Lefty/liberals.

[Forty Two]

Some people have already been convicted under this law in the UK (and some similar laws in Australia).

Yep. The death knell of the Enlightenment. It started with criminalizing "hate speech." Oh, it will only be this small category of really hateful, threatening and divisive speech that no decent person would ever say publicly....and, of course, it's been broadened into anything offensive.

Offensive? Nothing more than a whine. Oh, you're offended by that? Well, so fucking what? (paraphrasing Stephen Fry).

Once you give members of groups the right to silence offensive speech, you had a sword to the Christian creationist (who is offended by evolution), to the anti-abortion rights activist (who is offended by abortion), to the anti-gay Muslim (who is offended by gay stuff), or the anti-pork Muslim (who is offended by Peppa Pig), or the feminist (who is offended by a joke about sandwiches), and the list goes on and on.

We, as freethinkers, need to support the right to say things that other people find offensive. I mean, that's really the way to phrase it. There is no such thing as "offensive speech." There is speech a person finds offensive. It's subjective, not objective. And, just because some dickbag doesn't like what the street preacher is saying on the soap box in Piccadilly, well, so fucking what?

Where has the love of freedom gone in this world? Do we really want laws governing our tongues? I mean -- this is the generation we've become and/or are raising? People who think the right to say what one wants to say is not only of no value, but is dangerous and outdated?

[pErvinalia]

It certainly does lead to these seemingly hypocritical applications of the law (assuming the court throws out Lejyeholm's case).

The court is in a difficult situation there. If it honors the offense of Lejyeholm, then it's a free for all out there - everyone will claim offense to everything as a weapon against their opponents. And why not? Why should some groups get their feelings protected, but not other groups? Where is the "equality" in that? That's by definition unequal treatment under the law.

However, if they throw out the case, then the message will be that white men can go fuck themselves, and their feelings about what what offends them don't matter at all. That's the "I drink male tears" wing of the progressive douchebag movement winning the day. They will see that as a win, and a finger in the face of all the male wankstains and their "fee fees," right? But, what it actually does is cement a superiority of a race and gender. Men's fee fees don't matter, because you have to say a lot worse shit to a man to "reasonably" upset or offend them -- ie. men are tough and can take it; women can't - women need protection from the same kind of thing that a man is told he must take. And, black people - their "rage" at a racist comment is understandable -- the blacks, they can't take it. Whites, though. Well, whites have greater fortitude and can take it. Fuck their fee-fees. It just breeds an attitude of "fuck my fee fees, you say? No, how about fuck YOU."

Arsewater. Section 18d clarifies 18c. Leyonhjelm's whinge will get turfed out because 18d protects the journalist in this case.

News broke yesterday that Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, alleging he was racially vilified by Fairfax journalist Mark Kenny, who called him an ‘angry white man’. Chris Graham explains why Leyonhjelm will lose, why the current debate around 18c is a ridiculous furphy, and why free speech has never really been under threat.

Obviously, David Leyonhjelm is a ridiculously stupid white man. That, for the record, is my genuinely held belief.

I add that qualification not because calling Leyonhjelm a ‘ridiculously stupid white man’ is defamatory. It’s not. If Leyonhjelm were to try and sue me for it, well-established case law would compel a judge to rule it ‘mere vulgar abuse’. Thus, it’s not defamatory.

I actually make the qualification because Leyonhjelm may instead try and ‘sue’ me through the Australian Human Rights Commission, under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Which is precisely what Leyonhjelm is apparently now trying to do to Fairfax journalist Mark Kenny, who recently referred to Leyonhjelm in a column as an “angry white man” (and if you haven’t read Kenny’s column, you really should. It is a thing of beauty, and an increasingly rare beast in the click-bait Fairfax stable).

Leyonhjelm has reportedly launched an action in the AHRC alleging that Kenny’s article had the potential to ‘insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin’. Because white men are the real victims here.

And so, to the reason for my qualification, which also happens to be the reason why Leyonhjelm will lose, spectacularly, his case.

Contained within the RDA is an iron clad, bullet-proof defence to the kind of ‘free-speech-Chicken-Little-sky-is-falling-in’ nonsense that Leyonhjelm and every other thin-skinned white conservative like him (again, that’s my genuinely held belief) has been trying to peddle since Andrew Bolt officially became Australia’s first ‘convicted racist’ in 2011.

By way of brief background, I am, of course, referring to the Federal Court case of Eatock v Bolt, when a group of nine Aboriginal men and women successfully sued Bolt for a string of vicious – and false – articles Bolt wrote for the Herald Sun.

In those stories, Bolt alleged that prominent Aboriginal people such as Pat Eatock, Professor Larissa Behrendt, Mark McMillan, Anita Heiss, Bindi Cole, Geoff Clark, Dr Wayne Atkinson, Graham Atkinson and Leeanne Enoch, began identifying as Aboriginal simply to access some magical, mystical financial benefits not available to other Australians.

The group, led by Ron Merkel QC, won their case. Bolt and his supporters have been sulking and throwing themselves about like wounded buffalo ever since.

Which brings me to the bit where Leyonhjelm’s case will also fall apart, and where it should become clear to even the most inflexible of minds that the never-ending conservative furore over 18c is not so much a storm in a teacup, rather a great big pity party from a group of (predominantly) white, privileged men who genuinely believe that they are the nation’s ‘great oppressed’.

It should surprise no-one to learn that immediately after section 18c of the RDA is a section entitled ‘18d’. Fancy that?

Here’s what 18d says:

“Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

…(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.”

In other words, provided that what you write is factual, or, if it’s not factual then it’s a genuinely held belief, you can’t be sued under the RDA.

I don’t imagine Mark Kenny will have much trouble establishing the facts in his defence: David Leyonhjelm is white; he is a man; and he no doubt occasionally gets angry.

https://newmatilda.com/2016/08/16/why-r ... tion-case/

[Forty Two]

Certainly, that's the defense they will raise, and it remains then to be seen if stating "angry black man" or "angry yellow woman" would also fall within those accurate statements. LOL.

18d doesn't make what I wrote wrong - there will still be a decision made as to whether the words said were "offensive" and then there will be a determination if the 18d exception applies - is it a "fair AND accurate report of an event or matter of PUBLIC interest..." is it a FAIR comment on an event -- etc. The complainant says it wasn't. The defendant will say it was. The tribunal will decide.

Note, the "angry white male" comment will be analyzed with other allegations like -- "boorish, supercilious know-all with the empathy of a besser block". Fair comment? Accurate? What "event?"

The distinction I was pointing out was that the court will either be agreeing that people can't say this nonsense in public, or will be ruling that you can't. If it does the latter, then it will be used as a sword and will be used by every group that wants to silence its critics.

[laklak]

Clint is right, buncha pussies.

[pErvinalia]

Certainly, that's the defense they will raise, and it remains then to be seen if stating "angry black man" or "angry yellow woman" would also fall within those accurate statements. LOL.

Why are you lol'ing? Do you have any evidence they won't?

[pErvinalia]

here's a good article on the issue of what "offence" means in the act and how Leyehjolm has it all wrong - https://theconversation.com/could-secti ... jelm-63944

[DaveDodo007]

It is so funny when I see lefty/liberals try to portray their cuck behaviour as a positive, keep being self loathing gimps as us conservatives need a good laugh. Jesus look up a definition of a cuck and there is probably a picture of you.

[Brian Peacock]

here's a good article on the issue of what "offence" means in the act and how Leyehjolm has it all wrong - https://theconversation.com/could-secti ... jelm-63944

Whitesplaining enabler.

[DaveDodo007]

Clint is right, buncha pussies.

Clint is always right, even when speaking to an empty chair.

[Forty Two]

How to cope with 'white fragility': Academic sells out her $60 workshops designed to improve Caucasians' 'low emotional tolerance for discussing racism'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4Hn8kdDsD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[laklak]

Clint is right, buncha pussies.

Clint is always right, even when speaking to an empty chair.

If Clint ever was wrong who'd have the balls to tell him?

[rachelbean]

The Daily Mail is a joke...I mean...have you clicked around that site and seen the level of journalism

[Forty Two]

Well, the article is accurate. DiAngelo is, indeed, offering that course.

[Svartalf]

The Daily Mail is a joke...I mean...have you clicked around that site and seen the level of journalism

I don't know about the level, but I've seen the color

[L'Emmerdeur]

How to cope with 'white fragility': Academic sells out her $60 workshops designed to improve Caucasians' 'low emotional tolerance for discussing racism'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4Hn8kdDsD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The seminars may be completely worthless promotion of "white guilt," or they may actually help people become more comfortable with discussing race issues. We certainly don't learn anything one way or the other from The Daily Mail's finger-pointing.

The criticism of the seminars quoted by the Mail article certainly caters to its readership, but it's hardly trenchant commentary. In fact, it's nothing but empty reactionary blather, but then that's the Mail's specialty.

'60 dollars to be told how I'm terrible for being white? SIGN ME UP,' one person wrote.

'All these talks do is incite racial hatred against people of European heritage... it's very triggering and will eventually lead to violence against European-Americans, if it hasn't already. Very irresponsible,' another said.

'White lefties love telling other white people how terrible they are... I'm proud to be white. Why isn't that ok?' another added.