Hurt feelings should never trump hurt bodies: How attempts to silence discussion on Aboriginal issues damage all Australians.

Bill Leak’s brilliance spotlights the issue of hurt feelings beautifully here.

The freedom of speech that allows scumbags to write the word “abo” is the same freedom of speech that allows the rest of us to expose and ridicule such comments and insist on equality for all.

It is only by defending their freedom to be obnoxious that we ensure our freedom to argue back and make a better society.

Section 18C must be scrapped. Not only because it is censorious, but because in treating minority groups as children requiring protection, it does more to insult, humiliate and offend them than any racist throwback ever could.

(Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 25 March 2017)

In April of 2017 I had the pleasure of being an invited speaker at the 5th ALS Friedman Conference. I want to thank the organisers of that conference – it was an excellent conference. This article roughly reflects and elaborates on my presentation. In a nutshell, it is about the controversy surrounding freedom of speech relating to Aboriginal people, and also about the hate some Aboriginal Australians inflict on other Aboriginal Australians who violate the pseudo-sacred tenets of political correctness. I have dedicated both my presentation and this article to my great mate Bill Leak. A link to my presentation (along with three other excellent speakers) is here, and a link to an article I wrote about Bill Leak is here. This article will provide some context that will possibly make my presentation clearer, given that my slides were not shown in the presentation.

Hate speech or inconvenient speech?

Say something that some Aboriginal people are not prepared to hear and you will sometimes be accused of ‘hate speech.’ But usually it’s not hate speech, it is simply ‘inconvenient speech.’ Raise topics like child abuse, violence, crime, rubbish-filled yards, and community dysfunction, all of which are serious problems facing some Aboriginal populations, and you can expect to be told you are spreading hate speech. Non-Aboriginal people have learnt to avoid these topics to save themselves from being branded as racist or accused of ‘stereotyping.’

I’m not suggesting for one minute that non-Aboriginal people don’t ever say things which are inappropriate or outright racist. Sure, this happens – though probably not to the extent that the social justice warriors, ‘ninja whinjas,’ and the PC camp would have you believe. But far too often, speech, opinions, and images that are definitely not racist are far too easily branded as racist or hate speech, when in fact they are just inconvenient. Sadly, too many delight in seeing racism where it is not – and too few see the damage this wreaks.

Double standards

Consider what happens when an Aboriginal person says something which members of the Aboriginal victim brigade don’t wish to hear: you will see hate speech at its finest. From their inviolate glasshouses you can expect to hear shouts of: ‘Coconut,’ ‘Uncle Tom,’ ‘Sellout’ and a host of profanities just because they hear something that may be a bit too inconvenient for them. For example, Jacinta Price has been told by some of the ‘brothers’ that she’s “gonna get speared” and that she “needs a bullet.” And her ‘crime’ meriting these threats? She publicly expressed the inconvenient truth that she is tired of seeing friends and family (both adults and children) suffer in silence at the hands of their own, and that her people need to start taking some responsibility.

But those sorts of attacks are seen as okay in some Aboriginal circles – and I do emphasise some, as there are many Aboriginal people who see that such expressions of hate are detrimental to all Aboriginal people. I believe that the majority of Aboriginal people see themselves as family people and do not attack each other, but there is a loud and angry minority who spoil the image of the majority. Those Aboriginal people who think it is okay to threaten another Aboriginal person or publicly slander them are quick to yell “racism” whenever the white man says something that is not to their liking. They are quick to yell that their feelings have been hurt and run to hide behind the shield of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Consider what happened to our good mate Bill Leak.

But for those like Jacinta, myself, Warren Mundine, Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, and others who are disparaged by their ‘own,’ are there any hate speech laws available to us? Certainly some legal eagle might be able to interpret the law in a way that provides us protection, but in practice, such laws are not generally called upon. I’m not sure why. Maybe because the verbal abuse amongst Aboriginal people is normalized? Or maybe because it is excused on the grounds of it being ‘lateral violence’ which is alleged to have its roots in colonization, even in 2017? Or maybe it’s because the Aboriginal people I know who have been the targets of abuse from other Aboriginal people have embraced a truth spoken by Albert Einstein: “Arrows of hate have been shot at me too, but they never hit me, because somehow they belonged to another world with which I have no connection whatsoever.” We don’t need protection from the opinions of our opponents, because we recognise that they belong to the world of infantile insecurity.

The problem with 18c

If we were to lift the hood of section 18C and strip away its legal and political baggage, we would see that the engine driving it was “Your ideas that I don’t like, whether they be expressed in a cartoon, opinion, or criticism, cause my feelings to be hurt.” This basically translates to “Others have more power over my feelings than I have over them myself” proceeding from the poisonous internalised message: “I am so fragile that I need to be protected from the words and opinions of others.” This is something I have written on before, so will discuss it only briefly here.

We hear the claims “What you said hurt me” or “You hurt my feelings” or “You’ve offended me.” We’ve all said things like this before because we grew up watching the adults in our world do it and we copied it. Such claims only communicate to ourselves and onlookers that others have control over our emotional wellbeing. Is that helpful?

Actually, other people’s words and opinions don’t directly hurt us. There may be some emotional hurt involved, but it is learnt, not caused. Believing we are directly hurt by words and opinions would be like me believing that living next door to a fast food café directly causes me to get fat. It does not. It simply provides me with an opportunity to choose food that is not good for my waistline. However, if a word is uttered, or an idea presented, or even a cartoon drawn that someone does not like, it is so easy to take offence and assume that the offence has been caused rather than taken. Instead of acknowledging that an image or word simply may be presenting an uncomfortable truth, it is much more convenient to label it as racism, or hate speech and proclaim that it has wounded us emotionally.

Proponents of 18C use the pathetic argument of: “White privileged males shouldn’t be allowed to push their racist agendas.” I would respond with: “People who are so fragile that they need to claim being offended as a way of silencing those who express ideas they don’t like, should not be allowed to be society’s thought police.” If it was not for freedom of speech, minority groups would be far worse off today. Consider for example that at one time, groups like Aboriginal people, women, and LGBQT people, were seen as having far lesser rights than what they are entitled to today. It was only by challenging the prevailing orthodoxies through freedom of speech that such prejudices were dispelled.

Claiming offence is just a convenient way of silencing those who speak inconvenient truths or challenge cherished beliefs. For the Aboriginal victim brigade, I present some of these cherished beliefs in the next section.

What are some cherished beliefs?

What follows are some cherished beliefs held by some members of the Aboriginal victim brigade. I know from experience that if these beliefs are challenged, the victim brigade will lash out, slander, rant, and use every trick in the book to destroy anyone who dares to challenge their prejudices, which are broadly as follows:

  1. only Aboriginal people can understand or help other Aboriginal people;
  2. Aboriginal people are a vastly different race of people from other Australians;
  3. Aboriginal people are likely to thrive on the ‘Homelands’ and ‘on Country;’
  4. embracing modernity is assimilation;
  5. Aboriginal people are best served by separate governance and services;
  6. the (white) government is the problem;
  7. those Aboriginal people who suffer today do so because they are victims of colonisation (or the invasion if you prefer);
  8. racism is rampant;
  9. more emphasis upon cultural specialness and difference is the solution;
  10. focusing any attention upon personal responsibility is ‘blaming the victim’;
  11. being Aboriginal is more about ‘feeling the vibe’ than Aboriginal ancestry;
  12. pointing out any problem that is more prominent in the Aboriginal population is ‘strereotyping’;
  13. Aboriginal people in custody are more likely to die than non-Aboriginal people in custody.

Moving forward

Perhaps rather than continually chanting about their special connection with the land, those Aboriginal who are quick to silence and abuse other Aboriginal people should start acknowledging their connection with each other. I’m not suggesting that Aboriginal people need to always agree with each other, but they could at least show a bit of tolerance and understanding when hearing views they may not like or agree with.

Perhaps instead of creating and spreading images like the one below, the Aboriginal victim brigade could focus their energy on addressing those problems that prevent too many Aboriginal people from living the sorts of lives most of us take for granted.

Abusive meme as seen on Facebook. I’m honoured to be in such great company.

I opened with a quote and I will finish with one:

The most important argument against the censorship of expressions of hate is that it restricts legitimate speech and the freedom of expression. Throughout history, human progress has depended on the freedom to express dangerous and what were initially often perceived as offensive ideas. Hate speech laws not only constrain freedom but also treat citizens as immature children who lack the moral resources to hear hateful opinions and not be swayed by them. From the standpoint of an enlightened democracy, the censoring of hate is a far worse evil than the expression of hate. Why? Because it prevents people from judging and evaluating for themselves how to respond to the views — however prejudiced — of their fellow citizens.

(Frank Furedi, The Australian, 25 March 2017)

About the Author

Anthony Dillon
Anthony Dillon, originally from Brisbane resides in Sydney where he works as a researcher at Australian Catholic University and is a noted commentator on Aboriginal affairs with contributions in The Australian and Quadrant Magazine.  More of his writings can be found at www.anthonydillon.com.au 

104 Comments on "Hurt feelings should never trump hurt bodies: How attempts to silence discussion on Aboriginal issues damage all Australians."

  1. Continuance of the status quo may be what some of the parties consider comfortable and beneficial.

  2. Excellent piece as always by Anthony Dillon

  3. Excellent well written article, summed almost everything up in a nutshell. The only thing missing which I think is important and must be remembered is that the Aboriginal Industry draws great inspiration from the successful land claims and access to superior rights of the NZ Maori [ even though no Full blooded Maor actually exist, or share a different blood type to other homo sapiens who reside on planet earth] . This bullshit must be finally exposed for what it really is, and. I also totally agree with the following statement. Section 18C must be scrapped. Not only because it is censorious, but because in treating minority groups as children requiring protection, it does more to insult, humiliate and offend them than any racist throwback ever could.

    (Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 25 March 2017)

  4. I have over many years got to know some hard working men like my self in the building trade and road works we often talked about the things that mattered to us a man called N BONNER trying to show others we can do it if we try hard a man called l Perkins who said we need this to happen to make it better now a man called warren mundine telling things are going to get better if we try top marks to you all KEEP TRYING

  5. They use free speech to take away ours, simple as that.

  6. well well,cant hapen in australia,we is going down faster than a whores drawers at a bucks party.

  7. The PC motto. Thou shalt not tell the truth!

  8. Silence discussion? It’s only one-sided, we want, we want! Shape up and embrace life and the freedom you are guaranteed thanks to millions of immigrants.

  9. This really pisses me off : Quote : Proponents of 18C use the pathetic argument of: “White privileged males shouldn’t be allowed to push their racist agendas.”
    By their own pathetic, bleeding heart, leftard guidelines, isn’t this statement racist and vilifying?

  10. With the so called free speecher brigade … assumes they have something interesting to say ..not at at all

  11. This article by Anthony Dillon is well worth reading.

  12. This article shows just why we need these laws. You talk about this and probably even think you know what you are talking about yet you seem to only look at it from your point of view. The Aboriginals you are talking about that have all the social issues come from the Stolen Generation that suffered at the hands of people just like you. People that thought that be removing them and raising them as Europeans would change them. I’m not going to go into Attachment theory or trauma theory because that would be beyond your understanding so I’ll keep it simple. If you raise a person in a situation without parents, they won’t learn how to be good parents. If they are not raised in a home environment, they won’t know how to look after a home. You hate speachers seem to think that putting them down is how you fix the problem but all you are doing is killing children. Hate speech does harm people and Aboriginal children are dying by suicide as young as 10 years old because they can’t see any future and creeps like you are the ones that make them feel that way. http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/indigenous-youth-suicide
    https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginal-suicide-rates#axzz4hOsgrDYP
    Lastly, this was a suggested post so that means you had to pay for it to be spread because you know it won’t travel on its own merits.

    • Michael, I agree with you on some points, but not on others. First, free speech is paramount to a free society, especially if we disagree with what’s being said. If people are prevented from saying things that offend, then we are missing a great opportunity to learn the truth about ourselves, and that would be ultimately disastrous. Sure, people say things that aren’t valid sometimes, but even when we think they’re off the mark, they are trying to tell us something, and we should listen, otherwise our faults would remain concealed until they destroy us.

      Second, I agree with the thrust of your comments about the stolen generation, and so many more do-gooder policies. Most taxpayers see the money spent on Aborigines as wasted, and resent it – with good reason. However, they blame the wrong people. Genuine Aborigines don’t who want anything from white culture because it has no significance to them. They simply neither want or need a house, welfare, schooling, or institutionalized health care. They simply want to be themselves, and that doesn’t require any external stuff. The more enlightened Libertarians want the same, but they would still like the trappings of modern life.

      I don’t think hate speech is solely responsible for suicides, or the general dysfunction of Aboriginal communities. I’d suggest it begins and ends with Govt policies which try to force Aborigines to be like white people, and in my view, that would be a big reduction spiritually, because modern western culture is almost, if not totally, devoid of spiritual connection.

      The Aboriginal representatives who are given voice in the media and politics, are often carefully chosen to resonate with white thinking, rather than black thinking. That’s because black thinking is considered inferior by whites, and requires a change of mindset to appreciate fully.

      In my view, having spent a lot of time in Aboriginal communities in the Top End of Australia, and working with black fellas, I reckon they have it right, and we don’t.

      A further point about youth suicide. About 40 years ago, I heard a radio interviewer ask an Aboriginal elder why he thought so many young kids were dying. His reply was profound, and wise. He simply said, “There’s not enough love…” How that became the case is still neither understood, or accepted, by white society, because if they did, they’d understand that Aborigines are victims of Govt, just like white people. We should be working together, rather than fighting. It seems that Divide and Conquer is a tactic that still works, no matter how often it’s used, and this is evidence that it’s still working.

    • Peter Callil worked in Warburton WA for four years there is a lot you cant talk about because of people who think they do know better, or its too hard a truth.

    • Peter Callil Wow, I wasn’t expecting an intelligent reply yet there it is.
      Why should free speech mean free harmful speech?
      Why is it so important that derogatory words be considered free speech?
      18c stopped words like ‘coon’ ‘nigger’ etc. Why shouldn’t people that want to say ‘why don’t the coons live like us’ not be asked to instead say ‘Why don’t aboriginals live like white Australians’?
      One of these can be replied to respectfully and the other is just being cruel. 18c didn’t stop free speech, it only stopped people using a speech in a cruel and hurtful way.

    • I lived and worked in Kalgoorlie for years and am now ashamed of the things I have said and believed. Now that I have learned about how sociology works and the real history; I understand how wrong I was. I am one of the people that do know better. Let me tell you what works. Give most troubled Aboriginal kids some honest respect, a little bit of patients and they will amaze you. This I have seen work!

    • I respect your right to rant Michael Garvey.

    • Michael Garvey your claim that I must have paid to have this article distributed only shows how foolish you are. Go hide behind attachment and trauma theory.

    • It came to me as a suggested and they are the paid for crap that i haven’t subscribed to. What an intelligent reply you have given me.

  13. A long winded piece of work that ignores two things. 1. that freedom of speech is encapsulated in s18D of the same legislation, and 2. The test that the courts apply that removes the subjectivity that the author seems to be so concerned with. I’d dare to say that there is nothing that any of those very legitimate commentators mentioned in the article would want to say, that is currently prevented by s18C.

    • The subjectivity is not removed as you suggest.

    • Anthony Dillon The subjective “feeling” of the offended person making the complaint is actually only admissable as evidence of a contravention. The court makes an objective assessment of the impact of the action ( effectively applying a community standard type of assessment). The level of harm required is “profound and serious effects”. Regardless, even if you disagree with the objectivity that has been discussed in every decision on this section, is is very difficult to argue against the fact that the RDA expressly includes protection for freedom of speech where it matters. As a genuine non-issue, Its becoming a boring argument and only serves to entrench the pointless partisan politics that works against the solution to actual important problems. You could have had the same discussion about suppression of opinion in indigenous politics without any reference to the RDA. You could probably have had the same discussion if the RDA was never invented.

  14. 18 C we know what C stands for lol

  15. The only advatage of lettig people like the KKK declare themselves openly is that , you know who they are . So If every cop in town knows where the local chapter of the KKK meets and any black people turn up dead . they have a ready made pool of suspects

  16. No mention of 18D. I guess you’d have no article if you did.

    • I agree.. this article has nothing to do with the workings of 18C and D practically.. in the grand scheme of things hardly anyone has been brought to court under these articles and if the article writer thinks he cant discuss indigenous issues with respect then maybe hes not the right person to be discussing them..

  17. Glog the courts with complaints every time your offended.

  18. Surely nobody is trying to silence Aboriginal issues. I think most people are just tired of this never ending saga. The A community must lift themselves up from the swamp.

  19. So, you are not bigoted and a racist, you are just tired of hearing about inequality, because inequality and the consequences of it are inconvenient facts that are an annoying noise that your sensitive ears can hear in the distance as you sit sipping single malt scotch in your sheltered position of privilege.

    [Edited in light of subsequent response.]

    I just received a private message from Liberty Works which contained nothing except a link to the article I just commented on. I’ve already read it, d*umbsh*t. If you don’t have the courage to publicly respond with a reasoned and nuanced reply, you are a coward too.

    • Phil, we did not reply because your comment appears to be directed at someone else. Unless you’re saying Anthony Dillon needs to establish he’s not a racist? BTW – You have the rght to your free speech but you embarrass yourself by using it to abuse.

    • LibertyWorks
      The article referenced made claims about indigenous Australians that were derogatory, that is called racism – don’t like when someone calls you on your own words? By your own logic freedom to insult and belittle those you disagree with seems to be a one way street. Deal with your hypocrisy before taking the high moral ground

      Tell me again how you didn’t message me – recieved via private message:

      “Phil, we hope you enjoyed Anthony’s a article on free speech. He’s got an important message and LibertyWorks believes it’s important it is heard. However, it costs money and as a registered not-for-profit organisation, that’s something in short supply.

      Please help us spread Anthony’s message with a small donation. Chipping in as little as $10 isn’t a lot, but it helps Anthony and us a lot! Please donate here: https://goo.gl/NA8ojU

      We sincerely hope to gain your support.

      Yours faithfully

      Libertyworks.org.au Team

      PS – please chip in $10 here: https://goo.gl/NA8ojU

    • What gives you the impression that we’re tired of hearing about inequality? The whole article is about having the freedom to speak out about inequality and dreadful conditions that some aboriginal people are still living in. It’s about being able to call out neglect and sexual abuse of small children without being hauled before the AHRC for offending the sensibilities of aboriginal people who don’t live in these appalling conditions. It’s about aboriginal people who speak out against violence and abuse within some aboriginal communities and get called coconuts and uncle toms.

      Clearly you have compromised comprehension skills.

    • Whereas those shouting inequality are blind to the infinite handups given to said affected communities?

  20. We had Free Speech In A Coffin At The Victorian Parliament in 2001, when they were Debating whether to introduce, “The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act”, ( which they did) which was all about Shutting Aussies up over such things as, “Forced Multiculturalism”. Far to much apathy in the community, they will march and protest to save a Tree of the like, but “Free Speech”, not on.

  21. So, what is the LNP government trying to distract us from now? Any comments LibertyWorks?

    • I’m not so sure that the distraction is actually coming from the government this time.
      Those who support “political correct” speech are far more distracting, in that they try to take the debate away from a very important issue.
      The only way to resolve an issue is to look at the facts and then design a solution around them.
      How can this possibly happen without robust debate from all sides? Even your opponents can sometimes offer solutions, if you are prepared to listen.

    • You know what?
      Love her or hate her, Pauline Hanson has probably done a lot for the Aboriginal cause, because she has identified that there is a problem and that the previous solution to that problem was to just throw money at the so called victims.
      Pauline has in fact opened a can of worms that can only be closed again with serious debate about the challenges that we as a society need to face up to.
      Stifling debate, even if it does consist of comments that people can choose to take offence at (“Others have more power over my feelings than I have over them myself”)
      We have an opportunity to do something about this challenge and we need to debate the solution.

      By the way, I am an old white fart and probably don’t understand Aboriginals all that well, despite mingling with them as equals throughout my life, particularly when I was growing up. What I do understand is that there are no winners in this situation, unless we can debate a solution to this issue like adults.

    • Are you still making your silly and groundless accusation that we are associated with the LNP Patrick? Nothing of substance to add, as usual.

    • Gee, you blocked me before, maybe I hit a raw nerve. I stand by what I say about 18c.

    • If we had blocked you Patrick, you would have stayed blocked You still haven’t said anything of value on this thread.

    • You blocked me with fake cop, as for a comment, what you advocate is giving free, unfettered speech which can easily be exploited by powerful lobby groups which they would use to spread their propaganda. Case in point, take a look at the United States at the moment, they have a president who was not reined in, and he easily conned people into voting for him with his lies. Brexit was won along the same lines. What 18c does is give minorities and ordinary citizens an avenue to stop this sort of exploitation occurring. You have supported the likes of Bernadi and Brandis with the push to abolish 18c and that to me, smacks of lobbing. So once again, what is the LNP trying to hide from the general public?

    • “You blocked me with fake cop” and yet here you are.

      “What is the LNP trying to hide from the general public?”
      You’d better ask them. Why would we know?

      You arguments on 18C seem to be based on the idea that people are stupid and will believe anything they hear. To stop this from happening you’d like to see the end of free speech. Tell us Patrick, who gets to decide what is acceptable speech for public consumption? Who gets to do the ‘reining in’ as you put it? Sounds totalitarian.

    • You just don’t get it do you LibertyWorks, ok, here’s an example how 18c has worked, remember Andrew Bolt’s case where he accused aboriginal decedents with mixed blood of exploiting their heritage to gain from funding towards aboriginal people? Let me remind you, he was found to be insulting and derogatory towards people of aboriginal hereditary and 18c helped in this case. The QUT case was unfortunate as no system is perfect, but I would rather have 18c than not have it. Australia is a much freer and more equal country than the United States, which has segregation due to free speech being exploited by powerful individuals and groups. Oh, with fake cop, I wasn’t able to post any replies for a while, how do you explain that?

    • Oh, and another thing about unfettered free speech, if the LNP state MP, Battin, was not challenged on his outrageous lie towards professional firefighters and allowed to get away with it, this would have caused segregation in our volunteer and professional firefighting services. As it was, he was challenged by both professional and volunteer firefighters and he was found to be insulting towards them. If an individual decides to use 18c against him, he will find himself in a lot of hot water. This is what 18c does, protect the innocent and he was wise to apologise for his indiscretion. As I have said before, you can have as much free speech as you want but you better be prepared to qualify your statements because free speech in this country comes with responsibilities

    • ‘Free speech in this country comes with responsibilities’ . Punishments you mean?

    • Is that the best reply you can come up with LibertyWorks? And it took you 3 days!

    • LibertyWorks, you have not addressed any of my arguments, you just repeat your motto ad nauseum. Are you’re sure you are not lobbyists for the LNP?

  22. You leftys can only come back with HATE SPEECH this article if you read it properly is well thought out and reasonable by the way are any of you vocal critics of this of aboriginal decent

  23. Physical or verbal abuse is never acceptable. Nither is a community attacking there own for not following a sterotype. Free Speech is not freedom to verbally abuse. Stating inconvenient or uncomfortable facts is what free speech is about.

  24. For someone who goes around advocating equality, one must first acknowledge the division/shit stirring he/she is causing the rest of us. Simply crawl back under ya rock were we can’t see or hear you pls.

  25. Forget 18d because people have been battered on 18c before they are exonerated the Queensland students Bill Leak get rid of it it stinks

  26. The point is that a law that routinely sees people undergo months of litigation before exonerating them 99% of the time is a garbage law with a garbage process.

  27. Yes, exactly. So your opinion is allowed, and thats okay to say out loud, but if someone has a differing opinion that doesnt mirror yours, they have to keep thier mouths shut, that doesnt sound very fair or tolerant Kimberley.

  28. “Free Speech”

    Best to define SPEECH so speech actually means to DISCUSS LOGICALLY rather than ‘to vilify or scapegoat’……also have problems with anyone speaking for or about ALL……in this age of the individual and our population involving billions no one person can speak for or against ALL whatever….whether it be culture, religion, gender or aliens…..”In my experience” should start every bloody sentence and media stories should not be implying ALL anything are the same!

    p.s. my speech wasn’t free, I pay for my internet connection!

  29. You are being deliberately misleading by ignoring 18D

  30. One system for all would lead to a belief that we are all equal.

  31. By calling Jews Untermensch (subhuman) long and loudly enough, the Nazi’s were empowered to build the death camps.
    Bigotry should never be tolerated, no matter the form. The road to Auschwitz was covered inch by inch, not in giant strides.
    Vilification is not free speech.
    All rights come with responsibility, we don’t permit slander and libel, vilification is just another form.

  32. I want a fearless, independent media so we are aware of our world…..all you people having apoplectic fits over 18c are ignoring the real pillars of democracy in Australia. I don’t support the right of people to be bigots- I just wish you all had a better education

  33. If no one gets offended their is no progress

  34. Offend,,,, I’m offended…. That’s offensive.. This word is the problem. . We have all been offended at some stage. That’s life.,,, suck it up,, I’m offended every time I hear all white people are racist… I know it’s not true,,so I just say,,,, well that’s your view,, and get on with my day,,,,

  35. Excellent. The first “straw man” starts at para 3. I am not aware of anyone who has tried to use 18c to suppress comments that some people have dirty backyards.

Leave a comment