148458-af29d466-b64b-11e3-961d-5192f6c25a65Free Speech vs Bigots


The section 18C debate has been sidetracked because of the claims made by some individuals against Andrew Bolt. The conflation of Aboriginal identity and schemes aimed at helping Aboriginal peoples creates various incentives which lead inexorably to welfare dependency and an over-emphasis on a particular racial identity. These, no doubt well-meaning, policies tend to entrench racial stereotypes and have had the effect of condemning a significant number of people to a welfare-dependent future. It has also caused some people to view themselves as victims. I use the term welfare broadly, including preferment schemes such as Indigenous scholarships.–End race-based welfare

Pickering doesn’t beat around the bush:

Greens and Labor’s Left dream of the perfect egalitarian PC world where no-one is offended by anything and everyone sleeps in the same conjugal bed. Well, that’s not the way it works, fellas, and it’s you lot that have made an art form of offending people.

No-one can agree with racial vilification, although we all come across it, but this debate is inane and widens, rather than closes, “the gap”.

Only a fool believes you could legislate to determine a degree of personal offence. Is “whitie c…” less racially offensive than, “boong”? Is “gwailo” (white ghost) more racially offensive than “chink”? Is “wog” racially offensive to a southern European when he refers to himself as a wog?

The terms, “Pom”, “Kiwi”, “Newfie”, “Yank”, “Jap”, “Coon”, “Abo”, “Chink”, “Wetback”, “Fuzzy Wuzzy”, “Raghead” are all racially based, but which is legally racial bigotry? All, none or some?

What about “Shortarse” ,”Fatso” and “Freckles”? Are they less or more offensive?

Those terms, and hundreds of others, will always be used, sometimes affectionately and sometimes not. It depends on how they are used, how well you know the person and in what context.

There is no law that can decide “offence”! And there is no law that can determine one’s legitimate or feigned degree of offence.

In the 1970s Labor tried to outlaw the term “Wog”, but unfortunately “Pom” and “Kiwi” were caught in the same legislative net, it was duly ignored. (Pickering has more)

He should sue them:

The attacks on Andrew Bolt are vile and disgusting but are also endless since there is no apparent penalty in saying what you like. He has a post up with the title, If they want laws against abuse, could they at least stop this vilification? which outlines some of the more recent of the more outrageous material.

If you are looking for good sense and fair play from the left, you will look a long time. Leaving these issues unchallenged through the courts is not an example of accepting free speech. Defamation is not protected free speech. These people should be made to defend themselves before a judge. (Catalaxy)