Apart from all the obvious things wrong with this legislation, the notion that employers are liable if an employee is “offended” is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard. How on earth is an employer supposed to prevent someone from feeling offended?

Can they just defund the department responsible for administering it?

In the OZ

“Union ties ‘basis for discrimination’”

Sounds like a prima facie case right there. Care to be Exhibit A in the “one rule for them, and another rule for everybody else” hypothesis?

Gab – I think this is more aimed at political appointments in the public service. When there’s a change of government, department heads are regularly fired and replaced with ones chosen by the new Minister, as the previous ones were selected by the last party, and there’s usually a degree of political affiliation.

Political appointments are, well, political. Almost by definition the appointee must have some opinion or thinking in keeping with the Government. The appointee knows this before he takes up the job. If a rule exists to make their dismissal illegal then what is the point of winning Government? We may as well be in a dictatorship.
Labor. Worst Government ever.

I’m really [not] sorry, I can’t remove the rule whereby every housing development must be stopped in case a Sun Moth hatched because I’m ideologically opposed to your rule, and you can’t sack me or I’ll sue…

Just one more law to change first when you’re the government.

These kind of changes to our laws are very thick salami slices – they must be feeling confident they are near the end of the sausage.

Surely we can just toss these slices away pronto (i.e. change the laws) when sensible adults come to power?

How about a retrospective rescind of all Labor legislation? Sounds good to me.

If not, then immediately employ in the PS a few additional Liberal-leaning photocopy assistants who can become mightily offended by leftist twaddle and sue. Universities would be a classic workplace for such offense to be taken as the twaddle is so constant and loud. Special offense particularly to be taken at anyone senior opening their Labor-leaning mouth.

Slow day for Gillard staffers Bragg?

Call it George for all I care – we’re paying billions in taxes that we were promised would not be charged. Play all the silly word games you want – Gillard is still gonna pay for deliberately breaking that promise at the next election.

Bolt was censored for causing offence to specific Aboriginal people. Race was an integral part of the issue causing offence – ie Bolt’s implication that people had identified as aboriginal in order to receive benefits/jobs etc

The only factual error related to ancestry – Bolt wrongly said one of the plaintiff’s grandfather was aboriginal, when it was in fact their grandmother (been a while since I read it – it may have been vice-versa)

“Repeating falsehoods over and over on the Cat does not make them any less false.”

And repeating your spin over and over on the Cat doesn’t make your point true either.