Everyone wins my way on the 18c

  March (30)

• MORONIC EDITORIAL Smothering free exchange of idea...
• OUTRAGEOUS:::28/3 Jews ‘favoured while other minor...

Everyone wins my way on the 18c

Background

The Abbott Liberal government through the auspices of the esteemed Attorney General George Brandis has been / may be trying to revoke / change the 18c

Currently it is [apparently] unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate ...basis race or ethnicity....

''unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate'' Brandis will try to delete – replacing with vilify.

This over – simplistic introduction will have to do. I have my reasons for writing this at such an unusual time – and demonstrating brilliant style is not one of them.

The reader can easily inform himself of the details and respective merits and demerits of the state of play through the media.

This background briefing is of little value per se. Except to suggest that so much rubbish has been written on this that caveat emptor applies.

Look at the pathetic editorial in The Australian editorial March 29,2014.

Inexplicable rubbish: The Oz editor has discredited himself!

OVERVIEW - My Solution

The following is merely a cryptic essay; it is plainly an original piece of work that the best lawyers in the country should have thought of .###############################################################

THE POSTULATE:

• Let us assume that a person stands in the city square and screams that the Hindus prayer book is anti Christian.
• And Hindus are so as well.
• The Hindu leader sues under 18c

##############################################################

HERE IS MY PROPOSAL: IN SHORTHAND

1. Leave 18c as it is.
2. Add the need for TRUTH to be proven or disproven.
3. Add the need for REASONABLENESS ditto.
4. Possibly add PUBLIC INTEREST.
5. Add the possibility of impugning the MOTIVATIONS / INTEGRITY / PURPOSE OF PERSON FOR MAKING THE INITIALCOMMENT... ie the person being sued.

################################################################################################################################

1
Leave 18c as it is.
Self explanatory

2
Add the need for TRUTH to be proven or disproven.
Really this is delightfully simple which works both ways. Ie both parties will think very carefully before initiating the insult or defending themselves unless they are confident of the outcome.
Indeed that is the classical disincentive for both entities – so peace may reign. Which of course is irrelevant.
The loud mouth will take responsibility and the law will take it's course.
TRUTH PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. Just like in defamation / libel.

3
Add the need for REASONABLENESS ditto.This is a major theme for another day.
4
Possibly add PUBLIC INTEREST. Similarly - another day....
5
Add the possibility of impugning the MOTIVATIONS / INTEGRITY / PURPOSE OF PERSON FOR MAKING THE INITIALCOMMENT... ie the person being sued.
This is one of my major themes in another realm.
No need to go into it - which is a shame.

This is the crux of it.

If the initiator has to prove that he is being

REASONABLE,

IS ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,

AND HAS MOTIVATIONS THAT ARE HONOURABLE –

THEN MATTERS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND / OROTHER MATTERS OF CURRENT   ESSENTIALLY DISSAPPEAR!

NO MORE DISPUTE CAN BE HAD FROM EITHER / ANY PARTY!

Why has no one thought of this?

And furthermore let me here nothing from the professional smart alecs who claim the shallow shabby thing often heard that

how do you prove good faith?

Or any derivations that the above throws up?

GUESS WHAT?

THE LAW HANDLES THIS EVERY DAY! If some disingenuos twirp decides to initiate or defend an untenable action – than the consequences will be extant.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO!

Why should anyone throw up hypothetical problems that in reality not only does not exist – well, I do not know. See above; it will cost them – or will be stopped by the judge hopefully.

I repeat: the above will / would be a brilliantly simple solution by being a classical disicentive against both the so – called racist taunt and defence of the indefensible.

Gee _ I hope I have not made any errors – it is late at night and I write this as a favour for a party who is involved in matters semi – related and for my own curiosity if someone disagrees.

Geoff Seidner Saturday night 29 March 2014