“As long as the ALP embraces silly progressive ideals, it is distancing itself from average Australians who do not want the government treating them as part of minority groups, unless it is part of the largest minority group of all, as individuals.”
Tim Wilson, “Who’s on First, Gay Black Man Or Disabled Muslim Woman?”
Yes, I am aware that when someone says, “I’m not a racist, but…” nothing good ever comes after the “but”! So when I say that I have nothing against Catholics, I’m very conscious that adding “but” immediately turns a whole group of people against me, and that I may offend them.
But hey, now that Tim Wilson is on the Australian Human Rights Commission, I feel that the balance has been restored and that poor White, Anglo-Saxon PROTESTANTS like me are going to get a fair go once again.
So, I can tell you that I DON’T have anything against Catholics. In fact, my first long term girl-friend was a Catholic, and eventually she let me do to her what Abbott is doing to the whole country. (You find that joke, offensive? Take it up with Tim Wilson!)
Well, I did warn you.
I’m old enough to remember playing footy against the Catholic schools. There was a certain “us versus them” mentality. All coming from them, of course. We were the enemy. And, I have it on good authority, that one of the brothers used to cane them if they lost. Naturally, they played with a certain intensity that was unusual. And they cheated.
Of course, you couldn’t trust those Catholics. Their priests used to tell people how to live their lives. And anybody who wasn’t one of them, was just wrong and a sinner. They were exactly like the Abbott front bench. Which just happens to be full of Catholics.
I call for a law demanding that all Catholics renounce their faith, or else be ineligible to stand for public office for two excellent reasons. First, you can’t have someone running Australia who’s main allegiance is to a foreign Pope. And secondly, we voted to stay a monarchy. Our monarch can’t be a Catholic, so by having a Catholic PM, we’re out of step with our true head of state.
Now, I’m sure some of you reading this will be Catholic. That’s ok, you’re allowed to read it. It’s a free country after all. Just be aware that I don’t think that any protestant should employ you. You’re different. You don’t belong. Go back where you came from!
I haven’t even got started on the Royal Commission or George Pell yet…
Yes, well, you’re offended, but that’s ok, because as our new “Freedom Commissioner”, Tim Wilson puts it:
“People have a right to free speech. They do not have a right not to be offended or insulted.”
Of course, this overlooks the fact that there is no actual CONSTITUTIONAL right to free speech. And there certainly isn’t an ABSOLUTE right in our legal system. For example, I can’t go around making inaccurate statements about another person that harm them without running the risk of being sued for defamation. I can’t scream abuse at a policeman. I can’t swear in public.
But somehow, the Bolt case has become the cause célèbre for free speech. Bolt, who printed misleading and factually inaccurate statements against a group of INDIVIDUALS – the IPA don’t like collectivism, so let’s remember that each person involved in the court case against Bolt was also an individual – has managed to play the victim because a court ruled that he was not allowed to print false information!
Free speech may sometimes offend. I accept that. But surely society has the right to curtail speech that’s actually designed to offend in certain circumstances. People object to the 18C of the Racial Vilification Act, but rarely mention 18D which grants exemptions.
Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.
Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.
In the balancing of rights, we sometimes have tricky moments. Is my desire to learn the violin a right that I can exercise whenever I want, or do have the right to demand that I don’t practise at 9am Sunday in earshot of your bedroom? In what was so clearly a breach of the rights of the individuals not to be misrepresented, it stuns me that Bolt could find so many supporters for his FRONT PAGE, complaining that he’d been silenced.
I mean, for a start, he has the trace of an accent and his father was Dutch. Surely, that’s reason enough for us to turn against him . . .