# The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace



## noco (22 October 2016)

Recent happenings involving Professor Gillian Triggs with her lies to the Senate has become too much and she must go...She has repeatedly  lied to the Senate on more than one occasion and it is bewildering to many as to why she has not been asked to resign.....Her appointment by Julia Gillard (nuff said) terminates mud 2017.

Mike Kenny sums up  Gillian Triggs with her bias.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/b553cb6c479a25dbbc956c1b985e91f3


*From the cheap seats in our demo*cracy it looks like the people in the members’ enclosure are *operating under different rules. The publicly funded political *insiders are quick to denounce mainstream voters as racist, selfish, ignorant and angry yet they excuse their own dishonesty, promote their own hateful invective and seek to entrench their superiority.

And still they wonder at the rise of Pauline Hanson, Nick Xenophon and the like — populists who assume the mantle of political outsiders so they benefit from the same resentment towards the political class that fuels Donald Trump in the US and the UK Independence Party in Britain.

In three seemingly unrelated issues this week we could see how the political elites from the so-called progressive Left were operating under a different code; one far more forgiving than that *applied to conservative politicians or the rest of us. There was a typically jaundiced ABC Four Corners report on offshore processing; a defiant Australian Human Rights Commission president in Gillian Triggs *excused for repeatedly misleading parliamentary inquiries; and a Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson, setting himself up as a legal oracle to the parliament and the nation. In each case the platform is provided by public money and authority. In each case the individuals are seeking to recast the policy of a democratically elected government. And in each case they claim to be serving a higher goal.

This indulgence — which we might describe as “one rule for them and another for the rest of us” — actually has deep philosophical roots in post-Marxist political activism. It is the belief that the standards expected by the mainstream represent a “repressive tolerance”, as it was dubbed by German-American political theorist Herbert Marcuse. To deliver their nirvana, the elites must rise above the “tyranny of the majority”, he argued, and play by their own rules. “Liberating *tolerance, then,” wrote Marcuse, “would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

In May refugee activist Julian Burnside QC launched Offshore by Madeline Gleeson, a book attacking Australia’s border protection policies. Burnside suggested Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton should be indicted for crimes against humanity. He said it was incontestable that detention centres at Manus Island and Nauru were concentration camps.

In the audience were the *author’s grandfather, former chief justice of the High Court Gerard Brennan, and her father, Commonwealth Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson. Among Gleeson’s duties is arguing migration cases and defending legal challenges against commonwealth law for the government in the High Court.

Given these responsibilities, and notwithstanding the book was his daughter’s, Gleeson might have been wise not to attend a launch that was so wildly and openly antipathetic to the government’s policies, politics and personnel. Yet Canberra insiders say Gleeson has given the book to at least one senior *bureaucrat and possibly other senior judicial figures (the Solicitor-General’s office would not comment).

Gleeson is now in open political/bureaucratic warfare with his boss, Attorney-General George Brandis. Their dispute has played out publicly before a parliamentary committee. We have a complete breakdown of trust between the *Attorney-General and his official legal *adviser, the Solicitor-*General. Yet, of course, Gleeson remains in his role.

At the heart of this dispute is Gleeson’s inflated concept of his position. Under the act, his role is to “act as counsel” for the government and to “furnish his opinion” to the Attorney-General on *referred matters. In short, the *Solicitor-General is the government’s lawyer.

Yet Gleeson told the committee he would “take instructions from the government of the day but will also owe an ultimate duty to the Commonwealth of Australia and its people”. We, the people, might think the way to fulfil such a duty would be to take instructions from the government.

But Gleeson sees himself as far more autonomous and lofty than that. “I am not just an adviser to the government,” he testified. “Senator, my primary responsibility is to the commonwealth, to the Governor-General and to the parliament,” he explained later.

This is extraordinary. Remember, Gleeson revealed he spoke with Labor’s legal affairs spokesman, Mark Dreyfus, during the election campaign and didn’t tell the *Attorney-General.

As counsel for the government, Gleeson might defend laws in the High Court that were opposed by the opposition in parliament. Yet he contends he can fulfil a duty to the whole parliament rather than the government.

He seems to be trying to set himself up as a higher and independent authority on legal matters — like an auditor-general for legal affairs — when that is not his legislated role. Gleeson should back down but won’t. One rule for them and another for the rest of us.

The opening shot of Four Corners on Monday showed two refugee children on Nauru peering from behind cyclone fencing while the voiceover used the word *detention. Yet the program producers must have known that no children, or adults, have been held in detention on Nauru for more than a year.

The program used YouTube footage of brawling men, a few shots of the ugliest parts of the *island, pictures of decrepit facilities and interviews with refugees and teachers about untested claims of violence and abuse.

Four Corners didn’t mention that two journalists had visited Nauru in the past year (I was one of them), had interviewed refugees and their children, and reported problems and anguish but a more positive reality about conditions and treatment.

The ABC report mentioned *detention 14 times yet failed to make clear that no one had been held in detention on the island for more than a year. It also failed to mention or show new school and hospital facilities or show how many refugees were working and studying on the island.

In short, it was jaundiced and misleading, and deliberately so. It was part of the ABC’s continuing and longstanding campaign against offshore processing.

If there were any evidence that my reports from Nauru, or those of the Nine Network, were as misleading, we could imagine the ABC response. They could not fault them so they ignored them.

One rule for them and another for the rest of us.

When Triggs was confronted with her own outlandish comments — denigrating mainstream voters and their politicians in The Saturday Paper — in a parliamentary committee, her imme*diate response was to deny them. She claimed the quotes were *“inaccurate” or “put in by a sub*editor” or had been used “out of context”.

But when she was told the paper had a recording of her comments, she backed down and sought to “clarify” her evidence.

This is far from the first time she has been exposed for misleading a parliamentary inquiry. *Defending her 18-month delay in holding an inquiry into children in detention, Triggs denied discussing the issue with a Labor minister. After extended and excruciating cross-examination she revealed she had discussed the issue with two Labor immigration ministers.

Triggs also claimed to have seen armed guards at a detention centre and retracted her statement when challenged. And some of the many excuses she offered for *delaying her inquiry didn’t measure up against the facts.

Not only does Triggs remain in her job but her blunders and *apparent deceptions have not even been reported by the ABC, which usually is obsessed by border protection issues and often *reports Triggs’s condemnation of offshore processing. Triggs seems to have some unwritten arrangement with the ABC so it censors her mistakes and embarrassments.

One rule for them and another for the rest of us.

Triggs told The Saturday Paper that Australians “don’t even understand their own democratic system”. She underestimates the people who pay her large salary.

There is a false morality at play and mainstream voters are on to it. Little wonder the disconnect *between the elites and the voters grows deeper.*


----------



## SirRumpole (22 October 2016)

Well I reckon that little hypocrite Tim Wilson should pay back any salary he got for being on the Human Rights Commission after saying it should be abolished.


----------



## noco (22 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I reckon that little hypocrite Tim Wilson should pay back any salary he got for being on the Human Rights Commission after saying it should be abolished.




I agree with Tim Wilson.....I believe it should be abolished.

So what do you think of Gillian Triggs?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 October 2016)

noco said:


> I agree with Tim Wilson.....I believe it should be abolished.
> 
> So what do you think of Gillian Triggs?




So what about Tim paying back his ill gotten gains ?

As for Triggs, if she has lied to the Senate then she should go. I don't see a lot of point in the entire Commission either.


----------



## noco (22 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So what about Tim paying back his ill gotten gains ?
> 
> As for Triggs, if she has lied to the Senate then she should go. I don't see a lot of point in the entire Commission either.




I know Tim Wilson was involved with the AHRC but as for his role in what he did or did not do, I cannot recall seeing very much publicity on his activities.

You seem to have it in for Wilson and I am not sure why.

Gillian Triggs is certainly not worth $400,000 per year.

It will interesting to see how things play out over the Bill Leak cartoon.


----------



## explod (22 October 2016)

Against the tenet of the threads title, the opening article seems more about building a case for the Attorney General's power over Parliament in my view.

But the Thread is timely as I was considering one on the Attorney versus Solicitor General myself a few days back and due to topic issues may still be needed. 

The "Parliament" is all Parliamentarians.

The "Government" is that group of a like persuasion who have the majority.

In the current make up and including the Senate (which includes Parliamentarians) then the total mix of "persuasions" is about even.  And that is the current will of the people.

Law evolves from common practice (Common Law) and eventually by Parliament hand become Statute Law.  The Solicitor General is a creature of Statute with a roll to advise the Parliament when asked.  The singular and plural applies, whereby or so, that any Parliamentarian can seek counsel on legal matters for the normal business of the day.

This has been common practice for a long time as did Malcolm Fraser, the opposition leader, some 45 years years ago to bring down the Prime Minister of the time Gough Whitlam.

Under the Brandis mode, what happened to Whitlam may not now be possible.   In this way, it is my view that Senator Brandis is effectively eroding democracy.

In being available to and providing advice, the Solicitor General is not setting himself up as a higher authority at all.  It is the Parliamentarians only, and on the floor of the houses themselves that points of Law have any life or effect.  And in that situation it is open for all to ponder speak on and to judge.

On Manus.  To the majority of those poor souls, just being on the island with no other alternatives is dreadful detention.

From 11am today I marched with the "Grandmothers against Detention of Refugee Children" under their logo of FREE THE CHILDREN.

I can assure you Noco that steam is building up on this issue and many of the ladies in the group were L/Np


----------



## Tisme (22 October 2016)

noco said:


> *
> 
> In the audience were the *author’s grandfather, former chief justice of the High Court Gerard Brennan, and her father, Commonwealth Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson. Among Gleeson’s duties is arguing migration cases and defending legal challenges against commonwealth law for the government in the High Court.
> 
> ...




So the writer effectively bitc4es and moans about the ordered society, then proceeds to stamp his own protocols of behaviour on others. If it was a Labor govt I bet he'd be toasting champagne.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 October 2016)

As for the AG vs SG, they both have similar yet different roles as far as I can see.

The AG is a politician whereas the SG is a public servant. There would be many cases where it is advantageous to get a non political opinion on matters of law. 

I think Gleeson is right to stand up against interference in his independence. It all seems to have settled down now, but I think it's a failure of Turnbull's leadership that it exploded in his face. He should just have got the two of them together over dinner and sorted it out.


----------



## McLovin (22 October 2016)

explod said:


> Law evolves from common practice (Common Law) and eventually by Parliament hand become Statute Law.  The Solicitor General is a creature of Statute with a roll to advise the Parliament when asked.  The singular and plural applies, whereby or so, that any Parliamentarian can seek counsel on legal matters for the normal business of the day.




Not all parliamentarians have access to the SG. The Act specifies to whom the SG can furnish advice.

The parliamentary clerks would usually provide legal advice to non-ministers.


----------



## noco (22 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> As for the AG vs SG, they both have similar yet different roles as far as I can see.
> 
> The AG is a politician whereas the SG is a public servant. There would be many cases where it is advantageous to get a non political opinion on matters of law.
> 
> I think Gleeson is right to stand up against interference in his independence. It all seems to have settled down now, but I think it's a failure of Turnbull's leadership that it exploded in his face. He should just have got the two of them together over dinner and sorted it out.




This whole affair AG v SG is a highly political nuisance.

Gillard appoints the SG who is no doubt in my mind is a Labor stooge.......The SG consults with the Shadow AG Mark Dreyfus without the sanction of the AG, solely to concoct up mischief to discredit the AG George Brandis.

Who is responsible to whom?...George Brandis is Gleeson's boss......nuff said.


----------



## explod (22 October 2016)

noco said:


> This whole affair AG v SG is a highly political nuisance.
> 
> Gillard appoints the SG who is no doubt in my mind is a Labor stooge.......The SG consults with the Shadow AG Mark Dreyfus without the sanction of the AG, solely to concoct up mischief to discredit the AG George Brandis.
> 
> Who is responsible to whom?...George Brandis is Gleeson's boss......nuff said.




On points of law there is no mischief.  Law is fixed written words.  Open to various views of interpretation yes but to say mischief is flaming the situation.

Which of course is what Brandis is trying to do.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 October 2016)

noco said:


> This whole affair AG v SG is a highly political nuisance.
> 
> .




The AG - SG relationship has been a peraceful one for 100 years until Brandis came along. I think that says something about George and his interpersonal abilities.


----------



## noco (22 October 2016)

explod said:


> On points of law there is no mischief.  Law is fixed written words.  Open to various views of interpretation yes but to say mischief is flaming the situation.
> 
> Which of course is what Brandis is trying to do.




Hang on....one moment you are saying there is no mischief and the next moment you are saying there is mischief.

You and Rumpy seem to be a bit lopsided....I can understand of course...You would both naturally protect your beloved Green/Labor socialist left mate appointed by Julia Gillard just like she appointed that rat bag Gillian Triggs.

You can bet your boots there is plenty of mischief when Mark Dreyfus is involved.

I should remind you both this thread is about the Human Rights Commission.....Nice diversion to take viewers away from the real issue.....So get back on track and lets talk about the faults of Gillian Triggs and the senate.....Lets talk about how Triggs is trying to discredit Bill Leak.....Typical of the Green/Labor socialist left tactic.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 October 2016)

noco said:


> I should remind you both this thread is about the Human Rights Commission.....




The article you quoted also complained about the Solicitor General, so it's fair game for this thread.

I'm defending the position of SG, not the individual.


----------



## explod (22 October 2016)

noco said:


> Hang on....one moment you are saying there is no mischief and the next moment you are saying there is mischief.
> 
> You and Rumpy seem to be a bit lopsided....I can understand of course...You would both naturally protect your beloved Green/Labor socialist left mate appointed by Julia Gillard just like she appointed that rat bag Gillian Triggs.
> 
> ...




Do not fret Noco,  tonight I attended the 40 year celebration of the Bendigo Branch of Amnesty International.  The key speaker Mario Santos spoke exceedingly well and in particular on the criminality (my take) of the Australian Government in their methods and handling of refugees, particularly Manus.

Just home now so I will ruminate overnight and get this thread right back on track for you tomorrow.


----------



## noco (22 October 2016)

explod said:


> Do not fret Noco,  tonight I attended the 40 year celebration of the Bendigo Branch of Amnesty International.  The key speaker Mario Santos spoke exceedingly well and in particular on the criminality (my take) of the Australian Government in their methods and handling of refugees, particularly Manus.
> 
> Just home now so I will ruminate overnight and get this thread right back on track for you tomorrow.




Yes and Amnesty International are in cahoots with the socialist left wing of the ABC.......They have already made false statements which they had to retract from....Nice lot they are young fellow and you are happy to go along with them by attending their meeting.


----------



## noco (22 October 2016)

Just how far will Gillian Triggs go?......She is an embarrassment to herself and the AHRC.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t/news-story/bd267c232eb195ce4209c35c46443ca8


*Lawyers for cartoonist Bill Leak and The Australian have accused the Human Rights Commission of outright bias and warned of legal action to restrain the federal body and its head, Gillian Triggs, from investigating a drawing.

The newspaper yesterday *issued its formal legal response to the commission after The *Australian and Leak were put on notice that they were being *investigated for alleged “racial hatred under the Racial Discrimination Act” for a cartoon *depicting the neglect of indig*enous children by their parents.

The lawyers for Leak and the newspaper state that, if necessary, they will produce evidence to *establish the August 4 cartoon was drawn in good faith and did not breach section 18C, and that indigenous people would *testify they were not “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated” by it.

Their letter states they will rely on evidence from “sociologists and criminologists, as well as *witnesses having direct daily *exposure to the problems associated with juvenile crime and *recidivism in remote Aboriginal communities, to establish that the point made by Leak’s cartoon is both a ‘genuine’ matter of concern and a legitimate issue of ‘public *interest’’’.

Jodie Ball, the delegate for commission president Professor Triggs, advised the newspaper this month that an investigation under section 18C had been triggered by complainant Melissa Dinnison, who says she has *“experienced *racial hatred” and been discriminated against as a result of the *cartoon.

In Leak’s and the newspaper’s reply yesterday to Professor Triggs, who has faced resignation calls this week after falsely claiming to a Senate committee that journalists at Melbourne’s The *Saturday Paper fabricated her quotes, the commission is charged with “playing politics” with the welfare of children.

A different law for elitesOMore: A different law for elites
Activism undermining the nationOMore: Activism undermining the nation
‘You keep fighting these cases’OMore: ‘You keep fighting these cases’

Solicitor Justin Quill and barrister Tony Morris QC, lawyers for The Australian and Leak, call on the commission to bow out of the investigation immediately and appoint an external lawyer to run it because of the conduct of the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane.

LETTER: Read the formal legal response in full

Their written response highlights comments Dr Soutphommasane made in Fairfax Media and on social media in early *August in which he invited and *encouraged complaints against Leak’s cartoon.

He appeared to confirm the *accuracy of the comments during a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday when he rejected suggestions that he had acted inappropriately or had prejudged the cartoon.

The legal letter states that as Professor Triggs sat beside Dr Soutphommasane and “made no attempt to distance herself from his statements”, the commission was compromised by their *conduct.

“That Dr Soutphommasane prejudged the factual and legal basis for a complaint against our clients is bad enough … but the fact that he positively invited and *encouraged, even urged, the making of such complaints is utterly *indefensible,” the letter says. “There can be no doubt that a disinterested observer, with knowledge of the relevant circumstances, could only entertain the most extreme misgivings regarding the (commission’s) capacity to deal with Miss Dinnison’s complaint impartially and free from any taint of prejudgement.

“It follows that, at the very least, a reasonable apprehension of bias arises.

“Accordingly, our clients *require that the (commission) take no further part in any inquiry into, or any attempt to conciliate, Miss Dinnison’s complaint.”

The legal response adds that if the commission continues with the complaint despite what was described as a “pervasive conflict of interest”, the newspaper and Leak would immediately take *injunctive action. The commission was criticised for sitting on the August 4 complaint for two months before disclosing it, a delay described as “unacceptable”.

The response states: “It is a matter of public record by her own admission that (commission) president Professor Triggs orchestrated the timing of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (report) for political reasons.”

The response flags a potential High Court argument by stating that “if section 18C makes Mr Leak’s cartoon unlawful, then (18C) is not appropriately adapted and compatible with the implied constitutional right to free speech”. “Our clients are also *entitled to know the grounds on which Miss Dinnison claims to have been ‘discriminated against because of her race’, and to have ‘experienced racial hatred’,” it says. “Is she, herself — or does she identify as being — Aboriginal or indigenous? Does she live in a *remote community like that *depicted in the cartoon?

It adds: “Accordingly, our *clients will require a full and fair opportunity to challenge, including by way of cross examination, any evidence which may be *offered … in support of what our clients regard as an outrageous slur on their personal judgment, their moral probity and their journalistic ethics.”

In the cartoon, an indigenous uniformed Northern Territory police officer presents an indigenous youth to his father in an outback setting and says to the father: “You’ll have to sit down and talk to your son about personal responsibility.” The indigenous father, who is holding a can of beer, replies: “Yeah righto, what’s his name then?”

Aboriginal intellectuals and frontline workers who praised the cartoon said it confronted painful truths about a fundamental reason for the chronic neglect and abuse of indigenous children, but others slammed it as a racist and ugly *attempt to stereotype indigenous fathers as recklessly irresponsible.

Attempts by The Weekend Australian to contact Miss Dinnison, who grew up near Perth, were *unsuccessful. Her father said, “I think you’ve got Buckley’s chance” when asked if she would be interviewed.

Ms Ball has advised the newspaper in writing that “if a complaint cannot be conciliated, or is terminated for some other reason, the person affected by the alleged discrimination may apply to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for the court to decide the allegations”.

The Racial Discrimination Act’s section 18D provides a *defence to an 18C breach if the *cartoon is found to have been published reasonably and in good faith “in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest”.

The defence can also be cited in making or publishing “a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment”.

In an ongoing 18C case, three white students from the Queensland University of Technology, who wrote Facebook posts about being told to leave an indigenous-only computer lab on the main Brisbane campus in May 2013, are accused of racial hatred and being sued for $250,000 in the Federal Circuit Court by the QUT staffer who ejected them.

Mr Morris is representing two of the students, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell. A lawyer *appointed by Professor Triggs is investigating allegations, which she emphatically denies, of a breach of statutory requirements by the human rights body in the QUT case, and of breaching the students’ human rights.*


----------



## noco (23 October 2016)

Tax Payer Funded Activism is under minding the Nation and should be stopped.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n/news-story/528a5001ad770e4d15431e1f64c0ddc6


*Gillian Triggs may well be the nation’s highest paid activist. The Australian Human Rights Commission president draws a $417,800 annual salary from taxpayers and spends much of her time advocating for pet political causes, in particular to dismantle the offshore processing element of our border protection regime. Her rhetorical flourishes, emotive posturing and wild claims differ little from those of the vocal activists who campaign for no recompense. Professor Triggs also benefits from the gravitas accorded her views because of her position. Yet, as we have seen again this week, Professor Triggs has a habit of giving misleading evidence to public inquiries and having to change her statements after people draw attention to errors. After more than four years in her role, this habit has diminished her effectiveness and undermined confidence in the AHRC.

For more than a year The Weekend Australian has highlighted concerns about why the AHRC failed to launch an inquiry into children in detention when Professor Triggs first decided it was a pressing issue under the Gillard Labor government in 2012. Instead it waited until almost two years later when the Coalition was in government and the flow of asylum-seeker boats was stopped. The president’s evasions, misstatements and corrections on this issue failed to erase the perception that politics were at play. In the past three years enormous damage has been done to the AHRC’s standing because of this taint of partisanship. The commission also has become embroiled in other controversies such as recommending compensation for a refugee who killed his wife and taking up complaints under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act against this newspaper’s cartoonist Bill Leak and a group of Queensland students who mocked the idea of an Aborigines-only computer room at university.

Incredibly — in the true sense of the word — Professor Triggs has told CNN that it is her freedom of speech that is under threat in this country, not that of the people the AHRC seeks to silence. In the wake of a silly report from the UN Human Rights Council, Professor Triggs told CNN the Australian government was muzzling entities such as the AHRC. “It is essentially a violation of the right to freedom of speech and it has impacts on so many areas of the law,” she said. As far as we know this is one statement she has yet to retract or “clarify”. To borrow a slogan she may remember, it’s time. Even though her term expires before the middle of next year, given Professor Triggs’s latest humiliations she would best protect the AHRC if she were to resign.

The taxpayer-funded political activism that Professor Triggs has come to personify is a deep and broad problem. Four Corners this week continued the ABC’s long-running, jaundiced and deceptive campaign against strong border protection and offshore processing. In its eagerness to demonise government policy, the public broadcaster portrayed Nauruan people and Australian staff on the island in an appalling light. Rather than focus on the obvious toughness and difficulties of the policy and the possible solutions, the ABC — in cahoots with activist groups — is intent on accusing Australia and Nauru of brutalising and even torturing people.

Such campaigning is encouraged by many publicly funded institutions, especially our universities. Refugees, climate change and identity politics have become the defining issues of our age for so-called progressives. By proclaiming progressive positions on these issues, many define themselves as morally superior and are exempted from normal constraints of debate such as facts, reason and tolerating the views of others. Many groups receive public funds or are given tax-free status. We need a diversity of views but it seems occasionally absurd that green groups receive government support to protest against developments governments encourage. Refugee advocacy centres are funded to challenge government policy. And activists at the extremes of gender politics are funded to develop insidious social engineering projects such as Safe Schools. As a society we seem to lack the courage to defend the values and policies that underpin our success. Yet we help groups that undermine policies, projects and institutions that benefit all of us. We need a stocktake.*


----------



## explod (23 October 2016)

Game set and match to you Noco. 

Your bias makes reasonable discussion impossible so my efforts will be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2016)

explod said:


> Game set and match to you Noco.
> 
> Your bias makes reasonable discussion impossible so my efforts will be better spent elsewhere.




You have been owned by a verisimilitude based predominantly on a quantitative fallacy. Betcha didn't know that.


----------



## noco (23 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The article you quoted also complained about the Solicitor General, so it's fair game for this thread.
> 
> I'm defending the position of SG, not the individual.




That quote also stated the SG affair was unrelated to AHRC.....Read it thoroughly this time.

*In three seemingly unrelated issues this week we could see how the political elites from the so-called progressive Left were operating under a different code; one far more forgiving than that *applied to conservative politicians or the rest of us. There was a typically jaundiced ABC Four Corners report on offshore processing; a defiant Australian Human Rights Commission president in Gillian Triggs *excused for repeatedly misleading parliamentary inquiries; and a Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson, setting himself up as a legal oracle to the parliament and the nation. In each case the platform is provided by public money and authority. In each case the individuals are seeking to recast the policy of a democratically elected government. And in each case they claim to be serving a higher goal.*


----------



## noco (23 October 2016)

explod said:


> Game set and match to you Noco.
> 
> Your bias makes reasonable discussion impossible so my efforts will be better spent elsewhere.




It is a shame both you and Tisme cannot accept the facts that have been presented......They are not my words....I am only the messenger high lighting the reports from others who have taken the time to prove how mischievous the ABC and Amnesty International are in demonizing the government over certain issues relating to Nauru, Bill Leak's cartoon on Aboriginals and the 3 uni students who were discriminated against for using an Aborigine computer room....Not forgetting of course how Gillian Triggs had a consultation with two Labor Ministers about the delay in releasing  a report on illegal boat people in detention until after the 2013 election.

They say the real truth hurts and it is obvious to me and many ASF readers that you, Tisme and Sir Rumpole just don't like adverse comments to any person or organization associated with the Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition....I think it is time to take stock of yourselves.

It is always an indication to me when you 3 plus some others who do not have the answers, you then revert to snide remarks and character assassination.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing so as it relates to everyone and not those who tend to think it is only for them.


----------



## Tisme (23 October 2016)

noco said:


> It is a shame both you and Tisme cannot accept the facts that have been presented......n until after the 2013 election. yadda yadda
> 
> They say the real truth hurts and it is obvious to me and many ASF readers that you, Tisme and Sir Rumpole just don't like adverse comments to any person or organization associated with the Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition....I think it is time to take stock of yourselves.
> 
> ...




Three things:

1. I tend to give facts some credibility when they are provided objectively
2. I don't entertain adverse commentary when it's laced with vitriol and bias regardless of politics
3. I don't use snide, but you certainly have a track record of abusive behaviour when you throw a tanty.


----------



## noco (24 October 2016)

If this AHRC case against Bill Leak ends up in court, I do hope it will be the catalyst for someone to take action to amend 18c.
We are becoming a Marxist state whereby what ever one says goes under scrutiny by this out of hand and out of control AHRC. 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s/news-story/1c04a69ff27297f9c847f4a64cfe7afd

*Last week, the HRC announced it is investigating Bill and his cartoon for “racial hatred”. It is unlikely he will get many nights’ sleep from now on. Yet another government-sponsored 18C nightmare has begun for another innocent Australian.

Bill Leak, an everyday hard-working Aussie craftsman no different to any tradie, is now threatened by terrorists on the one hand and an out-of-control commission funded by the taxes that you, he and I pay on the other. It’s hard to know which is more terrifying* or obscene.

As three QUT students and Andrew Bolt discovered, no white Australian now dare express an opinion on any aspects of the behaviour of any indigenous Australians, even when indigenous Australians hold the same opinion. There are only two words for this: “apartheid” and “totalitarianism”.

Bill draws cartoons to reach as wide an audience as possible to bring difficult subjects into the open for discussion, just as indigenous leaders like Langton and Pearson have urged. Yet he is now being persecuted by the state.

Indigenous leaders must speak up for Bill, the Race Commissioner must be suspended, and 18C repealed.

Or maybe Bill should have done a Gestapo cartoon after all. Because that seems to be where Australia is headed.*


----------



## SirRumpole (24 October 2016)

noco said:


> If this AHRC case against Bill Leak ends up in court, I do hope it will be the catalyst for someone to take action to amend 18c.
> We are becoming a Marxist state whereby what ever one says goes under scrutiny by this out of hand and out of control AHRC.




Well, this time I actually agree with you, especially when the police who have to deal with indigenous deliquents say that the cartoon reflects real life and what they have to deal with.

If it goes to court I think Leak will get off for "fair comment", but the fact that he can get dragged through the courts for expressing a fairly mild opinion is concerning.


----------



## noco (24 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, this time I actually agree with you, especially when the police who have to deal with indigenous deliquents say that the cartoon reflects real life and what they have to deal with.
> 
> If it goes to court I think Leak will get off for "fair comment", but the fact that he can get dragged through the courts for expressing a fairly mild opinion is concerning.




Thanks Rumpy for you honest opinion.

I believe parents, black or white, should be penalized for neglecting their kids, particularly those kids who are allowed to roam the streets at all hours.

I was maybe 13 or 14 on my way home at 9.30pm one Friday from the church boys club......I was confronted by the local police Sargent, his name was "Slam Sullivan" and as Irish as Paddy's pig......."Hey sonny, what are you doin' out at this time of night?...now you get on home, I know where you live and I'll be around to talk to your parents in the mornin'".
It is a pity we did not have a bit more of the old days back again.


----------



## Tisme (24 October 2016)

noco said:


> If this AHRC case against Bill Leak ends up in court, I do hope it will be the catalyst for someone to take action to amend 18c.
> We are becoming a Marxist state whereby what ever one says goes under scrutiny by this out of hand and out of control AHRC.
> 
> Last week, the HRC announced it is investigating Bill and his cartoon for “racial hatred”. It is unlikely he will get many nights’ sleep from now on. Yet another government-sponsored 18C nightmare has begun for another innocent Australian.
> ...





I think the current fuss is just a final perturbation as we settle into the idea that the state had to intervene on something the paternal society refused to give ground on. 

We all new that discriminating against the many would result in the few overusing the privilege. 

No one wants to be the nasty person taking candy away from the babies.... it's political suicide.


----------



## explod (24 October 2016)

noco said:


> Thanks Rumpy for you honest opinion.
> 
> I believe parents, black or white, should be penalized for neglecting their kids, particularly those kids who are allowed to roam the streets at all hours.
> 
> ...




There was virtually a Bobbie on every corner back then.  If we employed half the 19 to one out of a job to be police constables we could do it.  And a lot of the crime is coming from that frustrated group anyway.


----------



## bellenuit (24 October 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, this time I actually agree with you, especially when the police who have to deal with indigenous deliquents say that the cartoon reflects real life and what they have to deal with.
> 
> If it goes to court I think Leak will get off for "fair comment", but the fact that he can get dragged through the courts for expressing a fairly mild opinion is concerning.




Even if Bill Leak wins, which I think he will, there is the huge issue of legal costs. He will probably be OK, as no doubt News Corporation will foot his legal expenses and a win might mean that the defendant is reimbursed by the plaintiff (I don't know if these are the correct terms to use in an 18C referral).

The big problem I see is when the plaintiff is an individual and does not have corporate backing. Even if court and other legal costs are reimbursed should the plaintiff win, just having to pay these costs upfront may be a huge deterrent. How many individuals could pay for legal expenses if the process were to run for several years.

Even if 18C includes all the safeguards to allow legitimate free speech as defined in some of its sub-clauses, the threat of having 18C invoked is a deterrent to free speech for those not having the wherewithal to support their legal expenses.

They say it is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent be convicted (where 100% certainty is not the case). Equally, IMO it is better that a few bigots be allowed to say offensive things than have our freedom of speech threatened by unnecessary legislation. There are other ways to attack offensive bigotry.


----------



## Ves (24 October 2016)

noco said:


> If this AHRC case against Bill Leak ends up in court, I do hope it will be the catalyst for someone to take action to amend 18c.
> We are becoming a Marxist state whereby what ever one says goes under scrutiny by this out of hand and out of control AHRC.



If this makes it to court it will end up exactly the same as the 'Alas Poor Yagan' Cartoon.

It will probably be in breach of 18C,  but be exempted by the 'good faith' test contained in 18D.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alas_Poor_Yagan

I'm still amazed that for all the sooking about 18C,  no one ever seems to mention the very high protective hurdle that is 18D.


----------



## Ves (24 October 2016)

bellenuit said:


> They say it is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent be convicted (where 100% certainty is not the case). Equally, IMO it is better that a few bigots be allowed to say offensive things than have our freedom of speech threatened by unnecessary legislation. There are other ways to attack offensive bigotry.



Except there's a massive brick wall in the way called 18D.   You don't need a genius lawyer to defend yourself using that section. Going on precedent I'd say it's almost a 100% certain the case would be unsuccessful at court against Bill Leak.


----------



## bellenuit (24 October 2016)

Ves said:


> Except there's a massive brick wall in the way called 18D.   You don't need a genius lawyer to defend yourself using that section. Going on precedent I'd say it's almost a 100% certain the case would be unsuccessful at court against Bill Leak.




Yes, 18D provides safeguards, but as a letter to the editor I read today succinctly points out, the deterrent is not the legislation but the process.

Yes, you do need a significant resources to defend yourself against 18C. This has been proven by the students involved in the QUT case, where the student who didn't settle could face legal bills up to $500K should it go to trial (This was from last April, I haven't checked on how this case has progressed since)

*QUT racism case 'legal blackmail': Senator*

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-legal-blackmail-senator-20160419-go9yf7.html

If you are so sure that the Bill Leak case is a no goer, then one would have expected a preliminary statement to have been made when the complaint was lodged, that prima facia no breach of 18C/D occurred. Instead all we got was The Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, *urging anyone* who was offended by the cartoon to lodge a complaint under section 18C. One would expect The Race Discrimination Commissioner to know lodging such complaints would be fruitless and a waste of public and private expenses (assuming the complainant incurs costs other than time spent filling in the appropriate forms). Instead he urged others to also lodge complaints.


----------



## McLovin (24 October 2016)

Ves said:


> Except there's a massive brick wall in the way called 18D.   You don't need a genius lawyer to defend yourself using that section. Going on precedent I'd say it's almost a 100% certain the case would be unsuccessful at court against Bill Leak.




The problem seems to be that the regulations of the HRC set the threshold for escalating complaints too low and out of step with the legislation, not the legislation itself.

The HRC can't do much. If you refuse to deal with them during the conciliation process the other party cannot do anything except take the matter to court.


----------



## Tink (25 October 2016)

I have already said, that I am all for 18C being amended or abolished completely.

_The West has lost its freedom of speech_
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29402&page=39&p=919058#post919058

_As was stated --

He said his bill would be reintroduced into the Upper House this week, saying, "protecting our feelings" was not the role of the legal system._


----------



## dutchie (25 October 2016)

An interesting article......

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/80ad2fd303b785ef41fac773a7309487


----------



## Ves (25 October 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, 18D provides safeguards, but as a letter to the editor I read today succinctly points out, the deterrent is not the legislation but the process.
> 
> Yes, you do need a significant resources to defend yourself against 18C. This has been proven by the students involved in the QUT case, where the student who didn't settle could face legal bills up to $500K should it go to trial (This was from last April, I haven't checked on how this case has progressed since)



It sounds like you are making an argument that the law should not exist because there is the potential to use the legal process to convince people to settle out of court.

This would be different to arguing that it should not exist for philosophical reasons (ie.  it limits free speech or it provides to much protection for certain minorities).

I will point out that this argument could be applied to many of the civil laws. There is absolutely no evidence that 18C/D encourages this sort of behaviour more than any other law.

You may need significant resources to defend yourself against most civil suits.  Unfortunately the law is complicated and the people trained in this area subsequently require compensation for their services.

The same argument applies to bring a civil suit against someone.  You need resources.  

There has been many claims of an abundance of frivolous legal cases in regards to many laws.  As it follows I don't think that's a logical reason to change them,  because at the end of the day those laws have actually protected people who have incurred real damages  (ie. defamation, negligence, discrimination).

Section 18C and 18D have been around for about two decades now if I recall and to date there has been,  if you look at the filings,  no massive amount of successful judgments,  and definitely not influx of frivolous law suits.

There is however a high profile media campaign based on one case in QLD at the moment. I think making arguments to change a law based on an isolated case are a bit rich.



> *QUT racism case 'legal blackmail': Senator*
> 
> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...-legal-blackmail-senator-20160419-go9yf7.html



I've already commented on this case (in this thread I think) but I will add that it's different to the Bill Leak case because it doesn't have to do with the defence of the performance or publication of an artistic work.



> If you are so sure that the Bill Leak case is a no goer, then one would have expected a preliminary statement to have been made when the complaint was lodged, that prima facia no breach of 18C/D occurred. Instead all we got was The Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, *urging anyone* who was offended by the cartoon to lodge a complaint under section 18C. One would expect The Race Discrimination Commissioner to know lodging such complaints would be fruitless and a waste of public and private expenses (assuming the complainant incurs costs other than time spent filling in the appropriate forms). Instead he urged others to also lodge complaints.



Again this is a different issue.  This isn't an argument used to bring change the law,  it's an opinion on how you think the Human Rights Commission should or should not operate and which cases they should or should not provide assistance or make a submission.


----------



## McLovin (25 October 2016)

Ves said:


> It sounds like you are making an argument that the law should not exist because there is the potential to use the legal process to convince people to settle out of court.




The whole civil law system is designed to want people to settle out of court. The awarding of costs is a pretty powerful incentive to only bring a case if you reasonably believe you have a chance of winning.


----------



## Ves (25 October 2016)

McLovin said:


> The whole civil law system is designed to want people to settle out of court. The awarding of costs is a pretty powerful incentive to only bring a case if you reasonably believe you have a chance of winning.



Absolutely.  It works both ways.  For instance,  some media companies around the world always play hard ball on principle and force litigants to go through the court system,  which has earned them some protection against frivolous (and probably non-frivolous) law suits.

All I'm really saying is that it's not really an argument against any specific law.


----------



## McLovin (25 October 2016)

Ves said:


> Absolutely.  It works both ways.  For instance,  some media companies around the world always play hard ball on principle and force litigants to go through the court system,  which has earned them some protection against frivolous (and probably non-frivolous) law suits.
> 
> All I'm really saying is that it's not really an argument against any specific law.




Which is fair enough. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that particular legislation as it stands. You can pretty much say whatever you want as long as you're not making stuff up, ala Bolt.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 October 2016)

McLovin said:


> Which is fair enough. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that particular legislation as it stands. You can pretty much say whatever you want as long as you're not making stuff up, ala Bolt.




So how do we explain the QUT case , in which the aggrieved person was not even mentioned but still threatened to take people to court, and some of the defendants paid out to save possibly crippling legal fees ?


----------



## noco (9 December 2016)

Poetic justice has been served on Cindy Prior.....Instead of profiting $250,000 she now finds her self $200,000 out of pocket.

Will she try that stunt again?....Not very likely......18c has to be either scrapped or amended.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/33472688/admin-assistant-to-pay-costs-for-18c-case/#page1

*Queensland University of Technology administrative assistant Cindy Prior, who unsuccessfully tried to sue three students under 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, has been ordered to pay costs of about $200,000.

Federal Court judge Michael Jarrett on Friday in Brisbane made the order against Ms Prior while dismissing costs against her lawyer Susan Moriarty who was in turn awarded costs for having to defend herself.

Costs of about $100,000 were awarded in total to Tony Morris QC, who defended Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell, while the compensation to Alex Wood's barrister Michael Henry is believed to be about $100,000.

Judge Jarrett awarded standard costs against Ms Prior for Mr Morris but standard costs and indemnity costs against Ms Prior for Mr Henry after she failed to accept an apology from Mr Wood in March this year.

"I am of the view that the refusal of the offer was imprudent," Judge Jarrett said.

Judge Jarrett threw out Ms Prior's $250,000 lawsuit in November after he found she did not have reasonable prospects of successfully bringing a racial hatred case against the trio.*


----------



## SirRumpole (10 December 2016)

noco said:


> Poetic justice has been served on Cindy Prior.....Instead of profiting $250,000 she now finds her self $200,000 out of pocket.
> 
> Will she try that stunt again?....Not very likely......18c has to be either scrapped or amended.
> 
> ...




Well, this case went through the process and was thrown out. Maybe the result has saved the legislation from abolition as it will discourage frivolous claims in the future.

 It's still a matter of opinion as to what "insult and offend" means to a reasonable person. If we could all claim damages for being insulted or offended I could sue noco for his constant attacks on reasonable people like me and Tisme. , so I reckon those words should be removed.


----------



## Ves (10 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> If we could all claim damages for being insulted or offended I could sue noco for his constant attacks on reasonable people like me and Tisme.



No.   The section specifically says *"Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin"*.


----------



## noco (10 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, this case went through the process and was thrown out. Maybe the result has saved the legislation from abolition as it will discourage frivolous claims in the future.
> 
> It's still a matter of opinion as to what "insult and offend" means to a reasonable person. If we could all claim damages for being insulted or offended I could sue noco for his constant attacks on reasonable people like me and Tisme. , so I reckon those words should be removed.




No good suing me....I live in a tent and I don't have any money in the bank......I cook over an open fire and read a book by candle light at night.....I am a hippie....well that is the way Greens would have us live.


----------



## noco (10 December 2016)

Ves said:


> No.   The section specifically says *"Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin"*.




Phew....thanks Ves..Rumpy had me worried for a while then...


----------



## luutzu (10 December 2016)

noco said:


> No good suing me....I live in a tent and I don't have any money in the bank......I cook over an open fire and read a book by candle light at night.....I am a hippie....well that is the way Greens would have us live.




Maybe the Greens just want us all to... live. 

Solar and renewable work do not create jobs? They do not provide power forever?

Come on noco.


----------



## dutchie (10 December 2016)

noco said:


> Poetic justice has been served on Cindy Prior.....Instead of profiting $250,000 she now finds her self $200,000 out of pocket.
> 
> Will she try that stunt again?....Not very likely......18c has to be either scrapped or amended.
> 
> ...





No doubt there will be some sort of grant (i.e. taxpayers money) that she will be able to apply for.


----------



## Tisme (10 December 2016)

dutchie said:


> No doubt there will be some sort of grant (i.e. taxpayers money) that she will be able to apply for.




I thought the defendants were crowd funded?

Let's hope this sends a message to racists trying to profit through the courts.


----------



## noco (10 December 2016)

luutzu said:


> Maybe the Greens just want us all to... live.
> 
> Solar and renewable work do not create jobs? They do not provide power forever?
> 
> Come on noco.




But Luu, what ever you do  steer clear of South Australia and Victoria otherwise you will have no choice but live like a hippie down there very soon.


----------



## noco (10 December 2016)

dutchie said:


> No doubt there will be some sort of grant (i.e. taxpayers money) that she will be able to apply for.




I m sure the Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition will find a way help her out.


----------



## Logique (10 December 2016)

noco said:


> Poetic justice has been served on Cindy Prior.....Instead of profiting $250,000 she now finds her self $200,000 out of pocket.
> 
> Will she try that stunt again?....Not very likely......18c has to be either scrapped or amended.
> 
> ...



Imprudent is one word. Frivolous and vexatious are others. Serves her right. I wonder where she'll find the $200,000

Bill Leak should similarly seek damages from the complainant who put him through an expensive year of hell over a cartoon, only to withdraw at the 11th hour.

S18C was never meant to be used like this.


----------



## dutchie (21 January 2017)

_The Weekend Australian_ has selected the 18C Three and their lawyers as our Australians of the Year.

Hear Hear - they get my vote!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...h/news-story/1df5e04ca483005287b7db5cee8e65a4

"Editor-in-chief Paul Whittaker said the young men had stood up for their rights after the Australian Human Rights Commission, which administers the RDA, failed them.

“A clear injustice was perpetrated against these students who merely expressed a view against what they saw as racial segregation at QUT,” he said.

“They took a stand in the best Australian tradition. They fought back to protect their own reputations, their freedom and the liberty we should all enjoy.

“Without the generous assistance and skill of their lawyers, these students most probably would have had to capitulate and have been subject to an injustice.” "



Cindy Prior and Gillian Triggs might learn something (but I doubt it)


----------



## luutzu (21 January 2017)

dutchie said:


> _The Weekend Australian_ has selected the 18C Three and their lawyers as our Australians of the Year.
> 
> Hear Hear - they get my vote!
> 
> ...





Yes, because in the real world, everybody, no matter their gender, background, family connection, financial situation, post code... it doesn't matter if they're black, white, rich or poor... all are treated equally and all have the same starting position in life.

So if a student does not have computer or internet access at home, tough titties. The field must be level so that those with iPhones, laptop, NBN... 

anyway


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2017)

Logique said:


> .
> 
> S18C was never meant to be used like this.




Supporters of 18c like to point out the provisions of 18d as an antidote to the vexatious use of 18c.

Ultimately, when tested in court that is probably true, but the defendant still has to expend massive amounts of time, money and energy to defend themselves, that is the gross injustice of it.

This is the reason it must go.


----------



## dutchie (2 March 2017)

(Bill Leak from the Australian)

This pretty well sums up Gillian Triggs.

A very nasty woman.


----------



## Tisme (2 March 2017)

dutchie said:


> (Bill Leak from the Australian)
> 
> This pretty well sums up Gillian Triggs.
> 
> A very nasty woman.





Is she nasty or just crusty?


----------



## dutchie (11 March 2017)

"The Australian Human Rights Commission has blood on its hands"

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/03/10/the-australian-human-rights-commission-has-blood-on-its-hands/



Gillian Triggs and Tim Soutphommasane need to resign now.

The AHRC needs to be closed.


----------



## dutchie (26 April 2017)

Dr Tim Soutphommasane encourages and urges anyone to make a complaint to AHRC about Yassmin Abdel-Magied's Anzac Day Facebook post.


----------



## Tink (28 April 2017)

A lovely poem written for Bill Leak in that site -

To Bill Leak

Rest now soldier of freedom,
Put down your pen and close your eyes.
Rest now soldier of freedom,
You lie now in loving arms.
No more the pain of persecution,
No more the barrage of lies,
No more the threats and intimidation,
No more the darkening skies.
Rest now soldier of freedom,
Rest now in God’s loving hand.
Australians will take up your banner,
Australians will proudly wear your brand.
Requiesce in pace.


----------



## Logique (28 April 2017)

wayneL said:


> Supporters of 18c like to point out the provisions of 18d as an antidote to the vexatious use of 18c.
> Ultimately, when tested in court that is probably true, but the defendant still has to expend massive amounts of time, money and energy to defend themselves, that is the gross injustice of it.
> 
> This is the reason it must go.



Agreed.


----------



## McLovin (28 April 2017)

Tink said:


> A lovely poem written for Bill Leak in that site -
> 
> To Bill Leak
> 
> ...




Is this satire?


----------



## Tink (29 April 2017)

I find it interesting, McLovin, that the left once cheered him on, but when he realised that they weren't about freedom, they had become anti freedom.
They turned their back on him.

Bill Leak dared to shine a spotlight on the truth.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...mage-gallery/ee8a4ef1032a9da5a37c87ecb7f34c5c

Progressives that don't believe in freedom of speech.
I call them Communists.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/the-lunatic-left.31648/


----------



## noco (29 April 2017)

Tink said:


> I find it interesting, McLovin, that the left once cheered him on, but when he realised that they weren't about freedom, they had become anti freedom.
> They turned their back on him.
> 
> Bill Leak dared to shine a spotlight on the truth.
> ...




Communism is not dead and buried.


----------



## McLovin (29 April 2017)

Tink said:


> I find it interesting, McLovin, that the left once cheered him on, but when he realised that they weren't about freedom, they had become anti freedom.
> They turned their back on him.




i'm not sure why you'd find that particularly interesting. He went from a leftie to a rightie. It seems a pretty normal reaction. Portraying him as a martyr who died protecting free speech is just ridiculous. Bill spent most of his life battling alcoholism. Heart disease is a symptom of excessive alcohol consumption. I met him a handful of times through mutual friends who were very close to him. They'll all tell you he revelled in the controversy, it certainly didn't kill him. But of course that doesn't suit the right wing narrative of everything being under threat.




Tink said:


> Progressives that don't believe in freedom of speech.
> I call them Communists.




OK.


----------



## Tisme (30 April 2017)

McLovin said:


> i'm not sure why you'd find that particularly interesting. He went from a leftie to a rightie. It seems a pretty normal reaction. Portraying him as a martyr who died protecting free speech is just ridiculous. Bill spent most of his life battling alcoholism. Heart disease is a symptom of excessive alcohol consumption. I met him a handful of times through mutual friends who were very close to him. They'll all tell you he revelled in the controversy, it certainly didn't kill him. But of course that doesn't suit the right wing narrative of everything being under threat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I think we also have to be realistic about the limp governance that allowed him to be targetted in the first place. It was under the prevaricating watch of the LNP Govt that allowed it to gain traction, presumably as a game to put blame of the Labor Party.

A true govt that wanted to protect it's citizens against pathetic complaints form hurt feelings would act instead of using parliamentary games for political gain. This govt talks the talk but is seemingly paralysed.


----------



## Logique (1 May 2017)

Our taxes at work. Predictable absurdities.  Shut down this useless drain on the public purse.  Out of step and out of time.
Shortcuts are unacceptable where the lives of our military men and women are at stake. We want the best products, made by the best available people. Not a bunch or diversity hires.
 What's next. With LGBTI - what's the quota going to be for B's, T's and I's?


> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...l/news-story/380b1700659b106347845d2de8b3fa20
> 1 May 2017 - SEX DISCRIMINATION COMMISSIONER SHOULD GET REAL
> ...Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins demands discrimination.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (1 May 2017)

Logique said:


> Our taxes at work. Predictable absurdities.  Shut down this useless drain on the public purse.  Out of step and out of time.
> Shortcuts are unacceptable where the lives of our military men and women are at stake. We want the best products, made by the best available people. Not a bunch or diversity hires.
> What's next. With LGBTI - what's the quota going to be for B's, T's and I's?




I can't see any reason why we need a Human Rights commission.

Our rights are protected by law and the Constitution. There are plenty of Legal associations keeping an eye on breaches of rights and they will speak up if necessary.


----------



## Logique (1 May 2017)

Cheers SirR,
also my cantankerousness has nothing to do with being 0 and 6 
What about this from blogger Anthony (my bolds):
_



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...l/news-story/380b1700659b106347845d2de8b3fa20
Anthony - blogger - 1 May 2017
*Is the Sex Discrimination Commissioner also suggesting* the Federal *not provide child care rebate to child care centres* whose staff are* less than 40% male*?  Or *stop funding primary schools *whose* staff are less than 40% male*.
If so the government should save billions because there would be few child care centres and primary schools which would meet this criteria...
		
Click to expand...


_


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2017)

Logique said:


> Cheers SirR,
> also my cantankerousness has nothing to do with being 0 and 6
> What about this from blogger Anthony (my bolds):




Don't talk to me about 0 and 6, it's a bitter pill to swallow after last year. 

The HRC is like many quangos, they have to do something to justify their existence. Time to shut them down, they are just wasting money.


----------



## Tisme (2 May 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't talk to me about 0 and 6, it's a bitter pill to swallow after last year.
> 
> The HRC is like many quangos, they have to do something to justify their existence. Time to shut them down, they are just wasting money.





Hmmm tell me more about 0 and 6  

Of course the solution to all this equal opportunity pivots around the "fact" that gender is what you feel you are, not the mistake of birth that trapped you inside an inappropriate shell.

So what unqualified job shall we apply for girls ... commissioner, governor general, prime minister, ....?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 May 2017)

Tisme said:


> Hmmm tell me more about 0 and 6
> 
> Of course the solution to all this equal opportunity pivots around the "fact" that gender is what you feel you are, not the mistake of birth that trapped you inside an inappropriate shell.
> 
> So what unqualified job shall we apply for girls ... commissioner, governor general, prime minister, ....?




Yes, let's make Kelly O'Dwyer PM just to even things up.


----------



## Tisme (2 May 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, let's make Kelly O'Dwyer PM just to even things up.




Is she a woman or just one who can produce babies?


----------



## Logique (4 May 2017)

Tisme said:


> Hmmm tell me more about 0 and 6   .....



The minimum expectation of our team is not to watch on passively as three opposition players beat up on young Callum Mills.  A low point in our recent history.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 May 2017)

The Swans are being out muscled I'm afraid. The way Krueser and co broke the pack and took marks in front of goal was shameful for the Swans. They need to get buddy intimidating the opposition down front instead of running around the midfield.

That's the opinion of this armchair coach anyway.


----------



## Tink (6 May 2017)

*I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.*

I don't think so.


----------



## noco (25 May 2017)

NATIONAL AFFAIRS

*Gillian Triggs: Yassmin Abdel-Magied backlash linked to Muslim hostility*





Human Rights Commission chief Gillian Triggs appears for the last time at a Senate Estimates committee at Parliament House in Canberra today. Picture: Kym Smith

The Australian
4:55PM May 25, 2017
Save

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on email
Share more...

271
*Joe Kelly*




Political reporter
Canberra
@joekellyoz




Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs has strengthened her public defence of Muslim activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied, linking the backlash to her controversial ANZAC Day social media posts to rising anti-Islamic sentiment.

In her last appearance at Senate estimates, Professor Triggs today suggested the public backlash towards Ms Abdel-Magied over the posts was motivated by a growing hostility towards Muslim women.

She declined to say Ms Abdel-Magied’s comments were offensive when pushed by Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, instead describing them as “most inappropriate.”

“The key point I was making was that the comment was unfortunately made on ANZAC Day. It was rapidly apologised for. And I think the response in relation to it was been seriously out of proportion to the mistake that was admittedly made,” Professor Triggs said. “My key concern has been the rising level of discrimination against Muslims in Australia and sadly, in particular, against Muslim women wearing the hijab. So that was the context in which these remarks were made.”

Professor Triggs was defending comments she made at the Melbourne Town Hall earlier this month in which she dismissed the ANZAC Day social media posts of Ms Abdel-Magied as a “relatively minor incident.”


read more





	

		
			
		

		
	
Triggs to follow kindred spirit?
Ms Abdel-Magied posted on her Facebopok page on ANZAC Day: “Lest we forget (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine)” but deleted it within hours. She wrote a brief apology amid complaints she had hijacked the ANZAC memory for political and religious reasons.

Pressed again by crossbench Senator Derryn Hinch on her Melbourne Town Hall speech, Professor Triggs told the hearing the response to Ms Abdel-Magied had been “blown very significantly out of proportion.”

She viewed it “sadly as a reflection of the general abuse that many in the Muslim community receive” and that “this incident was illustrative of that broader point.”

Ms Triggs is due to stand down as Human Rights Commission President in July.


Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on email
Share


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2017)

*Yassmin Abdel-Magied, Feminism & Controlled Democracy*
Posted by *Corrine Barraclough *on July 03, 2017
The feminist "narrative"; It is not truth, and it is not the way forward.

*By Corrine Barraclough*








When Yassmin Abdel-Magied posted on Anzac Day she chose seven little words very carefully. She wrote, “Lest. We. Forget. (Manus, Naura, Syria, Palestine)'”.

They were seven words that spoke volumes about respect - or lack of.

Last week, she rattled out many words on Twitter announcing her comeback into the debating arena. Of all the words she wrote in her series of tweets there is one that is vitally important to note. We should all keep it front of mind every time anyone from the _ABC_ opens their mouth.

“If I stay silent, then ‘they’ win,” Abdel-Magied wrote on Twitter. “Then others get to define the narrative.”

There it is; the singularly most important word from this camp.

Narrative.

Considering feminists have so much to say about power and control, they certainly are obsessed with power and control, aren’t they?

Nothing rattles these obsessives more than losing control of the narrative or outside voices daring to speak the truth.

When did it become the mainstream media’s role to control the narrative at all?

When did it stop being about the role of informer and become elevated to self-appointed educator?

Who approved the script?

It is the word “narrative” that explains why director of _The Red Pill_, Cassie Jaye was treated so appallingly on both _The Project_ and _Sunrise_.

To use Abdel-Magied’s words, “If I stay silent, then ‘they’ win. Then others get to define the narrative.”

Cassie Jaye dared to challenge the rancid feminist narrative that we’re all being force-fed. Heaven forbid ‘they’ win.

She dared to challenge the fiction that many now live and breathe as fact; that women are innocent victims and men are evil perpetrators. No, don’t dare to point out that we’re all human beings.

Of course that makes women like Cassie Jaye dangerous. She has not sat down in the allocated aisle in the theatre of power of control. Instead, she’s walked to the side, turned on the lights and revealed what’s really going on in the room.

It’s the word “narrative” that fuels the _Our Watch Awards_ that reward journalists for sticking to the anti-men script.

Watch _The Red Pill_ and you’ll understand how the saturating narrative peddles the three key control components of feminism: androphobia, misandry and gynocentrism.

Our government, institutions, schools and the mainstream media, have embraced all of these. This is a balance that must be addressed.

The crucial question is, which politician is strong enough to begin the process?

The anti-men narrative that Abdel-Magied, the_ ABC_ and MSM in general want to keep peddling isn’t equality, it’s not truth and it’s not the way forward.


----------



## Tisme (10 July 2017)

See Yassmin Abdel-Magied is leaving for London to "partake in the Aussie rite of passage”.

I wonder if she is a follower of Jewish Susan Sontag's who wrote these prophetic words two generations ago:

" _The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx and Balanchine ballets don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The *white race is the cancer of human history*; it is the white race and it alone –its ideologies and inventions –which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of of life itself.  What the Mongol hordes threaten is far less frightening than the damage that Western “Faustian” man, with his idealism, his magnificent art, his sense of intellectual adventure, his world-devouring energies for conquest, has already done, and further threatens to do."_

Everyone who want's to be white, it seems, bags it out.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 July 2017)

Bye Yassmin, do let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Tisme (28 August 2017)

https://www.therebel.media/an_australian_human_rights_commissioner_advocates_for_sharia_law_rights


----------



## SirRumpole (28 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> https://www.therebel.media/an_australian_human_rights_commissioner_advocates_for_sharia_law_rights




She's crazy.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> She's crazy.



One of the army of useful idiots.


----------



## Tisme (12 April 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...del-magied-says-she-is-being-deported-from-us



> *Yassmin Abdel-Magied says 'I'm being deported' from US*
> 
> 
> Author says officials in America took her phone and cancelled her visa as she entered country to attend New York event
> ...


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2018)

Should HRC be scrapped and replaced with an "Equal Opportunity Commission"? Would that help eliminate discrimination based on sexual proclivities, equity bias, etc?


----------



## SirRumpole (7 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> Should HRC be scrapped and replaced with an "Equal Opportunity Commission"? Would that help eliminate discrimination based on sexual proclivities, equity bias, etc?




Yes, the HRC should be scrapped.

I don't know if you need any replacement, it would just be a snouts in the trough exercise for some political mates of the government.


----------



## Tisme (7 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, the HRC should be scrapped.
> 
> I don't know if you need any replacement, it would just be a snouts in the trough exercise for some political mates of the government.




I have a feeling it would be stacked with equity politiks for sure. The reason I raised it was that there is a groundswell for change by the ratbag elements such as Latham et al.

My concern would be an organisation run by monoplastic nose rivetted ugly women with pink coloured college cuts, confused gender males, professional social welfare recipients e.g. Yassmin, etc... you know the cast of The Drum or The Panel.


----------

