Section 18C: The Defender’s Song Remains the Same by Andrew Joyce

The great section 18C “non-debate” has ended. Malcolm Turnbull has said that he has more important things to do – no doubt working with his mate Obama to get in the TPP before either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are elected president, because they both oppose the TPP.
Yes, the leader of the Liberals is too busy to defend what should be the fundamental liberal value, freedom of speech. Instead, energies must be devoted to be “freedom” of corporations – which are by definition collectivist entities – to be able to override all of the hard fought freedoms of the people through the globalist TPP.

The section 18 C non-debate closed with the multicult lobby having the final say, because, this is after all, their legislation. Free speech is not an absolute, they said, citing the example that one cannot falsely shout “fire” in a cinema. Nobody said it was and neither should be the multicult right not to be offended, especially since almost anything can offend somebody and the bar is at tripping level.

The point is that section 18 C goes too far even in UN terms and can be used to supress any speech even vaguely related to the race, colour or nationality of a person. While courts have taken “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” as one test rather than four, again the bar is far too low as J. Forreter (et al.) argue in No Offence Intended: Why 18C is Wrong, (Connor Court Publishing, 2016).

Section 18C is likely to be unconstitutional because it far exceeds even what was required by the relevant UN Convention. The Queensland university students’ case is a point in example. The defenders claim that this case should never have been able to get as far as it did.

Laws that result in university getting caught up in a $250,000 racial vilification case for remarks that clearly constitute part of their free speech, and would be regarded as such by the ordinary person, are wrong. The issue is not whether they win or not; it all should not have happened in the first place.

As well, the Andrew Bolt case Eatock v Bolt is usually accepted by the ethnic defenders as rightly held because Bolt had made some relatively minor errors in his articles, when the point is that the case simply should not have happened in the first place.

The few multicult “warriors” (they often call us “free speech warriors”) who understand that there is some role to free speech to play in representative democracies, usually argue that section 18D exempts any “fair comment on any… matter of public interest” done reasonably and in good faith. This section is a complete paper tiger and has never, as far as I know, succeeded in defending anyone. It failed in the Bolt case and if it worked at all, then it should have worked there. The weaknesses often lie in the “good faith” clause, which will never be met because how could anyone advancing a controversial thesis be in “good faith”?

Further, the errors made by Bolt were taken to show that section 18D could not be applied because as his report was not accurate he therefore did not act reasonably or in good faith. That judgment places an impossible high standard upon journalism and misses the point about whether Bolt’s general case was in the public interest.
Surely a report with some inaccuracies, which do not disprove the main argument, can still be reasonable and in good faith? Otherwise anything less than perfect correctness would fail section 18D.

Section 18D clearly needs redoing if the entire section remains, because it is not a defence at all.
I suggest eliminating the good faith/reason clause entirely.

Many of those championing section 18C explicitly see it as protection against One Nation and the people who support such groups. It has become a part of the multicultural victim/grievance industry.
As Senator Cory Bernardi said on the ABC’s 7:30 Report (August 29, 2016) “When you have got a circumstance where the Racial Discrimination Commissioner is encouraging people to lodge grievance claims on the back of a cartoon by a nationally syndicated cartoonist, we have a problem in this country.” That we do.

So it is clear enough where the battle lines lie. These laws are about suppression of the thought of those “deplorables” as Hillary Clinton calls our American equivalents. As such, since there is no compromise, it is necessary for the issue to be won by voting in increasing numbers of One Nation “deplorables” and by Anglo-Australians becoming ethnically active and organising to fight for their ethnic rights.

Face the fact:
Australia is a “nation” of tribes now, so face reality. Anything else is surely delusional and will only make matters worse. Anglos need to regain their ethnic identity and resist institutionalised deracination.
A mass political movement directed against section 18C would be a good symbolic start. The section embodies what is wrong with most of politically correct Australia.
Make it the lightning rod for the movement.