What 18C does is, it prohibits the utterance of words that could potentially offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone and that is problematic.
Criminal offenses fall under two categories. Mala in se are intrinsically wrong as determined by a civilised society, for instance rape, murder and theft. These are wrong in and of themselves regardless of how they are dealt with from a legislative standpoint. Mala prohibitum are arbitrarily wrong because the lawmakers say so, for instance driving a vehicle without a license, illegal drug use and copyright infringements. 18C is a malum prohibitum presented to the world by the left as a malum in se in order to boost its appeal to moral conscience, hoping to guilt trip Australians into appreciating its alleged utility.
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/?p=5311 – 8/19/2014.
Sherry Sufi’s scathing overview of Australia’s be-always-politically-correct legislation “18C” covers the psychology and realpolitik of obtaining a gateway for claiming victimization in response to a critic’s speech and the power to take the same to court for it.
As often noted in this space, there’s no greater a signal to malignant narcissism than the want of obtaining control over someone else’s talk — and then from that what may be heard in the political sphere. In that regard, 18C would appear devised to open the way to serving an autocratic speech-suppressing will.
Excerpted from Sufi’s piece:
Those fearing the worst may wish to note that Australia continues to remain one of the most ‘discrimination-sensitive’ nations on earth. Statutes designed to protect the vulnerable from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, disability or religion are staggering in number as confirmed by the voluminous list below.
Commonwealth laws:
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)
State and Territory laws:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA)
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA)
Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (QLD)
Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (VIC)
Anti-Discrimination Act 1996 (NT)
Racial Vilification Act 1996 (SA)
Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (TAS)
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (VIC)
What Ken Wyatt and Adam Goodes should be asking is, why should discrimination not be fought using existing Criminal Code provisions and the various defamation laws already in place which seek to protect all Australians regardless of racial origin in the face of abuse and vulnerability. The very existence of these special ‘identity-specific’ laws presupposes that those it represents are different from the rest of Australia. It assumes that they are weaker and want to be treated differently.
The legislation referred to as “18C” enjoys its own Facebook page. From that location comes reference to this ugly bit of Aussie news reported by radio station KIIS 1065:
Customers and staff of the Forbes and Burton Cafe in Darlinghurst have walked out on the owner, after the Daily Mail reports cafe owner ‘Steven’ turned down a Brazilian man applying for a job because he was “black”.
Nilson Dos Santos applied for a job at the cafe, and apparently ‘Steven’ didn’t ask him a single question, merely made the remark that Nilson was “black”.
Steven reportedly said he didn’t want “coffee made by black people”.
Apparently after being turned away by Steven, Mr Dos Santos stood up and announced to the other customers on Sunday why he had been rejected from the job and even asked them if they minded being served by a black man.
http://www.kiis1065.com.au/news/Shocking-Racist-Claims-From-Sydney-Cafe-Owner#rfpvSgdBydeLpXYB.99 – 8/18/2014.
By title, one wonders what might be inadequate about, say, the “Racial Discrimination Act (1975), as regards fielding what might become greater bad news for cafe owner “Steven”, if indeed events took place as told.
Related Reference
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-05/government-backtracks-on-racial-discrimination-act-changes/5650030 – 8/6/2014.
Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.
Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.
# # #
BackChannels 