Quote of the Day: 18C on steroids


Today, legislation designed to protect against so-called “hate speech” in the lead-up to the postal survey on same-sex marriage passed the Senate, thanks to the so-called “Liberal” government colluding with Labor. The legislation “includes measures to prevent vilification, intimidation, or threats to cause harm on the basis of the sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or the religious convictions of someone during the survey period.”

Australian Conservatives Senator Cory Bernardi has called this “18C on steroids”. He’s nailed it. Depending on how stringently and forcefully this is applied, it has the potential to kill the debate on same-sex marriage overnight.

The argument is illogical, but the Yes campaign has stuck to its guns that any attempt to discuss the logical consequences of legalising same-sex marriage is a slippery slope argument, that the argument is solely about whether two people of the same sex can marry, and thus your discussion of the logical consequences of this is vilification.

Will they get trigger happy? They do have form.

(An additional motivation may be that Labor realise that bullying by the Yes campaign has actually turned regular people against them, and revealed too much of their true colours, and intentions. As I made clear yesterday, I think the Yes camp understand they may have blown their chance this time around, and are prepared to wait for a Labor government which will legislate same-sex marriage in parliament.)

The power of the state is a very serious thing.

Gay lobby advocates have already called for more permanent “protection”:

“Same-sex marriage advocates have seized on anti-vilification laws set to pass the Senate today which are designed to provide protections during the government’s postal survey, arguing that such laws should be permanent rather than only applying for a couple of months during the campaign.

“Spokesman for just.equal, Brian Greig said the need for hate speech laws during the same-sex marriage survey drew attention to the fact that there are no commonwealth hate speech laws for LGBTI people.

“Federally we have permanent, national anti-hate speech laws for race and religion only, yet clearly there is a need for permanent laws to include sexuality and gender identity” Mr Greig said.

“Mr Greig said permanent hate speech laws to protect LGBTI people at a state level exist only in NSW, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT.

“Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory have no state-based laws to prevent or prosecute vilification on the grounds of sexuality or gender identity.

“This means LGBTI people in these states are especially vulnerable to hate speech and look to the Commonwealth for national laws to address this.”

Seriously, could you get any more Orwellian?

If introduced, people everywhere would become vulnerable. Vulnerable to the “hate speech” laws themselves.

It’s the current year, and that year is 1984.

Photo by Sebastian Anthony

  • Antifa-ggot

    This repulsive piece of shit legislation just means we have to get creative. For example, I am considering displaying a rainbow symbol on the tailgate of my ute, followed by the equal sign and then the hammer and sickle. The problem is that I don’t have the means of production.

    Is it possible to get into trouble for equating a rainbow with communism?

  • Mattys Modern Life

    This is one of those laws that needs to be ignored outright, anyone who gets charged under it needs to complete ignore it other than to make a public statement to that fact.

    This is a disgusting law that is a shame on the Liberal party.

    Malcolm Turnbull needs to be removed and the next Prime Minister (who could be anyone not of the Left at this stage) needs to make an unreserved apology for this law.

    This is the kind of horrendous legislation you expect from the ALPGreens, not from the Coalition.

    Malcolm Turncoat, you are a piece of shit.

    • Antifa-ggot

      organised civil disobedience?

    • Matty, all politicians are pieces of shit.
      Giant, steaming piles of lying stinking shit.

      • The vast majority are, somearw great.

        David Leyonhelm is fantastic, he’s on the YES side for this debate but also wants free speech ardently protected.

        • Tamaveirene

          Which it won’t be – going by what has happened in other countries! I wish these Independent Senators would get their act together and see what a GOOD difference they could make to the state of affairs here in Oz if only they banded together instead of seeking the spotlight in an attempt to be “different”!

  • belt fed 7.62mm

    So in effect they want to make laws making it illegal to say “no” in a democratic vote.

    why not the same laws to protect honest, hard working straight white males from all the daily hate speech? Oh yeah, that’s right every university, politician, newspaper, tv, radio stations, qantas, local councils will be out of business. Sick bunch, I hope they all burn.

    No to fag marriage, no to Draconian censorship laws.

    • Caitlin1488

      The fag marriage”survey” forms are barcoded and linked to you on the Electoral roll database, so obviously Big Brother wants to record how you voted. Why ?

      The ABS is handling the forms: it makes me wonder who will be scrutinising the forms to make sure the NO votes don’t get surreptitiously binned, or altered.
      ABS is loaded to the gunnels with Homosexuals/Lesbians and BBQueer types.

      VOTE NO

      • belt fed 7.62mm

        Even more worrying. One can only guess they are keeping track of all the potential dissidents so they know who is likely to be an enemy of the state when the marxist new world order takes over.

        Remember: equality = exactly the same = no one ask questions.

      • Most of the public service is.

  • I attach this image in the name of free speech, with apologies to Ryan for ripping off his original Bill Shortarse meme……

  • Earl Conner

    The leftie power brokers sure do hate speech don’t they? That is, any speech which threatens to undermine their propaganda campaign. Theirs is not my definition of ‘hate speech’ and definitely not my definition of ‘marriage’. Enough with the anti-semantic bullshit!

  • Tamaveirene

    Unmentioned in this excellent piece by David Hiscox is the fact that any legal complaint
    has to go through the conduit of ….the Attorney General George Brandis! Yes, folks, you heard it – the Rainbow Standard Bearer who recently (it was reported) moved against a suggestion made in Cabinet that Paedophiles should be prevented from going overseas for their child-sex-holidays! His rationale was that the poor pedos had already suffered enough by being caught, tried and jailed (usually extraordinarily lenient sentences from sympathetic judges!) and that stopping them from following their instincts with an overseas jaunt was mean!!!!! The Government is filled with crooks and conmen! Malcolm and George head the herd with Simon Birmingham and Christopher Pyne coming a close second! Scumbags all of them!

  • If Galileo Galilei were alive today, he would be put on trial under 18C for wrongthink and hatespeech, etc.
    18C is our modern day Inquisition.
    Oppose homo marriage and you are a Heretic.

    Denial of free speech. Only going to get worse.
    No thanks to the monkey brained, useless fucking cucks we call “Government”. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/868cf7be12c53fe094dff504c2250dfb9ed4a0ad42b7295397e9fdd7142bb522.jpg

  • Karen Dwyer

    The Nationals and One Nation also colluded with this shameful precedent of rushed, ambiguous, rainbow “filtered” nonsense.

  • entropy

    Falsely claiming that your campaign of arbitrary entitlement amounts to ‘equality’ is not just misrepresentation, it is intimidation and vilification as it casts those who disagree as being ‘anti-equality’. But this will not be enforced.

    Calling anyone who has not been clinically diagnosed as such ‘homophobic’ is intimidation and vilification, as you are claiming they have a mental disorder. This will not be enforced, however suggestions that homosexuality is a mental disorder (once a formal medical position, unlike ‘homophobia’) will be deemed vilification and prosecuted.

    Threatening to ‘hate fuck’ people who agree with you is clearly an intimidatory threat, but this will not be enforced.

    These laws obviously aren’t intended to facilitate an open discussion, they are intended to serve as a latent threat against conservative thought to protect the fragile emotions of these ‘equal’ human beings while they exercise their neuroticism, hatred and hysteria.