Thursday 23 March 2017

chris kenny today the oz

from chris kenny today

Simply dishonest: Labor talking complete rot over 18C reforms

We need to call out the cynical way in which Labor and the Greens are seeking to use the section 18C issue to inflame divisive, race-based ­debate for political purposes.
They are deliberately misrepresenting the aims of the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act as somehow giving a green light to racism. This is ­dishonest and irresponsible.
“As someone who has been subjected to racism time and time again — as I was growing up, and even in my life now — please give me an answer: what exactly does the Prime Minister want people to be able to say that they cannot say now?” asked Labor’s Anne Aly.
“PM, what changed between then and now, what insults do you want people to be allowed to say?” asked Bill Shorten.
Shorten and Aly know the proposed changes will keep section 18C on the statute books so racial vilification will still be outlawed in this nation under ­federal law. They know the reforms proposed by the government aim only to prevent the repetition of clear cases of overreach against free speech.
The reforms proposed by Malcolm Turnbull aim to eradicate ­authoritarian overreach against individuals in a free society. They aim to limit instances of unfair and unwarranted institutional intrusions into people’s lives. Yet Labor and the Greens seek to portray this as unleashing some racist dystopia in our country. They must have an extremely low opinion of mainstream Australians. They must think people in the suburbs and ­regions are champing at the bit to throw off the shackles of a few words in a piece of legislation so that they can launch racist abuse at their neighbours. What rot.
The greatest weapon and most consistently effective measure in combating racism is the daily imposition of reasonable standards by the overwhelming majority of tolerant, fair-minded people in their daily lives. No change to the law will change this reality. A more sensible limit on the intrusions of the Australian Human Rights Commission can only be seen as a vote of faith in the good sense of the public.
Perversely, many members of the media have joined Labor and the Greens in their opposition to these reforms. This is astounding behaviour from journalists who would be expected to show a bias in favour of free speech. But then we shouldn’t be surprised. So ­partisan have many of them become they supported Labor and the Greens five years ago when they proposed de facto regulation of print media content.
If Turnbull’s amendments are passed, racial vilification will still be against the law. Shorten and Aly know this — why do they ­pretend otherwise? And in the here and now, racial vilification laws do not prevent the racist mutterings of a tiny minority of individuals; they never will.
If the changes are passed by parliament, no one should notice anything. The only ramifications should be to decrease the likelihood of overreach by the AHRC.
When politicians and analysts say the Coalition could lose ­marginal seats because of this ­proposal, what they are really saying is Labor will run disingenuous campaigns pretending the government is giving a nod to racism. If Labor runs such deliberately divisive campaigns it will be a lie that puts the Mediscare stunt to shame.
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.
164 COMMENTS
146 people listening

NEWEST | OLDEST | TOP COMMENTS
Gary
Gary
The problem with the cartoon in question is in order to shine light on what is admittedly an important social issue, Mr Leak engaged in rather lazy commentary. Drawing upon the poisonous racial stereotype of the "drunken Aboriginal", a depiction that has been used for over a hundred years to malign and put down Aboriginal people, is little different than drawing men with large crooked noses counting money to portray Jews. Mr Leak was a brilliant cartoonist and satirist, capable of so much more to make his point than the sad use of stereotype. The use of stereotype inevitably broadened the attack onto all Aboriginal people as a group, including the many who are models of parental responsibility, rather than focussing the attack on the individuals who deserve to be condemned. I have no doubt that, from all I've read that Mr Leak was not a racist and, indeed, was a very kind and generous man. But when you appropriate racist stereotypes to make your point, you perhaps should not be surprised at how that could be interpreted and how hurtful it can be. And when actions cause understandable hurt, there is indeed an important question about what society does about that. It is one not answered simply by exclaiming "free speech" and berating people not to allow themselves to be victims. Having in the last year having myself to respond to a complaint that had been lodged against my employer, I learned that what lies behind the Human Rights Commission's approach (to any complaint) is to allow those hurt and those causing the hurt to meet and understand each other's perspective. That's why the HRC does not lightly terminate complaints: it wants parties to come to an understanding themselves. What would be a step forward is to eliminate monetary compensation as an outcome and allow focus to remain on actions and consequences, rather than "right" and "wrong". If that could be achieved, then s 18C in its current wording would have a useful purpose.
Gary
Gary
I'm reluctant to go into this as I don't want to be perceived as disrespecting the recently deceased, but here goes. The problem with the cartoon in question is in order to shine light on what is admittedly an important social issue, Mr Leak engaged in rather lazy commentary. Drawing upon the poisonous racial stereotype of the "drunken Aboriginal", a depiction that has been used for over a hundred years to malign and put down Aboriginal people, is little different than drawing men with large crooked noses counting money to portray Jews. Mr Leak was a brilliant cartoonist and satirist, capable of so much more to make his point than the sad use of stereotype. The use of stereotype inevitably broadened the attack onto all Aboriginal people as a group, including the many who are models of parental responsibility, rather than focussing the attack on the individuals who deserve to be condemned. I have no doubt that, from all I've read that Mr Leak was not a racist and, indeed, was a very kind and generous man. But when you appropriate racist stereotypes to make your point, you perhaps should not be surprised at how that could be interpreted and how hurtful it can be. And when actions cause understandable hurt, there is indeed an important question about what society does about that. It is one not answered simply by exclaiming "free speech" and berating people not to allow themselves to be victims. Having in the last year having myself to respond to a complaint that had been lodged against my employer, I learned that what lies behind the Human Rights Commission's approach (to any complaint) is to allow those hurt and those causing the hurt to meet and understand each other's perspective. That's why the HRC does not lightly terminate complaints: it wants parties to come to an understanding themselves. What would be a step forward is to eliminate monetary compensation as an outcome and allow focus to remain on actions and consequences, rather than "right" and "wrong". If that could be achieved, then s 18C in its current wording would have a useful purpose.
Gary
Gary
I'm reluctant to go into this as I don't want to be perceived as disrespecting the recently deceased, but here goes. The problem with the cartoon in question is in order to shine light on what is admittedly an important social issue, Mr Leak engaged in rather lazy commentary. Drawing upon the poisonous racial stereotype of the "drunken Aboriginal", a depiction that has been used for over a hundred years to malign and put down Aboriginal people, is little different than drawing men with large crooked noses counting money to portray Jews. Mr Leak was a brilliant cartoonist and satirist, capable of so much more to make his point than the sad use of stereotype. The use of stereotype inevitably broadened the attack onto all Aboriginal people as a group, including the many who are models of parental responsibility, rather than focussing the attack on the individuals who deserve to be condemned. I have no doubt that, from all I've read that Mr Leak was not a racist and, indeed, was a very kind and generous man. But when you appropriate racist stereotypes to make your point, you perhaps should not be surprised at how that could be interpreted and how hurtful it can be. And when actions cause understandable hurt, there is indeed an important question about what society does about that. It is one not answered simply by exclaiming "free speech" and berating people not to allow themselves to be victims. Having in the last year having myself to respond to a complaint that had been lodged against my employer, I learned that what lies behind the Human Rights Commission's approach (to any complaint) is to allow those hurt and those causing the hurt to meet and understand each other's perspective. That's why the HRC does not lightly terminate complaints: it wants parties to come to an understanding themselves. What would be a step forward is to eliminate monetary compensation as an outcome and allow focus to remain on actions and consequences, rather than "right" and "wrong". If that could be achieved, then s 18C in its current wording would have a useful purpose.
Perry
Perry
When has Labor ever shown that 18C has stopped racism? 

And Labor really should stop preselecting the likes of Anne because they are part of a victim group. It tends to end badly. 
Fred
Fred
Labor and the Green's need to suggest a way that stops innocent people being dragged through the Kangaroo court that is the AHRC. What about the rights of the unfairly targeted UNI students, Bill Leak, and the millions living under the threat of possibly one day being put through the same?

If they can't come up with a solution, the AHRC should be shut down as a waste of tax payers money, and section 18C removed. 

We have proper court systems where claimants can fund their own cases (and plenty of no win no fee lawyers) to address any real concerns in our community.
Jim
Jim
The Labor Party serves the singular purpose of making others look smart. Labor voters need to look in the mirror to see what's wrong with the way Australia is going...
Peter
Peter
There are some profoundly concerning dynamics playing out in public discourse over recent months.
The illiberal dynamics are straight forward.
If you are Christian or even if you have donated to something as self-evidently worthy (and benign) as the Bible Society, you may be targeted by the SSM Lobby for commercial and career ruin.
This has the benign, incurious support support of the MSM. Imagine the firestorm of righteous indignation should this malevolent campaign have been deployed against any other faith?
The left have massively stepped up their determination to remove, neutralise and otherwise quash opposed opinion from existence. There is no engagement of contrary viewpoints other than efforts to stop them, rather than to defeat them through the auspices of open debate and the traditions of free discourse.
There is a serious movement which contends that it is morally justified for the organs of state to dictate what people can and cannot say and think. These prescriptions are to be overseen, judged and transgressions punished by supra-governmental functionaries, which operate beyond the democratic process. Again, this is under the incurious passivity of the MSM...with a complete absence of collective memory for events of the 20th century.
And the likes of Bernard Keene and his fellow travellers at the ABC expound on what a 'fringe' or 'extreme' reaction it is, to express concerns about these developments.
Brett
Brett
Labor's deceit on these very modest amendments is fairly self evident. After 'mediscare' the ALP will be seen to be protesting too much if they accuse the government of racism over these changes and, in turn, will be seen more as a vexatious protest party than an alternative government. 
It is also concerning that those advocating for free speech are seen to be from the right of politics and that the left have assumed the mantel of being the protectors of the emotionally sensitive. This has not always been the case. Former Greens Senator Christobel Chamarette was opposed to 18C altogether. While I didn't agree with her left of centre thinking on economic and environmental issues, she deserves respect as someone from the left who advocated for free speech.
Vince
Vince
Following on from the Coopers debacle* and todays The Australian article about the ALP seeking to amend s18c so it would prevent (amongst other things) the ability of people to defend the traditional definition of marriage on the grounds it may hurt someones' feelings.
My query is a simple one.
With the main stream media seemingly ok with being muzzled and the State (both Federal and States) having massive administrative organs that are crushing our freedoms, how exactly can we the people mobilise to push back?
We can't rely upon our votes to necessarily achieve this as too many MP's (including in the Liberal party) are weak in this area (Laundy, Zimmerman et al).
I fear that a backlash is coming and that it will be brutal and it will not be restrained which will in the short term allow the ALP to crush our freedoms even more.
Thoughts and suggestions are most welcome

*they should have stood up for free speech and allowed us to support their stand . Their capitulation hasn't won them any friends in the LGBTIQ community and angered conservatives who would have stood by them
DON
DON
Chris Kenny should & probably does understand that it is the unintended consequences which are at the hub of these proposed changes. Even if  it is accepted that the existing wording is not perfect the publicity around a change enacted by our national parliament can encourage people at the margin of behaviour to believe that something of a free for all becomes OK. Our lives are full of examples of people & communities over reacting to change. Bill Shorten & his gang will admittedly make things worse.
Sometimes it is better to leaves things the way they are albeit that an imperfect situation prevails.
Janis
Janis
@DON  Of course better leave things as they are . Reckon 99% Australians never ever been charged under 18c.  Clear over reaction  by The Australian and assorted friends.
Martin
Martin
@DON Placing fetters on free speech is act of power by the state over the individual. What scares me far more than "unintended consequences" of free speech are the consequences of the state regulating speech.  
Martin
Martin
@Janis @DON  Janis, I don't think you're familiar with this topic. No-one is "charged' under 18C. That section makes certain acts unlawful, not illegal.  
Julie
Julie
@DON Don, if any nasty racist idiot does think there is a "free for all" they will quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a legitimate claim of racial harassment or intimidation. These are the actions that need to remain unlawful; I agree with Chris Kenny - the word "offend" is overreach.

The current wording has led to misuse of the time and resources of the HRC, devalued the term "racism", and created the more pertinent risk that people will not take legitimate complaints seriously. It is better for minority groups for the legislation to be properly targeted.
Chris 50
Chris 50
@Janis @Martin @DON so you think its quite OK to have thousands of your fellow Australians dragged through a kangaroo court for expressing an opinion on a sensitive political/ social topic ? 
Save the Krill
Save the Krill
I agree that 18c should be amended.  We have to think of solutions, not just complaining.  There is an equally  important factor to be addressed, and that is the AHRC itself.  It is partisan,  diminished, compromised and now completely lacking credibility.  It is not a "proper" court - it is a kangaroo court, and that is being kind..  These matters must now be dealt with by the traditional courts that have judges and magistrates who by education and experience understand the concept of fairness, relevance, impartiality and evidential rigor.  By people who are not going to try to push citizens into unfair settlements, who can set aside prejudices, and have not been tarnished with political alliegiances.  Please support this.
Peter
Peter
Comrade Bernard Keene of that bastion of centrism and even handed-ness, Crikey, on Steve Austin's 612 ABC this morning:
"Free speech nonsense is really a construct of the extreme right outer edges. It's confounding that Turnbull would pay any attention to it all".
He went on to say that all the money spent on anti-terrorism measures at Parliament House were actually to prevent journalists from getting access to politicians, as the threat of terror is conflated, exaggerated invention which creates targets of our police for the mentally ill (paraphrased for economy).
All sagely agreed to by Comrade Austin.
I think it's well that such partisan campaigning should have a media platform, in an open, pluralistic society
It is manifestly wrong that such an overtly politicised loud hailer, should be publicly funded, from taxes.
David
David
@Peter I trust the security forces are taking note of Bernard Keene's call for there to be less anti-terrorism protections at our nation's parliament.

Anthony
Anthony
@David @Peter How can the ABC adhere to its Charter and offer the loud-speaker to the extreme left anarchist Keane, he who encourages law-breaking to stop coal mining.? Any ABC types out there got an answer?
Clarke
Clarke
Those people who claim they are defending free speech need to appreciate that there are limits. Try placing yourself in other's shoes.
Let's see cartoons depicting all men as peodophiles salivating over children in playgrounds. That would be an equivalent shining of the hard light of truth on an ongoing problem. It would not be appreciated and it would not be fair. Nor would it be courageous. The commentators on this site would ebthe first to be outraged.
Peter
Peter
Hello Clarke.
Thanks for that.
I can put myself in said shoes.
Rather than being offended, I was profoundly grateful that more light was shone upon an important issue, which precipitated more discourse both within Indigenous communities and more broadly.
Unlike you, I will not take it upon myself, to speak on behalf of all Indigenous people. But I will tell you the truth that I am far, far from alone in holding this opinion among my friends and relatives.
Racism come in may forms, Clarke.
Unsolicited condescension, paternalism and the assumption of helplessness, used to underpin a political narrative without any experiential context, is one of them. Perhaps that is even more irritating and insulting than a cartoon drawing, actually, given that cartoons are in point of fact, caricatures.
craig
craig
@Clarke  a truly ridiculous comparison-why don't you post it on the greens website so the rest of us don't have to read such rubbish.
oh sorry you would be posting it to yourself...
Martin
Martin
@Clarke  Let's see cartoons depicting all men as peodophiles salivating over children in playgrounds. That would be an equivalent shining of the hard light of truth on an ongoing problem.
Really? I guess you didn't see a few weeks ago that Daily Life article 'Why I Won't Let Any Male Babysit My Children'. I'm sure you don't have to think too hard about what the author was implying. As a male, I think it was disgusting what the author was saying, but I recognise her right to free speech. Now, what were you saying about being "fair"? 
ivan
ivan
'They must have an extremely low opinion of mainstream Australians '. No Chris they are just the very thing they are screaming about, racist.
Sean
Sean
The biggest issue with current legislation is the fact that an offence does not depend on what is said by the accused, but what is "felt" by the complainant. With the progressive push to encourage victimhood and identity politics, just about anything can be construed as being "offensive". The situation is exacerbated by the system, led by the AHRC, which seems in an unholy rush to legitimise every complaint on that basis.
Who the hell knows what is likely to offend the snowflake brigade next.
Tony
Tony
@Sean Bit like assault really.   The victim complains of a hurt to his eye - not that the assaulter might have hit him with a cricket bat rather than his open palm.            The victim didn't have to be a snowflake to object to being lambasted.
Ray
Ray
@Tony @Sean Tony, what a stupid analogy.
No, it's not like assault at all. The words "fighting segregation with segregation" can only be offensive if you are determined to choose to be offended
Sean
Sean
This comes as no surprise to most of us who have been incredulous at how many Australians still can't see through the ALP and Greens, who are really doing their best to ruin this country. All we can do is hope that more Aussies wake up to what is going on. I would also hope that the Libs grow some backbone in standing up against this onslaught from the socialists, not to mention tidy up their own policy cupboard as well. 
Bruce
Bruce
Having seen what just happened in WA I dispair for this nation. With the example of disastrous ALP government s in Qld, Vic and SA there were still enough Dills here to be taken in by blatant lies and vote in the ALP.
BRUCEG
Paul
Paul
labor needs to be held to account for foisting the abomination that is 18c on the Australian public in the first place. 
THOMAS
THOMAS
Kerry Packer said the the Federal Parliament had passed 10,000 laws in 20 years and Australia would be a better place if they had passed none. 
Manfred
Manfred
@THOMAS  He was rich, so he must be worth quoting. A shame his commentaries are on about the same skill level as his parenting.
Greg
Greg
Divisive Bill Shorten and Labour playing political point scoring!
Tallulah
Tallulah
It's a law that's been here since 1995. Howard left it alone. So did Abbott. Adopting a conservative approach is now called divisive?
Peter
Peter
Logic trap failure.
What makes you think people would also not think Howard and Abbott wrong to abide by the inherent illiberalism of the 18C/AHRC/RVA, nexus?
They were.
Tallulah
Tallulah
Peter, it means it was a bipartisan law for 20 years, so illogical to call Labor divisive for wanting to keep it.
Chris 50
Chris 50
@Tallulah The recent growth of identity politics and victimhood , has focused our attention on a bad law. it didn't seem to be an issue in the Howard years. Abbott wanted to do something about it but caved into the Jewish lobby. 
Thomas
Thomas
@Peter @Tallulah  18C was not a problem until a rabid Human Rights believer one Gillian Griggs without one iota of balance in the application of the law was appointed to the AHRC.
Walter
Walter
Chris Kenny, master of the single entendre. The government makes a decision to water down a law that protects citizens from being racially abused, and it's LABOR that is playing politics? Please. This mealy mouthed defence of everything this terribly malfunctioning and underwhelming government does becomes very tiresome. 

Because Chris doesn't actually discuss any elements of the Act on the assumption that there's 'nothing to see', and detail tends not to play to his audience, here is a copy of 18c:  

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, 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.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, so why do a group of white, rich, primarily male politicians want it removed?


Hannah
Hannah
@Walter Absolutely agree - this is about the privilege of white people who don't experience race vilification telling those who do to accept it. No thanks. 
Michael
Michael
@Walter Sigh.  Because being offended is entirely a subjective decision and does not deserve "protection" under the law.
Peter
Peter
IE: The government is arbitrarily mandating what someone can say and think. Inclusive of judgements and punishments controlled by supra-governmental organs beyond the democratic process.
Healthy eh, Walter?
Right now, you are supportive of the mechanisms which define what can and can't be said and expressed.
That is because they are defined and policed by people whose politics and 'elevated' morality, you find agreeable.
Let's say Cory Bernardi became Commissioner. Or Hanson. Or a wholly conservative high court held the aces.
Would the current structures please you then?
There are good reasons why 18C/AHRC/RVA causes profound concern to the likes of Jullian Burnside.
It is because of the inherent illiberalism and acute likelihood of gross mis-use that it is a fundamentally apolitical matter. Also that Burnside has the intellectual capacity to recall events of the 20th century.
By the way...there's those evil white males...at it again with their in-built satanic, demon-ness. They really need to be removed from all public discourse, don't they? Christians too. Honestly...how kitch. And tired.
Thanks for the archetype, though.
Anne
Anne
@Walter Lots of women and want it amended (not removed)  too. The reason? Because the law is not working as intended when originally introduced. Evidence for this? The treatment of the  QUT university students, not to mention Bill Leak, and the escalation of claims to the HRC

'Freedom of speech' if a pre-requisite and the foundation stone of all successful democracies through history. This is why It receives so much attention  and  it is precisely because IT IS DIFFICULT that it is also so contentious. It was once the clarion call of the political left, fighting for freedoms against monarchies and aristocracies. Now the left are fighting to shut it down. How ironical. The more you stipulate and create laws about what is acceptable speech, the more you shut it down; the more divisive society will become. 

Read John Stuart Mill's 'On liberty' and you might start to understand what is at stake.
Geoff
Geoff
@Walter Did you think that the Act would be couched in language that seemed unreasonable? This is not how these things are accomplished. In retrospect (at the very least), a large number of Australians judge 18c to have had, on balance, a negative effect on the life of the nation and on individual freedom.
David
David
@Walter Kindly do not stereotype and vilify white males.
A lot of people of diverse backgrounds,, represented by their MPs, want it removed because the legislation and its intent are not being respected. There has been a suppression of free speech, which is a tenet of our great nation. It is not complicated.
By the way it is 'does a group' not 'do a group'.
Craig
Craig
@Walter You do understand that what you have just posted is potentially in breach of the act because you are making an offensive implication of sinister motives to ammend the act based on the assumed race of the proponents?
Bruce
Bruce
Because it has been used as a blatant form of extortion to get funds from innocent people going about their daily routine.
BruceG
Julie
Julie
@Michael @Walter Your "get up stooge" comment doesn't constitute an argument, Michael. It is just trolling. And by the way, I do think the word "offend" is overreach if what we're aiming to reduce, or better still eliminate, is racial vilification. That is a worthy aim.
Chris 50
Chris 50
@Walter Whats wrong with it ! well let me see . a couple of University students are ejected from 
a publicly funded University facility on the basis of their race , and  when they complained ever so mildly about segregation, it was they who were accused of racism and dragged through the courts for about 3 years . no nothing wrong with that !? 
Chris 50
Chris 50
@Walter " Seems pretty reasonable to me, so why do a group of white, rich, primarily male politicians want it removed"
  Must be because of our white privilege!  nothing to do with defending the time honored basis of our democratic institutions. 
Show More Comments
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)