Freedom is not a gift of government

Here is Gillian Triggs describing Australia’s human rights regime:

Australia has taken an individual path to protect fundamental freedoms through national laws, the common law and cultural conventions. Australia has relied on its judges to apply principles that have been developed at common law over many centuries, on a case-by-case basis, since the Magna Carta in 1215. Through this time-honoured process, the high court has affirmed the principle of “legality” and strongly supported fundamental freedoms against executive power.

That sounds good in theory – but then she demonstrates what has gone wrong:

Parliament has given specific legislative effect to some only of Australia’s international treaty obligations – in the Racial Discrimination Act, Sex Discrimination Act, and Disability Discrimination Act – and has enacted additional laws on age, children and Indigenous Australians.

Consistent with this preference for administrative rather than legislative protection for human rights, the Commonwealth established the Australian Human Rights Commission in 1986. It is testimony to the strength of Australia’s democracy that, despite the Commission’s function to hold government to account on human rights protections, it has been supported on a bipartisan basis by all federal governments for nearly 30 years.

With this evolution, Australia’s unique approach to human rights has produced a significant gap in legal protections for some rights, such as the right to freedom of speech or freedom from arbitrary detention, while comprehensively preserving the right protection against certain forms of discrimination.

Reread that last sentence – that is precisely the criticism that organisations such such as the IPA (and now Senator George Brandis) has long leveled against the Australian Human Rights Commission. Australia’s ‘unique approach’ to human rights does not actually protect human rights as they apply to individuals but rather they apply to groups. In short, our ‘unique approach’ to human rights has produced a form of apartheid – different people have different rights depending on what group they can be said to belong to and how government privileges that group.

Contrast that approach with what Tim Wilson describes:

First, human rights as universal individual birthrights; second, human rights are designed to stop the abuse of government power over the individual.

It’s out of this tradition that Australia’s common law rights evolved.

Similarly, it’s only with this history that Australians can understand the social contract that gives government legitimacy is coupled with human rights to put a brake on its excesses.

This difference between Tim Wilson’s conception of human rights and Gillian Triggs’ conception of human rights can be seen by the shenanigans of the former ALP government and the current Queensland government:

Last year, the Queensland parliament passed laws that have criminalised free association for bikies.

The last federal parliament considered introducing a state-sanctioned media regulator that would limit free speech because politicians didn’t like what newspapers were saying about them.

The last federal parliament also considered laws that could restrict expressing political views in the workplace.

What the government giveth the government can, and does, take away.

Human rights are a constraint on government power, not an expression of that power. That is what Triggs does not, and cannot, understand and why her entire organisation should be abolished. Not reformed. Not stacked. Abolished.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Freedom is not a gift of government

  1. Aristogeiton

    Human rights are a constraint on government power, not an expression of that power. That is what Triggs does not, and cannot, understand and why her entire organisation should be abolished. Not reformed. Not stacked. Abolished.

    Second.

  2. blogstrop

    David Marr is filling in for Margaret Throsby doing the midday interview-the-guest-and-play-their music-choices, on ABC Classic FM. His guest today will be Tim Wilson.
    Is this going to be an ambush, or does Tim have enough pluses for David to treat him nicely? Given Marr’s aversion to conservatives of any complexion, it has the potential to be an interesting session.

  3. Well said Sinc.

    More proof that it is the common law tradition of the Anglosphere under organized attack. Definitely a preference among the international rent-seeking class for the Continental approach.

    Comes from OECD and UNESCO and others being in Paris.

  4. Token

    Great post.

    Trigg’s appalling actions and startling ignorance in the last 24 hours are a sharp contrast to Tim Wilson and his clear and articulate article in The Australian today.

  5. .

    Very good article. I can’t add to it. Wish it was in the papers.

  6. Percy

    Anyone remember the days when the American Bill of Rights was the gold standard?

  7. Gab

    second, human rights are designed to stop the abuse of government power over the individual.

    Yes but not many people realise that and here in Australistan “Human Rights” is used as a weapon by the lobby groups, minorities and the Left to beat down the majority.

  8. Rabz

    Yes but not many people realise that and here in Australistan “Human Rights” is used as a weapon by the lobby groups, minorities and the Left to beat down the majority.

    Hence the incessant demands by leftists in this country for a “Bill of Rights”.

  9. Rabz

    BTW, do not read the comments on Trigg’s Grauniad piece if you have high blood pressure or value your sanity.

  10. Thomas Esmond Knox

    The Qld Government has not criminalised free association for motor bike riders.

    It has passed laws which allow it to deal with criminal gang activities.

  11. Geriatric Mayfly

    In the sixties and beyond, the word PEACE became infected with a virulent strain of Leftism. Likewise in our own time, RIGHTS have become articles you would drown in paint stripper before holding them up to the light.

  12. lem

    Blogstrop, can you keep the thread posted on David Marr’s interview of Tim, for those of us who are unable to access the show because we are (allegedly) working? Just the juicy titbits, reported in the fashion of an evening at “Q&A”…

  13. Token

    Yes but not many people realise that and here in Australistan “Human Rights” is used as a weapon by the lobby groups, minorities and the Left to beat down the majority.

    Tim really details the conflict well in his article from this point on:

    The Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities outlines this problem in practice.

    He “brings it home” with this wonderful summation:

    It’s impossible to protect the integrity of “negative” human rights when, as the Victorian Charter argues, “every person has the right to enjoy his or her human rights without discrimination” while also protecting the right of women to join gyms that exclude men, gays to have nightclubs that exclude heterosexuals and indigenous groups that require members have indigenous heritage.

    Arguably, the whole point of free association is the right to discriminate in associating with some, but not others.

    Worse, the Victorian Charter doubles down by explicitly prioritising non-discrimination ahead of human rights by stating that “measures taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons of groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination”.

    Despite the inconsistency, achieving a society free of unjust discrimination remains a worthy goal, but we cannot ignore that when we prioritise “positive” non-discrimination, we are deprioritising human rights, and vice-versa.

  14. Ant

    “Human” and “rights”.

    Funny, I don’t see “government” or “HRC bureaucrat” in any of that. Still, I would imagine taxpayers have lined her pockets nicely over the years for diddlysquat in return.

    In the US, you can clearly see just how depraved the Left is when they use “rights” as tool to ram their agenda down the throats of anyone who disagrees with them.

    Right now, because some Republicans are objecting to the government funding abortions, the Dems bludgeon them with “Oh, they just hate women and want to end their right to choose.” But they’re not even denying them that right to choose, just denying other taxpayers from being forced to pay for it!

    Means to an end.

    If there’s a hell, I trust it’s filled with leftists.

  15. Token

    In the US, you can clearly see just how depraved the Left is when they use “rights” as tool to ram their agenda down the throats of anyone who disagrees with them.

    We had 3 years of Gillard her sycophants pulling the same shyte.

    It will be back once the Liars Party get back in power.

  16. manalive

    Australia’s ‘unique approach’ to human rights does not actually protect human rights as they apply to individuals but rather they apply to groups …

    I love it when someone cuts through the bullshit and gets to the heart of a contentious matter, good one Professor.

    … the Commonwealth established the Australian Human Rights Commission in 1986. It is testimony to the strength of Australia’s democracy that, despite the Commission’s function to hold government to account on human rights protections, it has been supported on a bipartisan basis …

    You would think that some of the more astute legal minds in the then-opposition would have been awake to the likely direction the legislation would be taken, I don’t care who they were.
    Hopefully the Libs can be gradually dragged kicking and screaming in a more libertarian direction towards the LibDems.

  17. candy

    In the last 24 hours she’s accused Navy officers of torture which is completely unsubstantiated, so she’s not too keen on human rights for Defence personnel.

  18. Tintarella di Luna

    Professor this is a great article

    I agree totally with your call for the Australian Human Rights Commission to be abolished – it was seeded in leftist soil, started as an epiphyte and went on to become the strangler fig – it has used the strength, acceptance and tolerance of the Australian body politic, and sucked the life out of it. The Australian Human Rights Commission has pursued an agenda which has permitted group rights to trump individual rights when in fact the smallest minority is the individual. De-commission the Commission it has never served its purpose to protect and defend human rights, it has been little more than a self-regarding grievance industry enabler.

  19. blogstrop

    Lem, I too am working today – might catch up with a repeat later.

  20. Tintarella di Luna

    Arrivederci gatti – must go to work work now that I’ve done the home work.

  21. manalive

    You would think that some of the more astute legal minds in the then-opposition would have been awake to the likely direction the legislation would be taken …

    On reflection I think that was an own goal.

  22. Rabz

    it has been little more than a self-regarding grievance industry enabler

    It’s also provided many a comfy taxpayer funded sinecure for mediocre white middle class feminazi wymminses.

    Shut. It. Down.

    Fire. Them. All.

    Starting with Triggs.

  23. james

    Human rights are a constraint on government power, not an expression of that power. That is what Triggs does not, and cannot, understand and why her entire organisation should be abolished. Not reformed. Not stacked. Abolished.

    Sinc you bloody beauty.

  24. Grumbles

    Liberty, or Slavery.
    Libertarian, or Totalitarian.
    Freedom, or Oppression.
    Served, or Ruled.

    There are no grays, why are people surprised, that those that support forced slavery, want to oppress and rule us, and support any form of Government control. Trigg thinks she knows better than others, that they should do what she demands or else. She sees most Australian Citizens as weak minded subjects that require rule and control.

    …and apparently she is the best person to represent my Human Rights. YAY.

  25. blogstrop

    Marr attacking IPA/Wilson on the old scare tactic of “where’e the money coming from”.
    It comes from lots of people, David, and you have a problem grappling with the fact that a lot of them don’t agree with your lefty crap philosophy.

  26. Joe Goodacre

    Why aren’t human rights a gift from the majority?

    In the natural world, the strong individual dominates the weak individual and a group dominates the individual.

    If the strong or a group are imposing a limitation on themselves to allow freedom to be exercised, why can’t they choose the conditions under which they will limit themselves?

  27. Rococo Liberal

    Sinc

    That is a brilliant post.

    However, I don’t think its true that human rights are a constraint on government power, or at least I think that you haven’t quite made the full metaphysical coneection.

    In effect all humans have unfettered rights to do as they please. However, Government has arisen and has reduced those rights whether by implied social contract or conquest. In doing this some governments and/or people have agreed that certain individual rights should not be taken away, eg freedom of speech and association.

    WHen lefties got involved in this, they of course want to reverse the onus and have the government create rights. But of course being colectivists the leftits want rights with a bias towards groups.

    “human rights’ is in fact a leftist cant phrase which neans something completely different to waht you and I call individual rights. Individual rights do not include positive rights other than the right to do what you damn well please. They certainly do not include any right to protection from the actiopns of others. It is to stop the actions of other hurting us that caused the need for governments curtailing rights in the first place.

    So called human rights then are the leftists ideals of what the government should do to restrict people from hurting others. Instead of dressing them up as sanctions the leftists want to put a postitive spin on them and make them rights for the victims.

    The point is that governments can create ‘human rights’ by fiatbut those ‘human right’ should not be confused with individual rights which existed before governments began. Those rights in themselves do not constrain government. What constrains government is its agreement, at the pain of becoming illegitimate and subject to violent overthrow, not to trample on those rights. However, as more and more leftists become more and more shallow in their thinking and, in their envy of their intellectual and social betters , we will see our basic rights eroded and replaced with ‘human rights.’

  28. ChrisPer

    When the Government coordinated a lynch mob against shooters in 1996 and extinguished former freedoms wholesale, the Human Rights Commission awarded a HR medal to a group of agitators known as the National Coalition for Gun Control, which included luminaries like Simon Chapman, Roland Browne, Rebecca Peters and Tim Costello.

    Evidence suggests that the fuss these busybodies made in a particularly educational episode of ACA quite likely sent the Port Arthur perpetrator out to buy his massacre guns.

  29. Empire Strikes Back

    Thomas Esmond Knox
    #1163791, posted on January 23, 2014 at 11:26 am

    The Qld Government has not criminalised free association for motor bike riders.

    It has passed laws which allow it to deal with criminal gang activities.

    Spin it however you like Tommy, but the Qld Government has criminalised free association for motor bike riders. No ifs, or buts.

    You’re welcome to mount a defence in favour of the laws, but they are what they are.

  30. Jannie

    it was seeded in leftist soil, started as an epiphyte and went on to become the strangler fig – it has used the strength, acceptance and tolerance of the Australian body politic, and sucked the life out of it.

    Hey M. da Luna, that is good imagery, the strangler fig. It describes the syndrome of democratic capitalism nurturing the internal forces which are dedicated to killing it.

  31. Julie Novak

    Beautifully said, Sinc, and an excellent point, too, Rococo. Individual liberties come prior to the state, and in turn prior to the largely constructivist concotion of ‘human rights.’

  32. rickw

    “When the Government coordinated a lynch mob against shooters in 1996 and extinguished former freedoms wholesale, the Human Rights Commission awarded a HR medal to a group of agitators known as the National Coalition for Gun Control, which included luminaries like Simon Chapman, Roland Browne, Rebecca Peters and Tim Costello.”

    As time progresses, the lunacy and inherent danger of extinguishing those freedoms becomes more apparent. Society as a whole disarmed, Police less and less willing and able to enforce the laws that count, pockets of society armed to the teeth and doing as they please.

  33. srr

    Australia’s ‘unique approach’ to human rights does not actually protect human rights as they apply to individuals but rather they apply to groups …

    I love it when someone cuts through the bullshit and gets to the heart

  34. Notafan

    I agree, abolish the HRC. When they forced young girls to play netball against a six foot male they demonstrated the most bizarre understanding of ‘Human Rights’.
    It’s a trough, time to empty it.

  35. srr

    Australia’s ‘unique approach’ to human rights does not actually protect human rights as they apply to individuals but rather they apply to groups …

    I love it when someone cuts through the bullshit and gets to the heart

    …and the number of the beast is the number of a man…

    The body of a man, was long ago trumped at law, by the ‘incorporated body’.

  36. Pedro

    “Individual liberties come prior to the state, and in turn prior to the largely constructivist concotion of ‘human rights.’”

    Actually they don’t. And it is very important to get this right. Absent the State, you have all the rights that you can defend with force. All conceptions of the State involve a definition of the rights of the citizen.

    When Churchill and others exulted the glories of the unwritten constitution of the UK, they were dealing with a very slippery concept. The writes of the citizen are those defined in the statute or simply left unaffected by the State. Without having read the founding documents, I can only guess, but I’m pretty sure the founding fathers of the US understood that the human rights they thought important would not exist unless built into the very fabric of the government. Their project was to establish a State that embodied the human rights they wanted to have.

  37. srr

    Sorry, I see I’m suffering live time command override again.

  38. Pedro

    “Australia’s ‘unique approach’ to human rights does not actually protect human rights as they apply to individuals but rather they apply to groups. In short, our ‘unique approach’ to human rights has produced a form of apartheid – different people have different rights depending on what group they can be said to belong to and how government privileges that group.”

    That’s only partly true. The approach is to protect the right to be in various defined groups and categories without suffering for that. I guess it is the right to the freedom of some associations. It is absolutely true that those rights are lower order rights and the really fundamental ones are not protected.

    It is not true that a form of apartheid is created as the existence of those different groups does not create different treatment before the law except to the limited extent that the law prevents discrimination. You don’t get the live in a separate place, swim in a different pool or sit in a different train carriage, let alone have different prospects of being a member of the government. (in the separate area of aboriginal policy there could be some limited apartheid)

    The danger is that being stupid about this provides a distraction from the really important issue, which is the need to put in place solid protections for speech and political acts.

  39. pseudonym

    I wouldn’t take Ms Triggs too seriously. Sure, she presents well and she can appear imperious when it suits her. However, if you scratch the surface, it quickly becomes obvious that she is a dope.

  40. lem

    Thanks anyway blogstrop, I see you are similarly constrained! I suppose it may be available on the abc site later…

  41. Supplice

    I wouldn’t take Ms Triggs too seriously. Sure, she presents well and she can appear imperious when it suits her. However, if you scratch the surface, it quickly becomes obvious that she is a dope.

    A dope with reporters lining up to give her a free platform. That makes her all the more dangerous than the average dope, and thus worthy of attention.

  42. Sinclair Davidson

    Pedro – South African style apartheid is just one manifestation of state sponsored discrimination.

  43. Ellen of Tasmania

    Shut. It. Down.

    Fire. Them. All.

    Rabz is right – again.

  44. Tintarella di Luna

    Hey Jannie

    It describes the syndrome of democratic capitalism nurturing the internal forces which are dedicated to killing it.

    The Greens/Red/Communist manifesto

  45. Squirrel

    Perhaps there have been hints/leaks as to what the Commission of Audit might have to say about the HRC – that Guardian article reads like the work of someone who is anxious about the future of their organisation.

  46. Token

    I wouldn’t take Ms Triggs too seriously. Sure, she presents well and she can appear imperious when it suits her. However, if you scratch the surface, it quickly becomes obvious that she is a dope.

    Why do we pay her so much?

  47. rickw

    “Human rights are a constraint on government power, not an expression of that power.”

    Exactly, maybe “Human Rights” should be renamed “Government Rights” or more accurately “Constraint of Government”. Government should have no authority to legislate or act in an field, unless that authority has been explicitly granted by The People.

  48. Anne

    What!!! $30,000 for a cocktail party so Triggs and her cronies could pat themselves on the back!
    That’s my entire tax bill from last year!!!!!

    Oh, well, better it goes to them…I probably would have just wasted it.

  49. Tintarella di Luna

    It is the very fact that we are human beings that we want the freedom to think what we want and from that all other freedoms follow – and of course those freedoms are tempered by the fact that we must not infringe on the freedoms of others. I guess the law is made to ensure that we do no impinge on the freedoms of others.

    There is no human right not to be offended, nor should there be that’s why the Racial Discrimination Act Section 18C must go. There are law against defamation, slander, libel etc…. and those should be brought to bear when appropriate, but no way should we pander to groups wanting rights and laws that trample on the rights of the individual because they do not belong to that group — that’s when we get people self-identifying to particular groups because these groups seem to have more rights than the individual.

  50. Turtle of WA

    As is often the case in public discussion, the truth usually lies somewhere between polarised views, between the light and the shade, between right and wrong. Indeed, to pit freedoms against anti-discrimination laws is to create a false debate.

    Do you have any idea what logic is, Gillian?

  51. Tintarella di Luna

    That’s my entire tax bill from last year!!!!!

    That’s just shy of my entire salary.

  52. Pedro

    Sinclair, I didn’t say it wasn’t wrong, I just think apartheid is the wrong label and using it becomes a reason to dismiss the argument.

    “Human rights are a constraint on part of the definition of government power, not and the protection of human rights will often required an expression of that power.”

    It’s important to get this right. Human rights do not exist without positive acts of governing and governance. We want the government to do something, and it’s got to be the right thing.

  53. Pedro

    Sinclair, I didn’t say it wasn’t wrong, I just think apartheid is the wrong label and using it becomes a reason to dismiss the argument.

    “Human rights are a constraint on part of the definition of government power, not and the protection of human rights will often required an expression of that power.”

    It’s important to get this right. Human rights do not exist without positive acts of governing and governance. We want the government to do something, and it’s got to be the right thing.

  54. Sinclair Davidson

    Pedro – I understand your point. But why sugar coat what’s happening? These people are contemptuous and should be treated as such.

  55. Ant

    You only work Thursdays, Tinta?

  56. Dan

    A bit of a rant by Senator Parer, Wednesday, 22 May 1985

    We have a non-elected group attempting to destroy our democracy. In any struggle between the elected Government and a non-elected power group, the Government cannot afford to lose for the sake of people of this country and our State.

    Anybody find the actual debates on setting up the commission? It has a long history back to the 70′s

  57. Bob

    It’s just too damned bad the HRC was not around from about 1935.

    Then they could have come down hard on Australians who would not employ someone professing Nazi sympathies.

    As a follow up they could have tormented survivors of Japanese POW camps who refused to employ Japanese or rent a property to them.

    Survivors of North Korean POW camps could have been treated similarly for displaying anti Korean/Communist attitudes.

    Fortunately though, there are many survivors from more recent wars, and the HRC is well placed to shut them down should they, for example, display anti Muslim attitudes.

    Our government sends men off to war and the DVA looks after them when they return home mentally and/or physically injured. Our government also funds an organisation dedicated to ensuring they must not refuse to accommodate people whose ideology they were fighting.

    Something has to give.

  58. Pedro

    I just like to define my contempt accurately, otherwise your argument can be ignored.

    Triggs is a useless waste and at best a shocking busy-body. A mote-beamer of the worst kind.

    The HRC is a total waste of money and should be abolished. I’m not in favour of antidiscrimination laws because I think the cure is worse than the disease.

  59. Gab

    That’s all very well Pedro but what if someone says something and hurts your feelings? Or uses the “wrong” tone and gets you all upset? How will you cope without the HRC??!11!?
    (hefty does of sarc).

  60. These people are contemptuous? They are certainly contemptible.

  61. Pedro

    I heard a story last night about the Abbott govt delivering on a promise to subsidise marriage counselling. Now, I expect the argument is that marriage break up is expensive to the govt in courts and welfare and stuff and so this is an investment blah blah blah, but it still absolutely shits me that the govt should be in the business of trying to make everything better. (Plus, I have effectively zero faith in counselling.)

  62. Anne

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-rights-commission-budget-should-accommodate-wilson-says-attorneygeneral-george-brandis-20131223-2zuqd.html

    “Commission president Gillian Triggs warned on Monday that Mr Wilson’s appointment as a commissioner to the AHRC – with a salary of about $320,000 a year – may have to come at the expense of programs on school bullying and education for older Australians.”

    Gag the media (news crop) the AHRC is mute but education for older Australians – that is a human right. Honestly!

  63. Pedro

    “That’s all very well Pedro but what if someone says something and hurts your feelings? Or uses the “wrong” tone and gets you all upset?”

    I call them a bad-head! (learned that one from my son)

  64. Tardell G

    “but what if someone….. uses the “wrong” tone ”
    That’s a micro aggression!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

  65. Bons

    It’s good. The more obscene her behaviour, the more her previously behind the scenes activities to undermine our freedoms are exposed.
    She is following the same zero sum strategy of the ABC in denying the Government’s mandate. Disquiet regarding the ABC has morphed into direct angry attack, now finally, it is the turn of the HRC. How could either organisation have been so self focused as to believe that they would get away with attacking the RAN over the boaties absurd claims. We are witnessing the end of an era. Sacred cows who are too arrogant to keep their arse pointed into the wind find themselves knocking at the door of the abattoir.
    Please keep ranting Gill Girl, you are forcing decisions on the Government that the people have been unable to force them to address.

  66. Turtle of WA

    These people are contemptuous? They are certainly contemptible.

    Both. They are contemptuous of the individual, and worthy of our contempt. Now you know.

  67. blogstrop

    Marr also tried to diminish what Bolt went through by arguing that his punishment was minimal to nothing. This is quite wrong. The whole process was a punishment, being called no better than the Nazis was both a punishment and a very revealing own-goal for the legal beagles.
    Having his own paper stop him from moderating his own blog when necessary, and making him afraid to comment further in case his employer copped more legal fees was a punishment. Having the appeal stage canned (that’s what it looks like) would have been additional punishment.
    The whole case was tarnished, and Marr can’t now write it off as simply involving an obscure apology written by the court. Nor were the oft referred to “errors” of sufficient stature as to deny the craven nature of the palefaces and their emoluments; those whom some have dubbed (with justification) the “stollen generation”.

  68. Tintarella di Luna

    You only work Thursdays, Tinta?

    Very funny Ant, actually I only work on the days ending in “y”. Every other day is just a doddle.

  69. Tintarella di Luna

    Plus, I have effectively zero faith in counselling

    That much Pedro? such an optomist.

  70. Sinc, I’ve been AWL and thank goodness I returned to visit the Cat tonight.

    Re your post – Perfection and not a word to add

    BRAVO!

  71. when in fact the smallest minority is the individual

    Before dismantling the HRC, i would force every wall of every office, meeting room, lunch room and dunny to bear in big letters “THE SMALLEST MINORITY IS THE INDIVIDUAL”. That, my friends, is a liberty quote.

    Cop that every day for a year, then suffer the ignominy of being utterly dismantled. And there endeth the lesson.

  72. Very funny Ant, actually I only work on the days ending in “y”.

    Tinta, I only drink on days ending in “y”. Such is the depth of my discipline.

  73. Individual liberties come prior to the state

    Indeed. In a democracy, the state exists only on the blessing of the people, and answers to it, to which it reciprocates by trying to control them. Bastards.

  74. JohnA

    Anne #1164272, posted on January 23, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    Gag the media (news crop)

    A serendipitous typo! The AHRC certainly were hoping to grab News Corp “neck and crop” weren’t they?

  75. JohnA

    Tintarella di Luna #1164514, posted on January 23, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    You only work Thursdays, Tinta?

    Very funny Ant, actually I only work on the days ending in “y”. Every other day is just a doddle.

    Ooh, er, Tinta, could I have some of those alternating “doddle” days please?

  76. Tintarella di Luna

    Tinta, I only drink on days ending in “y”. Such is the depth of my discipline.

    I didn’t realise you were a stoic Beer Whisper, and that you’ll never die of thirst is a bonus.

  77. Tintarella di Luna

    could I have some of those alternating “doddle” days please?

    Sure thing, they’re every other day that doesn’t end in ‘y’, help yourself, I’m the caring sharing kind.

  78. Tintarella di Luna

    the state exists only on the blessing of the people, and answers to it

    Quite, and the problem is we keep voting for the mongrels and they keeping voting themselves benefits from our blessings while providing no answers whatsoever.

  79. MT Isa Miner

    Anne

    #1164171, posted on January 23, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    What!!! $30,000 for a cocktail party so Triggs and her cronies could pat themselves on the back!
    That’s my entire tax bill from last year!!!!!

    Oh, well, better it goes to them…I probably would have just wasted it.

    Righton. When you put it like that Anne you see the con clearly can’t you.

  80. MT Isa Miner

    Token, why do we pay her?

    Rabz

    #1163869, posted on January 23, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    It’s also provided many a comfy taxpayer funded sinecure for mediocre white middle class feminazi wymminses.

    Shut. It. Down.

    Fire. Them. All.

    Starting with Triggs.

    We was conned. Suckered. Someone with fancy words did a job on us.

    Sinclair is right, now we need to stand up for ourselves. Will the Liberals have the guts to do it?

Comments are closed.