18C is not protecting anybody

My name is Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, I am an Alice Springs Town Councillor and campaigner against family violence. Recently I addressed the National Press Club along with Marcia Langton and Josephine Cashman about the silencing of Aboriginal women victims of violence and the realities of life in remote communities. My traditional Warlpiri culture is governed by stringent rules regarding the sharing of knowledge and what women can and cannot say in public. I am of the thinking that my people need to implement cultural reform to allow for more open and honest discussion so that women and children victims of violence are no longer silenced.

The domestic violence epidemic has been played out in aboriginal communities for over several decades now and has steadily worsened. In our current political climate freedom of speech has been suppressed by political correctness. This has contributed to the domestic violence epidemic we are experiencing. Activism once sought to champion freedom of speech but has now turned on those wishing to practice their right to use freedom of speech who do not follow the Left/Green ideology or simply if they are Caucasian addressing an issue relating to individuals who are not.

The popular ideology of the left leaning activists and safe cultural space creators is that all Aboriginal people need to be protected from white people. Political correctness is a set of rules that govern the way in which we use language about, or toward, minority groups so as not to offend them. But strangely people of Caucasian backgrounds are exempt from this protection. They are fair game. This means then if we wish to expose horrible truths in order to address them with an honest approach to bring about real change it can be misconstrued or deliberately targeted and branded ‘insulting’ or ‘humiliating’ to someone, somewhere who self identifies as indigenous.

This is exactly what happened with Bill Leak’s cartoon. According to the unwritten rules of political correctness one must not speak of the reality of the circumstances with which Aboriginal people are faced unless one is Aboriginal, or can claim to be. If a non-Aboriginal attempts to address any of these issues and an Aboriginal person is offended by this they can simply call ‘racist’ and the debate is shut down. This is exactly the kind of tactic that abusers of power, supporters of Aboriginal perpetrators of domestic violence and deluded individuals with an unhealthy victim mentality will use to shut down any honest debate regarding the plight of their fellow human beings. This is the case even though a clear majority of those identifying as indigenous produce children with their fellow Australians who don’t.

What then are the non-Aboriginal people to do in order to address any issues their Aboriginal or Ethnic loved ones are faced with? How are they supposed to deal with the issues causing incredible suffering to their fellow Australians who happen not to be white? 18c negates the very idea that we are all in fact human and that we all hold differing opinions. It denies basic human nature that gives us the ability to generate critical thinking and the means to learn and grow. It is absurd that 18c ever became legislation. I have always argued and will continue to argue, as is my human right to; that Aboriginal people have never been given the privilege that those of the west have had, the right to culturally evolve.

We have been told we must remain in an unchanged culture. We have been exempt from constructive criticism, as has Islam in the west. There are other points of comparison. If you criticize Islam you risk a threat to your life. If you criticize Aboriginal people in any way shape or form you simply are labeled racist or bigot if you are white. You may also risk a threat to your life if you are Aboriginal like me. My life has been threatened because I wrote a piece telling the world that as an Aboriginal Australian I celebrate Australia Day. The RDA has made many who identify as indigenous believe that they are exempt from its provisions. That they can’t be racist and therefore they feel free to insult, offend and humiliate whomever they please. They do it to white people and they do it to other Aboriginal people who refuse to follow the ‘party line’.

In Alice Springs a member of the public is far more likely to be randomly assaulted, physically or verbally, if they are perceived as ‘white’ rather than ‘black’. The grossly offensive racist insults are used liberally in the streets of Alice Springs against white people. I have walked the streets of this town with my white friends to protect them from this sort of thing. We are not aware of any complaint being made under section 18c of the Act resulting from this fact. It is not seen as a protection of the rights of Australians generally, only of those of designated ‘racial or ethnic minorities’. White Australians feel intimidated, not protected, by this Act.

Both my mother (a senior Warlpiri woman and former Minister of the Crown) and I have been vilified in obscene sexist and racist terms on several occasions, each time by somebody who described themselves as indigenous activists because we refuse to be told what to think and say. In my case I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been called a coconut and I have been called much worse. My mother was called a ‘head nodding jacky jacky’ by a lauded east coast Aboriginal activist. An invitation to address the staff and students of the Indigenous unit at Griffith University was withdrawn from my mother because she held views that were not the same for some of the staff and students of that unit. We have not once been insulted in racist terms by white people, not as far as we know. And if that happens we know how to defend ourselves. We aren’t victims, we aren’t afraid to stand up for our people and ourselves.

Our people are suffering and their problems are daunting and complex. We will not find the answers if we are denied the right to take part in an open and honest debate. We can’t do that without offending those who are ideologically committed to the party line that has been laid down by the activists of the eastern cities and their white allies. They are educated, speak English and know how to use the system against anybody they disagree with. We speak for the most marginalized, those who the education system has failed, who are often illiterate and don’t speak standard English. It is not just the white people who are closed down, it’s also the most marginalized and least powerful of the Aboriginal population who are denied a voice by the self appointed spokespeople who know nothing of the circumstances in which they live. Agenda is dominated by those least affected by these issues. The agenda is controlled by English speaking, Aboriginal middle class ignorant of the values and issues of remote speakers of traditional languages and Kriols.

I was recently asked to take part in a debate on the final episode of First Contact on SBS. I was given little opportunity to discuss the very critical issue of domestic violence in remote Aboriginal communities but this was not pertinent to the program. Timmy Burarrwanga from North West Arnhem land, a Yolngu Matha speaker was asked if he felt that some of the strangers that visited his country in the show were racist. He said

‘When I look at them I don’t see racism, I see ignorance’. He also said he didn’t view them as strangers in his country because they too were Australian. The rest of the episode was then taken over by English speaking Stolen Generation representatives who would ultimately have the last say on any matter. What Timmy said is the way I was taught by my Warlpiri grandparents and mother. I was taught to relate to white people as a teacher. My Warlpiri grand parents were in their early adolescence or late childhood when they first saw white people. I was also taught to act as a teacher for my people and for white people in order to create understanding both ways. I was taught to respect both sides and to look for answers to problems from both sides.

18c of the RDA encourages rather than discourages racism. It treats us Aboriginal Australians as infants who can’t speak or stand up for ourselves. It treats non- Aboriginal people as if they have no right to hold an opinion about anything that relates to us especially the problems of our own making that are killing us. White people are frustrated and insulted by that. They are not game to speak out. That should never be allowed to happen in a democracy. The way to beat racism is through debate not the closing down of debate. The way forward for our people is cultural evolution. We have an absolute right to find our own solutions, to find our own way forward out of this misery without being vilified by those who claim to be on our side and claim to speak for us.

In closing 18c is not protecting anybody but instead being used to vilify innocent people in order to satisfy another’s insecurities. A healthy individual knows that responsibility for ones feelings belongs to themselves not to external factors.

This article is Jacinta’s submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Human Rights enquiry into Freedom of Speech in Australia. 

Jacinta Price

Latest posts by Jacinta Price (see all)

586 Comments on "18C is not protecting anybody"

  1. Careful, Jacinta. The victimhood industry is big and powerful and they will be out to get you.

  2. White people like Nampijinpa have no right to talk about racism.

  3. Well said Jacinta, keep speaking out.

  4. This woman is deluded “the way to beat racism is through debate” LMFAo
    Besides that, she is just a mouthpiece for bigots like Bolt and Hanson

    • Hahaha, Christ. you are hilarious.

    • You’re that scared of words? You poor dear…

    • Jeez guys, pretty average replies. You can do better than that !!

    • What’s the point, you don’t like debate?

    • Well not with racists Andrew. You wouldn’t be a racist would you champ

    • So because our narrative doesn’t match yours, we’re immediately racist? I smell authoritarian lefty

    • Craig Waddell as Ben Shapiro would reply to someone who calls people a racist with no evidence: ‘well you’re a jackass’. Do you think calling people racists makes you morally superior? News for you, it doesn’t. You may also want to look up the definition of a bigot, because I’m pretty sure you might be one.

    • Go back , read the conversation so far Jonathan, and try to keep up

    • Where have I called anybody a racist Nicola ??!?
      Where is your evidence ….Jackass

    • “Well not with racists” in response to being queried about not wanting to have a debate, insinuates you’re labelling all in this thread “racists”. If you’re going to try and make insults, at least try to communicate your point clearly, Craig.

    • OMG Jonathan !! The author of this piece said ” the way to beat racism is through debate”
      I just pointed out that it is ludicrous to think you can debate with racists. That’s it .. try to keep up man.

    • Craig Waddell your accusation about Jacinta (that she is mouthpiece of Bolt and Hanson) is a racist comment. What you are saying is that an aboriginal person cannot possibly have an opinion about free speech and 18C that you don’t approve of, therefore they can’t possibly have a mind of their own.

      Why do you love 18C so much and point the finger and call others racist, if you are only too willing to disparage an aboriginal woman’s voice? She’s not talking about ‘debating racists’ she is saying that aboriginal issues need to be discussed without the fear of ‘offending’ somebody and instigating an 18C complaint.

    • hey craig. by your narrow logic, you are the racist for disagreeing with an aboriginal woman. try to keep up.

    • Nicola, I didn’t call anybody a racist!! Are you fricken illiterate ??

    • Craig Waddell are you?? You’ve read this article and all you can come up with is that the author is doesn’t know her own mind, because it’s an opinion you don’t agree with. What a despicable slur.

    • Glad someone gets it, Craig Waddell. I was begining to think it was KKK Night here.

    • Ron is another jackass that likes to accuse people of being racists with no evidence. And Craig likes his comment. ‘I never called anyone racist, but I love when it other people do!’

    • Ok, you win Nicola, you’re a ignorant racist bigot who writes for neo conservative fascist blogs. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Ah now we’re getting somewhere, a little bit of honesty. I wonder how much longer the ‘tolerant’ left will be able to use the #ignorantracistbigot insult with any effect? You’d better present some evidence of why I am a racist otherwise you’re still just a jackass.

    • Pro Trump, pro life, climate change denying, Q society supporting bigot. Your posts sound like the bastard child of Devine and Bolt, and you would probably support Hanson if you didn’t know it would make you look stupid as well.
      You’re a fringe dwelling extremist Nicola. Nobody, not even your own political party takes you seriously.

    • I’m still waiting for evidence of my supposed racism Craig. Got any? You know what’s ironic? You trying to claim some high moral ground.

    • Craig Waddell A bigot is someone who is ‘intolerant towards those holding different opinions’ and your behaviour on this thread is a perfect example of bigotry. You haven’t pointed out any flaws in Jacinta’s article, instead you just keep making personal remarks about people you don’t agree with.

    • Tanya Rosecky Well said!

  5. Jeez Craig ,who are you a mouthpiece for ?

  6. Perfectly put mate

  7. Very well said Jacinta.
    The racism of low expectation of Aboriginals that the Left push, is demeaning to those they claim to represent. Aboriginals are capable of being just as successful as white people, but when they are treated as infants like you say, it inhibits their confidence that they can succeed.
    What their communities need is successful, positive leaders who instill pride, confidence and a culture of self reliance.
    The Greens and their ilk use Aboriginals as an opportunity to virtual signal, while in reality doing nothing to help those they claim to.

  8. Well said, debate unites us by solving the problem, 18c divides us and refuses to acknowledge the problem.

  9. Good for you love I for one am proud of you. Wise beyond your years

  10. What rubbish Jacinta! The social issues confronted by indigenous Australians have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you and I can throw racial epithets at one another.

    • Way to miss the point!

    • Spot on Paul. It’s delusional thinking from bigots who couldn’t give a stuff about minority’s.

    • You’re the one displaying bigoted thinking Craig. You’re intolerant of those with a different opinion to you. Fancy claiming that Jacinta Price doesn’t give a stuff about minorities when she tirelessly campaigns for better conditions for her own people.

    • Well I was talking about bigots like you, not delusional conservatives like Jacinta

    • But, but Craig… She is a single representative of a minirity group! So all the white people at Liberty Works can’t possibly be bigots. Sure, they would trample Jacinta and “her own people’s” rights into the dirt if it suited them (think mining $$$), but then we can hardly proselytise “Liberty” for Indigenous peoples when white Australians are so oppressed by the Anti Descrimination Legislation themselves, can we?

    • It’s ironic isn’t it that people such as yourselves, who believe they are the good guys protecting minorities from bad people, are so quick to get nasty by calling people names and making groundless accusations. It’s a pity you can’t see your own hypocrisy.

    • Some words of wisdom from somebody who has an understanding of the history of free speech and enlightenment values.

      “Of all the bad ideas spouted by the intolerant new left, none is so obnoxious, so threatening to liberty and equality, as the idea that freedom of speech is bad for minority groups.

      It reverses the greatest gain of the struggle for racial equality: the defeat of the nauseating idea that non-white people are childlike, whether vulnerable or dangerous, and thus require special protection or policing. It is shot through with a neocolonialist urge to protect minorities from the experience and consequences of freedom and of adult, autonomous life.”


    • No! It’s about not being a fucking arsehole and then crying “freedom of speech” when you’re labelled for what you are, a fucking arsehole.

    • I think you’re being an arsehole quite frankly.

    • Pack of young Liberals going gaga about their right to free speech being oppressed. You guys are hilarious!!

    • Not just ours Craig, your rights as well, and rights of our future generations.

    • “The freedoms of speech must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.” Hugo Black J.

    • Like Andrew Bolt? With his weekly newspaper column, television program and radio show? The poor guy just can’t get a word out there can he!

    • Peirs Ackerman, Miranda Devine, Paul Murray, Hadley, Price,that loony ex labour leader, Hanson, Lambie, Pickering,Katter.
      Poor things have been gagged by all the PC

    • Yes they all deserve freedom of speech as do you. They may not be silenced now but if we allow our freedoms to be eroded away bit by bit then our society as a whole will be worse off.

      Do you guys know anything about the enlightenment and the history of free speech? It’s the bedrock principle that any free society is built on. You reap the benefits of it every time you open your mouths. It’s a shame you don’t understand that your freedom is dependant on the freedom of people you disagree with as well.

    • Maybe the subtext of our comments is proving too much for you at Liberty Works, but we aren’t disagreeing with the concept of free speech. What we argue is that free speech does not allow humiliating, degradiing or offensive hate speech aimed at people based on their racial , religious, sexual or gender identity.

    • Maybe you are spending too much time in 18th century Europe to remember the 70’s here in Australia where public discourse approved (even encouraged) denigration of “boongs”, “poofters”, ‘”dagos”, “wogs”, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum, thereby excluding anyone who didn’t identify as white Anglo-Australian from any involvement in public discourse whatsoever! Sure there were homosexual, Indigenous, immigrant voices but they were comprehensively ignored and dismissed by the predominant white Australian middle class. Times have thankfully changed and now you whinging exemplars of white Australian privilege are now bemoaning the fact you have to share the stage of public discourse with those you were once happy to ignore. And because you are being called out for the racist, bigotted arseholes you are, you now want to repeal the laws that prevent you, at least from talking, like the racist, bigotted arseholes you are in public!

    • Paul Matthew Allen “thereby excluding anyone who didn’t identify as white Anglo-Australian from any involvement in public discourse whatsoever!”

      Is that true?

      “Times have thankfully changed and now you whinging exemplars of white Australian privilege are now bemoaning the fact you have to share the stage of public discourse with those you were once happy to ignore.”

      What a ridiculous statement. We do not want to silence anyone. This is strawman argument.

      “And because you are being called out for the racist, bigotted arseholes you are, you now want to repeal the laws that prevent you, at least from talking, like the racist, bigotted arseholes you are in public!”

      Paul unfortunately this thread has shown that is is YOU who is acting like a bigoted arsehole with your name-calling and complete lack of self awareness. Can you point our where LibertyWorks have made racist comments?

      “What we argue is that free speech does not allow humiliating, degradiing or offensive hate speech”

      Yes that is obvious, but your argument is wrong. Free speech includes the freedom for people to hate as long as they do not cross the line into action. That is the concept that is seemingly beyond your understanding. You may not like it, you may disapprove of the speech of others (there is plenty of speech that we at LibertyWorks disagree with maybe even disapprove of) but in the end the concept of freedom of speech is that you defend the right of people to speak freely, even if they are offensive. That’s it plain and simple.

      “The freedom to hate must be as protected as the freedom to love. It is only when hate crosses over into action that the law may properly intervene” Camille Paglia

      It really is amusing to see how two people who throughout this thread have spat out hateful venom towards people to who support a concept they don’t fully understand, have at the same time argued for laws against being offensive. Thank you for providing a couple of good examples of blind, ignorant hypocrisy.

    • Try to understand that allowing hateful speech doesn’t mean supporting it. As Brendan O’Neill has said: “Censorship doesn’t tackle, far less defeat, ugly views; it just pushes them aside. It has the terrible double effect of allowing the hateful ideology to fester and grow — unchallenged, unexposed — while depriving the rest of us of the ability, and right, to see, know and dent that ideology. “

    • Hateful venom !! Boo hoo, poor snowflake. Are you this pompous in real life ?? Must be a hoot to hang out with.
      The law does not stop you from hating…what a ludicrous statement.
      And tackle , defeat, challenge, and expose are all the same things. Seems you want to see , know and talk about hateful ideologies ..without doing anything about them ??How can you not see the nonsense of the O’Neill quote

    • “Hateful venom !! Boo hoo, poor snowflake.”

      “you’re a ignorant racist bigot who writes for neo conservative fascist blogs. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

      “pro Trump, pro life, climate change denying, Q society supporting bigot. Your posts sound like the bastard child of Devine and Bolt, and you would probably support Hanson if you didn’t know it would make you look stupid as well.
      You’re a fringe dwelling extremist Nicola. Nobody, not even your own political party takes you seriously.”

      This is how somebody advocating for laws against causing offence communicates Keep it coming Craig you’re a real laugh a minute!

    • There you go , free speech in action. You want to “expose” “dent” and “challenge “hateful bigots ?? That’s how you do it.
      I had my say, you had yours, nobody got taken to court, the system works fine. The law won’t be changing because it’s not there for you and me, but for the minorities that actually, in real life, cop the abuse.
      Get over yourself.

    • Craig Waddell we support your right to spew out as much crap as you can manage, and you’re doing very well at it. We don’t support laws that that are based on subjective concepts such as ‘offence’ and ‘insult’ as they can be abused.

      “The law won’t be changing because it’s not there for you and me, but for the minorities that actually, in real life, cop the abuse.”

      Have you ever stopped to consider that minorities don’t want to be white knighted by people like you that think they can speak for them? They’re not children. They can speak for themselves and that is the point Jacinta and others are making.

      Believe it or not ‘minorities’ have minds of their own. It’s obvious you can’t see that because your first comment on here was to accuse an aboriginal women of being somebody else’s mouthpiece. How racist of you to suggest that all minorities and all aboriginal people should have the same opinion (in this case that 18C is of benefit to them), and if they don’t, then they must be stupid people who are used by others. How very tolerant of you.

    • They can be abused, but in 99.9 % of cases they are not.
      I never said anyone was a child or can’t speak for themselves.
      I never said that all Aboriginals should think the same as me or that Jacinta shouldn’t have an opinion. I said her opinion is wrong, and it sounds like she is just regurgitating the nonsense of The Daily Telegraph. Just like Liberty Works is a mouthpiece for the extreme right.

    • How hilarious that you would call me racist for disagreeing with a person who publishes an article online.
      You are always the first to be frothing at the mouth when one of your beloved conservative pundits gets blowback.

    • Craig Waddell except that I didn’t call you a racist for disagreeing with a person who publishes an article online. I called you racist for accusing an aboriginal woman of being a ‘mouthpiece for bigots like Bolt and Hanson’ because she is expressing an opinion that you don’t agree with.

      You didn’t just say she is wrong and point out how or why, you said she is deluded and a mouthpiece for others, ergo she doesn’t know her own mind, or hold the ‘correct’ opinion you think she should have as an aboriginal person. Have you ever tried expressing a point of view without throwing insults? You should try it sometime, more people might listen to you.

      “You are always the first to be frothing at the mouth when one of your beloved conservative pundits gets blowback.”

      Who is this ‘you’ you are referring to? The only people I can see frothing at the mouth are you and Paul Matthew Allen.

    • Yes you( what else am I supposed to call a person who hides behind an anonymous banner of a fringe organisation) did. You are partaking in the exact activity you rail against. The difference is that I am not going to whine about how us white males are being oppressed. I am going to laugh and call you hypocrites.

    • Boy oh boy, you do like to dodge don’t you? Round and round in circles you go.

      “You are partaking in the exact activity you rail against.” Which is?

    • LibertyWorks seriously, none more blind to their own hypocrisy and contradictions than fringe extremists.
      The law is NOT going to change …get over it.

  11. Well said Jacinta!

  12. Right On!
    Nampijinpa!…now there’s a Famous Name(group)
    Big Fella Cuz

  13. whats wrong with protecting the most vulnerable?

  14. It’s the left that push victim mentality on minority’s to give credence to the left agenda

  15. The 3 QUT students would beg to differ

  16. finally someone makes sense

  17. Lol. At what point has legislation got anything to do with aboriginal people in particular? There is nothing in the legislation that stops anyone from being successful and nothing in the legislation that highlights any ethnicity as needing any sort of special protections or assistance to make their way through life.

    Claiming that 18c is somehow babying to aboriginal people is ridiculous. It’s as pathetic as Pauline Hanson congratulating an aboringal camera man for having a job.

    18c may have some slight ambiguous wording (insult and offend) but it is well supported by case law and interpretation. It is hardly ambiguous in application.

    #shrugs besides racist wankers like Bolt wanting to lie and get away with it ( this was the main point that got him in trouble, the fact that his articles made several factual errors means they have no value in a public conversation) I can’t see any reason for a change of wording? If all the change is is to tighten up the supposed ambiguity behind the terms offend… Is it really worth 7 years of political toil? Really when its a system that has been working quite well. It’s not as if we are flooded with cases, with 15 being heard on 20 years….

    • “Is it really worth 7 years of political toil?” Yes and this quote from Christopher Hitchens comes to mind: “The urge to shut out bad news or unwelcome opinions will always be a very strong one, which is why the battle to reaffirm freedom of speech needs to be refought in every generation.”

      It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to hand over their freedoms. Free speech is a natural right, not something to be ‘granted’ by the government. 15 cases based on offence is 15 cases too many.

    • “Claiming that 18c is somehow babying to aboriginal people is ridiculous. ”

      You make this statement and yet don’t back it up with anything. Why is it ridiculous?

    • But what freedom does it remove? Besides your right? To be a cock and deliberately and willfully cause another human being harm? Why is emotional harm of any less significance and of any less need of being protected against than physical assault? I don’t have a right to physically assault someone… So why should I have the right to mentally assault them?

    • Have you looked at the cases?

      Being called a Singaporean cunt and told to fuck of home to Singapore… That’s just someone being a little sensitive is it?

      Or being told time and time again that the Jewish holocaust was a myth? ?

    • Nicola, explain how it has anything to do with aboriginals explicitly? The legislation make no mention of ethnicity outside of it not being able tonne used against a person. I could use it someone was using my ethnicity against me. That’s the point. Almost half the case brought are by Jewish people. Yes aboriginals are protected. As are all people. That’s the whole point… I’m not sure how else to explain it any clearer…

    • Nicola have you looked at the legislation? The term offend isn’t simply “oh you hurt my feelings with your nasty words” it has to meet a range of very broad criteria of damage. And it is very clear in the case interpretation that the offense is not to be likened to simple hurt feelings. It’s specifically causing significant pain and suffering or mental anguish. And is considered in ALL conditions to be offensive ( so the burden of proof is on the one offended, they have to proof that in a normal undergoing of life, everyone would accept that what happened was known to cause a very high degree of offence leading to significant pain and suffering.

      It’s not a case of of she doesn’t like my purple panties…

    • Yes, it didn’t teach me anything… I fail to see a possible example of free speech that would be impinged by the term offence as used in the legislation.. Feel free to hit me with any you have, but I honestly cannot come up with a legitimate example of 18c being used to curtail free speech…

    • Pat Dennis How is the meaning of the legislation so clear to you yet “QUT fighting segregation with segregation” was considered so vile by Triggs and Co that they facilitated an attempted shakedown of the poor kid that wrote it?

    • Detail the entire case and thenoutcome….. The legislation in its entirety came.out with a reasonable result that I don’t not see inhibited anyone’s freedom of speech.

    • You didn’t answer the question… unsurprisingly

    • Pat Dennis again I say to you: “Claiming that 18c is somehow babying to aboriginal people is ridiculous. ”

      You make this statement and yet don’t back it up with anything. Why is it ridiculous?

    • Nicola I did explain. Read above. I’ve explained it quite clearly 2 time now. If you can’t get it #shrugs I must be at fault because I can’t think of a simpler way to explain it.

      The judge threw out the case against the students in a very clear decision. I don’t understand how that isn’t an answer as to how the legislation is clear? The kids wrote a fine article that was factually correct and relevant and with no intent to offend outside the expanding of conversation regarding the topic of segregation. As such the offence given was excluded from 18c… #shrugs works fine. The difference between thisncase and the 420nm Bolt case comes to factual accuracy (he had none) and that precludes his case as being a discourse for the public benefit. Exclusions under 18d. Telling lies does not mean you get to hurt people. #shrugs I don’t see the point in changing really. Change the terms to provide more legal clarity, as was suggested by the Human Rights commisioner triggs. But that won’t lessen the responsibility on people to be factual and it also won’t in any way remove aboriginal people from the legislation. So again, I ask why it needs changing? Why do you feel you need your right to willfully cause harm to another human being protected? As I stated I’m not allowed to punch you in the throat for being a right wing Muppet… So why are you demanding the protected right to mentally harm (as shown in the legislation and case law it had to be of a significant nature) people? Genuine question? Because so far neither of you have responded with a single example of free speech possibly being impinged by the current legislation and how that would change under the new wording? It seem very clear that you simply want protection for your “right” to be racist to a point of causing harm?

      We have protection against online bullying etc because this stuff has an effect on people. So why is your right to mental assault so import to you?

    • But you’re not actually addressing your assertion that 18C doesn’t infantilise aboriginal people and other minorities as Jacinta outlined in her article. It infantilises them because it assumes that they are too fragile to live a public life and need the government to step in if they ever feel offended.

      “I stated I’m not allowed to punch you in the throat for being a right wing muppet”.

      As much as you’d like to? Nice one. According to you words can do mental damage and yet here you are expressing a violent urge to hurt me in the same sentence as an insult. Hypocrite.

    • It was an example of the hypocrisy. Obviously a touch subtle 🙂

      So you would support all removal of government intervention then? So no sexual harassment laws, no bullying laws, now sexual discrimination laws, no driving rules, no actual laws at all, because we’ll it’s infuriating the poor little minorities (and the assumption is minorities are the only ones this applies to and that is incorrect) should stand up for them selves..

      It’s basic victim blaming. It’s the same as “she asked for it by being drunk…”

      #shrugs either you are being deliberately obtuse or you simply have no grasp of the topic at hand

    • You’re not making any sense Pat #shrugs

    • As I said, clearly it’s my problem not being able to explain a simple topic to someone.

    • Pat, who do you think Jacinta is talking about when she says “We have an absolute right to find our own solutions, to find our own way forward out of this misery without being vilified by those who claim to be on our side and claim to speak for us.”

    • “Of all the bad ideas spouted by the intolerant new left, none is so obnoxious, so threatening to liberty and equality, as the idea that freedom of speech is bad for minority groups.

      It reverses the greatest gain of the struggle for racial equality: the defeat of the nauseating idea that non-white people are childlike, whether vulnerable or dangerous, and thus require special protection or policing. It is shot through with a neocolonialist urge to protect minorities from the experience and consequences of freedom and of adult, autonomous life.”


  18. Thank you, voice of reason.

  19. Aboriginal people don’t live invisible lives, they live in country, they contribute to us as a people. We can learn much from them if just ask, and listen, local knowledge. Stop treating them as if they cannot think and act from their understanding. They lived here for much longer than us Europeans, and learnt to live within the environment before climate change became the fashion. Treat all with respect and stop speaking for a people who can speak for themselves. Fair Go.

  20. I have been called a stupid Irishman, or a Paddy. I don’t take offence, for ignorance is everywhere. I am confident who am I, not what others think.

  21. We need to…ALL grow up a bit…take some of this stuff on the chin.Stop fighting amongst ourselves…in case you have not noticed,the enemy is within..

  22. Well said Jacinta.

  23. As i say to people is we are all the same, when we are born we have no say what colour our skin will be, what language we will speak, what country we will be born in, what religion we will be, but we are all born, we all bleed red, piss yellow, shit brown, pay tax and we all die. And how we treat others is how we ourselves wished to be treated, so treat people like shit, expect too be dumped on.

  24. Wise and honest words Jacinta. You have given me hope that one day we will see an end to this scourge called racism.

  25. Good on you finally some sense from all the bull…

  26. at last somebody making sense

  27. Who are LibertyWorks? LNP shills? Think so.
    No-one is shutting down debate. That’s a devious bit of sophistry, to get around the point.
    18C prevents people with money and a voice from using race-baiting against those without money or a voice. All ethnic communities and minorities understand that. 18C is a reasonable antidote to known practices used by demagogues. It’s not a theory. It’s history!
    What is this mouthpiece missing? How obtuse do you have to be, to not get it? Or, how much cash do you require, to spout this nonsense?
    And just ask yourself, Why do the LNP get so solicitous about their precious fair-haired Village Idiot boy, Andrew Bolt, and his inalienable right to falsely slander indigenous people? Is it the principle? NO! It’s that he was CHALLENGED! And the challenge was upheld.
    Take your lumps, Soapy Sam — and go home!

    • Doesn’t seem to stop your slander champion.

    • Ron you are a brainless twat, end of story.

    • John Williams That’s not libel, because there’s a convincing case my accusations are true. Ask Mal Turnbull, who ‘fessed up. Also it’s not directed at a religion or ethnic group, but at governments which are quite capable of looking after themselves. Read 18C again.
      And to Oskar Ceglar, you can go fuck yourself.

    • “18C prevents people with money and a voice from using race-baiting against those without money or a voice.” Do you have any evidence of this or is just a nice story you tell yourself?

    • LibertyWorks There are stories — but they are certainly NOT nice. There is “Pauline Hanson”, and there is “Andrew Bolt”, just to name two.

    • Your nothing but a typical loony left hypocrite Ron.

    • Greg Walker Enough, from the Apostrophically Challenged…

    • Ms Price, the daughter of former CLP politician Bess Price and an active campaigner against indigenous domestic violence.

    • I said slander not libel. You seem reasonably educated so I’m assuming you know the difference. I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Sure your accusations are directed at a religious/ ethnic group. The Zionists ? The dirty Jews. That’s what your saying isn’t it ? You Faux Communists just can’t help yourselves. Always got to have a crack at the Jews. You want to be careful that your criticisms aren’t misconstrued as hate speech. You could find yourself charged under 18C.

    • Great posts Ron Chandler

    • ‘The Dirty Jews’? No, that’s what YOU’RE saying. Because Zionists are not the Jews only. Zionism is not a race — it’s a poisonous imperialist ideology. And there are many Jews opposed to it.

    • There you go again, trying to put words in my mouth. Talk about “obtuse”. I think we know where you stand on the Israel Palestine problem. Also your general thoughts on the west in general with your statement about all the Satanic evils coming out of Britannia. It seems to me that those of you who scream Racism the loudest are generally the most racist.

    • John Williams ‘Dirty Jews’. Scroll up two comments, idiot. You wrote it, you live with it.

    • Hahaa. Only one idiot here champ & it’s not me. You see what I mean about the most racist screaming racism now? You know damn well I was referring to your opinion of the Jewish people. Personally I’m all for Israel & the Jewish people. Especially when they are arse kicking any anti Semitic barbarians that are trying to do them any harm. Never again.

    • John Williams You embarrass yourself, your tainted view on Israel is noted. Israel is a terrorist nation if you don’t think so I suggest educating yourself.

    • Bradley Willis. I’m not embarrassed at all about supporting Israel, a strong, stable democratic nation, the only one in the region. surrounded by enemies who want to destroy it. I’m glad that you “noted” my support. Tainted ? By what may I ask ? When wankers such as yourself suggest educating myself it always makes me smile. I doubt I am any less educated than you on the subject, what you are really saying is that you don’t like my opinion & I should jump on board with yours. Ask yourself this Bradley, if Israel is a “terrorist” nation what does that make America, Britain, and even us. Feel free to “note” my opinion again.

  28. Censorship never solves anything

  29. Racism IS a Foul/Dirty Word that the Media Adores ! We ARE ALL Tribal whether WE are Snow-White, Yellow, Red, Burnt Umber or Light Tan or even a Built-In Suntan !

  30. Recently I watched a speech Jacinta gave in which I found her to be quite inspiring. She is a Alice Springs councillor married to a scottish musician and is a campaigner against indigenous domestic violence and to win citizenship rights for aboriginal Australians and for the fundamental rights of aboriginal women, girls and children. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19eZzN_CEso This link wont work for some reason, just google Jacinta Nampijinpa you tube and it will come up.

  31. We all get treated like children..not just aboriginals…

  32. What happened to sticks and stones may brake my bones but names will never hurt me get over yourself

  33. Congratulations. You are absolutely right. All the money that has been spent, and all the good intentions, have not helped the aboriginal people. It is time they found their own solutions, and with more people like you they have a chance to do so. Good luck.

  34. Jacinta, Beth Price, Warren Mundine, Kerryn Pholi and Anthony Dillon are providing outstanding leadership. I just hope the Canberra politicians are watching and listening.

  35. Yup and that’s going to happen whether or not we have 18c?

  36. Get this crap off my time line. I don’t appreciate receiving party political from people too weak to identify themselves

  37. Rarely have I read something so ill informed. So here is 18D which allows comments that are truthful and made in good faith. Which Bill Leaks cartoon could have used to stop 18C proceedings.
    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
    (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
    (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
    (c) in making or publishing:
    (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
    (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

    • That the law exists is anathema to the lady. Waleed Aly pimps for its retention- that’s good enough for me. Her remarks are spot on.

    • Letting lies be published about remote communities so they can be shut down and mining companies can go in without having to worry about Land rights is NOT in the Aboriginal populations best interests. It might be in the best interests of the CLP however.

  38. Spot on. Well said that lady.

  39. I don’t disagree with the post, but there is a distinct difference between racism and hate and having a discussion about concerns. Also, not everyone has the confidence to stand up to abuse. Free speech should always come with responsibility and 18C should remain to protect marginalised groups from the irresponsible supposed free speakers. Cheers

  40. It is a pity people like her are silenced by the do gooders.

  41. Well said Jacinta. You have just placed us one step closer to becoming a united Nation.

  42. LOL the liberal party’s rising star.

  43. What a great attitude to have, Jacinta – very well said.

  44. That’s all we here these days racism it s wrong

  45. With you all the way on this, both cultures have their own problems, and you are the first Aboriginal i know that has never blamed the white man for all its problems. Im sure we are responsible for some but like you say not all. Nobody ever gave us anything for free, we had to get up and chase the carrot, and so should everyone else, that doesnt mean we dont give a helping hand along the way. The old saying give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish you feed him fir life. That is relevant in lots of other ways too. Like you say having a different opinion is not racist its healthy, it brings different points if view to the table. Well said mate.

  46. Thoughtfully said.

  47. Well said, stand behind your sentiments. Need a lot more to protest this bill and realize that we should all be treated equally, with the same respect give to any true Australian.

  48. You hit the nail right on the head. Thank you!

  49. You said it all Anne Ellis, every one deserve respect but also respect has to be earned.

  50. The 18c is not applicable in my world. You do the same.

  51. Well said Jacinta.

  52. It’s protecting the jobs of the Trigger, Soupoftheday and the rest of the bottom feeders.

  53. Sounds like a lady who is actually committed to helping her people. Love it. I wish you all the best.

  54. Congratulations Jacinta. You have nailed it perfectly.

  55. Beautifully stated and so insightful

  56. That is the most sensible thing I have ever heard anyone say on the topic in a long time. In a democracy people ought to have freedom of speech or it will not be too long before democracy is destroyed.

  57. But why the “misery”?

  58. Talk hate, but call it whatever Liberty indeed.

  59. Well said, I have many Indigenous friends most of whom I train with and they have more to lose than us white fellas with 18c we need to fully embrace and rebuild their culture that is linked to the land we live in the same as NZ has done with the Maori people, together they have a pride and power they share that makes kiwis special and unique among nations.
    When I was 10 growing up in Christchurch attending a catholic school we had a Maori studies class where we learned Maori culture, history and royalty, learned the language, Hakas, food, made carvings and flax items and it gave us an insight, interest, understanding and respect for their way of life that belonged to the country we lived in.
    Back in Australia 30 yrs later there still is no Aboriginal studies class in school that shares their culture, way of life, etc that has been around thousands of years before anything on the discovery channel, why not? Maori are a proud people that are embraced by their nation, Australia is sadly way behind in educating their residents about their lands history and original occupants which is a shame and why it is being so easily white anted from the inside out the same as the UK has been.

    • I’m all for helping Aboriginals but they have many languages and cultures. Also when are New Zealanders going to be all one people? Help has to be transitional to raise education and health and other standards. What I see from the NZ model is identity politics that divides and increases resentment without achieving unity. In Australia we have spent a fortune trying to help Aboriginals yet alcoholism and family violence, unemployment are shocking. What we have been doing hasn’t worked.

  60. Well said good on you .

  61. Oh look a post to excuse over 200 years of mistreatment, murder, genocide, indoctrination, stolen children, stolen wages incarceration, stolen land, resources and racism; all is forgiven the whites can be happy their is no longer any guilt associated with them. All the indigenous need to do is lift themselves up and debate the racists. While I agree the indigenous help should evolve around helping them to help themselves. If this debate was around education, more resources, then I’d be in full agreement but it’s not it’s about allowing people to be arseholes..If you can’t articulate your arguments without hate speech then you have no argument. Trying to excuse 18c is a joke and so are those supporting it.

  62. Yes…..the way forward is via assimilation not segregation and through education not ” victimisation “

  63. get rid of lawswhich say “WE HAVE TO”on anybody.

  64. Oh look everybody a propaganda story for the libs !

  65. Whether you are black or white or pink with purple spots there are problems with offensive behaviour in this country – I put up with insulting comments all my life because I had red hair it held me back I hated summer because I was covered in freckles – even cousins would make derogatory comments about my brother and I having red hair very hurtful but did I feel the need to sue. No it made me more determined to succeed. It is hard when you have been put down all your life but uou have to pull yourself up by the boot straps get out amongst people and show them we are not that bad after all. We ca

    • I had them because my family was dirt poor

    • So because you were called names at school others should have the right to racially abuse and discriminate against others?

    • What are you talking about? Did I say anything of the kind? I was merely pointing out that whilst it is very hurtful to be insulted because of the colour of your skin we should use other means to deal with bigots and bullies other than sueing them – imagine if everyone sued because they were offended or insulted – the courts and the country would come to a standstill. If you are the only one in your class with red hair and freckles and are being teased and bullied because of it you feel very alone and worthless so please don’t trivialise my experience because it stopped me from doing a lot of things in life!!!!

    • It is not just a race thing – many people feel insulted or offended by comments – gay people, poor people,fat people, disabled people – there are a lot of groups being bullied and teased in our society – but the law now gives you the right to sue if it has gone beyond name calling which is the way it should be!!

  66. Very well said young lady

  67. And mummy lost her seat in parliament with a 24% swing against her.

  68. Well said young lady

  69. The Racial Discrimination Act isn’t there to protect you from discrimination and racial abuse its there to punish the people who do it… 18C was used to prosecute that idiot Bolt because he told lies and half truths in an article where these lies and half truths were proved to be false.

  70. The lies and half truths didn’t fall within the libel and slander statute so they had a look at other statutes that may have covered it and it was found that Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act did there fore the aggrieved persons sort redress through this part of the law which anyone is entitled to do

    • Being “offended” gives an individual power over other people’s lives. We can choose to take offense at just about anything, and that is what the crazy identity politics people are now doing. Which is why it is now a hate crime in Canada to use the wrong personal pronoun for a person, including made up personal pronouns for people who woke up today and decided to “identify” as fictional creatures.

    • 18c doesn’t just “protect someone from being offended.” The exact passage of the legislation is as follows: “to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people”

    • Furthermore, it applies as follows: “It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:”

    • So if you’re in private, it’s A-Ok, it’s only outside a private setting that the law applies

    • So yeah, public Humiliation or Intimidation is not something that should be permitted

    • Furthermore, there’s an additional leniency provided by section 18D, which comes after it, which nobody talks about

    • 18D provides exception for anything covered by 18C provided by it can be considered in good faith to be: Part of an Artistic Work, Part of genuine Academic/Scientific interest or otherwise part of the public good, Or if it is part of a fair and accurate report on an event

    • Now I’d like you to find any remark anywhere that doesn’t fall under these ridiculously broad exceptions and explain to me why the person saying it isn’t just an asshole with nothing to contribute

    • “Of all the bad ideas spouted by the intolerant new left, none is so obnoxious, so threatening to liberty and equality, as the idea that freedom of speech is bad for minority groups.

      It reverses the greatest gain of the struggle for racial equality: the defeat of the nauseating idea that non-white people are childlike, whether vulnerable or dangerous, and thus require special protection or policing. It is shot through with a neocolonialist urge to protect minorities from the experience and consequences of freedom and of adult, autonomous life.”


    • LibertyWorks That neither answered nor touched on any of the discussion points above, and it’s just a piece of ideological rhetoric that picks and anecdotes. It also flipped up to a paywall after I closed it and went to read it again. Please answer the actual questions with relevant content.

    • We have written plenty about 18c and the principle of free speech that addresses your points raised. Have a look on our website.

      In a free country a person should have the right to be an arsehole if that is the level they are operating on, as long as they are not infringing on another person’s rights to freedom from physical harm and theft of property.

    • And what about mental health and psychological wellbeing? I asked a pretty simple question, you should be able to answer it. Racism and harassment are detrimental to mental health ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446470/ ). Poor mental health impacts homelessness ( http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.370 ), as well as numerous other issues.

      What about evidence that prolonged mental illness causes physical damage? ( http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v21/n6/pdf/mp201569a.pdf ) Suddenly we are infringing on a person’s right to freedom from physical harm.

    • Taking your point to its logical conclusion, people should be prevented from experiencing any form of adversity in case it impacts on their psychological well being. Let’s introduce a law to prevent people being born and living life, just in case.

    • That’s as much a logical conclusion of my point as it would be a logical conclusion to your point to say we should shoot people who have sand in their yard, because it blew in from someone else’s and is their property.

      Once again, I’m inviting you to present to me a piece of speech that offers any value to society beyond “It’s free speech and has value by existing” that isn’t exempt from 18C under 18D.

    • Who is the arbiter of whether speech is of value to society? The worst most racist speech that is in breach of 18C can still be of value to society, if it serves to demonstrate how repugnant racism is.

    • That would be exempt under 18D, either as part of an Academic or Artistic work, or as part of a report on events.

    • The point is that any racist speech can be of value to society because it serves as an example of something the broader community rejects. You are saying that this would make it exempt under 18D. I doubt a judge would agree with you, but if they did then there is no use for the law because every instance of a breach is automatically exempt.

    • Well no, you stated there the purpose of that piece was to show that racism was repulsive – Unless your actual argument is that we should let actual racists be racist so we can all talk about how bad it is, which defeats the entire point. If we allow the speech, then we’re allowing the behavior, and no longer putting measures in place to stop it. You could just as well say that we should legalize theft, so that we could hold up cases as an example as to why theft is bad. But we don’t, because we *know* theft is bad. So we make laws to prevent it happening. You’d never say that we should allow stabbings so that people can see how bad it is for someone to get stabbed, would you? So why would we allow racial discrimination to show how bad it is?

    • No I didn’t state that was its purpose. Yes I am saying let racists speak their racism so we can identify it and condemn it through social sanctions and other civil methods.

      Your analogy with theft and stabbings doesn’t work I’m afraid. You’re referring to physical attacks which are illegal. We also already have laws in place that deal with racial discrimination and serious vilification. I didn’t say we should allow racial discrimination.

      Freedom of expression is a human right, and people should be free to express themselves even in a way you don’t approve of. Speech can be ignored, insults can be dismissed. If we are going to make it unlawful for people to be insulted or offended then it should apply across the board, not just on the basis of race.

    • Except evidence has shown that Speech and insults cannot just be ignored or dismissed, and they have severe impact to the psychological health of individuals, and are further used to insulate intolerant communities and foster hostilities that have led to events like white flight. Racial discrimination has been recognized as a more severe issue than other forms of humiliation, and has received laws to address that – Just like how there are varying laws regarding the severity of theft, assault and even murder (hence why we have distinctions between Murder and Manslaughter).

      Once again, 18D protects individual’s freedom of expression – Artistic Work, Academic, Scientific and Journalistic speech is all exempt. Infringing on another’s right to safety and mental health is rightfully prevented by the law. The text of the section even goes so far as to put forth the nebulous line “any other genuine purpose in the public interest.”

    • Zac, is it only racial insults that have this severe mental impact, or any kind of insult? As I already said, if that is your argument then by your logic all forms of insult and offence should be made unlawful.

      18C isn’t about racial discrimination (that is discrimination in employment or schools etc), so 18C doesn’t protect anyone from it.

      You keep referring to 18D as if to say that allows for freedom of expression. This is after you’ve put forward a case that offence and insult can cause extreme psychological damage. ‘Oh but 18d means you can say it all anyway’!

      What advice would a psychologist likely give to a person who is so upset by something they have heard that they have a mental health problem? I would suggest they would tell that person not to dwell so heavily on another person’s opinion of them and to stop hanging on to past grievances.

      Expecting to be protected from offence and insults by the state, is disempowering to any individual.

    • LibertyWorksTaking your point to its logical extreme, inflicting physical violence is free speech, which for the record it is. 18C is a line drawn to represent where the free speech of one presses against the freedom to live without hard of another. It is not so simple as ‘free speech’ but rather a determination of what we consider harmful to individuals and society.

    • Ian Ridgwell “inflicting physical violence is free speech, which for the record it is” <- that statement doesn't make any sense. There are state laws against abuse and serious racial vilification that stand between the free speech rights of people and the rights of others. Repealing 18C won't change that. "The freedom to hate must be as protected as the freedom to love. It is only when hate crosses over into action that the law may properly intervene" Camille Paglia

    • LibertyWorks Freedom to express in its purest form is not limited by how it effects others. In the same way telling someone to fuck of is free speech, murdering their dog is free speech. In this free speech is a contentious issue. Speech is a complex, it represents more and more as technology expands our ability to socialy interact but the ability to inflict upon another is most certainly an expression of self, it is most certainly ‘speech’.

      In this sense the ideology of free speech is a waste of time. It lacks the complexity of discussion to acknowledge what speech is, what it means to individuals and where the line is drawn between ones right to be free and another’s right to be free of.

      I believe there is even a recent document regarding a legal case in which ‘bank robbing’ was attempted to be covered under the first amendment. What speech means to one is not universal to another. The right to express oneself is not as simple as all that. Gross simplification serves only to further political ideals that lack complexity and depth to deal with the reality of the human condition.


      Yes inflicting violence on another is an expression of self that is considered speech as are many other mediums.

    • The problem with liberty is that it is a contradiction, and it is within this contradiction that the discussion should happen, not in ignorance of it.

    • Murdering a dog is an action, not speech. As Camille Paglia said in the quote above: ‘it is only when hate crosses over into action that the law may properly intervene.’

    • LibertyWorks And yet we can use speech to incite action without ever being held accountable ourselves. Though I blatantly disagree that action does not come into the purview of speech in the terms of free speech.

    • In the interest of transparency, I believe 18C and D could o with an overhaul. I dislike the idea of multiple laws to pursue one outcome. In legal jargon less is more.

    • “Though I blatantly disagree that action does not come into the purview of speech in the terms of free speech.”

      Well you’d be on your own then.

    • LibertyWorks Not at all. It is a complex discourse but I am hardly alone in this I am always surprised by how obvious it is to those who discuss it and how obtuse it is to those who refute it. I see it as an intellectual position not a political one, since it pisses everyone off.

      Is art free speech, is song free speech, is a video game free speech, is a protest free speech, is a punch free speech, answer is yes. In many ways violent conflict is an approved of method of outcome for such things and if we look to history we can see that violent expression for self surfacing in many of the honored duel/combat scenarios we glorify artistically yet villainise personally.

    • To apply your definition every action under the sun is speech.

    • LibertyWorks Yes, and all represents liberty hence the discussions happens within the contradiction not without.

    • To assume we have some kind of baseline libertarian political understanding is flat out wrong.

  71. 18c is one of those laws that get abused by people who think they can get thenselves a big payout

    • Have you got any links for this? Seems to be a big issue but I’ve not come across any instances in which 18C was used to illicit a “payout”.

    • Google the QUT case, some of the kids were shaken down for $5k each. The others couldn’t even afford that and it was only through the generosity of lawyers working pro bono did they win their day/s in court.

    • Ok so the university fekked up, do we have another one. It’s not like the failure of the legal system are specific to 18c and there has to be more of these happening to justify the outcry of ‘payout’ abuse.

    • Further reading indicates that the individual Bruinging what appears to be a pretty frivelous attack against the students is suffering significant fines. Arguments for process and such are really a seperate issue to the idea that 18c is a way for people to easily get a payout by calling wolf.

    • Ian do you realise that the majority of 18C complaints don’t make it to the courts, are not made public, and involve ‘conciliation’ processes that include financial payments to the aggrieved?

    • LibertyWorks Its likely, that is true for many issues. I asked for cases though, its surely not a conspiracy to protect the 18c from repudiation.

    • If the cases don’t make it to court and they are being settled out of court that is beneficial for both parties because of a mutual agreement. How can you say that this policy does not work if you are saying it rarely gets implemented? This policy provides an appropriate legal way to deal with racism! Would you prefer victims be left with no legal options and just be left to be racially discriminated against?

    • I am saying, anywhere money is involved, it will be exploited as has been the case in past frivolous claims, but the damage done to the respondents is irreparable

    • Jacob Dean Dennis “This policy provides an appropriate legal way to deal with racism! ”

      There are state laws that protect people against serious racial vilification and other sections of the RDA deal with racial discrimination in the areas of work and education. Repealing 18C wouldn’t change those protections.

    • ” If the cases don’t make it to court and they are being settled out of court that is beneficial for both parties because of a mutual agreement.”

      How can it be beneficial for a student to have to pay $5000 go away money in a case that was eventually proven to be groundless? In the QUT case there were other students involved who elected to pay the money instead of pursuing it in court, where the complaint was found to be groundless. How many other instances of groundless 18C complaints have resulted in financial payments from people?

    • So if you repeal federal law and leave state law you leave no room for further appeal at the federal level.

      In any case. If you aren’t breaking the law you shouldn’t have to pay legal fees. But those students broke the law and were forced to pay legal fees.

    • No you’re wrong. The QUT case started at the AHRC. The students were all offered the choice to pay $5000 to Cindy Prior during a ‘conciliation’ process and the complaint would be dropped. A number of the students elected to do this, and three of them decided to to fight the accusations in court. In court the accusations were found to be groundless.

      Therefore the students who elected to voluntarily pay $5000 where not guilty of breaking any law. The conciliation process is basically a shakedown and many people would be intimidated end up paying even though they are innocent.

    • They were in the middle of court proceedings how is that not a legal cost?

    • Not guilty? Racially vilifying someone is illegal in this country. The reason why is because racial vilification has been seen to snowball into things like genocide. The holocaust began because of racial vilification and systemic racism through cartoons.

    • LibertyWorks I think the uni should have handled this better but looking into this hard to see where the uni was wasn’t and should should not have been involved. Unfortunately the waters are muddied with ideologue discussions that concede no points on real or otherwise to the opposition.

    • No they were in a conciliation process controlled by the Australian Human Rights Commission. It is not a court of law, they try to keep the complaints out of the courts as much as possible.

      So Cindy made an 18C complaint to the AHRC and initiated a conciliation process with the students which included requests for $5000 payments. Most paid, three took it to court and won. The whole process took 3 years.

    • LibertyWorks The time frame was pretty fishy. Which is why I look to the uni for explanation. Often institutions seek to cover their own ass at the expense of individuals.

    • AHRC is a government institution that oversees legal implementation of legislation that affects human rights. So very much a legal body but not a court of law. Just because it is not a court does not mean it is part of the legal system

    • They were not found guilty of breaking a law and the money they paid was not court costs as you claimed earlier. The AHRC do not make any rulings or legal determinations, they merely conciliate between the parties.

    • Extrajudicial powers are a bad thing in near all cases. Just because the organisation is fighting the good fight doesn’t mean it won’t abuse its power over the individual.

    • I said legal costs, so I was definitely correct. The AHRC are definitely apart of the legal process in Australia. They are literally made of of lawyers and they report to the attorney general.

    • No sorry, you’re wrong. Those payments were not legal costs. Legal costs definition: “Fees and charges required by law to be paid to the courts or their officers, the amount of which is specified by court rule or statute.”

      Not sure why you’re clutching at straws here. It’s OK to be wrong sometimes, I often am. You thought they were found guilty and paid legal costs. It’s since been pointed out to you that this wasn’t the case.

    • Jacob Dean Dennis The fines really cant be considered legal costs.

  72. I agree that 18C is a useless, unwarranted and unwanted ( By Australian’s), of course we do not need it. But there are certain groups, Those Who Lobbied For 18C, who want to keep it, because they do not want Australian’s to be able to Criticize their Activities. This is all to do with Multiculturalism, stopping Aussies from Speaking out against it. And!!, our weak Politicians are so frightened of upsetting them, that they will NOT do away with 18C. To hell with The Freedoms of Aussies, that our Forebears made huge sacrifices for, many the ultimate sacrifice, they do not matter.

  73. Recently I was vilified by many people for espousing exactly the same thing as Jacinta has said here. The topics we discussed were along the lines of everything she mentioned here. 18C wasn’t discussed. According to these people I am the perfect example of a Racist. I was looking for & suggesting some solutions, but apparently that isn’t allowed anymore. The biggie I caught flack for was the suggestion that a lot of CEO’s in the “Industry” did not want to solve the problems. They only wanted to make a noise about it, because if the problems were solved, they would lose the lucrative jobs.

  74. It is not just about aboriginals, however the racism will never change until it is acknowledged and educated against

  75. Well said anyway (y)

  76. Very well said , Jacinta.

  77. Elected by who on the payroll of the LNP i think

  78. Well spoken
    Very sensesible person
    We do live in a democracy and everyone is entitled to their opion

  79. How do I email this to Turnbull and Shorten.

  80. Is Jacinta related to the complainant in the QCU case?

  81. 18C should be disposed of entirely…as it was set up by the loony politically correct.

  82. Such a brave and lovely lady.

  83. Well said I am a great believer in debate for through open discussion ideas, and solutions are found.

  84. Smart girl this one.

  85. You mean, you want to do away with the legislation altogether?

  86. 18C does not stop debate – see 18D. 18C tries to stop grossly offensive, insulting comment that has no part in an intelligent, respectful debate.

    • Who decides what comments are grossly offensive?

    • LibertyWorks Trevor does!

      He is probably already thinking about trying to get you
      locked up for questioning him in such an offensive manner!

    • It absolutely stops debate. There was nothing offensive about what the QUT student said yet he was dragged through the court for 3 years and left with a huge legal bill. 18D doesn’t stop you being prosecuted and its the legal process that is stopping people speaking out. The student was found not guilty but still had to endure 3 years of court proceedings so no 18D doesnt work.

  87. The Legislation itself encourages racism …. much of it REVERSE Racism.

  88. What a wonderful and wise article Jacinta. Bless you beautiful lady.

  89. Keep up the good work Jacinta , you are right , you people can look after your own affairs , but the Government tries to bribe you with Freebies to shut you up , when White People stand up to try and help they too are slapped down , We as Australians must now all stand as one Australia fighting for our rights .

  90. Dame they don’t apply the same principles to people who worked on Manus Island. It seems to me the right only stand up for freedom of speech when it suits their political purposes.

  91. it will if everyone tells the truth

  92. Time for everyone to hard up

  93. Well said young lady. As a white person it distresses me to see the problems of aboriginal people in places like Broome or Port Hedland. How can we as Australians find a way forward if we cant discuss the problem because of fear of being labelled racist or prosecuted under 18C. We need more people like you to speak out. If we the white australians complain about 18C we have our concerns dismissed with claims of your just a racist, and implications that we wish to engage in hate speech.

  94. Jacinta…wonderful. My prayer for years has been for leaders in your community to start finding your solutions for you. It’s the only way.

  95. This girl has a good pedigree. While I was in my truck one night on the way to Nhill I listened to an address given by her mother Bess who gave one of the most intelligent critiques on indigenous problems ,and their possible solutions, that I have ever heard. Jacinta and her mother Bess are the people who should be advising the government. There’s too much involvement from the quasi-indigenous mob who are more interested in marginalising aboriginals for no other reason than to display their own moral superiority. Its all about power and the indigenous people lose – still.

  96. Cultural marxism has destroyed social discourse enough already. This element of it has to go. It should never have passed in the first place.

    • Can someone please explain cultural marxism to me? Those two concepts really are very distinct and to ram them together like that means that there’s either a fundamental misunderstanding of culture or or marxism.

    • It is a more accurate term for political correctness. PC was coined in Mao’s China which ran directly in line with Marxism- at least for a while. Hence the “marxism” part of the phrase at least as I understand it.
      “Cultural” was thrown into it because of two aspects: 1) the utter rejection and maligning of one’s own culture- funnily enough only in European-based cultures and 2) the kow-towing to every other culture within one’s own Country.
      Self-hate and censorship. Tow the party line or else. No pride in your own Nation and embracing of every other culture.
      Thought policing. Self-censorship. Even WITHIN your own culture e.g. gender neutral terms.
      Political correctness. Cultural marxism. Same thing. Take your pick mate.

  97. I have been saying the same thing for years sistagirl Jacinta

  98. Well said, but this is bigger than an Aboriginal issue, the freedom to speak out any opinion that is different needs to be upheld because debate must be encouraged not shut down. There cannot be any change of behaviour or culture if discussion is shut down and communities are divided….that actually creates racism.
    PC, Marxist culture has NO PLACE in our country and we as the Australian People need call it out and to stand together against its rise in our communities and society.

    • You have the right to an opinion, you will just be held to account for it under 18C. Nothing wrong with that. If you are telling facts and not being a complete goose 18D will protect you.

  99. This is all the result of deliberate actions over at least the past hundred years by the dangerous union owned ALP who constantly strive to ensure social division is a permanent outcome because it ensures a lack of personal motivation & life long low self esteem in order to maintain a dangerously high percentace of lifetime welfare dependency. And the Liberals? They have been criminal in their lack of interest as the union goons go about their illegal way using either scare tactics or physical threats to achieve their foul goals!

    • Whereas all these people from Perth can’t even put their face on their page in case they are recognised and publicly identified as right wing loonies.

  100. This lady is a breath of fresh air. I saw her on the TV a number of months ago. She was great and very memorable. I wish there was more of her ilk.

  101. I love this woman, just like her mother, a very smart and sane woman

  102. She is disgusting the problems our people have are not of our own making. We have been oppressed since 1788. She sounds good to the white man only cos she says what they want to here. Policys and the introduction of alcohol and colonization have taken its toll on our people. Shes blaming the victim. Her and her mother dont do us no favors. Shes white washed. She has no idea about our people.

  103. “Debate” is different to lies and abuse.

  104. Im glad, & proud to see she acknowledges her heritage from both sides & doesnt just call her self an Aboriginal woman!

  105. 18c does not discourage reasonable debate. In a reasonable debate, by definition, neither person would feel vilified nor offended regardless of the other’s position, opinion or words or how they might disagree because it is offered rather than asserted. But I do mean, of course, in a reasonable debate – meaning with respect and tolerance.

    A reasonable debate seeks to share and understand points of view, not necessarily to assert who is right, or whose position is better founded. This is why it is so problematic for ideologues, including those who argue from a religious perspective.

    So, those are opposed to 18c either don’t understand it, or are intending to be unreasonable.

    • Mike, I know it is your pet hate but don’t drag religion into everything. People who belong to religions are quite capable of reasonable debate.

    • Deborah, not when they argue from that perspective instead of based upon evidence. No, they can’t.

    • But that’s not all of us Mike. Not all members of religions are far right fundamentalist conservatives,

    • I know, Deborah.

    • Why are you so afraid of unreasonable debate? And who determines if its unreasonable?

    • Not at all afraid 🙂 just not interested. Debate, by definition, means with reason, i.e. unreasonable debate is oxymoronic and perhaps simply means a shouting match.
      It’s easy to determine is a debate is reasonable. It would be based on both “reason” (logic and evidence), and being reasonable (honest and curious respect).

    • Why does the left favour totalitarian ideologies like Communism, Fascism or Islamism?

      We need 18c just about as much as we need 3rd wave feminism.

      18c has nothing to do with vilification and everything to do with social engineering…

    • Benjamin, I’m afraid that your mistaken. The left don’t favour totalitarianism. Although it is true that extremism can arise from either end of the political spectrum, very few people would truly advocate totalitarianism. 18c has to do with encouraging respect and tolerance for diversity. It doesn’t stop respectful debate.

  106. I don’t care what she call herself, I think she is courageous and brilliant. Go girl, stand up and speak up for yourself and don’t let anyone, black, white, yellow, brown, red, blue or green or anything in between stop you

  107. The loony right in Australia has it’s own Uncle Tom, only she’s. a female. Hooray. She and her fellow debaters did so well at the IQ squared debate on 18C, turning a favourable opinion on repeal at commencement of the debate into overwhelming defeat

    • Typical lefty John arnt you think you know whats best for everyone Jancinta seems a very switched on young lady why dont you take in what she says

    • I watched the debate and she got creamed. As did the rest of the repeal team. The pro 18C team used their arguments to illustrate why 18C was necessary. Arguing that 18C isn’t necessary because some of your relatives call other relatives names isn’t exactly a winning argument anywhere.

    • John Brackin you’ve hurt my feelings with your waffle.

    • Take a cup of cement then princess.

  108. That’s well said

  109. the way to spot racism is simple .tell the truth and respect everyone who deserves to be respected ..after all we are all australians ,are we not = one law for every australian who wants to be australian .

  110. So much respect for this brave woman speaking out, knowing she will be called Uncle Tom and worse by the nasties on the left. Massive massive respect.

  111. More money from Centrelink needed to ease the problem.

  112. Absolutely beautifully expressed Jacinta, the politically correct are killing debate in this country and in the process denying legitimate argument for the ability to fix our problems

  113. It is protecting Islam it is a creeping sharia law, Blasphemy.

  114. Splendidly put. I would love to see her on Q&A. I would watch that one just to piss the audience and Phony Jones off.

  115. is she related to angry anderson ?

  116. begging is not becoming

  117. “18C is not protecting anybody” – we shall see. I doubt the following is the only case of abuse going on in Australian workplaces.


  118. Cultural is the answer.

  119. 18C is killing Australian culture, I have lived where the Indigenous were the major population, they enjoyed life they would call whites Lillies and we would call them Abo’s it was all taken as fun and a laugh with no harm meant by either, a time when it was normal to invite you Indigenous in for a meal and visa versa, but the comes along the long haired do gooder saying we are racist against our friends and neighbors because they were told by white supremacists at university. These same NUTS are at it again

  120. 18 C can be compared to terrorism. People don’t dare to say anything. They keep quiet and debate is killed.

    • Please note: I’m anti-PC, and I support 18C because in its current form it can’t be abused by SJWs. In fact, a couple of them have tried recently, and got nowhere. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it

    • Ben Charters What is SJWs

    • Oh, you’re in for a treat! SJWs, ‘or social justice warriors’, are the sort of people who think the world would be perfect if there were no men, whites or straights. Bigots, basically. When an 18c opponent says they support free speech, they mean they want to protect it from SJWs. Thankfully, 18c already protects free speech from SJWs, as demonstrated by the case I linked before

    • Why does the left favour totalitarian ideologies like Communism, Fascism or Islamism?

      We need 18c just about as much as we need 3rd wave feminism.

      18c has nothing to do with vilification and everything to do with social engineering…

    • Ben, how did 18c protect free speech? Two of the QUT kids coughed up $5k in a HRC sponsored shakedown. The other three didn’t have the $5k and started representing themselves in court. It was only the generosity of lawyers who picked up the case pro bono did they “win” their case… after two years.

      Every time you legislate you take away somebody’s freedom. 18c takes away some people’s freedoms…

    • Benjamin Frith, I consider myself a “leftie”, but I do not favor Communism, I abhor Facism, and I am an atheist. But I will fight for anyone’s right to practice whatever religion they wish, do or say whatever they want to say, but only, and I mean, only, if no harm is done to another person, and comments that incite hatred or vilification or others is doing harm, and our laws recognise that.

    • Andrew Cooper : If the QUT kids didn’t have the law on their side, they would have lost. Sure, their win was hard-fought, but the legislation was on their side – which is why the plaintiff had to resort to intimidation and the inequities of the legal system itself.

    • Re your point about legislating freedom away: Supposing the proposed amendment of 18C to include the word “harass” had gotten up. As anyone familiar with sexual harassment policies knows, “harass” is a word that can mean pretty much anything an accuser wants it to mean. It would have only taken one SJW-friendly judge to interpret the new definition in a way that put the law on the side of the far left. Given that all laws by definition take away freedoms, why take the risk?

    • That is why we support full repeal of 18C.

    • So it can be replaced with something worse?

  121. much ado about nothing.

  122. Go for it Jacinta. You speak truth and good reason.

  123. Need more young women with this young Lady`s perspective and saying it like it is…

  124. 18C is designed for those who are afraid of hearing something that they disagree with; Australians are tougher than that and deserve the freedom of speech that is enjoyed as ‘Parliamentary Privilege”

  125. What a wonderful young women and she speaks the truth.

  126. Sponsored by who?

  127. protecting the leftist

  128. Yes and no, We in this country should all stand as one and follow one cultural base, that being what we are now. So lets stop division and drop all other cultures bar the one that covers all our rights no more no less. You see its the diversity that’s dividing us and until we all look at each other as equals we will never stop this conflict about Racism. We should never lower ourselves by saying I am this or I am that, bloody hell what’s wrong about being Australian as even I except change as we move forward. My family covers about 7 different nationalities including Full blood and half cast Aboriginals and even they think we are not strong enough on sorting out the problems of our Aboriginal Brothers and Sisters you see they operate under different laws than the Average Aussie’s. The Aboriginals like the Refugee’s do get a lot more government assistance than the main stream Citizens of this country, and this I know. We need everybody to be treated the same and as I said no more or no less. Not going to be easy for people that has never gave to the country. cheers

    • Sorry, you are wrong about indigenous people and refugees getting more government assistance than “main stream” as you put it. I have family members who receive government assistance for genuine reasons, and I was surprised by the amount of support they get. The cost is huge, from Centrelink pensions, assisted housing, to psychologists, to speech therapists, special schooling, social workers, support workers and even special equipment for a child with autism, who is now responding extremely well and will hopefully be able to make a useful contribution to society as an adult. I agree we should all be equals, but some will always need more help to reach their full potential and victim-blaming only creates more inequality.

    • You just don’t know, Extra payments from Centrelink as actually my daughter in-law got an extra 3 months of payments because of certain circumstances, extra assistance to pregnant mothers, rent free accommodation, free accommodations to any that go to university, Free Legal aid through their own legal system normal people cannot access legal aid anymore, Free medical and free Ambulance service and free Taxi rides, School expenses are all paid for along with all clothing and excursions, free flights to family funeral’s if inter state, these are just a few things my full blood daughter in-law received and by no way that’s every thing, Have a nice day Carolyn.

  129. 18C doesn’t bar debate. Sponsored you say? Certainly not Bolt, but one or more of his stable masters. 18C does not close debate.

  130. Why hasn’t the Australian Government ever rejected the concept of racism enforced by the British “Terra nullum?” Is it because they all profitted from it?

  131. At last a voice from the wilderness speaking common sense. Changing opinions comes from respectful debate , not from silencing it and vilifying people for having an opinion.

  132. she talking sh..te all aus love a our ,indigenous groups

  133. Truth and had enough!

  134. This lady speaks the truth , the politically correct brigade will shut her up real quick

    • I think i understand. She speaks her mind,thats free speech. But if i do,im a racist with no right to free speech.

    • Scott Allison , i do agree with you , i just thought it was refreshing to hear an aboriginal telling it like it is and trying to improve their lot , instead of there constant whinging and blaming

    • Unlike you mob who just whinge about how it’s not the same any more. Can’t bash poofs, can’t call Black people boongs, all those refos getting uppity as well. How dare they want to be treated like white peoples!

    • John , spoken like a true leftard , totaly missed point

  135. Oce you have read 18c you should read 18d. Then discuss amongst yourselves. Meanwhile the war drums are sounding so many of our young folks are about to be sent by America to a war in a faraway land.

  136. What a beautiful intelligent lady please run in the federal election

  137. If an aboriginal calls me a name i find offensive,can i sue them under 18c. I doubt it,its only available for the minorities to use on everyone else. I wont be muzzled by a bunch of soft serves.

  138. push it, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price . We REAL Australians out here have no problem with what you are saying, and EVERY problem with the corners that the shiny-arses in Canberra etc are trying to paint us into

  139. Who is paying this scatterbrain intellectually challenged ratbag to air her rudiculously stupid and illinformed views on within this media. Get a life snowflake and make Australia great again!!

  140. Thankyou Jacinta. Are there any of your friends and colleagues who concur. .

  141. Jacinta Price does not speak for Warlmanpa and Waramunga. She represents herself. Karmantha

  142. Thank you for your courage in speaking out

  143. It does take courage to defy the politically correct.

  144. It is not, it’s design, to halt any conversation on the islamisation of our own country.

  145. Bullshit , 18D allows for debate in good faith , if you don’t set out to offend especially by spreading obvious untruths then you have nothing to fear from 18C. Free speech comes with some moral obligations that certain entitled sections of society can’t follow. It is because of their total disregard of others that 18C exists in the first place.

    • You don’t have to set out to offend as there will always be delicate snowflakes out there keen to take offence.

    • Normally on the right wing complaining about armbands and now we have to include aboriginals in our history lessons and having to take care about what they say about lgbqti people

  146. get rid of it and replace it with the truth .if its true say it .if it is a lie ,do not say it .my parents taught me that

  147. this 18c waqs set up to alow muslims to do what ever they want -child rape -wife bashing ect you speek out against these things you could end up in jail

    • What a load of garbage! Muslims are subject to our laws just as anyone else, and no-one has ever been jailed for speaking out about abuse. Why don’t you reserve your outrage for the two Australian women murdered and the tens of thousands injured by white men every single week. As for child rape, pedophiles are everywhere in society, and Christian churches and institutions have been proven to harbour large numbers of child abusers, so why single out Muslims?

    • So why was the 30yo who married the 15 yo allowed to walk out of court and proceedings dropped?
      If he were white Australian he’d be locked up. But he is islamic so off scott free.

  148. 18C is designed to pacify the liberal left that don’t want to offend anybody, but in doing so, offend almost everybody.
    There is a difference between making a comment and making a racist comment, but unfortunately, by stifling those that want to comment, we are creating more animosity.
    people need to get things of their mind, instead of brooding over them.

    • The problem is the difference between a comment and racist comment is highly subjective and contextual. No one should have the right to decide what is and isn’t ‘offensive’.

  149. Yes. Couldn’t agree more. I greatly admire and applaud both you and your mother, you are beautiful and strong women…Keep speaking up!

  150. petty dumb actually. Abuse is not debate. Hectoring, aggression and name-calling is not debate, and does not advance debates. it makes it impossible.

  151. I don’t think it’s so much 18C itself, it’s more to do how ‘some people’ manipulate the rule and the system. Jillian Trigg and person’s like her, abused the law to suit their own ends, as do those who make/made the spurious complaints. It really comes down the money and ‘How much can I sue them for?’

    • How did Gillian Triggs abuse the law? The International Human Rights Commission and many other reputable human rights organisations like Amnesty International have documented many cases of abuses on Manus Island and Nauru. What money and lawsuits are you referring to?

    • Just ask the late Bill Leak. And the lies she told stating he never sent her the ‘justification’ behind his cartoon. Then there’s the canvassing for people ‘offended’ by it, that’s abuse of powers if anything is. What about the spurious case against the QUT students? Ended up being thrown out of court, but still caused a lot of grief for the students. On top of others in her department, doing similar things. You’d better look further than the ABC for your facts.

    • Perhaps the more appropriate question could be, “how didn’t she abuse the law”?

  152. The Coalition needs to take a serious look at what this young lady has to say. In this little speech, she makes more sense than the Coalition, labour and the looney greens. Good on you, Sweetheart. You keep this up.

  153. Spot on. What I have been saying for a long time. Free speech is just that, no restrictions or we shut down debate.

  154. Wow, it’s somebody else who’s never actually read what 18C & 18D actually say and do.

    • Didn’t read it or don’t understand her point?

    • Her point on 18C (especially considering 18D) is rubbish.

    • And you’re backing that up with?

    • actually having read the act

    • Be more specific about your claim that ‘her point on 18C is rubbish’.

    • How about she shows how 18C can have the effect she states?

    • You’re still not being very specific.

    • Neither’s she, or you.
      Look at the actual act and justify her allegation

    • Do think you’re the only person who has read the legislation? We have not only read it, but have written about it extensively on our website.

      You’re just not making any compelling argument. Just saying ‘her point is rubbish, if you’d read the act you’d know why’ without actually describing what if anything she had said that is rubbish while linking to the law.

    • If you’ve read the act maybe you could stop writing incorrectly about what it actually does

    • You’re still skirting around your actual point. Please be specific about how Jacinta is wrong (in other words make an actual argument) other wise you’re revealing yourself to be of no substance.

    • She’s completely wrong about what 18C covers

      Read the act, read 18D
      ” Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

      (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

      (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

      (c) in making or publishing:

      (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

      (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.”

      Now ask yourself how 18C stops people having opinions and expressing them

    • Already told you we’ve read the legislation. Copying and pasting it doesn’t make an argument. Specifically what has she said that is ‘rubbish’ and how does it relate to the legislation?

      So far all you’ve said is that she’s wrong and if you read the act you’ll see why. You need to be more specific.

    • She can make statements that 18C stops people having opinions with no justification and that’s fine by you.
      Anybody who disagrees with you needs to provide citations.

    • It’s simple you can have an opinion you can voice that opinion in good faith. What you can’t do is tell deliberate lies like Andrew Bolt did. Pretty simple to see why she is wrong. If that is too hard to understand , there is not much I can do to help you on this subject.

    • “18c of the RDA encourages rather than discourages racism. It treats us Aboriginal Australians as infants who can’t speak or stand up for ourselves. It treats non- Aboriginal people as if they have no right to hold an opinion about anything that relates to us especially the problems of our own making that are killing us.”

      Jacinta is making the point that speaking up about the abuse of women and children in remote communities is construed by some aboriginal people as offensive and as such many people feel reluctant to publicly speak about it. Are you happy to for these difficult topics to be swept under the carpet?

      You weren’t being asked for citations Hamish, just an specific argument that relates to the article.

    • 18C in no way stops people commenting on abuse
      Particularly with the clarification provided by 18D

    • How do you know that? As long as ‘offence’ is included in the law, then there is a risk that a complaint can be instigated. It doesn’t have to be abusive language used either.

      In the case of the QUT students, a number of students involved paid $5000 each to make the complaint go away even though ultimately it was determined that none of the students broke the law. 18D did not protect them from the punishment in the process, and worse still it did not protect the complainant herself from public criticism and financial duress. If 18C in its current form didn’t exist, then Cindy Prior would have been in no position to initiate a complaint.

    • Read the act, look at the cases where judges have made statements about the level required for offense under the act

      The only way 18C can stifle genuine debate and discussion is if people believe the right wing propaganda about it.

    • No, 18C stifles genuine discussion because some people may not want to risk a complaint being made against them whether or not it’s ultimately successful.

      LOL about your ‘right wing propaganda’ comment. What a sorry state of affairs it is when the left have abandoned defence of free speech, such that anyone speaking up for it is now assumed to be right wing.

    • I’ve seen enough of your articles to know that you’re right wing.

    • As libertarians we are anti-authoritarian.

  155. We need people like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO to stand for parliament and speak up for all Australians in a forum where their voices are heard. It’s time that common sense made a reappearance in Federal parliament and in the general community.

  156. Showing more insight and motives that are pure and righteous

  157. Well there are certain Thin Skinned Groups of People, both of Certain Religions and Ethnicity, who just love to shut people up from speaking out against them. 18c and all that of course is to do with the enforced policy of Multiculturalism, to inhibit The host People, Australian’s from speaking out against it. Stupidly The Turnbull Government has taken onboard Multiculturalism, but the John Howard Government would not have a Bar Of It!..

    • If you have proof of unlawful acts by “Certain Religions and Ethnicity”, by which I assume you mean Muslims, then take the proof to the police or relevant Government agency. That is why we have laws in Australia. As for John Howard, multiculturalism existed in Australia long before Howard became Prime Minister, but he certainly was responsible for fomenting hatred of Muslims to support his mate George Bush by sending Australians to help invade Iraq based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction.

    • And, of course, certain sections of the moslem community continue to do things to help us like them…..and our laws are geared tp protect them from genuine protest against them.

    • Why do you assume that I am referring to Muslims, which I am not, by the way. Why don’t you look up the history of why we have Multiculturalism and who were the group’s Lobbying for it’s introduction, and also the Politicians who were too weak to in ignore the Lobbyists. To hell with Australian’s and their Freedoms, they do not matter, we must accommodate the Lobbyists. Thanks a lot for that, our Forebears who made huge sacrifices for our Freedoms will be most pleased. Lest we forget “.

  158. 100% true! Cheers all

  159. Well said Jacinta. We need to hear more voices like you speaking up about how it really is.

  160. Well said lady.

  161. I don’t believe 18c is there for the benefit of the indigenous people but for others in the community. It is just politically expedient for the indigenous people’s to be pointed to

  162. Well said it’s a shame a lot of Australians won’t listen to her for one reason or another, a divided people are easier to manipulate.

  163. At last, the voice of reason. Now THIS lady should be in Parliament.

  164. No it isn’t. I was racially villified (called a ‘coon lover’, ‘pretend Aboriginal’ and and ‘one of “them'”) for almost four years and apparently sacked for having my referee statements on the incorrect template… Asked if I was Aboriginal in a professional interview. These were QLD TEACHERS! Been pursuing these rednecks via the courts for 5 years and still not over… The lengths the Qld gov goes to cover their asses includes perjury, perverting the course of justice and wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars. All I wanted was an apology and the wages they stole reimbursed and a small summ for pain and suffering (which was immense). Nope. Litigation and obfuscation as far as they eye can see. Civil court in bed with the Crown no doubt about it… Justice? Haahaha. None as yet but keep pushing on until I get back to the Supreme court where I’ve won self represented twice. Bastards don’t give a fk for those they have harmed or the taxpayers footing the bill.

  165. Well said. Brave, proud Woman.

  166. Very well said, and I agree totally with you. Hope you get the msg through to the government.

  167. 18D allows for any real debate. It only blocks lies and stops people oppressing others based on their race.

  168. racism is a word used too much. The minute there is criticism they throw out the racist card, this lady Jacinta is absolutely right.

  169. People only fear in others what they know in them selves. The only racist is the ones calling others racist. That’s how I see it.

  170. 18C should be completely abolished,not modified by a bunch of non thinking do gooders who are just doing harm and muzzling people that have an opinion !!

  171. By George she’s got it and i mean that respectfully

  172. I’ve been saying this for years and been told I’m racist for saying so! How good to hear this young woman speaking this way

  173. Mark Casson Bill Leak was not spreading untruths with the cartoon that saw the 18c brigade hound him.

  174. Jim Alcock I see it the same way you see it.

  175. if only she hadn’t have stopped reading because after 18c is 18d……….
    the irony of this woman talking about a non issue when stating that people should worry about real issues when they don’t agree with her is probably lost on the vast majority of people here….

  176. It might be a bit extreme — Bill Leaks was well within 18D protections, but this article has a strong point

  177. Well said jacinta someone with common sense need people like you so the australia people can move forward forward both black an white an stop living in the past

  178. Encouraging discussion even if uncomfortable, not only gives someone an opportunity to present their views, reasons and observations; it allows them to stumble across their own ignorance in the process, and to have that ignorance challenged.
    Debates are cool and still much better than the censorship that is encouraged today, however it’s still really an argument and where each side is trying to impose their ideals on the other.
    A conversation or discussion is more a mutual collaboration and an unpacking of an issue. Perhaps the distinction between debate and discussion is a little surgical at this point but still of value.

  179. You are a shining light for your people, shine bright!

  180. Right on Jacinta , put your hand up as a Senator at the next election .

  181. I like it because it’s a thorn in the side of the right wing facist bigots that are running this country.

  182. Totally agree, well said.

  183. Debate is fine and should be encouraged. But to many people 18C is their only protection agains the abusive, insulting haters who are among us. 18C doesn’t stop the debate.

  184. People who spout real hate speeches will still be brought to court( if they are white, of course). The problem with hate speech as continuously forecast by the left, is that conservatives are perceived to be haters, before they say a word, and are hounded for stating truths, whereas Australia bashing and white bashing is fair, by leftists and over-represented minorities.

  185. Rule of thumb to me is if the LNP wana get rid of it then its probably better if it stays

  186. Great to hear some commonsense….

  187. Yes and well written ,Born in kalgoorlie,get caught with a beer after work-dragged to the cop shop,all the while being lectured about setting a better example ,for others,but not allowed to mention poor behavior by others,tied hands and mouth

  188. Not physically literal

  189. Well said Jacinta, There is only ONE class of Citizen in Australia – that is Australian. No special deals for people of different cultural, religious or ethnic backgrounds. Our Constitution gives everyone the same rights and opportunities so it is only the vocal leftist minority who seek to divide us and thereby conquer us.

  190. Eloquent, insightful and so sensible, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. You are a voice of reason which this country needs.

  191. She’s right. 18c will keep us divided. Just the way it was intended

  192. The only people protected by 18C are those who need to be told the truth!

  193. Australia needs to be able to discuss anything freely to establish the truth , At least in the minds of those who care enough to listen . I loathe the word Evolution because so much has been lost to Australians because of evolution and the notion that absolutely nothing we might do is sustainable . Evolutionists tell us that the Australian Aboriginals have lived in Australia for thirty thousand years and that figure is growing toward forty thousand , Despite the fact that our Christian beliefs assure us that there were no people on the Australian mainland even 4000 years ago , It really makes no difference if Aboriginals were here 1,000 years ago or 40’000 years ago but it does make a difference to our attitudes toward the sustainability of human activity in Australia . Australia was populated around the same time that many lands were inhabited by the Polynesian peoples and they were here long , long before Europeans . Because Aboriginals left no written records and the paintings they left have been repainted many times over , Evolutionists have been able to distort the facts in the absence of evidence and for reasons of their own stretch the timeline out tenfold . These actions have distorted our comprehension of the facts and leaves us unable to calculate and project what our country might be like a hundred years from now if we continue to exploit it at the current or even greater degree , I’m not pointing this out for any other reason except to start a real discussion that might one day establish the facts and give Australians a real , Grown up , understanding of our country’s potential and future .

  194. What a sensible truthful young woman

  195. so much respect for this young lady.

  196. A person that recognises stupidity…creating an obvious line of segregation only puts a target on the backs of those most vulnerable…just like everyone else will be ‘just fine’…

  197. You are diamond JACINTA shine on LASS

  198. The MEDIA ‘Word?’ viz:- ‘Racism’ Can/Will be Stamped Out BUT TRIBAL Is Another Story ! Tribal IS in the Jungle as well as the City & Country Areas WORLDWIDE !

  199. Good to see Liberty Works out defending Yassmin’s right to free speech and denouncing Hansen and Christensen for their bigotry.

  200. Good on you Jacinta…you are dead right!

  201. I wonder how the 18c would work in this case..Click on image to see Muslim business man and Chairman of Halal Certification Authority, Mohamed Elmouelhy’s racist fb comment….after Yassmin Abdel- Magied’s disgraceful post on ANZAC Day, describing outraged Australians as white trash.

  202. Don’t care, this would just backfire in some unforeseen way

  203. I agree. Discussion is good and should be encouraged at all points of disagreement. Even if there is no concensus at least you can acknowledge there valid points of view other than your own that are not motivated by hate.
    Owning the problem helps a lot.

  204. I agree with most of the above

  205. If you are truly a proud aboriginal, you should never be offended by some random racist, it is your choice to be offended, walk away or have a better comeback, if they are violent call the police, being falsely accused of racism is just as bad too, I have respect for aboriginals but some are starting to sound like that muslim who disrespected our diggers, and then complains louder if anyone criticises Islam it’s very hypocritical, just saying you can’t have it both ways.

  206. I am proud of you Jacinta, you are a breath of fresh air blowing over the Aboriginal Industry which is killing your people.

  207. Just get rid of it altogether

  208. Its more to do with us whites from upsetting the muslim invaders
    More than one has been charged for this
    Each time involving muslim not the T’O of this island

  209. 18C has nothing to do with protecting minorities. 18C is about giving minorities the right to dominate us without our being able to do anything about it.

    Those who do not understand that, understand nothing.

    In particular, it is lobbied for and propagandised for by the minority group that runs all Western nations.

    I don’t want to identify that minority group because I don’t want to be accused of anti-semitism.

  210. Careful Jacinta, The leftie latte sippers will attack you for your honest opinion on a way forward for your people.

  211. The comments here confirm that Australia has become a nation of whingers.

  212. She’s the woman!

  213. This Jacinta is needed on the ABC asap

  214. still with the 18c. keep trying.

  215. Put Jacinta on the ABC and sack that other idiot’.

  216. Great to hear a voice of reason not feelings

  217. If 18c is not working , get rid of it

  218. Agreed. Try to tell our pollies & the pro-Islamic who want it extended to sharia law. We need new & better government in Australia. Mark Robinson MP

  219. A very wise lady ♥

  220. I have seen this brave young lady on the tv before and absolutely makes sense. Keep it up Jacinta.

  221. its impossible to debate a self entitled ignorant bigot….i dont care what they say i have a thick skin and live a blessed life…others however are still swiming in trauma and the redneck bogans just want to poke them into pain…

  222. Got to laugh at some of you people. Scared individuals. This really isn’t your land..nobody owns it we are just guardians. People get on here and criticise Muslims and you feel it’s all ok. A Muslim woman criticises you and she’s a pig and has to be deported. The media has done a great job on you.
    I’m an aboriginal man and my family have been here since time began. All you haters need to use your energy somewhere else. You will NEVER stop immigrants coming here. If it wasn’t for immigrants you all wouldn’t be here..and that’s the undisputed facts!!! STOP TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN/ GRANDCHILDEN TO HATE!!! They are watching your behaviour!!!

    • the only people taught to hate are muslims

    • Australians are doing the hate thing pretty well

    • Warren, I’m a bit confused, who are you saying is hating on here?

    • I do t like how people put down others because of religion or race. I thought 18C was there to prevent discrimination and to remove or change may open floodgates. When I was born I was classified under flora and fauna by the Australian laws of the day. Let’s not go backwards and just accept others. We want people to assimilate and that will never happen if we keep posting hate messages. It takes time. If you want to be friends with someone you don’t run them down

  223. What give the elitists in our society the right try to force their will on others without debate?
    Just because they have a degree, or something, it doesn’t mean they are right, only that they have managed to memorise theories and thoughts proposed by others, most of whom have done exactly the same – in other words, they can’t really think for themselves anyhow.
    True and honest debate of a subject allows all sides to be considered, but stifling of debate encourages racism and bigotry.

  224. Well said agree entirely

  225. 18c only protects radical islam

  226. Well said. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.

  227. Just love listening to this young lady and her views, she says it as it is and without any fear or favour either way, as it used to be before these braindead numbskull PC crowd with the backing of these gutless Government officials that kowtow to these imbeciles…

  228. There is hope for us yet. Well done Jucinta, I hope there are many like yourself tackling the real issues within your community.

  229. At last a sensible person I admire you for you people

  230. The people with the power to save Australia can be saved for you are the first people you are not you and us but us all so stand up and we will all unite we were born here as you we to went to war lest we unnite

  231. Love it when some lefty twat or racist black demands that we do more for the Aborigines, even giving the country to them. They have never been here or met an Aborigine in their lives. Aborigines can’t even run a camp site let alone a small town

  232. Well said jazz

  233. A breath of fresh air, common sense and honesty. Well said Jacinta!

  234. I wish you well but how long is it going to take to say well we give it our best shot and guess what we are still RS

  235. Amended 18c to isolate to harass, intimidate from humiliate, insult offend will open up more real debates on most matters, n correct callings on terrible Moslems issues , including aboriginal matters, to stop Moslem madness n to help aboriginals.

  236. Well said. 18c is part of the world strategy to control people, by the ‘thought police’. Where thoughts are only allowed in one direction. It does nothing to stop racism only racism or opinion directed in one direction.

  237. Well said, it create a divide

  238. Jacinta makes some valid points

  239. The main reason for 18c being implemented is to stop whites openly saying what we want in regards to this 2nd invasion of muslim The 1st time around the TO fought hard with spear ect against guns . Now the government is inviting a people that hate all of us & this time its mainly the white man that is fighting for Australia where is the voice of the people the TO of Australia against this 2nd invasion Before any one has a go at me i am a mix of both W&B & i fight the government for what freedom we have The TO have a powerful voice but hardly any are speaking up

  240. Full marks to Jacinta, as she understands. This makes her light years ahead of Professor Gillian Trggs.

  241. Yes I agree with her !

  242. This. ZI would vote for her if she were a member in my area. The traditional owners of this land need a voice, and one that is open to reason, and ways for us as a nation, to move forward – NOT just look back at atrocities. *Salute to reasoned intelligence!!

  243. good on you Jacinta

  244. Jacinta has got it right. I have never felt such dislike for Muslims and I know not all Muslims are bad. Yassmin disrespecting the ANZACS and not having 18c come down on her head tells me there are double standards here. Muslims can say whatever they like and work toward destroying our honored traditions and we are supposed to sit back and let it happen. The ABC won’t even give Yassmin the sack. And yes not all Muslims living in Australia agree with what she did but those who disagree need to speak out.

Comments are closed.