Carlton Sued under 18C Racial Vilification

[lightningdance]

Many Australians were wondering why Carlton the rabid racist,  was allowed to continue his rants against the Jewish population for so long.

Section 18C of the act makes it unlawful anything that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimated groups of people on the grounds of race, ethnicity or national origin.

The Herald’s editorial position supported the retention of 18C, and many columnists were also sympathetic to its cause.

So the Herald Sun backed the retention of 18c, a direct assault on free speech but it has now come  home to roost for them. Poetic justice perhaps.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/print/c-used-to-sue-mike-carlton-for-racial-vilification/story...

[the_great_she_elephant]

I can understand someone suing the the cartoonist - it may have been based on fact but it was nevertheless a groteqsue piece of ethnic  stereoptyping. As Paul Barry said on Media Watch, if they'd used a caricature figure  of Netinyahu instead  there would have been no problem.

I can't see how they are going to win a case against Carlton though, Israel is a country, not a religion. How is criticising Israel dofferent from criticising Russia or china or America?

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@lightningdance wrote:

I agree Carlton should be sued because he violatated 18c  but in another breath I believe 18c restricts freedom of speech.

The law of the land as it stands today is he violated section 18c and he is being sued for it.

---

Really? When was the verdict handed down. Aren't you rather putting the horse before the cart?

[boris1gary]

such a shame that brandis free the bigots couldn't be "sued" for this outrage, the bloke is not fit for office, any office.

A question for Attorney-General George Brandis: occupied land or occupied mind?

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-question-for-attorneygeneral-george-brand...

[k0llectable5]

Gee thats an interesting article Boris.  I'd heard about the changing of the word "occupation" when talking about West Jerusalam.

I just continue to become more and more dumb founded with these types of newspeak ideas.  We really are in Orwells dystopian 1984...

[i-need-a-martini]

Well I suspect that this case will be thrown out before you can even say "boo" for being a total waste of time and Wayne Karlen will have wasted a lot of money on lawyers fees for nothing.

And lightning I suggest you reread 18c as I am not sure you have a total understanding of what it means and how it (does not) apply in this case. 

[lightningdance]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Well I suspect that this case will be thrown out before you can even say "boo" for being a total waste of time and Wayne Karlen will have wasted a lot of money on lawyers fees for nothing.

And lightning I suggest you reread 18c as I am not sure you have a total understanding of what it means and how it (does not) apply in this case. 

---

It's not up to me to explain to you what 18c means.

The left on here and in the Labor party and minorities  have fought tooth and nail to keep this section because it shut AB up and they rejoiced when he was convicted. He was convicted  because of "the tone" of his article rather than vilifying anyone.

It's not up to me to explain to you or anyone else who wishes to comment on the "topic" how or what the complainants have sought through the law.

It's up to the law to put this case to trial and come to a conclusion. Just like they did with the Bolt case.

I see there are many on here saying the complaint "doesn't have a leg to stand on"  so you have all tried this case and posted your verdicts?? Well I wonder why we have a judiciary at all then, we'll just let all the knowledgeable lawmakers  on here deal with it..

[cherry*135]

Lightningdance wrote:

"It's up to the law to put this case to trial and come to a conclusion. Just like they did with the Bolt case."

"The Australian Human Rights Commission is an independent third party which investigates complaints about discrimination and human rights breaches. It does not act as an advocate or legal representative for a party to a complaint."

This is not a CASE yet. The Commission is not a court.

Wayne Harlen (60yo) has lodged a COMPLAINT with the Australian Humans Rights Commission. A complaint against the Sydney Morning Herald.
He is a well known constant critic of the SMH.

"Racial vilification alleged under section 18C, but complaint unlikely to succeed as instigator is reportedly not Jewish" The Guardian


"What will happen with my complaint?

When the Commission receives a complaint about something that is covered by the RDA, the President of the Commission can investigate the complaint and try to resolve it by conciliation. The Commission IS NOT A COURT and cannot determine that discrimination has happened. The Commission’s role is to get both sides of the story and help those involved resolve the complaint.

Commission staff may contact you to get further information about your complaint.

Generally, the Commission will tell the person or organisation the complaint is against (the respondent) about your complaint and give them a copy of the complaint. The Commission may ask the respondent for specific information or a detailed response to your complaint.

Where appropriate, the Commission will invite you to participate in conciliation. Conciliation is an informal process that allows you and the respondent to talk about the issues and try to find a way to resolve the complaint.

If your complaint is not resolved or it is discontinued for another reason,YOU CAN TAKE YOUR COMPLAINT to the FEDERAL COURT of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court."

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints/complaint-guides/making-complaint/complaints-under-racial-...

[debra9275]

I think the whole thing is just a set up and not likely to go anywhere. The journo said that this 'man decided to lodge the complaint after watching "media watch" but he discussed doing it with bolt and Chris Kenny on 5th August 

[k0llectable5]

Good post am.  Thats really informative.  

Can I just say Lightning your posts are very prevocative, they're great.  My only criticism (and really who am I to criticise anyone here so please dont take this the wrong way) Is some of your thread titles are just ever so slighly misleading.  

We can trust am though to inject a voice of reason into the discussion with exact facts and thats so important.  

Kudos to you both 🙂

[boris1gary]

some people will do anything to get some media attention,

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/14/mike-carltons-column-and-smh-cartoon-sees-racist-compla...

However, it is possible that the complaint will be thrown out because it is understood that the complainant – said to be Wayne Karlen, a constant critic of the paper on Twitter – is not Jewish.

According to the act: “Only an ‘aggrieved person’ may lodge a complaint. In the case of the racial hatred provisions, an aggrieved person is someone from the group targeted by the behaviour who is offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of his or her race.”

The law also allows for fair comment, including by the media which is allowed to present “fair and accurate reporting on any matter of public interest”.