Section 18c causing brandis headaches. IPA v Australia, Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.

[lakeland27]

Transcript

TICKY FULLERTON: PRESENTER: The Federal Government is under growing pressure over its plans to repeal provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act.

On one side, from groups who fear that laws to protect vulnerable communities will disappear and on the other, from libertarians who are worried about a watering-down of the Coalition's election promises about free speech.

Section 18C of the Act makes it illegal to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group on the basis of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

To discuss why there's so much at stake I was joined a short time ago by the new Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, formerly with the Institute of Public Affairs and by Jeremy Jones, from the Australia, Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining me.

Jeremy Jones, why is the Attorney-General wrong to look at appealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act?

JEREMY JONES, AUSTRALIA/ISRAEL AND JEWISH AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Well, I think there's a basic principle. Whatever law you have it's always good to review it. You don't just say because I think it's law it always has to be the law. When we look at how it's operated over close to 18 years now, I think there's a very strong argument to say we have a law which has basically served the cause for which it was designed very well. It was a law that became about after a lot of investigation and inquiry and debate.

It was a compromise between a range of different positions which tried to bring a balance between the protection of victims of racism and other important values such as free speech and to revise the look to improve the law is great but if the law was to disappear completely I think there'd be a big hole in protections for vulnerable sections of the Australian community.

TICKY FULLERTON: Tim Wilson, on the other end of things is there any kind of free speech that you believe should be constrained by law?  http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3963918.htm

poor andrew, he looks like keeping his criminal status

[boris1gary]

Interesting articles from late last years SMH, after witnessing Brandis on Q&A - the bloke should not be the AG, bit of a fool really. The current govt seem to have no shame in the list of ever growing inappropriate political appointments.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/racial-vilification-legislation-is-not-about-freedom-but-about-how-we-...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tim-wilson-appointment-to-human-rights-commiss...

The Abbott government has sent shockwaves through the anti-discrimination and political establishments by appointing one of the nation's most vociferous critics to the Human Rights Commission.

Tim Wilson, for the past seven years a policy director of the Institute of Public Affairs, a free-market think tank that early this year called for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, will be informally known as the ''Freedom Commissioner''.

Mr Wilson, who resigned from both the IPA and the Liberal Party soon after the announcement, told Fairfax Media he was determined to ''refocus'' the commission on defending free speech rather than concentrating on anti-discrimination work.

Attorney-General George Brandis made it clear Mr Wilson's $325,000-a-year appointment was made on both political and ideological grounds.

''The appointment of Mr Wilson to this important position will help restore balance to the Australian Human Rights Commission which, during the period of the Labor government, has become increasingly narrow and selective in its view of human rights,'' he said.

On Wednesday, Senator Brandis said that he knew Mr Wilson was a very strong advocate of traditional, liberal rights, such as the freedom of expression and freedom of the press.  

"I think he is the person with the policy background and the intellectual grunt of the public reputation to be just the person to be the Freedom Commissioner," Senator Brandis told ABC Radio.

''How can Mr Wilson possibly undertake the role of a Human Rights Commissioner when it's obvious he has such contempt for the commission itself?'' Mr Dreyfus said.

''By appointing Mr Wilson, Senator Brandis has sent a strong signal about exactly the kind of blatant political agenda he wishes to pursue as Attorney-General.''

On Wednesday, Labor leader Bill Shorten congratulated Mr Wilson on his appointment.

"It's not often that you can get a job helping run an organisation that you've spent years saying shouldn't exist," he told Radio National.

"I think that shows some admirable policy flexibility on the part of some people," he told Radio National.

Mr Shorten said he was concerned about the issue of "putting people in charge of organisations that they don't respect."

[donnashuggy]

Brandis believes in free speech as long as it comes from the right

[silverfaun]

They should have scrapped the commission altogether.

[monman12]

"Interesting articles from late last years SMH, after witnessing Brandis on Q&A - the bloke should not be the AG, bit of a fool really. The current govt seem to have no shame in the list of ever growing inappropriate political appointments."

At least Brandis has  a broad and lengthy (30 years) legal background and is a SC. as was Roxon's well qualified successor Dreyfus. Roxon was  a solicitor from a Labor law firm who appeared to have little or no concept of her role as AG or the "separation of powers":

"Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, suggesting Mr Ashby drop his case against Mr Slipper was ”unprecedented” and undermined ”public confidence in the judiciary”.

ATTORNEY-General Nicola Roxon has admitted her proposed anti-discrimination laws were poorly drafted, confirming the government has dropped controversial provisions that would have prohibited offensive conduct.

Roxon scraps “offends, insults or intimidates” clause, keeps reverse burden of proof on the bill…

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has moved to scrap a controversial element of the Government's proposed anti-discrimination laws amid a public backlash over concerns it could limit free speech.

Innaprpriate political appointments would ring a bell loudly for the ALP:  Poor Me, Rudd, and Roxon spring to mind, at least they heard the bell as they were counted out, or to be exact,  threw in the towel

nɥºɾ

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

They should have scrapped the commission altogether.

---

Could you expand on that a bit? Why, in your opinion, should the Human rights Commission be scrapped, and if it were to be scrapped, what, if anything, do you blieve should replace it?

[the_great_she_elephant]

 Out of curiosity I've just done a count on the front page. There are currently 11 political threads, posted by 9 different posters. 6 threads were started by right wing posters, 3 by left wing posters and 2 were politically neutral, referring to the SA election. I didn't include Iza's Climate Change thread or Icy's Dear Mods thread.

Edit: Oops - meant to post this on the Dear Mods thread.

[lakeland27]

all the material i can find on this suggests bolt and wilson are going to lose this one, the opposing lobby has traditionally had a lot of clout in this area from both sides.

[boris1gary]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@silverfaun wrote:

They should have scrapped the commission altogether.

---

Could you expand on that a bit? Why, in your opinion, should the Human rights Commission be scrapped, and if it were to be scrapped, what, if anything, do you blieve should replace it?

---

pesky things those human rights.