UK defamations laws might change - for the worse... Watch what you post!

[Kym]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/12/dafamation_bill_human_rights_joint_committee_report/


proposed overhaul to the UK's stringent libel law could have "a chilling effect on those publishing material online", an influential human rights committee warned today.

The tabled amendments to the law of defamation could force website owners to take down defamatory material on request even if there is a valid legal defence to keep it online. That's according to Parliament's human rights joint-select committee, which criticised the draft legislation.

As the law stands right now, there are a number of defences to publishing a statement that damages a person's reputation. One such defence is simply the provable truth: it is defamatory, for instance, to call someone a crook, but it is a justified statement if, say, a court has found them guilty of fraud.

But Clause 5 of the proposed legislation allows someone to order a website to take down a defamatory statement about them regardless of any valid legal defence. If the website complies and censors itself, it can avoid further litigation. If the website operator chooses to stand by the defamatory material then it must run the gauntlet of the High Court.
Read more in the link above!

The dofus proposing these changes needs a serious adjustment, but I won't be able to say that in the future :2enew:

[Bally]

Have you looked at the changes to the law that Roxon is proposing in Australia, re the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination laws. It will effectively become illegal to offend someone. On top of that once the primae facie case is made, IE that the comment was made, the onus will be on the person that made the comment to justify the ccomment. So you call me gay, three people hear it, I take offense, and you have to prove how that is not offensive to me

Nice work, sits well with the 10 year internet data collection, and easy access to this data that she proposed

Along with taxing the air we breath, soon they will find away to make our thoughts illegal, now they are proposing that our words will be.

[Lance B]

Have you looked at the changes to the law that Roxon is proposing in Australia, re the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination laws. It will effectively become illegal to offend someone. On top of that once the primae facie case is made, IE that the comment was made, the onus will be on the person that made the comment to justify the ccomment. So you call me gay, three people hear it, I take offense, and you have to prove how that is not offensive to me

Nice work, sits well with the 10 year internet data collection, and easy access to this data that she proposed

Along with taxing the air we breath, soon they will find away to make our thoughts illegal, now they are proposing that our words will be.

Unbelievable.

[ameerat42]

Pfbrr-rbbrff-ppff, and a couple of ls mixed in!

Or words to that effect!

Piddy the world didn't end after all!

[old dog]

I`m going back into my cave right now...and I`m not coming out. Bye

[Ian]

I`m going back into my cave right now...and I`m not coming out. Bye

is ther a second cave handy? if there is i might join you if allowed :food04::) ian(aka pappa smurf:costumed70:)

[Mathy]

Have you looked at the changes to the law that Roxon is proposing in Australia, re the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination laws. It will effectively become illegal to offend someone. On top of that once the primae facie case is made, IE that the comment was made, the onus will be on the person that made the comment to justify the ccomment. So you call me gay, three people hear it, I take offense, and you have to prove how that is not offensive to me

Nice work, sits well with the 10 year internet data collection, and easy access to this data that she proposed

Along with taxing the air we breath, soon they will find away to make our thoughts illegal, now they are proposing that our words will be.

Is there a link you can supply to this? cheers Deb

[Bally]

Some useful links

Read this and be horrified. Note the point form break down of the major impacts
This is a great summary paper with the references so that you can go look at the proposal yourself.
http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1356125314_document_human-rights-and-anti-discrimination-bill-2012-fact-sheet.pdf

A less dry view of the proposal, but very informative and entertaining.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/time-to-go-on-the-offensive-against-the-thought-police/desc/

THe view over at the Australian, the view got darker as it became clearer the extent of the changes, but not a bad start.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/alp-dissent-curtails-roxon-on-free-speech/story-e6frg97x-1226534893538

THe quote, I love that Ms Roxon feels the need to enforce expected behaviour on us all. Expected by her I gather
''Making protections and obligations clearer for individuals and organisations will help everyone understand what behaviour is expected, and will provide certainty,'' Ms Roxon said.
http://www.smh.com.au

[ameerat42]

:shh:(Should I say it's a load of CARP! Maybe not. Not CARP, that is.)

[Steve Axford]

Mmm - the "ipa facts" have been around for a long, long time as a right wing political "fact" sheet. Like any purely political publication, they should be taken with a bucket of salt.

[Bally]

sure, and in fact the proposal proably doesn't exist at all.

The IPA is right wing, but that doesn't mean their interpretation is flawed. and more interestingly is the number of left wing organisations complaining about the proposal. Civil rights lawyers and organisations, ex judges, even people within the discrimination infrastructure. It is just another poorly thought out proposal. and it back doors in some of the governments personal wish lists. I don't disagree anti discrimination laws, I think this potential is implementation is just wrong.

More importantly, as usual, the response to any comment on the activities of this government, people get all them and us. Hey perhaps I am the only person that sees fault in this, but I doubt it. Government needs to be challenged whern they try this sort of crap legislation, we are weaker by everyone just assuming a default side and not being willing to critically analyse their every move. Particularly with a government that is so willing to play with our rights

[Lance B]

''Making protections and obligations clearer for individuals and organisations will help everyone understand what behaviour is expected, and will provide certainty,'' Ms Roxon said.
http://www.smh.com.au

I love this bit, "what behaviour is expected, and will provide certainty" Expected behaviour? According to whom? Certainty? For whom?

How long will it be before you will not be able to "offend the government"? Totalitarian governments here we come again.

[Bally]

Lance, it is just so predictable how aussies vote like sheep, so the incumbent government knows they can get away with anything, and that the only push back will be a small percentage of swing voters. If this happened in Europe there would be protestors in the streets. THey remember the jack boot of totalitarian government.

We have rights, why the freak would we consider giving them up just so a party can satisfy its immediate need for individual members to push personal barrows

[Lance B]

Lance, it is just so predictable how aussies vote like sheep, so the incumbent government knows they can get away with anything, and that the only push back will be a small percentage of swing voters. If this happened in Europe there would be protestors in the streets. THey remember the jack boot of totalitarian government.

We have rights, why the freak would we consider giving them up just so a party can satisfy its immediate need for individual members to push personal barrows

We fought wars for freedom from oppressive regimes, particularly WWII against the Nazi's, who, funnily enough, didn't like to be criticised either. :2smile:

[norwest]

We get the chance to have our say this year, as we always do. Then Bishop Tony will have a majority and can legislate compulsory 'Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday". By the way, much of that IPA statement is fear mongering, exaggerated bull dust. It's going to endanger freedom of religion? The flying of the Australian flag? Prevent people from wearing a crucifix? :2biggn: My wife has a Canadian saying, 'Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.'

The IPA leans so far to the right they are forced to walk in perpetual clockwise circles.

[Geoff Port]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, this is a PROPOSAL from a member of a minority government with an election coming up. I doubt if any concrete legislation in regard to this matter would get much breathing space. I agree with norwest, after the election results have been posted we will almost certainly have to contend with Abbott the Rabbit. Now that IS scarey.

[Lance B]

We get the chance to have our say this year, as we always do. Then Bishop Tony will have a majority and can legislate compulsory 'Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday". By the way, much of that IPA statement is fear mongering, exaggerated bull dust.

Interesting stance considering your thoughts on "Bishop Tony" and that he will legislate "compulsory Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday" :rolleyes:


It's going to endanger freedom of religion? The flying of the Australian flag? Prevent people from wearing a crucifix? :2biggn: My wife has a Canadian saying, 'Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.'


I am sure that is what they thought when every other totalitarian regime said when they wanted to gain power. Don't let these people snow job us into thinking it is ok to stifle free speech under the guise of protecting someone from being offended. Roxon's desire to "not offend anyone" will hit at every day life even innocent joke telling around the water cooler, the thin edge of the wedge as they say. People like Roxon (hopefully innocently) think they are doing the right thing in "not being allowed to offend anyone", but the trouble is, these things are then taken to the nth degree and you won't be able to say anything to anyone that may have even the slightest degree of offence and people will milk it for all it's worth. Maybe they should have had the law in when Julia Gillard decided to call Abbott a misogynist or is that why the (Australian) Macquarie dictionary very hastily changed it's meaning right after the fact? No other dictionary has altered that meaning, only the Australian Macquarie dictionary. Unbelievable.

[Steve Axford]

I suspect that its not really helpful to liken any Australian political party to the Nazis. None seem inclined to mass murder - neither Labour nor Liberals nor the Greens nor Katter. Let's save the extreme analogies for extreme situations. Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards. Anyone want to live in Syria, or Somalia?

[Lance B]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, this is a PROPOSAL from a member of a minority government with an election coming up. I doubt if any concrete legislation in regard to this matter would get much breathing space. I agree with norwest, after the election results have been posted we will almost certainly have to contend with Abbott the Rabbit. Now that IS scarey.

That is the trouble, the Greens have the sway and they have used it to influence legislation introduction.

- - - Updated - - -


I suspect that its not really helpful to liken any Australian political party to the Nazis. None seem inclined to mass murder - neither Labour nor Liberals nor the Greens nor Katter.

Very true, Steve. However, stifling free speech so as "not to offend anyone" will not necessarily be used by the government, but by individuals with nefarious intentions, ie suing people for the slightest indiscretions, only the lawyers will get rich and we'll all be too scared to say anything for fear of offending someone, somewhere. All good intentions but with dramatic negative results, ie throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.


Let's save the extreme analogies for extreme situations. Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.

Unfortuntely, it seems to be changing. :2apolo:


Anyone want to live in Syria, or Somalia?

Yep, no chance of free speech there. :2smile:

[Bally]

Up to nearly 20 comments and no one has actually looked at the proposal, just lined up on the usually sides, as I said, Australians are sheep.

[norwest]

Interesting stance considering your thoughts on "Bishop Tony" and that he will legislate "compulsory Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday" :rolleyes:



And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd.




I am sure that is what they thought when every other totalitarian regime said when they wanted to gain power.

We have a totalitarian regime? Man the walls, arm the populous and get the wife and kids into the underground shelter. No 'condescending smiley' required.


Up to nearly 20 comments and no one has actually looked at the proposal, just lined up on the usually sides, as I said, Australians are sheep.

Why do assume no one has the common sense to look at the proposal before commenting on said proposal?

I read 'it' when it was released, quite a deal of differing opinions since and my comments thus far in this thread are based on the extreme nature of the fear mongering.

I'm actually a moderate and think our best alternative could be Malcolm Turnbull, himself a moderate and one of the very few small 'l' liberals left in this country and I think the legislation we have at present is sufficient. However, the claims made in here parroting the fear mongering exaggerations of a far right political lobby group and adding some spice with words such as nazi, totalitarian ect. are more at home in one of Alan Jones morning rants and a Pauline Hanson maiden speech.

You and I will soon get to vote out a party considering any legislation not to our liking and replacing them with the alternative that best suits our requirements. Or, is there a risk the existing government will suspend elections indefinitely and declare martial law, just like a totalitarian regime would have done?

[Bally]

Some reading material for those that are interested. If you can honestly read the highlighted causes and think this is a good plan, god help us all.


Link to the actual proposal
http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti-discriminationlaws/Human%20Rights%20and%20Anti-Discrimination%20Bill%202012%20-%20Exposure%20Draft%20.pdf


Link to IPA fact sheet
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1356125314_document_human-rights-and-anti-discrimination-bill-2012-fact-sheet.pdf


Clauses of proposal as highlighted by the IPA

Clause 19.2 19.1 included for clarity

Division 2—Meaning of discrimination
19 When a person discriminates against another person, and related concepts
Discrimination by unfavourable treatment
(1) A person (the first person) discriminates against another person if
the first person treats, or proposes to treat, the other person
unfavourably because the other person has a particular protected
attribute, or a particular combination of 2 or more protected
attributes.
Note: This subsection has effect subject to section 21.

(2) To avoid doubt, unfavourable treatment of the other person
includes (but is not limited to) the following:
(a) harassing the other person;
(b) other conduct that offends, insults or intimidates the other person.

Ballys comments. Please note that the categories that you can be offended about is extend to the list below:
It is also worthwhile noting that the proposal also defines that you can be offended on behalf of an associate, or about a condition that you have or may have in the future. Throw some discussions open around your next BBQ and see how many combinations and permutations arrive from this that can see you IN COURT

Clause 19.2 above also removes the reasonable person protection.

(1) The protected attributes are as follows:
(a) age;
(b) breastfeeding;
(c) disability;
(d) family responsibilities;
(e) gender identity;
(f) immigrant status;
(g) industrial history;
(h) marital or relationship status;
(i) medical history;
(j) nationality or citizenship;
(k) political opinion;
(l) potential pregnancy;
(m) pregnancy;
(n) race;
(o) religion;
(p) sex;
(q) sexual orientation;
(r) social origin.

Next Clause 17.1 is the list above

Bally's comments

social origin.
I'm not sure if that means I can get in trouble for Tasmania jokes, or comments that someone comes from a family of toffs

Political Opinion
I for one will want the Canberra press gallery hauled off to court at first opportunity, they have been offending me for years

I'm not sure how I can offend someone re industrial history, unless this is related to union activity, so I'm probably already offended, or am sure to be in the future

Anyway, the it is pretty freaking obvious the opportunity for abuse here.

Next Clause 124.1
124 Burden of proof in proceedings under section 120 etc.
Burden of proof for reason or purpose for conduct
(1) If, in proceedings against a person under section 120, the applicant:
(a) alleges that another person engaged, or proposed to engage, in conduct for a particular reason or purpose (the alleged
reason or purpose); and
(b) adduces evidence from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that the alleged reason or
purpose is the reason or purpose (or one of the reasons or purposes) why or for which the other person engaged, or
proposed to engage, in the conduct;
it is to be presumed in the proceedings that the alleged reason or purpose is the reason or purpose (or one of the reasons or purposes)
why or for which the other person engaged, or proposed to engage, in the conduct, unless the contrary is proved.

Bally's comments
So, once you wade through the legal gobbledy gook, the final phrase "unless the contrary is proved" tells the story.
This is where the burden of proof is now shifted to the defendant and the they must show how their offensive (only to complainant, not a reasonable person)
comment or action was justified.

So our defendant is guilty, because and individual is offended, (no reasonable person test, they just claim to be) and then must justify their remark. No more water cooler humour, satire, irony or sarcasm anywhere except in bed with your partner, sexual role play between consenting adults may be the only defence left.

How can any supporter of any party think this is good policy

Next clause 110.4
(4) Unless the person presiding at the conference consents:
(a) an individual is not entitled to be represented at the
conference by another person; and
(b) a body (whether or not incorporated) is not entitled to be
represented at the conference otherwise than by a person who
is an officer or employee of that body.

Bally's comments.
Perhaps this was designed to stop it becoming a gold mine for lawyers, but it clearly denies me the right to get legal defence once I crack the illadvised remark about the Greens in front of a staff member I had to discipline, who is now offended on behalf of a Green party associate they met 4 years ago. and who will at no cost tie me up with responses and attendance at the human rights commission as an absolute minimum. with no legal representation. If I get legal advice prior to the actual appearance all costs are mine.

Now I have broken this down for you, can anyone really say this is good policy

I also do not understand why people continually refer to the fear of what Abbott might do, while the current government DOES worse right now.
this government has introduced the following ideas
internet censorship
inlimited internet monitoring by an unusually large number of organisations, the number of horrors in this proposal was amazing.(topic for another time)
proposed putting limits on the freedom of the press
and now this ridiculous piece of tripe that will have some amzing fallout if implemented

I would also like it noted that I didn't compare anyone to the nazis, I noted that those that had allowed their elected officials to turn their countries into totalitarian regimes were obvious more sensative to it happening again, because they would be in the streets.

Hope this helps

[Kym]

If you can honestly read the highlighted causes and think this is a good plan, god help us all.
<snip>
Hope this helps

Well put. The issue is that whenever you legislate you end up reducing freedom. And in this case the potential for abuse is way too much.

[ameerat42]

Up to nearly 20 comments and no one has actually looked at the proposal, just lined up on the usually sides, as I said, Australians are sheep.

Bah!*:baa:

(*From Bah! Humbug!)

[Lance B]

And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd.

So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.


We have a totalitarian regime? Man the walls, arm the populous and get the wife and kids into the underground shelter.

So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?


No 'condescending smiley' required.

Condescending smiley?


Why do assume no one has the common sense to look at the proposal before commenting on said proposal?

I read 'it' when it was released, quite a deal of differing opinions since and my comments thus far in this thread are based on the extreme nature of the fear mongering.

I'm actually a moderate and think our best alternative could be Malcolm Turnbull, himself a moderate and one of the very few small 'l' liberals left in this country and I think the legislation we have at present is sufficient. However, the claims made in here parroting the fear mongering exaggerations of a far right political lobby group and adding some spice with words such as nazi, totalitarian ect. are more at home in one of Alan Jones morning rants and a Pauline Hanson maiden speech.

Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well. All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.


You and I will soon get to vote out a party considering any legislation not to our liking and replacing them with the alternative that best suits our requirements. Or, is there a risk the existing government will suspend elections indefinitely and declare martial law, just like a totalitarian regime would have done?

What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

[norwest]

So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.

No and please don't attempt spin. I said "And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd." How do you turn that into I'm saying my opinion isn't relevant so why post it? Don't try to bull.... a bull......



So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?

You know I didn't say that so why ask?



Condescending smiley?

Reference to the smiley in your post



Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well.

If the comments made by you in this thread could be considered moderate in any way shape or form then I'll flap my arms and fly around the wildlife forum. They are alarmist, worst case scenario fear mongering and devoid of moderation.

All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.

Yes, due diligence. Like ummmm errrrr, lets see. Well, if we don't like a particular legislation how about we vote them out and replace them with others of our preference with different policies and promising to repeal the previous legislation? Now there's a new one, eh? I think they call it democracy.



What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but

Then, when you say "when every other totalitarian regime", leave out the 'other' and it won't include the present.


that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

And in both Federal and State parliament, minority groups have had the same position of balance of power, like the shooters party, one nation, family first and other parties from wacko extremists through to religious sects and the loonie left have in the past, have at present (shooters party in NSW?) and will in the future. And they get the boot in the next election or the new parliament has a majority and the minority loses their balance of power status. As mentioned previously, it's called democracy.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

And I've said I think the existing legislation is sufficient and if, and that's a very big 'IF', the new proposal was to come into being and we don't like it then we can vote the buggers out and have it repealed by a like minded alternative party. I think I previously mentioned what that's called.

[Kym]

FWIW this sort of crap has already happened in Victoria under its vilification laws.
Ignoring other issues with this case, the vilifications laws were badly mis-used... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah#Alleged_vilification_of_Muslims

[norwest]

Then vote the existing government out and replace them.

And church of fire ministries, a racist, openly muslim hating religious nutcases is not a wonderful example of 'My freedoms have been taken from poor old me'. Nor is Danny Nalliah, an absolute nut case, an open hate spreader of islam and the whacko that said the Black Saturday bushfires were a consequence of Victoria's abortion laws.

Alarmists, hate and fear mongering nutters of the best kind available on red light special at Kmart in the damaged goods department. The poor innocent buggers were treated badly for their hate speeches.

[Kym]

But the real issue is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
And the vilification laws go way to far, the supreme court etc. eventually sorted it.
It was a setup in the first place.

[Lance B]

Quote Originally Posted by Lance B View Post
So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.

No and please don't attempt spin. I said "And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd." How do you turn that into I'm saying my opinion isn't relevant so why post it? Don't try to bull.... a bull......

It is you that it is saying that your opinion isn't relevent. I mean, why would you say sarcastically: "And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation."

All I was saying is why do you think your opinion isn't relevent???

No spin involved. I am just wondering why you think your opinion isn't warranted or valuable?


So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?

You know I didn't say that so why ask?

And you talk about me giving spin? Hmm. So, you are saying that it could happen some time in the future?


Condescending smiley?

Reference to the smiley in your post

It was the Sarcastic smiley, not condescending. There is a difference. It was in reference to the fact that I wondered why you accused me of being alarmist and then said that "once Abbott gets into power and that he will legislate "compulsory Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday." Isn't that alarmist?


Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well.

If the comments made by you in this thread could be considered moderate in any way shape or form then I'll flap my arms and fly around the wildlife forum. They are alarmist, worst case scenario fear mongering and devoid of moderation.

I can have moderate politcal views and yet still be alarmed and alarmist at certain aspects of legislation. One doesn't preclude the other. Again, there is a difference.


All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.

Yes, due diligence. Like ummmm errrrr, lets see. Well, if we don't like a particular legislation how about we vote them out and replace them with others of our preference with different policies and promising to repeal the previous legislation? Now there's a new one, eh? I think they call it democracy.

And me giving an opinion here stating that the proposed legislation is not a good idea is the wrong thing to do? Who is to say that they will actually be voted out? Who is to say that this legislation is buried and forgotton about by the time a new government gets into power and by then possibly too late. I think voicing disatisfaction before the fact is better than trying to repeal it later after the damage is done and lives possibly destroyed by incorrect legislation or implementation of said same.


What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but

Then, when you say "when every other totalitarian regime", leave out the 'other' and it won't include the present.

Oh dear, taking every nuance literally, however, you know what I meant but you are being quite neferious to suit your case. As we both know that the current government isn't a totalitarian regime, so how could you get that idea??? Sheesh!


that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

And in both Federal and State parliament, minority groups have had the same position of balance of power, like the shooters party, one nation, family first and other parties from wacko extremists through to religious sects and the loonie left have in the past, have at present (shooters party in NSW?) and will in the future. And they get the boot in the next election or the new parliament has a majority and the minority loses their balance of power status. As mentioned previously, it's called democracy.

It is quite rare for minority parties to have balance of power rights like the Greens and the independants of Oakshot and Windsor have at the moment. Again, trying to repeal legislation after the fact is more difficult than not letting it through in the first place, hence the reason for mine and other's posts here. We are voicing an opinon which is still allowed and I hope it will continue to be so regardless of this silly legislaton.


Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

[Bally]

norwest,

Do you think this proposal is good policy.

If so why, I find no redeeming value in it. Although the goal of removing the complexity of the existing laws is a good, the proposal also undermines many of our existing rights, would have the effect of limiting free speech and far out way the benefits.

Cheers

[norwest]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has it's limits.

If what one says has intent to damage and/or harm or incite damage and/or harm of another I defend my right to prevent you from doing so.

The mother of my Kids, (my former wife) now both in thier twenties, is of South East Asian heritage and birth. We were married when I lived In Asia for a period in the early 1980's. The kids were raised during the Pauline Hanson period, when she was at her notorious top.

If you, Kym, as father, were to hear the populous put downs of your kids when arseholes thought you were out of earshot or didn't realise a connection, would you tell them "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

If you were to hear other kids mimicking what they'd heard from their mum or dads, perhaps television or even Granddad or Grandma with old fashioned views that parroted all that Hansom squawked. Thinking it was justified to use bigoted and nasty language because it was so popular and fashionable at the time to do so, would you tell them "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

If your daughter tells you one night at the age of 6 that she wished her skin was more like mine instead of her mum's so people would like her more.

If you shot sports and your son was an extremely talented elite teenage sportsmen whose games you shot when you had the chance. And because your son was a stand out among his elite peers and because he 'looked different' he was an easy mark for the less than gracious spectators, usually the fathers of the opposition players. "Smash the ching". "Go back where you belong, slope head". 'Nigger", "Black C" you name it, he copped it. Soccer is like that and the higher the level the worse it gets.

Now, would you Kym, walk up to the racists arseholes and tell them "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", tell your kids to ignore it so it goes away but it never does, might you kick their arse till it bled or perhaps just skin the knuckles from time to time when enough was enough, like I did without my kid's knowledge?

As I said, it has it's limits. Just ask my kids, whom to this very day know only too well where those limits are. No has a right to hurt or be a catalyst for hurt to my kids or anyone else. Not you, not that ugly excuse for a human being, Pauline Hanson and not anyone else.

[Bally]

norwest,

I'm very sorry that you and your kids put up with that sort of crap, but it doesn't make this good policy

[bobt]

after the election results have been posted we will almost certainly have to contend with Abbott the Rabbit. Now that IS scarey.

It's doubly scary when you consider that if that happens it will mean that every second person you look at will have made that choice deliberately, without duress. We like to think that it's just a minority who would willingly vote for him, but in fact it will be a majority. Now that is a very scary thing to contemplate, and it makes you wonder what sort of a society we are actually living in that could voluntarily make such a choice.

It also makes one wonder why neither the US or Australia seem able to find better leaders from among their millions of people. Are these really the best choices we can offer ourselves?

[norwest]

norwest,

Do you think this proposal is good policy.

If so why, I find no redeeming value in it. Although the goal of removing the complexity of the existing laws is a good, the proposal also undermines many of our existing rights, would have the effect of limiting free speech and far out way the benefits.

Cheers

No. I have said a number of times that the existing legislation is sufficient. You missed that?




Oh dear, taking every nuance literally, however, you know what I meant but you are being quite neferious to suit your case. As we both know that the current government isn't a totalitarian regime, so how could you get that idea??? Sheesh!

We know the present government isn't nazi but that hasn't stopped the word being used in this thread.

Lance, as my English literature major wife would say to me, if your grammar specifies a particular meaning in a sentence do not expect me to be aware you mean otherwise.

I did not know you meant otherwise and not a happy lad that you claim I'm not telling the truth. Don't try to blame me for a failure of your own grammar and don't even hint that I am a liar. Now take your own bloody advice before you accuse me of something else.



Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match

- - - Updated - - -


norwest,

I'm very sorry that you and your kids put up with that sort of crap, but it doesn't make this good policy

Hey fella, did I claim that? It was all to do with the limits of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Again, did I claim that?

[Bally]

Norwest,
I did miss the fact that you thought this policy was bad, and more importantly, I think you are taking my questions/comments way more personally than intended.

And bob, I voted for Krudd, and him and the follow up had been a disaster, and they have raised more risky policy than even JH post 911 in regard to freedom of speech and action

So yes I hope a majority of aussies are smart enough to remove these cowboys. And yes is is a great shame we don't have better polititicians, but I vote for a party, not person

[norwest]

Norwest,
I did miss the fact that you thought this policy was bad, and more importantly, I think you are taking my questions/comments way more personally than intended.


Bally, if you make comments alluding that posters are sheep and don't have the common sense to read the proposal before commenting, are they meant to smile and send you flowers? If you say sorry to what happened to your kids and then qualify it with a 'but', do you want a pat on the back or a strong reminder that genuine apologies for poor treatment of children never come with a qualification.

[Bally]

Norwest,

Perhaps in future I will moderate my generalisations with a word like "most" as in most australian are sheep, and most are so politically unaware as to be not dissimilar to sheep.

And I am 100% sorry that your children have suffered verbal abuse of any sort, but I'm not taking any sort of personal responsibility for those idiots, it was not an apology, it was an expression of sadness.

The "but" was to seperate the two issues. Lots of bad things happen to good people, there is no relationship between that and this government writing bad proposals.

I'm sorry if you feel any of this was in anyway personal. See, that is an unconditional apology

[ricktas]

Thanks Bally

Norwest, this is not an attack on you or your views, it is members of this site expressing their opinions, to which they are entitled. I suggest you stand back, take a deep breath and remember that this is a thread for members to post their views on the topic. Just cause they disagree with you, does not make them wrong. The only person who has brought their own family into this, and tried to imply others views, caused your past angst, is you. Everyone else is generalising the discussion. You have strong views on this, and this is to be admired, but remember others views may differ and they are allowed to.

Warning to ALL : If these personal attacks continue, I will be banning those who over-step the line. This will be the only warning. Discuss the issues and not attack others for their views, please!

[livio]

Wow this will be cool, in some ways I hope this one gets up. Then both Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon who offend me will have to justify their rants. We could have them locked up in the legal system for years.

Seriously though so much for a fair go. Better get your kids to study law, I can see the legal system being the only area to benefit from this.

Kind Regards
Livio

[ameerat42]

Norwest,

Perhaps in future I will moderate my generalisations with a word like "most" as in most australian are sheep, and most are so politically unaware as to be not dissimilar to sheep.



If you limited it even further to "some" and "may be" you might actually have something non-invective to say.

(You may think I'm a cow for saying this.)

[norwest]

Thanks Bally

Norwest, this is not an attack on you or your views, it is members of this site expressing their opinions, to which they are entitled. I suggest you stand back, take a deep breath and remember that this is a thread for members to post their views on the topic. Just cause they disagree with you, does not make them wrong. The only person who has brought their own family into this, and tried to imply others views, caused your past angst, is you. Everyone else is generalising the discussion. You have strong views on this, and this is to be admired, but remember others views may differ and they are allowed to.

Warning to ALL : If these personal attacks continue, I will be banning those who over-step the line. This will be the only warning. Discuss the issues and not attack others for their views, please!


How did I know that if I was called a bloody liar by one of the good old boys, once again, and I called the good old boy out for it, once again, I'd be the only goose in the shite, once again and a very, very bad old boy indeed, once again?

Does anyone actually live in the real world where you called out for what you say about another or do they just save it for safe, anonymous internet forums?

[ricktas]

How did I know that if I was called a bloody liar by one of the good old boys, once again, and I called the good old boy out for it, once again, I'd be the only goose in the shite, once again and a very, very bad old boy indeed, once again?

Does anyone actually live in the real world where you called out for what you say about another or do they just save it for safe, anonymous internet forums?

I am not going to take sides here. I posted that ANY future personal attack will be dealt with. EVERY member is being asked to show some respect. The line is being drawn HERE by me, for EVERYONE.

[bobt]

And bob, I voted for Krudd, and him and the follow up had been a disaster, and they have raised more risky policy than even JH post 911 in regard to freedom of speech and action

So yes I hope a majority of aussies are smart enough to remove these cowboys. And yes is is a great shame we don't have better polititicians, but I vote for a party, not person

This is an interesting perspective really. Do most Australian's vote for a person, party or simply an ideology based on their perception of what they feel a party stands for? I would suggest that the majority of Australians are not terribly astute politically, fairly shallow in their approach to politics and extremely uninformed about how our political system operates in reality. Many of them do in fact vote for a person, and that's a concern in the case of Abbott.

I have perhaps a clearer insight into the political process than most as my wife is a part-time lobbyist, and her involvement has opened my eyes to a lot of unpalatable facts about how our system of government actually operates.

Our politicians are not free to represent us, and our government is influenced unduly by the USA. Vested interests influence everything, and electoral cycles govern the decisions of both parties rather than the more fundamental issues of right, wrong or ethical and moral values. Actions portrayed as being for our good are often for the good of the party instead and nothing is as simple as it might seem. Essentially, the whole political process has evolved in a way which is often corrupt and frequently short-sighted.

At the end of the day, all we can do is to do as Wikileaks has done, and that is to encourage transparency, and to keep exposing the reality of situations rather than be duped by the sanitised versions we read in the paper. If we make politicians more accountable for their actions, then we might just move slowly towards a half-way decent government.

[Kym]

Do most Australian's vote for a person, party or simply an ideology based on their perception of what they feel a party stands for?

I live in a marginal seat (Makin) so the local candidate is very important and we vote based on that.

When our previous member held the seat she was very active for her constituents (probably because it was VERY marginal),
but the current bloke is a useless party hack tosser.

@Norwest - growing up with an Ethnic heritage (Dad emigrated here after WWII) in the 60's meant lots name calling, we got over it.
The fact is the proposed laws go way too far and in general I'd rather be called nasty names than lose freedom.
Dad often talked about living under Nazi rule - it sucked. I'm not saying this law is near that, but it is definitely in the wrong direction.

[bobt]

I live in a marginal seat (Makin) so the local candidate is very important and we vote based on that.
When our previous member held the seat she was very active for her constituents (probably because it was VERY marginal),
but the current bloke is a useless party hack tosser.

We have had two different representatives, both very pleasant, and both totally in tune with our particular issues (ratifying a cluster munitions treaty and supporting voluntary euthanasia). Despite being 100% on our side on the issues, neither could have any impact upon the party line which was determined by the select few at the top. This is one of the problems with our system - members have to toe the party line irrespective of their own views. It makes a mockery of the representational system. It's a bit like Peter Garrett and the change in his resolve once he was elected. Initially a man with a mission, then just another "yes" man to the party.

[Steve Axford]

I live in a marginal seat (Makin) so the local candidate is very important and we vote based on that.

When our previous member held the seat she was very active for her constituents (probably because it was VERY marginal),
but the current bloke is a useless party hack tosser.


Kym, it would seem that not everyone in your electorate votes for good candidates.

Bobt - I agree with you that we are quite apathetic as regards to politics. Perhaps we are saved by the Australian mistrust of authority. This tends to make us suspicious of anyone wanting lots of power. Other countries tend to idolize the rich, famous or powerful. Look at the way Americans treat celebrities. An Australian has to go overseas to become famous in Australia. That probably isn't good, but on the other hand we distrust anyone who wants too much power. This law is unlikely to get in, in its current form because of that mistrust. England has a much more obedient electorate, so they do, more often, get silly laws in. Of course, sometimes politicians or bureaucrats do just make mistakes and we get silly laws that way. I suspect that the English law was due to stupid politicians rather than any evil intent. I could of course be wrong with that one.

[norwest]

I'm in the Parkes electorate, where Gertrude the Goat could stand for the National Party and still gain 70%, where they were forced kicking and screaming to remove official racial segregation from council by-laws as late as the early seventies, where education is still considered to be wasted on women when they should be chained to kitchen and where there's a longing for a return to the the good old days of Menzies and reds under the beds.

[Steve Axford]

I'm in Richmond which has Justine Elliot and I'm on the border of page which has Janelle Saffin. I believe that Janelle is very good, Justine less so, but I have only been here for 4 years and I have little hard evidence either way. Perhaps I'm one of those sheep. This is a strange area as it is country, but it is a labour stronghold. Perhaps because the conservation movement has its roots here. Whatever the reasons, most people I meet are left of centre. Coal seam gas is a very big issue here, with people from left and right fighting against it. Unfortunately, it gets little press elsewhere and the state government seems all for it.

[norwest]

CSG is also a big issue here, being on the great artesian basin which we require to survive for both farming and drinking water. The state government recently making changes to both the areas allowed, which now takes in most prime agricultural land and an easing of the statutory requirements.

[Bally]

Ameerat42, if I limited it to some and maybe it would be less accurate and not convey exactly what I meant which was most.

[Steve Axford]

Would that mean that most people on this forum are also sheep? Or is present company excluded?

[ameerat42]

It wooden matter. Some of us would still be tarred by that brush.
Now what's this all about? Oh, defamation. Well I've never sought fame, so to be defamed???
:2biggn:m.

[geoffsta]

After reading the stories it appears to be a big load of rubbish. It will be too hard to police, and fill our courts with unnecessary arguments.
And if it was to come in as law, I'd have to say goodbye to AP. Because I don't think I'd be allowed to take photos in jail. And I'd be limited on internet access, because I might be viewing offencive material, and someone may walk past. What a joke.. :2smilSS: