Insulting your intelligence …

The appointment of Tim Wilson to the so called Human Rights Commission is a good step, a voice, at last for free speech.

The big question is, will it be heard?

The commission’s president Gillian Triggs has warned Mr Wilson that the commission must speak with one voice and be independent of government. She would like to see section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it an offense for you to insult my pommy origins but not to insult my intelligence, strengthened.

Section 18c should be repealed.

Speaking freely …

Freedom of speech has been in the news again this week as the Government gets ready to do something about the odious section 18c.

A couple of excellent quotes …

First, any commitment to free speech is a commitment to allowing people to say and write things you may not like, that you may detest, that you may disagree with and find offensive. If the words spoken are words we all agree with and find congenial, then there is no need for any commitment to free speech… Professor James Allan.

and

The Nazis did not flourish because they had too much free speech. They flourished because their critics had none. Andrew Bolt.

Gillard’s greatest sin …

James Allan, Garrick Professor of Law, University of Queensland is on sabbatical at the University of San Diego School of Law and writes …

I tried a little experiment here at my sabbatical university in California. I asked a few members of the law school (from across the political spectrum) to guess which country in the world wanted to: stop speech that offended, insulted or humiliated some people; that for other matters applying to more potential people, just humiliated them; that reversed the onus of proving when this had happened so that the self-proclaimed victim could basically just sit back and force the accused to prove he hadn’t done this (good luck on that); that makes defendants pay their own legal bills, even if they end up winning, and more.

I got guesses ranging from various South American countries through African ones, and on to Singapore and godawful authoritarian countries in Asia and elsewhere. Not a single one of them guessed Australia. It presumably never entered their heads.

When I told them they couldn’t believe it.

As I said, it’s embarrassing being an Australian right now. And what we all need, all of us regardless of our other political views on other issues, is to fight this awful government proposal tooth and nail.

Sure, there’s been a partial backdown. But it’s only partial. And sure, Ms Roxon is now gone. But even what remains is an egregious attack on free speech. Mr. Abbott and the Coalition need to do more than just oppose this bill. They need to promise they will go to a double dissolution election if necessary to rid us of an outrageous mess.

And that cannot be all. For there already exists s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and all of that needs to go too, however much certain lobby groups that matter to the Coalition might be opposed to its repeal. This is about a key matter of principle. Mr. Abbott and Mr. Brandis, seeing where complacency on free speech has led us, need to be firm and make it clear that the whole proposed and existing edifice must go.

If anyone complains that that’s an extremist position, you can tell him or her that in California there would still be much more scope for people to speak their minds than in an Australia purged of these odious Nicola Roxon proposals and purged of s.18C. Even then you would be more constrained in what you can say in Australia than anywhere in the US.

The entire article can be read <HERE>.

Starry, starry eyed …

If you are naive to this issue start by reading this blog post by Professor Don Aitkin.

The next step … ask yourself if it insults anyone, except perhaps professor Aitkin’s ancestors.

Would you sue?

FORMER University of Canberra vice-chancellor and former chairman of the National Capital Authority Don Aitkin is being sued for $6 million for alleged racial discrimination.

Ngambri Aboriginal elder Shane Mortimer alleges the adjunct professor’s blog contravenes Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and has lodged an application for damages in the Federal Magistrates Court. <Canberra Times>.

Is there any truth to the suggestion that Mr. Mortimer is as pale skinned as Professor Aitkin? Judge for yourelf.

Is being called pale skinned worth $6million in compensation? Don’t anyone say thin-skinned, that could cost even more.

Mr Mortimer said the case was very similar to that of Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt. Bolt was accused of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act and was found to have contravened Section 18C of the act.

But Professor Aitkin said there was no comparison. ‘’That’s stupid, I’m an academic, I’m an emeritus professor of the University of Canberra….”

… and just writing a blog, a blog that doesn’t suggest any overtly racist tendencies in the good professor, but the law of the land applies to everyone. Bad laws have bad consequences for everyone.

18c is a very bad law, it should be repealed.

Intelligence unites our species …

At Our Lady of Velankanni church in Mumbai  water began dripping from the feet of a statue of Jesus. The locals thought it was a sign from God. Hundreds of believers flocked to the dripping cross, collecting and consuming the “holy” water that they believed would cure all ailments.

The Delhi studio of TV9 invited Indian rationalist Sanal Edamaruku  to comment. He investigated …

I had a close look at a nearby washroom and the connected drainage system that passed underneath the concrete base of the cross. I removed some stones from the drain and found it was blocked. I touched the walls, the base and the cross and took some photographs for documentation. It was very simple: water from the washroom, which had been blocked in the clogged drainage system, had been transmitted via capillary action into the adjacent walls and the base of the cross as well as into the wooden cross itself. The water came out through a nail hole and ran down over the statue’s feet.

It all seems so silly when people far away and different from us do it, doesn’t it? But wait this seems familiar …

TV9. You now face possible arrest. Why?
Sanal Edamaruku. Leaders of two Catholic laity organisations have launched charges against me under section 295A of the Indian penal code. This charges a person with “deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community”. It is absurd to claim that I did anything of the sort.

Call it Section 295A or 18C … stupidity is the one thing humanity everywhere has in common.

Quite so …

James Allan writing in the Australian

MY native Canada used to be a byword for politically correct idiocies. With the possible exception of New Zealand and more latterly of Britain, Canada was the place to be if you wanted to genuflect before the gods of speech-stifling laws, over-the-top multicultural pretensions and of pretending that supranational bodies such as the UN were some sort of undiluted force for good.

Not any more, though. Canada is changing under its right-of-centre Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper. So any UN body that pretends Israel has the worst human rights record going, as so many ridiculously do, will see Canada walk out. Likewise, when the UN tourism body appoints Robert Mugabe as an ambassador, Canada withdraws from that body ….

Last week, the Canadian parliament took the biggest step in repealing its national hate speech laws.

It voted 153-136 to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the enabling legislation that criminalised so-called hate messages… It was a big victory for free speech and political courage.

One could be forgiven, if one’s mind wandered to Victoria’s gutless and genuflecting Premier Ted Baillieu, with his refusal to stand up to the human rights lobby over that state’s awful Charter of Rights…. Baillieu might take a look at Canada and grow a backbone.

But … the far more important reaction to what’s happening in Canada is this: the forces at work against free speech can be overcome. If Canada can repeal its section 13 then we in Australia can repeal our section 18C equivalent. Now it’s true that the opposition Coalition promises to repeal most of it. It should, however, repeal all of it.

In the long term one’s position against criminalising words that simply offend others is the most important issue Australians face at the next election.

Healthy, vibrant democracies need people not to play the victim, to grow a thick skin, and not make use of pathetic, egregious hate speech laws.