Thursday 10 January 2013

OPINION Protecting speech is a balancing act


OPINION

Protecting speech is a balancing act

TELLING someone their football team is hopeless or their artwork is ugly might offend them - but it's not illegal, nor does the government propose it should be.
On the other hand, telling a team they are hopeless "like all Asians" or telling a female staff member "shorter skirts would be better for all girls in the office" might well breach discrimination laws.
What this shows is there's a difference between expressing an opinion, even in strong language, and harassing people on the basis of things they can't control, such as their sex, race, disability or age, or demeaning them at work.
The fact that the community at large, including lawyers, is unsure or confused about what might already be discriminatory under our laws is one very convincing reason for our government to consolidate, clarify and simplify five different commonwealth laws, established over four decades, into one.
Late last year our government released an exposure draft of this new proposed law as part of a careful consultative approach, allowing debate before a final draft is introduced into the parliament for further debate.
The commentary that has followed has included some very useful feedback, which the government will consider.
But others have used our call for feedback to launch a vicious campaign to roll back discrimination protections and to misrepresent the reach of current laws.
While none of us enjoy being subjected to actions or words we find offensive, our laws have always made clear that a price (and benefit) of living in a free and democratic society is that we can all be criticised, disagreed with and annoyed.
Australians rightfully expect our laws to get a tricky balance right - that those freedoms are available to us balanced by appropriate limits that provide protection in certain circumstances.
The way our discrimination laws strike this balance between freedoms and protection from unfair treatment has always been hotly contested from the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act 40 years ago and all the campaigns and protests that accompanied Susan Ryan's attempts to introduce protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex.
In recent times, one of the most contentious issues has been the way courts have applied racial vilification laws, especially to the media.
The way these laws might permit or restrict religious debate has also been heavily debated both by those wanting more protection and those arguing for more robust debate.
And while a healthy debate on these difficult issues can rightly be had, the government is not proposing any changes to the racial vilification laws at all through this consolidation work.
If some argue our draft does this inadvertently, then our consultation has done its job by flushing this out with plenty of time to fix.
If others want to revisit the law, this particular consolidation project probably isn't the place to do it. Similarly, the government has decided this also isn't the place to consider all types of action that some groups think should be worthy of protection.
The only new ground of protection is proposed for sexuality, a commitment we made at the election and campaigned on publicly.
This is a long-overdue reform at the federal level, providing protection to very vulnerable groups in society.
We have also identified some areas where the law could be made clearer. One such area is to make clear that harassment can be a form of discrimination.
Despite what some reports may have said, it is not the case that any conduct that a person finds offensive will be unlawful.
The draft bill only seeks to clarify what courts have already found - that racial, age, sex and disability discrimination can include harassment on that basis.
It is also not the case that the specific prohibition against racial vilification would be extended to other types of vilification.
What should be clear is the government is not seeking to regulate the type of language used privately between friends.
It is not seeking to change vilification laws, nor will it seek to prohibit people engaging in a discussion on political, religious or other topical matters.
No democratic government ever should.
But as a society we don't believe it is OK to make racist taunts, even if people laugh. It is not OK to bully someone with a disability because they sound different. It is not OK to humiliate a person because they are gay.
Recent stories of a French woman in Melbourne subjected to racial abuse while riding a
bus, or two Indian women who were followed by a woman screaming racial epithets, have brought this home.
This type of conduct is unacceptable and to our credit as a nation, reactions to these events show that the vast majority of people in our community do not accept it.
Australia is the nation of the fair go and for 40 years it has been Labor that has actively promoted the principles of fairness and equality by developing the sex, disability and racial discrimination acts and forming the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination bill continues this tradition - a new, simpler, streamlined law to protect people from discrimination.
Anti-discrimination laws are important because they impact on how we conduct our public lives. And it is important we get them right.
This round of consultation follows an earlier round we had on the options for reform.
We heard from people who lost their livelihood as a result of discrimination, and from others who wished to lodge a complaint but didn't know how. We also heard from small businesses trying to do the right thing but confused by a complex law.
It is for the benefit of these people that we are embarking on these reforms and we will carefully consider the feedback we are now receiving to get the drafting right.
The government is committed to an open and transparent process to develop laws that reflect the value we place on an inclusive Australia.
The committee is due to report next month and I look forward to its considered views.
Using laws to ensure people are treated fairly and their rights protected inevitably involves a balancing act, in this case the right to be free from discrimination and harassment balanced against freedom of speech. The purpose of these reforms and our extensive consultation is to get that balance right.
Nicola Roxon is Attorney-General of Australia.
################################################################

COMMENTS ON THIS STORY

  • Aristogeiton Posted at 12:15 AM Today
    Election please.
    Comment 1 of 84
  • Terry Adelaide Posted at 12:17 AM Today
    Please wait until after the election when hopefully Australia will have a Parliament that can be trusted to serve the interests of all Australians when considering free speech.
    Comment 2 of 84
  • God help us!! of Australia Posted at 12:37 AM Today
    Will this government of 1980's feminists and do gooders [sorry if I have offended anyone] is so out of touch as to be laughable. It appears that they are determined to introduce this sort of stupid legislation in a hurry before they are thrown out. It reminds me of Howard and Work Choices. I will back Jim Spiegelman's knowledgeable comments.
    Comment 3 of 84
  • Nicky of Perth Posted at 12:47 AM Today
    You are either very naive, and don't understand the practical implications of your proposed changes, or you are insincere in the claims you make in this article. I don't know which alternative is in fact the case, or whether its a combination of both. And quite frankly I don't care. The sooner we see the back of you and your ilk, with your 'we know what's best for you attitude' the better off all Australians will be!
    Comment 4 of 84
  • AlexSmith of Perth Posted at 12:55 AM Today
    The whole tone and nature of these new laws whiffs of green policy. Was this simply another promise labor made the greens when they formed a minority government?? The biggest problem is that now its discrimination when i say, think and/or do anything which you dont like or agree with. And if you dont agree with it then it must be offencive. These new laws are just so blatantly aimed at stopping the more right wing and conservative parts of Australia saying things which the more socialist parts of the country, in particular the "Green" vote dont like. Gay marrage, immigration, aboriginal rights are several areas you think of straight away. Do you think people can't see the hidden agenda in these laws? I'm not saying you should be allowed to deliberately go out offend someone or proclaim hated on people but isn't the line pretty well defined anyway? Think of the Andrew Bond case where he said an aboriginal didn't really look that aboriginal and ended up losing in court and we want/think we need stronger discrimination laws? As i said the whole thing smells of yet another green policy pushed onto the government. Hopefully the election happens before this does. What a joke....
    Comment 5 of 84
  • Alan Russell of Mackay Qld. Posted at 1:15 AM Today
    Its about time the facts were laid on the table,not the ambigious rhetoric being subscribed by many,who probably have never taken time to research what is the intention of the changes,What I see is clarification,to the proposed reforms,not restrictions of peoples rights,freedom of speech,etc.As now,the courts will always be the arbitrator not the media.
    Comment 6 of 84
  • Charles of Adelaide Posted at 1:29 AM Today
    It looks to me from the examples cited in this article, some of them so puerile they are unbecoming of someone with the exalted title of Attorney General of Australia, that, rather than protecting people's rights by way of protecting them from harassment on account of their sex, race, disability or age, the draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination bill seeks, in reality, to legislate in favour of what used to be known not all that long ago simply as good manners. This has absolutely nothing to do with rights, nothing. Forever and tirelessly, on our behalf, intent on insinuating itself into the smallest crevices of our lives the great tutelary power which is the Labor government has identified another void, this time a moral one, which it intends to fill, thereby arrogating to itself the power to determine how we show behave toward each other. We all, full of vice as we are, obviously have a way to go before we can even begin to measure up to the high expectations Ms Roxon and the others of high virtue have of us.
    Comment 7 of 84
  • ross of sydney Posted at 1:31 AM Today
    No country in the western world has its democratic freedoms under attack by its own Government except this country. The law will deem you guilty of causing offence by some one claimning to be offended. This is a Government sensing its own doom and determined to wreck the place before it goes.
    Comment 8 of 84
  • Lazza of gold coast Posted at 1:44 AM Today
    What Ms Roxon does not get is that while it may not be acceptable to make racist taunts,or to humiliate someone because they are gay, it does not follow that our society believes those offending should be guilty of a breaking the law.Nor does it mean the offended should have a legal right of action against the offender.These just constrict a plural society. Living in a plural society means taking the good with the bad and not having an eggshell thin sensitivity.That's what growing up is about.
    Comment 9 of 84
  • geoffm of perth Posted at 1:49 AM Today
    Free speech is not and never has been a balancing act, it is something you either believe in or you don't. Remember the wise words. " I dont care for what you are saying but i will defend your right to say it" Unfortunately your government will no longer defend our right to say it, therefore no matter how much you go on about balancing acts etc etc you fundametaly do not believe in free speech. Sadly it is hardly surprising these laws are coming from the most left wing government in the countries history. PS. By the way I find your and the PM's personal attacks on Tony Abbott highly offensive, do I have a claim under your new laws?
    Comment 10 of 84
  • Willo Posted at 1:51 AM Today
    Bulldust! Youre trying to slip it past the public, Ms Roxon. It wont work and you will lose votes. We value our democracy too much! Your committee will be stacked, much like FWA.
    Comment 11 of 84
  • Robin Posted at 2:28 AM Today
    Roxon Have you thought that you are actually infringing on my rights by your offensive laws you wish to introduce. Every year our rights are reduced by government interference in the way I live, the way I think and the way I speak. By trying to make it illegal to offend someone you have severely offended me. It is my right to offend someone. As I am offended by the many stupid things that your government has done why should i not be allowed to offend the government back? it will be a good thing when the gillard government is reduced to tears by the offence of not being reelected
    Comment 12 of 84
  • David of NSW Posted at 2:40 AM Today
    The false and derogatory taunts that Labor directs at Opposition MPs DEMEAN them in their WORKPLACE, Taunts like Jack the Ripper, misogynist and mincing poodle are SEXIST. Whether or not Ms Roxon and her Labor colleagues deem Opposition MPs to be VULNERABLE - it seems not - their sexist vebal abuse of MPs in their workplace is DISCRIMINATORY, as defined by Roxon.
    Comment 13 of 84
  • Joost Daalder of Adelaide Posted at 3:17 AM Today
    It is right to object to harassing people on the basis of things they can't control, such as their sex, race, disability or age. The statement about this is concerned principally with the evil of discrimination. What is entirely missing is (a) a statement as to how it is determined whether discrimination is the cause, and (b) an explanation as to why harassing people on other grounds is not considered important enough to act on. Nor is it clear who will determine how harassment (on any basis) is to be defined, or on what basis discrimination will be decided to have occurred. It is the harassment, per se, which matters far more than the cause, so long as we can agree on what harassment should be taken to mean. As to discrimination: this government does know how to discriminate on no solid basis against Abbott by simply claiming that he is misogynist, but how would it defend such a statement in court? The difficulties which the legislation as here described would throw up would be endless, not least because much of the language Roxon uses is purely emotional and emotive.
    Comment 14 of 84
  • Thebes of WA Posted at 4:08 AM Today
    Ms Roxon I view government-by-values, especially ones that smack of more control, with increasing suspicion. (That's a legacy of this Labor govt). Whose values? Who decides ? What you're proposing is a charter of exclusions determined by yourself or some other select specifying what one is not permitted to say. In public you claim, but, if one can't say it, one is pretty well being told one ought not to be thinking it either. How presumptuous ! How patronising to tell us that you are not seeking to control conversation between friends ! What's next? Dob in your mate who doesn't like x y or z? This is not what generations struggled against kings for and I am not comforted by the idea of the courts adjudicating either. That has already gone too far. This is despotism in the making, your protestations notwithstanding. It's time for the people to take a more Utilitarian view of government, take the wind out of its sails. Your human rights agendas are making us very unfree herd animals. Freedom of speech may be unpredictable but without it we are serfs. Inevitably someone will have it, just not me or people like me outside the political deity. Ipso facto, it's non-negotiable.
    Comment 15 of 84
  • John P of Redfern Posted at 4:58 AM Today
    What PC waffle! This unnecessary initiative is obviously designed to shore up Labor support in western Sydney and has no other merit.
    Comment 16 of 84
  • Denis Brown of Brisbane Posted at 6:13 AM Today
    A good article by the A.G. what it shows by the amount of nasty comments we have had on this topic by both the media and the public simply proves that there is a huge literacy problem in this country, along with thousands with "Egg on Face" and it is evident that they have been incapable of reading and absorbing the draft bill.
    Comment 17 of 84
  • Daz Posted at 6:23 AM Today
    Nicola I give two big thumbs up for actually writing an editorial piece during the week and hence allowing people to comment on your opinion. This is very unlike your spineless colleges Emerson and Garret who are afraid of a little commentary and who only write on the weekends. But down to the matter, it simply comes down to this. We don't doubt you only wish for the best outcome, however, it's the ability of labour to actually implement something without dropping the ball. It usually means you overreach and when you realize you have overcooked it you refuse to admit it and adjust. I also don't trust the interest that the ACTU are playing in this. This can only mean one thing, that's its bad for business, it's bad for the economy, it's bad for Australia and it's bad for everyone. You don't have a mandate for this and I suggest you take it to the Australian people before it is thrown upon us or are you too afraid.
    Comment 18 of 84
  • TonyD of Westbury Posted at 6:35 AM Today
    Amazing, Labour claims that for 40 years they have promoted the 'fair go' etc etc , well bully ho for you mob who have actively destroyed the principles of Respect Responsibility and Discipline, now days no one gives a damn for anyone else, "Oh dear its not my fault, its your duty of care" blah blah. And the incidents of the French lady and two Indian ladies - well what more can you expect in todays society NO respect No responsibilty and NO discipline. Perhaps it is time to get a few exservice personnell into teaching, specially some that have done some 'heavy duty', that might clear up a few attitudes, but what to do about the attitude of the 'careless' Parent
    Comment 19 of 84
  • Nina of cammeray of NSW Posted at 6:35 AM Today
    And who exactly is going to decide what nuance is considered offensive? What I object to most is that the onus will be on the defendant to prove there was no intent to offend. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Which might be hard to achieve if two people gang up on one. And who is going to pay for the legal fees? The GUILTY one of course, while the accuser will laugh all the way to the bank.
    Comment 20 of 84
  • Everything old Posted at 6:43 AM Today
    The interesting thing about the two racial abuse examples used by the attorney (French woman on bus and two Indian women) is that the new law was not needed to intervene to resolve the problems. A law should only intervene if the mischief is such that it cannot be addressed by people privately and a failure to intervene would lead to a break down of peace and order. The proposed new laws, as opposed to a true consolidation of existing laws, are simply not justified, will curtail our freedom of expression and invite and encourage complaint. The reversal of the onus of proof is simply outrageous.
    Comment 21 of 84
  • Well duh Posted at 6:43 AM Today
    That's a bit rich when you consider how many times we have to fill in Government forms that seek to divide the people in this land into age, sex, nationality/place of birth (race) grounds and then design programs to suit those classifications.
    Comment 22 of 84
  • LM of Bne Posted at 6:54 AM Today
    Actions have always spoken louder than words, despite the flowery language these laws will stifle free speech as they have done in the UK, an example would be a person walking past a pub karaoke function, the passerby was offended by the song turning Japanese and sued. This was a result of very similar laws. the lawyers will love it, the rest of us will have to keep our mouths shut for fear of being financially crippled.
    Comment 23 of 84
  • dasher Posted at 7:28 AM Today
    It always sounds so reasonable doesn't it?..but it s where it goes that's important and it always goes in a direction that has a chilling effect on true freedom of speech, and in the case of Andrew Bolt it has some very troubling consequences. Roxon's insticts are to curb while mine and many others is to accept the burden that free speech presents, far better to err on this side than cause unreasonable offence somewhere along the line.
    Comment 24 of 84
  • Calm Reflection of Norman Park Posted at 7:28 AM Today
    Ms Roxon puts paid to the belly aching we have seen on this subject in recent times. That we have to legislate to have a society that can be comfortable in its interpersonal dealings is sad. But if we are to have a workplace and a community that allows individual Australians to achieve of their personal best and be fully comfortable with friends and neighbours, with work colleagues and trade suppliers and everyone else we rely on in a fully functioning community such laws are necessary. Love must always trump hate.
    Comment 25 of 84
  • Panda Posted at 7:29 AM Today
    Congratulations! Single-handedly you are destroying any chance Labor has for a come back in the polls. Gillard needs to publicly rap you over the knuckles.
    Comment 26 of 84
  • EM of NSW Posted at 7:30 AM Today
    Ms Roxon here is some useful feedback, the vicious campaign you detect is likely representative of the majority of Australians. This cobbled together minority government should have ONLY managed the day to day runnings of government (this you have clearly FAILED to do) not embark/interfere with policies with radical and unwanted legislation which like every other thing you've touched will have unintended consequences. You had NO MANDATE to do so.
    Comment 27 of 84
  • Joan Posted at 7:34 AM Today
    `Protecting free speech is a balancing act` We are quite happy with expression of speech as is - no need for you to tamper with it- your recent poor performance as Attorney-general makes me doubt your ability to make the right decisions and this piece as written gives me no confidence in you. Am I allowed to say that according to your interpretation of free expression? - is it misogynistic just because you are a female? What a can of worms.
    Comment 28 of 84
  • barbara Posted at 7:34 AM Today
    nicola roxon, you and labor give every impression that you have an obsession with controlling a soft target - the generally well-behaved majority of australians. how about addressing the matter of sheik Ismail al-Wahwah, of the "radical Islamic" group Hizb ut-Tahrir - reported in today's 'Australian' as setting out his vision for australia to be a totalitarian sharia state, and not by using "flowers" to achieve his aims. what action will you take about the sheik's discriminatory comments and his veiled threats of violence? .. or is your obsession with micromanaging the lives of average aussies the limit of your interest and capability?
    Comment 29 of 84
  • Maximums of Sydney Posted at 7:37 AM Today
    So is labelling someone a misogynist when they are clearly not going to attract the attention of the law? I just do not trust this government or this attorney general given all the lies it has told, and its handling of the slipper gate affair. There is always some political angle, or something to further the ALP agenda, as opposed to furthering the interests of all Australians.
    Comment 30 of 84
  • KAY KELLY Posted at 7:46 AM Today
    Yeah, right! This proposed legislation is the ALP's response to legitimate criticism of its appalling performance on the pretext that such comments are 'sexist'! What boloney! Whilst it is a good idea to simplify the current anti-discrimination legislation, the Racial Discrimination Act already falls well outside international norms by including merely 'offending' someone as grounds for a charge of 'racial vilification' (the Andrew Bolt case). And to make matters worse, the onus of proof is reversed! No, Ms Roxon, we are not fooled by your soothing platitudes! This is a full-on attack on freedom of speech in this country! You should be ashamed!
    Comment 31 of 84
  • Pieter Tuit of Penguin Posted at 7:47 AM Today
    One of the problems,amongst many,is clear from the following two statements from the AG."The commentary that has followed has included some very useful feedback, which the government will consider." "But others have used our call for feedback to launch a vicious campaign to roll back discrimination protections and to misrepresent the reach of current laws." Disagreement with the proposed legislation is right away called "viscious".Secondly, there is only a promise that the government will consider what it calls useful feedback. This is really an insult to the electorate which will do well not to trust this government with this proposed legislation.
    Comment 32 of 84
  • OpenToAbuse Posted at 7:48 AM Today
    The problem is that these draconian new laws will be used by vested interests to silence critics. We have already seen this legal terrorism waged against a newspaper columnist. Like many things the Gillard government attempts, there appears to be some good intent. But we all know whatever she becomes in fails miserably.
    Comment 33 of 84
  • Gassius Posted at 7:54 AM Today
    No mention here of the reason for the onus of proof being on the accused - not the accuser. Surely this is contrary to all common law conventions. Whatever comes out of this, have no doubt that it is designed to assist the Labor/Greens Alliance in shutting down all debate/criticism about their shortcomings. Or am I confusing this one with the other one about Non-freedom of the media as recommended by Finklestein..
    Comment 34 of 84
  • Eliza McArthur of Box Hill North Posted at 7:54 AM Today
    Has the government decided or is Nicola Roxxon making the final decision all on her own. Anyone else looking at the bigger picture is being accused of "launching a vicious campaign " grow up Nicola we do live in a democratic society, or have I been misled.
    Comment 35 of 84
  • Julie Green of Australia Posted at 7:56 AM Today
    If telling a female staff member "shorter skirts would be better for all girls in the office" might well breach discrimination laws, then can I be dragged before the courts for calling someone a whinging pom? How about "a typical useless male" (when he fails again to do the washing). What about books on Tiger Moms? Isn't this a form of racial profiling? We need to be careful when we want to use the courts as the Thought Police.
    Comment 36 of 84
  • Rob Posted at 8:00 AM Today
    Ms Roxon, the examples you quote in your article are already covered quite clearly by the existing legal regime. Using them as examples of how your proposals would remove confusion about what is discriminatory is patronising and disingenuous. Having been on the receiving end of an unjustified complaint to the Human Rights Commission I can assure you there is already ample opportunity for people who think they have a grievance to have that grievance sympathetically addressed. What has ignited my anger is your proposal to transfer the onus of proof from the complainant to the respondent. This is feel-good madness and an open invitation to every malcontent to abuse process in self centred complaints. A bad idea and an unjustified intrusion of government into the lives of everyday people. Go away and rethink this rubbish proposal.
    Comment 37 of 84
  • Botswana O'Hooligan of Queensland Posted at 8:01 AM Today
    Quite simply Ms Roxon, you just cannot leglislate common sense into something so leave the law well enough alone, for over the hundreds of years and more it has served us well.
    Comment 38 of 84
  • Dane Laman of Melbourne Posted at 8:08 AM Today
    Prhaps Parliamentary Privelege should be reviewed to factor in these considerations.
    Comment 39 of 84
  • Fiona Ann Murray of Australia Posted at 8:08 AM Today
    We have no reason to trust anything you tell us, Nicola. Your Prime Minister and the rest of Federal Labor have operated on deceit from day one of forming government. It is for this reason I will treat your article with the contempt it deserves. What Labor SAYS and what it DOES are two completely different things.
    Comment 40 of 84
  • phil Posted at 8:10 AM Today
    Nicola Roxon. Like all laws that every government has introduced on this matter it will only prohibit speech one way or another as people will not comment on certain subjects. Your laws will make it far too easy for someone to sue or be offended. For example the way you attack Mr Abbott or the way the media attacked Craig Thompson or PM Gillard. Is calling Mr Abbott a Misogynist a thug or a bully offensive or demeaning or what labor Ministers including yourself had to say about Mr Rudd last February considered offensive or demeaning. This is a guy in a work place the was verbally abused on every radio and tv station in Australia because you don’t like him. This law will raise all these questions and more and will fill the courts up with stupid cases that will be raised by unions and employee groups to halt work and take revenge on employers. Typical leftist attitude this government advocates free speech and democracy yet imposes restrictions.
    Comment 41 of 84
  • Lawyer of Comitern Posted at 8:11 AM Today
    Talk about a lawyers picnic. This attempt to bring IR style laws into society will hasten our trip on the road to serfdom. The stupid exercise against Bolt is a forerunner of this divisive type of nanny state law. In the end the only winners are the lawyers. Nicola you are on the wrong road into a cul de sac, turn back before it is too late, listen to the people, you live in a democracy.
    Comment 42 of 84
  • Al Posted at 8:15 AM Today
    This shows the problem of having Lawyers in Parliament! There are already laws that allow for those offenders to be charged and dealt with. Yet here is a lawyer as Attorney-Gerenal who wants to create more work for lawyers.I am wondering is Ms Roxon proposing this new law because she's already eyeing off a return to private practice after this years election and this new law will appeal to the bottom feeding (no win no fee) lawyers with whom Ms Roxon has already worked?
    Comment 43 of 84
  • barbara Posted at 8:16 AM Today
    Nicola, what you describe as vicious feedback is the frustration of average aussies who are totally fed up with you and your nanny state government. you are a public servant, not our master. you make the gillard/albo-esque mistake of dictating to us, not listening to us - when we tell you that you Will be sacked for doing a crap job. dont say you havent been given 3 warnings.
    Comment 44 of 84
  • bill banter of brisbane Posted at 8:17 AM Today
    Attorney-General, thank you for acknowledging the importance of free speech and robust public debate in a democracy. Is this merely lip service? Or do you really intend to allow your proposed legislation to be debated until the wider community (including even the lawyers) does widely understand and appreciate what it means, and agrees with it. Otherwise, if you press ahead with this proposal prematurely, your behavior will be worse than those whom you accuse of vicious attacking. Proceeding with haste when this draft legislation has raised such heightened suspicions and concerns would be a suppression of free speech in itself!
    Comment 45 of 84
  • James Glossop of Yass Posted at 8:23 AM Today
    I am from the Government and I am here to help. Why is it that I just don't believe a word she says?
    Comment 46 of 84
  • Jan of Noosa Heads Posted at 8:27 AM Today
    I think this article proves the problem the legal profession, the media, business and the Australian people are pointing out - even the AT is confused about her own legislation. We accept racism and discrimination laws are right and necessary and will already cover the examples Miss Roxon gives (Indian women being abused, French women on the bus, etc). It's the one step too far clauses covering offensive behavior (by the 'receivers' measure!) that is great cause for alarm. The stupid statement Ms Roxon makes ( oops - did I offend?) about the Government not intending to legislate language used "between friends" sums up this Governments thinking perfectly. They either think we are so dumb we need to have this spelled out for us, or worse, they actually contemplated this additional curtailment. Clearly Ms Roxon has forgotten the lessons Labour taught the populace last February when thir "friend", Mr Rudd, was suddenly set upon in the most vicious way. Rudd proved himself the bigger man by not exposing their incompetence, or dragging them into court under our already adequate discrimination and defamation laws.
    Comment 47 of 84
  • Jennie Pakula of Melbourne Posted at 8:28 AM Today
    This bill is not a consolidation of existing laws, it is a considerable extension. It does not clarify, it give so much uncertainty that the only safe thing a person can do is to never express a viewpoint in the workplace. You do not address the reversal of the onus of proof, which is an unwarranted and legally novel step, and will invite a flood of trivial and vexatious litigation. These laws are appalling. I hope that's not too vicious for you.
    Comment 48 of 84
  • Brendan of Melbourne Posted at 8:29 AM Today
    Nicola, as a senior analyst, the first thing I always ask about 'solutions', is if this proposal of yours is a solution, what is the problem its solving? And I'm sorry, a couple of minor incidents that involved race are hardly proof that we have a massive issue that needs 'solving'. Can't you even see the hypocrisy of someone arguing that causing offense is bad, when you yourself have possibly offended people who are opposed to these changes by branding them 'viscous'? And aren't you the politician who has repeatedly abused and labelled Tony Abbott a misogynist, unconcerned about any offense this may cause his wife and daughters who by inference must be accepting of this misogyny? You and others are convinced of a certain vuiew of Australians - as people with deep seated prejudices and racism. Alas, despite the myriad of Government agencies, looking, you just can't find proof of that belief. Rather than be satisfied with what that shows, you now want to change the goal posts to get the result you desire. Nicola, I disagree with your opinion but I will fight to the death to defend it. I will however, NOT fight to the death to defend the 'right' not to be 'offended'.
    Comment 49 of 84
  • doug of adelaide Posted at 8:33 AM Today
    How can one expect Roxon to get it right when she sat on the Slipper text messages for months and then supported her leader in the appointment of Slipper as Speaker!!!!
    Comment 50 of 84
  • donkeygod of Cardiff, NSW Posted at 8:33 AM Today
    At risk of being 'offensive', Nicola, you're argument is -- charitably -- as disingenuous as it is dishonest. First and foremost, you begin by taking the the extreme position that anyone accused of discrimination or harassment is presumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Reversing the onus of proof is CLEARLY not a clarification, or simplification, of existing laws: it's a radical, world-first experiment guaranteed to make 'free' speech a very complex and risky affair. Second, there's a MASSIVE difference between insulting someone, or discriminating against them, and merely 'offending' them. Again, this is CERTAINLY not a simplification of existing law: it's creates entirely new and hugely subjective grounds for litigation: another world-first experiment. It's hard enough already for lawyers to know what speech is 'protected' and what speech is actionable, and that's AFTER the fact. Far from simplifying matters, your proposal requires ordinary citizens to know what's 'offensive' to strangers BEFORE the fact. Pretending that this is merely a matter of 'tidying up' existing law is both treacherous and deceitful. Back off, now.
    Comment 51 of 84
  • Marcel van Hooft of Central Coast Posted at 8:34 AM Today
    I am not opposed to a consolidated law. I oppose the change that replaces the proof [by the accuser] of guilt of discrimination with the proof [by the accused] of innocence of discrimination. I also oppose the change from an objective measure of discrimination with subjective one, which does not need to be proved. Being offended is part of life. Making an accused prove that the accuser is not offended is totally impossible, and will be a lawyer's picnic of litigation and pay-offs. Not to mention that 'being offended' will be a useful tool for anyone and any government to close down dissent.
    Comment 52 of 84
  • doug of adelaide Posted at 8:35 AM Today
    How can Roxon get the balance right when she sat on the Slipper text messages for months and then supported her leader in the appointment of Slipper as Speaker!!!!
    Comment 53 of 84
  • Steve Price of Sydney Posted at 8:36 AM Today
    This legislation is clearly the act of a dying political party. Terrified by the ever increasing numbers of commentators who would take them to task over their empty platform they seek to change the rules on free speech. Don't be fooled by the diversion that this is about protecting the little guy; the Labor party has never been about him/her and certainly not in this century. No, this is simply about shoring up what little political capital they still have left through an attempt to build a new weapon, silencing our right to free speech.
    Comment 54 of 84
  • Richard Bender Posted at 8:38 AM Today
    Ms Roxon, your two examples do not support your argument. What happened to the French woman on the bus or the two Indian women are clear examples of assault: a genuine and reasonable, in all the circumstances, fear of immediate threat to safety. This is already illegal, as it should be. Your proposed law adds nothing to protection of people in these types of situations. Instead, by seeking to regulate all types of private relationships and interactions, it is designed to impose your view on what is right on the rest of society. However, you have provided no justification for why this is necessary.
    Comment 55 of 84
  • William of Melbourne Posted at 8:40 AM Today
    ANY opposition to the ideas of the Gillard Minority Government is deemed by them to be vicious, or an attack, or something like that, or it is simply arrogantly rejected. The proposed law is actually vicious and it should not pass.
    Comment 56 of 84
  • unconvinced Posted at 8:45 AM Today
    Ms Roxon, you say "the Government will carefully consider the feedback we are now receiving." How about going to an election and letting the people consider what is best for them.
    Comment 57 of 84
  • alcock Posted at 8:46 AM Today
    Come on this is not about protecting speach it is about controlling it. We have a politically indoctrination in our schools and through the media, a growing nanny state, industry and community rent seekers and the culture of fear. We are approaching the hour of destruction.
    Comment 58 of 84
  • J Peterman of Central Coast Posted at 8:56 AM Today
    Roxon has not justified the reversing of the onus of proof here. That anyone can be presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence is in itself offensive to anyone of a fair and democratic mind.
    Comment 59 of 84
  • Eris Toitle Posted at 8:56 AM Today
    Case in point: Ms Roxon describes the views of those who want to wind back to some the existing laws on speech as a 'vicious campaign'. Some language and ideas may be offensive, her cited example of the view that all women in the office should wear short skirts. But the offensiveness of such views should provoke condemnation rather than be illegal. Ms Roxon seems to presuppose a malign force of wrong thinking vicious campaigners who are such a danger to society as to require suppression by state power. This I think confirms the worst fears of civil libertarians.
    Comment 60 of 84
  • Ricey Posted at 8:57 AM Today
    The major problem as I see it is the change to the burden of proof. If it changes from the Plaintiff to the Defendant I am really concerned about the volume of vexatious claims that will arise. Defendants will probably resort to paying '…go away money…' as it is easier to do this than go through the expensive process of proving that the discrimination or hurt feelings did not occur. This will be an expensive farce for Employers and a Lawyer’s Utopia.
    Comment 61 of 84
  • Mike of Lismore Posted at 9:00 AM Today
    "If others want to revisit the law, this particular consolidation project probably isn't the place to do it. " Can't walk and chew gum at the same time, eh? This is a lazy government.
    Comment 62 of 84
  • Peter G Posted at 9:03 AM Today
    The Gillard government has not lost its way because it never found it, in the first place. This national socialist-inspired proposed legislation is utter hogwash but it serves a purpose. It guarantees that swinging voters will vote for the party that will instantly repeal this offensive nonsense.
    Comment 63 of 84
  • annie of Hunter NSW Posted at 9:05 AM Today
    Nicola dear, you have a better chance of herding cats, then telling Australians what they can say or do. It not in their DNA. You might get obedience from the socialists, the left and the Greens, but I think its fair to say that is just about it. We as a people are free thinkers and sayers, always have been, our humour is unique, can be cutting, but the majority of us understand it and accept it, and laugh at it. You cannot protect the weak from being spoken to or laughed at, in this country we have always had to toughen up, and despite this socialistic nannying things really won't change, nor should they. Leave us alone, only eight months to go and the people will speak. If I would you I would forget this idea, at the ballot box, you will find most Australians are not amused.
    Comment 64 of 84
  • Ben the lawyer of Brisbane Posted at 9:05 AM Today
    I noticed you didn't try and deal with the fact that you included political grounds as a ground that someone can take 'offence' on. You aren't dealing with discrimination anymore, you are trying to stop people from being offended. I am reminded of this quote from CS Lewis: 'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'
    Comment 65 of 84
  • Kath of Perth Posted at 9:05 AM Today
    This government has seemed intent on creating victims in our society. The class warfare, the gender wars and now the discrimination laws encourage people to think of themselves as victims. Sure, there are some victims in society, but not the large numbers that this legislation would have us believe. Like much of this government's legislation, it is ill thought out with many unintended consequences. It is the result of having very inexperienced and small picture people being at the helm.
    Comment 66 of 84
  • David L of Adelaide Posted at 9:05 AM Today
    Governments come and governments go and most are capable of producing both good and bad policy. This one has had its share of policy disasters but these worry me less than the deeply disturbing general trend towards centralist intervention that is becoming more and more apparent. It affects the private and working lives of individuals and the way companies do business. It results in heavy compliance costs in terms of both time and money. The trend is evident in the way the commonwealth is seeking to take over many of the functions of state jurisdictions; the debate concerning federal mining tax versus state based royalties; the argy bargy on Gonski and NDIS (the commonwealth will get the kudos but the states will provide the funds); and the use of the tax system to influence people's choices on diet and lifestyle. Reading about the postwar years in Eastern Europe brings up some worrying parallels. Ms Roxon's opinion piece does nothing to quell my concerns.
    Comment 67 of 84
  • MFW of Vic. Posted at 9:13 AM Today
    There's those good old "Labor values", that they want to bestow on everyone. The values they have not been able to get right in 40 years, and the values they are still not going to fix, but "streamline", and make more controversial, and complex.
    Comment 68 of 84
  • Andrew of Vic Sq Posted at 9:34 AM Today
    Happy for you to change this law as long as you also remove parliamentary privelege. I know that you may argue that this will remove a long standing and necessary protection but so was the concept of ministerial responsibility. Worst Government ever!
    Comment 69 of 84
  • Jennifer Hutchison of Australia Posted at 9:38 AM Today
    The sooner Tony Abbott is elected PM and repeals section 18c of the anti-discrimination act... in it's entirety...better known as the 'hurt feelings act'...the better off we will all be...Australian's are offended and insulted on a daily basis by these clowns in Canberra...get out of our lives Labor and take your totalitarian legislation with you...you don't need submissions on your agenda 21 legislation...call an election and the people will let you know exactly what they think of it...
    Comment 70 of 84
  • Yasmin Posted at 9:39 AM Today
    Ms Roxon, what you are putting up is the greatest barrier against freedom of speech ever seen in this Nation. It's a total disgrace! That you, and your socialist friends think that we, the public will except such trash shows just how out of touch you are. Labor has shown that its self to be out of touch, inept and to dare I say rude. If this legislation is introduced be prepared, because I find offence with 90% of what comes out of the mouths of Labor politicians. Add in Labor members support for labor lies and your going to be spending a lot of time in Court. Again, you and Labor have become a disgrace that finds me in a position where I, and my extended family, will be voting for the Coalition for the first time.
    Comment 71 of 84
  • Ken Carr of syndey Posted at 9:47 AM Today
    Do we really need to spend time and money of fixing a problem thats isnt there. Cant you work on something to fix the productivity problem, instead of simply spending more money on what is a lawyers gift, I suppose you have your pet lawyers working on this project, having spent , what a $1m on Peter Slipper, you now feel compelled to spend more on a subject that seems to work well...you actually got a conviction on Andrew Bolt..so whats wrong with the law
    Comment 72 of 84
  • JAMES KENNETH REID Posted at 9:51 AM Today
    YES,but you are going well overboard on this one, we need less government control and more public conseltation but I think you consider you know better than the voter, please listen for once and dump this stupid clause
    Comment 73 of 84
  • Paul of Coffs Posted at 9:53 AM Today
    No Nicola! It is not a balancing act, only you simple minded socialists believe that. Get out of our lives and get on with governing. By the way govern for the people, don't try to govern the people.
    Comment 74 of 84
  • peter of gippsland Posted at 10:00 AM Today
    Ms Roxon,i was going to attack you on the stupidity of your social engineering policy's but then i read the editorial on your piece.And it was more eloquently put than anything i could write. I did like the bit in your piece about ( "language used between friends" )
    Comment 75 of 84
  • Swan Song of Lilley Posted at 10:10 AM Today
    Your argument is "groupthink waffle" Roxon. Your immediate agenda is to give the leftists and socialists carte blanche use of the judicial system to challenge and destroy freedom of speech when exercised by media and commentators who do not agree with your view of the universe. The hidden agenda is to support the long term Fabian goal of producing a homogeneous society that accepts whatever Big Brother tells them. Your "law" is dangerous and a disgrace to this nation.
    Comment 76 of 84
  • Les Posted at 10:13 AM Today
    go away, come the next election you surely will
    Comment 77 of 84
  • informed Posted at 10:16 AM Today
    You are a frightening, extreme leftist clown. The last thing Australia needs are cultural marxists like you and your ilk. Please, please go away!
    Comment 78 of 84
  • Scott Miller of Canberra Posted at 10:17 AM Today
    According to Nicola Roxon "others have used our call for feedback to launch a vicious campaign..." Oh my the above statement in her argument says it all. The thought that anyone would find it "visciuos" that people (who want fairness and free speech)wish to comment on nonsensical laws, says it all on how delicate the government is to any form of criticism. (Criticism of course will be crushed with the proposed new laws). Most freedom loving people in this country find the thought of curtailing freedom of speech (by the proposed new laws) offensive.
    Comment 79 of 84
  • Tomo Posted at 10:23 AM Today
    The tenants are trashing the apartment before they are evicted. Take this policy to the election Ms Roxon, I dare you.
    Comment 80 of 84
  • Don Paterson of Hawthorn, Victoria Posted at 10:25 AM Today
    I do not think that our Attorney General gets it. We are sick of the social engineering and nonsence that we get from this government. If somebody has not suffered damages by a remark there should be no offence.
    Comment 81 of 84
  • Sandra Posted at 10:30 AM Today
    Spin spin spin... easy to see right through this. You are destroying the values of not only Australia Ms Roxon, but the values of a country of strong and free people. I suggest you step out of your protected and tiny little world and go and get a real job where you have to be accountable, and will be judged as such according to your ability to be living in the real world. You insult me and my children and their friends. You insult my parents, you insult my neighbours, you insult my local business community. You insult my motivation to live in this country. You insult our hard fought for freedoms, and my vote will show you how much. And if you get your way, sharpen up your law degree my dear, because the level of insult you will have slopped upon the freedom of Australians will come back to bite you over and over and over. You want to make a law about insults... well lets get started, and see just how many people you have insulted with this sort of violation of basic rights.
    Comment 82 of 84
  • James of Sydney Posted at 10:35 AM Today
    When Rousseau sent him a copy of his book "The Social Contract" for comment in 1755, Voltaire responded: "Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, on reading your book, to walk on all fours." Under sections 17(1)(k) and 22(3)(e) of Roxon's draft bill, Rousseau would have been insulted for his political opinion in connection with his work, and would have had legal redress against Voltaire.
    Comment 83 of 84
  • John Smith of Buderim Posted at 10:45 AM Today
    Roxon would have us believe that the complex mess of anti-discrimination laws created by her clique of "progressives" over the years can be sorted out by these same people. It is their belief that you can legislate good behaviour in society. This "progressive" policy will fail as it has always failed. The faults in society which they are trying to counter will never be entirely eliminated but can only be mitigated by education. Note how there is no discrimination between very young children. The trick is: how do we get children to preserve this attitude into adulthood when they are influenced by the bigotry of parents and grandparents. Roxon and her ilk think they can do it by passing a law - some hopes.
    Comment 84 of 84


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)