Laws that seek to outlaw racial discrimination - end up reinforcing the very thing they seek to eliminate. Its a psychological adage that - that which you push into the dark - doesn't disappear - but becomes a chthonic force.
I have been subjected to significant cruel and targeted hate speech in my life for no reason other than for the fact that I guess I was an easy target. It was not pleasant, nor appropriate, and I felt horrible having to endure it. Despite this, I do not agree with any censorship in regard to speech. Had I been so inclined, I could've responded with horrible things in return. I didn't, and I think that shows much more character. The only exception to this is incitement of violence and physical harm. We do not need to live in a nanny state to shield us from hurty words when our elected representatives treat each other like crap in our sacred chambers. We should be free to live, learn and experience anything and everything except violence and physical harm. The less government intervention and censorship the better. A society can bloom and flourish when facing extraordinary circumstances, and it breeds creativity and complex problem solving. As a society we are being constrained more and more and dumbed down. More freedom and unbiased education to strengthen the abilities and minds of our people to naturally bring out the best in people. You can better interact with a person once you know their position on certain issues than you could if they are concealing bitter resentment or discontent.
@ i respectfully disagree. I believe in free speech, and with that, hate speech - just as there is any other emotion behind speech. Speech is speech, plain and simple. The line I draw is incitement of violence or physical harm. There is no paradox. Hate speech is merely driven by emotion; whether that’s fear, sadness or anger. Nothing more, nothing less. And with freedom of speech we can better learn and understand the root issues that evokes such emotion and we can, as a society, progress closer towards peace. Understanding our peers is to educate one’s self. Respecting that they have the same right to say how they feel or what they think, just as you have, is pure equality. Whether we choose to listen is also up to the individual. With the freedom of speech comes the freedom to engage or ignore. That choice should always remain with the individual and not by government direction. Communication is key, and sometimes silence is the best form of conveying a message; particularly if you are fortunate enough to know the power of silence.
To paraphrase former senator George Brandeis, _"Pauline Hanson can say the most reprehensible things, none of which I agree with; but, it is her right to say them."_ Surely, the threshold should be whether or not it is harassment or incitement in others to commit violence. Being offended or humiliated is a ridiculously subjective and low threshold.
Very interesting. It may be taken that the first words spoken towards Senator Hanson be what the Constitution is talking about? We are having a contest of our Constitutional law. I could have been offended by what Senator Faruqi spoke towards our heritage? 🇦🇺 Racial hatred and discrimination. Protection of our liberty as Australians.
Assuming the Australian Parliament has the same laws regarding what is said in the chamber as the UK Parliament, could the senator say her words there and not be subject to any sort of court judgement on the lawfulness of them?
@@john_g_harris Yes, they can ask then to withdraw a remark, but if they won't the most the speaker can do is issue a short suspension. A longer suspension would first need a Parliamentary Standards Committee investigation. They aren't really in the business of censoring MPs. They are more concerned with MPs who "mislead" parliament or are convicted of criminal offences. Be interested to know how Australia deals with such issues.
Yes, the comments would be protected from court proceedings by parliamentary privilege if said in the Senate. As noted by the other comment, there are also internal disciplinary procedures to deal with unparliamentary language, etc.
The choice of words used may be deemed inappropriate and unlawful as per current legislation. However, they don't diminish nor nullify the question at hand: National loyalty. If one is unclear about what that means, imo the Australian Citizenship Pledge is a great "short version" that sums it up. "Advance Australia Fair".
Yes - I very deliberately turned the comments off, and then discovered this morning that somehow they had switched on. Am now going through them to decide whether to leave them on, or pull the plug (again).
Forrester Finlay and Zimmerman's: "No Offence Intended; Why 18C is wrong" presents thoroughly researched and very well articulated and well referenced arguments that 18C ISN'T constitutional. The late US law professor, Ronald Dworkin, quoted in the above work, has also discussed ridicule and free speech. As our laws stand, Pauline seems to have put her foot in it once again. She could have made very similar criticisms of the senator by using different words.
The draftsmen have not done a particularly good job. The provisions are convoluted and loosely defined. The man on the Clapham Omnibus would have difficulty wrestling with this verbiage.
At 02:25, you say, "concerning the politics of the issue I'm going to leave the politics to the politicians": Is the politics just for the politicians and not others? or more strategically that you will leave that nastier chore to those gaining biased points (political or otherwise) for such effort or those also gaining extra pleasure in such mud wrestling activity?
I don't speak for Prof. Twomey, but my guess is that the purpose of this TH-cam channel is to educate the public about the Australian Constitution, and discussing the politics would distract from that mission.
Hmm, I think banning such speech does reduce racism overall as it causes people to be afraid to publicly say it. Therefore, future generations are less likely to see it expressed openly and therefore are less likely to see it as acceptable. But yes, it can cause people that are already racist to double down on their views and blame the groups of people they already hate for the fact they're not allowed to express that hate publicly.
Yes - I agree. By setting a standard about what is acceptable, it may well influence people in the future. But it doesn't convert those who already hold such views or eliminate them.
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Hurty words and a court case. 😢 Thank you.
thank you for your balanced discussion
Laws that seek to outlaw racial discrimination - end up reinforcing the very thing they seek to eliminate.
Its a psychological adage that - that which you push into the dark - doesn't disappear - but becomes a chthonic force.
If showing a swastika wasn't illegal, I wouldn't collect them.
That’s exactly why murder is so popular…. Oh wait
Thank you so much for the constitutional understanding and HCA tests. You are as always Fabulous.
Much appreciated.
I have been subjected to significant cruel and targeted hate speech in my life for no reason other than for the fact that I guess I was an easy target. It was not pleasant, nor appropriate, and I felt horrible having to endure it. Despite this, I do not agree with any censorship in regard to speech. Had I been so inclined, I could've responded with horrible things in return. I didn't, and I think that shows much more character. The only exception to this is incitement of violence and physical harm. We do not need to live in a nanny state to shield us from hurty words when our elected representatives treat each other like crap in our sacred chambers. We should be free to live, learn and experience anything and everything except violence and physical harm. The less government intervention and censorship the better. A society can bloom and flourish when facing extraordinary circumstances, and it breeds creativity and complex problem solving. As a society we are being constrained more and more and dumbed down. More freedom and unbiased education to strengthen the abilities and minds of our people to naturally bring out the best in people. You can better interact with a person once you know their position on certain issues than you could if they are concealing bitter resentment or discontent.
Well said. I strongly agree.
You can’t believe in both free speech and hate speech. It’s a Paradox.
@ i respectfully disagree. I believe in free speech, and with that, hate speech - just as there is any other emotion behind speech. Speech is speech, plain and simple. The line I draw is incitement of violence or physical harm. There is no paradox. Hate speech is merely driven by emotion; whether that’s fear, sadness or anger. Nothing more, nothing less. And with freedom of speech we can better learn and understand the root issues that evokes such emotion and we can, as a society, progress closer towards peace. Understanding our peers is to educate one’s self. Respecting that they have the same right to say how they feel or what they think, just as you have, is pure equality.
Whether we choose to listen is also up to the individual. With the freedom of speech comes the freedom to engage or ignore. That choice should always remain with the individual and not by government direction. Communication is key, and sometimes silence is the best form of conveying a message; particularly if you are fortunate enough to know the power of silence.
To paraphrase former senator George Brandeis, _"Pauline Hanson can say the most reprehensible things, none of which I agree with; but, it is her right to say them."_ Surely, the threshold should be whether or not it is harassment or incitement in others to commit violence. Being offended or humiliated is a ridiculously subjective and low threshold.
Your videos are always enlightening. Thank you.
You are very welcome.
Thank you for your educational videos and your clear speech. I play your's at twice the speed and can still comprehend what you say.
I agree with you.
Excellent - thank you.
Excellent explanation,Prof.Twomey.
I hope Senator Hanson wins her appeal tho'.
Interesting, thank you.
Do I remember some of those naughty/hurty words being bantered around during "THE VOICE " .
Extensively from the YES people !
Very interesting. It may be taken that the first words spoken towards Senator Hanson be what the Constitution is talking about?
We are having a contest of our Constitutional law. I could have been offended by what Senator Faruqi spoke towards our heritage?
🇦🇺
Racial hatred and discrimination. Protection of our liberty as Australians.
Assuming the Australian Parliament has the same laws regarding what is said in the chamber as the UK Parliament, could the senator say her words there and not be subject to any sort of court judgement on the lawfulness of them?
Remember, though, that the UK Speaker can forbid and/or punish unacceptable speach.
@@john_g_harris Yes, they can ask then to withdraw a remark, but if they won't the most the speaker can do is issue a short suspension. A longer suspension would first need a Parliamentary Standards Committee investigation. They aren't really in the business of censoring MPs. They are more concerned with MPs who "mislead" parliament or are convicted of criminal offences. Be interested to know how Australia deals with such issues.
Yes, the comments would be protected from court proceedings by parliamentary privilege if said in the Senate. As noted by the other comment, there are also internal disciplinary procedures to deal with unparliamentary language, etc.
The choice of words used may be deemed inappropriate and unlawful as per current legislation.
However, they don't diminish nor nullify the question at hand: National loyalty.
If one is unclear about what that means, imo the Australian Citizenship Pledge is a great "short version" that sums it up.
"Advance Australia Fair".
Hmm, seems comments are open here.
Yes - I very deliberately turned the comments off, and then discovered this morning that somehow they had switched on. Am now going through them to decide whether to leave them on, or pull the plug (again).
Forrester Finlay and Zimmerman's: "No Offence Intended; Why 18C is wrong" presents thoroughly researched and very well articulated and well referenced arguments that 18C ISN'T constitutional.
The late US law professor, Ronald Dworkin, quoted in the above work, has also discussed ridicule and free speech.
As our laws stand, Pauline seems to have put her foot in it once again. She could have made very similar criticisms of the senator by using different words.
Pauline Hanson has been equally, if not far more so, been subjected to “questionable unlawful”commentary.
@@Robert-xs2mv But that's OK because the Government says so.
The draftsmen have not done a particularly good job. The provisions are convoluted and loosely defined. The man on the Clapham Omnibus would have difficulty wrestling with this verbiage.
At 02:25, you say, "concerning the politics of the issue I'm going to leave the politics to the politicians":
Is the politics just for the politicians and not others? or more strategically that you will leave that nastier chore to those gaining biased points (political or otherwise) for such effort or those also gaining extra pleasure in such mud wrestling activity?
I don't speak for Prof. Twomey, but my guess is that the purpose of this TH-cam channel is to educate the public about the Australian Constitution, and discussing the politics would distract from that mission.
Yes - the point of the channel is education about the Constitution, not engaging in political mud-slinging. You can go elsewhere for that.
Anne - can you do a video on the 2017-18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis?
She covered it about 3 months ago
If they are both Australian then how can that be racial discrimination. Hmmm
Race vs nationality
Pretty easy distinction to make
@ArsenicApplejuice so what race is Pauline Hanson born and bred in Australia. Not so clear cut as you make it. LOL 😂
Luckily we've got plenty of amateur politicians in the comments!
Hmm, I think banning such speech does reduce racism overall as it causes people to be afraid to publicly say it. Therefore, future generations are less likely to see it expressed openly and therefore are less likely to see it as acceptable. But yes, it can cause people that are already racist to double down on their views and blame the groups of people they already hate for the fact they're not allowed to express that hate publicly.
Yes - I agree. By setting a standard about what is acceptable, it may well influence people in the future. But it doesn't convert those who already hold such views or eliminate them.