18C and all that ...

[old man emu]

Just been looking at the Racial Discrimination Act in light of the current (10Amp, for those interested) debate on amendments to 18C.

 

The first thing I looked for was the penalty for breaching Section 18C. None listed. Then I realised that it is usual to have the penalties for offences to most Acts listed in the Regulations to the Act, as it is easier to alter a Regulation or Schedule to the Regulations than it is to alter an Act. Google couldn't find the Regulations to this Act, although the Act allows the G-G to make Regulations.

 

The reason I wanted to find the penalty was to determine if a breach of 18C was an indictable (more than 12 months' imprisonment) or summary (less than 12 month's or fine) offence. On the basis of no defined penalty, I cant answer that question.

 

I'm also thinking that Section 18C is re-inventing the wheel. In NSW we have ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 20C and I would assume similar in other States and territories.

 

 

 

Section 20C (1) defines the offence:

 

(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group.

 

 

 

Notice that this offence requires "incitement". So if a person in NSW, acting alone, lets loose a torrent of hatred, or contempt, or ridicule to others and that torrent is based on the race of the recipients, but the person does not try to join in the torrent, then no offence under this Act occurs.

 

 

 

It could be held that such behaviour was "Offensive". SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1988 - SECT 4

 

(1) A person must not conduct himself or herself in an offensive manner in or near, or within view or hearing from, a public place or a school.

 

 

Taking our cues from the common law, offensive behaviour is conduct that is calculated to wound the feelings and arouse anger, disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.

 

 

 

So the Federal Parliament is wasting its time and our money playing politics with a subject that is already dealt with under State and Territory law.

 

 

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

Should apply to Question Time in the Parliament. Or should it be Par LIAR ment. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Just been looking at the Racial Discrimination Act in light of the current (10Amp, for those interested) debate on amendments to 18C.

The first thing I looked for was the penalty for breaching Section 18C. None listed. Then I realised that it is usual to have the penalties for offences to most Acts listed in the Regulations to the Act, as it is easier to alter a Regulation or Schedule to the Regulations than it is to alter an Act. Google couldn't find the Regulations to this Act, although the Act allows the G-G to make Regulations.

 

The reason I wanted to find the penalty was to determine if a breach of 18C was an indictable (more than 12 months' imprisonment) or summary (less than 12 month's or fine) offence. On the basis of no defined penalty, I cant answer that question.

 

I'm also thinking that Section 18C is re-inventing the wheel. In NSW we have ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 20C and I would assume similar in other States and territories.

 

 

 

Section 20C (1) defines the offence:

 

(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group.

 

 

 

Notice that this offence requires "incitement". So if a person in NSW, acting alone, lets loose a torrent of hatred, or contempt, or ridicule to others and that torrent is based on the race of the recipients, but the person does not try to join in the torrent, then no offence under this Act occurs.

 

 

 

It could be held that such behaviour was "Offensive". SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1988 - SECT 4

 

(1) A person must not conduct himself or herself in an offensive manner in or near, or within view or hearing from, a public place or a school.

 

 

 

Taking our cues from the common law, offensive behaviour is conduct that is calculated to wound the feelings and arouse anger, disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person.

 

 

 

So the Federal Parliament is wasting its time and our money playing politics with a subject that is already dealt with under State and Territory law.

 

 

 

OME

Exactly right OME.

 

It's an issue that affects pretty much no-one, and there are only 2 reasons it's currently being discussed.

 

1) It's a bugbear to those on the far right (Eric Abetz, George Christensen, Tony Abbott, Corey Bernardi, and others), who push an extreme libertarian barrow, and are incensed that their good buddy and chief cheerleader Andrew Bolt got charged over his "white Aborigines" column. They are, as usual, putting pressure on Turnbull to act, and so to appease them he's jumped on board (again, probably against his own principles, if he has any left) - even though he knows it's not going to fly.

 

2) It's a handy tool to filibuster while they desperately try to convince the NXT to hand them a $50 million fig leaf for their useless company tax cut plan. Apparently Hanson for reasons best known to herself has agreed that companies up to $50 million turnover should get it (so much for her representing the battlers), while Nick Xenophon says $10 mill should be the limit. My prediction is that he'll force them to give something of value to South Aus before capitulating at the 11th hour, therefore looking good to both his human constituents and medium-large SA businesses.

 

That is it. Full stop. There is no other reason for the change. As Labor's Linda Burney says - "What do you want to be able to say to me that you can't say now?"

 

 

[facthunter]

Well covered. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...As Labor's Linda Burney says - "What do you want to be able to say to me that you can't say now?"

Well said, that lady!

 

 

[facthunter]

If it is a statement of the truth it should just be accepted. Brandis sees "the Senate is full of older white men" (Or such intent) as offensive. Its observably true so just accept it.. Or women's day at the golf course affects men adversely. Except those who stay at home and get some peace on that day. Affirmative action can be morally justified as a factor in the correction of a problem but I don't like it particularly as a principle. Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Some university campuses in the UK have been circulating a demand for 'Gender Neutrality' in ALL text for dissertations, essays and other pieces of work in their 'Social Studies' courses.

 

Words such as : 'WorkMANlike,. . ChairMAN, . . .SpokesMAN,. . . MANkind, . .MANholes,. . .MANned missions,. . .OverMANning, etc,. . . have been 'Offending and upsetting' certain students ( ? ) This comes with a dire warning that marks will be deducted from work if this practice is not observed by all students. . . ( Every MANjack of them it seems. . .)

 

One has to wonder what they'll do with 'MAN made climate change'. . .? . . .

 

 

[old man emu]

Some university campuses in the UK have been circulating a demand for 'Gender Neutrality' in ALL text for dissertations, essays and other pieces of work in their 'Social Studies' courses..

It seems contrary to their desire to deMANd anything of the sort.