pɐǝɹɥʇ lɐᴉɔᴉɟɟoun ǝɥʇ - ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀

[prisonermonkeys]

Everything that Tunbull does is done to appease the various factions that have him over a barrel. He's not running the country; he's desperately trying to cling to power. The whole debate about 18C was about protecting Andrew Bolt because he was critical of the government and the government needed him on their side.

And it always amuses me when a rich, white conservative male thinks he knows best when it comes to discrimination since he's the last person who will ever suffer it.

 

[Com Fox]

And it always amuses me when a rich, white conservative male thinks he knows best when it comes to discrimination since he's the last person who will ever suffer it.

He isn't getting rid of anti-discrimination laws. He's attempting to alter it so, works and ideas don't shut down because someone took offense to it and called [insert]ist. We shouldn't be able to censor ideas that someone might deem offensive and instead use our own ideas to fight back, like what you're doing now. There were several breaches of the act 18C as it is that seem questionable. Like people in a University complaining that they weren't allowed to use an Indigenous only computer room.

The whole debate about 18C was about protecting Andrew Bolt because he was critical of the government and the government needed him on their side.

Andrew Bolt also "breached" it just by questioning the heritage of supposed indigenous who received government grants about being indigenous. I really don't think legal troubles should be issued for questioning someones origin.

The change is simply replacing insult, offend and humiliate with harass which IMO is a really good thing. Especially since what is insulting and offensive is very subjective and can be easily claimed to be used to shut down any sort of work or ideas. Harass isn't exactly easy so it's harder to shut down work and ideas but still stops usage of discrimination to put down people based on who they are.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There were several breaches of the act 18C as it is that seem questionable.

And the Human Rights Commission investigates those. The same Human Rights Commission that the Liberals have repeatedly tried to shut down because they were critical of government policy.

Like people in a University complaining that they weren't allowed to use an Indigenous only computer room.

A complaint which the Human Rights Commission rejected.

Andrew Bolt also "breached" it just by questioning the heritage of supposed indigenous who received government grants about being indigenous

No, he breached it because he made libellous claims about people falsely claiming indigenous heritage.

We shouldn't be able to censor ideas that someone might deem offensive and instead use our own ideas to fight back

You and I both know that the political right will simply claim that any disagreement with them is an attack on free speech.

 

[Com Fox]

No, he breached it because he made libellous claims about people falsely claiming indigenous heritage.

No, his actions was considered in breach with 18C, which doesn't cover general libel claims. Which can actually be fought back with evidence and the oppositions own ideas, instead of just censoring him

You and I both know that the political right will simply claim that any disagreement with them is an attack on free speech.

and the political left, attempting to shut down any idea they deem offensive isn't going to help that.

I don't see why this is a bad thing. It just means you can't hide underneath legal banners when in discussion or looking at open forms. You still aren't allowed to be 🤬 to someone because of what they are as that goes underneath harassment, the thing that replaces offend.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, his actions was considered in breach with 18C, which doesn't cover general libel claims.

No, that didn't happen at all - he was under investigation for libel, and because of the nature of what he published, 18C came into effect.

Which can actually be fought back with evidence and the oppositions own ideas, instead of just censoring him

And he was found to have made libellous claims and was fined for it.

and the political left, attempting to shut down any idea they deem offensive isn't going to help that.

What political left? There is no political left in Australia at the moment.

that goes underneath harassment, the thing that replaces offend

Harassment is much harder to prove than offence. Which is the point of the proposed changes.

I don't see why this is a bad thing.

Because nobody in the community wants it. The only people lobbying for the changes are rich, white conservative male politicians - the Cory Bernardis and George Christensens of the world. They've never been subject to discriminations, and probably never will be. Most of what they say is discriminatory. The fact that George Brandis defended it as "the right to be a bigot" as if it were a basic human right proves how ridiculous it is.

18C is necessary to protect people from the likes of Bernardi and Christensen and Brandis and Hanson - the people who will happily strip others of their rights and their protection, but who will scream blue murder first, loudest and longest if ever anyone should look sideways at their rights and their protection.

 

[Imari]

Like people in a University complaining that they weren't allowed to use an Indigenous only computer room.

There was an indigenous only computer room? Wtf?

Some people are just ridiculous snowflakes, but I question the wisdom of a learning institution having resources that are only available to some students based on race.

 

[Com Fox]

No, that didn't happen at all - he was under investigation for libel, and because of the nature of what he published, 18C came into effect.

Kinda what I was pointing too, what he did shouldn't have gone into 18C, it was libel and wrong but due to the vagueness of how 18C is now, it easily was put in breach of that when it shouldn't

What political left? There is no political left in Australia at the moment.

As long as there is opposition, there'll always be a left and right side, especially with massive left news outlets like The Project. Now, I'll admit compared to America, the political left is small but would you argue that everyone protesting this is just as right as the people supporting it?

Harassment is much harder to prove than offence. Which is the point of the proposed changes.

Exactly. Problem is offence is way to easy to be proven since anyone can be taken offence. Harassment allows people to go and use their freedom of speech but not on the level to oppress someone based on what they are as that would be harassment.

Because nobody in the community wants it. The only people lobbying for the changes are rich, white conservative male politicians - the Cory Bernardis and George Christensens of the world. They've never been subject to discriminations, and probably never will be. Most of what they say is discriminatory. The fact that George Brandis defended it as "the right to be a bigot" as if it were a basic human right proves how ridiculous it is.

Well you saying them being White Conservatives therefore their views are relatively irrelevant is discriminatory, is it not?

Ok, that was a bit of a strawman , but anyway, however, a lot of people are supporting it. You can argue that these people who support never faced discrimination but these people against it don't have to get their ideas shut down constantly due to being posed as racist, sexist etc. regardless of it even if it was the intention and actually facing legal troubles due to it, they don't have to deal with being careful of what to say in case it is taken out of context. This here is so we have a balance of legally being able to spread ideas and legally protecting those from real discrimination (like harassment), not protecting someone from what some "mean" person said (like someone getting offended of someones opinion on an issue they find sensitive).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

due to the vagueness of how 18C is now, it easily was put in breach of that when it shouldn't

It was entirely justified under 18C. It was a libellous attack on people with a legitimate claim to abotiginality aimed at turning the community against them.

Problem is offence is way to easy to be proven since anyone can be taken offence.

Again, that's what the Human Rights Commission is for. They assess the claims and either uphold them or reject them. The Liberals are trying to shut down the HRC while diluting 18C, with the net effect being that while harassment will be illegal, it will be impossible to prosecute.

however, a lot of people are supporting it.

The only people supporting it are Liberal voters to whom voting for anyone else would be tantamount to treason.

This here is so we have a balance of legally being able to spread ideas and legally protecting those from real discrimination (like harassment), not protecting someone from what some "mean" person said (like someone getting offended of someones opinion on an issue they find sensitive).

Except that the government is trying to shut down the Human Rights Commission, which is already designed to do exactly what you're suggesting. Remember Gillian Triggs? She's the one who was critical of government policy. She's been a burr under their saddle, and they've been trying to get rid of both her and the HRC for years. The changes to 18C give the illusion of greater freedom and protection, but they do it by gutting the HRC, giving them a pretext to close it down.

legally protecting those from real discrimination (like harassment)

Nope. What it will do is require someone to be subjected to multiple instances of discrimination before they can lodge a complaint, while stripping the body that oversees those complaints of any power to do anything. So what you'll get is people who are subject to discrimination having no legal representation or recourse, and the people performing the discrimination facing no consequences for their actions.

 

[Com Fox]

It was entirely justified under 18C. It was a libellous attack on people with a legitimate claim to abotiginality aimed at turning the community against them.

It was a questioning on if their claim was legitimate.

Again, that's what the Human Rights Commission is for. They assess the claims and either uphold them or reject them. The Liberals are trying to shut down the HRC while diluting 18C, with the net effect being that while harassment will be illegal, it will be impossible to prosecute.

Problem is, Commission is a group of people and not a a written law to follow. If it is deemed harassment, done, no debate, especially since debate isn't something that you can easily hide behind.

The only people supporting it are Liberal voters to whom voting for anyone else would be tantamount to treason.

I'm more of a Labor supporter myself, and I support this act.

Except that the government is trying to shut down the Human Rights Commission, which is already designed to do exactly what you're suggesting. Remember Gillian Triggs? She's the one who was critical of government policy. She's been a burr under their saddle, and they've been trying to get rid of both her and the HRC for years. The changes to 18C give the illusion of greater freedom and protection, but they do it by gutting the HRC, giving them a pretext to close it down.

If the written law makes it unnecessary to have it around because it isn't determine by interpretation

Nope. What it will do is require someone to be subjected to multiple instances of discrimination before they can lodge a complaint, while stripping the body that oversees those complaints of any power to do anything.

Definition of Harassment: aggressive pressure or intimidation. Seems more simple than what you're saying.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It was a questioning on if their claim was legitimate.

Based on no evidence. And having read the piece in question, based on no understanding. Bolt clearly made no attempt at even understanding what "aboriginality" even is.

Commission is a group of people and not a a written law to follow. If it is deemed harassment, done, no debate, especially since debate isn't something that you can easily hide behind.

The HRC follows a written law: 18C. If 18C is changed, it will require interpretation - the sane interpretation that you say undermines the current state of 18C.

If the written law makes it unnecessary to have it around because it isn't determine by interpretation

It will still be subject to interpretation. Someone will have to ask "is this harassment or not?".

Seems more simple than what you're saying.

You still don't get it. The proposed changes to 18C will still require complaints to go through the HRC. But the HRC's power will be diminished, and because it will be harder to prove that the harassment took place, the HRC will be ineffectual and thus easier for the government to shut down.

 

[Com Fox]

Based on no evidence. And having read the piece in question, based on no understanding. Bolt clearly made no attempt at even understanding what "aboriginality" even is.

I never said what he did was correct.

The HRC follows a written law: 18C. If 18C is changed, it will require interpretation - the sane interpretation that you say undermines the current state of 18C.

18C, with words that are very vague, sure right now they might have right moves but who knows if they might go rogue on someone because something they disagree with can fit in the offensive build? They are doing everything right. Also I thought you said this would kill the HRC, this tell mes that it'll just change their policies which IMO doesn't seem like an issue as it just makes it harder for them to obey any false accusation of proper discrimination because someone deemed it offensive.

The proposed changes to 18C will still require complaints to go through the HRC. But the HRC's power will be diminished, and because it will be harder to prove that the harassment took place, the HRC will be ineffectual and thus easier for the government to shut down.

Ok never mind the last few lines before

Honestly this doesn't sound that bad, harassment isn't so hard to prove that its impossible, I just showed you what harassment is. From what I gather, you would be able to report if you are intimidated or given aggressive pressure based on discrimination, if anything, it looks like its harder to find loop holes to allow false accusations to go through.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

harassment isn't so hard to prove that its impossible

No, it's not. But when complaints are reviewed by a body with no power to uphold them, it becomes impossible. Which is what the government wants. It would be calling the police to report a crime, but when the police arrive, they're all wearing blindfolds.

 

[Com Fox]

No, it's not. But when complaints are reviewed by a body with no power to uphold them, it becomes impossible. Which is what the government wants. It would be calling the police to report a crime, but when the police arrive, they're all wearing blindfolds.

If it fits the definition then I don't see how. If you were intimidated or given aggresive pressure, then the offender is in victim in 18C.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If it fits the definition then I don't see how. If you were intimidated or given aggresive pressure, then the offender is in victim in 18C.

I have explained this half a dozen times already. It might be a clear-cut case of harassment, but it still requires a complaint to be lodged with the HRC for a prosecution. But since the HRC will have greatly-reduced powers, there won't be any prosecutions.

 

[Com Fox]

I have explained this half a dozen times already. It might be a clear-cut case of harassment, but it still requires a complaint to be lodged with the HRC for a prosecution. But since the HRC will have greatly-reduced powers, there won't be any prosecutions.

I highly doubt it, it's harder to prove it but it doesn't mean there is no prosecutions.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I highly doubt it, it's harder to prove it but it doesn't mean there is no prosecutions.

There won't be with a Human Rights Commission that has been rendered impotent.

Like I said, it would be like calling the police to report a crime, and when they arrive, they're all wearing blindfolds.

 

[Com Fox]

How though? They simply changed what the HRC can identify as what breachs 18C. They didn't make it so they can't identify it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They didn't make it so they can't identify it.

Because changes to 18C require changes to the law. Changes to the Human Rights Commission don't require changes to the law because they're a governmental agency.

 

[Com Fox]

Because changes to 18C require changes to the law. Changes to the Human Rights Commission don't require changes to the law because they're a governmental agency.

HRC can still identify the discrimination acts of 18C, it's simply changed so instead of looking for offences and humiliation which a lot of things can be seen as that depending on the person, they look into harassment which like you said is harder but I don't think so hard it makes HRC useless.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't think so hard it makes HRC useless

You still don't understand. Changing 18C won't make the HRC useless. But the government can change the HRC quite separately, and that's what makes the HRC useless.

 

[Com Fox]

You still don't understand. Changing 18C won't make the HRC useless. But the government can change the HRC quite separately, and that's what makes the HRC useless.

I feel like you're over complicating things. The government can change the HRC, but from what I gather they're just changing 18C, nothing more.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

from what I gather they're just changing 18C, nothing more.

That's all they're admitting to for now. But they have been unending in their criticism of the HRC and have been looking for excuses to crush it since they got into power.

 

[Com Fox]

That's all they're admitting to for now. But they have been unending in their criticism of the HRC and have been looking for excuses to crush it since they got into power.

I don't see how changing a few words in 18C actually crushes the HRC.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't see how changing a few words in 18C actually crushes the HRC.

It doesn't! How difficult can it be to understand this? Changing 18C only changes the law. Since the Human Rights Commission is a government department, the government doesn't need an act of parliament to change it. They change 18C and the HRC quite separately, promoting the idea of "harassment" as opposed to "offence", but restructuring the HRC at the same time so that it's almost impossible to prosecute under 18C because the the rest of Article 18 still requires complainants under 18C to go through the HRC.

 

[Com Fox]

How difficult can it be to understand this?

because you keep saying HRC follows the 18C as a guideline for their actions but also saying that this change won;t also change the 18C.

They change 18C and the HRC quite separately, promoting the idea of "harassment" as opposed to "offence", but restructuring the HRC at the same time so that it's almost impossible to prosecute under 18C because the the rest of Article 18 still requires complainants under 18C to go through the HRC.

If they can change them separately then why is the change in 18C a problem? Wouldn't the problem be with changing the HRC which I see no evidence of happening.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If they can change them separately then why is the change in 18C a problem?

Because they want to do both. They want to change 18C to encourage the idea of an open and free exchange of ideas without fear of prosecution. But they also want to change the HRC to limit its power. Despite the change to 18C, complaints will still need to go through the HRC because other sections of Article 18 dictate it. But with the powers of the HRC greatly reduced, they won't be able to prosecute offences under the new 18C. The government will then use this to shut the HRC down completely.

 

[Com Fox]

Because they want to do both. They want to change 18C to encourage the idea of an open and free exchange of ideas without fear of prosecution. But they also want to change the HRC to limit its power. Despite the change to 18C, complaints will still need to go through the HRC because other sections of Article 18 dictate it. But with the powers of the HRC greatly reduced, they won't be able to prosecute offences under the new 18C. The government will then use this to shut the HRC down completely.

I don't see why complain about both just because both are being changed. 18C change I thin is a good change while the HRC change is a bit questionable, I'll admit,

 

[prisonermonkeys]

18C change I thin is a good change while the HRC change is a bit questionable, I'll admit,

And the HRC change makes the 18C change a bad change because changing the HRC will make it all but impossible to prosecute people under 18C - even if they have a legitimate case to answer to.

Long-term, it will play out like this: the Liberals are terrified about the rise of populism. They're afraid that the likes of Hanson, Bernardi and Christensen will start attracting more and more votes away from the Liberal Party. Labor, the Greens and Xenophon will lose some, but the Liberals will take a bigger hit. Enough that they will be forced to form a coalition with the smaller parties if they manage to win government. We've already seen early signs of that in Barnett's disastrous preference deal with One Nation in Western Australia.

But if there's one thing that the Liberals know gets votes, it's talking tough. Abbott always got a boost in the polls when he took a hardline stance on terrorism and Russia (he tried it with the unions, but it blew up in his face). Why do you think a mentally unstable man was branded a terrorist instead of a criminal? Because it suited the agenda to have an enemy on our doorstep. Why do you think Abbott's policies did more damage than good to the relationship with the Muslim community? Because it suited the agenda.

The Liberals want to adopt some of the populist policies floated by the likes of Hanson and Bernardi, namely immigration restrictions, so they can win voters back. But they can't do it with 18C in its current form. So they want to change 18C and squash the HRC so that they can then pick up the populist policies and win back voters. If a couple of people have to be subject to discrimination, the Liberals won't care because they're still in power and their born-to-rule mentality says that that is only ever a good thing.

Like I said, Turnbull isn't ruling to run the country. He's desperate to stay in power.

 

[Com Fox]

Again, then the real problem isn't with 18C but with the changes to HRC. If they can be changed independently like you said then the 18C changes should be irrelevant, no problem.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If they can be changed independently like you said then the 18C changes should be irrelevant, no problem.

Except that it is a problem because the government isn't going to change 18C without changing the HRC. The whole point of changing 18C in the first place is to justify changing the HRC to get rid of it.