Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Buying or selling? Get the right advice

A stupid knee jerk in reaction to The Klan

By johnboy 14 August 2012 59

Simon Corbell has announced that he’s going to legislate in response to the crazy hooters in Gungahlin and their crappy anti-muslim leaflets.

“This Bill makes it illegal for a person to publicly incite hatred towards another person, or to publicly incite serious contempt for or ridicule of another person, based on their religion,” said Mr Corbell.

“The bill provides protection from vilification based on religion, and enables people to freely exercise their right to adopt and practise the religion of their choice, without fear of public acts of hatred.”

Now I dislike what those buggers are doing as much as anyone. But I’d rather humiliate the spiteful bigots than martyr them.

And I want to be able to talk about the issues without Simon’s thought police kicking my door down.

So how about you take this to the election Simon and bring it in with a mandate in November if you still think it’s a good idea?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
59 Responses to
A stupid knee jerk in reaction to The Klan
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Sarni 11:33 am 30 Aug 12

Do we have to have a criminal law amendment program on every effing thing? Right now before this Bill is passed a man can go down to Garema Place stand upon soapbox and announce the absolutely undeniable historical fact that the Anglican religion was established by a person who was a thug, a serial killer, a bigamist, and a pillager namely Henry VIII and state that it is therefore immoral to follow the religion. An Anglican Minister can also stand in Garema Place or in his pulpit and deny this fact or argue that who established the religion is irrelevant and that his religion is based on other factors or whatever arguments he wants to make. At the moment there is free expression for the man and the Anglican Minister. That is the position that has been in place for centuries in free and democratic societies. But If the man makes his statements after the Bill is passed the Anglican Minister can report the man to the police or even commence a private criminal prosecution against him for making the statements. There is a very real chance that the prosecution will succeed. If it succeeds the penalty is five thousand five hundred dollars and the person is saddled with a criminal record. That’s right Canberrans not 50 dollars, not five hundred dollars but five thousand five hundred dollars. This is extreme stuff for making statements about people’s religious opinions. It is not as if the person has robbed a bank or committed a serious criminal assault. What criminal law expansion is this tinpot legislative assembly going to make next? Is the Discrimination Act going to be amended to prohibit vilification of professions so people will no longer be able to vilify used car dealers bankers and policitians?
A law prohibiting religious vilification may seem to be a good idea on the surface but as soon as you scratch the surface you realise it is populist vote getting extremism.

HenryBG 1:43 pm 15 Aug 12

beejay76 said :

I do, however, understand the difference between public humiliation and small talk. Ask Andrew Bolt about where that line lies.

Bolt didn’t get done for calling out a bunch of fakers for trading on a manufactured ethnicity, he got done for getting almost all his facts completely and utterly wrong.

Bess Price has recently done a Bolt about these albino coconuts, but not being a complete idiot like Bolt, she hit the nail on the head:
http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2012/08/08/keep-your-nose-out-of-our-business-candidate-tells-amnesty-international/

Jim Jones 12:35 pm 15 Aug 12

beejay76 said :

breda said :

Bizarre. It’s OK to pass laws because they are not going to be enforced anyway? So,why pass them? I am intrigued by your suggestion that selective law enforcement is acceptable, and furthermore that passing laws which you claim will not change anything is a good idea.

No doubt you would be in favour of passing a law that says that everyone should always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.

It just goes to show that symbolism trumps substance in your mindset, and logic is entirely absent. You sound like a typical Greens supporter.

I am not generally a greens supporter. I don’t advocate laws about common courtesy. I don’t advocate the passing of laws only to avoid using them.

I do, however, understand the difference between public humiliation and small talk. Ask Andrew Bolt about where that line lies.

Hah. Bolt would have been fine if he’d bothered to get his basic facts straight.

Regardless, this still seems to be superfluous to me. There’s local legislation that can do the same job (in extreme circumstances), and I’m sure that there’s Commonwealth legislation as well (again, for extreme cases of people acting like fecktards).

This is just crap (and as many have pointed out, sometimes this sort of stuff is sometimes the thin-end of the wedge. Realistically that’s probably not the case here; for all the hooting, no-one seriously believes that “we won’t be able to ridicule x anymore’ because the thought police will get us” … except maybe Mr G or HenryBG, who are both functionally retarded anyway).

It’s the attitude on display that sh1ts me. You can’t simply legislate away any perceived problem that might arise – it ain’t that simple. And even if it were, it’s a very blunt, paternalistic approach to a complex issue that’s likely to do as much harm as good (if not more).

beejay76 11:36 am 15 Aug 12

breda said :

Bizarre. It’s OK to pass laws because they are not going to be enforced anyway? So,why pass them? I am intrigued by your suggestion that selective law enforcement is acceptable, and furthermore that passing laws which you claim will not change anything is a good idea.

No doubt you would be in favour of passing a law that says that everyone should always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.

It just goes to show that symbolism trumps substance in your mindset, and logic is entirely absent. You sound like a typical Greens supporter.

I am not generally a greens supporter. I don’t advocate laws about common courtesy. I don’t advocate the passing of laws only to avoid using them.

I do, however, understand the difference between public humiliation and small talk. Ask Andrew Bolt about where that line lies.

Jethro said :

What is it with some on the left side of politics to jump so quickly to ban speech they disagree with?

The racists in society piss me off but anti-speech laws are essentially enshrining the concept of thought crime as a part of the legal fabric in our society.

I reserve my right to mock all people who worship invisible people who make them follow arcane laws. I also believe those same people have every right to build temples for their invisible friends to live in and that people who oppose the construction of those buildings are nasty pieces of work. Nonetheless, those who try to suppress the thoughts of these same nasty pieces of work are little more than budding fascists.

+1

breda 10:07 am 15 Aug 12

Beejay76 said:

There is still a large amount of racism in the community, however no-one has been prosecuted under the various hate-speech laws in most jurisdictions IIRC. This would indicate that prosecutors aren’t interested in pursuing small-time racists mouthing off in a pub after getting a few pints in.

Extending these laws to include religious vilifcation will not mean that prosecutors will suddenly be coming after all you people who wish to enjoy abusing and ridiculing others at your leisure.

—————————————————————–
Bizarre. It’s OK to pass laws because they are not going to be enforced anyway? So,why pass them? I am intrigued by your suggestion that selective law enforcement is acceptable, and furthermore that passing laws which you claim will not change anything is a good idea.

No doubt you would be in favour of passing a law that says that everyone should always say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.

It just goes to show that symbolism trumps substance in your mindset, and logic is entirely absent. You sound like a typical Greens supporter.

HenryBG 9:49 am 15 Aug 12

beejay76 said :

Extending these laws to include religious vilifcation will not mean that prosecutors will suddenly be coming after all you people who wish to enjoy abusing and ridiculing others at your leisure.

So it’s not a law that will be applied objectively, it’s a tool for the oppression of selected targets.

I think we knew that.

If Pastor Nalliah and his nutjob mate have done anything useful in life. it is to get themselves prosecuted under Victoria’s vilification law on account of reading out some exceprts of the Koran for their congregation to laugh about.

So we know it *does* happen, and it *will* happen again – all it takes is a motivated complainant.

beejay76 6:41 am 15 Aug 12

Goodness me. I know knee-jerk mouth-foaming is the standard response for most people on RA, but sometimes it really makes me eyeroll.

All you people declaring that you will be muzzled just need to take a brief moment to consider the reality of the situation. We have existing hate-speech laws wrt race. When have these laws impeded your right to express yourself? Or anyone?

There is still a large amount of racism in the community, however no-one has been prosecuted under the various hate-speech laws in most jurisdictions IIRC. This would indicate that prosecutors aren’t interested in pursuing small-time racists mouthing off in a pub after getting a few pints in.

Extending these laws to include religious vilifcation will not mean that prosecutors will suddenly be coming after all you people who wish to enjoy abusing and ridiculing others at your leisure.

Clown Killer 10:46 pm 14 Aug 12

“The ALP will die in a ditch over this one.”

Oh please, I so want to be there standing over the ditch, holding the long handled shovel and wondering … should I whack the pricks again … or just start shovelling dirt on to them?

joingler 9:52 pm 14 Aug 12

The right intentions are there but this is a very dangerous line of thought. If I criticise a Christian for taking their views of Deuteronomy or Leviticus too far will I be in trouble?

What if I want to make a complaint against Scientology and their treatment of people within their organisation?

What if I take up a religion that requires me to attack all those who are not part of that religion?

Well intentioned move but not practicle

Holden Caulfield 9:33 pm 14 Aug 12

Skidbladnir said :

Cearly you have neither read the Act, nor know when it applies.

Happy to plead guilty as charged simply because I cbf reading the Act. Happy for you to share your knowledge.

🙂

Tool 6:51 pm 14 Aug 12

You have the right to freedom of speech, that is as long as your speech doesn’t infringe on race, religion, sexual alignment, political views, boat people, bikies, sex offenders, those considered less fortunate, rich peoples charity donations, wtf can i talk about then?

LSWCHP 6:42 pm 14 Aug 12

Jethro said :

What is it with some on the left side of politics to jump so quickly to ban speech they disagree with?

The racists in society piss me off but anti-speech laws are essentially enshrining the concept of thought crime as a part of the legal fabric in our society.

I reserve my right to mock all people who worship invisible people who make them follow arcane laws. I also believe those same people have every right to build temples for their invisible friends to live in and that people who oppose the construction of those buildings are nasty pieces of work. Nonetheless, those who try to suppress the thoughts of these same nasty pieces of work are little more than budding fascists.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I’m a lifelong Labor voter, but this is one step too far. People can do as they please if they don’t harm me, but if I feel that they’re idiots then I reserve the right to give them a good mocking. Trying to legislate away my right to mock what I see as silliness deserves more than mockery. It deserves removal from any position of legislative authority.

HenryBG 6:17 pm 14 Aug 12

Skidbladnir said :

Holden Caulfield said :

A quick google revealed this:

Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)
Isn’t that enough?

Cearly you have neither read the Act, nor know when it applies.

Exactly – they want this act’s effect to extend far beyond its current scope in order to include anybody passing comment in any public place or meeting which any other person, whether present or not, might decide, at that time or at any later time, has hurt their feelings, such “hurt”, and “feelings”, not being subject to any objective test whatsoever.

The ALP will die in a ditch over this one.

Skidbladnir 5:58 pm 14 Aug 12

Holden Caulfield said :

A quick google revealed this:

Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)
Isn’t that enough?

Cearly you have neither read the Act, nor know when it applies.

Jethro 5:56 pm 14 Aug 12

What is it with some on the left side of politics to jump so quickly to ban speech they disagree with?

The racists in society piss me off but anti-speech laws are essentially enshrining the concept of thought crime as a part of the legal fabric in our society.

I reserve my right to mock all people who worship invisible people who make them follow arcane laws. I also believe those same people have every right to build temples for their invisible friends to live in and that people who oppose the construction of those buildings are nasty pieces of work. Nonetheless, those who try to suppress the thoughts of these same nasty pieces of work are little more than budding fascists.

HenryBG 4:46 pm 14 Aug 12

Postalgeek said :

What about those who support Collingwood and Holden? Can we still incite serious contempt for or ridicule them?

Just wait ’til they catch you trying to heap scorn and ridicule on the ALP…..there’ll be a law against that soon, too….

HenryBG 4:45 pm 14 Aug 12

So how do we ridicule Creationists once this new law comes in?

We know Young Earth Creationism is utterly ridiculous and we know Young Earth Creationists are therefore soft-headed idiots.
And under the proposed new law, I would now be a criminal for saying so.

You *really* think this is a good idea?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back 4:17 pm 14 Aug 12

Jim Jones said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Jim Jones said :

OMG THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

Here’s a factoid I heard on the news the other day: apparently more people die in the UK each year from bee stings than terrorism.

OMG THE BEES HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

Well I for one welcome our new bee overlords.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site