Australia: Wakademic Calls For Hate Speech Laws Against "Offensive T-Shirts"

Yet another wakademic finds a worthy cause to get behind:

 “Offensive T-Shirts”

This clown has all the ‘right’ credentials  for the neo-totalitarians who want  to remove the last remnants of freedom of expression in this country.

“The same people who preach tolerance on everything are in fact the least tolerant when it comes to open debate.”

 Wannabe dictator Simon Rice: Associate Professor;  Law Reform and “Social Justice expert”- (‘SJ’ stands for redistribution of other peoples money…)

“Police left powerless as society views alter”

“Offensive T-shirts”- can you smell the coffee? Can you imagine what the world be like when you allow guys like this ‘social justice’ kook tell you what you can wear?

While most of us are outraged over  the farcical Andrew Bolt ‘Racial Discrimination’  show-trial, lunatics feel they can restrict our freedom of speech even more.

Here’s the latest from Andrew Bolt:

Writing in the Spectator, Senator George Brandis, the Opposition’s shadow attorney general, is alarmed by the jubilation of the Left at my own loss of free speech in a Federal Court decision last month: Brandis and Boswell on the losing of our right to speak freely

Policing Australia’s Standards:

POLICE have no power to prosecute offensive T-shirt wearers because society has lowered it standards, a Canberra academic has suggested.

Australian National University discrimination expert Simon Rice said while debate continued to rage over acceptable public content, the law had failed to create any guides on where to draw the line.

Draw the line right there, Simon.

Political groups had avoided the subject for years, due to its controversial nature, and marginalised groups were feeling increasingly isolated as a result.

Associate Professor Rice said the ACT had laws against racial vilification but nothing to address contempt of a person’s gender or sexual preference.

And while Tasmania had a law making vilification on the grounds of gender illegal, nobody had actually invoked its guidelines since it was created in the late 1990s.

”In the ACT, we have laws against inciting hatred, ridicule or contempt for reasons of race, sexuality or HIV status,” Associate Professor Rice said.

Without drawing specific examples, he said some shirts today demonstrated serious contempt for women or incited others to be contemptuous of women.

”That is what the law would call vilification, but we don’t have a law against it,” he said.

Associate Professor Rice, who chairs the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council, has been asked to take part in a review of the ACT Discrimination Act next year.

He said definitions of vilification would be explored in the review.

”One of the issues surrounding vilification is to what extent they reflect community standards and it is possible that these standards are changing,” he said.

”Personally, I don’t see why T-shirts should be treated any different from newspapers or radio or television shows.”


Some comments:

Australia needs to grow up,  it is being run by a mob of children who have never left school. One day they may be in for a shock , hope they wake up before it’s too late.
Doubt they will, their heads are so far in the clouds, their minds have gone to outer space .

Australia , the home of the world’s greatest suckers.

  • I want to live in a country where I am free to give offence and, more importantly, free to be offended.
  • They should read history.  Dictators never share, they destroy those who help them to power .
  • The New Left is intolerant of free speech. The Far New Left are even more intolerant. God help Australia as it heads for dictatorship under Labor-Greens.

13 thoughts on “Australia: Wakademic Calls For Hate Speech Laws Against "Offensive T-Shirts"”

  1. I had not heard that Bolt had lost the case. Bummer. In the US, we would be swamped with hatespeech laws and thought courts (human right commissions) if not for the 1st amendment. But even there, liberals are trying to finesse and restrict what ‘freedom of speech’ means. I am always amazed at all these ‘hate speech’ trials in Canada and Europe, etc. They seem so illogical and unfair and fascist. Is Bolt appealing?

  2. To be fair, Prof. Rice (no relation) doesn’t seem to be arguing against the shirt slogans in your picture. He’s arguing against demeaning slogans insulting to women.

    1. ‘To be fair’-

      is it fair to burden the police with t-shirt witch hunts?

      Is it fair to clog up the courts with t-shirt trials prof. Rice finds ‘offensive?’

      Who is to judge on what’s offensive? Prof. Rice?

      Take the Bolt case:

      You may all note that none of the 9 plaintiffs disagreed that they received professional benefit from identifying as Aboriginal.

      They were offended because Andrew Bolt pointed it out.

      No one has a right not to be offended. Censorship Is The Handmaiden
      Of A Police State.

      If freedom of speech means anything at all, it means the right to express ideas others disagree with

  3. Its never ending. Every day there seems to be more and more encroachment into our lives by these pseudo-intellectual elitists. Who cares if someone wears an offensive T-shirt? And who then determines what’s offensive? Maybe we should have the equivalent of the religious police in Saudi and have some T-shirt police? Maybe we can then go further and fine people for wearing the wrong colours? For god sake, get a grip you idiots. This is social control by a dictatorship of ‘experts’

  4. I agree with Saffron Rice. However, as the Will points outs it is a fine line in determining whom determines what is offensive and what is offensive. Resolution of the issue in this way as inferred by Ass. Prof. Rice opens more uncertainties than it resolves and represents a significant backwards step backwards. Just as sharia represents a massive step back into tribal arab society, such a step should not be welcome. No thank you Ass.Prof. Rice – If you don’t like the shirt don’t buy it!!

  5. Display more crosses and bible verses, even if you are not religious! Strengthen our faith! Even with tattoos!

  6. Ill wear what i want, they ask me to remove it, i say no, they ask me for id, i say no, they lock me up, they will try to finger print me, ill fight… ill stay locked up as long as it takes, how riduculous, lock me up for a shirt, hahahaha, what about ausralians finding the burqa offencive, why hasn’t that been considered in paliment? its because the government is stupid or been bought out by islam. NAZIS in australia! NAZIS are muslims – they were sided with them during ww2, coincidence that now we have alot more muslims here that nazi like laws are comming out.
    how about we also look at our jail system, whos mostly in there…. Minorities! per capita there are more minorities, so i wonder, is this just another coincidence?

  7. It’s good to see a debate on this issue, and it is interesting to see that there is a range of views. I’m not sure what I said, in the Canberra Times report , that is neo-totalitarian. When I observe that we don’t have a law against vilification of women in the ACT, it may be that that is a good thing – I haven’t expressed a view. And I agree there is a real question about who, if anyone, should judge whether conduct is offensive, although it is not something I expressed a view on. The Law Reform Advisory Council’s review of the ACT Discrimination Act next year, will be a good opportunity for people to tell the government what changes, if any, they think should be made to the current law.

  8. Assuming that Simon is actually Associate Professor Rice then the suggestion contained in the last line of his email is precisely what people should be actively pursuing. This means – and please note that it is the end of a Friday here so I have not committed much effort to this issue – that we can use this site to organize our resources so that a clear and definitive statement can be made to the law council. Let me be quite frank, if we do not actively participate in our governments law making processes we WILL. in the long term, loose our country. I am willing to put time into this despite a busy schedule so I will ask the Sheik if he would be willing to pass email address of those who are willing to (assist in providing a document to the Reform Councils expressing our concerns , with concrete examples etc of where legislation of particular types has failed in other countries, etc etc) to me so that I can contact these people are get the process starting. As I said before, we are fighting for our country and the best way to do this is through our legal systems. I will warn however that I will vet the addresses before I reply as I am very certain that some of the “bad guys” will try and become involved in this effort. If you are interested and the Sheik agrees to forward your email to me, then give him permission to pass your mail address onto him – DO NOT POST ANYTHING ON THIS OR ANY OTHER SITE.

  9. Kaw, can you click on the links above?

    Simon Rice’s e-mail is there, just look it up.

    Its very telling that he calls for censorship and then tries to weasel out with “I haven’t expressed a view.”

    It is important to protect our right to free speech and freedom of expression, because once that is gone, nothing can be gained without violence.

    We should try to preempt that.

    We don’t have a problem with arguments and honest debate. We have no problem with someone expressing an opinion, even if it is offensive.

    We have a problem with state commissars, with the power of the state behind them, to usurp undue powers and to inflict a totalitarian utopia on us under which we would all be forced to love each other.

    Are you ready to shut up and drink the gov’t prescribed kumbaya juice?

  10. This gentleman is indeed a prime example for what is so horribly wrong with our society. I think it was Voltaire who suggested he’d fight and die for the right of others to offend him, as long as freedom of speech was upheld. That was 200 years ago. And what do we have now? Moonbats that lobby for laws dealing with offensive t-shirts!

    Since uni degree are on the house these days, we have a plague of self-inflated symbiants vying for recognition and funding.
    It doesn’t help unis are also breeding hordes of hungry ambulance chasers who seek to sue the pants of anything that looks like it might carry a wallet.

    This goes hand-in-glove with the aggressive moral cancer on our society, which now seems to be run by soviet-style aparatshiks, Bollinger Bolsheviks and Gaya worshippers.

  11. I suppose that if you wear a T Shirt in Australia promoting your local dental practise then this will be banned too. (Just like your banned internet list)

Comments are closed.