Talk:Racial Discrimination Act 1975

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law Low‑importance

	Australia portal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled

Lack of a "criticism" section.

If the Act forbids "offending" people then it is clear that the Act does not just violate Freedom of Association (which must logically include the freedom to not associate - i.e. to not employ or do business with), if there is no freedom to "offend" people then Freedom of Speech is also ended by the Act. Clearly criticism of the Act, that it violates Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech, should be included in the article.2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:C82E:881E:47A5:4FB5 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario

My people are horribly offended, insulted and humiliated because your people do not believe the lies my people spread about your people. Therefore, you and your people must be punished. Because I am offended, insulted and humiliated it is obvious that you are offensive, insulting and humiliating and therefore you must be punished, regardless of the fact that you were telling the truth.

The proposed changes to the law, that the wording be changed to 'Harass' are fairer far less likely to be used for political purposes. Further, it allows for criticism and free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.155 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should they be punished?

I am offended, insulted and humiliated by people in the mainstream Australian media and politics who state that those who wish to change the law are promoting racism...racism...racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.155 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003002038/http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1903/andrew-bolt-freedom-of-speech-in-australia---speech-made-by-paul-howes/ to http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1903/andrew-bolt-freedom-of-speech-in-australia---speech-made-by-paul-howes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wotton v Qld

An IP User 2001:8003:6BD6:EB00:C539:B281:A413:17AF added] a good summary of an important decision, Wotton v Queensland (No 5). The only real issue with the edit was that it was included in Section 18C: Prohibition on offense, insult, humiliation or intimidation. Wotton v Qld did not concern offence, insult etc. Accordingly I moved it under Prohibition of racial discrimination in certain contexts along with some minor changes. This edit was reverted by IP user 1.144.110.43 with the edit summary "Case summary should be included with other cases. Doesn't make sense moving to another section". My explanation as to why I have reinstated the edit is that the other case summaries only concern section 18C & are under the heading of 18C. Wotton v Qld does not concern section 18C & so needs to be in a different section. Find bruce (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for law reform

User https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Lunaibis is confused in this section about possible POV. They are confused and possibly not aware of the context no being Australian. They appear to not have read any of the supporting references either.

This section makes clear two facts (ie not POV) 1. That conservative Australian politicians believe the bar for breaching 18C is too low. This is their opinion presented faithfully. However, it is an opinion not based in reality given the second fact: 2. Courts have consistently shown that this is not the case.

Where Lunaibis is confused is their lack of understanding and context being a non-Australian. This is made very clear in this section so I am not sure where their confusion lies. Contextually, some conservative politicians have continually claimed (as supported in the references) that the words 'offense and insult' set a legal bar that is too low ie people going to court over mere slights. This does not occur in reality given courts have already ruled that the speech must have 'profound and serious effects'. Judge rulings in Australia become law through precedent, therefore the article is obligated to point out that the claim from some conservative politicians is false.

Please do not revert without: a. understanding Australian law b. reading all supporting references c. providing a sound justification.

As it stands, your edits only serve to push a POV by given it equal standing and validity when (as explained above) it is not based in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6B0B:4B00:3C11:FE43:E69D:F982 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]