web analytics
≡ Menu

18c compromise by Turnbull.

Compromise! Pull wool over eyes

Oh, ho, yessss, I’m the great compromiser.
Pretending that I’m doing well…

So sang Malcolm last night after he leaked his 18C ‘compromise’.
Y’see, it’s now ok to “offend” certain protected and favoured people because Mr. TongueTwister is going to delete it from S18C.
BUT he is going to keep “humiliate” in his amendment.
No lawyer me, but what difference would that make to the Cindy Prior case? Could she not claim she was “humiliated”?
How about, “Mr. Smith alleges he was so humiliated by references to poofters by the compere at the party that he was forced to leave.”

Mr. Smith does not have to be queer himself – he can claim he was humiliated because he has a queer best friend.

We must find out from Bernard Gaynor what difference the change would make to his 40+ complaints against him

Listen you bloody galah – when the test is how the ‘victim’ feels it doesn’t matter what synonym you use for “offend.”.
Instead of the easily offended we now get the easily humiliated. Not a difference that makes a difference.

From The Australian
Malcolm Turnbull has struck a compromise deal for historic changes to section 18C of the ­Racial Discrimination Act that is expected to retain the offences of humiliate and intimidate on the grounds of race, but abolish ­“insult” and “offend” in favour of a new higher test of “harass”.

The move to rewrite the race-hate speech laws introduced in 1995 by the Keating government as amendments to the 1975 act, will be taken to the Coalition party­room today as a special Newspoll reveals that more ­Australians support reform of the laws to defend free speech than are opposed.

The Australian has learned that a major sticking point was the ­offence of “humiliate” within the act, which several senior MPs who are backing change argued would be politically difficult to remove.

There has also been a push by some inside the Turnbull ministry for “process changes” to how complaints are handled, with some MPs expressing resistance to an overhaul of racial discrimination laws.

The Prime Minister has spent the past week sounding out colleagues over the issue, including recommendations for structural reforms of the Australian Human Rights Commission and a “reasonable person” test.

Cabinet landed on a final position last night before a broader ministerial meeting. The position was due to be passed to a meeting of the legal and constitutional affairs committee last night for vetting. However, it will need partyroom endorsement today before a bill can be drafted to amend the laws.

The new offence of harass was originally argued as an alternative and higher test to replace “insult”, “offend” and “humiliate” on racial grounds. However, several senior ministers argued that the removal of “offend” and “insult” would be an easier position to present ­publicly, if “humiliate” were ­retained, despite it still being a subjective test.

The Coalition partyroom meeting today comes as voters show they are ready to support sweeping change to race-hate laws that lifts the bar on complaints against insulting or offensive behaviour. Newspoll found 47 per cent of voters backed this option, while 39 per cent opposed it and 14 per cent were undecided. The tougher standard for complaints was backed by 54 per cent of Coalition voters.

While Labor and the Greens escalate their warnings against any change to 18C, the survey shows that 45 per cent of Labor supporters and 37 per cent of Greens voters are in favour of replacing “offend” and “insult” with “harass” to set a higher benchmark.

The death of cartoonist Bill Leak has heightened the debate over reforms to the system, given the way a complaint against his work in The Australian triggered months of dispute at the HRC even though publishers have an exemption under the law.

The Prime Minister concluded a meeting of the full ministry late yesterday with broad agreement to overhaul the way the commission rules on complaints, but the wider reforms are to be decided by the full meeting of Liberal and Nationals MPs in Parliament House this morning. Seeking to avoid a perception he will present backbenchers with a fait accompli, Mr Turnbull sought the views of ministers during yesterday’s meeting without imposing a blueprint.

The plan to change the wording of 18C is being described as a “sensible” reform that should gain enough support from community groups to persuade the Senate to back the change, given it leaves all Australians with an avenue to seek redress against racism.

While conservatives within the partyroom have called for ­“humiliate” to be removed from the act, this option has failed to win enough support in the ministry and appears likely to be ruled out today. Today’s meeting will also consider a “reasonable person test” to be inserted into the law to ensure any complaint of discrimination is measured against the standards of the whole community rather than a specific ethnic group, a change urged by International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells.

As a key member of the Liberal Party’s conservative wing and the daughter of Italian immigrants, Senator Fierravanti-Wells has ­argued for the “pub test” as a way to halt groundless complaints without changing 18C itself.

Assistant Industry Minister Craig Laundy said he would ­oppose changing 18C in favour of changes to the process for how the HRC handled complaints under the act. The process changes are gaining support across the parliament, with Labor MPs backing these in a parliamentary inquiry while Nick Xenophon and his colleagues want reforms that can speed up decisions and weed out vexatious complaints.

These changes are being drafted after an outcry at the way the HRC works, such as not telling students at the Queensland University of Technology about a complaint about their behaviour. The case was dismissed by the Federal Court after years of dispute, sparking a scathing rebuke of HRC president Gillian Triggs.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Penguinite 21/03/2017, 6:21 am

    And just as he was showing some promise too! I’m with you MM it’s just semantics. Maybe if they got rid of AHRC so that all these transgressions has to proceed as civil actions, as they should!

  • Spinbuster 21/03/2017, 6:50 am

    …… as a special Newspoll reveals that more ­Australians support reform of the laws to defend free speech than are opposed. ….
    SHOULD READ 90% Australians support REPEAL of the laws ……

    What a load of crap these “selective” polls are ……I must be moving in the wrong circles, most people I meet don’t even know about 18c …. or any other contentious issue for that matter.
    Obviously Barnaby Joyce talks to the same people as I do because he has told us it is not important.

    The thing is, if there was a comprehensive public education program on 18c, the long term effects of islam immigration, nuclear power, the voting system, unsafe schools and the ramifications for kids with homosexual marriage, I suspect these polls would show an entirely different outcome.
    There is no doubt in my mind that the pollies do not want an educated public, especially those with vested interests, as is borne out by proponents of the “potential child abuse” legislation who actively deny democracy on the issue.

    Penny Wong and her cohorts know that if some one stood up and talked in a forum with proper moderation, in an easily understood way about the unborn child’s rights coming before homosexual’s rights, all of this marriage redefinition rubbish would go where it belongs in a instant.

    The same is true for free speech.
    If you could get the ear of a ringer, a cocky, or a shearer and say, “Hey mate do you know that you could lose your home for no other reason than by saying …just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT is stopping segregation with segregation”, there would be a huge uproar.

    “….you’re bloody bullshittin’ ain’t ya? ….pull the other leg mate ..whadaya mean I say or write one sentence and I lose $250,000 of my life’s savings!! Ha Ha!”

    The Canberra shysters know this and are not about to change things anytime soon ….which is why I keep on saying I will never vote for that bunch of dictatorial, unrepresentative swill.

    Multiculturalism, asset sales, free speech stifling, foreign ownership …my conscience is clear….did not do it!

    • Penguinte 21/03/2017, 8:48 am

      And Spinbuster you can bet your bottom $$ that Barnaby doesn’t initiate any chat that might elicit some very erstwhile views from his “Cockie” community. These guys and girls are the salt of the earth and would doubtless be very dissatisfied if they knew that Barnaby thought so little of their opinions.

      • crankykoala 21/03/2017, 11:07 am

        And, Barnaby thinks so little of the halal scam that he will not implement the recommendations of the Senate inquiry.

  • Graham Richards 21/03/2017, 8:40 am

    I have already commented before that the wording would be shuffled, trimmed around the extreme edges possibly some puntation altered, but the censorship will remain firmly in place.
    Waffler, we too have been to school!

  • Topsy 21/03/2017, 8:53 am

    Words fail. There was a suggestion that a change to 18C should be given the name of the Bill Leak amendment or some such. Well, why would any right minded person hang this typically Trumble short-sightedness or deliberate attempt to handicap REAL change on the memory of Bill leak?
    Would this change have stopped the prosecution of Andrew Bolt, or the persecution of Bill Leak or the ruining of the young lives of 4 university students? No, I didn’t think so.

    • Albert 21/03/2017, 9:23 am

      Too true, Topsy. The only thing that will come out of this will be another mess with the fingerprints of Malcolm the Magnificent all over it.

  • Albert 21/03/2017, 9:10 am

    8.55 a.m. – That other skin crawling AHRC repugnant waste of space Tim Soutphommosane just on telly whining that there should be no changes whatsoever to S18C. This objectionable urger is terrified the AHRC will be justifiably scrapped and he will get the flick and will no longer be able to stand over those who express a fact based opinion.

    • Joe Blogs 21/03/2017, 10:09 am

      Soupspoon’s typical of ALP hacks: thinks he can make the rules as well as enforce them. And he still hasn’t realised that he’s only in that trumped-up gig for two reasons: 1) he’s a pet ALP ethnic; 2) he’s under ALP patronage and must therefore deliver their bullshit PC agenda.

      Piss off and get a real job, Soupspoon.

  • Lorraine 21/03/2017, 9:12 am

    the ethnic groups you know we the multicultural nation, that is held up to the rest of the world as the very best we can be……the Chinese from little China Town, the Jews from Money Town and the Muslims from Voter land have to be appeased…….do not tinker much with 18c

    • Joe Blogs 21/03/2017, 10:11 am

      Another half-baked mess coming up, Lorraine. Scrap the RDA and the HRC.

  • Penguinite 21/03/2017, 11:19 am

    PM Contact form is not working so I’ll vent my spleen here!!!

    Dear PM
    I sincerely trust that what I’m reading in this mornings news is fake and that you are not simply going to rejig 18c with the deletion of a couple of words and substitute them with another? Semantics don’t count. 18c is an abomination in it’s entirety. There are plenty of civil Laws, both State and Federal where offended persons can seek redress from a perceived verbal assault. Please don’t fiddle while Romes burns. And while you’re at it why not reclaim our Australian Rule of Law and dump the AHRC.

    • Albert 21/03/2017, 1:24 pm

      Penguinite, the S18C abomination was created by muddle brained politicians and will be worsened by the same. I just heard one of those lying cretins on radio saying that the general public couldn’t care less about 18C and so it didn’t need changing. That cretin was Craige Laundy who just happens to represent a large Islamic electorate.

Next post:

Previous post: