Talk:George Brandis

SC or QC?
Is Brandis a QC or SC? And how did he obtain this title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.225.129 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

edits from Department of Parliamentary Services
This page has been edited by computers within the Department of Parliamentary Services (202.14.81.49) to cast George Brandis in a more favuorable light, and should be monitored for further edits from this source.Spamburgler (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Holmes speech
A new user has added text about an incident involving a speech by George Brandis that was subsequently rebutted by one of its subjects, ABC presenter Jonathan Holmes. The incident did occur, however there are numerous problems with its insertion here. First, there is the question of its notability in the overall scheme of an article on Brandis; second, the source for the original speech quote is not a neutral source; third, the source for the "rebuttal" is a published piece by Holmes himself, whereas for an article that is a biography of a living person dealing with an adverse claim about the person, stronger sourcing would be needed for the claim that Holmes "went on to expose the misrepresentation" (which implies as a matter of fact that the statement was indeed a misrepresentation - Holmes himself cannot be an objective arbiter of this). Finally, the entire last two sentences have no citations at all. I have no objection to some well-sourced text being considered for the article, as long as it doesn't get undue weight, but I don't think the current insertion is appropriate. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A more recent addition by the same editor has addressed some of the problems, however the following text only has a citation to Brandis himself, and cannot support the existing wording. References by others are needed: "...and was outspoken in support of greater press freedom, particularly for Andrew Bolt with regard to his racial vilification conviction for public comments made on Indigenous Australians". hamiltonstone (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Brandis and bigots
I have a concern about how we represent the meaning of an interchange in Parliament involving Brandis that has generated a lot of media coverage, some of which appears itself to be deliberately sensationalising. Here's the reasonably complete version of what Brandis said in answering a question in the Senate: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive, insulting or bigoted. Nevertheless, through you, Mr President, may I point out to Senator Peris that section 18C, in its current form, does not prohibit racial vilification... Senator Wong interjects, 'Yes, George, you go out there and defend the right to be bigoted.' Well, you know, Senator Wong, a lot of the things I have heard you say in this chamber over the years are, to my way of thinking, extraordinarily bigoted and extraordinarily ignorant. But I would defend your right to say things that I consider to be bigoted and ignorant. That is what freedom of speech means." (Hansard 24 March 2014, p. 37)

Here is how this is currently framed in our article: "As Attorney-General in 2014, Brandis furthered his push to amend the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), in part to allow media commentators such as Andrew Bolt greater freedom of expression,[37] and to legally ensure that "people do have a right to be bigots".

I have two main issues with this framing. One is a POV issue, the other is an accuracy issue. On POV, this formulation makes Brandis sound as though he wants to ensure people can be bigots. His full words indicate that is not his direct intention. His direct intention in this answer to a question is to defend his particular view of freedom of speech, and that this includes the right to speak bigoted words. That is not the same thing as ensuring people can be bigots. Second, the quote is not accurate, as it implies he sees the amendments as intended to achieve this goal whereas his answer to the question in Parliament that day is phrased as a statement about the status quo: he is saying that currently in Australia people are able to be bigots. Therefore, he is not saying his changes are meant to achieve this goal. If you read this piece from the Age very carefully, you will see the journalist has not actually explicitly linked the Brandis quote to being an argument for reform of the law. And that is because it wasn't. My view is that the last phrase of the sentence should be deleted, since he wasn't speaking about his reforms in this answer to a question on notice. This should be done as quickly as possible, while this is a current issue, and mindful that this is a BLP. I attempted a change, and was reverted by another editor. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hamiltonstone, I tried to reach you on the talk page but had no success.

My take on his quote is this. It is impossible to say what he was thinking at the time that he made his bigotry comments, and it is speculation on our part to guess where he was going with it. He was unable to answer the question fully as he was interjected by Senator Wong. Although he did have a full opportunity to answer the question after the interjection.

Nevertheless the direct question to Brandis was "Won't removing section 18C facilitate vilification by bigots?”. The question is asking Brandis how his proposed amendments will facilitate or increase vilification in relation to RDA. His direct answer was "People do have a right to be bigots, you know." His next sentence he went on to slightly expand on this basic point. The third sentence of his reply he diverges from the direct question and explains the existing RDA, and finally he makes an accusation of bigotry against senator Wong. By far the most concise, meaningful, and element of Brandis' response is his first sentence "People do have a right to be bigots, you know." particularly in relation to RDA. If we generalize his quote we risk adding personal bias to the article. Worth noting that Peris' question made no mention of bigotry, however Bradis chose to answer using that word in relation his RDA amendments. Here Brandis hasn't directly addressed the issue of vilification, instead he re-framed the question using the word bigotry. This makes it even more difficult to objectively generalize his answer. Far easier and more accurate to use the quote and let readers decide where he was going with it.

Perhaps i should expand on this and add more references, as the media attention this is getting probably justifies a greater explanation and more page space?Chazwazla (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, i actually thought your suggestion at my talk page was in the right ball park, though i would drop the reference to Wong. We also have to remember that WP is not news so in fact, in a biography of Brandis, we shouldn't give this (or any other single incident) more extensive cover. I could live with:
 * When asked by Senator Nova Peris in the Australian Parliment on 24 March 2014, "Won't removing section 18C facilitate vilification by bigots?”, Brandis responded “People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive, insulting or bigoted.” Brandis' comment attracted significant media attention.

I've been asked to comment on this. I think the direct quote "People do have a right to be bigots" is relevant enough to be included, especially as it is (now) receiving overseas press coverage. Contextualising it is important, and we should avoid giving this a lot of space in the article as the public perception of this event is still forming. I personally expect that this quote will take on a life of its own, but I think we are a day or two away from seeing the long term effect of. If he has issued a clarification on what he meant, that should also be included as a right of reply. If an indepth negative reaction is needed, use opinion of academics and long standing respected politics journalists rather than sensationalist journalists. It is also necessary to ensure that we include commentary from media/academics that leans towards his side of the fence. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. Agree it would be good to represent a bit of Rice's analysis, but also to see where this is at in a few days time.hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The other thing to do is to round out the article with general biographical material so it doesn't look like there is undue weight on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that the quote should be included somewhere, probably without all the context, but it should not imply, as the above excerpt does, that "allowing bigotry" was part of the bill's intention, which is clearly not what Brandis was saying. Agreed that expanding the article generally could deal with undue weight. Frickeg (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I will wait a few days for the dust to settle before making an concise edit. Probably come back to it in a week. Brandis has given considerable weight to RDA amendments over the years, and it appears to be a significant issue and challenge in his parliamentary career, which should be reflected in his bio (even if the issue has been sensationalized by the media). Would be good to see more positive stuff is his WP bio, but that all depends which side of the fence you side on. Libertarians may possibly view Brandis' bigotry comment as a positive. In my humble opinion the Brandis' bigotry comment does clearly indicate that allowing bigotry was part of the bills intention. Certainly, if it was unclear whether bigotry was permitted in the existing RDA, the comment clarified that bigotry in itself would be permissible under his RDA amendments. Not only do all his past comments on freedom of speech and censorship point to that conclusion, he just happened to say it out loud when asked about the repercussions of his RDA amendments. It is possible his comment or opinions may cause offense to some people.Chazwazla (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Chazwazla (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Overcitation?
I know all material is meant to be properly sources, especially for WP:BLP, but isn't up to 5 citations at once a bit overwhelming? I think some of the citations need to be checked for possible duplicate coverage of the same information. Felixphew ( Ar! Ar! Ar! ) 07:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And even with all that citation, the latter part of the article is still a POV-laden mess. Brandis is one of my least favourite politicians, but even I can see that the section is absurdly slanted against him. Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on George Brandis. 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/20100917122739/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/43/Shadow/index.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/43/Shadow/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)