Racial Discrimination Act: A word from the Attorney-General
J-Wire asked Federal Attorney-General George Brandis what criteria were being engaged in consulting ethnic communities and leaders about intended changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. He has responded.
Senator George Brandis
The Attorney-General said: “The Government is aware of the concerns of the Jewish community in Australia about the effect of any changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.
The Government wants to ensure that laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification are not used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.
The two values – protecting people against racial vilification and defending freedoms of speech – are not inconsistent.
We will be consulting with the community on the proposed reforms and will ensure that the community’s views are taken into consideration when settling any amendments.”
So, EVERYBODY, by George Brandis, there will be freedom of expression/speech, but if that speech is in breach of the “racial vilification” laws, then legal action is legitimate and its succcess guaranted by the same law.
So we have:
“A” – free to express anything, including racial vilifiction
and
“B” legal protection against racial vilification.
So, “B” trumps “A” or “A” and “B” are inclusive in syntax, but exclusive in Law.
This is consistency by entrapment.
Could I be right that, if a person vilifies on account of race, religion, the DPP would not commence action but the offended party could !!?? In this case could other laws be accepted as contiguous??
Is there a lawyer in the house !!!!!!!!!!!???