The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace

[noco]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

An interesting article......

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

 

[Ves]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?