 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: |
If I were to speculate on changes to wording, I would probably be satisfied if the words "insult" and "offend" were removed, with "intimidate" and "humiliate" kept along with the rest of the section. |
Which is pretty close to the proposed changes.
http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Attachment%20A.pdf
Vilify and Intimidate are the new two. Surely that should satisfy Ptiddy as well? |
The word "insult" seems sloppy, but you can see why they are forced to use it to attack the root of the problem, which in my assessment is the triggering of the automatic out-group hate and discrimination mechanism that resides in our brains, especially through trigger discourse such as "Aborigines are lazy".
So we really need something between "insult" and "intimidate" which gets at such discourses which trigger the sort of automated, unwritten conspiracy of discrimination and marginalization among the dominant group which I've been going on about.
I would be happier to change "insult" to something like "contribute to the marginalization of the individual and/or identity group". But that is a definition rooted in complex theory and still requires substantial interpretation anyhow, hence I assume they went with the known term "insult" and left the rest to interpretation within the legal context.
Certainly "vilify" is not an option as it's really the root term waiting to be defined by this debate, while "intimidate" doesn't deal with the social discrimination and marginalization dimension of the problem.
As has been noted above, to the trained legal eye "insult" may make a lot more sense than we think in the context of what is trying to be achieved, which has nothing to do with the street definition of "insult" (as with the term "reasonable" and any number of legal terms no one else ever complains about).
Whatever the case, if we're not dealing with the social/group mechanisms which trigger and drive discrimination, we're not progressing.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Add to that proposal the anti bullying legislation that exists both at a state and federal level, which is more than capable of dealing with workplace issues.
For the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" crowd, keep in mind that in the 18 years since that legislation was introduced there's been other legislation introduced that can render parts of it redundant.
Also keep in mind that if we all took that view we'd still be using rotary dial telephones and listening to the wireless for information and entertainment. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^I certainly agree with that, as long as the change moves things forward and reduces people's suffering.
The problem is the conservative reaction to the law shows little awareness and acknowledgement of that suffering, and the scientific mechanisms, evidence and real lives behind it (so Atkinson's cringeworthy ignorance). That means they will expect the court's interpretation to reflect a backward "sticks and stones" comprehension of the issue if a language change is made at their behest.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
More commitment to "freedom of speech" from the Liberal Party. They may fancy themselves as right-wing libertarians, but the fact is that they are strongly opposed to civil liberties and always have been.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/dob-in-your-tweeting-mate-at-work-so-much-for-free-speech
| Quote: | Tim Wilson, then head of the IPA, was in the audience for Abbott’s "freedom wars" speech. Surely our self-proclaimed freedom commissioner will denounce measures muzzling public servants?
Not so much, no.
"There is nothing inconsistent with free speech and having codes of conduct or policies as a condition of employment that require professional, respectful behaviour in their role and the public domain," Wilson told the Daily Telegraph.
Elsewhere, Wilson explicitly rejects the charge that he cares only about the rights of the most powerful. "Free speech is for everyone," he says. But his support for the restrictions on employees illustrates that, by "everyone", he means something more like "everyone I know."
"Ultimately," he explained, "public servants voluntarily and knowingly choose to accept these limits on their conduct when they accept employment." Got that? You’re at liberty to work or not work for the department of prime minister and cabinet – and the department chiefs are at liberty to censor you while you are there. |
And this is pertinent to the rest of the thread:
| Quote: | By contrast, Wilson and his pals have spilled entire oceans of printers’ ink and its digital equivalent bemoaning the judgement against Andrew Bolt – even though, despite losing in court, Bolt faced almost no sanction whatsoever.
As Ben Eltham points out, had the plaintiffs brought a standard defamation case, Bolt, whose article included numerous errors of fact, would almost certainly have lost – and then been forced to pay damages. But they didn’t. They proceeded under 18c of the human rights act – and, as a result, Bolt did not even receive a fine.
In other words, treating the columnist as a free speech martyr one step away from the Inquisition’s stake, the judgment did not threaten Bolt with gaol. Justice Bromberg did not demand an apology, nor did the court force the Herald Sun to take down Bolt’s stories. All that happened was that the newspaper was instructed to append a notice to some factually incorrect articles. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Actually those terms of free speech are entirely consistent. Freedom of speech as a right means that government will not legislate or prosecute, it does not mean that an employer wont fire you or ask you to agree not to say or do certain things. You are also free to leave that employer, find work elsewhere or say what you will and accept the consequences.
No surprise the Guardian is looking for a 'gotcha' but all they're doing is either showing a lack of understanding of the issue or as I suspect straw manning the argument with Free Speech = no consequences in any medium or audience for anything you say or do.
Interesting that they show that not only does 18C gag free speech, it is a toothless tiger. If Bolt got things so wrong and could have fact checked, and his article caused damage then they should have sued him for defamation. Thing is they didn't want him sued for being a shit journo, they wanted to make an example of him based on his racial article, not the accuracy of it or any defamatory statements in it. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Actually those terms of free speech are entirely consistent. Freedom of speech as a right means that government will not legislate or prosecute, it does not mean that an employer wont fire you or ask you to agree not to say or do certain things. You are also free to leave that employer, find work elsewhere or say what you will and accept the consequences. |
But that's plainly false and assumes there is no substantive agreement on this from employers as a class. If those with power over the economic phenomenon of employment subscribe substantially as a class to authoritarian control, you can't then claim those without power over the economic phenomenon of employment who are subject to that collusion have meaningful "free" choice.
On the efficacy of 18C, while a weaker measure than probably needed, that's what you'd expect to see (a) as a first move in the right direction, and (b) in an effort to balance conflicting aims.
The old conservative tactic of telling people it's the Gulags or nothing only works when you're in the company of fanatics. The rest of us know 18C does matter to those it protects, and in 20 years it hasn't impinged on anything except the psychotic desires of those desperate to unleash the socio-cognitive hate mechanism against the vulnerable. For everyone else it's an excellent reminder not to take such highly unethical risks with other people's well being.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | If Bolt got things so wrong and could have fact checked, and his article caused damage then they should have sued him for defamation. Thing is they didn't want him sued for being a shit journo, they wanted to make an example of him based on his racial article, not the accuracy of it or any defamatory statements in it. |
Unmitigated nonsense. Defamation proceedings are notoriously expensive and you can't start them unless you have a huge pile of money ready to tip into the legal bills, not if (a) you want a successful result, and (b) you don't want to wind up in massive debt when the team of expensive QCs the guilty party has hired dud you for their costs.
This is the whole point of the racial discrimination act: it defends ordinary, everyday people who have been wronged and defamed. Defamation only defends very rich people, or people like Bolt with very rich patrons.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Actually those terms of free speech are entirely consistent. Freedom of speech as a right means that government will not legislate or prosecute, it does not mean that an employer wont fire you or ask you to agree not to say or do certain things. You are also free to leave that employer, find work elsewhere or say what you will and accept the consequences. |
That's how you choose to interpret it, but it's hardly some divinely ordained definition. Clearly, there are many instances where the law of the land applies to the workplace—your boss isn't permitted to pay you under the minimum wage, beat you or lock you in the stationary cupboard for an undetermined period of time, and neither is he or she permitted to put these terms in your contract. Why, in certain instances, shouldn't the principle of freedom of speech also apply? Particularly when what is being expressed is being done in the capacity of a private citizen, not in the role of an employee?
This proposal goes even further than that, mind you: it covers anonymous commentary, and extends far beyond the principle of not using your role of public servant to disclose confidential information—it muzzles all public servants' ability to comment on politics full stop, whether it be private or public, at home or in the workplace, anonymously or otherwise. That is profoundly authoritarian, and I would expect anyone with an interest in individual liberties to be concerned over it.
If you believe that one of a citizen's most fundamental "free speech" rights is to be able to comment on the government's behaviour without fear of punishment, then it seems obvious that you should oppose any attempt to infringe on that right. That should be the case whether the proposal comes from the attorney general or the board of the company you work for, and it should definitely be the case when the proposal comes from the Prime Minister himself.
Lastly, on your comment that one is "free to leave that employer, find work elsewhere or say what you will and accept the consequences". As if the current economic climate permits us to simply quit our jobs at will and pick up another instantaneously, and as if getting a reputation for being a whistleblower isn't going to harm our chances of employment elsewhere.
You know what else you're free to do? "Leave the country, buy a home elsewhere or else say what you will and accept the consequences". So long as the borders remain open, I could say that to you no matter how bad restrictions on free speech in Australia became. But clearly, and I'm sure you'll agree on this, that would be a glib and cowardly response. I don't see how this is all that different: we are all citizens, and the vast majority of us are employees. It's very much in our interests to oppose authoritarianism on both fronts.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
