Jewish Supremacists Lead Minorities Blocking Repeal of Hate Laws

[Rev.Cambeul]

I rise today also to speak about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and its report on the freedom of speech in Australia, particularly as it pertains to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

I note that this is a fraught issue, with many stakeholders and with many submissions, and I acknowledge the diversity of opinion. I think that is a very good thing; it reflects a healthy Australian society. The fact that we are having this debate here is also an indicator that we have a healthy, functioning democracy.

There are a number of things that I want to say up-front, because those opposite have misconstrued many of our positions with words like 'divisive' and 'hysteria'. I want to make it very clear where I stand, so I want to lift the bonnet a bit on my thinking before I get to 18C itself. I am not a libertarian, but I am a Liberal, which is to say that I am committed to freedom: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of enterprise and a whole host of freedoms that we hold dear in this country. Of course, today we are talking about freedom of speech.

I am going to quote John Donne and, at risk of sounding terribly heteronormative, I am going to use the original words of his poem:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

Freedom only makes sense in the context of community. We do not live in isolation from each other in this country. We have constant exchange with our neighbours. We have a mutual dependence upon each other, which is why we come together to form local, state and federal governments. That reflects our search for order and our desire to secure our collective freedoms. Government is especially important when we come together to do tasks that we cannot do ourselves, especially in emergencies. So I just want to make clear that I am not a libertarian; I am a Liberal, and I believe in limited government, in the separation of powers and in the diffusion of power. That is why our Westminster system, I think, is the best system of government in the world, and I am proud that Australia has that as our system of government.

But alongside those freedoms and rights come responsibilities. As I said, we have a mutual dependence upon each other. At the heart of our democracy is the volunteer spirit. In an ideal world, every Australian would self-regulate or self-govern, but of course that is not true. But it does raise the question: what role does government have in our lives? Is it the supporting act or is it the main protagonist? I am of the view that it is the supporting act, and my point about 18C is that it ultimately is symbolic of government overreach. It is government overreach interfering in the lives of individual Australians and regulating one of our most basic freedoms, which is freedom of speech.

I also want to be very clear on my anthropology, my view of humankind. I believe that all people are endowed with respect and inherent worth and dignity, whatever their race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex or sexuality. It does not matter: everyone is deserving of respect, because we are all endowed with inherent worth. I want to state that upfront very clearly. I also believe that a healthy civic society means that government can step back out of our lives. We call these mediating institutions or prepolitical institutions, and every single electorate has them. We start with the family and we work outwards to clubs—sporting clubs, Rotary clubs, Surf Life Saving clubs—churches, temples, mosques, schools and charities—you name it. They are in every single electorate around this country, and I believe they should be the first line of defence against discriminatory speech. They should be the first line of defence. I would rather see them empowered than big government interfering in people's lives, which I think is what has been the case with the exercise of 18C. Of course, in my electorate, and I am sure around the country, people have disengaged from civic society, so this is a task that all Australians should be engaged in: to rebuild a strong civic society.

Back to the topic of the Racial Discrimination Act and 18C. This is part of the question: what sort of a society do we want? Do we want one regulated by the state, or do we want one regulated by the citizenry? Do we want the state as the main protagonist or the supporting act? I think we have seen with the QUT case and the Bill Leak case that 18C has allowed vexatious litigation to creep into our society, where people are being inhibited in the exercise of their freedom of speech. We are seeing creeping political correctness across the board. We are seeing it in universities and schools. Not every Australian fully understands what 18C means, but for a lot of people it is emblematic of that creeping state interference and political correctness.

George Orwell wrote a famous essay, 'Politics and the English language', and in that he argued that language and thought are intimately related, so if we are to truly exercise freedom of conscience we need to have the freedom to exercise our speech as well. Of course, 'If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,' as he famously made clear. If we have the state regulating our speech, you also have the state regulating our thought, and I think that looks a lot like 1984, another great book by George Orwell.

The cases that have been litigated under 18C have caused a lot of psychological stress and trauma to those involved and also significant financial cost. I think of Bill Leak. You may not like Bill Leak's cartoons, and that is fine. I find them funny. I have found some of his cartoons to be very risque and found that they push the boundaries, but that is who he is. I want to acknowledge that after the 'Je suis Charlie'attacks in January 2015 he had the courage to do a cartoon in which he illustrated the Prophet Mohammed. Whatever you may think of that, he showed significant courage. He had to relocate his home because of death threats to him on the internet. I find it rather ironic in a free society that when he published a cartoon—whatever you might think of that cartoon—he was then pursued under 18C for that cartoon. What the terrorists themselves could not achieve in a free society, we had a mechanism of government for, which was used to pursue him for another cartoon of his. I think that is just unacceptable.

I turn to the report itself and recommendation 1. I approve of recommendation 1, which recommends addressing racism in Australian society. Absolutely we need to address racism. We need to address racism in all the mediating institutions that I just mentioned. Recommendation 2 says:

Recognising the profound impacts of serious forms of racism, the committee recommends that leaders of the Australian community and politicians exercise their freedom of speech to identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech where it occurs in public.

I affirm that absolutely. In fact, I copped a flogging on Facebook a couple of weeks ago after Larry Pickering's comments at the Q Society. I condemned his remarks. I condemned him for what he said about gay people and I condemned him for what he said about Islamic State and their barbarous acts in Iraq and Syria. A lot of people said I overstepped the mark. Great! I am happy for that. I enjoyed the flogging, in a sense, because it was another healthy indicator that democracy is alive and well and everyone can have their point of view.

I now turn to recommendation 3, and specifically to where it says:

(c) removing the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' from section 18C and replacing them with 'harass'; I think we need to do that. My colleague Senator James Paterson last night said that in this parliament we have a unique opportunity, a pathway where we have consensus around some of these recommendations. I recognise that this parliament is a tough one. It is rather austere from a legislative point of view. It is difficult to get legislation through. But I think we can all agree, on the evidence, that the QUT case, the Bill Leak case and others are a step too far. We absolutely need to reform the legislation. Politics is the art of the possible. I would rather not have 18C at all. I know that is not going to be achieved, but I do think we need to make changes. We need to make the threshold much higher to avoid the vexatious litigation that we have seen.

Ultimately, as I said, I am a Liberal, so I am going to err on the side of individual liberty. I hope that my fellow Australians are committed to a united country that is not divisive; that can preserve freedom and also ensure that the responsibilities of individual citizens are enforced and met. Section 18C has a chilling effect and we need reform. That is why I endorse it.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Report

Effectively, he wants us dead ... but he wants his Liberal voters to have free speech ... but if they go to far, he wants them killed too.

That's Liberal in Australia, Republican in America and CONservative in the UK. What's the diff? Absolutely none.

Obey Bibi and keep your thoughts in check.

[Rev.Cambeul]

Jewish Supremacist Demands Attempts to Remove or Alter 18c Halted

According to Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, persecuting White Australians (and only White Australians) in order to please often violent, typically abusive minority groups has been working perfectly well for a couple of decades now, and that's the way it should remain.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-fight-over-section-18c-and-18d-should-be-put-to-bed-20170305-guqxoh.html

Sections 18C and 18D have formed a vital pillar of successful Australian multiculturalism, helping to maintain social harmony and minimise hatred and hostility between different groups. Since their inclusion in 1995, organisations monitoring racism have witnessed both more circumspection and less harm by openly racist groups in Australia. This has clearly benefited the wellbeing of minority groups in Australian, including the Jewish community, as well as social cohesion as a whole.

Important precedents have been set against Holocaust denial and other manifestations of racism. For example, statistics maintained by the Jewish community show there was a substantial decline in incidents of anti-Jewish harassment in Tasmania and South Australia following judgements in Jones v Scully and Jones v Toben respectively, which were prosecuted under Section 18C.

Topic: The #Holocaust (((HoloHOAX)))
https://creativityalliance.com/forum/index.php/topic,2625.0.html

Topic: Jews Have Dr Frederick Toben Sentenced to Three Months Prison
https://creativityalliance.com/forum/index.php/topic,1632.0.html

Under 18c, just referring to a Jewish person as a Jewish Supremacist is a crime, but for him or any other non-White to intentionally insult, offend and humiliate a White Australian is a matter of his or their right to free speech. That is, free speech that White Australians no longer possess and will never be allowed to regain.

Remember that as you're dragged away to the gulag for unintentionally offending the protected species of this nation.

@Cailen.

[Br.IanVonTurpie]

So who cares about free speech and your rights to civil liberty ?If the Jews get their own way your rights don't count at all!Don't complain about multiculturalism or white genocide! Shut up and be happy, do what ZOG wants and be a good goy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apQQAYJZKLc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnSUT6aCNBg

[Br.IanVonTurpie]

Malcolm Turnbull is being offered a bold reform on race-hate laws that promises to end a damaging Coalition impasse over restrictions on free speech, raising the bar for complaints about language that "insults" or "offends" people on the basis of race.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/compromise-plan-18c-reform-plan-hinges-on-pub-test/news-story/f5158d34e02ab2725af080a12cef2ca7

The breakthrough proposal puts "ordinary Australians" at the heart of a tough new test for legal action under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, clearing the ground for talks in federal cabinet about the push to amend the law.

In a new effort to build a consensus for change, the Prime Minister has been approached to back the compromise, in order to quash threats to free speech while acting on community calls to retain strong sanctions against racism.

The plan seeks to insert a "reasonable person" test into the law so that applicants will have to prove the offensive behaviour breaches the standards of ordinary Australians — not just the feelings of a narrow group.

International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, a conservative whose parents migrated to Australia from Italy, has canvassed the proposal with her colleagues as a way to bring the law into line with everyday community standards.

18c debate gives PM free kick18c debate gives PM free kick
"It raises the threshold for determining what constitutes offensive behaviour based on racial hatred: to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate," Senator Fierravanti-Wells writes in The Australian today.

"The test would be what ordinary Australians think those should be. I believe by adding this test we can obviate much of the negativity we are seeing at the moment and deliver the appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial vilification.

"The 'reasonable Australian' test is a far higher threshold for social debate. It has been an essential part of the values that we hold dear to have great resilience and racial tolerance. We do not accept racist and xenophobic speech and we also value freedom of expression, religion and belief."

The plan builds on the findings of a joint parliamentary committee that last week agreed to overhaul the Australian Human Rights Commission to weed out vexatious complaints but failed to reach common ground on reforming section 18C itself.

The Australian has been told Mr Turnbull and senior cabinet ministers are preparing to act swiftly on the report in order to force the commission to speed up its decisions, throw out vexatious complaints and prevent the law being used to threaten free speech.

Coalition MPs are struggling to agree on the best path to change the law after growing concern at the drawn-out complaints against three Queensland University of Technology students over their Facebook posts and a more recent case against The Australian's cartoonist Bill Leak.

Commission president Gillian Triggs is under fire for letting complaints drag on, with critics warning that "the process becomes the punishment" as defendants must spend thousands of dollars to argue cases at the commission that later go to court.

In the latest dispute, Professor Triggs faces a likely recall by Liberal senators to explain "misleading" evidence she gave about Leak's case last week, when she said neither the cartoonist nor the publisher "made any submission" justifying why the complaint should be dismissed under 18D of the law, which provides an exemption for the media and academia. Leak's lawyer, Justin Quill, has produced a letter sent to the commission last October that explicitly cited section 18D as grounds for dismissing the complaint over the cartoonist's portrayal of an Aboriginal police officer handing over a boy to his beer-drinking father who has forgotten his son's name.

Last week's report into the racial hatred laws highlighted the divisions within the Coalition by outlining six options for section 18C, ranging from no change to replacing the words "offend" and "insult" and "humiliate" with the word "harass" instead.

The committee also canvassed changing the objective test from a "reasonable member of the relevant group" to a "reasonable member of the Australian community".

Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson is backing the new offence of "harass" in order to restrict complaints but fellow committee member and NSW Liberal MP Julian Leeser is opposing change to section 18C on the grounds that changes to the commission's process would be enough to prevent a repeat of the QUT or Leak cases.

One Liberal who opposes change to 18C told The Australian that the "reasonable person" test would still provide fertile ground for Labor and community groups to campaign against the Coalition with the claim they were making it easier for racists to speak out.

"But of all the options it is the least bad," he said.

Another Liberal who wants sweeping change to section 18C said the compromise would not go far enough for those who wanted to dismantle the limits on free speech.

The debate is expected to go to federal cabinet before being put to the full Coalition party room to decide whether to change the law.


Well I'm sure you would be a "reasonable person" and joke about other people's cultural differences in a pub setting and avoid prison time just as long as you don't touch the Jews and their holocaust and the fact they commit genocide on Palestinians. So, are they going to tell us how they define "reasonable people?"

[Rev.Cambeul]

Are they going to tell us how they define "reasonable people?"

Reasonable people by today's definition are people that go to university. What your government and mainstream media consider to be people from all walks of life. That's an opinion that covers all mainstream political parties, it is the only opinion that you will find in mainstream media, and according to surveys done by universities on uni students at uni bars, the statistics prove that as an undeniable fact.

So, if you do deny any of those facts, you obviously stand opposed reasonable people and will be subject to persecution under Australia's Hate Crime Laws ... got it, Ya White dog?

Remember, giving White People freedom of speech is considered a racist act - and only White People can be racist say those that glorify in the death of the White Race.

Would you pass the racism test? How the law defines discrimination
http://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/would-you-pass-the-racism-test-how-the-law-defines-discrimination/news-story/0dd8bd83ba89083637fe599ff32b0b29
Description: Blacks and Asians vilified by evil Whitey ... there is no example of vilification of White People to be seen.

@Cailen.

[Br.IanVonTurpie]

A university student could be studying anything from a trade, to Law, to Dentistry, to Philosophy, to Visual art.

You'd think a person who has served Australia in the ADF may be considered "a reasonable person" too? Or ... perhaps not ... if he rides a motorbike and has a few tattoos, perhaps some clothes with "rough looking" paraphernalia on them. Perhaps it is reasonable to say he is a member of prohibited organisation then? He must be a "roughian"?!

I wonder if it is "reasonable" to lump a member of a Christian bike club in with these unreasonable roughians who don't follow the good book?