Time to Drain the Swamp that Section 18 C Is by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Now that the Federal court has thrown out the Queensland student race vilification case, with one person withdrawing their complaint over the Bill Leak cartoon, and the remaining complainants saying that they want to drop the case (The Australian, November 15, 2016, p. 1), the government has moved into damage control to protect their darling law of the multicult, section 18 C.
It seems to be the case that the section will be retained, as it is the holy of holies to the powerful multicult lobby, but there will be modifications to eliminate petty claims. I suppose it all depends on what the globalist New World Order elites who run the show say that the pollies are allowed to do. Even though academic lawyers have shown in great scholarly detail that section 18 C is unconstitutional, and thus not good law at all, that issue is being ignored by our puppet parliament. A joint parliamentary committee will investigate how it can make section 18 C work, not whether the section is law at all. Nothing substantial will change because the entire jurisprudential basis of the section is fundamentally flawed.
Politically, as I have said many times, the law exists to keep the Anglo-Australians in line until their demographic swamping is complete. The ruling elites don’t want any sort of Trump-style person to arise as a leader. Hence the need to silence dissent with the iron fist of the law.
Nor is the Australian Human Rights Commission’s existence being looked at by the government. It should be for the reasons given by Jennifer Oriel, (The Australian, November 7, 2016, p. 12): “The Australian Human Rights commission embodies the elitism that is spurring a global renaissance of populism. It is an activist organisation funded by the taxpayer that acts against the interests of the people by advocating porous borders, manufactured minority politics and the suppression of dissent. Its elitism is expressed in the vast waste of taxpayer’s money on overseas junkets, the reversal of formal equality and the prosecution of freethinkers under section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act.”
Excellent reasons for closing it all down.
Some have argued that the QUT and leak cases should never have got to the stages they did because of the failure of the president of the Human Rights Commission to use her powers under the Act (section 46 PH) to terminate claims where the discrimination is not unlawful discrimination or where the complaint was trivial or lacking in substance. That argument could perhaps apply to the QUT case, but not the Bill Leak case, which is a clear cut violation of section 18 C, offensive comments that are intrinsically race-based. Of course, a section 18 D defence is available, but the courts have always had a raised bar on that which is reasonable and in good faith, implicitly taking the politically correct line that one could not really be reasonable and in good faith in making controversial race-based claims. In the law, political correctness, rules.
The real problem with section 18 C is section 18 C itself, a deeply flawed piece of ideologically-charged law which necessarily has a chilling effect on free speech because it is explicitly designed to shut down free speech and promote multicult identity power politics. Such is the meaning of the QUT and Leak cases: a reductio ad absurdum of the law itself.
It is time for Australia to add to the populist revolt for the repeal of section 18 C.
Section 18 C could become the nucleus for an “Australian spring” movement.