! Our cousins who frequent Australia must be denied any connection to us, because they look so different and their skin colour is so pale. Their father is Dutch for goodness sake. My brothers children are half Japanese. They speak English as a second language due to growing up in Japan until the age of 15 and 17. I guess I'm going to have to deny that they are related because they don't look like me and speak a different language.

This was the shallowness of Bolt comments. Absolutely superficial tripe as far as I'm concerned. It was a very insulting comment and one that I will feel if someone said I'd have to deny my nephews because they don't look like me I'd want to smack them square between the eyeballs!

 

Nah, its not that complex. His point is it's just not fair on society when that society affords special treatment to people who suffer discrimination for the way they look - if people who don't actually look like that and therefore do not suffer the discrimination and able to access that special treatment.

Despite being a breakdown of logic, its also a policy issue but of more importance it's a monetary issue - not a racial issue. We cannot afford our welfare and equality provisions to be abused by people at the cost of the rest of society. What Bolt was incredulous at was how it seems the left appear incapable of understanding a most simple breakdown in logic, the application of social policy, and to have that turned around at labelled racist is hilarious, in a sad way.

 

Hey, it's the fact that he questioned their connection to a culture and obviously "their family" based on the colour of their skin. You are talking about a people who generationally have been impacted by racism many times over no matter what colour their skin. The government didn't seem to care back during reserve days whether the aborigine was dark or white. The fact that he was aborigine was enough to suggest that they required the paternalistic care of government.

I did a little research and found out a bit of information based on this subject about identity. You can only claim aboriginality through a aboriginal community institute. Firstly, you must be of aboriginal descent, Secondly, you must identify as an aborigine and Thirdly, the community in which your family lineage is linked is the only place you can gain verification.

Bolt was being defamatory therefore deserved his conviction because his factual information was well off course for someone "in media/journalism" who is taught how to research information thoroughly and cross referencing. Journalist know how to research but they don't want the truth to get in the road of a good story and this seems exactly what bolt was doing.

He had a vendetta or an attitude against a couple of people who disagreed with him therefore tried the personal attacks which blew up in his face.

Removing 18c should be here to stay to ensure hateful clowns like Bernardi from offending and insulting everyone because of his own bigotry and causing violence on our streets.

If you value a relatively peaceful society which I do then don't touch the dang amendment. If you want the spectacle of sadistic attacks on random people then I will personally hold you clowns responsible. I want my children, parents, community safe from violence, especially violence as a consequence of someone elses free speech of stirring up hate, divisions and angst because of a petty issue.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

I couldn't agree more this statement.

18C isn't about limiting free speech, it is about limiting baseless, bigoted, hateful slander against people.

You can't even break 18C if your statement is true so I can't see why it needs to be removing other than to give the far right in Australia (Hanson, Benardi, Bolt) license to spread hateful lies against their political opponents which figures as the far right in this country can't have a civilised, factual conversion over race and religion. This forum has proven that many times over.

 

Spot on, but some struggle with the concept. Just because an extreme right winger says it's wrong the nutjobs jump on board because it's right down their emotive alley.

 

Yep, put comedians in jail like they do in other countries.

 

Not in Australia. People can still raise factual concerns via comedy!

 

Yes you can still contravene 18c with a true statement, if that statement is found to be offensive to a said individual or group. This is the issue.

I am not advocating the abolishment of 18c, far from it. As has been stated it is there to protect, but it is segregating in its own right as it doesn't apply to everyone.

If what you are saying is true and that if the statement is a true statement therefore you can not be charged under 18c, then it should be fine for anyone to call an Aboriginal man born out of wedlock a "black Bastard"? Not so sure your claim of impunity would hold water in this instance, even if it were true.

However this is splitting hairs, and that is the problem. When the then Keating Government( I think it was) implemented 18c, I am not sure they foresaw the continual abuse of the law for monetary gain.

18c can't be abolished, but it sure needs to be tightened up.

 

Just like the cartoonist Bill Leak being called a racist, who drew a cartoon representing a drunk Aboriginal man not recognising his own son.

I suppose in the real world Aboriginal men don't get drunk, and they all recognises their own kids, under 18c.

 

You do bring up legitimate concerns over 18C; however I don't feel that those in parliament advocating a change are doing it over the problems you raised which is why I am currently opposed to a change.

 

Leak got called a racist from certain sections of society, not all. The issue Leak had in his depiction was accuracy in current society. He singled out Aboriginal men. Was he accurate? Yes in part. The drunk individual could very well of been a white man, such is our society currently, with just as accurate a depiction.

I do not think leak is racist, I think he meant to do what he did for effect. This is because if it were a white tattooed, beanie wearing, VB drinking man, then the effect would of been severely blunted. Those that squealed racist would of merely whimpered their disdain into their half strength latte's on Burke St, before slinging their Prada handbag across the shoulder and catching a tram to Punt Road for a spot designer shopping now that their conscience was clear.

However do not for one minute think his cartoon depicted purely Aboriginal society, it was a view of society in general.

 

I agree totally. It doesn't help that the driving force behind the changes is the self proclaimed arch bishop Bernardi. He will save our souls!

The problem is the people making the laws and then deciding the verdicts are as far removed from real society as the moon is to earth. Then you have the real grubs, lawyers. They drive the frivolous claims for monetary gain. I despise them, true grubs they are.

So the question is, how do we change it if it is not through untrustworthy legislators? The everyday Aussie has no idea about such legalities and judicial hobledy gobledy. Yes, like Suess I made those words up for effect! lol. So how do we impart some common sense into a legislation that is sorely missing that exact ingredient?

 

Look, if you have a problem with 18c and you don't have a problem with defamation laws you're being silly.

18c does not just protect minority groups but all groups against racial slurs and inciting hatred and violence.

I read somewhere that Bolt was convicted and sued for defamation 10-15 years ago. No one was screaming free speech then. How about Tony Abbott suing someone for defamation.

There are very few cases that make it to court under section 18c but dang the defamation cases are frequent.

It would be so easy for someone to make up a nasty story about someone else due to a vendetta. (So, if you are happy to forego defamation laws, I'all believe you have consistent intentions with abolishing 18c. If not, you are just full of Sh!t.

 

The Prior case is totally ridiculous and should never have made it anywhere near the federal court.

18c needs to be amended or abolished to prevent stupid crap like that from happening.

Presumably all it will take is a white person suing a black person for damages for this particular house of cards to come tumbling down. Or perhaps successfully arguing that x person who claims they belong to some ethnic group don't actually belong to it under law, or some other stupid crap like that.

I'm not for absolute free speech, which is why I agree with defamation laws, but I'm against idiotic opportunistic lawsuits that waste everyone's time and money, which is why I'm against 18c (in its current form). There are plenty of other laws against serious harassment or discrimination.

 

I guess the question is, if you go down the line of amendment where do you stop? or do you scrap the current legislation and re write it? The latter opens a can of worms as to who writes it and their interpretation of Racism, given the fact that very few people anymore actually understand what racism is.

 

What are you talking about though, who asks (and requires) someones racial identity and has the capacity to check its accuracy? The only means discrimination occurs in society is when the race is 'apparent' ie obvious. It's totally inappropriate and likely illegal (asking for litigation at the very least) to ask someones race at a job interview for example!!!

So while you might be keen to defend ones right to classify themselves as a particular race - it is ignoring the valid argument of Bolt. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make it go away, so instead you revert to attacking the people who try to point out where you've gone off the reservation. Lol

Or, you think its neat to misrepresent what Bolt was saying and pretend he is racist because it aligns with your political bias, which says a lot...

But his point is valid - if discrimination is not at all possible to occur to someone then they do not need the support available for those who do suffer it. Instead try to be realistic and stop pretending that the far right is racist and incompassionate to perpetuate the whole lefty lie of being for the people #vomit

 

The prior case went to the courts because defendants didn't respond in given timeframe against the allegations/charges.

If 18c sits idol without any real role, why do the likes of Bernardi and bolt want to abolish it? The law has its purpose and like all laws there are anomalies that are generally cleared up through precedence.

 

Who else....the government wants to know this information. Who were you thinking....Cinderella or Little Red Riding Hood? It's an equity issue, not an equality one. Now I talked about people who were generationally impacted many times over. Yes, today if they deny their heritage they'll sneak through without any issues but if they want to embrace their heritage they'll encounter varying levels of discrimination. Ruminate and get back to me....just see if you can piece the conversation and context together.

 

Pffft, discrimination is illegal in the workplace. But carry on thinking you've got a point or relevance to the issue.

 

The Prior case went to court because the AHRC referred it there after Prior failed to get a consolidated settlement from the uni.

Just scrap it, perpetuating a "race" concept is not good for anyone.

Should just have some kind of general anti-bullying law based on some (relatively severe) level of reasonably foreseeable harm.

We've come full circle on institutional racism if we think we're giving Aboriginal students a leg up by racially segregating computer labs in universities.

 

Why shouldn't race matter?

 

Because it's totally meaningless bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

I presume we didn't do away witch burning by accepting that witches existed and instituting special laws to to protect witches. But as I say, I don't know. If that was a winning strategy then I guess it's fine.

But I suspect it wasn't. I suspect people just gradually grew to accept that the whole thing was a big steaming pile of crap and we all just eventually got over it and moved on to some other nonsense to justify our irrational hatred of people who are just a little more different from us than we can collectively seem to tolerate.

 

Unfortunately while ever racism is prevalent enough and the remnants of its past are present in the now, race has to be important. Once something demonstrates close to equality for disadvantaged groups based on race I think it would be time to flick the notion of race, until then you just can't pretend it doesn't exist.