Wednesday, 13 August 2014

Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 S 18 C Racial Discrimination Act

28 September 2011, Justice Bromberg

HUMAN RIGHTS – Part IIA Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – offensive conduct based on race – newspaper articles and on-line blog articles – principles for determining imputations conveyed by articles – conventional meaning of ‘Aboriginal’ – whether Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act restricted to conduct based on racial hatred – whether articles were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate – whose reaction is to be assessed – relevance of community standards – ‘in all the circumstances’ – ‘reasonably likely – ‘offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate’

This proceeding raised for consideration Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the RDA), including questions as to the balance sought to be struck by Part IIA between justifiable freedom of expression and the right to freedom from racial prejudice and intolerance.

The applicant (Eatock) complained that two newspaper articles written by a well-known journalist Andrew Bolt (Bolt), and published in the Herald Sun by the Herald and Weekly Times (HWT), conveyed racially offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people. In a class action brought on her own behalf and on behalf of a class identified as people who have a fairer, rather than darker skin, and who by a combination of descent, self-identification and communal recognition are, and are recognised as, Aboriginal persons, Eatock claimed that Bolt’s articles contravened s 18C(1) of the RDA, which relevantly provided:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Bolt and the HWT denied that the elements of s 18C had been established and claimed that in any event, their conduct was exempted by s 18D of the RDA, which relevantly provided that:

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

…
(b)
in the course of any statement [or] publication…made…for any genuine… purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
…

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest…

Justice Bromberg determined that each of the elements required by s 18C was established and that the conduct of Bolt and HWT was not exempted from unlawfulness by s 18D. His Honour was therefore satisfied that each of Bolt and HWT had contravened s 18C of the RDA by reason of the writing and publication of the articles. As well as making a declaration of contravention, Justice Bromberg made orders which prohibited the re-publication of the articles and required HWT to publish corrective notices in the newspaper in which the articles had appeared.

In the course of his judgment and in construing s 18C of the RDA, Justice Bromberg held that:

(i) section 18C was not restricted to extreme racist behaviour based upon racial hatred or behaviour calculated to induce racial violence;
(ii) whether conduct is reasonably likely to offend a group of people, is to be analysed from the point of view of the ‘ordinary’ or ‘reasonable’ representative of that group, to whom will be attributed characteristics consistent with what might be expected of a member of a free and tolerant society;
(iii) the phrase ‘reasonably likely’ in s 18C(1)(a) refers to a chance of an event occurring or not occurring which is real, and not fanciful or remote; and
(iv) the phrase ‘offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate’ in s 18C(1)(a) does not extend to personal hurt which is unaccompanied by a public mischief of a kind that the RDA seeks to avoid and refers to conduct that has profound and serious effects.

Justice Bromberg held that Australian Aboriginal people are a race and have a common ethnic origin within the meaning of s 18C(1)(b) and that a person of mixed heritage but with some Aboriginal descent, who identifies as an Aboriginal person and has communal recognition as such, satisfies what is conventionally understood to be an Australian Aboriginal.

His Honour held that from the perspective of fair-skinned Aboriginal people, the articles contained imputations that:

there are fair-skinned people in Australia with essentially European ancestry but with some Aboriginal descent, of which the individuals identified in the articles are examples, who are not genuinely Aboriginal persons but who, motivated by career opportunities available to Aboriginal people or by political activism, have chosen to falsely identify as Aboriginal; and
fair skin colour indicates a person who is not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely identifying as an Aboriginal person.

Justice Bromberg was satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the articles. Further, Justice Bromberg was satisfied that the causal nexus required by s 18C was satisfied because the articles were calculated to convey a message about the race, ethnicity or colour of fair-skinned Aboriginal people, including as to whether those people were sufficiently of Aboriginal race, colour or ethnicity to be identifying as Aboriginal people.

In relation to the construction of s 18D of the RDA, Justice Bromberg held:

(i) the onus of proof under s 18D falls on a respondent; and
(ii) that an assessment of whether conduct is done ‘reasonably and in good faith’ within the meaning of s 18D, involves a consideration of both objective and subjective good faith. Objective good faith will be assessed by reference to the values underlying Part IIA.

Justice Bromberg concluded that the articles were not written ‘reasonably and in good faith’, as required by s 18D of the RDA. The inclusion of untruthful facts, the use of inflammatory and provocative language and the failure to minimise the potential harm to those likely to be offended denied to Bolt and the HWT, both the ‘fair comment’ exemption provided by s 18D(c)(ii) and the genuine purpose exemption provided by s 18D(b) of the RDA.

Monday, 4 August 2014

Wow! So the NSW Judiciary allows Mentally ill Magistrates to preside in NSW Courts.
Wow this appears to be very disturbing!!!!
Brian Maloney was another Magistrate that had to be removed by the NSW Parliament from Burwood Court!!!

Mentally ill magistrate suspended

25 August, 2011 Lawyers Weekly 0 comments

Latest News

Parramatta-based federal magistrate Joe Harman, believed to be mentally ill, has been suspended following criticism of his decisions in two family property disputes.

The magistrate's suspension comes after New South Wales magistrates Brian Maloney and Jennifer Betts, who also suffer from mental illness, were forced to plead to Parliament in June this year to retain their status as magistrates, following complaints of their conduct in court.

As The Sydney Morning Herald reports, Harman supposedly convicted and sentenced a man - who was being questioned about the whereabouts of a large sum of cash - for contempt of court after being dissatisfied with his answers. The man allegedly had dementia and spoke via an interpreter.

Harman reportedly said to the interpreter: "I want [him] to tell me where the $200,050 is and, if he either refuses to tell me or genuinely no longer has the money, he starts a jail sentence today".

On appeal of that decision, Chief Justice of the Family Court Diana Bryant found that Harman had failed to follow proper procedure to convict or imprison the man and said: "There had been no formal plea to the charge, no evidence, no findings, no conviction, no sentence imposed".

In another decision, Harman was reportedly criticised for dismissing an application to disqualify him from hearing a case in which a lawyer, whose relationship with Harman had reportedly suffered an "extremely hostile" breakdown, appeared.

Although Harman transferred the case to another magistrate, the Family Court found that proceedings had been "most irregular" and that procedural fairness rules had been "clearly breached".

The Federal Magistrates Court confirmed with SMH in a statement that Harman had agreed to be restricted to "non-sitting duties" for one month and would undertake "judicial education and counselling".

Friday, 18 July 2014

ATO whistleblower in court: ‘they sabotaged my complaints’

BY CHRIS SEAGE, A TAX CONSULTANT AND FORMER ATO AUDIT MANAGER | SEP 20, 2012 1:04PM |EMAIL | PRINT

A senior lawyer in the Australian Taxation Office has sensationally claimed that high-ranking senior executive service officers within the ATO sabotaged her whistleblower complaint, writes Chris Seage, a tax consultant and former ATO audit manager.

A senior lawyer in the Australian Taxation Office has sensationally claimed that high-ranking senior executive service officers within the bureaucracy sabotaged her whistleblower complaint and demanded she see a psychologist within five weeks of lodging the complaint.

Serene Teffaha, a senior tax technical specialist of 12 years standing, is suing the ATO in the Federal Magistrates Court under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging eight adverse actions as a result of lodging a whistleblower complaint she was entitled to make under the Public Service Act. The allegations in the court writ, obtained by Crikey, calls into question whether amendments to the public service whistleblower protection laws currentlybefore the parliament are strong enough to protect whistleblowers.

In 2011, Teffaha and four other senior colleagues lodged the whistleblower complaint with David Diment, a first Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, alleging various issues about the conduct of the ATO’s high-profile pursuit of high-wealth individual Australians worth between $100 million and $250 million a year. Some of the issues identified lack of resourcing in the area to handle the large volume of objections to the assessments as a result of audit action and the lack of technical knowledge held by ATO staff to properly deal with complex matters emanating from the audits.

The complainants believed that taxpayers were being disadvantaged by not having their issues dealt with in a fair and professional way. At risk were current and imminent objections her team was involved in where the tax in dispute was nearly half a billion dollars in revenue. After the whistleblower complaint was lodged, Teffaha and the other complainants allege they have been the subject of bullying by tax office big wigs. Teffaha has been on stress leave since last year and has not returned to work.

In a bizarre twist to the saga, Crikey understands that last month the ATO made an offer of $250,000 cash as a settlement offer to Teffaha on the condition she withdraw her court action. In an email from a senior officer to Teffaha, of which Crikey has a copy, he says:

“If you wanted to be put in the same financial position as you would have been had you drawn a salary for 3 years then my understanding is that would be the equivalent of around $250,000 ‘cash in hand’ today. The fact that I have worked closely with you and have seen first-hand the qualities you can bring to the workplace means that I am in a very good position to provide you with the statement/reference. Ultimately I think that statement may be of greater assistance to you in rejoining the workforce in a job you’re well-qualified for than the outcome of any court proceedings.

“Anyway, let’s keep the channels of communication open and continue our constructive discussions about this matter. I’m really glad we can talk about this because, frankly, I think it’s only the lawyers that would benefit if we keep going down the formal, legal path. And I think the sooner we can bring this to a mutually acceptable conclusion, the better it will be.”

Teffaha rejected the offer as she did not consent to the ATO condition barring her from taking personal litigation against ATO senior officials including David Diment. Teffaha told Crikey: ”The Commonwealth and its agencies are entering into confidentiality and release agreements designed to exonerate senior public officials from their unlawful conduct using taxpayers’ funds. This is a serious breach of the Commonwealth Model Litigant Rules.”

Within five weeks of lodging the complaint, the ATO wanted to refer her to a psychologist and within eight weeks she was referred to a psychiatrist due to the belief she was suicidal. In April 2011 Assistant Commissioner Toni Balik met with Teffaha and the other complainants and expressed the view she was suicidal, according to the court document. Teffaha denies the allegation that she made any threat of self-harm then or at any other time. She toldCrikey that four other complainants at the meeting would dispute the claim.

The court document alleges that Diment:

Has seriously breached the relevant laws, policies and procedures in handling a whistleblower investigation by carving out significant points from the complaint and commissioned a formal external investigation into the substance of the allegations
Assigned Margot Rushton, Assistant Commissioner, from the same area of the alleged wrongdoers to handle the WB complaint without Teffaha’s consent
Conspired with others to fix the outcome of the whistleblower complaint before investigation (the pre-determined decision that there was no substance to the allegations was handed down on September 8, 2011)
Singled her out from the other complainants and told her not to enter ATO work premises while the investigation was taking place.
Bruce Quigley, a second Commissioner of Taxation and the second-highest ranked officer in the ATO, promised Teffaha a permanent transfer out of the problem area but Deputy Commissioner Greg Williams, assistant Deputy Commissioner Richard Collis and Rushton sought to deny Teffaha this permanent transfer and insisted she remain in her position, reporting to them, while she was experiencing hostility and bullying from them.

Teffaha says the public interest disclosures made in the whistleblower complaint have since been validated by the Inspector General of Taxation’s review into the ATO’s compliance approach to small business released on April 24 this year.

When confronted with bullying and being victimised, Teffaha turned to the Tax Commissioner Michael D’Ascenzo for help. In May 2012 she wrote animpassioned letter telling him:

“As a committed public servant, when I saw issues that undermine the integrity and work practices of the ATO, I tried to do my part to flag and improve the issues. As a result, the ugly, abusive managerial style currently entrenched in the ATO culture was laid bare for all to see …

“In an attempt to resolve the various issues that confronted me, I reached out to a number of external scrutineer agencies including the Australian Public Service Commission, Comcare and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Unfortunately, I discovered that they are part of this process of abuse and have collaborated in protecting the perpetrators. Whistleblowers need scrutineer agencies with meaningful powers to intervene and make authoritative decisions, when necessary.”

D’Ascenzo has never responded. Shane Reardon, the acting-second Commissioner of Taxation, told Crikey:

“The ATO cannot comment on individual employee matters or circumstances. In particular it is not appropriate in this case as the matters detailed in the complaint are currently the subject of proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court. We have a detailed guide for our staff (a Corporate Management Practice Statement) which sets out how the ATO manages whistleblowing.”

Protection for whistleblowers is covered under section 16 of the Public Service Act. It states that an employer must not victimise, or discriminate against, employees because they have reported breaches (or alleged breaches) of the code of conduct to them. Amendments currently before Parliament increase the powers of the Australian Public Service Commissioner to determine complaints, other than whistleblower complaints, which ironically continue to be determined by agencies. Effectively, whistleblower protections remain unchanged.

Teffaha today remains on stress leave without pay. She says the ATO refuses to suspend or sack her, nor make any finding of misconduct against her. She is surviving on savings and with the help of her family while she waits for the commencement of her court action.

“The whistleblower laws are a joke,” she said. “If someone had told me the truth back then, I wouldn’t have lodged the darn thing. But I don’t regret what has happened. The community has a right to expect that public service agencies that serve them don’t sweep information under the carpet and don’t engage in conduct of this type against dedicated and professional employees. I am committed to realising this expectation.”

FOI Australian Public Service Commission/ Dodgy Robert Cornall AO
So apart form doing the dodgy report and investigation into Manus Island which cost $83,000 Dodgy Robert Cornall has done 2 investigations into misconduct by Federal Government Agency Heads under S41(m)
It is hardly surprising there is so much systemic corrupt conduct in Government agencies when investigations are not independent.
As this dodgy Cornall was secretary of the Attorney Generals department and therefore fails any independence test.
Taking a look through the annual reports it is also revealed Commissioner Steve Sedgwick also fucked over every whistle-blower and all those who made complaints about Agency Heads. Clearly the Shonky Sedgwick has also a vested interest in protecting systemic corrupt conduct and corruption in Government Agencies

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:02:22 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

The two investigations were conducted for the purposes of the Commissioner’s function under paragraph 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act 1999 “to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads”. Please note that section 41 of the Public Service Act 1999 was amended in 2013 and this power is now found under paragraph 41(1)(m).

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 41

Commissioner's functions

(1) The Commissioner has the following functions:

(a) to strengthen the professionalism of the APS and facilitate continuous improvement in workforce management in the APS;

(b) to uphold high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS;

(c) to monitor, review and report on APS capabilities within and between Agencies to promote high standards of accountability, effectiveness and performance.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Commissioner's functions include the following:

(a) to foster, and contribute to, leadership, high quality learning and development and career management in the APS;

(b) to lead the thinking about, provide advice on and drive reforms to workforce management policies so that the APS is ready for future demands;

(d) to foster an APS workforce that reflects the diversity of the Australian population;

(e) to promote the APS Values, the APS Employment Principles and the Code of Conduct;

(f) to evaluate the extent to which Agencies incorporate and uphold the APS Values and the APS Employment Principles;

(g) to partner with Secretaries in the stewardship of the APS;

(h) to provide advice and assistance to Agencies on public service matters;

(i) to work with other governments (including foreign governments) on matters relating to public sector workforce management, leadership and career management;

(j) to review any matter relating to the APS;

(k) to review any matter relating to the APS referred to the Commissioner by the Public Service Minister, and report on that matter to the Public Service Minister;

(l) to evaluate the adequacy of systems and procedures in Agencies for ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct;

(m) to inquire, in accordance with section 41A, into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by Agency Heads;

(n) to inquire into and determine, in accordance with section 41B, whether an APS employee, or a former APS employee, has breached the Code of Conduct;

(o) to inquire, subject to the regulations, into public interest disclosures (within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 ), to the extent that the disclosures relate to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct;

(p) such other functions as are conferred on the Commissioner by this Act, the regulations or any other law;

(q) such other functions as the Prime Minister, by legislative instrument, directs the Commissioner to perform;

(r) to do anything incidental to or conducive to the performance of any of the Commissioner's functions.

Note: Neither section 42 (disallowance) nor Part 6 (sunsetting) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 applies to a direction given under paragraph (2)(q) (see sections 44 and 54 of that Act).

Reports may include recommendations

(3) A report made by the Commissioner in the performance of his or her functions may include recommendations.

Fees

(4) The regulations may authorise the Commissioner to charge fees (on behalf of the Commonwealth) for the performance, on request, of the Commissioner's functions.

Monday, 14 July 2014

FOI APSC/ Robert Cornall/ dodgy Karin Fisher

Clearly dodgy Karin Fisher is attempting to DODGE FOI's
It is amuzing how shonky this woman is.......
So I am aware Cornall protected one agency head under S41 of the APS Act but what was the other one???

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:49:44 +1000

Hi Karin,

please advise me under what section of the Australian Public Service Act did Cornall investigate these individuals?

Thank you

Fiona Brown

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:12:19 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

Mr Cornall was engaged by the Commission to investigate allegations that had been made to the Australian Public Service Commissioner about the conduct of certain individuals. The allegations and details about the investigations include sensitive personal information and are confidential.

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

Friday, 11 July 2014

FOI/ Australian Public Service Commission/ Dodgy Robert Cornall

So what was the other inquiry that Dodgy Robert Cornall did for the APSC?
One was to protect and coverup for an Agency Head under S41 of the APS Act but what was the other one for?
Also Senator Hansen Young was outraged dodgy Cornall was paid 83,000 by the Australian Government to do a report shonky report on Manus Island and the asylum seeker riots!!

From: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
To: foi@apsc.gov.au
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 00:30:06 +1000

Hi Chris,

Can you please verify what 2 investigations Robert Cornall did for the APSC.

Thank you

Fiona Brown

From: FOI@apsc.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:36:54 +1000
Subject: RE: FOI Robert Cornall [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Ms Brown

I refer to your request for information about the number of investigations conducted by Mr Robert Cornall for the Australian Public Service Commission since 2010.

I have made inquiries with the relevant areas in the Commission and two investigations were identified which were undertaken by Mr Cornall since 2010.

Please note that your request was not a valid request for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 because your request was for information, not for specific documents. However, we have provided you with the information requested.

Regards

____________________________________________________Chris Luton
Australian Public Service Commission

p : 02 6202 3571 | f : 02 6250 4437
e : chris.luton@apsc.gov.au | w : www.apsc.gov.au

Saturday, 28 June 2014

Tim Wilson: yes, our laws against free speech are broken

115 Comments | Permalink

Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt

–, Wednesday, April, 30, 2014, (9:37am)

Tim Wilson on the need to reform our laws against free speech:

Recently, the head of the Prime Minister’s indigenous council, Warren Mundine, criticised the proposed changes, but recognised “there is no doubt we need to amend the act and make sure it’s focused”.
The NSW Rabbinical Council acknowledged the laws make it hard for rabbis to “get up and make a pronouncement on certain moral issues (because they) … might insult (someone)”.
Similarly, Jewish community leader Mark Leibler has said “there is a possibility of working out a solution which will be a sensible compromise” while arguing for minimal change.The question is not if the law should be changed, but how.

UPDATE
How many on the Left have betrayed principle for advantage in this debate?

ABC1’s Q & A, Monday:

VAN Badham: Is it so important to the future of Australia that a handful of extremists are given a position by which they can belittle, humiliate, denigrate, vilify, harass and intimidate people who exist within minority communities or traditionally oppressed ethnic communities? ... As a journalist, I do not feel that my free speech is limited by my obligation to show respect and decency to diversity in my community?

Respect. Badham tweets, April 21:

JESUS, people: IF ENVIRONMENTALISTS WERE AUTHORITARIAN THE F..KING PLANET WOULDN’T BE *DYING*.

Respect. Badham tweets, April 5:

SOME totally batshit-bananaland trolling from Liberal party twatkvists on #wavotes …

Badham tweets, March 25:

DEAR Tony Abbott, If you wish to redesign Australia into a bloody aristocracy, I personally will start to build the guillotine. X Van.

Badham, ABC1’s Q & A, Monday:

TODAY is international day of remembrance for the Holocaust and I want everybody to consider what the day of remembrance means in the context of a potential future scenario where those protections are gone and what that means to the families of Holocaust survivors and everybody who was touched by institutional racism.

Respect? Badham tweets, December 18:

SO how’s everyone feeling about a right-wing party like the LNP moving to make anti-Semitism perfectly legal? Does that ever turn out well ... You know, last time we have a failed artist from (sic) the Right telling people it was OK to hate Jews… #TimWilson …

Alan Dershowitz, The Australian, April 2:

DEMOCRACY can endure the coarsening and painful effects of bigoted speech. It cannot survive a regime of governmental censorship.

UPDATE
Mark Steyn:

In Australia, they’re trying to get rid of Section 18c. The Aussie campaign is not going well.
What’s going on? Well, in the western world today, there are far more lobby groups for censorship - under polite euphemisms such as “diversity”, “human rights”, “hate speech” - than there are for freedom of expression.If you attempt to roll back a law like Section 18c, you’ll be opposed by the aboriginal lobby, the Muslim lobby, the Jewish lobby, the LGBT lobby, the higher-education lobby.... And you’ll be supported by ...hardly anyone, save for me and Andrew Bolt and the usual suspects.

Support Mark Steyn’s battle against Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann. Go here.
(Thanks to reader handjive.)

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on myspace Share on google Share on twitter Share on email

Have Your Say

Show Oldest | Newest first Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

I just don’t see what the problem is.
Anyone moronic enough to racially abuse someone is not going to stop to think whether he/she may be liable under s.18c of the RDA.
This is simply an attempt by the left and those with vested interests to close down debates before they even start.
And imagine the horror scenario of the Greens ever attaining some measure of political power in Australia. Imagine what those lunatics would have enshrined into law as hate/abusive/intimidating/offensive speech. There lies the slippery slope.
Free speech needs to be free (within the traditionally legal limits) or we might as well have no free speech. Someone with a barrow to push will always go out of their way to be offended by something in an attempt to shut someone else up.

Notch of Winston Hills (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (07:56am)

Taz replied to Notch
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:32am)

The problem is that the law is not applied equally.
Recently “The Examiner” newspaper published an article written by a staff member in which petty complaints of doubtful veracity were made against people described as “Caucasian.”
A few references to non-Caucasians also appeared, always complimentary.
The clear message was that Caucasians were bad, non-Caucasians were good.
No problem for either author or newspaper. But had the article gone in the opposite direction, with Caucasians good and non-Caucasians bad, there would have been headlines around the world about endemic racism in Tasmania.

Madly replied to Notch
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:50am)

STOP the lies.
Election NOW

Bob replied to Notch
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:41am)

Racism card is overdone. Have been described with many adjectives before,and never been affected one bit. Accepting being offended by others is demeaning oneself. Why should I give a stuff what another is trying to offend me with. Be proud of what you are,unless there is something to be ashamed off.

MalcolmS replied to Notch
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:09pm)

Compromised free speech is a contradiction in terms.
Free speech is like pregnancy.
Either you have it or you don’t.

I have just heard the ABC (!) list all those who are opposing the free speech changes. The majority in this country, white Christians, were not mentioned. One wonders why the majority are not also up in arms, after all the endurance of Pommie bastard (even to the future King when at school) white trash...white dog...white slut...white whore are prevalent from ‘the rest’. Something to do with having passed the stage of being insecure and precious and fragile perhaps? More time spent properly integrating and progressing and less time spent on worrying about perceived slurs might be a far better thing to do.

Paul of Chirnside Park (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (07:56am)

But I am fairly sure none of them support the extreme position you and Brandis advocate in repealing S18D with new exemptions in S18C so broad as to completely castrate the current protections against hate speech.

PSFR (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (07:59am)

Ancient Mariner replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:02am)

so broad as to completely castrate the current protections against hate speech.

What a grossly sexist statement! Seems those who scream loudest are those who are most guilty themselves.

Truth.in.Footnotes replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:21am)

Hate speech.
Hate ... speech.
Do you know where the term “hate speech” comes from PSFR? It’s been the favorite tool of totalitarians everywhere, since 1948. No wonder Lefties love it.
“All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the EU adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. (...) In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.
Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.As Americans, Europeans and others contemplate the dividing line emerging on the extent to which free speech should be limited to criminalize the “defamation of religions” and “Islamophobia”, launched by the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 1999, they should bear this forgotten history in mind. However well-intended —and its initial proponents were anything but well-intended — the Western acceptance of hate-speech laws severely limits the ability of liberal democracies to counter attempts to broaden the scope of hate-speech laws under international human rights law, with potentially devastating consequences for the preservation of free speech.” [My Emphasis.]
See Jacob Mchangama, ‘The Sordid Origin of Hate-Speech Laws’, in Policy Review No. 170. December 1, 2011 (Hoover Institution: Stanford University). http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/100866

AJ of Here replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:24am)

There should be NO protection against hate speech UNLESS that hate speech also incites violence (which is a separate crime and need not have a hate speech component to it). That is the essence of freedom of speech.
It is not for ANY GROUP to decide what is LEGAL speech and what isn’t, regardless of whether that group is the government, news readers, feel gooders, communists, greenies, totalitarians, arrogant boofheads or dinkface fartbreaths. It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide if he likes the speech and if not, then it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to reprimand the person, boycott him or otherwise criticise the speaker.
Making THOUGHTS illegal does not address the problem. Changing mindset is through good, old fashioned education, conscience, discipline, respect and politeness, NONE of which the vicious, hate-filled, totalitarian left has. Allowing them to lead the “change” towards a better society is not only doomed to failure, but would create nothing but a prison where your very thoughts will see you getting punished.

doug z replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:27am)

You think support for free speech is an “extreme position”?

Inquisitivemind replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:52am)

Is it extreme to support the principle of freedom of speech? I’m not so sure. It is very easy to categorise something that you don’t like as ‘hate speech’ or ‘vilification’ or ‘intimidation’. I personally do not trust parliament, lawyers, or the courts to determine what should and shouldn’t be allowed to be said – slippery slope etc etc.
You may disagree with this of course, but I think those that do need to realise that they are not in favour of free speech, but rather speech that they find acceptable. If we were seeking to debate, you would have to start your point with “I believe speech that I disagree with should be restricted because…”
I think if people came to the realisation that the previous sentence is a more accurate representation of their position then that may change their mind. Or perhaps they are fine with deciding what people may say and think.

Rooboy replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:49am)

I love how you try to use emotive clap trap to bolster your argument.
They have asked for nothing of the sort.
What happened to Andrew Bolt in his case was not hate speech. It was the usual suspects using a law which was intended to stop hate speech used to stifle free speech. What I always love about the left is there repeated cries they are all for free speech if people agree with them.
You just have to take a look at the climate debate to see that. They want skeptics denied access to have their views aired. Or just like with Max Brenner boycotts.
When the shoe is on the other foot they cry victim.
Your argument which is typical of this is full of emotion and not logic.
All the protections people have will still be there when 18C is repealed. Everyone will get on with their lives. Free speech is what makes solid democracy.

MattR replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:40pm)

Define “hate speech” and tell us why the government has a right to deem it illegal.
Fact is it is censorship and you support it because freedom of speech is not something the left like and it allows you to push your PC thuggery on us.

PSFR replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:47pm)

@AJ of Here - it has nothing to do with thoughts. People can be as bigoted as they like - the issue is about limitations on expressing such bigotry about race.
@Rooboy - you have no clue - read the proposal before making a fool of yourself.
@Inquisitivemind - have replied to you several times at length, but never been published. I’m disappointed about your position on lawyers and the courts, given your own personal circumstances. You need a better mentor

Anyway, I would start not with:

“I believe speech that I disagree with should be restricted because…”

but with:

I believe speech which intimidates others ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RACE should be restricted because IT IS DIVISIVE AND HAS NO PLACE IN A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY COMPRISED OF PEOPLES OF MULTIPLE RACES.

At the end of the day, this one is a judgement call and simply a matter of opinion.

PSFR replied to PSFR
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:53pm)

@MattR - honestly, you are a complete waste of time. Your constant references to me being a leftie insult your own intelligence, not my political position. Read some of my stuff on individualism, individual responsibility, welfare and so on and you might gain a little insight.

That’s why we need a direct democracy with the citizen initiated referendum to stop once and for all the political correct fascists to impose what they think we ought to have without any democratic debate.
Democracy means;
“Government of the people, by the people, for the people”
and not government of the few, by the few, for the few as it is under our current distorted democracy by the few which is an autocracy by stealth.
Am I wrong?

maria of Sydney (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:00am)

pollster replied to maria
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:26am)

That’s why we need a direct democracy with the citizen initiated referendum to stop once and for all the political correct fascists to impose what they think we ought to have without any democratic debate.

I think a referendum is a little over the top but it should sort out if the Australian people want to repeal 18c… but it might not be the results you expect
Further results from the poll indicate strong opposition to the government’s policies with respect to the Racial Discrimination Act, with 88% disagreeing with the contention that it should be lawful to offend, insult or humiliate on the basis of race, as per the provisions of 18C of the act, and 59% opposed to George Brandis’s contention that people have the right to be bigots, with 34% supportive.

PaulM replied to maria
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:27am)

Am I wrong?

Yes.
Democracy, noun, plural democracies.
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 29 Apr. 2014.
In bold is the part you can’t seem to grasp.
We are a participatory democracy that elects representatives. Your narrow view of democracy (your beloved direct democracy) is but one type of democracy.
Your support for democracy only extends to that type which you support so isn’t support for democracy. You do not believe in democracy otherwise you would simply accept the decision of the majority who voted in a referendum to keep our type of democracy in place.
That republican referendum is a perfect example of a democratic debate that resulted in a free and proper referendum.
It didn’t give the result you wanted, it gave the result the majority wanted. Your constant failure to accept the expressed will of the majority of the people shows that you are the fascist that wants to impose what you think we ought to have.

Jason replied to maria
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:01pm)

Maria you are 100% CORRECT.
PaulM you 100% WRONG
Democracy
from the greek
demo=people....... not a few people
kratia= power
power to the people without any preferences.
OLIGARCY:
(from Greek ????????? (oligarkhía); from ?????? (olígos), meaning “few”, and ???? (arkho), meaninga
small group of people having control of a country or organization OR a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few..
Am I wrong?
Stop playing dirty politic and please respect democracy.
No wonder the crooks are in charge to impose their dirty laws.

doug z replied to maria
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:01pm)

PaulM, I think it’s a little bit more complicated than that. We elect representative to act on our behalf, but sometimes those representatives promised to do one thing and actually do the opposite (like “there will be no carbon tax” or “no new taxes). Sometimes a government is not even actually elected by the majority (of the nation).
I guess the biggest issue I have with your comment is the bit about not accepting the will of the majority making one a fascist. Fascist parties can, in fact, be elected in a fair election. So by your logic, those who oppose the Fascist government are then fascists. I’m very uneasy about the notion that something is right just because our elected representatives say it is.

Would have thought that was simple. Take out insult humiliate or whatever other adjectives are used.
Simple reason is an old saying.
One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Means what you think is ok is poison to someone else and since no-one can ever know what that is, then there is no way to define an insult/humiliation etc.
The only way it can be done is if we are ll drones who take proclamations from Canberra every morning as gospel, no matter how puerile it might be.

Jack (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:02am)

Mack replied to Jack
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:28am)

I would have thought most people would also know the old rhyme sung by children in playgrounds -"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me...”
Seems like some minority groups are just plain sooks.

Bruce in WA replied to Jack
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:05pm)

I always thought it was:
“Sticks and stones may break my bones
But whips and chains excite me”

As the legislation stands it could become impossible to discuss anything in relation to racial differences.
Take for example a doctor presenting a health seminar to an indigenous community. If he advised them that they should be cautious of full cream milk intake because their genetic make-up gave them a much higher probability of lactose intolerance than Europeans (85% of adult aboriginals are lactose intolerant), he might be open top prosecution if one of the audience felt offended. As I read it, offence is all that’s required to make it an offence.

Jacket of Tweed (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:02am)

Jacket replied to Jacket
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:46am)

Sorry forgot the link. Also some interesting points in relation to alcohol. Link

Quince Paste replied to Jacket
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:04pm)

Jacket, you should take the time to actually read the current law as the scenario you describe is specifically protected.
Let’s keep in mind that to date it seems that one person has fallen foul of this law and as a result he feels his free speech has been impeded, can anyone cite one other person affected by the law in this way, just one?
Furthermore, he fails to admit that one of the reasons for his this is the sheer number of factual errors he made in the articles.
He just didn’t do his homework. Had he done so, things might be very different.

Every Australian should read Tim Wilson’s submission. The trouble is the left in p[articular have taken a position that encourages censorship (extraordinary when you think about it) and they have sacrificed their principles on the alter of partisan politics.

dasher (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:05am)

Docker replied to dasher
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:04pm)

Not extraordinary at all Dasher. The Left now feels they are powerful enough to control what is banned and what is not in their best interest.

The best way to amend the law would be to void it, all of it.
It is about time people stopped being so precious and grew up.
If I could take people to court that hurt my feelings, well gee where would I start? Maybe my brother then I could sue my parents then move on to play mates, teachers , work mates, etc etc. Who cares? Enough.
As far as having your feelings hurt because of racists, those on the receiving end should turn it around and thank the person for showing their true selves. It can take the rest of us years to find out what these people are like.

Val of Knox (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:05am)

B4Bear replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:45am)

So you are happy for people to be intimidated and threatened (before any physical violence occurs) by some bigot because they are homosexual or black or Muslim, or Jewish or......?

Josh replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:09pm)

Aboriginals in WA call us white fellas and white dogs so where is the difference?
You’re being INCREDIBLY naive if you don’t think the minorities also discriminate.

Val replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:25pm)

I believe there are better ways to address the problems as it is now addresses by public outcry. I do not believe that every single thing needs to be dealt with by government. You force these attitudes underground and you end up with a backlash that no-one wants.

F.S.M. FTW replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:40pm)

B4Bear is convinced that if you aren’t happy with something then the logical conclusion is to have laws against it…
Good thinking champ.

Mary replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:40pm)

Are you suggesting that homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, etc., cannot be guilty of bigotry?
Laws already exist that protect against intimidation and threatening an individual.
Today, you give up your free speech. What will you give away tomorrow?

bennoba replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:53pm)

B4Bear
How about you read what Val actually wrote.
Her point was about hurt feelings. You used the words ‘intimidated’ and ‘threatened’ - not Val.
You have to be pretty dishonest (and rather stupid) to do what you just tried to do and think you wouldn’t get caught out.

..homosexual or black or Muslim, or Jewish or...?

..or white or Christian..?

nb replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:54pm)

I don’t stand by and watch anyone being intimidated and threatened, and have paid consequences for this since childhood. To have people of the type that I regularly stood up for now wanting me silenced, and counting me as the enemy, unfortunately pits me AGAINST them B4.

Rooboy replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:56pm)

So you are happy for people to be intimidated and threatened
Where did Val ever say that in their entire post?
You just as per usual read what you wanted to read and then sprouted off complete rubbish that wasn’t even mentioned in the original post.
So you are happy for people to be intimidated and threatened (before any physical violence occurs) by some bigot because they are homosexual or black or Muslim, or Jewish or......?
Just pure emotive clap trap with no reason or logic. Not once was this said.
This is why 18C is dangerous because of people like you B4Bear. It isn’t about protecting peoples rights but stopping debate on issues you may not like.
Your post really sums up your irrational thought process.

Pow pow replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:03pm)

B4Bear
So you are happy for people to be intimidated and threatened (before any physical violence occurs) by some bigot because they are homosexual or black or Muslim, or Jewish or......?
How about white?

Val replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:19pm)

Actually B4Bear I would prefer that manners be taught in the home and school as well as consideration for others feelings. Not government legislation.
I would also prefer that people were taught how to behave in public as well as in private. I would prefer the enemy of good manners “political correctness” be discarded to the rubbish heap.

Steve replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:51pm)

Only the Swiss citizen has that democratic right to void any laws because the Swiss citizen is sovereign that is democracy and that’s the way it should be in any democratic society.
Anything else is lie and fraud.

Quince Paste replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (01:57pm)

Val, if that is what you think the law is, then you clearly don’t understand it. Take the time to read it rather than just believe what you read on this blog.

B4Bear replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:16pm)

bennoba replied to Val
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:53pm)

Val was talking about repealing the entire Act.
Therefore by extension that includes threaten and intimidate.
Get it?

Australia has now reached the point where policy makers and activists consider the American Constitutional right for its citizens to free speech is totally wrong. Clearly Australians citizens are unfit to also have a Constitutional right to free speech.

Dissenter of Adelaide (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:17am)

With regard to the ludicrous claim that repealing Section 18c of the RDA would lead to race riots - well, having them in place certainly didn’t stop Cronulla in 2005 or Canberra in 2012.
In which case, are we entitled to judge Section 18c a failure?

Clownfish of Launceston (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:30am)

It’s broken all right. The ABC moderator rejected a posting I made the other day to some nonsense for Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane. I pointed out that 18C prevented the discussion of the prevalence of child abuse in some races, a propensity for civil violence in another and female genital mutilation in a third. Not offending anyone seemed to be more important than preventing physical harm.
(Before I wrote this I had to check the HRC’s name and I found that the ABC is getting its knickers in a twist about some race-based groups saying that a change to 18C will - not might - lead to race riots like the one at Cronulla NINE YEARS AGO.)

JohnM of Mitcham (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:31am)

As soon as the government saw that 90% of people don’t want it changed, they killed it off.
Aussies just don’t like bullies.

roger (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:35am)

Notch replied to roger
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:47am)

The whining left always claims it’s being bullied by someone or other just to shut down reasoned debate.

Willw replied to roger
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:14am)

That’s probably why we despise the Left…

MattR replied to roger
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:46pm)

Actually 90% of people said that doing those things on the base of race was wrong. Who doesn’t disagree with that?
Nowhere near 90% support censoring opinions the way the left want to.

Why do you leftist fools claim to support freedom yet attack it at every opportunity?

Why are we bothering to amend Section 18. If we really believe in free speech and have a real democracy and judicial system in place to redress slander, defamation and incitement then we should be demanding free speech be enshrined in our constitution similar to the US First Amendment.
It is much better that people and express their worst opinions,and be argued against then silence them, driving underground and deciding to take unsavory actions.
Less nanny laws and debate your critics rather than using the ‘state’ to silence them. Toughen up everybody.

ballaratbill of Alfredton (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:41am)

Brenton replied to ballaratbill
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:07am)

[Parliament] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
From Wikipedia, BTW.

BVMKINGMAKER replied to ballaratbill
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:28am)

That’s the problem with how they are framing it. If you have a “right to bigotry” if cannot be argued against. The U.S.A has a gun lobby that condones schools being shot up because they don’t want to give up their right to bear arms. Tony Abbott is setting up a bigotry lobby. What will they condone because they don’t want to give up their right to bigotry?

John Galt replied to ballaratbill
Wed 30 Apr 14 (11:13am)

Sadly, if put up for a vote today, the First Amendment wouldn’t survive. Probably not the Second, Fourth, Fifth or Sixth, either. The people who wrote them were classicists who had read Mill and Rousseau.

Lets face it.
Racism is merely a meme, a tool of control.
Remember the Left are heavily into Eugenics,
and have been since before the National Socialist Hitler.
Remember too that like their Nazi predecessors, they are highly Anti-Semetic, The Left are the oldest, most totalitarian racists of all time.
So called “Racism” is really the once imperative, ability of a person to differentiate between his tribe, and everyone else’s tribe.
People are born"Racist" of necessity , The left have turned this obvious fact into a weapon.
Anyone who says that he is not a racist is at best a sincere self deceiver, and at worst a pretentious liar.
18c is childish attempt at thought control, and assuaging guilty consciences.

wingnut (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:43am)

Mr. Jordon replied to wingnut
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:29am)

Churchill is of the Left is he?

Reco replied to wingnut
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:15pm)

What load of rubbish- Eugenics have been favored by rightist tyrants such as Hitler, Franco and Lother Von Trother, Alfred Krupp(there rightists carried it out)-it was even approved by rightist democrats such as Chuchill who want certain sections of the population sterilized.
The far right slaughtered six out of eight million Jews during the 1940s and you have the gall to call the left anti Semitic?
Let me quote some good ole rightists and their thoughts on Jews:
“Everywhere? one sees the directing and destroying hand of Jewry!”
-Tsar Nicholas II
The German Kaiser who claimed that the revolution against him was
“egged on and misled by the tribe of Judah ... Let no German ever forget this, nor rest until these parasites have been destroyed and exterminated from German soil!”
-Kaiser Wilhelm II
“If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.”
-Adolf Hitler
“While music is heard and our flag is raised there are wandering throughout the world the damned such as the eternal Jew, whom nobody wants because they are a Communist horde.”
-General Franco
Einstein became a committed leftist after the Second World war for a reason you know.

MattR replied to wingnut
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:47pm)

No Jordan, but socialists are leftists and unicorns have no preference.

Mr. Jordon replied to wingnut
Wed 30 Apr 14 (03:03pm)

MattR
Churchill was an early supporter of Eugenics.
Using you logic this makes him a Socialist.
After all he did create the British welfare state between 1907-11. And he did write a book about it and propose implement higher taxes on the rich to pay for welfare services for the poor.
Like I’ve said many time MattR. History is not your friend.

The Brandis amendment is dead on arrival.
Landry, the LIB member for Reid in Western Sydney is getting hammered over it.
I wouldn’t expect Wilson to have too many clues. What was the last piece of legislation he amended?

bert of hurlstone park (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:50am)

Any opinion, however innocuous, is bound to offend someone. And stifling debate is not healthy in a democracy.
But vilification of individuals purely on their race or religion, rather than being healthy debate or in ‘the public interest’, is the stuff of totalitarianism. History is littered with pogroms on ethnic and religious groups, and any law that makes those crimes easier can’t be permitted.
Bolt’s attack on identified individuals who legally took advantage of opportunities available to them was ill-considered at best, and racist at worst, because his arguments turned on race, not the merits of the individuals concerned as being eligible or competent for the positions.
While I don’t agree with all the judge’s findings, any one of the litigants could be forgiven for thinking Bolt’s views were an attack on their racial antecedents, irrespective of the identification choices available to them.
If race or religion is a factor in a matter that affects our society, let it be discussed and debated on its merits, rather than hidden, but have regard to the rights of individuals to exercise legitimate choices without fear of abuse by powerful people.

Tenez LeDroit of Nelly Bay (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:53am)

doug z replied to Tenez LeDroit
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:31am)

And stifling debate is not healthy in a democracy.

So far, so good

But

Doh!! I should have known a BUT was coming!!!

Salome replied to Tenez LeDroit
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:00pm)

If my taxes are made available to someone on the basis of that person’s race, I should be allowed to express my opinion inter alia as to whether a person should fit the criteria for receipt of the funds. And I can’t express such an opinion without invoking race or ethnicity, and the very fact that I differ as to the criteria for entitlement is likely to upset or offend the grantee. So it’s lose, lose for me.

Salome replied to Tenez LeDroit
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:00pm)

AJ of Here\ replied to Tenez LeDroit
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:40pm)

There would be no offence taken if they did not feel guilty about their actions.
After all, if someone says that some in a certain ethnic group is doing something bad, why would I feel bad about it if I am not doing that bad thing but belong to that ethnic group? It is obvious that that person was not talking about me.
Ergo, those who take offense at sweeping statements are GUILTY AS CHARGED!

Changing 18c has some merit but it would never have been done had it not been for the court case, and it does cause a heap of trouble for the government, in terms of causing unrest and worry amongst ethnic communities.
The government really needs to keep quiet about it for the moment.

candy of brisbane (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (08:55am)

Notch replied to candy
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:49am)

Yep, we’ve gotta be careful that we don’t upset the ethnics.
Please.

ballaratbill of Alfredton (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:00am)

Fortunately I was in the bush and missed Q & A this week. Can’t say I am disappointed in missing V Badmouth on the panel. Some of her tweets clearly demonstrated why she Should NOT be on the panel, but then this is our ABC of course! Maintaining high standards as usual!

Driller Paul of Warragul (Reply)
Wed 30 Apr 14 (09:01am)

BVMKINGMAKER replied to Driller Paul
Wed 30 Apr 14 (10:31am)

So what it seems to me you are saying is you don’t like her point of view do she shouldn’t be allowed on Q and A to express them. That’s interesting

Josh replied to Driller Paul
Wed 30 Apr 14 (12:10pm)

No what he is saying that she shouldn’t be on the panel with such a bad attitude.
Why do you always twist people’s words to make it sound like we’re bullying you?
Don’t you get tired of playing the victim?

Val replied to Driller Paul
Wed 30 Apr 14 (02:21pm)

BVMK I can’t see where Driller Paul is suggesting that she be hauled through the courts for her opinions, he should be allowed to express his disgust at peoples views. This prerogative should not only be allowed if you are of the left.