Attorney-General George Brandis ill-informed on people's 'right to be bigots'

Proposed changes to water down the Racial Discrimination Act have captured the attention of the nation.

Earlier this year federal Attorney-General George Brandis announced plans to repeal section 18C of the Act which makes it unlawful to "offend, insult or humiliate" another person because of their "race, colour or national or ethnic origin".

In a heated exchange in parliament, Senator Nova Peris - the first Indigenous female senator - asked Senator Brandis: "Won't removing 18C facilitate vilification by bigots?"

He responded: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted."...

Causing offence in federal and state laws

There is a range of laws in Australia that stop people saying or communicating things that other people find offensive. Four examples follow:

The Sex Discrimination Act

The Sex Discrimination Act defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual behaviour which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated...

...Katherine Gelber, an Associate Professor in public policy from the University of Queensland, tells Fact Check the Racial Hatred Act - which includes section 18C and was incorporated into the original Racial Discrimination Act - was based on sexual harassment law.

Offensive language in public

In the NSW Summary Offences Act section 4A says "a person must not use offensive language in or near, or within hearing from, a public place or a school". The same Act includes a criminal provision for offensive conduct. Comparable laws are on the books in every Australian state and territory.

The offensive language charge was enforced 5,000 times last year in NSW, according to a recently published article co-authored by Professor Luke McNamara and Dr Julia Quilter from the University of Wollongong's school of law.

The paper says: "In a typical year, NSW police lay more than 5,000 charges for offensive language, and, in addition, issue a similar or larger number of 'on the spot' fines for these crimes."

The law does not define what constitutes "offensive language", and the test is "that of a reasonable man".

Postal service law

The Criminal Code Act prohibits using a postal or similar service in a way that is menacing, harassing or offensive.

It was used in 2011 to convict a NSW man, Man Haron Monis, after he sent letters to parents and relatives of soldiers killed on active service in Afghanistan. The letters called one soldier a murderer of civilians, and compared him to a pig and dirty animal.

Section 471.12 of the Act states a person is guilty of an offence if:

"(a) the person uses a postal or similar service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive."
The case went to the High Court, where Monis's barrister argued the Constitution has an implied freedom of communication on government and political matters, and therefore federal parliament had exceeded its power when it passed this section of the criminal code.

The appeal failed. The six High Court judges unanimously agreed the section restricts political communication, but the bench was split on whether it was therefore in conflict with the Constitution.

The chief justice, Robert French, summed up the central question this way: "No Australian parliament can validly enact a law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about [government and political] matters unless the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of government in Australia."

Only three of the six high court judges found section 471.12 was invalid and in the absence of a majority finding, the appeal was dismissed.

The judgment reflects that there was debate during the case about how intense the reaction must be to pass the threshold of being "offensive". Justice French said section 471.12 "does not import a requirement that any person was actually offended" because the section is "framed objectively by reference to how 'reasonable persons' would regard the conduct".

The three judges who found the section valid said in a joint judgment that section 471.12 "relates to a degree of offensiveness at the higher end of the spectrum, although not necessarily the most extreme" and involved communication "likely to cause a significant emotional reaction or psychological response". "The former may range from shock through to anger, hate, disgust, resentment or outrage, and the latter may include provocation, anxiety, fearfulness and insecurity,"...

Telecommunications law

There is a similar prohibition on using telecommunications services in an offensive manner.

Section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act says a person is guilty of an offence if:

"(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive."...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-30/george-brandis-ill-informed-on-right-to-be-bigots/5375302

My question is....Do we have Free Speech or don't we?

It's like pregnancy, you can't be a bit pregnant, thus equally, to my mind, we can't have speech that's a bit Free.
It's appears to be more.."Free speech, as long as you only say what I like"

  What ever happened to.."I may not like what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"?

Now we appear to have to pander to a lot of namby-pamby very touchy prima donnas.
                                 

I watched the same issue raised on Insight last night. They had a Vietnamese comedian on who was a real luvvie. They posted a piece of his stand up act and he did a piece about how he associates white men with pedophiles. It was highly offensive to white males. Because SBS and the ABC stack their audiences no one person thought it was offensive when asked. If the white part of the act was changed to black I'm certain there would have been an outcry. That's the problem for me, all these laws are coming from a white male being the racist.

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:
And they get away with it because it's directed at white people.

Dictionary;




ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06

QUESTION;
Does ISLAM have the right to be practised in Australia, when ISLAM promotes religious bigotry and religious violence against those who are not moslems [and against moslems who choose to renounce ISLAM] ?


hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260


Does ISLAM have the right to be practised in Australia, when religious bigotry, and moslem crimes of religious violence, are all MADE LAWFUL, by ISLAM itself ?



"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fighting [against unbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

  I agree with Sparky, these "laws" are selectively applied. Anyone, especially women(no offense to those here), can say pretty much whatever they like to or about men, anyone can abuse Europeans, anyone can say almost anything about Christians, and no-one bats an eye. We(they) are expected to just cop it on the chin. But say one "wrong" thing about women, any non-European race or culture, or about any other religion and watch out, individuals, groups, politicians and poltroons, they'll all be down your throat or up your fundament before you can say Willy Wombat!
As for that observation about our Indigenous brothers, too flamin' right, they're the most abusive and volubly racist persons you're ever likely to run across.  Especially up north, where they make up a significant part of the population, no-one is safe from being "told", long, loud, and loquaciously! 
  And they're not immune to a little prejudice internally either, my best mate in Darwin was a "stolen generation" guy who was raised in WA. He was originally from Darwin and returned there out of curiosity, only to fall in love with the place and remain. He copped it from all directions, the few remaining red-necks, police, and the local Indig gave him more grief than the rest combined. He was a decent hard working guy. Once they'd identified his "roots" he was swamped with "family" trying to bludge off him. The rest of the local Indig automatically assumed that as he was an Indig himself he would give them everything he had without question, and got violently aggressive when he wouldn't. If he hadn't been such a strong and stubbornly independent sort he would have had to leave, they tried to make his life hell, but he just stuck to his guns, although he pretty much gave up going out at night, he simply got sick of being assaulted and forced to defend himself.

austranger wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 1:36pm:


No, we don't have the absolute right to free speech. We have the English Common Law right to free expression, with in certain limits.