Australian Politics Forum - Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:10pm

Quote:

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) makes it unlawful to “offend, insult humiliate or intimidate” a person on the grounds of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Section 18C was the provision used against News Corp Australia journalist Andrew Bolt in 2011 for two columns he had published in 2009.

“This week leaders from around the world have united to defend the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to publish content that is offensive to some,” says Mr Breheny.

“But a publication such as Charlie Hebdo would struggle to survive in Australia, due to laws that censor offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating speech. Section 18C could be used against the publishers of cartoons that satirise figures based on their race or ethnicity. Content not caught by section 18C would almost certainly be censored by current state religious vilification laws, which are specifically designed to target the kind of content published in Charlie Hebdo.”

“The attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom of expression. And as Prime Minister Tony Abbott rightly noted in response to this atrocity, ‘Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society.’”

“The Abbott government should seek to put the prime minister’s words into action by repealing existing Australian laws that restrict free speech, starting with section 18C,” says Mr Breheny.

Currently 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

http://www.news.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-would-be-censored-in-australia-freedom-commissioner-tim-wilson/story-fncynjr2-1227183150030

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/being-charlie-with-18c-in-place-australia-says-non/story-fnpdbcmu-1227182736935

http://australianconservative.com/2015/01/paris-massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-shows-why-rda-section-18c-must-go-%E2%80%93-ipa/

Sounds like Australians need to grow up and the left to harden up.

As a great man once said Wink

"We have to be prepared to speak up for our beliefs. We have to be prepared to call things as we see them. Of cause from time to time poeple will be upset, offended, insulted, humiliated... But it is all part of a free society...Because in the end the cornerstone of progress is free speech.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #1 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:14pm Yes sir!
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Steampipe Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1914 WA Gender:	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #2 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech. Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.
Back to top	IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #3 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:04pm

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Responsible speech? With Section 18c, there is no Responsible speech, because you have no choice, theres no Responsible, its just a law to limited free speech.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #4 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:05pm Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech. Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free. good call
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Steampipe

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1914
WA
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #5 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:10pm

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Responsible speech? With Section 18c, there is no Responsible speech, because you have no choice, theres no Responsible, its just a law to limited free speech.

Well according to you there isn't, I abide by and taught my kids that if someone cant handle what you have to say don't say it, you have nothing to gain.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #6 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:10pm

18c should be removed.

Breaking taboos in good faith - as an act that leads to new truths, as GB Shaw said - can be a good thing even if some people get offended or feel humiliated. "Offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" are all highly subjective (and entirely subjective) feelings of the offended and the law cannot objectively decide what things "offend, insult humiliate or intimidate" all reasonable adult members of society.
Religious taboos have been broken in the West a long time ago - except the taboos around Islam.

If we say to Islam, 'You are untouchable', then we are f***d.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #7 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:13pm Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech. You mean Politically Correct, acceptable, responsible, sensitive and respectful speech - always decided by whoever appoints himself as the arbiter in any given case.
Back to top	IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #8 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:14pm

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:10pm:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Responsible speech? With Section 18c, there is no Responsible speech, because you have no choice, theres no Responsible, its just a law to limited free speech.

Well according to you there isn't, I abide by and taught my kids that if someone cant handle what you have to say don't say it, you have nothing to gain.

if someone cant handle what you have to say don't say it, you have nothing to gain. thats free speech, where its the individual Responsibility to be Responsible, Forcing individual to limit what they say is simply not in anyway Responsible

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #9 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:21pm

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Responsible speech? With Section 18c, there is no Responsible speech, because you have no choice, theres no Responsible, its just a law to limited free speech.

All countries have laws which limit free speech, the fact that we have these laws and 18c is so rarely used means the system works.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #10 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:24pm

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

You mean Politically Correct, acceptable, responsible, sensitive and respectful speech - always decided by whoever appoints himself as the arbiter in any given case.

You dont want free speech, you want selective free speech for only those groups and people you personally approve of. You and your ilk are actually far worse than the Muslims in my opinion, at least they make no bones about what they want. You on the other hand hide your agenda.

Back to top

IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #11 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:30pm

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:21pm:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Responsible speech? With Section 18c, there is no Responsible speech, because you have no choice, theres no Responsible, its just a law to limited free speech.

All countries have laws which limit free speech, the fact that we have these laws and 18c is so rarely used means the system works.

Laws which limit free speech is a recent development, there have alway been a few that had laws in place limiting in some form or another free speech, but it has really grown out of control in recent years as the left grows more terrified at offending minorities or using small one off case to limit free speech for all.

18c is so rarely used because its ridiculous and, it hasn't stopped racial hate speech or racial attacks etc, in fact its grown in recent years.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21868
A cat with a view

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #12 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:34pm

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Steampipe,

Many moslems seem to be of the opinion [that simply because they are living in a nation like Australia], THAT THIS [below] IS AN EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE 'FREE SPEECH';

IMAGE....

Well, i consider that, expressing such views in a public place is illegal [or certainly should be!!!], in a country like Australia!.

Why so ?

Because, imo, such displays are AN INCITEMENT TO MURDER [being expressed by moslems].

+++

IMO, this [below] is an example of free speech;

Yadda wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

ISLAMIC LAW teaches - EVERY MOSLEM - that murdering those who are not moslems [i.e. those who reject ISLAM], is a lawful act.

That 'precept' of faith is mainstream within ISLAM.

ISIS know it.

Al-Qaeda know it.

The Saudis know it.

And EVERY moslem who is living among us, here in Australia, knows it.

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

ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."

- DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

Why is the above is an example of acceptable free speech ?

Because in my post, i am not encouraging unlawful or violent acts.

I am merely demonstrating [and exposing!!] the disturbing worldview which some other people hold, and think is an acceptable worldview to hold.

!!!!!!!!

AND HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE [the 'statement' that is being expressed, within the image], OF UNACCEPTABLE 'FREE SPEECH' [imo];

IMAGE...

"BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT THE PROPHET"

Sydney, 2012, moslem street protests.

Moslems, religious bigots, 'demonstrating', just how 'peaceful' and tolerant ISLAM and moslems really are - towards those who don't hold with the views of ISLAM and moslems.

Moslems on a Sydney street, openly demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion'.

Demanding the 'religious' right, to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:45pm by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

innocentbystander. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4723 Gender:	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #13 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:36pm If we start making laws that ban people from making idiotic comment that offends then how on Earth will the ALP ever get their policy message out?
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #14 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:45pm

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

You mean Politically Correct, acceptable, responsible, sensitive and respectful speech - always decided by whoever appoints himself as the arbiter in any given case.

You dont want free speech, you want selective free speech for only those groups and people you personally approve of. You and your ilk are actually far worse than the Muslims in my opinion, at least they make no bones about what they want. You on the other hand hide your agenda.

Whose free speech have I opposed, ever?

Back to top

IP Logged