Anti vilification laws to be watered down

[topsidesoul]

Under the current laws if you say something that offends a group you get called to mediate with said group about what you said.

Said group needs to prove they have been attacked and that is has caused offense.

This is done through the AUstralian human right commission.

When Andrew Bolt was called regarding his comments both he and his newspaper rejected having to speak to the people he offended and from there legal action occured.

Sort of like ignoring the local council when a dispute with your neighbour  needs to be discussed.

The Australian Humans rights commission only steps in when not agreement can be reached by both parties and has no power to act and take it to the  Federal Court for arbitration.

this occured with  Pat Eatock and her Aboriginal colleagues.

Of course Mr bolt not only played this out as an attack of freedom of speech, but he was well funded for his court case by right wing think tank  'Institute for Public Affairs' who suggested a few years back to remove key element section 18C of the Race Discrimination act.

Section 18C, known as the racial vilification provision, was introduced in 1996 with opposition agreement in the dying days of the Keating government to make race hate speech unlawful (not illegal). Ever since 1966 when the Holt government signed onto the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) while filing a reservation on Article 4 (the outlawing of race hate speech), the position of vilifying speech on the Australian political agenda has been contentious and often murky.

It is worth noting that the biggest users of section 18C have been the Jewish communities in Austraia when it came to Holocaust deniers and anti semites.

Read more

http://theconversation.com/licensing-hate-the-possible-consequences-of-abbotts-racial-vilification-c...

[monman12]

The Myops are becoming modern, a reference to an article only 3 months old,  but before the enthusiastic election of the Coalition, gosh.

I wonder if they remember " Roxon's humiliating backdown" apropos her attempts to further curtail free speech, and what was  a textbook example of why free speech matters?

Section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act  coalition 2013

 (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.

Justice Bromberg in the "Bolt case" wrote "Even if I had been satisfied that the section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith." Then later added:

"it is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people."

Those are somewhat testing observations for myself, and I notice also for Jonathan Holmes, the presenter of ABC TV's Media Watch,   who wrote:
"Nevertheless, Justice Bromberg's interpretation of the Racial Discrimination Act, and his application of it to Bolt's columns, strikes me as profoundly disturbing"

However for all (historians?) here,  perhaps this might help subdue the bleating:

SBS 18th. Nov.: It's not clear yet exactly how the Act will be changed but it's likely some of the more stringent aspects will be removed, making it more difficult to breach the Racial Discrimination Act.

[izabsmiling]

If,as reported our Prime Minister said this:

“Freedom of speech empowers Christians, Muslims, Jews, …. everyone and anyone publicly to affirm whatever it is that is important to their identity.”

did he himself mention Section 18C  when he said that?

[izabsmiling]

SBS 18th. Nov.: It's not clear yet exactly how the Act will be changed but it's likely some of the more stringent aspects will be removed, making it more difficult to breach the Racial Discrimination Act.

what does 'not clear' and 'likely' mean to a science buff ?

[monman12]

IS: "what does 'not clear' and 'likely' mean to a science buff ?"

A  degree of uncertainty that would exclude any thinking person from accepting the thread title:   "Anti vilification laws to be watered down",   thus subdue posts  resulting from a misleading title and sans research.   In preferable terms:-  Anti vilification laws likely to be watered down.

nɥºɾ

[lakeland27]

those are entirely false asumptions. there is no evidence to back it up.