George Brandis: 'People have the right to be bigots' - Polidicks

Ah, well, that's fine, so long as we're allowed to say whatever we want, and we're going to let some fascist speak out his hate and incite further discrimination, might as well make it ok that I can smash that fuck in his skinhead face too, eh? Words are fine and dandy until you start ACTING on them! It's fine, y'know, say whatever you want because it's meaningless until you're in power. But that's cool, let's just let these people poison our racially challenged nation enough, because what we need right now when we have two states legalizing public discrimination of queer folks in the US is that we affirm that "Hey, it's okay to be a bigot! Don't worry, your ability to marginalize the marginalized is securely fastened in our laws!" What a great message for the western world!

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44367272]I'm not religious so perhaps I'm missing the perspective of a religious person but I don't see how my proposal was hateful toward religious people - I didn't say anything about interfering with religious people practising their religion together.[/quote] It is discrimination against a person based on their religious beliefs. If you single out certain dogma that can't be said that is absolutely discrimination and hateful. [quote]You asked me what I think should and shouldn't be illegal so I answered the question. Nobody gave me the right to do anything, it was hypothetical.[/QUOTE] I didn't literally mean "you." I was asking what gave any person the right to determine what is considered hate speech and how would they draw the line? [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44367285']Ah, well, that's fine, so long as we're allowed to say whatever we want, and we're going to let some fascist speak out his hate and incite further discrimination, might as well make it ok that I can smash that fuck in his skinhead face too, eh? Words are fine and dandy until you start ACTING on them! [b]It's fine, y'know, say whatever you want because it's meaningless until you're in power.[/b][/QUOTE] I've heard this comment from communists many times and it doesn't make any sense at all. It's just a talking point that can be used in any context. "Just let them keep talking about increasing military spending. It doesn't matter until they're in power!"

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44367285']and we're going to let some fascist speak out his hate and incite further discrimination, might as well make it ok that I can smash that fuck in his skinhead face too, eh? Words are fine and dandy until you start ACTING on them! It's fine, y'know, say whatever you want because it's meaningless until you're in power. [/QUOTE] hey, fascists != skinheads. There's also a difference between saying something and physically assaulting someone stop spewing your communist bullshit, by the way

People totally have all the rights they want to say stupid shit, they'll still sound like stupid assholes though.

You have every right to be a bigot, but you will lose votes for it.

Thank geebus not many of you are in Australia. And thank geebus that Brandis has been called out by members of his own party as a 'right-wing' nutjob. People do not have the right to be bigots in Australia (in public - that is the important distinction here), and as it is now, we're protected from it. And I hope it remains this way. Brandis is copping a lot of shit for his claims, and rightly so.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44367306] I've heard this comment from communists many times and it doesn't make any sense at all. It's just a talking point that can be used in any context. "Just let them keep talking about increasing military spending. It doesn't matter until they're in power!"[/QUOTE] But it's true. This is how the bourgeois notion of free speech works. You're free to speak on anything you want until you begin to apply it. You can say all that you want about abolishing the state or lynching the niggers so long as you never act on it. Which is convenient for liberals, because of course you lot already have your system and your state, you all fit nice and cozy in your civil society. So you'll say these things like "you have aright to be a bigot, you have a right to be a communist, you have a right to be a nazi", but no you don't, because your right to profess these things is undermined by the fact that you do not have a right to act them out if it affects what is the most important thing to affect, which is the political society. The point of saying this is to point out the hypocrisy of the bourgeois notion of speech- the only speech that matters is the speech of the politicos, and the speech of the politicos is the speech of the empowered class, the moneyed class. Of course this applies to any state, any ideology, but at least we don't speak our hypocrisy on the matter. The moment a radical group makes waves in politics then the western world goes MCarthy and red scare. At least I'll be open enough to say that that wouldn't happen in my endorsed prole state.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44367306]It is discrimination against a person based on their religious beliefs. If you single out certain dogma that can't be said that is absolutely discrimination and hateful.[/QUOTE] But I didn't single out a certain dogma, I applied it evenly to anything hateful, even hateful speech coming from an atheistic point of view.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44367210]You didn't explain at all why this isn't hateful towards the person's religion. Wouldn't silencing someone based on their religious beliefs be hateful as well?[/QUOTE] So if a religion says to kill X kinds of people, or to not do business with them, etc., is not letting them do that hateful towards that religion?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44367448']But it's true. This is how the bourgeois notion of free speech works. You're free to speak on anything you want until you begin to apply it. You can say all that you want about abolishing the state or lynching the niggers so long as you never act on it. Which is convenient for liberals, because of course you lot already have your system and your state, you all fit nice and cozy in your civil society. So you'll say these things like "you have aright to be a bigot, you have a right to be a communist, you have a right to be a nazi", [B]but no you don't, because your right to profess these things is undermined by the fact that you do not have a right to act them out[/B] if it affects what is the most important thing to affect, which is the political society.[/QUOTE] I don't see how it's undermined at all. That's why it's called freedom of speech. It's separate from freedom of expression, which has to be taken into account differently of course. [quote][B]The point of saying this is to point out the hypocrisy of the bourgeois notion of speech- the only speech that matters is the speech of the politicos,[/B] and the speech of the politicos is the speech of the empowered class, the moneyed class. Of course this applies to any state, any ideology, but at least we don't speak our hypocrisy on the matter. The moment a radical group makes waves in politics then the western world goes MCarthy and red scare. At least I'll be open enough to say that that wouldn't happen in my endorsed prole state.[/quote] I don't understand how any of this is relevant. I'd just like to point out how this is a complete non sequitur. [QUOTE=Zeke129;44367487]But I didn't single out a certain dogma, I applied it evenly to anything hateful, even hateful speech coming from an atheistic point of view.[/QUOTE] Still not answering the question. Let me give you a specific dogma then: is it hate speech if you condemn Christianity for being homophobic? [QUOTE=Rubs10;44367528]So if a religion says to kill X kinds of people, or to not do business with them, etc., is not letting them do that hateful towards that religion?[/QUOTE] I don't know. I don't think the concept of "hatefulness" is relevant or sensible, so you'd have to ask someone who does.

I hope people realise that these laws aren't about people being bigots because of what they say. These laws were put into place so that people can't be a bigot with the full intent of insulting, offending, humiliating and intimidating the recipient. This law doesn't cover people who say things because they truly believe it. [url]http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html[/url] [QUOTE]RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, [U][B]to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people[/b][/u]; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.[/QUOTE] They also want to remove this law because [URL="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=andrew%20bolt"]their friend Andrew Bolt got into trouble because of it.[/URL]

Don't forget part 2, and 3 FlandersNed.. [QUOTE](2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it: (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or (b) is done in a public place; or (c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place. (3) In this section: "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.[/QUOTE] Public places here include cinemas, shopping centres, shops.. This is going to have cataclysmic consequences for minorities who are discriminated against in small, and even larger communities. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a few dollars exchanged between Murdoch, and LNP..

It's too dangerous to our freedom to put restrictions on free speech. I support what the LNP is doing and hope it passes.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44367285']Ah, well, that's fine, so long as we're allowed to say whatever we want, and we're going to let some fascist speak out his hate and incite further discrimination, might as well make it ok that I can smash that fuck in his skinhead face too, eh?[/QUOTE]You're a psychopath. Next up, "Moltovs and how they are perfectly safe."

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44366893]Absolute freedom of speech is stupid and that's why it doesn't exist anywhere. Different societies simply draw the line at different places.[/QUOTE] No one mentioned absolute freedom of speech until you just so you know

the only people who don't have the right to be a bigot is the people in the government

Hes pretty much in the right for saying this, after all this country was practically founded on hate-speech and slander against the British, along with religious bigotism aka the puritans and their 'city on a hill no other religions allowed' mentality. Sure we are a more developed and mature society now, but that doesn't mean someone should be punished because they're a bigot or closed-minded, that's simply how they choose or learned to live and its their right to do so. Obviously when it escalates to physical harm or stalking and etc, then you take action. If people want bigots to stop existing and racism to stop, they need to take it the education and social level.

Guys, this person is not saying this to enforce freedom of thought process, he is saying this to further his agenda, which in this case is to repeal a section of the act that recently (hint hint) got a right-wing conservative journalist in trouble for writing and publishing an article which singled out aboriginal minorities. Yes, you have a right to be a bigot, but you do not have the right to express it in a way which, as the section C of this law this politician is attempting to repeal states: "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people". I feel this is a reasonable law, and as far as constitutional rights go we don't have a constitution like the US which prohibits this sort of law. This law is perfectly acceptable as it currently stands, hell it even has an exception if the bigotry was done "in genuine good faith" in section D. It definitely should not be modified the way he wants to modify it, especially since these discrimination laws have served the basis of the country's social status for years. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] EDIT: Someone should definitely put Australia in the title.

I like how every post mentions "stupid shit" instead of "an opinion"

I'm sorry if it is Bad Reading on my part but was the [quote]The attorney general, George Brandis, has declared “people have the right to be bigots” as he confirmed plans to remove sections of the Racial Discrimination Act [B]while ensuring the laws were better able to deal with incitement to racial hatred[/B]. [/quote] part never elaborated further?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44366893]Absolute freedom of speech is stupid and that's why it doesn't exist anywhere. Different societies simply draw the line at different places.[/QUOTE] My freedom of speech is more important than your feelings [QUOTE=J!NX;44366932]'People have the right to be bigots' and I have the right to tell them to fuck off and that they're ignorant[/QUOTE] Yes you do

People have the right to make uninformed arguments that may be factually incorrect but the problem is that other people will not know any better and will believe them. edit: for example many people think that homosexuality is a social and not biological phenomenon and seems like many people thought South Korea is a full and legitimate democracy up until late.

[QUOTE=Falchion;44368516]People have the right to make uninformed arguments that may be factually incorrect [/QUOTE] Uh no. You'll get sued for defamation if you make factually incorrect statements about someone. Even that is not protected by free speech in America.

[QUOTE=Falchion;44368516]People have the right to make uninformed arguments that may be factually incorrect but the problem is that other people will not know any better and will believe them.[/QUOTE] That's how facepunch works.

[QUOTE=Azarath;44368548]That's how facepunch works.[/QUOTE] That's how everything ever works

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44368437]My freedom of speech is more important than your feelings Yes you do[/QUOTE] is your freedom of speech more important than other peoples safety? (not sure how i feel about this though to be honest, i'm pretty big on the 'be able to say anything you want')

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44368570]That's how everything ever works[/QUOTE] Except for in Australia... obviously.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44368595]is your freedom of speech more important than other peoples safety? (not sure how i feel about this though to be honest, i'm pretty big on the 'be able to say anything you want')[/QUOTE] I'd say no, but I don't know how what I say could be a threat to someone. Words don't kill people

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44368611]I'd say no, but I don't know how what I say could be a threat to someone. Words don't kill people[/QUOTE] Words have driven people to suicide before. Bullying very quickly comes to mind when it's not physical bullying.

[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;44368621]Words have driven people to suicide before. Bullying very quickly comes to mind when it's not physical bullying.[/QUOTE] I really doubt it. People don't kill themselves because of any one thing, it takes a lot more than bullying to drive a person to suicide Bullying also isn't just about words