Moon I dont like the comment but IMO you have to be very careful when imposing censorship.

The first act of a dictator is censorship.

What seems right and proper on one subject can easily be not right on another.

It very much depends on the censors view.

Agree old. But free speech does not give one carte blanch to say what they like. Of course, on a privately owned forum, the mods get the final word.

Agree old. But free speech does not give one carte blanch to say what they like. Of course, on a privately owned forum, the mods get the final word.

Yep

Which probably brings the discussion to a close.

OMG you have got to be kidding me right!? Sometime H H you really need to stop and think about what you type. Before you type an opinion or post just think to yourself "What would Jesus do?"

Interestingly unlike in VIC Religious Vilification is not legislated in SA.

Thankfully for posters on D land there is no [censored]/moron/dopey vilification laws or we might lose some of you all

Me included

ok, i'll bite - what would jesus do in this case?

ok, i'll bite - what would jesus do in this case?

Expel the demons from h_h's soul so that he may be pure and think before he acts.

Id love to know what the comments were

Race is off limits, but religion is fair game

I have a feeling he may have been called a Muslim something or other and its being called 'racist'

You're an F-witt

Well, that escalated quickly.

I've got very little patience for religion in general, and am entirely confident that individuals, humanity in general and even Earth's ecological systems would be in a much, much better state without the toxic presence of people claiming to have 'divine inspiration' to declare arbitrary, often cruel, and often dysfunctional codes and castes. A society's entire system of 'law and culture' starts to turn in on itself as soon as any person or utterance is declared 'sacred' and above debate or criticism.

'Vilification' should not be confused with criticism and calls for ending special privileged status of religion. Although, normally that confusion goes in the other direction with criticism and resistance to compulsion being taken as offence and, of course, blasphemy.

But religious vilification? Nope, nope, nope. Got no time for that.

Abusing a person because they practice any given faith? Nope. That's just being an 4rsehole. Off you go, your presence in a packed, mixed, crowd event is not required. If you insist on ruining the school camp for everyone else, then you will be sent home.

Religious vilification is different to racism in some mostly superficial ways, but functionally it's just the same old 'identify the in-group, identify the out-group, abuse the out-group'.

Conceptually, I actually agree with HH.

Religion is just what you believe, and I think people are regularly criticised or shunned because of what they believe.

Believing in fairies or elves is just as valid.

Bloody poor form in the context of it being "fair game" in comparison to racial vilification, though.

When free speech is used to cause harm it needs to be addressed. Speech has been used to threaten violence, sexually harass, mislead and defame people. Free speech whilst a human right has to be limited at times to protect people from serious harm. B H was not only religiously vilified he was defamed.

Yes sometimes it seems that society is getting to precious but the reality is our society has people who are ignorant, violent and not exactly bright which in itself is a volatile combo.

Allowing people to say what they feel like whenever they like removes protection for those who are susceptible to being victimized and targets for serious harm.

ok, i'll bite - what would jesus do in this case?

Turn the other cheek!

When free speech is used to cause harm it needs to be addressed. Speech has been used to threaten violence, sexually harass, mislead and defame people. Free speech whilst a human right has to be limited at times to protect people from serious harm. B H was not only religiously vilified he was defamed.

Yes sometimes it seems that society is getting to precious but the reality is our society has people who are ignorant, violent and not exactly bright which in itself is a volatile combo.

Allowing people to say what they feel like whenever they like removes protection for those who are susceptible to being victimized and targets for serious harm.

We have never had free speech in this country. It is not an enshrined right as it is in the US.

We have never had free speech in this country. It is not an enshrined right as it is in the US.

Your right but IIRC it is an international human right

Sorry don't agree nutbean GB gave up because of a hostile senate but that is another story.

Your comment is an odd kind of naive, old dee.

Brandis, on behalf of the government, was explicitly and gleefully using confusion and outrage over 18c to drive a political wedge and to promote the government's 'narrative' of a noxious Labor-Greens alliance of political correctness, reckless spending, and mindless senate obstructionism.

He would've been delighted for the senate to block it. Could have used it as an extra little bludgeon to wheel out at any useful occasion. Would have been cheerfully in their slogan-structure, the community sector equivalent of the financial sector 'debt and deficit disaster' message.

The plan to repeal 18c was dropped once it became apparent that despite efforts to sow confusion, once people and especially civil society groups understood how 'gentle' 18c already was, nobody would care enough to get worked up about it. They just wouldn't buy the idea that there was any kind of magical threat to democracy through 18c making it unlawful to persistently and untruthfully vilify and defame people.

ok, i'll bite - what would jesus do in this case?

Jesus would have probably said something like "Cotchin should have chosen to kick the opposite way when he won the toss"

Your comment is an odd kind of naive, old dee.

Brandis, on behalf of the government, was explicitly and gleefully using confusion and outrage over 18c to drive a political wedge and to promote the government's 'narrative' of a noxious Labor-Greens alliance of political correctness, reckless spending, and mindless senate obstructionism.

He would've been delighted for the senate to block it. Could have used it as an extra little bludgeon to wheel out at any useful occasion. Would have been cheerfully in their slogan-structure, the community sector equivalent of the financial sector 'debt and deficit disaster' message.

The plan to repeal 18c was dropped once it became apparent that despite efforts to sow confusion, once people and especially civil society groups understood how 'gentle' 18c already was, nobody would care enough to get worked up about it. They just wouldn't buy the idea that there was any kind of magical threat to democracy through 18c making it unlawful to persistently and untruthfully vilify and defame people.

That is all well and good but if the Conservatives had control of the senate it would have happened.

When free speech is used to cause harm it needs to be addressed. Speech has been used to threaten violence, sexually harass, mislead and defame people. Free speech whilst a human right has to be limited at times to protect people from serious harm. B H was not only religiously vilified he was defamed.

Yes sometimes it seems that society is getting to precious but the reality is our society has people who are ignorant, violent and not exactly bright which in itself is a volatile combo.

Allowing people to say what they feel like whenever they like removes protection for those who are susceptible to being victimized and targets for serious harm.

he wasn't religiously vilified according to reports. he was racially vilified

he was referred to as a terrorist (presumably because of his middle east appearance and beard)

So do Cameron Ling wants to know if Rangas get protected??

In the almanac of the VFL/AFL, in relative terms, it was not all that long ago that if you were Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, depending on the club, you would have never have been selected. It was not a written policy of the respective football clubs, but the faceless men behind the scenes applied the silent policy with rigour and sometimes vehemence.

Fast forward to the 21st century and Australia, whether I or anybody else on here likes it or not, is signatory to a number of United Nations Conventions. Not the least of these Conventions is to not discriminate or vilify on the basis of race, nationality, religion, ethnicity and if one belongs to a 'particular social group'. Such Conventions are prosecutable under international law. Some may think the Law is an ass, but it is not simply political correctness, when Governments of both persuasions subscribe to the same Conventions. Once again, people who engage in debate - which is fair enough - then resort to the use of throw away lines and epithets, such as "political correctness", generally do so because their arguments are bereft of rationality and logic.

In short, if being politically correct actually means challenging the status quo and peoples' innate prejudices then I am politically correct and happy to be so. I am glad we have men of principal in this world who fight for what is intrinsically right and fight while a very noisy cohort try to metaphorically shout them down.

As Edmund Burke; an Irish Politician and Statesman, considered by many to be the father of modern conservatism said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Here endeth the lesson.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by iv'a worn smith

Your right but IIRC it is an international human right

International.....as in North Korea, Syria, and of course our great friends Saudi etc etc

Not at all why would you say that?

Because you disagree with me?

Yes, but my point was...if you don't allow community standards to dictate the law of the land then what is your reference point?

And freedom is subjective, one man's freedom is another man's bondage.

My freedom to verbally abuse a person because of their religious beliefs impinges their right to practice their faith without vilification.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

Yes but my point was...if you don't allow community standards to dictate the law of the land then what is your reference point?

And freedom is subjective, one man's freedom is another man's bondage.

My freedom to criticise a person's religious beliefs impinges their right to practice their faith without vilification.

To criticise does not necessarily mean you vilify them.

IMO they are two separate things

To criticise does not necessarily mean you vilify them.

IMO they are two separate things

Obviously that depends on the nature of the criticism and construct of the words used.

he wasn't religiously vilified according to reports. he was racially vilified

he was referred to as a terrorist (presumably because of his middle east appearance and beard)

Really, he was aesthetically vilified.

Really, he was aesthetically vilified.

well if you think racial stereotyping is aesthetic vilification and not racial vilification then go ahead

but i suspect you were just trying to be smart

To criticise does not necessarily mean you vilify them.

IMO they are two separate things

Fair enough, edited.

Agree old. But free speech does not give one carte blanch to say what they like. Of course, on a privately owned forum, the mods get the final word.

Free speech does exactly that. It just doesn't protect them from the consequences of their words.