Jews against 18C
A submission to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has been presented two members of the Australian Jewish community asking for the repeal of the 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Working together were Melbourne-based Avi Yemini who recently attempted to One Nation senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts to front the Jewish community in a public meeting and Sydney-based Dr David Adler, one time in second in charge of the Australian Medical Association [NSW] with interests in the health industry and property.
In a summary of the submission, they wrote”
“We recommend repeal of Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Free speech is an essential foundation of a healthy democracy and promotes personal potential and advancement (section 1)
David Adler
18C in inconsistent with Jewish theology, academic development and values. There are significant numbers within the Jewish community opposed to 18C (section 2)
Laws similar to 18C have proved ineffective in addressing antisemitism generally (section 3)
18C has been very rarely used as a tool to oppose antisemitism and NEVER against the Islamic hate preaching despite this being a major source in Western Europe and to a lesser extent in Australia (section 4)
Avi Yemini
An environment in which free speech is inhibited has contributed to great harm to innocent people. Although laws like 18C do not prohibit reporting suspicions to authorities, that is what may occur in practice (section 5)
18C is being abused and causes harm to those who are subject to inappropriate complaints (section 6)”
In their submission, the two pointed out “We are aware that there has been vigorous lobbying by some secular Jewish communal representatives for the retention of these sections of the RDA. As active members of the orthodox Jewish community we therefore present a more genuine Jewish perspective consistent with Torah (biblical) principles. It is our submission that 18C is contrary to the interests and values of the Jewish community.
It is blatantly untrue that there is a consensus of support for 18C within the Jewish community. Simply reading the various Jewish publications will demonstrate this is a hotly contested subject.”
Yemini and Adler are the Internet to reach the community in support of their issue.
To read their full submission click below:
To Avi Yemini’s blog calling support visit http://blog.idftraining.com.au/politics/jews-against-18c/
“…it is unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity”
When it comes to race and ethnicity, to intimidate must, by definition, be accompanied by a threat, making it a violent act, while to humiliate, especially in public, is to belittle the humanity of the victim and the group the victim represents. Both are, objectively, unambiguously intentional acts aimed to cause hurt and promote incitement against the whole group and should thus be unlawful. The key word is OBJECTIVE
To offend or insult is wholly subjective. A Jewish joke told by a gentile will offend some Jews who would not be offended by the same joke told by a Jew.
The Zionist narrative of the Israeli – Arab conflict will offend the Arabs while the “Palestinian” narrative will offend most Jews. This previous sentence, with its use of “Israeli – Arab”, not “Israeli – Palestinian” and “Palastinian” in parenthesis, will offend most Arabs and possibly some Jews but not all.
The subject of the “offence” decides that it is offensive. The key word is SUBJECTIVE.
This leads to the far greater issue of freedom of speech.
The Bill Leak cartoon, addressing a well known problem which needs exposure and debate is a case in point.
And the QUT student absurdity where 18C was abused with shocking consequences, is another case in point.
Any comment about Islam, including quotes directly from the Quran and Hadiths – actual, direct, verbatim quotes which may expose Islam unfavorably – is met with “Islamophobe” and litigation by Muslim organisations taking advantage of 18C, claiming offence and insult, while themselves promoting hate and violence against Jews, Israel and Western civilization in general, with impunity. 18C promotes anti blasphemy laws, self censorship and stifling of freedom of speech.
The danger of limiting freedom of speech, subject to limits such as inciting to violence, is that it does not just limit debate but kills it. A far greater danger is that if it is unlawful to offend and insult individuals and groups, why not unlawful to offend and insult the Government?
What a lot of absolute nonsense Mr Kidron. Heard of 18D, that protects free speech. But what it doesn’t protect is free hate speech meant to incite hatred of others on grounds of race. The only debate 18C kills is what one would hear at a neo-Nazi rally, and even then, it can be argued if want’s been said was in the genuine public interest.
Of course you would defend to your death the right on someone to say something with which you disagree. What if what that someone was saying was that Jews are a pestilence which must be exterminated. Of course you would defend, with your live, their free speech to say just that.
All I can say is this is a very welcome turn of events. It’s been a position of the Australian Jewish establishment (in the protection of 18C) that I could never understand. The sooner this legislation is overturned the better.
And what, exactly, Mr Belcher, is 18C preventing you from saying?
What next Mr Yemini, a debate on whether the Holocaust ever happened. Isn’t that what free speech is about for you? It’s free hate speech, you fool, the same sort of free speech the Nazis used to get the holocaust happening, but of course, your friends would argue, where’s the evidence?