18C - Is it a crime?
See link below.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-30/alan-tudge-incorrect-on-racial-disrcimination-act/5378960
Thanks, that clarifies the nature of the "offense".
Does that detracr from my point? I wouldn't have though so..
Someone who drops the N word, should be seen as an 4sshole, but not a criminal.
To use an analogy, adultery has a potentially greater capacity for psychological harm than calling someone a choge or a coon, yet out government is blase' about one, yet creates a criminal offense out of the other.
...and understand, I use those words for effect in argument and don't condone their use.
I don't disagree with that. But you must agree that political correctness is not always about diplomacy and avoiding war. PC definitely had a place in international diplomacy and in intranational politics, but does does it have a place in normal intercourse between us plebeians?
It might surprise you that I think it does, but with caveats.
For example, I think society should collectively decide that racist name calling is uncool and that there is a role for government in education in that regard, but not on creating statutes. There is a fine line between cultivating liberty and equality and thought policing.
Someone who drops the N word, should be seen as an 4sshole, but not a criminal.
To use an analogy, adultery has a potentially greater capacity for psychological harm than calling someone a choge or a coon, yet out government is blase' about one, yet creates a criminal offense out of the other.
...and understand, I use those words for effect in argument and don't condone their use.
no I think its more about not tarring entire groups with the same brush, and getting a real issues rather than making things personal.
Ignoring the debate about whether it is a criminal or not your point isn't really relevant to 18C or 18D (don't ignore that section because it's important).
The problem is that calling someone a N****** or a "Choge" or a "coon" would not give a court of law any basis for upholding a civil judgment against an individual. It'd get thrown out instantly.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately hyperbolic or you don't understand how 18C works?
My only suggestion is to go and read the current case law.
You'd have to say something with a lot of gravity for it to lose an 18C case.
The high profile Andrew Bolt case for example: he'd probably have lost a Defamation case too. But as I understand it the plaintiff went down the 18C path.
“how can Graham Atkinson be co-chair of the Victorian Traditional Owners Land Justice Group when his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman?”
Dr Atkinson is an academic who lives in Victoria. He is the brother of Graham Atkinson, who also gave evidence in the proceeding. Dr Atkinson’s parents are both Aboriginal persons and descendants of the Yorta Yorta and Dja Dja Wurrung tribal groups of central Victoria and the Murray Goulburn Region. All four of Dr Atkinson’s grandparents were of Aboriginal descent. All of his great grandparents were of Aboriginal descent except one of his great grandfathers, Thomas Shadrach James. Thomas James was born in Mauritius and was of Indian heritage. He arrived in Australia in the late 1800s and worked as a teacher in Aboriginal communities where he met and married Dr Atkinson’s great grandmother.
If you were aboriginal would you be taking Bill Leak to court over his cartoon ?
If you are a non aboriginal person on the jury, would you "convict" him under 18C ?
I actually can't see much wrong with the cartoon, I think it is making a point about parenting and alcohol abuse more than race, I can see a similar cartoon being used to make a point about white bogans.
I am not familiar enough with the situation in the territory to know whether his points were fair or not, but I don't take it as a racism inspired thing, I can see how a person predisposed to racist fees might take it as confirmation their racist views are correct though.
If I were on a jury I would do my best to understand the spirit of the law, listen to both sides evidence, and then make a decision.
Ignoring the debate about whether it is a criminal or not your point isn't really relevant to 18C or 18D (don't ignore that section because it's important).
The problem is that calling someone a N****** or a "Choge" or a "coon" would not give a court of law any basis for upholding a civil judgment against an individual. It'd get thrown out instantly.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately hyperbolic or you don't understand how 18C works?
My only suggestion is to go and read the current case law.
You'd have to say something with a lot of gravity for it to lose an 18C case.
The high profile Andrew Bolt case for example: he'd probably have lost a Defamation case too. But as I understand it the plaintiff went down the 18C path.
Thanks, Ves, for your input, but we went through this at Christmas time here in Melbourne.
I don't agree with their social engineering and as stated -
Pervasive step toward Orwell's totalitarian Newspeak.
Hate speech is a term used to silence people and stop debate.
Offend and insult are terms that should go.
The act was set up in 1975 and again in 1996.
Who are these people that are suppose to know better than us.
We must just remain silent while a handful of activists and leftist elites decide all this for us. After all, they know so much better than the common man.
They are so wise and so knowledgeable.
Rubbish.
If they so despise democracy, so hate freedom of speech, and so deplore the common man, then they should move to North Korea or somewhere more fitting of their tyrannical ideology.
Does anyone care what the Outrage Brigade on Twitter think?
Apparently so ... it is big news amongst the Twitterazzi .. oh yeah and the BBC !!
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37107541
Harry Connick Jnr is the superior goto white man on all things Black + Racism....... just ask Daryl Somers.
Why Political Correctness And Free Speech Can't Co-Exist
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/why-political-correctness-and-free-speech-cant-co-exist/
&
Mad March Of Political Correctness
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ical-correctness/story-e6frgd0x-1226106958791
&
Another move to insanity.
BBC Says Opposing Shariah Law Is 'Islamophobic'
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/19/bbc-refusing-shariah-law-islamophobia/
Again has the west lost its free speech, After doing some research it is a bad trend we are following.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?