If the betting markets are to be believed some time later this year there will be a change in government and Nicola Roxon will cease being Attorney-General. Right now it looks like she’ll be replaced by Senator George Brandis. After reading an extract of Hansard I’m not convinced the change is worth making.
Senator BRANDIS: Mr Wilson, I completely agree with you! But I have an even deeper concern, because, probably unlike some of you at the IPA—I know the IPA; I know their general philosophical orientation—I strongly support anti-discrimination law. My deep concern is that this is not really an anti-discrimination law at all; it is something else packaged up as an anti-discrimination law. Because it overreaches so far, particularly in relation to the provisions that we have been discussing, it is really a law against controversy, because, if we have an undefined category of political opinion and we have undefined criteria of insult or offence, nobody knows what they can say, and therefore maybe in a robust political discussion they might throw caution to the winds and say it anyway, but the media, who might be subject to a liability, as Mr Bolt’s broadcaster was, will self-censor, and it will have this chill effect. That is not what anti-discrimination law was ever intended to do.
…
Senator BRANDIS: Let me throw a really simple example at you that has happened in Australian history endless times, though not recently: an Aboriginal person goes into a pub in some outback town, and the publican, who operates under a licence, says to the Aboriginal person, ‘We do not serve blacks here.’ Should there be a law against the publican saying that? I say there should be. What do you say?Mr Breheny : We share your disgust.
Senator BRANDIS: Should there be a law against it?
Mr Breheny : Seriously, on a personal level we share your disgust; we are just as morally outraged as everyone else in the room. The distinction we make, though, is between us making moral judgements and us making legislative judgements, and those to us are two completely separate questions.
Senator BRANDIS: So you do not think legislative judgements are also moral judgements?
Mr Berg : The Australian delegation to the original convention on anti-discrimination pointed out that you cannot legislate people into morality. We share the Australian delegation’s view on that.
Senator WRIGHT: We are really talking about legislating about behaviour, aren’t we?
Mr Breheny : Yes.
Senator WRIGHT: And that is something we can do. …
…
Senator BRANDIS: You seem to be taking—if I may say so, Mr Wilson—a very absolutist view of freedom of association. I myself think that freedom of association is a less absolute right than freedom of speech, but there are other rights as well with which it might be inconsistent. The philosophical problem I have with your position is that you seem to live in a universe in which there is a nice jigsaw puzzle of mutually consistent rights. I myself, as you may know, am a great fan of Sir Isaiah Berlin, and one of his teachings was that rights are sometimes incompatible and inconsistent. Freedom of association as an absolute might be incompatible and inconsistent with certain other rights, and I am just struggling to understand why it is that, in your view, freedom of association, important though it is, excludes all other rights that might come into competition with it—unless you think that is impossible, but I do not know how you can say that.
The correct answer to ‘should there be a law against it?’ is ‘No’. Brandis has answered his own question when he said, ‘though not recently’. Racial discrimination tends not to happen in competitive markets. There is no need to have laws against things that don’t happen. Another answer revolves around ‘the publican, who operates under a licence’. The licence issurer could write in anti-discrimination clauses if it wanted to. Although many places are still able to discriminate on the basis of dress (no singlets, work shoes, etc. etc. etc.).
The correct answer to ‘So you do not think legislative judgements are also moral judgements?’ is ‘No’. Here is the problem – Brandis must think the answer is ‘Yes’. Once you imagine that rights are relative and conflicted then someone – some wise person in Canberra – gets to choose which rights dominate and which do not. So expect to see lots more social engineering coming out of Canberra and the Attorney-General’s office even after the election. The rhetoric will change, but not the behaviour.
Senator Penny Wright (SA, Greens) has already established the principle – they will not be imposing moral values, just regulating behaviour.
I have warned here several times that Brandis is a statist luvvie.
He is no friend of liberty.
C.L.
27 Jan 13 at 3:31 pm
Meanwhile, despicable phony Barry O’Farrell tries to position himself as a voice of reason and moderation:
Note well the trick underway: normalise the existing disgusting law on grounds of “if it aint broke, don’t fix it.”
C.L.
27 Jan 13 at 3:46 pm
That utterly vomitous piece of chicanery again:
C.L.
27 Jan 13 at 3:48 pm
It is my contention that Roxon is the most despicable woman in Australian history.
Brandis seems hell bent on becoming her male equivalent.
Let us pray that someone beats some sense into him. Metaphorically speaking of course.
Infidel Tiger
27 Jan 13 at 3:53 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Tony Abbott will be a massive improvement on the current contemptable PM, but he will also be a massive disappointment to those of us who are true liberals. He is not one of us.
Johno
27 Jan 13 at 3:57 pm
The most disgusting thing about this thought bubble:
Is the underlying belief that wise and all knowing politicians like O’Farrel know just what that balance is.
Entropy
27 Jan 13 at 3:58 pm
O’Farrell is saying that – unlike Roxon – he doesn’t want to jail people for being offensive. He just wants to jail people for being offensive.
What a revolting charlatan.
C.L.
27 Jan 13 at 4:02 pm
Who thHell voted for these political clowns of every party to try to run our private lives ? Who agreed they should be able to order us to say what they allow us to say?Who agreed. They should be allowed to push their own agendas on to everyone else?Who told them they were so Superior that they coul ride roughshod over the People who didnt Select them ,their own little group of fellow clowns did that? These clowns NEED to be Forcibly re educated in true Democracy,cut their salaries to one third of the present,cut out super and pensions and other perks,you still wont lose them few could get a Real Job,then restrict them to one term each 40years,and abolishbpolitical donations of any sort,and spervise every move unions make ,and forbid anyone who has not worked in the trade for 10years from holding Any Office ,theres a start
Borisgodunov
27 Jan 13 at 4:02 pm
“No quarter whatever should be given to the bigotry of people so unfit for social life as to insist not only that their own prejudices and superstitions should have the fullest toleration but that everybody else should be compelled to think and act as they do.”- George Bernard Shaw (in the Preface to The Shewing Up of Blanco Posnet.)
JQF
27 Jan 13 at 4:04 pm
The presence of discriminatory employers raises job search and matching costs of minorities leading to search discrimination.
minorities must apply for more jobs because minorities do not know who are the discriminatory employers and who are not, which lowers asking wages to save on job search costs and time unemployed.
Customer discrimination results in employment segregation, which adds further to the job search costs of minorities as they must find jobs with less customer contact. This lowers asking wages to save on job search costs and time spent unemployed.
Statistical discrimination on the mean and the variance based on racial features can persist in competitive markets.
For example, U.S black and white employers both have a low opinion of the work ethic of inner city young black men but not inner city young black women. This affects hiring. The wages of high productivity inner city young black men are lowered while the wages of low productivity inner city young black men rise to the average.
Jim Rose
27 Jan 13 at 4:08 pm
Indeed, Brandis is S18C to his bootstraps.
The proof? Ask him whether he’ll support repeal of the lot. You’ll get gibbering.
And ask Brandis what urgent communications he has had with “one term Ted” re repeal of Vic’s criminalisation of ‘causing offence’.
Alarmingly, our Tone seems to agree with Brandis.
Alfonso
27 Jan 13 at 4:20 pm
“He is not one of us”
He is also not a screeching communist harpie, which puts him closer to my position.
mareeS
27 Jan 13 at 4:24 pm
Abbott can get rid of Gillard, then we’ll work on getting rid of him.
The circle of life.
Infidel Tiger
27 Jan 13 at 4:32 pm
Buchanan captures the essence of a mindset with this phrase “meddlesome preferences, whereby
much of the culture war is resentment that the other side has had a chance to enact into law their meddlesome preferences when they were last in government.
Jim Rose
27 Jan 13 at 4:37 pm
Good plan, big govt welfare statist Tony must go….after he has rolled julia.
Alfonso
27 Jan 13 at 4:38 pm
That’s now the bar for Liberals, is it?
Brandis is a left-wing idiot.
C.L.
27 Jan 13 at 4:52 pm
It was views like this which Popper used to illustrate the way the Hegelian dialectic worked – and resulted in him (Hegel) championing the Austrian monarchy as ‘the ideal state’.
Why is it that progressive thought is always retrograde?
Toiling Mass
27 Jan 13 at 4:56 pm
It is hard to miss the way Gillard was excluded from contention.
Toiling Mass
27 Jan 13 at 4:59 pm
“now the bar for Liberals”
Now the bar for any sane Australian, I would have thought.
One step after another, C.L. Forward into the future etc.
mareeS
27 Jan 13 at 5:04 pm
No it’s not Maree. You never compromise on core beliefs and you can’t get a core belief more than the right to free speech. It’s a natural right.
JC
27 Jan 13 at 5:14 pm
Australia is now less free than at any time in the last century. It’s frightening how the reflexive attitude to different or even offensive opinions is to call for prison sentences.
The only way to wean the Left off this mindset is to start locking them up. Expand the hate codes to cover nearly everything, but stack the tribunals with non-Leftists. Then prosecute away.
When they start losing their houses and families, they’ll wonder why they were so stupid to attack free speech and empower their enemies.
Fisky
27 Jan 13 at 5:24 pm
the powerful option of exit to another state or country has been strong than any time in the last century.
Jim Rose
27 Jan 13 at 5:26 pm
Fisk
I reckon the way to really fuck’em is the make demonizing the rich or pushing class warfare highly illegal….that should get a few them to trip up with a 20 year jail sentence and asset confiscation
Calls for da equality should also fall into this category.
JC
27 Jan 13 at 5:29 pm
The trouble is that the whole world is a bit of a toilet thanks to leftists.
The only sensible option is mass imprisonment and “euthanising” of leftists.
Infidel Tiger
27 Jan 13 at 5:30 pm
JC, you couldn’t meet anyone more uncompromised on the right to free speech than me. I’ve had to put my money and reputation up to defend it, and I won (out of court, because the individual involved didn’t want the adverse publicity of a public loss).
I am prepared to make some early concessions just to see the end of the Welsh witch. Minor retreats for major gains, etc. Why put up all the important things on the front line that might get knocked over in the first battle, when you can save them for when it really matters?
That’s when Brandis will get the message, as I believe he is hearing it now.
mareeS
27 Jan 13 at 5:33 pm
You didn’t even need passports to travel before WWI.
Fisky
27 Jan 13 at 5:34 pm
Brandis would be no better as Attorney-General than Robert McClelland, which does make him a vast improvement on Nicola Roxon. Politics is to statists like a turd is to flies. I am yet to meet a lawyer who doesn’t think every single problem can be fixed by a new law…that lawyers are one of the most dominant profession in our Parliaments is no surprise. It is rare for principled economists to go into politics. You only see the lefty charlatans like Andrew Leigh…
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 5:35 pm
Correctomundo.
Coincidentally, I’ll be raising this intolerable left wing idiocy with several liberal MPs this week.
Fatty “not enough racists” O’Barrell and Georgy “I’m a commie” Brandis will be mentioned in despatches.
Extremely unfavourably.
I have decided not to vote liberal ever again until these types of smug, meddling mediocre plonkers are removed and the liberals harden up on matters of state heavy handedness and legislative meddling – and not just in the area of so called ‘yuman rites’, either.
What is the point in voting for the liberals?
So we can have a “nicer” kind of more of the same?
Get in their faces, people.
You know it makes sense.
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 5:36 pm
You could do that by tweaking the existing law – abolish the provisions mentioning the actual categories that thou shalt not discriminate/offend (which, although they don’t say so, intend only to protect Muslims and white indigenous people), and then there will be no protection for the Left.
I would also make it a criminal offense to support extreme political causes, and then stack the tribunal with opponents of the Greens.
Fisky
27 Jan 13 at 5:36 pm
Maree
How clear would it have to be to Brandis after what occurred to Bolt?
CL is correct, Brandis is a leftwing luvvie.
Frankly I don’t understand what you’re suggesting. Are you saying we shouldn’t be critical of the Libs prior to the election in case it damages them? Surely not.
Bad policy is bad policy, no matter who supports or introduces it.
JC
27 Jan 13 at 5:40 pm
This is somewhat off topic and esoteric C.L., but I see the appeal of Catholicism as a movement.
If you don’t have issues with the dogma, basically, you can practice agorism.
The problem is you have to put up with rot like social justice, liberation theory and rent seeking for social services.
I don’t think we can forgive the Menzies or Heffron for the intrusion of the state into private affairs such as religious education.
How likely is my vision of a statism defeating Catholicism to ever occur? Most Micks are pigshit stupid laborites.
.
27 Jan 13 at 5:41 pm
Therein lies the problem. Little or no differentiation between the two parties on this subject.
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 5:42 pm
Rabz, you can’t be serious? I share your frustration – you know I do – but that plays into the hands of the labor green alliance. Sure, get angry with the libs for not living up to their principles, but the first priority has to be making sure that Gillard and co are booted out of office. Another term for these pricks would do untold damage and embolden them to go full retard…
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 5:44 pm
The Libs are intending to gain government on a “don’t scare the horses” platform. I hope the horse kicks them in the face.
Infidel Tiger
27 Jan 13 at 5:45 pm
Stephen Harper pretended he supported Canada’s fascist hate law until he got a majority in both houses. Abbott can always find a pretext to “change his mind” once he’s in office. The Left do that every time.
Fisky
27 Jan 13 at 5:47 pm
skuter.. I think you forget preferences.
duncanm
27 Jan 13 at 5:49 pm
The Libs have had many many opportunities to repeal such legislation, they never do. Howard was a massive disappointment when it came to personal freedom. I like to think that Abbot will be very pro freedom and responsibility but I can’t see it happening. If there was somewhere to emigrate I would consider it. Any suggestions? I’d like a temperate climate with cold winters, skiing and trout fishing. NZ was once a possibility but it’s going the same path as Australia. I wish I was free.
sfw
27 Jan 13 at 5:50 pm
Liberals need another Howard who got rid the “wets” in the 90′s that were turning the party towards the left. Abbott will not do that he realizes that the Brandis’s, O’Fats and Turkey Teds are one of the reasons Labor takes some confidence. I hope that realization is not an election loss especially to the Fascists Labor has fast become.
Mindfree
27 Jan 13 at 5:50 pm
Like how, with an election loss? Surely you must be taking the piss IT? We CANNOT afford another term of a labor government. They must be smashed, electorally speaking, of course…
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 5:51 pm
I do agree with sfw that Howard did become a disappointment when it came to personal freedom and his middle class welfare spends
Mindfree
27 Jan 13 at 5:52 pm
Skute – as I said – there are at least two liberal MPs who will be hearing from me in no uncertain terms this week.
I am extremely pissed off with the liberals.
Ultimately, they stand for nothing, except more of the same.
They are embarrassingly and infuriatingly gutless and this gutlessness denies voters a real choice.
O’Barrell’s recent insane pronouncements were the final straw, but this disillusionment has been a cumulative phenomenon.
Just look at that dullard, flailieu in Victoria, FFS. What a disgrace. He’s so thick he doesn’t even look as if he has comprehended he’s going to be punted after one term – and FFS, why haven’t the liberals punted him? Quite frankly the moron strikes me as laybore plant (PTP).
Fed up.
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 5:54 pm
I’ve got no problems voting for others ahead of the libs, but as long as they get put ahead of labor and the greens. I vote 1 LDP. That vote still ends up in the lib column and in the end, that’s all that matters.
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 5:54 pm
I recommend that you give your 1st preference to the LDP, your 2nd to the Liberal/National coalition … and your second last preference to the ALP and your last to the Australian Greens.
Between that, I’d preference non communist independents, the Democratic Labour Party, the defunct, harmless Democrats, the loony indeps, KAP, then One Nation, the CDP, CEC, Australia First, Australian Protectionist Party and then the Socialist Alliance and other communist loons.
Vote below the line in the Senate election if you have to.
In marginal labour seats (where the old margin of victory is less than the state-wide swing plus 5%) and where the Greens are not expected to win or come second, the 2nd last and last preferences ought to be swapped.
.
27 Jan 13 at 5:56 pm
Rabz, I agree with you. I hate the lack of principles amongst sitting lib members and candidates, but what is the alternative? Another ALP term? FUCK NO!
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 5:56 pm
Skute – my displeasure will be made known!
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 5:59 pm
I’m with you on that Skute.
JC
27 Jan 13 at 5:59 pm
Dot – you’re spot on (pardon the pun)…
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 6:02 pm
Good. I have no problems with that. But we can’t do anything that play into labor’s hands. If the libs need a rocket up the glacier, Gillard and her bunch of standover merchant comrades need an ICBM…
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 6:06 pm
…clacker, not glacier…
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 6:07 pm
JC, I am saying nothing of the sort. I’m also not supporting soft policies, but you have to begin somewhere with this gun-shy lot, and nobody within the Libs is going anywhere near a hard conservative line. No scaring the horses.
People who wish to influence policies should put themselves into the equation with the Libs. They will listen, unlike Labor, who shoot you (metaphorically speaking) if you are telling them what they don’t want to hear.
mareeS
27 Jan 13 at 6:17 pm
Yes, anything but another ALP or ALP / Greens train wreck but the libs are going to have get some sense beaten in to them re: personal freedoms, massive spends, over regulation. And some cohunas to fight against the coming and predictable whining leftists nanny state interventionists will be mandatory requirement for the job.
Problem is it might a bigger broom than we all might have thought!
Mindfree
27 Jan 13 at 6:21 pm
Just as well, Skute – I was going to remind you that the glaciers have all melted due to gerbil worming.
Which of course, most of the liberals believe in…
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 6:33 pm
As for “a bigger broom,” Mindfree, the bigger the better, and industrial quantities of pesticide. Rats and cockroaches multiply exponentially in dark places where there’s all sorts of shit to feed on. NSW Labor is a best example. Still more to come, but subpoenas may not be issued. That’s politics.
mareeS
27 Jan 13 at 6:34 pm
Brandis would still have to persuade a majority of his cabinet colleagues. There is at least a chance they will recognise the folly of pursuing this direction.
Mother Hubbard's Dog
27 Jan 13 at 6:34 pm
Fair enough Maree.
I think problem really is that the punter doesn’t understand what is going on.
I went to a party a few weeks back where I raised the Finkelstien issue and the people I was talking to had no real idea what it was all about.
No I’m not that boring. Someone else raised the point that they despised the Lying Slapper, that’s all.
I’m not sure the average punter even understands what free speech means actually.
JC
27 Jan 13 at 6:37 pm
Warmbull’s dumping from the leadership being a salutory lesson…
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 6:45 pm
Yes Maree, what concerns is that is the ALP that cunning it manages to get is moles into the libs so even if they’re voted out they still have their people in the enemy camp to do their bidding. Does that sound far fetched?
Fuck me, just saw Turkey Ted on the nine news (the wife watches it) announcing a gummint program to tackle child obesity with talking head dietician mentioning that we (read gummint) to take urgent action to regulate what we put into our mouths.
Fuck I hate this prick running my state and after the untold damage the previous arseholes did.
Mindfree
27 Jan 13 at 6:55 pm
RAbz, tell them in captial letters. I think they are hard of hearing, being mostly old fellas of my vintage.
I have already told more people than I should have, who now look at me kinda odd and shuffle away, that if Abbbot does not, once elected, “spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats” , I will not only never vote Liberal again ; I will join a far right political party and stick THEIR bloody phamplets on my letterbox for all the world to see.
MT Isa Miner
27 Jan 13 at 7:03 pm
Thanks Miner – these are the types of messages that inspire.
They will hear me.
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 7:08 pm
I have never seen such a bunch of lunatics collected together in one place in my life.
Atlantic slave trade? That was fairly competitive.
[Racist comment deleted. Sinc]
Grey
27 Jan 13 at 7:50 pm
How about Abkhazia? No government to speak of and you can own as many guns as you like.
What is it you want to do that you can’t do now?
Grey
27 Jan 13 at 7:56 pm
Racist comment deleted? My you have a nerve, Dr Davidson. Considering the little sewer you have here.
Grey
27 Jan 13 at 7:57 pm
Oh and in case you are wondering I utterly support your right to run a sewer. Let the lunatics run free is my motto.
Grey
27 Jan 13 at 7:59 pm
Labor’s quite an interesting place if you have ever been inside the union part (or, for that matter, the part that involves the Whitlamesque “dregs” of Kim Beasley Snr’s description). What a bunch of haters and irrational loonies. They do it so well.
Libs are no match for them in sheer nihilistic spite. The only thing the Libs (as opposed to the Nats) have going is some vague approximation to logical thought when they finally decide the nation has gone so far down the tubes that something must be done.
We’ve reached the point where something must be done.
mareeS
27 Jan 13 at 8:01 pm
It is totally despicable of you to write racist comments on this blog, Grey. You should take a good hard look at yourself.
You should be banned for life.
Fisky
27 Jan 13 at 8:02 pm
One of the things that separate democracies from autocracies is our absolute right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even hateful.
British Columbia has an extremely broad hate speech law that prohibits the publication of any statement that “indicates” discrimination or is “likely” to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.
Professor Sunera Thobani of the University of British Columbia faced a hate crimes investigation under this statute after she delivered a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy.
Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalist activist, remarked that Americans are “bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.”
The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
there is a bright side to everything.
Jim Rose
27 Jan 13 at 8:05 pm
There is no bright side here at all, unless this woman was a supporter of the laws under which she was prosecuted.
Fisky
27 Jan 13 at 8:06 pm
Fisky, I am quite unwindupable in that regard.
I was just expressing my amusement at how Dr Davidson gave a little tweet on his dog whistle and you all jump up and down slavering at the mouth.
You know deep down, or maybe not so deep down he just views you as useful idiots.
Grey
27 Jan 13 at 8:08 pm
And or thrown in gaol/despatched to labour camp.
What’s good for the goose, etc…
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 8:09 pm
Nat Hentoff wrote a nice book in 1992 ‘Free Speech for Me–But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other’.
He deals with traditional censors–religious fundamentalists and political right-wingers–but does not neglect the new ones, e.g., feminists who tried to prevent a pro-life women’s group from participating in Yale University’s Women’s Center.
Hentoff discusses everything from efforts on college campuses to prevent non politically correct subjects from being discussed to censorship he faced while writing his columns. Hate-speech ordinances, speech codes, flag-burning amendments and feminist-Moral Majority coalitions to ban pornography.
A group of librarians in New York suggested that the following label be put on particular books in school libraries, as needed: “WARNING: It has been determined that these materials are sex-stereotyped and may limit your sense of freedom and choice.
He especially criticizes “civil libertarians” who use the First Amendment as protection of things they like and then ignore it when trying to ban what they hate (racist writing, sexual harassment, etc.).
Rather than set up left-wing straw men to knock down, Hentoff details stories of how the left censors, while acknowledging that the Right censors too. Since conservatives admit their intentions they are not as dangerous as the duplicitous people on the Left.
Jim Rose
27 Jan 13 at 8:10 pm
Hmmmm…topic: Legislating for Morality
Gris lefty troll arguments so far:
Insults passing for argument, the lefty’s trademark.
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 8:12 pm
“So you do not think legislative judgements are also moral judgements?”
Under section 51 of the constitution, parliament has the “power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth”. No other purpose, such as a moral purpose, is allowed.
Unfortunately, this principle has been unenforceable in practice.
2dogs
27 Jan 13 at 8:13 pm
Oh, FFS – and taxpayer funded parasite to boot.
But you already knew that…
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 8:13 pm
Mr Rose, I am not sure you know what censorship is.
Suppose you write a book that I strongly object to – that is free speech. Suppose I loudly say this book is objectionable – that is free speech. Suppose I collect a bunch of people and we all wave placards saying “Jim Rose is horrid” – that is free speech. Suppose we all say we won’t buy papers that carry your column – that is free speech – free speech doesn’t mean I get a newspaper column and it doesn’t mean you get a newspaper column. It means we both have the right to start up a newspaper to say whatever we damn well please.
Grey
27 Jan 13 at 8:17 pm
Only one idiot here grey, since SfB and mOron went elsewhere
Tiny Dancer
27 Jan 13 at 8:18 pm
JC the average punter knows sfa, and a lot of them like it that way. They don’t have a grasp on history, and they think that what we grew up with is going to be the way it remains for ever.
nilk
27 Jan 13 at 8:19 pm
It must be nearly time for your warm milk, teddy and bedtime story, Gab.
Grey
27 Jan 13 at 8:20 pm
sdogs, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Bancoult%29_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Foreign_and_Commonwealth_Affairs_%28No_2%29 for the limits imposed by the term peace, order, and good government
Jim Rose
27 Jan 13 at 8:25 pm
Look, I just received a little tweet, on my dog whistle receiver facility, from Sinclair ordering me over to this thread where I’m to immediately “jump up and down slavering at the mouth.”
Has something horrid been happening here?
Mick Gold Coast QLD
27 Jan 13 at 8:26 pm
Has something horrid been happening here?
The appearance of a gris bug and the same wee little gris bug has been making my points for me, Mick. That’s all.
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 8:28 pm
Australia existed in the 1950s in reasonable harmony.
stackja
27 Jan 13 at 8:28 pm
… that stupid, envious, unsuccessful, mediocre statist pillocks like you get to (mis)use the apparatus of the state to harass, persecute, fine and/or jail (or redact the published views of) individuals that you disagree with, you fascist moron.
In a nutshell, so to speak.
Now fuck off.
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 8:29 pm
Yes – I’ve started swearing again.
For a change.
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 8:30 pm
Funny. He claims to be in favour of free speech, while automatically labelling anyone else who is as racist.
Clearly free speech is a distant second to being respectable.
wreckage
27 Jan 13 at 8:40 pm
Grey has already defined envy out of existence, that time when he totally wasn’t defending the validity of positional externalities.
wreckage
27 Jan 13 at 8:41 pm
Perhaps Roxon’s aim is to provide ongoing jobs for unemployed former members of Parliament after the election?
Boambee John
27 Jan 13 at 8:48 pm
It’s profitable to be a lawyer under this execrable government.
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 8:54 pm
Legislating for morality – isn’t the West based on the Christian Judaean principles and morality codified in the scriptures, and the Talmud?
Louis Hissink
27 Jan 13 at 8:55 pm
Legislating for morality – isn’t the West based on the Christian Judaean principles and morality codified in the scriptures, and the Talmud?
Yes … wondering about that myself. I think the distinction between peace and order AND morality is too blurry to argue that laws cannot be about morality.
John H.
27 Jan 13 at 8:58 pm
“I have warned here several times that Brandis is a statist luvvie.
He is no friend of liberty.”
Neither was the vomitous little garden gnome, John Howard, C.L.
Eyrie
27 Jan 13 at 9:00 pm
Better the law be about morality than mores.
.
27 Jan 13 at 9:10 pm
These politicians are like the naive teenager who thinks they’ve invented sex. These statist prohibitionists think they are doing something new – to legislate morality ,create the free lunch, and to eliminate all ills from society through law.
Unfortunately though, these people refuse to acknowledge the truth of similar attempts by those who have gone before on many occasions, unlike the reality check of the teenager who eventually meets middle age.
Fire and Ice
27 Jan 13 at 9:12 pm
sdogs, Union Steamship Company of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR:
Jim Rose
27 Jan 13 at 9:14 pm
As I keep saying to other lefties, Greys.. If it’s a sewer you’re just traveling through, yea?
Dickhead, you should have been banned the time you posted that conspiracy theory on JFK’s death wondering when questioned how no one here had the inside scoop of what happened like you did. Lol
Tell us again how you were having drinks with the head of Commerzebank and he told you that Tony Hodges was doing great work at the European Bank of Reconstruction saving Europe from itself.
(fuck there are some weridos on the net. Dexter has nothing on them)
JC
27 Jan 13 at 9:27 pm
A tad off thread but have a gander at Quadrant On Line where they repeat one of the most immoral cartoons imaginable by Matt Golding in the SMH.
Now I understand why some people view others as goyim or unter-mensch. Why are the lefties often such nasty, vile and immoral creeps?
Ridiculing both the bogans and inferring that suicide is caused by boganism.
Louis Hissink
27 Jan 13 at 9:30 pm
Louis – agreed. That cartoon is appalling.
Sinclair Davidson
27 Jan 13 at 9:35 pm
it’s all they’ve got.
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 9:36 pm
It’s beyond appalling.
Just as fauxfacts is beyond being able to justify its existence.
Liquidation is long overdue.
Rabz
27 Jan 13 at 9:38 pm
Good evening fellow sewer dwellers
Tal
27 Jan 13 at 9:45 pm
Disgusting cartoon.
Strange but I didn’t see them as bogans, just your average Aussie enjoying a day off in summer that happens to be in celebration of a nation. Of course, Golding is showing that while we celebrate and or just enjoy the Day, Aborigines are committing suicide because we “invaded” their land. It’s very fashionable to blame white people in 2013 for things that happened over 200 years ago in a country that had no Aboriginal name for the continent nor had the inhabitants even invented the wheel. But hey, we’re evil whitey, sackcloth and self-flagellation is in vogue, luvvies. Let’s be ashamed of our country, it’s so now.
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 9:46 pm
I wonder, is a sewer more chic than a cesspool, Tal?
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 9:48 pm
Well, based on that cartoon, one could pose the idea that the reason , what’s her name, Roxon, is amalgamating five separate acts into one, is because lefties, not having any internal moral guidance systems in the first place, need to have their behaviour in society pre and proscribed in laws and regulations.
The sad thing is that it seems both sides of the political divide are equally morally vacuous. And they call their social system progressive? A progress to the dark side more like it.
Louis Hissink
27 Jan 13 at 9:49 pm
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
.
.
.
.
Aaaaaaahahahahahaahaha
Saving the world wasn’t it? Or the universe? One canape at a time…
Skuter
27 Jan 13 at 9:52 pm
Oh God yeah Gab,sewers are the new black, baby
Tal
27 Jan 13 at 9:53 pm
Skute
The Cat is a lefties killing field. It’s like a roach motel for these lunatics. They never walk out alive.
JC
27 Jan 13 at 9:58 pm
Ya hear that, jarrah and monty? So stop referring to the Cat on other sites as a cesspool or cesspit.
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 10:01 pm
Fitzsimmons is a prick.
cohenite
27 Jan 13 at 10:05 pm
Sewer it is then
It cracks me up when people come here and TRY the insult route,half the Cat crowd go meh, the others fire up which is always good for a laugh
Tal
27 Jan 13 at 10:14 pm
Soporific charm…the guy was probably falling asleep.
.
27 Jan 13 at 10:24 pm
The Cat is a lefties killing field. It’s like a roach motel for these lunatics. They never walk out alive.
So how many lives do I have?
John H.
27 Jan 13 at 11:04 pm
If you’re an actual lefty then I’m Osama bin Laden and I’m alive and kicking at Graeme Bird’s place.
.
27 Jan 13 at 11:06 pm
So how many lives do I have? Lots by Cat standards.
Gab
27 Jan 13 at 11:10 pm
If you’re an actual lefty then I’m Osama bin Laden and I’m alive and kicking at Graeme Bird’s place.
I’m an alienated lefty! I hate what passes for the Left in this country. I have friends who call themselves lefty but also hate the mainstream Leftist talking points. It’s difficult for alienated lefty’s Dot. My main problem is I think the Right confuses the market outcomes with morality. The market is often good, not always good, there are times when it does produce bad outcomes. But too often any criticism of the market seems to imply one is an evil lefty. I don’t believe the market always provide just outcomes. I suppose my main difference is I believe markets and justice are inter-related but two distinct things whereas the Right seems to confuse the two.
John H.
27 Jan 13 at 11:14 pm
If you read von Mises, you’d come to realisation that markets lead to preferable outcomes – but it is dynamic. Morality only exists if you see injustices, rather than inefficiencies in the first instance.
A lot of people don’t like Woolworths and Coles.
Their profit margins mean there should be more suppliers.
Slowly, they are coming. FDI restrictions, tight labour laws and on costs and planning laws do not help this dynamic process.
.
27 Jan 13 at 11:22 pm
JohnH
Stop whining. You’re not considered a leftwing idiot here.
JC
27 Jan 13 at 11:36 pm
JohnH
Stop whining. You’re not considered a leftwing idiot here.
I’m not fucking whining. A somewhat ironic deduction of yours given the amount of whingeing that goes on around here.
If you read von Mises, you’d come to realisation that markets lead to preferable outcomes
Don’t need Mises for that, it’s obvious. But in my younger years I was doing all sorts of casual work to get me through some lean learning years and saw plenty of instances where employers treated us casuals like complete shit. That was a market outcome, that sort of thing should not happen, especially when it involved exposure to certain agents of known biological toxicity. So while I am opposed to laws governing working hours or preventing individual contracts, I am fully in favour of ensuring that when people go to work they are not expected to put their current or future health at risk.
John H.
27 Jan 13 at 11:59 pm
So is high turnover and shirking.
Well that’s probably just criminal, regardless of labour laws.
.
28 Jan 13 at 12:12 am
If you ARE NOT LIVING UNDER A ROCK, you’d come to realisation that markets lead to preferable outcomes – but if you read von Mises it would be elucidated to you that this is a dynamic process.
Is that any better?
.
28 Jan 13 at 12:15 am
“So stop referring to the Cat on other sites as a cesspool or cesspit.”
Been lurking, Gab?
Jarrah
28 Jan 13 at 12:24 am
Brandis’ most scary part of what he is saying.
It is crazy to think that a person in a pub should not be able to say what he thinks, no matter how crazy it is, to another person. Brandis’ belief about legislating what people think or should believe completely indirectly goes against our Constitutional beliefs about freedom of religion and to hold a particular belief.
On another topic, the Liberal candidate who is running in my electorate does not what is and is not geographically in my electorate, I can’t vote for ALP/Greens and the other alternative is Family First. What do I do? Probably will still vote Liberal, but I am not so sure.
Andrew
28 Jan 13 at 12:37 am
Senator Humphries is one of Brandis’ ‘wet’ friends.
Andrew
28 Jan 13 at 12:41 am
but if you read von Mises it would be elucidated to you that this is a dynamic process.
Processes are dynamic and there is no reason to assume that processes will always lead to optimal outcomes. Physiology is subject to a multitude of regulatory processes and still fucks up. Our immune system is very capable of killing us because of uncontrolled inflammation(sepsis). Just because a process has “stabilisers” does not guarantee those agents always work towards optimal outcomes.
Doesn’t change the fact that just like in general society there are asshole employers who are quite willing to put employees at risk to save a few bucks. It would be preferable if these provisions were addressed under criminal law but some people are hardly in a position to take the matter to court. It costs too much and the company is likely able to assemble a much more powerful legal group than yourself. So the employee gets screwed.
John H.
28 Jan 13 at 1:06 am
Ummm how so? If a criminal action has transpired the transgressor is taken to court by the state to answer those changes. Criminal homicide is still criminal homicide.
If it’s a civil action, I hear on radio plenty of legals firms taking cases on contingency anyways, so I don’t think there’s much of a problem you’re coming up.
Is not everything perfect? Of course, we’re freaking human and fuck up all the time.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 1:12 am
It’s all a bit academic really, Andrew, a Canberra/coastal cities centric discussion.
Travel for a few decades out in western QLD, western NSW, up through SA to Darwin and eventually you will pick up the now more subtle code used.
You will find out which motels one should stay at and avoid, where one can enjoy a quiet drink, the streets one should not drive along to avoid the likelihood of a particular type of pedestrian suddenly leaping out to generate his damages claim for being bumped into and so on.
There are many places where a particular group is well aware it should not cross a river or a nominated road, and venture about the other side, under an unwritten policy of the businesses, the local council and the law.
These practices exist for good reason, you will find.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
28 Jan 13 at 1:25 am
Ummm how so? If a criminal action has transpired the transgressor is taken to court by the state to answer those changes. Criminal homicide is still criminal homicide.
You mean the way the State when after all those kiddie fiddlers? How when complaints were made the messengers were treated as the problem instead of the criminals? Or how about how whistle blowers are treated? Spare me the naivete.
John H.
28 Jan 13 at 2:30 am
The Libs attitude may appear disgusting but they are far less insane on these issues than Labor. ALP are taking a truly extreme position on this, more extreme in fact than most of Europe. The Libs are merely mediocre on this. Thus the difference is massive.
Boris
28 Jan 13 at 4:05 am
The Libs are merely mediocre on this. Thus the difference is massive.
I wonder if the Libs are missing a chance here. I mean, who doesn’t occasionally make the rash statement, the offensive remark? Perhaps the Libs have decided to leave it alone and await a public response, catch that wave and ride it. Also, given Tony’s new Mr. Positive approach, which is a good idea, they probably don’t want to start the New Year with a big Negative on this issue. I also suspect that these new laws will not have the impact as currently suggested because even Left public figures are offended by it so changes will be made. I am offended by legislation which prevents me offending others so I want to bring charges against the creators of this legislation.
And now it is time to attack 3 Russian fleets, prevent all those bloody missiles they throw at me, and protect my south Atlantic base from destruction, while re-capturing Iceland. Should take me through to sunrise.
Have a great public holiday everybody.
John H.
28 Jan 13 at 4:22 am
According to Greys, that’s only half the story – Watergate was all about covering up the JFK assassination.
Fisky
28 Jan 13 at 4:42 am
What a blithering fuckhead.
.
28 Jan 13 at 5:42 am
Wasn’t my idea, I got it from Francis Wheen – and he got it from one of Nizon’s aides.
Although Nixon wasn’t interested in the assassination per se, but he was always interested in digging up dirt on his Democrat predecessors. I understand the plumbers unit was first established to try and acquire a document from the Pentagon Papers he believed that the Brookings Institute had and was suppressing – that Johnson had only ordered a bombing pause in order to politically embarrass Nixon. So according to the Nixon’s aide, the more idiotic members of the plumbers unit were working for Richard Helms to discredit Nixon. If so they earned their money. You could understand why Richard Helms would get very nervous at the idea of Nixon digging around into the machinations of the previous administrations.
As CTs go, that is fairly mainstream.
Now, do you want to know what really happened at Chappaquiddick?
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 8:00 am
LOl
Tell us Greys, did the Chairman of Commerzebank explain all this while he was telling you that Tony Hodges has saved Europe?
I’m not surprised about this because all Euroweenie I’ve spoken to since he was rushed out of Australia after the race riot mentions Tony Hodges.
Tony Hodges this, Tony Hodges said that. Tony is in Verbier this winter. Tony is holidaying in the south of France with Hollande in the summer.
Almost everyone in Europe is talking about Tony Hodges and how lucky they are to have him there.
I’m up for it. Humor us Greys.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 9:09 am
That problem sure does exist but is essentially one of inadequate enforcement of existing legislation. Conceivably it could be fixed in theory at least by adequately resourcing the appropriate agencies. But even then how can it be assumed we have effective laws when in the end we leave it up to the ‘discretion’ of enforcement agencies as to whether they decide to act? Seems to me this is not only a huge enticement to corruption of one kind or another, but also a blatant enabler of even more discrimination of a type the laws are supposed to prohibit in the first place.
A law which is only optionally enforced is way worse than useless.
This notion is crucially relevant to a set of laws in which the process itself is the punishment, whether guilty or innocent.
What the hell happened to “Without fear or favour’ ?
Tapdog
28 Jan 13 at 10:22 am
If you want to force either party to take freedom even remotely seriously, you should be hoping, begging, praying, and helping LDP to get up to 5%. With a couple of senators and vital preferences in play, then the majors would have to at least start to pretend to listen to freedom arguments.
Would be great if a Senator could respond to Brandis:
“You talking about conflicting rights, but all rights are extension of a basic first right and that is the right to self-ownership. I suggest that each person owns themselves. The only way to conflict with that — as you seem to do — is to suggest that some people don’t own themselves. That sort of disgusting authoritarian leftism is common enough in this house, but it is an absolute disgrace coming from somebody who once called themselves a liberal.”
John Humphreys
28 Jan 13 at 10:32 am
But of course.
Gab
28 Jan 13 at 10:46 am
I think this causing ‘offence’ part is about shutting down conservative blogs that say things that upset Ms Gillard.
my hunch is that she truly believes that conservative blogs have made her government unpopular and forced half the population to dislike her. She blames the blogs. For her, it’s personal, and this is petty revenge.
candy
28 Jan 13 at 11:08 am
Of course. I reckon the Lying Slapper and or her office despise the Cat for instance because we’re merciless.
When saw the way leftwing blogs treated Howard – attacking him over his appearance, how the ABC allowed Keating to refer to Howard as a dessicated coconut, how they made a musical of Keating’s abuse… I then thought it was time to take the gloves off and double up and always escalate.
Of course. It’s blogs like the Cat that made the Lying slapper appear like a thieving disgusting, lying rodent. She’s a victim
It’s the lying, the competence and the attempts to muzzle free speech. I hope the cops do their job and she’s taken away in handcuffs in a perp walk.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 11:26 am
And it’s not as if Sinclair is unknown to the Labor comrades in power, and there’s plenty of envy-ridden vicious freedom-hating lefties around that would jump at the chance to silence this blog.
Gab
28 Jan 13 at 11:34 am
“The only way to conflict with that — as you seem to do — is to suggest that some people don’t own themselves.”
People’s rights don’t conflict with themselves, but different people’s rights can conflict with each other, in a manner of speaking. Probably more accurate to say that one right can provide boundaries to another.
Jarrah
28 Jan 13 at 11:37 am
monty, the fat virginal retard who can’t use chopsticks, reckon’s you’re a bush lawyer with conspiracy theorist tendencies.
What would his little jet setting buddy Grey say?
.
28 Jan 13 at 11:38 am
It’s a “cesspit”, Gab. Recall.
They’re all passing though.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 11:38 am
I’m sure that Greys had a chat with the Chief justice of the High Court and drinks with the SCOTUS chief justice Roberts who have both cleared the Lying Slapper of any wrong doing. Even the Chairman of Commerzebank has given her the all clear when he and Greys met up in Davos.
I’m still waiting for Greys to give us the inside scoop on the Chappaquiddick.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 11:43 am
:Cesspit” is soooo 2012. It’s a sewer now. Do keep up everyone.
Gab
28 Jan 13 at 11:43 am
Hey Greys…
Tell us about Davos. Did you see the topless gals protesting?
JC
28 Jan 13 at 11:44 am
“It’s a sewer now. Do keep up everyone.”
Sewer suggests a flow. ‘Cesspool’ is much more apt.
Jarrah
28 Jan 13 at 11:48 am
Jarrah, don’t be offended I called ABC journos zombies.
Juanita Philips is dating Greg Combet.
He had a fake press conference. Anyone who goes along with crap like that is a suckhole.
.
28 Jan 13 at 11:51 am
“Juanita Philips is dating Greg Combet.”
Batting way above his average there.
Jarrah
28 Jan 13 at 12:06 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You mean the way the State when after all those kiddie fiddlers? How when complaints were made the messengers were treated as the problem instead of the criminals? Or how about how whistle blowers are treated? ….
That problem sure does exist but is essentially one of inadequate enforcement of existing legislation. Conceivably it could be fixed in theory at least by adequately resourcing the appropriate agencies. But even then how can it be assumed we have effective laws when in the end we leave it up to the ‘discretion’ of enforcement agencies as to whether they decide to act? Seems to me this is not only a huge enticement to corruption of one kind or another, but also a blatant enabler of even more discrimination of a type the laws are supposed to prohibit in the first place.
A law which is only optionally enforced is way worse than useless.
This notion is crucially relevant to a set of laws in which the process itself is the punishment, whether guilty or innocent.
What the hell happened to “Without fear or favour’ ?
Tapdog
28 Jan 13 at 12:14 pm
At least the Victorian Attorney General, Robert Clark, is speaking out against the poor discrimination bill.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/labors-dangerous-discrimination-draft-should-be-shown-the-door/story-e6frgd0x-1226563056237
Andrew
28 Jan 13 at 12:40 pm
Actually I didn’t get to Davos this year as I was double booked.
Ronald Pofalla, Tony Hodges and I did have an informal pre-Davos meeting at Poschiavo for coffee and cake. Angela Merket wanted to know Tony’s views on the financial transactions tax. Tony Hodges, being seen as something of the go to guy in Europe at the moment, was happy to oblige
Greg Combet and Juanita Philips? Kent Clark and Lois Lane!
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 1:01 pm
Surely Brandis’ position is merely conservative. Antidiscrimination has been part of the legal system for over 40 years. The liberal party is a conservative party. Conservatives do not, as a rule, mind legislating their moral norms.
The libertarian position is that moral issues like discrimination in trade are not the purview of the state, but that is a radical claim. The general position, left and right, is a desire to legislate preferred rules.
Pedro
28 Jan 13 at 1:04 pm
Pedro
What morality plays did Howard legislate in the 11 years of office. I’m leaving the gun control issue aside.
They toyed with the idea of parental controls and then offered it as a choice to consumers. Benito C.nry later picked it up and ran with it.
Suggesting or implying there is any comparison with these fascists is simply wrong.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 1:14 pm
Euthanasia?
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 1:17 pm
Of course. What one should say is different to what on should be legally allowed to say.
Andrew
28 Jan 13 at 3:37 pm
In your case?
JC
28 Jan 13 at 3:40 pm
JC, how bout gun control? But Howard is a conservative and so did not have to legislate that much morality, the family payments and general driving of the welfare state further in favour family support is also an example.
I think the Howard govt was terrific and Rudd Gillard the worst ever so I make no comparisons. The other day I was defending howard from the criticism here from the brave dudes who snear are danger. Howard was also a pragmatist and so not given to stupid ideas like mandatory internet controls.
My simple point is that you cannot be surprised that a conservative does not want to abolish 40 year old legislation about antidiscrimination.
Pedro
28 Jan 13 at 3:50 pm
Pedro
I left out the gun control issue..which I mentioned.
My point in that these current moralizing trogs are so bad it’s not funny. There’s just no comparison .
To think we need to defend free speech against these arseholes is jaw dropping.
They were even talking about lisencing blogs at one stage. Think about that.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 3:58 pm
Snort.
wreckage
28 Jan 13 at 4:41 pm
The Intervention?
Oohh, I missed that one. Wonderful. Don’t you hate it when a particular type of pedestrian puts some scratches in your paintwork as a result of their leaping out? Not to mention the chore of having to wash the blood off your bull-bars?
And those skim goats milk latte drinkers in the inner city suburbs just don’t get it, do they?
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 4:41 pm
Grey, you really think people of any kind, even hypothetical ones, throw themselves under the wheels in order to sue?
Or are you saying that “he jumped out to get on compo” is what what rednecks say after murdering people with their cars? The outback of your imagining owes a tad too much to Mad Max movies.
wreckage
28 Jan 13 at 4:51 pm
There is a relationship between morality and law; legal and moral judgements are not entirely independent.
When there is a pressing, shared, moral consensus (e.g it is morally wrong to murder) there will be laws to enforce the moral consensus.
However, when the so-called ruling class treat the law as a way of imposing their will in order to control us and amend our behaviour, instead of settling conflicts, then “they are different from that of the mafia or the gang only in having the authority of parliament” – as one critic has put it.
ella
28 Jan 13 at 5:01 pm
Ella, the law is amoral.
Tintarella di Luna
28 Jan 13 at 5:04 pm
Well at least in western democracies, anyway
Tintarella di Luna
28 Jan 13 at 5:05 pm
Wreckage – see Mick Gold Coast QLD 28 Jan 13 at 1:25 am.
Of course maybe he was talking about his ex-wives.
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 5:10 pm
Could be, Grey. Who’d'a thought we’d agree on anything?
wreckage
28 Jan 13 at 5:15 pm
“Grey, you really think people of any kind, even hypothetical ones, throw themselves under the wheels in order to sue?”
Apparently it has reached serious levels in Russia. It’s part of the reason dashboard cameras are popular there.
http://www.rferl.org/content/dash-cams-russia-fighting-corruption-and-scams-car-crashes/24780355.html
Jarrah
28 Jan 13 at 5:25 pm
Human scum.
C.L.
28 Jan 13 at 5:30 pm
Jarrah, I don’t think they are talking about throwing themselves under wheels – damages to vehicles.
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 5:31 pm
Sad to see that not even Andrew Bolt gets it.
He writes today:
There was no reason whatsoever for the police or the “authorities” to harrass the woman.
C.L.
28 Jan 13 at 5:33 pm
And Bolt seems to fall for the Victorian and NSW ‘if it aint broke, don’t fix it’ trick. He approvingly quotes Bailieu’s Attorney-General, Robert Clark:
Bolt:
O’Farrell despises free speech.
Clark defends an existing, fascist law.
But the status quo is now being sold as the good old-fashioned Liberal way.
C.L.
28 Jan 13 at 5:38 pm
“Jarrah, I don’t think they are talking about throwing themselves under wheels – damages to vehicles.”
http://www.mandatory.com/2012/10/12/a-dash-cam-compilation-of-russian-insurance-scam-attempts/
Jarrah
28 Jan 13 at 5:40 pm
‘There was no reason whatsoever for the police or the “authorities” to harrass the woman.’
…..except for the more than implied death threat, no reason at all.
Alfonso
28 Jan 13 at 5:41 pm
Jarrah: I mean that if one pulls such a stunt, one does so in such a way as to not be ground to dog-meat.
wreckage
28 Jan 13 at 5:41 pm
CL what do you say about accommodation that refuses to allow gay people to stay. It does happen occasionally – it probably used to be commoner.
Do you think that should be legal?
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 5:42 pm
Gris what do you say about accommodation that refuses to allow straight people to stay. It does happen a lot as there are many gay only B&Bs.
Do you think that should be legal?
Gab
28 Jan 13 at 5:56 pm
Right.
The baby girl was going to behead somebody.
Sure.
I’ve heard Ray Warren refer to footballers being “poleaxed” and heard commentators on the news refer to electorates with “baseball bats at the ready” for politicians.
Were they interviewed by the police?
C.L.
28 Jan 13 at 5:57 pm
You mean, should it be illegal to refuse them.
Answer: no.
C.L.
28 Jan 13 at 5:58 pm
Gab – a cute young man like yourself should have nothing to worry about.
Jarrah, I didn’t see any blood, I did see some odd jumps in continuity and camera work in places – but perhaps you are right.
Grey
28 Jan 13 at 6:01 pm
Don’t be silly, the mother controlled and supplied the child’s placard.
Neither of your weak examples have any relationship to a death threat, say, like beheading. One refers to knocking someone over in a tackle, the other is a metaphor for a strongly motivated voter.
Seems generic death threats are ok in Libert land. Ok.
Alfonso
28 Jan 13 at 6:20 pm
More horseshit smears.
Why bother, conservatives will concede anti discrimination laws and smear libertarians to a primary vote lower than the Greens.
Thanks. I hope you guys get fucked over as badly as we do.
.
28 Jan 13 at 6:23 pm
Right.
Mum was going to behead ‘somebody.’
Sure.
Was she going to do this with her personal guillotine or a butter knife?
C.L.
28 Jan 13 at 6:30 pm
It wasn’t the woman or the child who would be doing the beheading, the sign was calling on others (fellow Muslims) to behead those who insult their prophet. It is directly encouraging and inciting violence.
Andreas
28 Jan 13 at 6:44 pm
Who was the placard inciting, Andreas?
JC
28 Jan 13 at 6:46 pm
Silliness abounds, you think this can only be construed as a threat during the moments the placard was held by the mother’s direction?
Ok, what Muslim “militant’ organisations does the mother belong to? Is this a threat organised by the ‘militant’ organisation and delivered by the mother, you wouldn’t know and don’t care. The coppers inquiries were undoubtedly directed at finding that out.
Me, concede anti disc laws?…. you’re an idiot, refer my two previous posts this thread.
Alfonso
28 Jan 13 at 6:47 pm
I’m only saying that because I don;t see a direct threat there. It’s appalling primitive behavior, but I don’t see how anyone was directly threatened.
It’s better to see this shit out in the open than to try and guess what they’re thinking.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 6:48 pm
Alfonso,
If you walked past that kid waving the placard would you feel threatened, or would you think (about the mother) you poor, stone age primitive?
I know what I would be thinking.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 6:51 pm
Me, feel threatened? Smiles.
Others may well feel threatened.
I think ‘failed culture ashamed of it’s backwardness and lashing out’ and is she running this generic threat on behalf of some dangerous proscribed mob in a desert cesspit
Alfonso
28 Jan 13 at 7:04 pm
I think making your kid hold up a sign advocating murder is child abuse. That’s the real offense here.
Fisky
28 Jan 13 at 7:09 pm
Alfonso
the real question to ask is why was she allowed to come here in the first place assuming that she’s a recent arrival.
Pick your immigrants carefully.
JC
28 Jan 13 at 7:17 pm
The point is that bonehead phony O’Farrell deliberately chose a case that would appeal to the political right – because he knows that the right despises fascist anti-discrimination laws. It was nothing more than a stunt. He, Ballieu and Brandis are trying to fool people into thinking the status quo is the solid, traditional Liberal way.
In other words, they fully back the Bolt and Two Dannys prosecutions.
Don’t fall for it. Bolt (of all people) is being played.
C.L.
28 Jan 13 at 7:24 pm
‘its’
No, no JC….that’d be discriminatory and in Australia’s very best interest. We need as many undocumented 3rd world failed cultures whose religious text instructs its believers (all of them) to kill us.
Makes perfect sense if you hate Western valued, semi market capitalist Australia enough and some do.
Alfonso
28 Jan 13 at 7:26 pm
‘because he knows that the right despises fascist anti-discrimination laws. It was nothing more than a stunt. He, Ballieu and Brandis are trying to fool people into thinking the status quo is the solid, traditional Liberal way.’
Correct.
Alfonso
28 Jan 13 at 7:29 pm
You say so, but you have.
Actions speak louder than words, pal. Clean up your own fucking act before you go trolling here.
.
29 Jan 13 at 9:40 am
US constitutional law on discrimination has suspect classifications. this is any classification of groups suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination.
1.the group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
2.They possess an immutableand/or highly visible trait.
3. They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority).
4. The group’s distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.
These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Jim Rose
29 Jan 13 at 3:24 pm
Then the idiot won’t have any trouble quoting the comments to which he refers…..will you, liar.
Alfonso
29 Jan 13 at 3:53 pm