Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Gillard’s colours shine brighter

Andrew Bolt expressed an opinion on the appropriateness of Australia’s race classification laws, and questioned whether aborigines who were, in appearance, indistinguishable from non aboriginals of European background, were appropriate recipients of measures designed to make up for past discrimination.

Well, he got sued and silenced under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act.

Now, as you can imagine, Progressives went doolally with joy over this. Andrew Bolt, silenced. Race, and the government policies which surround it, is now off limits to any discussion because it has now been firmly established by case law that anyone can be shut down, at massive expense to the defendant, by anyone who whines that they have been offended.

Even in the event that some bod evades conviction – the process is the punishment.

Well, Gillard’s at it again:

THE law that was used to silence Andrew Bolt has been supercharged by the Gillard government’s proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws.

Bolt was found to have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which says it is unlawful to offend or insult someone on the basis of racial or ethnic characteristics in a public space.

But Attorney-General Nicola Roxon’s proposed changes massively expand the list of characteristics people can be offended by, expanding the jurisdiction into shops, workplaces and sporting clubs.

The regime will provide a new weapon in the war on free speech by even including "political opinion" as a ground on which people can be discriminated against.

This extraordinary change makes even innocuous political expressions subject to the law – a person need only be offended or insulted in order to make out a claim. Shop owners displaying signs in support of a political candidate may now be legally discriminating against employees who want the other guy to win.

So, if you don’t like Gillard’s worthless carbon tax? Don’t express an opinion at work, You and your employer, both, can be sued by someone who has drunk deep of the GoreAid.

But wait, it gets worse.


A reversal of the onus of proof tends to result in absurd and unjust outcomes. And this is precisely what the Gillard government’s proposed changes will achieve. Section 124 of the draft legislation reverses the onus of proof in the case of a plaintiff providing some evidence that discrimination could perhaps have occurred. After jumping this small hurdle, it is then up to the defendant to prove otherwise.

For some reason the Gillard government doesn’t see this as a reversal of the burden of proof, but a "shift". It at least gets points for creativity.

Discrimination claims will also cost the complainant nothing even if they lose. The laws have been designed to create a no-cost regime (at least for those who allege discrimination).

So, guilty unless proved innocent, and cost free to the complainant.

Now, free and open political discussion is a necessary prerequisite for a functional democracy. Abolish that and the democratic process becomes a farce, a worthless charade.

I got to express my admiration tho. In the stereotype ersatz democracy a massive state apparatus of secret and not so secret operatives supervise and attempt to control political discourse, at massive cost to the state and the economy. Here though, Julia is abandoning centralised command and control and has hit on using a low cost market mechanism to achieve the same end.

Incentivise an army of Davids to take offense and they will do the work, freelance, which cost previous socialist regimes so much in the past. No cost to them, but the chance of a lovely payout, minimal cost to the state, and, win or lose, massive cost to the targets – always remember, even if the plaintiff wins, the process is the punishment.

Work, clubs, associations – all will have strong financial incentive to ban politics with Julia’s gimlet eyed regiments of rent seekers looking for any slip at all.

Result, all discussion outside a close circle of friends shut down. Damn, but the Soviets missed a trick here.

13 Comments

  1. John Galt says:

    But for those of us who stand firmly against the Gillard Regime, this is exactly what we want. Have you seen the level of support this screeching harpy still achieves in the polls?

    No. The proposed legislation speeks volumes about the Gillard mindset, the only way to get rid of this (trying not to swear) C.U.N.T. is for her poison to be poured down the throat of the Australian electorate.

    Only then will they realize the inherant evil of the wicked witch in control of Canberra.

    Andrew Bolt (pbuh) is just the canary in the mine…

  2. Schrodinger's Dog says:

    This is horrific.

    About its only redeeming feature is that it is so broad-based that those on the right could use it to torment their left-wing tormentors.

    I’ve been called a right-wing more times than I care to remember. I always just accepted it as part of the cut-and-thrust of politics. But under the proposed Gillard legislation I could sue for being offended. (“I’ve been offended! Offended you understand.”) And sue I damn well would. After all, it won’t cost me anything and I might get a pay-off.

  3. Mr Ed says:

    If it’s anything le the UK, the current opposition would not repeal this on gaining power.

    The reverse burden of proof is in UK discrimination law, as is the cnocept of ‘unconscious discrimination’, from case law. To paraphrase a seniot judge ‘…As some people won’t admit, even to themselves, that they might discriminate, the reverse burden of proof will help the court decide if they have in fact, discriminated…’.

  4. Mr Ed says:

    ‘le’ for ’like’.

  5. CountingCats says:

    Mr Ed, but even the UK doesn’t ban political opinion yet.

  6. Lynne says:

    The nightmare stuff that revolutions are made of.

  7. RAB says:

    the only way to get rid of this…. is for her poison to be poured down the throat of the Australian electorate.

    careful what you wish for John, the electorate may actually like it. The public’s grasp of the concept of Free Speech is pretty slight. When our Poppy burner was arrested the other week, 56% of Daily Fail readers were absolutely tickety boo with it.

    This is appalling!

  8. CountingCats says:

    is for her poison to be poured down the throat of the Australian electorate.

    Absolutely not.

    We need to halt that poison at its source. Once the conviction of freedom and responsibility has gone what makes you think it can ever be recovered?

    We need to build on it while it is still there.

  9. Paul Marks says:

    Once people give way on the principle everything else is a matter of details – and time.

    Once people accept that “racial discrimination” is a crime (not just stupidity or even moral wickedness – an actual crime) then of course X, Y, Z will follow. Just as when people accept that freedom of speech does not apply to “hate speech” (or whatever) everything the left dislike will become hate speech – to be banned.

    This is NOT “political correctess gone mad” – this is Political Correctness as it was always intended to be (right from when the Frankfurt School of “Cultural” Marxism invented the concept way back in the 1920s).

    But the Julia Gillard would know all about that – as the Marxists gave this person her first job.

    Almost needless to say…..

    My dear friends the Economist magazine (and the rest of the international elite) supported the dear lady to be Prime Minister of Australia.

    Comrade Barack is not the only Red they have got a crush on.

  10. Johnnydub says:

    “Mr Ed, but even the UK doesn’t ban political opinion yet.”

    But apparently supporting UKIP bans you from fostering kids…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html

  11. Mr Ed says:

    @ Johnny. Yes of course. This shows what they intend to do, some just get a teeny bit impatient or ahead if themselves, which is wrong, tactically.

    Funny how these types never seem to get sacked for this, simply ‘re-trained’. I may make a complaint of misconduct in public office.

  12. Paul Marks says:

    A serious offence.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: