Dear Ms
Triggs
I send this to you so you can look into my complaint against
The Australian Editor.
Please appreciate I will have more complaints if I get around
to it: even their current editorial at best has dozens outrageous manipulative
items that are for now beyond this email.
Yours Sincerely
Geoff Seidner
TO
Australian Human Rights Commission
Address
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Telephone: (02) 9284
9600
Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419
General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711
TTY: 1800 620 241
Fax: (02) 9284 9611
Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419
General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711
TTY: 1800 620 241
Fax: (02) 9284 9611
Tim Wilson, Human
rights Commissioner and
Shyakira
c/ Human Rights Commission
Dear Shykira
Oh the humbug of it all!
How is the publication from the official
spokesman from The League of Rights of a letter to the editor anything but
outrageous if the The Australian’s Op Ed mentions
‘’The irrational rantings of such groups as the
League of Rights’’?
Op Ed 5/4/14
League of Rights’’?
Op Ed 5/4/14
But it is worse than that. Even as a stand -
alone item it is much worse than that. Without everything else that the
Australian has written – it is much worse – impossibl=e to explain within 10,000
words.
You see, Nigel Jackson is of course taking the
freedom of speech tangent – and the entity who prepared the Oz’s editorial
readily gobbled up League of Rights hobbies – freedom of
speech!
See Whatever it takes? 1
No need for morality – take even the plainly –
anti semitic L.O.Rights 2 so long as
support can be gleaned for THE OZ!!!
1
Graham Richardson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Richardson
Whatever it Takes - Graham Richardson - Google Books
books.google.com.au/books/about/Whatever_it_Takes.html?id...
Rating:
3 - 3 reviews
An autobiographical account of the life of one of the key figures in
the Australian Labor Government during the last twelve years. It is written in a
direct ...Sticking with a slime goes beyond whatever it takes | The Australian
www.theaustralian.com.au/...whatever-it-takes/story-fnfenwor-12264939...
2
THE proposal by
Attorney-General George Brandis for the reform of section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act is being criticised for failing to adequately protect persons
and groups from racial vilification.
The opposite is the
truth — that it still fails to adequately protect freedom of speech. The new
clause sanctioning “incitement to racial hatred” is too vague and could easily
be used, in a future Labor-dominated political climate, to censor certain
intellectually substantial dissident views, especially if “community standards”
were to be interpreted in a way favourable to leftist social
engineering.
Moreover, the Brandis
exemptions are not too wide — they even need the addition of the word historical
in order to ensure that historical incorrectness is not wrongfully censored and
penalised.
Nigel Jackson,
Belgrave, Vic
Some within the Jewish diaspora disagree with the
organisations’ official line. Such individuals know that
majority or official opinion among any group is not necessarily always
right. Many
racial and religious groups, including Jews, have learned,
that lesson at vast and painful cost through
history.
Free choice,
including opposition to cultural coercion, was one of the 10 founding
principles of Israel, which is
also a good reason for respecting dissenting
views.
Replying to Mr Wertheim on the J-Wire online site,
Professor Dershowitz noted that answering rather than censoring is the
preferable response to bigoted speech. Words can and do harm. Freedom of speech,
as he said, is expensive, but it’s worth the cost.’’
I
now send a book review below 4 by the ABC
re my earlier comment on blood libel – as indeed the above is similar.
4
The Pinnacle of Hatred: The Blood Libel and the Jews by Darren O ...
www.abc.net.au/local/reviews/2011/10/20/3344170.htm
AUSTRALIA, as John Howard said this
week, is not a racist nation but one that respects and cherishes an open,
tolerant society. That understanding should be the starting point of the current
debate over freedom of speech and the Abbott government’s proposed changes to
the Racial Discrimination Act. In their supercilious opposition to the changes,
Fairfax commentators and other critics, including lobbyists who are normally
more discerning, argue from the premise that ordinary Australians are ready to
unleash a pent up tide of bigoted hate speech if and when Section 18C of the RDA
is repealed.
In reality,
when extremist parties with racist leanings have emerged spasmodically in the
prickle farmer backblocks of Queensland and Western Australia, they have
attracted minimal support and failed to retain it from one election to the
next.
Well-meaning apologists for censorship, as Harvard law professor
and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz wrote on Wednesday, are on the wrong side
of history. Banning anti-black, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish, anti-gay or
anti-feminist ideas or turning their perpetrators into criminals, he argued, was
tantamount to providing them with a megaphone.
Like Professor Dershowitz, this newspaper believes the
best answer to bigoted speech is not to drive it underground, heightening
discontent, but to respond and defeat it in the
marketplace of ideas. The irrational rantings of
such groups as the League of Rights and Citizens
Electoral Council, for example, are abhorrent.
And
this is precisely why they should be aired publicly,
in order to be refuted.
Unlike the armchair critics of Attorney General George
Brandis, Sydney resident and Holocaust survivor John Furedy
understands the dangers of curbing free speech first hand. As reported
on Wednesday’s front page, Professor
Furedy confronted the practical realities of censorship as a
boy in Soviet-dominated Hungary after World War II. That experience influenced
his judgement that Australia should not stray further down the path of creeping
“velvet totalitarianism’’ where it would no longer benefit from a genuine
contest of ideas. The Nazi and Communist regimes that dominated Eastern Europe
for decades did not spring from nowhere, as he said, but “always happen
gradually, step by step.’’
That said,
there are other opinions. And The
Australian has extensively reported the views of those opposed to the reform
of the RDA. Such proponents include Warren Mundine, the head of Tony Abbott’s
indigenous council and Peter Wertheim, Executive Director of the Executive
Council of Australian Jewry. Mr Wertheim has been quoted in five prominent news
and feature reports in the past month.
In a
thoughtful article, columnist and former Labor Senator Graham Richardson said no
ideal of free speech should ever be allowed to make a mockery of the degradation
and despair of the millions who died in the Nazi concentration camps. And Jeremy
Jones, director of international and community affairs at the Australia/Israel
& Jewish Affairs Council, defended Section 18C of the RDA. It had, he said,
proven to be “a means to have recalcitrant racists cease harassing others, of
sending a message that bullying by bigots is unacceptable and providing a means
for people to have their rights to live their lives free from harassment and
intimidation protected.’’
Unfortunately for Jewish Australians who hold a
multiplicity of views, the main organisations dedicated to the defence of
Israel, the Middle East’s only functioning democracy, have taken a narrow
approach. On its website, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, published a
rebuttal to Professor Dershowitz’s Wednesday article. The rebuttal, by
Peter Wertheim, said all the peak
Jewish national bodies in Australia were united in
opposition to
plans to alter the RDA. Their stand, paradoxically, is in line with many of
Israel’s most trenchant critics from the left of the Australian
media.
Some within the Jewish diaspora disagree with the
organisations’ official line. Such individuals know that
majority or official opinion among any group is not necessarily always
right. Many
racial and religious groups, including Jews, have learned,
that lesson at vast and painful cost through
history.
Free choice, including opposition to
cultural coercion, was one of the 10 founding principles of Israel, which is
also a good reason for respecting dissenting
views.
Replying to
Mr Wertheim on the J-Wire online site, Professor Dershowitz noted that answering
rather than censoring is the preferable response to bigoted speech. Words can
and do harm. Freedom of speech, as he said, is expensive, but it’s worth the
cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment