True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:34pm:
the proposed alteration of the act appears to me to be little more than semantics. It will still be illegal to incite racial hatred.

To be clear, the Abbott government’s proposed legislation really would allow for almost any racist speech you can imagine. Any “public discussion of any political, social, cultural (or) religious” matter will be exempt, no matter how boneheaded, dishonest or odious.

Precisely how it is possible to racially vilify someone without discussing a “social” matter is beyond me. But for all that, Australia will not simply explode in a blaze of white supremacy upon the repeal of these provisions (which is far from inevitable in any case).

Rather, there is something else at stake here that is much bigger than any particular legislative provision. I’m not so much concerned by section 18C or its repeal, but by the mythology on which that repeal is apparently based. Unspoken at the heart of this debate is a contest over the way race relations works in this country – and on whose terms.

That’s what struck me most about the proposed legislation. It’s just so … well, white. In fact it’s probably the whitest piece of proposed legislation I’ve encountered during my lifetime. It trades on all the assumptions about race that you’re likely to hold if, in your experience, racism is just something that other people complain about.

Subsection (3) – mostly ignored to this point – is perhaps the most subtly revealing. Earlier subsections make it unlawful to do something that is “reasonably likely” to vilify or intimidate someone on the basis of race. But reasonably likely according to whom? Who gets to decide whether something is intimidating or vilifying? Subsection (3) provides the answer.

Whether something is “reasonably likely” to vilify is “to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” it begins. Fair enough. But then it adds in the most pointed way: “not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.” That’s code. It means, not by the standard of whatever racial minority is being vilified. Not the ordinary reasonable wog, gook or sand-black person; the ordinary reasonable Australian. And what race is this hypothetical “ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community” meant to be, exactly?

If you answered that they have no particular race, then you’ve just given the whitest answer possible. It’s the answer that assumes there is such a thing as racial neutrality. Of course, only white people have the chance to be neutral because in our society only white is deemed normal; only whiteness is invisible.

Every other race is marked by its difference, by its conspicuousness – by its non-whiteness. White people are not non-Asians or non-blacks. They aren’t “ethnic” as the term is popularly used. If the “ordinary reasonable Australian” has no race, then whether or not we admit it, that person is white by default and brings white standards and experiences to assessing the effects of racist behaviour. Anything else would be too particular.

This matters because – if I may speak freely – plenty of white people (even ordinary reasonable ones) are good at telling coloured people what they should and shouldn’t find racist, without even the slightest awareness that they might not be in prime position to make that call.

This is particularly problematic with the proposed offence of racial “intimidation”. To “intimidate” is “to cause fear of physical harm” according to the draft Act. Now our ordinary reasonable white person is being asked to tell, say, black people whether or not they are “reasonably likely” to be fearful of physical harm. Black people – reasonable ones – might actually be fearful, but ultimately a hypothetical white person will decide that for them.

I have no doubt the Abbott government doesn’t intend this. It doesn’t need to. That’s the problem. This is just the level of privilege we're dealing with.

This is what happens when protection from racism becomes a gift from the majority rather than a central part of the social pact. It’s what happens when racial minorities are required to be supplicants, whose claims to social equality are subordinate to those of powerful media outlets outraged they might occasionally have to publish an apology.

And it’s what happens when lawmakers and the culturally empowered proceed as though ours is a society without a racial power hierarchy simply because they sit at the top of it...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-racial-discrimination-act-changes-create-the-whitest-piece-of-proposed-legislation-ive-encountered-20140327-zqnea.html

Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

It was not a group, but a person who is called Man Monis. Sounds Jewish to me. Latest court documents say that he is is some kind of wizard:

Quote:



Rubin wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:


So you agree that free speech has limits?

So that's why I strongly believe that everyone has the right to be a bigot not only in Australia, but also in other civilised countries. It's a basic human right.

A bigot in its true original definition is someone who is intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion. This is the widely accepted definition of bigot until the 90s when blacks, asians, apologetic whites sensationalised the word 'bigot' and falsely defined it exclusively as "a bigot = a racist".

Every one of us has been a bigot at some point in our lives. I am sure every one of us had opposed some opinions and beliefs before.

As a matter of fact, anyone who opposes the Racial Discrimination Act to be repealed/abolished makes him/her a bigot.

So that's why I strongly believe that everyone has the right to be a bigot not only in Australia, but also in other civilised countries. It's a basic human right.

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 11:59pm:


Another leftist f*ckw*t telling us how racist and privileged whitey is then goes on to make mass generalisations (negative ones at that) about whites.

This f*ckw*t also lecturers in our tax payer funded universities.

The only solution to c*nts like this is to withdraw the funding to those departments pricks like this thrive in.