So they want to change 18c

8 Aug

Be Polite


Returned Senator David Leyonhjelm and new One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts both want rid of section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Section 18c makes it illegal to carry out an act if: “(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group”.

There are those in both houses who support the removal or amendment of 18c, on the grounds that it collides with concepts of freedom of speech, though it’s slightly alarming to imagine what any of them want to say that requires the removal of 18c in order for them to be able to legally say it.

The section is a little over-written: a reasonable person can assume that if someone is humiliated or intimidated they have also been offended and insulted, and my understanding is that it is the words offend and insult that most aggravate the two senators.

Both Leyonhjelm and Roberts put forward the argument that offence is always taken, never given, and that each one of us has a choice as to whether or not we feel offended and insulted by the word or actions of another.

I find this notion particularly quaint coming from Senator Leyonhjelm: if indeed we can choose not to be offended and insulted, why does he so frequently choose to be angry and aggressive in reaction to others he feels have offended him? Especially on Twitter. He can get quite foul in that medium.

Leyonhjelm was apoplectic when The Chaser parked a van outside his house, and he threatened them with the police. Why did he choose that stressful and incendiary reaction if he’s in control of his feelings like he says we all should be?

Increasingly, this argument sounds like the justification of bullies for a perceived right to bully. I am tormenting you because I can, and you can choose not to be tormented so it’s your fault if you are.

What kind of person wants the right to behave like that towards another?

Of course it’s true that in theory no one can make us feel anything: we react and respond to others and those reactions and responses are influenced by all manner of prior experiences, and our degree of understanding of our own psychology.

Everyone is moulded by their individual experiences as well as by the social and economic systems in which we develop.  For example, if you suffer from, say, PTSD, you are less likely to be able to freely respond to distressing circumstances you encounter in the present, as one of effects of the illness is that it can make a present event indistinguishable from an event in a traumatic past.  Humans need models in our childhoods. We need to be able to learn how to choose our responses, this is not knowledge we acquire at birth. Some are taught better than others, some are not taught at all. The emotional life is by no means a level playing field, and saying we can all “choose’ not to be insulted or offended is like saying obesity is a choice, or poverty, or that we can all be millionaires if we only choose to.

Roberts and Leyonhjelm can take no credit for having being born white with the advantages that whiteness can bring, equally, those of ethnicities, race, colour and nationality that are frequently subject to hate speech had no choice in the matter of their birth either.

We are not islands: we are affected by others and we affect others. Leyonhjelm and Roberts’ argument is the equivalent of Margaret Thatcher’s belief that there is no society, there’s only individuals.

The question is not whether people should learn to be immune to feeling hurt and insulted when kicked by a donkey, but why do we tolerate donkeys who feel compelled to kick in the first place? The indigenous men and woman who took Andrew Bolt to court won their case, but Andrew Bolt has yet to adequately explain why he felt compelled to question their validity as people of colour.

This latter question would seem to me to be far more serious, and far more in need of urgent address than the removal or amendment of 18c. Why do these people want to amend or remove 18c? What will be gained from its removal, and who will profit?

I can see nothing to be gained, and a great deal that could be lost, unless it is your life goal to abuse those who are different from you, and if it is, you are the problem, not Section 18c.

By the way, we don’t actually have any constitutional rights to free speech in this country:

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. 






141 Responses to “So they want to change 18c”

  1. Hypo August 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm #

    The planks are falling rapidly,are they not?
    “The fair go”,publicly eviscerated by Howard, now “do the right thing” is on the chopping block.
    Pretty soon the road rules will change forcing us to stick to the right at all times.

    WE should NEVER allow the nutjobs pushing this barrow to hijack free speech.Hate speech is their mother tonge, and I am happy to test their skin thickness any day of the week.There has never been a more pressing time that to formalise the ‘fit for purpose’ litmus test on our elected reps.They all need to be psyche tested pre nomination and all background checks need to be done first and foremost.
    Rod Culleton should have been dismissed immediately he did not front up to a live court case.As it is he can throw anyone from his inner circle into his place and then steer from the back seat.
    The quality of representation is abysmal Nothing says it more than the repulsive and cowardly bully Wilson Tuckey.Another socially inept,hypocritical disrespectful convicted criminal in parliament.No wonder he was a minister in a Lib govt.Slightly overqualified,but ticked all the boxes.
    There are less reasons every day Australia can claim to have any meaningful collective humanity.

    If people think repealing 18c and abusing minorities and races we want to, then we should also repeal all security laws recently imposed,Because the former will negate the latter.By way of overt physical violence.Nothing is more certain.

    Christ we need meaningful electorate reform.Who are these gargoyles?

    Malcolm Roberts looks and sounds like a bloke who consumed a kilo of LSD.
    Both of the men (when interviewed on on Insiders) looked to have their eyes facing in opposing directions.Is there yet another new species of homo reptilian bacteria?
    (Yeah, yeah I know. I went to their physical appearance.Kick me)

    Liked by 2 people

    • helvityni August 8, 2016 at 3:12 pm #

      Hypo, no need to go as far back to Wilson Tuckey or even Heffernan…

      Any name you pick out the of the Liberal hat is going to be unsavoury.

      They are all fully fledged bullies, they learn their abusive lingo at their finishing schools.

      Liked by 2 people

    • helvityni August 8, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

      Don’t worry Hypo, you are only referring to mere men 🙂

      Just leave Pauline and Sonia’s leopard prints well alone.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hypo August 8, 2016 at 3:36 pm #

        Men don’t need iron bars to beat up a legless drunk.


  2. doug quixote August 8, 2016 at 3:10 pm #

    I see no need to repeal 18C. Some years ago when Bolt had his dummy-spit, there was some discussion about removing “offend” from the Act. That, alone, might be an acceptable amendment. There should be no “right not to be offended”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hypo August 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm #

      But there’s a hole in that.People are offended by 18c allowing people to feel offended.So when the haters of 18c stop be offended by peoples rights to be offended we can repeal it.Like JW noted, they are bullies and hypocrites.Every single person wanting repeal feels entitled to ‘lack of self control’.They in fact want to offend.Is that a fit for purpose trait in our representatives? I say no.Clean up parliament and reform the voting system first.
      The problem is within the anti 18c lobby,not 18c itself.The racists tirades still continue, so it proves that the hate ‘speecher’s still say what they want,within the pillars of 18c.The Goodes booers,Leak etc,.
      (How hateful and provocative to these uncivilised swill need to be?)
      People have a right to feel safe and to ensure the more vulnerable are safe.18c contributes to that measure.The purpose was not intended to and has never restricted peoples free speech.It works perfectly,as designed.
      How dare the haters in the LNP fight a fight to serve Bolts demands.How pissant weak are these toady RWNJ knuckle draggers,that they need a law to enable bullying behaviour?

      This is more signs of religious intolerance from the christian lobbyists like ACL.

      More constitutional interference illegality and political corruption.
      Fancy Abbott whining about powerbrokers when his church is the king of govt control in both houses.

      Most bullies are insecure and cowardly.This latest push makes them all just glow in the dark.
      LOL, Lesionhorn was trying to distance himself from Malodorous Roberts on Cassidy’s show.How funny.

      As Rake would say.

      Language warning>
      F*ck me sideways…………………Barnyard

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jennifer Wilson August 8, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

      Well not in general, DQ, but this is specific to the RDA. Is there a right not to be offended because of your race, ethnicity etc?

      Liked by 1 person

      • doug quixote August 9, 2016 at 1:38 am #

        Just so, Jennifer. Criticism of the Section is in part based on a misunderstanding (surprise!surprise!) of the Act.

        Some clarification might be acceptable; but probably it is better to leave it as is. Inertia is sometimes useful.

        The Leftists of the 70s, 80s and 90s are now put into the position of defending the gains made in those decades. Ironic, is it not?

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Sam Jandwich August 8, 2016 at 3:52 pm #

    It’s an interesting law in the way it reads. Breaking it into two sections, the first being about “a group of people”, and the second qualifying that as being about race etc, I think is pointing (deliberately?) to a logical disconnect in attributing certain qualities to a person just because of a relatively specialised form of association… which seems to me to be something libertarians would wholeheartedly support!

    Hmmm but if I said that then I would be implicitly making the assumption that libertarians have hearts just because they’re people/-;

    Oh well, on a somewhat-related note, I was thinking this weekend while stuffing palm leaves into my green waste recycling bin, about whether people emboldened by what persists as the Abbott/Turnbull government’s mantra, that “people have a right to be bigots”, even realise that by cheerfully practicing their bigotry they are being manipulated through a concept popularised by their opponents, whom they know as “the intelligentsia”: namely, the Foucauldian notion that truth is created by those who have the loudest voices.

    Yet another reason why we need these save-you-from-yourself laws!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jennifer Wilson August 8, 2016 at 5:42 pm #

      Regimes of truth. Or what’s more commonly known as the narrative

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hypo August 8, 2016 at 7:22 pm #

        Like the truth that St Nick of SA is going to leave his name and address off a census form intrinsically and specifically linked to him, and which could be cross reffed in a dot,given all the other truckload of data to hone in.He has effectively said,”I know you’re going to fill my name and address in anyway,so go for it.”
        Why would they fine him?
        (If he gets fined it proves they know who didn’t put their names on Census forms.Kind of a snake eating its tail,eh?)
        The 2016 census is now so broken that> all the Kings horses and all the kings men etc…..

        I appreciate Nicks attention to this,(not much major party action) but if he wants to make a stand then boycott the bloody thing.
        Millions of Australians data at risk? And yet? I bet those non high profile ppl get fined into oblivion,but our reps (if any had the balls to boycott) will get a wrist slap if that.
        Today Australia is debating about 18c and yet meanwhile the ABS has more power than govt.The ALP as usual has nothing to say.Always was and always were ASIOs ‘teachers pet.’
        Where is the new look senate arguing our freedoms?


        Liked by 2 people

  4. paul walter August 9, 2016 at 12:06 am #

    Samjandwich appreciates the syllogism, so the debate moved forward. Imho, it comes back to dq and no need to repeal it..if it ain’t broke don’t fix it and that goes against every cranky initiative practiced by the wrecker,bikie right over this century on behalf ultimately of big business and its desire to face no constraints in its hunt for profits over all else.

    The abstract and normative argument is circumscribed by precisely those people who promulgate it loudest but only apply it in the breach, who then use an old form of censorship, shouting down any opposing views, against the very spirit of the argument.

    In the end there is no point in a regime of truth that obliterates, including deliberately, rather than foregrounding fact based truth, which leaves us an Orwellian conclusion involving denialism and a lemming like rush to catastrophe, for pretending that unpalatable things are other than what they are.

    In short, nothing can be gained in the real world when freedom of speech is used as a bludgeon to silence alternative views or an eventual truth through fear and intimidation, as happens when people abuse freedom of speech in an effort to stand over opponents.

    Freedom of speech may be a right, but perhaps we should decentre a little, think of it as a gift and a privilege and a tool for constructive advance for civilisation rather than a club for belting into line dissenters.

    In short, it won’t work without a sense of appreciation and a willingness to take responsibility in the use of the gift.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jennifer Wilson August 9, 2016 at 6:39 am #

      You made me think of how we treat juvenile offenders, PW. Clubbing them into line, instead of offering rehab and a future.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Hypo August 9, 2016 at 8:09 am #

    And the hypocrite Lion Horn comes out with a lecture on not breaking the law.Mr ‘break 18c every 5 minutes on twitter’ has spoken.

    The dickhead is more worried about metadata.Guess what Senator?

    Pauline Hanson has officially overtaken him in the intellectual stakes.

    Do we REALLY get the govt we deserve?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. diannaart August 9, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

    Excellent work, Jennifer I am particularly perplexed by the question, what do these ‘people’ want? What can’t they say now, that they can if 18c is repealed?

    As for, yours truly, have been temporarily hobbled by a virus which does nothing to enhance my chronic illness.

    Will check in as I am able.

    BTW, please read the following with excruciatingly whiny tones:

    “Do I HAVE to fill in the CENSUS, coz I don’t feel very well, and last CENSUS I was selected for 6 months of extra CENSUSing and am having a bout of PTSTD from that intrusion into my life?”


    Liked by 3 people

    • Jennifer Wilson August 10, 2016 at 6:31 am #

      Get well soon, diannart
      I hear the census website crashed spectacularly last night.
      For some reason we were automatically issued with hard copy in our letter box. I suppose they know our internet is crap.
      Anyways, we tied it to the leg of a carrier pigeon.
      Actually we haven’t filled it out yet. We’re still fighting about it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • diannaart August 10, 2016 at 8:45 am #

        LOL Jennifer.

        I entered my details early because I knew I would be asleep early, followed the directions and entered my details like a good little citizen.

        There was one question which interested me, paraphrased “do you want your details held for 99 years?”

        I selected “NO” – I would’ve made it resounding but there was no button for that.

        Now I hear the site crashed and has been hacked – colour me not at all surprised.

        Thank you for your well wishes – am recovering, slowly as per bloody usual.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Jennifer Wilson August 10, 2016 at 8:17 pm #

          Oh, it’s been a real fiasco – hacked by the Chinese is the last I heard, for revenge.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Hypo August 10, 2016 at 8:32 pm #






            census working overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtime.

            Call, Sir Humphrey.

            No The Chaser.

            No Micallef!!!

            Liked by 1 person

          • paul walter August 10, 2016 at 10:42 pm #

            No, that’s cock and bull fantasy dreamed up to divert attention from their own sneaky incompetence, slavishness to secrecy, surveillance and neolib ideology and government penny-pinching… the clueless mentality of the Westerner.

            This has all come out in the last couple of days..the intended subversion of the privacy provisions once the data was collected and penny pinching from Abbott as the raison de etre as well the now-obvious incompetence of private organisations to do with hi tech who were given the job, as is demanded by neolib small government ideology.

            So, so much wrong with it under the surface…


            Asher Wolf, a Guardian journo interested in information suppression has had a fair bit to say on it, in fact the Guardian and Fairfax are replete with stories of what has really been happening and really smacks of the same sort of processes involved in detention policy, where a hacking expedition is what it has taken to get the truth as to that subject.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Hypo August 10, 2016 at 10:54 pm #

              Poor Govt liars,scammers,profiteers….

              ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave,
              when we’s forget that social media controls everything…..’


              Bottom line census has become a harvest regime (and likely to stay that way from hereon in) whereby the ABS sells off decades of personal data to compete with the data dredged on social media, and google etc, so the obscene ABS salaries at the top have a base load $$$ supply.

              Liked by 1 person

              • paul walter August 10, 2016 at 11:06 pm #

                Yes. You see it. You’d be surprised at the number of supposedly intelligent people who can’t.

                Liked by 2 people

              • diannaart August 11, 2016 at 10:08 am #

                Bring on Online Voting…. what?…. too soon?

                Liked by 2 people

                • Hypo August 11, 2016 at 11:42 am #

                  2 points/
                  (1) Online voting,yeah nah.The ultimate dream for politicians.

                  (2) If ‘anything’ (even a microscopic dot) they say about the census driving ‘policy and infrastructure’ is true there would be fairer tax, and no gap in indigenous health etc.But more to the point if science(accurate data)drove our politics politicians would be redundant.Local committees could run the place.In fact if the spin the ABS and govt uses were in anyway true we would be living in Utopia.

                  Did the ABS or govt back down over the census disaster>
                  No,still spinning excuses and spending more money.
                  And the threats to fine ppl (AFAIK) are still live.

                  Random anonymous surveys and already existing data streams have more than enough detail for any social policy set.Unless of course we are talking blatant narrow focused tracking for other purposes.

                  That’s a topic which needs to sit below a heading with Brandis’ name on it.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • diannaart August 11, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

                    Joke, Joyce.

                    Do you HAVE to ‘splain everything?

                    Or I could go back to arguing with you regarding yourself and other MEN here on NPFS who insist that using the pejorative ‘cunt’ is way preferable to ‘prick’ and if women don’t like, it too bad… not prepared to think through reasons why some women might find this a little offensive and, OH NO, get a little uppity.

                    Yes, my virus infection is losing its war with me.

                    Liked by 2 people

                    • Hypo August 11, 2016 at 3:39 pm #

                      When you get over your virus maybe you can have a go at getting over y’self.


                    • diannaart August 11, 2016 at 4:07 pm #

                      Cheap shot, Hypo – due to incapacity for self-reflection?

                      I’ll leave at then.

                      Paul Walter

                      Am enjoying much schadenfreude after watching Turnbutt & Co proudly extolling the strengths of their online polling system. Shame they didn’t do more to explain changes to requirements this year instead of boasting; massive system fail followed by need for many Australians to complete the poll… much embarrassment all round. Really messy.

                      They prune the public service and expect champagne service.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 6:05 am #

                      Well yes, that last line, exactly, diannart.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 6:03 am #

                      Bloody hell I turn my back for 24 hours because I have medical stuff & look what happens

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 6:01 am #

                      Diannart, I keep addressing that problem of using *cunt* as the worst pejorative they can think of & they will not give it up.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • doug quixote August 12, 2016 at 11:26 am #

                      Jennifer, I’m supposed to be the Quixote.


                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 11:36 am #

                      I’ve lost track of this thread, DQ, but in my mind you will always be the Quixote ❤️

                      Liked by 1 person

                  • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 6:00 am #

                    I think they’ll have an awful lot of people to fine, including me.

                    Liked by 1 person

                • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 5:59 am #



  7. paul walter August 10, 2016 at 8:07 am #

    diannaart did that well.

    Curiously, I end up here after reading the Anarchic Sheep feed and Asher Wolf and ask a parallel question to diannart, as to the census: If they were able to do previous census without name and address and data retention, how is it they couldn’t.

    I DO recall Wolf claiming that one of the tabloids claim to have discovered that the bureaucracy itself was busy at work trying to come up with ways to circumvent privacy requirements.

    I asked a former high ranking public servant last night who had opted to fill in the form what he thought the changes in census were for; what the thinking would be, but as usual on this subject, authority figures greet you with blanking, or “subversion”as some call it.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. paul walter August 11, 2016 at 1:40 am #

    Here is someone who seems to grasp what it is actually about:,9331


  9. paul walter August 11, 2016 at 3:49 pm #

    Hypo, the longer this protracted mess continues, the more intrigued I become.

    Obviously an exercise in outsourcing, and IBM are supposed to do this right, right?

    But IBM is a foreign company fiddling with our computers, can they possibly have the same loyalty to this country as a local firm or in-house developers for the ABS?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hypo August 11, 2016 at 4:50 pm #

      I think we all know the answer to your last paragraph.

      LNP is not loyal to the borders they ‘claim’ to be so concerned about maintaining the sovereignty of.It is all about multinational corporate subservience .Never more so than this period of LNP across Australia where the state and fed govts want to flog off as much land,minerals and assets (public!) as they can before the next ALP govt.
      Stopping boats is a smoke and mirror exercise to distract the steeples so the roll can roll down with ease.

      Truth be known the ‘site crash’ was probably the IBM siphon clogging up the servers as our life histories sailed northwards across the ocean towards Trumposlovakia.

      LOL This govt has taken a gold medal in incompetency BECAUSE it knocked all the hurdles over, not in spite of it.


      Here’s some low calorie dessert>


      • diannaart August 11, 2016 at 5:48 pm #


        Great link; a judge who knows when it is appropriate to use expletives and a thug who doesn’t.

        Well done you.

        While I’m feeling pedantic:

        A Segway is a form of personal transport

        Originally ‘segue’ is a term used in music to change direction, this word has found its way into common parlance to indicate change from one topic to another using a link which pertains to BOTH topics.


        Liked by 1 person

        • Hypo August 11, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

          I have saved that link all day just for you.
          But the irony STILL went right ^ over your head.

          I’ll blame your virus.[Case dismissed.]


          • paul walter August 11, 2016 at 7:14 pm #

            What a contrast.

            Hypo on topic, against a miserable ad hominem attack that related not a jot to the the topic.

            Must be a nasty virus. Hopefully it is finally gotten over and the personality stuff is dropped in favour of adult conversation., but I think the “virus” will outlast its bearer, I do not predict any change in the “symptomology”.


            • doug quixote August 12, 2016 at 11:14 am #

              No, the thug in question was the convicted crim who called the judge “a bit of a cunt” and to whom the female judge then replied “you are a bit of a cunt yourself” !

              The witty retort “go fuck yourself!” got the even wittier “you too.”


              Liked by 1 person

              • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 11:35 am #

                I was delighted by that exchange. I wonder what the reaCtion was in the court?!


    • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 6:04 am #

      Has everyone overlooked the 68 million Abbott machetes from the ABS budget when he was PM? And the 12 months they spent without a chief statistician because Turnbull couldn’t get round to appointing one? The buck stops with the government on this one. IMO.


      • paul walter August 12, 2016 at 8:14 am #

        Well, I almost commented thus myself, but thought it was pretty much common knowledge.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 9:52 am #

          The commonest knowledge is frequently the most overlooked in my experience, PW


      • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 9:36 am #

        Have made such comments on AIMN, promiscuous that way 😉

        Although would like to add that the ABS has had no ministerial representative until 3 weeks ago. And, from memory about o third of the staff were cut.

        How does anyone convince a disinterested and, now, irate, electorate that frugal means less, as in service and software.


        Give up, you are only making yourself look belligerent and intolerant…. I do believe there is a four letter word which describes your antagonism…

        Liked by 1 person

        • Hypo August 12, 2016 at 9:45 am #

          No mirror at home eh?


        • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 9:50 am #

          Also, LNP didn’t replace Chief Statistician for TWELVE MONTHS


          • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 9:59 am #

            Of course, Chief Statisticians cost money, big savings there…

            Liked by 1 person

  10. Hypo August 11, 2016 at 4:54 pm #

    Stopping boats is a smoke and mirror exercise to distract the sheeples so they roll can roll down the wool over their eyes with ease.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. paul walter August 12, 2016 at 8:25 am #

    Was going to add the Beatles Blue Jay Way (ue), but it seems to have been censored off U tube also. FTA’s?


    • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 9:38 am #

      Paul Walter

      Seems the entire (don’t know for sure) Beatles catalogue has been censored from U tube.

      I am sure if you want to encourage Hypo you will find a way – not that difficult really.


      • paul walter August 12, 2016 at 10:52 am #

        Your negativity goes well with Hypos brashness. In the meantime I can refer you back to your comment, I really looked HARD for some relevance as to thread topic, what did I miss?


        • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 10:54 am #

          Paul Walter

          I’ll take that as a comment… and move on…


  12. Hypo August 12, 2016 at 9:46 am #

    All rise in court


  13. Hypo August 12, 2016 at 10:11 am #

    They’ll need to fine a lot of ppl a lot on money to justify the $700K they pay the statisticain, and even more to pay the millions lost, and even more for the lawsuit(which IBM could easily win).
    All in all, a very expensive total cluster *****
    The irony being I sense a lot of ppl are opting out, so is all this money worth a compromised dataset?
    This why I expect the fine thing to ramp up, so they can try to justify the massive bottom line.


    • Hypo August 12, 2016 at 10:45 am #

      ^ (By which I mean the govt will try to rescue as many householders who have spat it by now, so the whole effort wasn’t wasted and they can claim the data is worth it.)

      And it clearly wasn’t in the end,because as all ‘honest’ appraisal has noted, the ABS tried to get serious changes through the back door.Plus the intention,outcome and end use(private or other) of the combined data is yet unexplained.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jennifer Wilson August 12, 2016 at 11:32 am #

        Hypo, I thought you might like to read this older post on why I can’t call Abbott a cunt:

        Liked by 1 person

        • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 12:16 pm #

          Wishing I knew about this article before having the sheer effrontery for challenging men on using a part of the female anatomy as a curse word.

          That said, why can’t I point this out without causing a hail of vitriol from men on this blog who like to believe they are about equality, fairness and all that stuff?

          They don’t like being quoted as hypocrites – yet what else explains this behaviour?

          And I know I am not alone – even if I am the only woman (apart from your good self, Jennifer) prepared to call out scummy low-life behaviour by men who really do know better, but …. I don’t know why, but apparently agreeing with a woman is worse than cutting off their dicks.

          I tried to move on from this debate while at the same time standing firm with my own self-respect – because no-one is going to do it for me.

          My cunt is very precious to me – it is not an insult, least of all to those of us who have one.

          So Hypo, Don Quixote, Paul Walter et al – grow a pair and grow up.

          Liked by 1 person

          • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm #

            Oops, for got to add this:


          • doug quixote August 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm #

            I’ve tried agreeing with you, a thankless task. The result is akin to that of a man claiming to be a feminist.

            BTW, I always thought the Precious was a ring.


            Liked by 1 person

            • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 1:19 pm #

              Haha… My Precious.

              No, Doug, you have not clearly shown me any agreement or any support during this ‘discussion’ with Hypo or Paul Walter or at other times when I have challenged the ‘rights’ of men.

              Seems I am too stupid to get nuance – you’ll just have to spell it out.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Jennifer Wilson August 13, 2016 at 6:39 am #

              Oh, haha DQ I just caught up with this thread and the precious thing.
              I’m not pursuing this metaphor today. 🌺


          • helvityni August 12, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

            diannaart, I had my battles about the c-word with DQ on Tabletalk.
            I quoted from Ruth Wajnrub’s book Language Most Foul what a Finnish woman has to say about this word in Finnish, and how it has become of more common usage amongst the youngsters.

            I still can’t say that word in either Finnish or English, yet I have learnt not to be too shy and tell hubby often : Fuck off.

            Right now, I’m too angry about our treatment of asylum seekers to enter any debates about gender wars.

            Liked by 1 person

            • diannaart August 12, 2016 at 4:36 pm #

              Right now, I am angry with a world where respect is considered to be a weakness.

              This applies to refugees, abused children and ordinary people who dare to take on bullies.

              Notice, I have not once used personal insult to PW, DQ or Hypo, I have focused on what they said, not what type of person they may be, which, judging by their treatment of me here, is pathetic.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Hypo August 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm #

                Christ on a bike.Keep the butter in your mouth do you?

                A bully because I dare to use a word in the way offends you?
                I ceased using it and moved on.You have been the petulant spell checking,sarcasm flinging, baby ever since .
                Analyse yourself,like you say other people should do.Re read your post in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER!
                Move on /grow up/ deal with it.


            • doug quixote August 12, 2016 at 7:59 pm #

              The only way a word will lose force is to be used, in context. So long as cunt is forbidden and subject to taboo, it will be a strong and vulgar epithet, “one of the few remaining words in the English language with the power to shock” as Germaine Greer put it.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Jennifer Wilson August 13, 2016 at 7:01 am #

                Oh, fuck it.


              • diannaart August 13, 2016 at 10:32 am #

                “So long as cunt is forbidden and subject to taboo, it will be a strong and vulgar epithet,”

                Then what will you do, Doug, in your ‘selfless’ quest to emasculate the cunt? Will you seek another part of the female anatomy?



          • paul walter August 12, 2016 at 3:51 pm #

            You need to get past your persecution complex.


          • Jennifer Wilson August 13, 2016 at 6:36 am #

            Ah, I lost track of this thread yesterday, diannart, now I see what DQ’s reference to precious is about.
            I agree with you, men should stop appropriating this part of our anatomy as an insult. They know this, at least the men here do, but they persist.
            Sheep may have to consider censorship.

            Liked by 1 person

            • doug quixote August 13, 2016 at 7:24 pm #

              Censorship? Never.

              I think everyone involved in this particular debate is treating the subject with all due respect.

              How precious can the precious be?

              Liked by 1 person

              • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 8:03 am #

                Serious question DQ: do you know if men ever feel upset when their genital names are used as terms of abuse?


                • paul walter August 14, 2016 at 10:12 am #

                  Jennifer, you have over egged the pudding, this time.

                  No, it depends on whether I call DQ say a prick good naturedly or call him a prick because he has done some thing nasty, say.

                  With us it is the issue, not the gender.

                  Btw, am abstaining if you like on this, I dont like hard language in mixed company, trry hard to avoid ‘this (old fashioned) and know certain words are push button for women, as you explained in your brief post.

                  Oth, I am sick of threads on legit topics being derailed by activists of various sorts pushing their own agendas at the expense of all else.

                  Which reminds me, I see Marilyn has a post up..must visit.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 10:29 am #

                    Can you link me to Marilyn’s post please PW?


                    • paul walter August 14, 2016 at 10:41 am #

                      Just read it, only a sentence, no swearing.

                      Which reminds me, is it not so that Rinehart and Mirabalis are faffing rather than wanking?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • paul walter August 14, 2016 at 10:42 am #

                      I shouldn’t have to link to a post at the same site as this, surely?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 6:32 pm #

                      Oh, I thought you meant Marilyn had written a blog post somewhere else.


                • doug quixote August 14, 2016 at 12:35 pm #


                  Although being called a cocksucker, a motherfucker or a dogrooter might upset some.


                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Hypo August 14, 2016 at 1:19 pm #

                    And the more of those labels which you can prove to engage in,the higher up the Liberal ladder you can go.


                  • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 6:34 pm #

                    Thank you, DQ.


  14. Hypo August 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm #

    Geezuz the Olympics are rubbing off on the hypocrites now.Let it go D’Art.Take some of your own medicine and re-read your own posts and timing thereof.
    Talk about precious.
    Telling other to move on.Meh.You were never going to let go.


  15. Hypo August 13, 2016 at 9:56 am #

    Census must read>


    Directed to actually conduct the census, and keen to extract some value from it, Kalisch and his team revived an idea categorically ruled out by his predecessor. Pink had said no to retaining names.

    “It wasn’t going to happen. I can tell you that,” Pink said this week.

    “I always used to say to my people: you can’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and the golden egg is the census. In my view, you only need 20 per cent of Australians who are concerned about security and you put the census at risk.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jennifer Wilson August 13, 2016 at 4:54 pm #

      Yes, excellent piece, I thought Hypo.


      • Hypo August 13, 2016 at 6:05 pm #

        It;s crystal clear what the real agenda is, and whose idea it was to ‘value add’ to our life histories..

        Hint>The usual suspects.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Hypo August 13, 2016 at 9:48 pm #

    Ken Wyatt will live to regret 2 things.
    Supporting this and joining the Liberal Party.The ‘latter’ should have happened before he joined.

    It never ceases to amaze me the number of so called smart ppl who cannot recognise the shape of a wedge.Especially the sharp end.

    If the WA Libs even put fwd a motion to ‘not support recognition in the constitution’,Wyatt has placed himself in an untenable position.He cannot resign from his heritage, so……………….??


  17. diannaart August 14, 2016 at 1:58 pm #

    I have tried to cover why over 50% of the population feel further marginalised in a society dominated by men, when aspects of the female anatomy are used as terms of abuse.

    Jennifer has written, previously, an entire article.

    Fortunately she was not subjected to the dispresect shown me – I guess being the owner of a blog counts for something. Not having a go, just stating a fact.

    Yet, not once have our questions been given serious thought.

    Jokes, mockery, sidelining, whatever it takes to avoid the fact that using pejorative inimical to a particular group in our community, particularly when used by the dominant group, is bigotry.

    A person does not have to be bigoted all the time – like Hanson.Bolt, Jones et al, but even in the most generous and enlightened of beings use such terms because they give an “extra impetuous” (to paraphrase DQ) yet denying why these words have extra power is sad. I’m guilty swear, very few people don’t. That is not the point – when questioned, the respondents have treated the question as inconsequential.

    The only contribution that has been made is a few words that may be highly offensive to males.


    “Words are like eggs dropped from great heights; you can no more call them back than ignore the mess they leave when they fall.”
    ― Jodi Picoult


    • paul walter August 14, 2016 at 3:03 pm #

      All you carp about is this. How about you show respect for others instead of always moaning about yourself.

      The thread topic was about the repeal.of section 18c of the race discrimination act, not your persecution fantasies.


      • diannaart August 14, 2016 at 3:08 pm #

        The insults start.

        I am not “carping”

        I am not “moaning”

        I am asking valid, reasonable questions.

        I will not be intimidated.

        Or silenced.

        Why do some men persist is using aspects of the female anatomy as insults? Could it be, at the very least, unconscious bias?

        I am not the first to ask, nor will I be the last.


    • doug quixote August 14, 2016 at 9:06 pm #

      Echoing Paul Walter, your, Diannaart’s, posts continue to proceed along one well-worn track. Please try to address the topics.

      And please don’t misquote me.


  18. Dan Rowden August 14, 2016 at 3:25 pm #

    Seems like the original subject matter has become a little lost, but just to return to it momentarily: I think there’s two rather distinct arguments being made with regard to 18C, depending somewhat on who’s making them. There’s the argument for its complete removal, for which I’ve yet to see any cogent support, and then there’s the argument that the inclusion of “offend” and “insult” creates significant problems.

    While I’m a supporter of 18C I tend to agree with the second of these arguments. It’s not a question of what certain people might want to say that 18C supposedly denies them, but rather what persons might *stop* them from saying by applying an impossibly subjective and arbitrary standard for “offense” and “insult”. The important and broadly useful exemptions in 18D do not afford people protection from this particular subjectivity and arbitrariness.

    Does a person who decides they are offended by a statement get to set the standard? What if the speaker holds that what they said is not offensive at all? It’s a bit of a philosophic minefield, frankly, due to the intrinsically subjective nature of the concepts involved. Concepts like “vilify” and “humiliate” are rather easier to be objective about because they generally involve social constructs, whereas “offense” and “insult” can be about nothing more than an individual’s ego based sensibilities.

    Anyway, if anyone is interested, I had a few words to say of my own on this subject:

    If you’re offended by any of it keep in mind that I will find your taking of offense to be insulting. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 6:50 pm #

      Hi Dan, thanks for the link, just read your excellent piece.

      I’m wracking my brains to think of any comments that include pejorative references to someone’s race, ethnicity, religion that aren’t insulting and offensive. And I can’t come up with any.

      Outside of the RDA framework insult & offence is difficult to establish, & I understand the law against *harassment* lacks any specific definition of that offence. They are all three subjective. But 18c specifically refers to race, ethnicity & religion, & the use of those to cause insult & offence.

      So while I have a problem with offence & insult in a broader sense, within the RDA framework I’m ok with it.


  19. Dan Rowden August 14, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

    On the side issue of using anatomy as pejoratives – I think we all should avoid it. The “C” word is really quite vile, frankly (when used as a pejorative), but there’s no place for such use of male anatomy either, in my view. I may be a dickhead for feeling this way, but I do …oh, hang on…. habits, they die hard ….

    Liked by 2 people

    • diannaart August 14, 2016 at 3:56 pm #

      “Does a person who decides they are offended by a statement get to set the standard? What if the speaker holds that what they said is not offensive at all? It’s a bit of a philosophic minefield, frankly, due to the intrinsically subjective nature of the concepts involved.”

      Dan you raised many good points.

      One of the difficulties with 18C is that it IS so subjective. The most rabid opponents such as the Bolts et al, do not like ambiguity, they prefer things to be straight forward, black and white. Simple.

      Not so distinct from the difficulties I am having explaining my and many other people’s opinions that anatomical pejoratives are not really acceptable – particularly combined with societal status… But I am probably making an arse of myself as usual.


    • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

      I think arse related pejoratives are ok: they are genderless & everybody’s got one 🙂


    • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 6:54 pm #

      PS like Left in Limbo, my policy is to keep censorship to an absolute minimum, hence the side issue.


    • doug quixote August 14, 2016 at 9:14 pm #

      This passage seems apposite:

      “On the other hand I have always been deeply suspicious of any person who believes they have the right to modify another’s speech based solely on their personal sensibilities. Context matters, of course, but such people have always spooked me.
      You can tell me you don’t like what I’m saying, and I can respond to that as my moral and social conscience dictates, but don’t tell me I can’t say it just because you don’t like it.
      If the only thing at stake is your egotistical sensibilities, you can pretty much piss off.”

      Well put, Dan.


  20. paul walter August 14, 2016 at 9:58 pm #

    If the only common sense voice is going to be DQ, this blog is going to die soon. He is going to get sick of talking to himself and same here.


    • Jennifer Wilson August 14, 2016 at 10:18 pm #

      well, you might all stop sniping at each other but I won’t stop writing. would that be failure?


      • paul walter August 14, 2016 at 11:17 pm #

        Don’t get what you mean.

        You enjoy writing, long may it continue, unless there is something about you I don’t know about that makes above somehow empty as a statement.

        I was speaking for myself, it is becoming less rewarding for me to be here or bother, given the rubbish one or two others are talking.

        You will tell me I can leave, which is to say I have to expect the worst of it on your whim.

        I would hate to finish here, and there are few other blogsites dealing with some of the stuff here.

        I’m well aware I am on the way to exile and that would do me no good, although I am sure it would please one or two others.

        I too enjoy writing and discussing ideas and it is a shame that some people would prefer the adhominem stuff and you sanction it.


        • Jennifer Wilson August 15, 2016 at 6:52 am #

          I do not want you to leave PW. You aren’t on the way to exile as far as I’m concerned.
          I won’t be here much for the next few days: that’s because of my coming week, not because of anything or anyone here.
          I am going to be more strict with the ad hominem stuff.


          • paul walter August 15, 2016 at 9:50 am #

            Good morning. I doubt whether I will have a better friend than you. I doubt whether I deserve a bare skerrick of the consideration you have bestowed on me over the last few years. I am sorry for my mistakes, human too human and the spirit willing but the flesh weak.

            An inspiring morning at last, so sick of the cold and dark, now I must gird my loins for the repair of an act of carelessness involving my wallet.

            I suspect you have not been that well. Perhaps the same with diannart. Like yourselves I have had a few problematic things happen, mine however are in large part self inflicted.

            Hope the sun is shining up in pineapple country.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Jennifer Wilson August 16, 2016 at 9:13 am #

              PW, The sun is shining, & I’m about to spend an hour or two in GoMA
              Apart from that, I hate cities just as much as I ever have. So much hardness.


  21. Hypo August 14, 2016 at 10:02 pm #

    diannaart August 12, 2016 at 10:54 am #

    Paul Walter

    I’ll take that as a comment… and move on…
    Perjury. ^ (and 3 topics later FFS)


    Let’s do the time-warp again…..


    Save your breath DQ.


  22. Dan Rowden August 14, 2016 at 10:25 pm #


    Thanks for acknowledging that I made good points in my blog piece. I’m slightly torn on 18C “arguments” because there’s a genuine and serious debate to be had about the legal and social efficacy of “offend” and “insult”, and the contrast of the crass, political nonsense that constitutes the actual public debate. It’s a bit depressing, but all too typical.

    Still, Jennifer is the sort of person who provides a place to debate things meaningfully and I applaud that. Most of the political rhetoric surrounding 18C is bullshit, as we know, but the issues with it are, in fact, issues. I do think its language needs to be cleaned up a teeny bit to make it properly workable.

    Mind you, the natural subjectivity and arbitrariness of statutory constructs dealing with matters of civil liability are always going to be a bit tricky and to some extent culturally fluid – and therefore always liable to debate. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, ultimately. In fact, I don’t think the debate over 18C is actually a bad thing, for the most part. Ethical and worldview homogeneity can be a good thing, but also a very bad thing.

    Oh, and “arsehole” is an excellent anatomical pejorative given its gender neutrality. But then, if you’re a gay male you might have an issue….

    Is there a safe anatomical pejorative? We may have to invent one. Something to do with armpits maybe …

    Liked by 2 people

    • diannaart August 15, 2016 at 10:17 am #

      Appreciate your comments Dan. We have had our stoushes, but at least it doesn’t become personal. 🙂

      Yes, Jennifer gives a commentator great latitude – which applies to ALL contributors not just a clique – doesn’t hurt to point that out, occasionally.

      I agree that 18C is far from perfect, given, how one person’s offence can be another’s defence. Life gets so complicated.

      Or not: Speaking out, honestly and sincerely can reveal a lot other people in their responses. This is where free speech is at its best – does 18C limit such opportunities to learn about other people?

      I think it does, but 18C needs careful retweeking, there are those who want to toss the entire clause out – because being a bigot is, like, a lifestyle choice or something.

      In the interests of expanding my horizons went back to the future today and listened into my really truly favourite radio station (in Melbourne) 3 Triple R.

      Caught an interview with Linda Tirado (stay with me this is about free speech as were all my comments) an American in Australia who has aligned with Daniel Storrer – remember him, the man who was not granted free speech after his question on QandA where he asked, “Please, sir, may I have some more?”

      Or something like that. Well in the grand ole US of A Linda was similarly vilified for her tweets on the working poor in the USA. She a hit nerve alright, but not all bad. Linda got herself a publisher and has released a book, “Hand to Mouth: Living in Bootstrap America” and now she’s here in Australia:

      “So, Duncan Storrar is talking, Kelly O’Dwyer is responding and Tirado is sitting in the green room, furious. She’s wondering exactly what’s been happening to Australia over the last 12 months.

      “Obviously I cannot tell you what a hero he is and what a sacrifice he made. To say something like that in public, to say you don’t make enough to make ends meet, that is incredibly brave.”

      But she fears the change she has seen in the Australian political landscape since she was last here. She’s here as part of the Anti-Poverty Network’s conference but is keen to stay a little longer and cover the Australian election from the eyes of a survivor of the US class war.”

      A war is being waged on free speech, where like so many terms, the original meaning has been lost or corrupted (like ‘feminism’).

      Looking at the US and Australia right now, is distressing. People want the freedom to abuse but not to approve.

      OMG – I haven’t even had any breakfast – must take action right now.


      • Dan Rowden August 15, 2016 at 8:03 pm #

        Yes, we have had our stoushes and no doubt will continue to do so, with a fair measure of robust candour, but for me it’s always about the content and not the person. For me it can’t be otherwise because generally speaking your only knowledge of a person is the content of their pixelations, and that is seldom a meaningful guide as to who they are as a person.


        • diannaart August 16, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

          FFS I am agreeing with you again – this cannot continue.


  23. Hypo August 15, 2016 at 10:11 am #

    Nutjob wastes time and money to prove he is a nutjob, by claiming he took offence while admitting he didn’t.


    • Dan Rowden August 15, 2016 at 7:58 pm #

      And here we have a good example of the complications that arise with civil liability statutes and how they are applied and interpreted. 18C does NOT require that Leyonhjelm actually and actively took offence at what Mark Kenny said for him to lodge a complaint under 18C to the HRC. You or I could lodge such a complaint if we wanted to. Read what the Act says:

      In reality Leyonhjelm’s actions make total sense from his perspective. One of the ways to show what you perceive as a problem with a law is to show that law in action. Kenny’s comment arguably does, in fact, breach 18C.

      I mean, I think Leyonhjelm is a libertarian dweeb, but I don’t think what he’s doing makes him a “nutjob”, necessarily. It just makes him ignorant and misguided.


      • Hypo August 15, 2016 at 8:25 pm #

        What makes him a nutjob is not this episode, it is his previous and collective history.
        Including his demands for free speech then spitting dummies when he gets offended at his front door, or demands the right to carry concealed firearms for safety (cos we are all victims) while his very demands makes us all unsafer.There’s plenty more.
        The quality of law reform in this case are the aspirants and their motives.
        So far those in the political sphere wanting changes to 18c, are not my idea of temperate politicians.
        No argument has been made as to why they want to offend.Or what they cannot already say now.Look at social media.There have been how many people called to account in law amongst all the toxic conversations each and every minute.
        If it aint broke….
        Besides the key driver of this whole 18c thing is Bolt.That should provide a hint.


        • Dan Rowden August 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm #

          I mostly agree. The 18C debate does seem to be a kind of orchestrated Andrew Bolt vendetta. It certainly doesn’t have much in the way of reasonable and cogent content, which is disappointing because I do think “offend” and ‘insult” have no place there, however otherwise important the section, and the entire Act, might be.

          I guess this is somewhat emblematic of a broader cultural problem in Australia – that of important cultural debates finding their genesis and momentum driven by political boofheads and a cynical, opportunistic and rather desperate media.


          • Hypo August 15, 2016 at 10:02 pm #

            The litmus test for those claiming ‘free speech rights’ is ,(within in the accepted bipartisan claim that we are an inclusive and fair society) is “is the speech likely to contribute to a cohesive outcome or a socially disruptive one, to the detriment of the values previous,either individually or collectively.
            Or words to that effect.)I’m no lawyer).But I think those in parliament have enough legal power and advice at hand to suss out what the layman cannot articulate on this.
            What this reform is really about is the license to abuse and offend , and the case needs to be made as to why.Just as the case needs to be made as to why neither major party is showing any tangible leadership on hate speech and has not done so for a decade or more.Hint,>right faction and religious influence (unconstitutional!) + poisonous media, with a shallow fiscal agenda.
            Same old.

            I think our reps are now so bad,so owned and so morally compromised I think we should farm out policy scrutiny to the high court for advice before the houses vote on legislation.And hey, given the separation of state between religion and parliament has been abandoned, corrupted,bastardised-why not ?

            Liked by 1 person

          • paul walter August 16, 2016 at 12:34 am #


            Murdoch and censorship. Never mind, hate speech is fine by Bolt, Murdoch and co, the true heirs to Joseph Goebells.

            Where they are heading is brownshirt thugs bombing mosques and churches via the complete perversion of the black lie as “free speech”.


  24. paul walter August 16, 2016 at 5:34 am #

    Here is a paradigm xample of what educated people fear happens when free speech is whored through ignorance to totalising tendencies by opportunist scum.

    I wont again cite European history as an indication of the outcomes with the worst case scenario.


  25. diannaart August 16, 2016 at 9:55 am #

    Anyone heard of 18D?

    I think I did but forgot.

    18D is the. effectively, the brakes on 18C.

    Both clauses have been in effect for around 20 years. I am not at all well veresed in Law, so this, like, anything we read on the internet is not necessarily accurate.

    Trying to find a comprehensive and succinct description of these clauses is difficult.

    From what I understand 18C works more as a warning and can enable a litigant to apply for a ruling, however, 18D effectively prevents vexatious claims.

    The tweaking I suggested to 18C above, is actually covered by 18D.

    The ‘offence’ and ‘insult’ is not sufficient reason to result in charge against someone. 18D demands factual evidence. For example, Bolt (the poor little man) was found guilty because he had based his claims on false evidence (AKA lies).

    Now in the current public commentary about how the laws operate, there are a lot of misconceptions about how sections 18C and 18D work. One is to refer to people being convicted or prosecuted under the RDA. That simply cannot happen. This is a civil law; it is not a criminal law. When someone believes the law has been breached, what happens is that they come forward to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which then inquires and investigates and attempts conciliation. The Commission brings the two parties together to talk through their problems and seeks to resolve it in a civil and educative manner.

    I want to make clear as well that the courts have interpreted the law, in the last 20 years of its operation, in a uniform way. They’ve said that hurt feelings or mere slights are not enough to constitute a breach. It has to involve serious and profound effects.[8]

    ……Some will say that the Bolt decision represents the proposition that one cannot debate racial identity in modern Australia; that the RDA serves to censor opinion; that it prevents us from having a free and open dialogue about issues of public importance.

    Now what the Federal Court actually held was this: Mr Bolt did not enjoy the protection afforded under section 18D because he had combined errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and had used inflammatory and provocative language. It was a combination of these factors, the Court held, that meant he could not have been found to have been acting reasonably or in good faith.

    The question I’d like to put to those advocating repeal of section 18C is this: What is it exactly that you want to say that isn’t currently protected by section 18D?

    Liked by 1 person

    • paul walter August 16, 2016 at 10:27 am #

      I think it is a timely post.

      Clearing away the vagaries of language the key term is “ïntimidation”.

      I don’t want open previous wounds but will suggest this post is the more believable, given Diannart’s own shared experiences as to a previous stage of her life.

      We aren’t talking about just offending someone but using speech to bludgeon into compliance through fear of violence and the consequences of instilled self loathing. We are talking of what we see in depictions of life in the Deep South of the USA for example, where “niggers”and any white supporters are additionally threatened will a TANGIBLE risk of violence, from beatings to lynchings in an unbalanced society and perhaps something we see here in the actions of police and others against aborigines.

      And what a beautiful example in Tim Soutphommasane, a Gillian Triggs type person subjected to many false campaigns over the years whose backbone stiffens and mind becomes active to devastating effect when cornered.

      Liked by 1 person

      • diannaart August 16, 2016 at 10:30 am #

        “more believable”?


        • paul walter August 16, 2016 at 10:49 am #

          Yes, believable. You did share parts of your story earlier and it is better to understand intimidation when someone with experience of it writes about it.

          Sorry if the inclusion of that obscure point re more believable possibly offended you . It was meant not as an adhominem but a recognition of a good point.

          Sighs..sackcloth and ashes again.


          • diannaart August 16, 2016 at 11:35 am #

            Paul Walter

            Smallest violin in world for your “sackcloth & ashes”.

            There is a wealth of information available on intimidation – any topic can be studied in the E-Era – you don’t have to take my word for anything – you can research it for yourself and keep your little insinuations to yourself.


            • Jennifer Wilson August 16, 2016 at 2:30 pm #

              To whom it may concern:
              If there is going to be another fight I’ll have to close comments for moderation.
              Which is a pain in the arse for me, & frustrating for commenters because I’m not around much in the next few days so your conversations will be awaiting moderation for who knows how long.

              A guide might be if we were all together taking coffee we would be civil even in our disagreement. Wouldn’t we?

              And if we weren’t civil we wouldn’t take coffee together again, would we?

              Lack of civility will lead to this barista closing down.


              • helvityni August 16, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

                Jennifer, moderation is helpful, it seems to work on the AIMN.
                On Tabletalk many were banned, but the offenders came back with a new e-mail address and a new pseudo, only to be banned again after a spout of reasonable behaviour.
                According to Annie, someone posted using 37 e-mail addresses and I assume as many pseudos.

                Towards the end dear Bob was too sick to do anything about the abusers and to worry about the abused.

                My term for these trouble makers is “blogbusters”, people don’t like all that adult fighting, they move on to calmer waters.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Jennifer Wilson August 17, 2016 at 6:16 am #

                  Blogbusters: I like that Helvi.
                  I’ve never had too much trouble, not like Bob did. Moderating is very time consuming, I hope I don’t have to do much of it.


      • Jennifer Wilson August 17, 2016 at 6:51 am #

        PW, Last night I saw the Bangarra dancers perform their interpretation of the actions of Governor Macquarie that resulted in the hideous deliberate slaughter of indigenous people.
        My mind is teeming with images from the performance and I can’t yet write coherently about it, except to say it is by far the most powerful, most extraordinary dance I’ve ever seen.


  26. Hypo August 16, 2016 at 11:50 am #

    No-one has made a case to change 18c.
    (Despite morons wanting to undo a -how dare theyALP law-which has proved to do what was intended,if that)
    No one has outlined what they cannot say,currently, and none of the proponents has the gonads to elucidate it on WHY they want to wear this badge of honour.
    What do they want to say, and why?

    Lesionhorn is a bully and wants a gun and mouth to back himself up.Nutjob,right there.


  27. the19tharticle November 4, 2016 at 3:37 am #

    Repealing 18c saves money on wasteful cases such as the QUT case. Citing legal precedents like 18c just because people feel offended ends up with legal fees, taxpayer’s money and time being wasted on what could have been solved out of court. If people have the right to be bigots, then people have the right to defend themselves and have all the resources they need to. Me, being part of the Asian minority in Australia, felt victimised by racism until I stood up for myself and prioritised myself. They need to atleast reform it, to fit defamation laws that have objective number figures for financial and reputational damage, not just “I feel offended”.


  28. the19tharticle November 4, 2016 at 3:43 am #

    Repealing 18c saves money on wasteful cases such as the QUT case. Citing legal precedents like 18c just because people feel offended ends up with legal fees, taxpayer’s money and time being wasted on what could have been solved out of court. If people have the right to be bigots, then people have the right to defend themselves and have all the resources they need to. Me, being part of the Asian minority in Australia, felt victimised by racism until I stood up for myself and prioritised myself. They need to atleast reform it, to fit defamation laws that have objective number figures for financial and reputational damage, not just “I feel offended”.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: