Credlin’s apology wasn’t her St Paul moment she was forced to apologise because of Section 18C and the complaints put in to the UNHRC. Unlike Andrew Bolt she accepted the verdict and didn’t take it to court to be publicly found guilty. Credlin is far smarter.
Sky News host Peta Credlin’s apology to the South Sudanese community for comments which incorrectly linked them to a Covid-19 outbreak was a condition of a resolution to a human rights commission complaint against her. On Friday, Credlin issued a four-minute on-air apology for blaming the community for an outbreak in Melbourne and making other harmful comments. Her apology came almost 18 months after the offending statements were broadcast on 26 June 2020. Two individuals, who were also acting on behalf of other members of the community, made a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission on 3 November 2020 regarding Credlin and Australian News Channel (ANC), the company which operates Sky News Australia. Peta Credlin Sky News host Peta Credlin issues lengthy apology to South Sudanese community over Covid comments Read more The complaint related to the 26 June 2020 segment, and an apology Credlin made three days later. The complainants alleged the segments were discriminatory, contrary to s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and lodged a complaint on behalf of themselves and “other members of the South Sudanese community in Victoria who are aggrieved by the making and by the making and broadcasting of the Credlin Imputations”.
Coalition MPs have repeatedly expressed concerns about the way the Racial Discrimination Act could affect free speech. Here is the data on the number of complaints that are actually made
Anas Abudaabes was arrested last week for publishing a satirical Facebook post criticizing Arabs who celebrated the wildfires raging across Israel. Three separate judges claimed he was inciting to violence. By John Brown* The Be’er Sheva District Court rejected an appeal on the detention of Bedouin journalist Anas Abudaabes on Sunday, after he was arrested last week over a Facebook post. The police, which claimed the post incited people to commit arson in the wake of the current wildfires blazing across Israel, decided to release Abudaabes from detention under restrictive bail conditions. [tmwinpost] Despite the stated reasons for his arrest, Abudaabes’…
French comedian Dieudonné has just been charged as an ‘apologist for terrorism’ for his Facebook posting ‘Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly’ (I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly)
Recent commentary about the so-called “French” idea of free speech is fuelling confusion and misinformation in the debate about Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in Australia.
Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has said that a publication like French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, target of last week’s terrorist attack, would be “shut down” in Australia under Section 18C. New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton has written that:
… those who say they are Charlie should support changes to 18C.
Wilson and Sexton join the likes of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt and Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who have similarly argued that publications such as Hebdo wouldn’t be permitted because of Section 18C.
There is at least some truth to these claims. A publication like Charlie Hebdo wouldn’t survive in Australia – not because of 18C – but because two major corporations dominate our mainstream media. We simply don’t have the same plurality of the press as they do in France. Anyone who has travelled in France would know of the diversity of French print media – with an impressive total of some 15,000 titles – which operates largely thanks to generous government subsidies.
France is tougher on hate speech
As for Section 18C, hate speech is subject to much stricter regulations in France (under both civil and criminal law) than in Australia.
In July last year, for example, Front National politician Anne-Sophie Leclère was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and fined 50,000 euros for comparing Attorney-General Christiane Taubira (who is black) to a monkey on her Facebook page. The criminal penalties imposed on Leclère seemed to pass without uproar or outrage. What did arouse public debate for going “too far” was the court’s decision to impose an additional fine of 30,000 euros on Front National.
Recall also French comedian Dieudonné, whose shows were banned last year because of his controversial quenelle gesture (an upside-down Nazi salute). His latest arrest came just 48 hours after the massive march in Paris in support of freedom of expression. His Facebook post, “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” – linking one of the Charlie Hebdo killers to the tribute “Je suis Charlie” – reportedly prompted the charge of being an “apologist for terrorism”.
Dieudonné has been the subject of numerous court proceedings. In February 2014, a French judge found him guilty of incitement of ethnic or racial hatred and denial of crimes against humanity over videos on his YouTube account. In October 2009, Dieudonné was fined 10,000 euros for “public insult of people of Jewish faith or origin”. The following year he was again forced to pay 10,000 euros, after the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism brought defamation proceedings. In February 2007, a French court found his remarks in an interview printed in Lyon Capitale to be offensive and hence a necessary restriction on the freedom of speech.
It is worth noting that these were criminal penalties, not civil as with Section 18C. The point is that the portrayal of the French legal system put forward by some conservative commentators is simplistic and misleading. So too is the portrayal of Section 18C as draconian.
Australian lacks strong right to free speech
In France, freedom of expression has been protected since the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citzen of 1789. Also, as in other liberal democracies, the right to free speech is not absolute, but must be balanced against other competing rights with reference to the circumstances of each case. Hence the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1981, which offers protections from racist and defamatory declarations, anti-terrorism legislation, Holocaust denial and insult and incitement to discrimination, hate or violence against individuals.
Charlie Hebdo itself has a chequered history of legal proceedings. French media report nearly 50 court cases, or one every six months. These include criminal proceedings brought in 2007 against then editor Philippe Val by the Grand Mosque of Paris. Val was acquitted. As in this 2007 court case, Charlie Hebdo won the majority of these decisions not due to freedom of speech tout court, but thanks to the protections on caricature, droit a la caricature.
Columnist Andrew Bolt’s defence in Section 18C proceedings against him failed due to serious factual errors in his articles.AAP/Julian Smith
It is also worth recalling that the case that fuelled opposition to Section 18C, Eatock v. Bolt, concerned printed articles – not cartoons or caricature. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act includes various exceptions, including for fair comment, artistic work and performance. In the Bolt case, the judge found against fair comment in the public interest because the articles contained significant factual errors.
Australia, unlike France and other democracies, has only an implied right to freedom of speech on political affairs in the constitution. Those with genuine concerns about lack of free speech protections in Australia would do better to campaign for a bill of rights rather than pursue misdirected battles against Section 18C.
When the anti-18C campaign does not extend to other legislated restrictions – for example, section 578C of the Crimes Act, which includes publication of offensive or indecent articles, or section 35P of the ASIO Act – there is good reason to be cynical. When couched in terms of one’s “right to be a bigot”, even more so.
Context and facts are missing from debate
What conservative commentators don’t seem to understand is that they are not Charlie Hebdo; such a comparison is laughable. It is a satirical left-wing magazine that makes fun of all religions, political parties and themselves.
More importantly, Charlie Hebdo is part of France’s rich comic culture. Accordingly, its articles and cartoons must be understood in terms of parody, satire and, above all, with reference to political and cultural context.
This last point seems to have been missed entirely in the debate on Charlie Hebdo in Australia. Other things that are missing include reference to actual legislation and court proceedings.
A debate on reforming Section 18C should be informed by research and reason, not ideological cheap shots.
Capitalism is an idealised concept that attempts to describe the way we behave economically and structure our lives. Some individuals break the rules commit crimes, sometimes in association with like-minded others. CBA financial planners, Wall st, etc. Mainstream media doesn’t cry “We were raped by Capitalism”. No we call them rogues, crooks, gangs & misfits.
Crime occurs in all communities of various description Communist,Democratic,Assimilated and Multicultural. Each has different approaches to policing and dealing with crime but crime occurs. Andrew Bolt is specifically opposed to multi-racial communities as they promote diversity as opposed to homogeneity and according to him encourage deviant behaviour. He believes in Assimilation. Rotherham this morning’s blog had a headline ‘Raped by Multiculturalism’ What went on was in Rotherham for Bolt is a direct consequence of Multiculturalism and the weakness of the Left, He has cherry picked to prove his retarded point.
Bolt doesn’t raise the issues of sexploitation of women on a large-scale such as by the Russian & Italian Mafia by white christian ‘civilized’ Europeans. He doesn’t examine sexploitation in Britain as a whole the scandals at the highest levels of Tory politics. That’s of no use to him. But a badly run orphanage in Rotherham suits him down to the ground. It’s not about lack of funds under staffing or just poor welfare support it’s a direct result of Multiculturalism.
Bolt shows us a bylaw indicating the word ‘Asian’ not to be used as an identifying term when talking about suspects of anything in Rotherham. However strikes me that bylaw supports everything Bolt claims to be an anti-racist, that colour and ethnicity are irrelevant when it comes to law and that’s why he proudly says ” I am not a racist.” He is however a hypocrite and totally two-faced. Bolt infers the leftist council in Rotherham were ‘sacrificing the young girls on the altar of ‘political correctness’ for not allowing suspects to be called ‘Asian’ or ‘Muslim’. Bolt the non racist agrees with the bylaw. Australia should not be differentiated by colour either. Colour does not exist.
There was an orphanage in Brighton some 50 + years ago a very conservative WASP suburb like Malvern where Bolt lives. It wasn’t a secret that young testosterone & alcohol fueled young men would come from all directions to scale the fence at night like tom cats to dally with those state wards in their dorms. Multiculturalism wasn’t an aspect of that suburb Mr Bolt. Lack of supervision and underfunding certainly was. The Brighton police were aware of it nobody was charged and it wasn’t just an urban myth. Multiculturalism wasn’t a driving force back then Mr Bolt. Doesn’t suit your argument does it Bolt.
Importing a cherry picked example is Bolt’s way of disproving any Multicultural Policy. One could argue that Rotherham is the exception that proves the rule and exceptions do exist. It’s far more persuasive than saying multicultural societies have a tendency to drive young men into illegal gang activity and in Bolt’s case Muslims.
One has to doubt somebody who denies any history prior to his birth in 1959 to try to win a point.On the Bolt Report the man said indigenous Australians today were not the first arrivals in this country therefore have no right to be mentioned in our constitution. He agrees with Tony Abbott that the defining moment in the history of this country was white settlement not invasion. The other 60,000 years is irrelevant. Therefore no mention of persons prior to settlement need be mentioned ‘Terra Nullis is ok. It seems to me that’s what the Rotherham bylaw is trying to achieve. There are no ‘Asians’ in Rotherham. But here Bolt want’s them named and shamed Pakis are Pakis , Muslims to boot and should be identified not protected by ‘political correctness’?He is a RACIST
Trying to understand Bolt’s ideas is like herding cats. He’s a one-eyed extreme conservative with a collection of arguments selectively picked to support a moral framework which he treats as some universal given . He is an elitist of the worst kind. The only reason Rotherham is of any use to him at the moment is to indulge in his favourite pastime of Muslim bashing.
Bolt doesn’t raise the issues of sexploitation of women on a larger and more brutal scale than Rotherham all by white christian Europeans. He never really says anything about the Italian & Russian Mafia or sexploitation in Britain in general. He doesn’t raise the scandals at the highest levels of Tory politicians, paedophilia ,rent boys & prostitution in Westminster these are of no use to him. But a badly run underfunded orphanage in Rotherham suits him down to the ground it’s in his cross hairs and suits his Labour vs Conservative debate in Britain. Bolts just copied and pasted it because he’s a lazy mother.
French comedian Dieudonné has just been charged as an ‘apologist for terrorism’ for his Facebook posting ‘Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly’ (I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly)
olddogthoughts 