Review of Federal Australian hate speech law

Critical comments below by Mark Dreyfus.  Mr Dreyfus is the federal opposition spokesman on legal affairs. He is Jewish. 

His article below is a typical bit of Leftist cherrypicking.  He quotes a couple of instances where the hate speech laws were arguably used to proper effect and completely ignores the Bolt case  -- the case which has motivated the intended change in the law.  And it was a Jewish judge who made the immoderate judgment that led to Andrew Bolt's conviction. 

Judge Bromberg had plenty of room within the act to find Bolt not guilty but he chose to go for the jugular -- possibly because of his Jewishness.  Jews have good historical reasons for a horror of defamation.  Bromberg should really have recused himself from the case.

So Dreyfus would have been much more persuasive if he had deplored the misapplication of the law by Mordechai Bromberg but he totally ignores that.  Is he endeavouring to add substance to the old accusations of Jewish "clannishness"?  He is a disgrace.  Even some Leftists found Bromberg's verdict "profoundly disturbing"

If Dreyfus had been arguing responsibly, he might have said that the provision of an appeals court to review judgments such as Bromberg's would be more appropriate than watering down the act.  In the case of another Leftist-inspired  kangaroo court  -- the Fair Work tribunal --  the present government is doing exactly that.

But what Dreyfus will not admit is that there is just one man responsible for the review of the law being presently undertaken:  Mordechai Bromberg.  Bromberg's zeal to persecute any suspicion of defamation will soon be seen to have facilitated defamation

FOR almost 20 years, since the Racial Discrimination Act was enacted by the Keating government in 1994, section 18C has embodied Australia's condemnation of racial vilification, and protected our society from the poisonous effects of hate speech.

Labor strongly believes in the continued need for laws that prohibit racial hatred in Australia.

The new Attorney-General and his Prime Minister have made clear their intention to repeal section 18C in its current form, which makes it illegal to vilify people because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

The Attorney-General claims that the prohibitions in section 18C are a threat to "intellectual freedom" and "freedom of speech" in Australia.

One can only assume that he has an extremely poor grasp of history, of the appropriate limits imposed on free speech in all Western democracies, and of the dangers of giving a green light to hate speech under the preposterous claim that racially vilifying individuals in public is necessary to support intellectual freedom in our nation.

Section 18C has functioned well for 18 years in our community, without being criticised as some kind of affront to freedom of speech.

Rather, the provision has been used to respond to egregious examples of hate speech, such as the publication of false statements by infamous Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben, who wrote, among other offensive lies, that there was serious doubt the Holocaust occurred and that Jewish people who were offended by the denial of the state-sponsored murder of their families and communities were of limited intelligence.

Using section 18C, the Federal Court ordered these deeply offensive public statements be removed from the relevant website.

The Coalition's policy would allow Toben to publish material of this kind, and would take away the power of our courts to stop such racist hate speech being disseminated.

In another infamous case, an indigenous woman used section 18C to defend herself against a neighbour who had waged a campaign of intimidation against her family by attacking them with offensive racist insults such as "nigger" and "black bastard".

It is disingenuous to attack section 18C as a threat to freedom of speech by presenting it in isolation from the linked provision, section 18D.

Following extensive public consultations at the time the provisions were crafted, the drafters were well aware of the need to appropriately protect freedom of speech.

That is why section 18D provides extensive protection for free speech and political communication in our society.

Section 18C is also entirely consistent with the objectives of the London Declaration on Combatting Anti-Semitism, which was signed on behalf of Australia by former prime minister Julia Gillard in April, and was subsequently signed by Coalition MPs including Tony Abbott and George Brandis.

In May this year, I wrote to Mr Abbott calling on the Coalition to respect the pledges in the London Declaration, and to reverse the Liberals' plan to repeal section 18C.

I pointed out that section 18C is precisely the kind of legislated protection against anti-Semitism and racial discrimination that the London Declaration calls on its signatories to enact, and that repealing it would unequivocally contradict the spirit and the terms of that important declaration.

In an interview two weeks ago, the Attorney-General made clear that he intends to persist with the repeal of section 18C regardless of deep community concerns.

However, in senate estimates this week, he at least withdrew from arguments earlier suggesting that the protections provided by section 18C were somehow covered by the Criminal Code Act.

Sections 80.2A and B of the Criminal Code Act create serious criminal offences for individuals that urge the use of force or violence against a group or a member of a group distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion.

These provisions prohibit criminal incitement to violence and do not operate to prohibit the civil wrong of racist hate speech as section 18C does.

In response to questions at senate estimates, Senator Brandis revealed that his "engaging in community consultations" would be limited to "private conversations" with "community leaders" to be selected by him.

He then refused to elaborate on which community leaders he was speaking to or the nature of those discussions.

There is an unpleasant irony in the spectacle of an Attorney-General who claims to champion free speech refusing to answer questions regarding secret consultations he is conducting in a bid to remove legislative protections of great importance to communities across our nation.

It is essential that the communities affected by any potential change in this area of the law have the opportunity to put their views to Senator Brandis, not just the private group of unidentified individuals that he deigns to have a conversation with.

Public discussions regarding proposed legislative changes on matters of concern to the community such as this are essential for any government that claims to value freedom of speech.

This is a further example of how, in the short time since the election, this government is prepared to shamelessly hide their actions from the scrutiny of both the people who elected them and from the media.

Mr Abbott and Senator Brandis have refused to back down on their proposed watering down of hate speech laws in our nation, reflecting their ignorance of history and the dangers of permitting racially motivated hate speech.

In contrast, Labor is committed to supporting the rights of all Australians to dignity and protection from racially motivated hate speech ahead of enabling bigots and extremists to say in public whatever they want.

SOURCE






Where's this photo been hiding?

You probably won't remember a Melbourne Late Show and Victorian Premier - Joan Kirner's rendition of Joan Jett's - "I Love Rock and Roll". But look closely at the leather mini-skirt clad  go-go dancer  girl ogling her, star struck!



     What's more scary? Joan Kirner in a leather jacket or Julia Gillard in a leather mini-skirt?





Leftist church gets one thing right



It's only a pretend church.  If it were a real Christian church, it would heed the Bible -- Romans chapter 1 on homosexuality, for instance

GOSFORD might be an unlikely location for Australia's most politically-minded and forward-thinking Church, but the NSW Central Coast community's Anglican congregation is the talk of the town.  Oh, and the internet.

After its often comedic messages began making the rounds on social media, the Church has scored fans and followers from all walks of life, and lifestyles.

The Church has taken a stand on various hot topics of modern society, including marriage equality, asylum seekers and women's rights.

"From a theological perspective, Jesus was on about one thing and one thing only, and that's what he called the Kingdom of God," said Father Rod Bower, the man responsible for all things sign-related.

"This Kingdom of God manifests itself in compassion and justice and true humility and there are lots of things going on in our society at the moment that aren't about those things, like the way we treat gay people by not allowing them to be married, the way we treat our planet and the way we treat asylum seekers.

"These are the things Christians should be seeking - justice and compassion. We contribute to that."

SOURCE






The Industry Department's new secretary gives warning to climate change employees: Labelled 'unusual'

Whether it's unusual or not, it's certainly realistic.  The bureaucracy seems mostly to be comprised of people with heavily Green/Left views

Hundreds of public servants from the Industry and Climate Change departments have been told to quit their jobs if they do not want to implement the Abbott government's policies.

The warning was issued just days after the former Climate Change chief and Industry boss were sacked by the Coalition government on its first day in office and the opposition says the "extraordinary'' comments were part of a concerted effort to "intimidate" the public service.

The Industry Department's new secretary, Glenys Beauchamp, gathered about 1500 of her workers in Canberra on September 20 for a briefing and told them to reconsider their positions if they were not prepared to serve the government of the day.

The tough talk to the workers, many of whom had been moved from the abolished Climate Change Department, was leaked to former industry minister Kim Carr, leading to a grilling of Ms Beauchamp at an estimates committee hearing on Thursday in Canberra.

Under the questioning, Ms Beauchamp told the senator she had responded to a question from a worker about how they would administer climate change policy, with a reminder of their duties as public servants.

"I said a range of things, what a secretary of a new portfolio would be expected to say, there were questions from the floor," Ms Beauchamp told Senator Carr.

"There was a question around what I thought of some of the arrangements around the formation of the new portfolio and I responded in the way a professional public servant does, as in 'we are here to serve the government of the day and public servants, like any other employees have choices whether they would like to abide by code of conduct and APS values and continue the journey'."

Senator Carr said he was surprised the secretary had felt the need to make those remarks to a group of professional public servants.

"Whatever the secretary's intention, these were unusual comments to be making," Senator Carr said.

SOURCE






Cut waste by cutting departments

The federal government has expanded significantly over the past half century, taking on more roles and responsibilities, and adding new departments and agencies. While some of these may be needed, many are not. Some simply duplicate functions already designated for the states.

The Agriculture portfolio is a prime example. An approximate $2 billion is spent by the taxpayer on the department annually, with over 5,000 public servants employed.

Each state and the Northern Territory has their own agricultural portfolio tasked with industry regulation and assistance. So there is no need for the federal government to get involved. But that is exactly what they do.

Duplication across state and federal governments adds more regulation on to industry, creates inefficiency, and raises costs for taxpayers. It also removes workers who would otherwise be more productively employed in the private sector, and consigns them to needless tasks for the government.

The federal Department of Agriculture has six agencies doling out subsidies for 'research and development.' There's one each for cotton, fisheries, grains, grape and wine, rural industries, and sugar.

Government funding for research and development is often a front for corporate welfare. It's easy to extract funds from the government if you can claim that you are contributing to innovation and keeping the industry ahead of your global competitors.

But much of the R&D funding is directed to projects in which companies would invest anyway if government wasn't involved. If companies can reasonably expect to make a profit from investing in new technology, there is a clear incentive for them to do so.

But even if you assume the R&D projects are not profitable or too risky, and that government should be funding them, there's no need for both the state and federal governments to be involved.

There is no justification for an Australian wine marketing body which is tasked with the development and promotion of Australia's winemakers to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

The Department of Agriculture contains two important regulatory agencies that need to be preserved - the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority - but these two agencies could easily be transferred to the Department of Industry.

The Agriculture portfolio could then be abolished, along with the taxes and fees they collect from the industry, at a saving of approximately $1.3 billion every year.

SOURCE