Quote:


The only thing I would change is to make it much easier to toss out frivolous claims at threshold...at no cost to anyone.  Even Lawyers to be barred from being involved at that level.

Burkee just wrecks the libtards with this brilliant debate

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:03pm:


As Ms Aly says , what do you want to say you can't now ? 

Turnbull has stuffed this up because he cannot defend his position and his argument is piss weak....Whilst I think 18c should be abolished altogether along with many other prohibitive laws Malcolm Turnbull just can't sell bigotry!!!

Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 5:02pm:


No-one pays much attention to the majority of cases in which Section 18C is invoked. The heat is always at the margins – stoked by media interest because of the identity of an alleged perpetrator (the Andrew Bolt case from 2011 being a prime example), or because the case is regarded as linking up a wider agenda around “political correctness”.

It is much harder to perpetuate the myth that 18C threatens the foundations of Australian democracy (and so must be repealed), if the more typical cases are considered. These included:

Cases involving holocaust denial and anti-Semitism;

A case in which Aboriginal youths killed in a car accident were described as “criminal trash” and “scum” that should be used as “land fill”; and

A case in which an Aboriginal women and her family were subjected to an torrent of abuse, including being called including “n.iggers”, “c.oons”, “black mole”, “black bastards” and “lying black mole c.unt”.

There was also a case in which a man who was simply doing his job as a security officer at a public building was called a “Singaporean prick”, and echoing the classic retort of xenophobic exclusion that has been slung at numerous immigrant communities: “go back to Singapore”.

There is another point that often gets lost in the debate over 18C. As far as legal regulation goes, the regime contained in the Racial Discrimination Act is one of the more modest forms of state intervention. The Human Rights Commission is a neutral facilitator, not an enforcer. And, wherever possible, the aim is to resolve things via conciliation.

Only a very small number of cases ever make their way to the court system. Even where a complaint is upheld, the remedies are hardly draconian. Damages are rarely awarded (and if they are, the amount is modest), and no-one is convicted or goes to prison – because 18C does not create a criminal offence.

Its time wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 8:58pm:


I don't know, maybe being able to say that segregating Aborigines from everyone else is unfair, and not having to go through a court case lasting four years after saying it? 

matty wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 11:14am:



nothing stopping you from saying that now is there? 

Surprising the libs want to revisit this again , much like any of their policies its like a dog returning to its vomit