Reasons not to vote LABOR.

[Rorschach]

Unfortunately for you ignorance of the law is no excuse...

What rock have you been living under?

[IQS.RLOW]

Australian Media which obviously regards itself as beyond the Law?

You just sullied and offended the media organizations. Under the ALPs new law they could take you to court and you would have to prove that you didn't offend them...guess who has deeper pockets than you?

[IQS.RLOW]

Dunno what I think about because I haven't thought about it, because I think it will have nil impact, I think, on me. If it shuts up the gratuitous abusers, the users of vile, gross and vulgar language, the posters of pornography, those who posts links to paedophilia, the posters of forgery, the posters advocating violent physical abuse of people, well, I'm all for it. And yes, I would not hesitate to act. I have done it here by banning the sole offender on all those counts. (The pathetic try-hard Rochy Poachy Puddin' and Pie does not rate attention. )

Who was it that you banned "on all those counts"?

[Rorschach]

(The pathetic try-hard Rochy Poachy Puddin' and Pie does not rate attention. )

I'm sorry... then why do you keep mentioning me? Some sort of insecurity perhaps?
As for trying hard... so far I haven't raised a sweat on this site, certainly your efforts don't require any.

[boxy]

Commission president Gillian Triggs says the public debate over the changes has exposed some weaknesses in the draft legislation that should probably be changed.

"While some aspects of the bill arguably go too far, we should not overlook the overwhelming strengths of this long overdue reform or the benefits of harmonisation of the present confusing proliferation of federal discrimination laws," Ms Triggs wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

She has suggested dropping plans to broaden the coverage of a provision which makes it unlawful to "offend or insult" based on certain characteristics.

"Understandably, calls for the Senate committee to delete this provision are loud and, indeed, it might be wise to amend the bill, so far as it applies to acts that offend or insult, if only to preserve the valuable reforms that the rest of the bill will provide," she said.

Ms Triggs says despite the shortcomings already identified, the proposed legislation is a "balanced package" that makes anti-discrimination laws easier to understand and comply with.

Australia's largest media organisations, including the ABC, Fairfax and News Limited, have made a joint submission to the Senate committee examining the legislation, arguing that such a provision would limit free political debate.

They say many media organisations publish or broadcast material which some members of the audience may find offensive, but that does not necessarily make it discriminatory.

[Rorschach]

Excerpts...

LEGAL experts have questioned whether Labor's draft anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, arguing the expansion of federal powers is a step too far into community life that will ensnare students, parents, employees and even sports spectators.

As the Senate inquiry into the bill prepares to hold its first hearings this week, constitutional law professors Nicholas Aroney of the University of Queensland and Patrick Parkinson of the University of Sydney say it could also fall foul of our international obligations and may lead to successful court challenges.

The Greens yesterday joined the chorus of concerns over the proposed legislation, which will make it unlawful to offend or insult others.

Professor Parkinson and Professor Aroney write in their submission they have "grave doubts" about the constitutionality of parts of the draft.

"The exposure draft is a very radical and controversial expansion of the scope of commonwealth law, which in some respects may well exceed the commonwealth's constitutional powers," they say.

"It proposes several very far-reaching changes and extensions to the current reach of commonwealth laws."

The pair also share fears expressed by others about the extension of the definition of "unfavourable treatment" so it is unlawful to offend and insult.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6557768930" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[boxy]

''The draft laws propose religious freedom be exercised as exceptions to the anti-discrimination laws.

''Drafting legislation that way fails to recognise that religious freedom is not a special permission to discriminate granted by government but a fundamental human right that government is obliged to protect. To make this clear and to remove the potential for misunderstanding, the legislation should replace that language with words that recognise religious freedom as one of a number of important competing rights that must be balanced against each other.''

Bullshit. Just another religious nutbag demanding that his rights trump all others by being "fundamental".

[Rorschach]

Roxon's anti-discrimination bill should be shelved
* From: The Australian
* January 23, 2013 12:00AM

ON November 21, 1994, Maurice Byers, a former commonwealth solicitor-general, wrote an opinion for The Australian on the racial hatred legislation arguing it may be unconstitutional since it offended the implied freedom of political communication ("Free speech a certain casualty of race law") .

It is simply astounding, and somewhat sinister, that a law built on such shaky foundations has been allowed to remain on the statute book for so long, let alone that the government should propose its extension.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon's proposed bill provides the opportunity to protect human rights by updating section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to reflect the law on the implied freedom of political communication or, better, scrap it.

I suggest an opposition amendment that says subsection 18C shall be invalid to the extent that it burdens political communication protected by the Constitution beyond that which the Constitution allows.

Who would want to administer an old law, or pass new laws, that breach the Constitution? What opposition would refuse to introduce such an amendment and what government would oppose it?

Graham Hyde, Adelaide, SA

BEFORE Nicola Roxon's proposed anti-discrimination laws come to pass making it a new offence to offend, may I offend by suggesting that Roxon is an inept and undemocratic Attorney-General? Inept when she prejudged the Peter Slipper case and undemocratic in her advocacy of anti-discrimination legislation making it an offence to offend.

If this legislation passes, our rights to freely express opinions will be restrained. Bad government actions will stand uncriticised and their weaknesses pass unnoticed.

Reading Roxon's defence of this legislation, one could conclude that she prefers government decisions to be hidden from media scrutiny and Australian citizens be kept in the dark. As she has apparently forgotten, I remind Roxon that politicians are elected to serve Australians and this can only be achieved if decisions are fully exposed to wide criticism and debate.

William Leivesley, Chapel Hill, Qld

GILLIAN Triggs minimises the controversial aspect of the proposed anti-discrimination bill ("Tweaking the draft bill could preserve core reforms", 22/1). The bill is controversial because it enshrines politically correct legislation that threatens free speech at a time when Australians are expressing opposition to such politically loaded and unnecessary restraints, and calling for their repeal. It is also controversial because it makes it easier for complainants to pursue dubious claims at the expense of others.

Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

THERE are so many disturbing aspects of Gillian Triggs's defence of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill that it is difficult to know where to begin. The storm of debate does not, as she suggests, reflect robust democracy. It illustrates the intellectual chasm between the bill's progenitors and the public whose behaviour they wish to control.

Anti-discrimination law was originally designed to protect people from less favourable treatment in areas of life considered critical to their well-being such as employment, housing and finance. This bill places the state as the arbiter of acceptable opinion.

Paul Maguire, Docklands, Vic

NICOLA Roxon must have won her law degree in a raffle. She doesn't seem to know that one of the few proper roles of government is to protect people's rights, not take them away. The proposed bill does the opposite. It takes away the right to free speech while bestowing a "right" not to be offended. To make things worse, the onus of proof is reversed. I doubt if Monty Python could have thought this one up.

Paul Magoffin, Mortdale, NSW

[IQS.RLOW]

That the ALP even tried to introduce this draft in its current format speaks volumes about the underlying fascism within it.

This draft should be seen for what it really is...a warning.

[Rorschach]

For Australia's most incompetent government ever, I'd expect nothing different.