tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post4964063171526063579..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Confusions over Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975Jim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-60250055087259598782017-03-31T20:07:02.183+11:002017-03-31T20:07:02.183+11:00Hi 2t. Correction on Leak noted. I should have pic...Hi 2t. Correction on Leak noted. I should have picked it up. <br /><br />Judaism is a religion, but the Jews as such have been clearly defined as a racial or ethnic group. In the mind of Adolph Hitler, the question of Jewishness was one of birth, ethnicity, regardless of religion. With exceptions including Ms Hanson who I think actually used the phrase Muslim race (I haven't been able to verify this by web search), I don't think many would argue that Muslims as such are a a distinct race, colour or national or ethnic group.<br /><br />The meaning of the various words gets very messy, however. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-43585037193185856452017-03-29T23:29:00.328+11:002017-03-29T23:29:00.328+11:00Sorry Jim, I may have confused things. (1) There w...Sorry Jim, I may have confused things. (1) There was no Leak case, a different cartoonist from the Western Australian was charged and acquitted. (2) I would argue that Judaism spans many nationalities - I was surprised to see it accepted as an ethnicity without argument. Frankly, I believe most anti-muslim people hate those arab wogs. If it is a truly religious disparagement, then I think Christian history is not going to stand up well by comparison.2 tannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-18518664835145088312017-03-29T17:08:57.450+11:002017-03-29T17:08:57.450+11:00The Muslim faith spans so many nationalities and g...The Muslim faith spans so many nationalities and groups, 2t, that its hard to see it fitting within the Act as its stands. Mind you, if you mounted an attack on Muslims belonging to a particular ethnic group or nationality that might fit. <br /><br />I don't know the detail of the Leak case, but I would have though 18D applied. On the HREOC processes themselves, there appear to be problems of process and uncertainty. There is also a resourcing issue. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-90760322800856220462017-03-29T11:50:11.590+11:002017-03-29T11:50:11.590+11:00Interesting that in Jones v Toben, 'Australian...Interesting that in Jones v Toben, 'Australian Jewry' was considered an ethnic group and the case was won for the (Jewish) complainant. I'm wondering how Muslims will do on that score, and what define ethnicity. It's pretty clear that many who object to Muslims think they 'should go back to where they came from' i.e. that they are foreigners, but I'm sure that any 18C case based on attacking Muslims would be battled out strongly.<br /><br />I note that in the commentary on some 18C cases, it is not enough to show that a single person was offended, insulted etc. The test being applied is whether it is reasonable to conclude that the impugned act would cause offence etc, and that test is being carried out by largely white, well off, educated judges. Apparently most cases don't make it to Court as HREOC either conciliates them or advises the complainant the provisions do not apply.<br /><br />My comment about Bill Leak seem to be correct, BTW. The West Australian and its cartoonist successfully argued that a series of cartoons fell under the 18D exemptions.2 tannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-28110771507917394882017-03-29T11:28:02.491+11:002017-03-29T11:28:02.491+11:00I wrote a fair bit on the Bolt case at the time, 2...I wrote a fair bit on the Bolt case at the time, 2T. I should revisit those posts because they include links to other writing as well as my own analysis. <br /><br />On the chilling point, it actually affects me because I don't want to get caught in the hassle that might happen if I upset someone and they lodge a complaint, I neither the time nor money. As you note on offend, there is a case for narrowing scope.<br /><br />The right to be a bigot is a difficult one. Philosophically I support the right but don't know where to draw the line! <br /><br />I think that I agree on your last sentence. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-68957452830916872432017-03-29T11:10:03.469+11:002017-03-29T11:10:03.469+11:00Layman's comment also. Bolt lost his case, as ...Layman's comment also. Bolt lost his case, as I understand it, because he couldn't prove that what he said was true or even that there was any evidence. There are pretty strong defences in there, but if a journalist is prevented from making stuff up to push a political point, I for one don't consider that a 'chilling' effect. I'd surmise Leak could have gotten off using the 'artistic' defence if he had ever been charged (say for the 'So what's his name then?' cartoon) and if a judge had even let the case proceed. <br /><br />I'd be quite happy to see the word 'offend' disappear; too many people take offence too easily and then think that this gives them some kind of automatic superiority, IMHO. On the other hand, defences like Brandis' "right to be a bigot" or the IPA's cries for free speech (while at the same time opining with approval that denigration of the coal industry may be contrary to Australian law) are not convincing.<br /><br />By and large, I'm not seeing an issue which demands so much of our MPs' time.2 tannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-72504115252337766852017-03-27T18:05:41.840+11:002017-03-27T18:05:41.840+11:00I agree with your point, kvd. It is a significant ...I agree with your point, kvd. It is a significant change because it implies a pattern of behaviour. What I'm not sure about is whether or not it it represents a toughening of the law as the PM states. I think that this depends upon the way the court would interpret the change. It could by getting rid of lower level comments that presently crowd things. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-17684365541760245002017-03-27T16:53:31.202+11:002017-03-27T16:53:31.202+11:00Just a layman's comment on the proposed change...Just a layman's comment on the proposed change from "offend, insult, humiliate" to "harass" - my impression of the new word is action of an on-going nature whereas, while the old words can involve repeated insults, etc., they also more usually refer to one-off instances. <br /><br />To take a recent example, the Leak cartoon was essentially a once-off instance and was complained about as such, rather than as part of a series of objectionable matter - at least from what I've read?<br /><br />So, I'm saying there's a significant change in the sense I take from the revision.<br /><br />kvd<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com