The postponement of the amendments to 18C has given squealing minorities and shrill literati opposing free speech a chance to marshal opposition. You can help redress the balance by an email submission to s18cconsultation@ag.gov.au
First read http://www.ag.gov.au/consultations/Pages/ConsultationsonamendmentstotheRacialDiscriminationAct1975.aspx REPEAL OF 18C. Your submission will not be made public if that is your desire and you may even be anonymous. Your submission can be as short as
‘i believe that 18C should be repealed entirely ’
or
‘i consider that the amendments tabled are a reasonable compromise and should not be watered down.’
However, there is a pdf which opens to give you the amendment, and you may well wish to make some constructive comment.
Attached as a footnoteare the considered comments of Nigel Jackson.
These are supplied for you to pick over and adopt those parts which correspond to your views. He advocates also writing direct to Senator Brandis.
The Hon. George Brandis QC,
Attorney-General,
Parliament House – The Senate,
Canberra ACT 2600.
Following on from TIA post 04/04/2014 Frank Salter writes:
I also have a comment in Quadrant Online on section 18c:
Salter, F. K. (2014). 18C: It's all about ethnic power. Interviewed by Michael McLaren on radio station 2GB, "Overnight", 6 April: Sydney, Macquarie Network.
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/39711#.U0G7AahdUTo
I gave an interview to 2GB on the subject:
Salter, F. K. (2014). Section 18C, multiculturalism and power. http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/03/section-18c-multiculturalism-power/
Arthur Ventham writes from the heart
I sincerely believe that Political Correctness has gone too far in this country and that the current vilification rules undermine the premise of free speech. Yes I agree that there needs to be something but at present what we have is only pandering to the minority groups who get upset when they are either accused of something un-Australian or are unhappy when things don’t go the way that they want. It seems that we can’t even have Christmas Parties at schools anymore or allowed to voice our opinions on something we disagree with without the threat of being charged for upsetting one group or another.
I came to Australia as a Ten Pound Pom and was called a “pommy bastard” “whinging pom” and several other names in the early days but all of these were in jest and we got along with all the “wogs”, “slavs”, “eye-ties” and many other races who came here to make Australia their new home. They came in their thousands but all had one thing in common and that was to fit in, enjoy this great nation and become good Australians and they did. I have many friends from different ethnic cultures and we all respect each other and joke about our heritage but then again we are from a different era, a different generation.
Today we dare not say anything about any other race, religion or country for fear of upsetting one group or another. We have minority groups demanding this or that or that we change to suit their beliefs and who place their laws above Australia’s, do not believe in or want to become part of Australian culture and who rip off our welfare system to support their lifestyle which is anti-Australian. Go to places like England, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Canada and USA and see what PC has done to those countries because politicians introduced laws that prohibited freedom of speech, I can tell you from experience that it isn’t pretty.
Australia is a great country, I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else on this planet and I believe in freedom of speech, and every person in this country has the right to stand up and say what they feel and believe and any legislation that prohibits that should and must be repealed.
As a young man I fought under the Australian Flag. I have worked in Public Service under the Australian Flag and one day my coffin will be draped in the Australian Flag because I believe very strongly that with all its faults this is still a great nation with its heritage moulded from the Westminster system and I do not want to see it changed through illogical and inappropriate changes to our laws.
Sorry to brow beat you but that is how I feel. I fought for the rights of freedom and support the right for anyone to stand up and voice their concerns and if needed will fight to retain that right but it doesn’t mean that I have to believe in them.
Footnote: Nigel Jackson’s submission to the consultation.
ONE The Government is correct to state that laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech. Such wrongdoing has occurred in overseas nations. Australia, if it wishes to remain a free nation, should ensure that it does not happen here.
TWO The amendments to the Act should contain a specific statement that the principle of free speech takes precedence over the principle of protection from racial vilification. This is because free speech is an essential bulwark against tyranny. Tyranny is a much greater danger to human welfare than racial vilification.
THREE If the term ‘racism’ is used, it should be carefully defined. Not all discrimination based on race or ethnicity is unjust or not in accord with truth.
FOUR The existing protection against intimidation should not be preserved in this Act. There is adequate protection against intimidation and menace elsewhere in Australian law. To retain the protection in this Act might facilitate needless and unjust legal action against a person or persons by those for whom, as it were, campaigning against racial vilification has become a religion.
FIVE I believe that the new protection against vilification should NOT be included in the amendments. This is because the phrase ‘incite hatred against’ is too subjective a criterion on which to found just law. It is also true that, from as early as the 1920’s in Soviet Russia, laws against ‘racial hatred’ have been wrongfully instituted and applied in order to protect and advance the interests of certain groups of citizens at the expense of other groups and sometimes the majority of citizens. See Point One above. ‘Vilification’ is also too vague and subjective a term on which to base legal sanctions.
SIX If the protection against intimidation is preserved, then I agree that ‘intimidate’ should be taken to mean ‘fear of physical harm’. Claims that ‘fear of emotional harm’ should be included should be rejected, as the criterion would be too vague and subjective. Such an addition would facilitate