18C the Law and the Left.

[Rorschach]

ABC could have fact-checked with chairman Jim before judging Brandis
LOUISE CLEGG THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 06, 2014 12:00AM

THE proposition that in a free society we have a right to be bigoted is an inoffensive, fundamental truth. Of course, we all judge ourselves not to be bigots. But Attorney-General George Brandis’s statement that people in a free country have a right to be bigots was unexceptional and entirely correct.

Defamation and vilification laws aside, in modern democracies, governments do not regulate, nor usually seek to regulate, what people think or say. So when ABC Fact Check charged itself with exploring the accuracy of Brandis’s assertion that we have a right to be bigoted, it should have been easy to give the senator an “in the green” positive ruling.

It should have been even easier to rule Brandis entirely in order, given the context.

In parliament, Brandis went on to say: “Well, do you know, Senator (Penny) Wong, I think a lot of the things I have heard you say in this chamber over the years are, to my way of thinking, extraordinarily bigoted and extraordinarily ignorant. But I would defend your right to say things that I consider to be bigoted and ignorant. That is what freedom of speech means.”

Taken in context, it is quite clear that Brandis was not for a second promoting bigotry of any kind, let alone racial bigotry. Nor was he suggesting that he or we should approve or even tolerate bigotry.

The senator’s clear message was that it is not possible or desirable in a free country for the state to regulate what people think or say on the basis that other people might disagree with it, be offended by it or consider it bigoted or ignorant.

It was a flawless, but ultimately unremarkable, defence of a bedrock freedom.

Yet across media outlets — most notably the ABC — the grab went viral. Headlines and bylines framed the senator as a defender of bigotry. Social media went into meltdown. What an awful, horrid, bigoted, disgraceful person was the senator. Off with his head! And wasn’t it typical of those nasty people in the Coalition to try to make bigotry lawful?

On ABC1’s Lateline, with a twinkle in his eye, Tony Jones speculated with Gillian Triggs about what Brandis really meant. The gleeful inference by Jones, with the good professor’s approval, was that the senator was defending bigotry. Most likely ­racial bigotry. It was a gotcha moment.

In the cool light of day, with plentiful resources and being in a position to examine context, it was reasonable to expect that ABC Fact Check would acquit Brandis. But it was not to be. With all the perspective and nuance of a Year Nine legal studies essay, ABC Fact Check decided that a most accomplished Attorney-General — QC, Commonwealth scholar with a postgraduate degree in law from Oxford, and former Unicef Australia board member — was “ill informed” concerning the view he advanced in parliament about bigotry, free speech and basic freedoms.

Fact Check cited a few mostly distinguishable or infrequently used laws to find that Australia had “many” laws that stopped people offending other people.

It’s a pity ABC Fact Check didn’t talk to Jim. You see, there’s a bloke at the ABC a bit further up the ladder who knows a thing or two about freedom of speech. Jew, immigrant, freedom rider, press secretary to Labor icon Gough Whitlam, former chief justice (a damned fine one at that) and now ABC chairman, Jim Spigelman AC QC is a doyen of the cultural Left. Lefty warhorse David Marr has fairly described Spigelman’s career as incomparable.

With his seriously big brain, Spigelman has more stature and standing than just about anyone to express a view about where we should draw the line on the regulation of speech.

In the 2012 Human Rights Day Oration, Spigelman drew on the writings of New Zealand jurist Jeremy Waldron, agreeing with his view that “protecting people’s feelings against offence is not an appropriate objective for the law.”

Drawing a distinction between hate speech and speech that merely offends — and with Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act directly in his sights — Spigelman said “declaring conduct, relevantly speech, to be unlawful, because it causes offence, goes too far”.

In the context of 18C and a then Labor proposal to extend offence protection to other federal discrimination laws, Spigelman pulled no punches. He remarked that the freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech, and clearly said “there is no right not to be offended”.

Spigelman also pointed out that we are pretty much on our own. He said he was not aware of an international human rights instrument or national anti- discrimination statute in another liberal democracy that proscribed merely offensive conduct.

It’s fair to say that in December 2012 Spigelman considered 18C to be an affront to our most important of freedoms.

There you are, ABC Fact Check. George and Jim are in furious agreement. Next time you play judge and jury on fundamental freedoms, perhaps you should run it by your chairman.

In the meantime, the silence in this debate from the cultural Left — one time champions of free speech — remains deafening.

Louise Clegg is a barrister. She has acted for both plaintiffs and defendants in discrimination and employment law cases for 20 years.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Glad someone took this up. If I had more time, would have myself.

So just briefly, the fact that court hearings concerning matters relevant to 18C are held in secret, IMO indicates those who instituted it knew it was dodgey in the first place.

This entire PC agenda regarding offense is absurd.

It's Ok for a wog to call me a skip, but if I call him/her a chocko, spick, camel jockey ect it's offensive.
It's OK for a koon to call me gubba or Capt Cook kunt, but if I call him/her boong or rock ape it's illegal.

Well they can all get phuked ... FTW!

[Schu]

It seems obvious to me that we shouldn't regulate what people think and say.

Beyond the issue of freedom of speech I also think that it stifles debate on issues because there is too much concern about being in breach of this piece of legislation to be direct.

[Rorschach]

The thing is LW Progs want to regulate and control everything, right down to how we think and feel

[Outlaw Yogi]

The thing is LW Progs want to regulate and control everything, right down to how we think and feel

It's not just lefties though. It's anybody or any group (bar libertarians) with an agenda to push who seek to regulate and control language and thought.
Historically it was right wingers like Mussolini's fascists and Hitler's nazis who sought to manipulate the public's speech and thought.
Hey even the Puritans had a go, by burning books and torching the original Globe theatre.

Admittedly these days it's the left seeking to manipulate and regulate public discourse, and IMO that's because they see their supposed successes of the last 30 years being trumped by reality.

[Rorschach]

Yes, normally reality sobers people up, but Progs seem to go into deep denial, and personally attack any dissenters.

[Neferti]

It seems obvious to me that we shouldn't regulate what people think and say.

Beyond the issue of freedom of speech I also think that it stifles debate on issues because there is too much concern about being in breach of this piece of legislation to be direct.

We never used to have the problem. Now you can't do or say anything for fear of being "reported". I blame multiculturalism, plus Government interference.

Prior to that, migrants actually WANTED to be Aussies. They wanted to fit in and learn to speak English. Primary schoolkids still had Christmas Concerts with Santa and stuff.

We welcomed and supported the Asian (and other) take away restaurants and Greasy Joe's and IGI and lots of other stuff.

We even made friends with migrants and wanted to learn about their "home country" and encouraged them to show us how it was "back there".

Now it has become a bit like them and us. Why don't Governments stay out of it?

[gizmo_2655]

It seems obvious to me that we shouldn't regulate what people think and say.

Beyond the issue of freedom of speech I also think that it stifles debate on issues because there is too much concern about being in breach of this piece of legislation to be direct.

We never used to have the problem. Now you can't do or say anything for fear of being "reported". I blame multiculturalism, plus Government interference.

Prior to that, migrants actually WANTED to be Aussies. They wanted to fit in and learn to speak English. Primary schoolkids still had Christmas Concerts with Santa and stuff.

We welcomed and supported the Asian (and other) take away restaurants and Greasy Joe's and IGI and lots of other stuff.

We even made friends with migrants and wanted to learn about their "home country" and encouraged them to show us how it was "back there".

Now it has become a bit like them and us. Why don't Governments stay out of it?

Because if the Government stayed out of it, we'd quickly realise how pointless Governments really are.

[Neferti]

We need Government otherwise it would be a free-for-all.

What do you think about the current situation? Speak your mind. It is allowed here.