Thank God, Big Tony is bringing some maturity back into Australian law. The coalition is going to repel some of the more ridiculous sections in the Racial Discrimination Act. If I had my way I would repel the whole Act. Only a nation of insecure, frightened, gutless, namby pamby wimps would make it illegal to verbally insult or abuse someone. We have a fundamental right to be bigots if we so chose, it should never be an offence. For God's sake, the Racial Discrimination Act is so bloody hypocritical that it speficaly allows racial discrimination!!
How on earth did you come up with that. That means that charging people with rape is akin to comitting rape. Lol You, like AM just want the right to abuse people. Though I am sure if someone called your wives or daughters white whores it would be a diffent story.
As far as I am concerned I do have the right to abuse someone if I think they deserve it. If the someone wishes to insult another person it should not be against the law to do so. The problem is we have different laws for different races in Australia. We have legislated racism.
The word *fat* is missing in between white and whores.... But hey, from now on we can say what we want, even if the truth is so hurtful. Cheerio
Yeah, who is the government to deny us our fundamental right to attack minority groups! It's not like we live in a liberal democracy or anything....oh wait... Also, 18D allows exemptions for art, journalism etc. It's hardly a significant detriment to free speech.
Laws like this are what liberals warned of in the 60's and 70's, "the thought police". We have our own here with "hate" crimes now which means you have to determine how the accused thinks and add more punishment because of it. Sad fact is that liberals are the ones now pushing these laws. - - - Updated - - - Yes, we must protect anyone that might hear something unsavory by force of government.
Another stunning display of wit and intelligence. Seriously, come back if you have something substantial to say. Your comebacks are lame.
Yes I do, an I will bet you also think the same. Law, whether it be American, Australian, English or most other civilised nations also think the same. If you kill someone without premeditation, oh by the way that means THINKING about it, making plans etc, but mainly thinking. So yes, a person can be charged with Murder, or Murder plus, because of what they think. Now initiating a hate crime, is actually Murder plus plus usually. It's usually premeditated and a hate crime. The reason hate crimes are higher penalties, is that they usually create repercussions. But then again you are all intelligent people and should understand that.
Freedom of speech is the GREATEST freedom, something that should be zealously guarded. However abuse of the freedom, actually does more to harm that freedom than does making laws against such abuse. If all people, regardless of race, skin colour, religion or political view, do not have the right to express that view in the knowledge that they will not be denigrated because of that view, that they will not be exposing themselves to hate crimes etc, then true freedom is non existent and are TOTALLY ENSLAVED by their desire for total freedom. We have the freedom to walk around carrying a baseball bat, that does not give us the freedom to hurt someone with it.
I'm just wondering...is it alright for me to call maori footballers "boneheads",,,or are they "boofheads" .......or just plain "coconuts".............
No, you said I said, YES. I said we already classify murder in many forms, one is PRE-meditated murder. That is a murder which is murder plus because of what the murderer thinks. Adding another classification is therefore OK as we have a precedence. Law, as does everything from politics to society, evolves. Laws change as our society changes, the changes reflect changing values, changed through society becoming more mature, more grown up, unlike some members of society. This is just another example of society maturing.
I remember many years ago whilst I was at university, a very famous Australian evangelist was supposed to speak at the University of Wollongong. The student council wanted him banned from talking because he was against free speech. LOL But seriously, freedom of any kind comes with responsibilities. One thing that free speech does not allow is slander, that law has been around for centuries, really, this is no different.
There is a big difference between slander and insult and denigration, the latter two should never be illegal. But these stupid laws even make it illegal to express a different opinion, belief or view point about certain things and that is very bad law in a supposed free scoiety.
It's a very simple law. Now I would LOVE for anyone to show me how this is RACIST. Any intelligent human can see it is just the opposite, anti-racist. and section 18D covers any personal opinions done reasonably and in good faith.
Absolutely WRONG, if you actually read the relevant sections, sect 18C-D you will see you are entitled to your point of view, you just need to have one, not just be insulting for the sake of it. Those that think it's wrong, really just need to keep plukin them thar banjos.
Never said that was racist, the problem I have is with; (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. That is a direct attack on and taking away our freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It also is a step toward thought control. What have we become? A nation of soft, insecure little children that can not cope with being insulted? And by that that definition almost all protests by Aboriginals would be unlawful. That's another problem I have with it, the Act is selectively applied. It's intention was to muzzle 'white' people only.
How in the name of Pete did you psychologically connect discrimination with rape? Surely you have enough intellect to understand that by creating a discrimination Act; you are therefore discriminating against someone else - otherwiese the Act would not have been introduced. Any discrimination Act, is itself an act of discrimination against someone else. Sorry, but thats logic.
I think there are many do-gooders on here that seriously need to watch the movie 1984 to understand what happens when freedom of speech and thought no loner exists.
