Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Tink said:
I was talking about the 18C, Julia, but Syd's gone off on something else.
Click to expand...
No, Tink, Syd didn't go off on something else. He was responding to your assertion that our freedom is being compromised by 18C and further asserted that not even America does that. He correctly offered you just a few of the ways freedom is hardly a priority in the USA.

So, if you could explain how you believe 18C removes our freedom that would be good.

Knobby22 said:
I have to say that though Bolt got his facts wrong and distorted the arguments as he usually does, it still surprised me that he lost the court case. So I agree, it can be used to stitch someone up.

The problem was Brandis. He wanted radical change that effectively deleted the act and then said everyone has the right to be bigots. Talk about poor judgement.

Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane argues the keep case well but I really respect the guy and am sure he would have supported a redrafting to tighten it up.

But due to the typical pathetic behaviour of parts of the Coalition front bench, it became toxic. Abbot was right to end it. He needs to shift a few ministers.
Click to expand...
+1.
 
Knobby22 said:
The problem was Brandis. He wanted radical change that effectively deleted the act and then said everyone has the right to be bigots. Talk about poor judgement
Click to expand...

Poor political judgement, but proper philosophical judgement.

The act does not eradicate bigotry, merely attempts to prevent it being expressed.

So now we have the curious situation where we send troops over to the Middle East to shoot at radical Islamists, yet unable in our own country to express distaste for radical Islam for fear of prosecution.

In addition, if I as a middle aged white male were to report folks under section 18C, I would likely be laughed at.

Unfortunately we have, under the tutelage of the left, evolved an obnoxious culture that seeks to be offended at every opportunity and under the most tenuous premise imaginable.

Brandis makes a rhetorical statement, which in an even remotely liberal =>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism society is absolutely kosher. Even if we view (as is our right) the bigots with disdain and distaste, we should defend the right to express it, even as we collectively try to socially engineer it into extinction.
 
wayneL said:
So now we have the curious situation where we send troops over to the Middle East to shoot at radical Islamists, yet unable in our own country to express distaste for radical Islam for fear of prosecution.

.
Click to expand...

Islam, as it is a religion and not a race, is not covered by the act, though the way you hear some of the idiots talk it is not surprising people think it is racist to express disdain. Christianity is regularly attacked with no one saying it is racist to do so.

Quoting the act: Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
 
banco said:
We can always count on you to spin something in Tony Abbott's favor. They made an ill advised promise on the racial discrimination act not realising how sensitive it would be with ethnic communities (probably because the liberal party's policy making apparatus is as white as they come). Pairing it with the terrorism measures announcement is just cynical media management.
Click to expand...


+ 1 the pressure was building big time internally Liberals were going to cross the floor etc.
 
Knobby22 said:
Islam, as it is a religion and not a race, is not covered by the act, though the way you hear some of the idiots talk it is not surprising people think it is racist to express disdain. Christianity is regularly attacked with no one saying it is racist to do so.

Quoting the act: Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
Click to expand...

That's true, but never stopped the left branding any criticism of Islam as racism. :cautious:
 
Knobby22 said:
Islam, as it is a religion and not a race, is not covered by the act, though the way you hear some of the idiots talk it is not surprising people think it is racist to express disdain. Christianity is regularly attacked with no one saying it is racist to do so.

Quoting the act: Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
Click to expand...

That's right. And of course the elephant in the room is that contravening 18c is not a crime. Bolt fails to mention that bit while he shrieks like a banshee about freedom of speech.:rolleyes:

It's actually a pretty harmless bit of legislation.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 26

Unlawful acts not offences unless expressly so provided
Except as expressly provided by this Part, nothing in this Act makes it an offence to do an act or agree with another person to do an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II or Part IIA.
Click to expand...

The only criminal offences in the act are around incitement of hatred/violence toward a person or group because of their race etc. Even in the US, which is far more liberal in this area, speech as conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.
 
McLovin said:
That's right. And of course the elephant in the room is that contravening 18c is not a crime. Bolt fails to mention that bit while he shrieks like a banshee about freedom of speech.:rolleyes:

It's actually a pretty harmless bit of legislation.



The only criminal offences in the act are around incitement of hatred/violence toward a person or group because of their race etc. Even in the US, which is far more liberal in this area, speech as conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

The criminal offences as they exist in the Act would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the US.
 
banco said:
The criminal offences as they exist in the Act would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the US.
Click to expand...

Which ones?

Hating a group based on race is not illegal here or in the US. Inciting violence toward that group is, here (at least in NSW) and in the US, in some states.

And for the record I think 18c should be at least amended. Offending or insulting someone should not be unlawful, imo.
 
McLovin said:
Which ones?

Hating a group based on race is not illegal here or in the US. Inciting violence toward that group is, here (at least in NSW) and in the US, in some states.

And for the record I think 18c should be at least amended. Offending or insulting someone should not be unlawful, imo.
Click to expand...

In the US the incitement of violence towards a group has to present an imminent threat. Our laws are drafted much more broadly.
 
banco said:
In the US the incitement of violence towards a group has to present an imminent threat. Our laws are drafted much more broadly.
Click to expand...

Yeah fair point. Although that hit-man manual was found to not be protected, but I don't think it ever got to the Supreme Court.
 
Julia said:
Wasn't that more or less George Brandis's point?
Click to expand...

Sure was, but if there's one thing the left have become very good at, is poisoning the debate with excessive, disingenuous emotion.

Classic is basilio's comment:

a load of ugly, ugly xxxxx that just played into the hands of mindless bigots.
Click to expand...

It causes people to clamber for the perceived high moral ground, obfuscating the merits of a rational debate.
 
Why don't we understand what was behind George Brandis desire to emasculate the 18C legislation?

It had been on the books since 1995. It had been used quite sparingly with any complaints about racist public comments being dealt with by mediation.

Until...

Until Andrew Bolt came out with his infamous white aboriginal article which caused an almighty furore.

Why did it cause a furore ?

Look at the judges findings on this folks. Andrew Bolt made repeated wrong statements about the people he write about. He also managed as is his want to vilify and ridicule them. The people he maligned took him to court for the deliberate errors and the abuse.

The judge agreed with them. Read his findings if you please rather than the tortured self justifications of Andrew Bolt.

So, rather than accept that Mr Bolt had written a very erroneous article and heaped a load of poisonous xxxx onto a range of Aboriginal people, the IPA et al decided that the law was wrong and had to changed to protect Andrew Bolt and his mates rights to produce whatever lying, inflammatory drivel he could produce in search of a rabid readership.

Andrew Bolts best mate of course is George "Everyone has a right to be a BIGOT" Brandis.

And when the rest of the population understood what was happening they weren't impressed and made it absolutely clear this was not a good idea.

For a clinical dissection of just how wrong and vicious Andrew Bolt and his supporters have been check out the Global Mail story. The judges findings are not pretty.

Nice and clear now ? :)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918



One Year On: How To Twist And Shout Down A Legal Judgment
By Alan AustinSeptember 28, 2012

During the 12 months since journalist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching racial discrimination laws — on the basis that his published facts were wrong — error and invective have continued to warp the debate.

Has Australia just experienced one of the great media heists in modern history?

It's a year since the Eatock v Bolt decision was announced on September 28, 2011, in the Federal Court, a landmark case brought under Australia's Racial Discrimination Act. And much of the subsequent commentary has been — like the Andrew Bolt articles that triggered the case — filled with errors and designed to sting.

For example, Justice Bromberg's judgment has been seriously misreported. Parts of it have been ignored completely.

It's telling that we should still need to ask: What was the real reason Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times (HWT) were found to be in breach of the Act? How many untruths were published? And what motivated this "offensive conduct reinforcing, encouraging or emboldening racial prejudice"?

The applicant was Pat Eatock, a fair-skinned Aborigine, who brought the suit on behalf of herself and others, who claimed Melbourne's Herald Sun had accused them of pretending to be Aboriginal to gain benefits fraudulently. Attempts at conciliation had failed.

Rupert Murdoch’s HWT declined to appeal. Instead, it commenced a vigorous — and extraordinarily successful — campaign in the court of public opinion to undermine the judgment.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgment/402/
Click to expand...
 
Emotive garbage basilio.

Political discourse is full of untruths, factual omissions, misrepresentation and downright lies.

Every time I listen to Short'un, I run out of fingers and toes keeping track of them... and that's in about the first three minute.

Bolt's factual indiscretions are no worse than what is in every paper every single day, but because it included the word 'aboriginal' the legislation was invoked, which goes to my point about interpretation and stitching up.

Perhaps Bolt deserved a slap around the ear with a wet fish (as does every partisan political commentator, such as that illiberal gobshyte Marr), but not a court case.

Your post is typical of the hystrionics, the faux outrage, the glaring monumental hypocrisy and double standards of the apology industry of the left.

Then we have Horace trotting out yet another appalling non-sequitur.

This is why I say debate in this country has been poisoned, the left has consciously eradicated the possibility of reasonable, rational debate by appealing to mob mentality and social proof.
 
wayneL said:
Then we have Horace trotting out yet another appalling non-sequitur.

.
Click to expand...

Really ? I simply made an inquiry regarding your opinion of the defamation laws. Those laws allow people who have been insulted or offended to get redress. Your condemnation of 18C would indicate that you don't agree with the defamation laws either.

Correct or not ?
 
You are special Wayne. I'll grant that.. So special.

You just can't get it can you ? You so wilfully blind you can't/won't even read the facts of a court case and the judges summing up to get to some truths.

And no surprise of course when the facts are so unpalatable

It was Andrew Bolt who led the charge to trash Aboriginals.

Firstly his articles were riddled with untruths and inaccuracies. And they wern't minor ones of course; each untruth was engineered to make the aboriginal person look more and more dishonest/hypocritical. How is that for journalist integrity ? ?

Secondly he made clear his intention to ridicule and denigrate these people because of their claims to be aboriginal.

Now who makes these statements? Bas ? The Looney left ? Nuh .

The judge in his summing up of the case. That, Wayne is why I repeatedly said Read the Judgment. And it's so interesting of course that the Murdoch Press decided not to challenge the case through legal appeal but used the power of their Press to obfuscate just how they had been called out for lying and vilification.

Wayne it's not the Left that has poisoned political debate in Australia in this topic. You have to look to your chief poison pen writer and his media backers for that honour..
 
SirRumpole said:
I take it you don't agree with the defamation laws either ?
Click to expand...

What offending and insulting someone have to do with defamation laws? In any case for what it's worth I don't agree with the defamation laws in Australia. They restrict public debate and are mostly used as a tool of the powerful to silence criticism.
 
Top