Monday, 3 March 2014
Hitler and 18C
Hitler and 18C
What say ye, Michael Sexton if Frederick Tobin insisted that Hitler did not kill enough of my brethren? Surely the lamentable T entity has espoused similar or derivated obscenities?
Why do you guys regard freedom of speech as a unilateral right no matter how offensive?
I SAY IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY!
Note further - amazingly there are modifiers in 18C - see below ex your article – that essentially emasculates it.
So why bother?
Arguably forcing Jews to mega – expensive legal sanction is plainly unfair for many reasons: no time to elucidate in this simple item.
There are other areas that a keen legal mind can espouse. Try to appreciate that a broad range of comments could indeed be regarded as ‘’hatred on the grounds of race / offence.’’
It indeed begs the obvious question – what about the above?
Is it exceptional form of offence a la 18C? Is it likely to lead to someone actuating the idea that Jews can be attacked or worse? Or merely suggesting so that others merely once removed from the hypothetical obscenity would act on it?
If not – why not? If yes – what is the point of it?
And what about the quote from the Koran about killing Jews? About trees and rocks and: ‘’There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'’’
‘’If it be thought necessary to outlaw incitements to “hatred” that somehow fall short of the urging of force or violence, historically a rare form of publication in our society, it would be possible to include the kind of provision present, for example, in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act that makes the incitement of hatred on the grounds of race an offence. This provision refers to threatening physical harm and inciting others to threaten harm, but it is not limited to these forms of conduct. There is always a danger, however, that, in the absence of incitements to violence, these kinds of provisions will be used to stifle publications that are merely offensive.’’
13 alston Gr
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299
Posted by Geoff Seidner at 9:58 am