What the judge said

Justice Dowsett said student Jackson Powell’s posts, including one in which he wondered ‘where the white supremacist computer lab’ was located, were irony.

He said that “to suggest that humour or irony cannot blunt the most outrageous of statements overlooks the history of such devices, and the extremes to which comedians, authors and speakers commonly use them today”.

“No reasonably intelligent person would have understood Mr Powell’s posts as other than humour or irony,’’ Justice Dowsett found.

Yes, well.

No reasonably intelligent person …


This entry was posted in Freedom of speech, Oppressive government, Politics of the Left, Shut it down. Fire them all.. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to What the judge said

  1. Infidel Tiger

    No reasonably intelligent person supports Section 18c… looking at you Liberal Party.

  2. B Shaw

    She’s a haughty-looking woman.

  3. JC

    What I find reprehensible is that Hot Lips wasn’t even born here and he’s sermonizing to us about herman rights. Topping it off, Hot Lips was promoting actions against Leak while on another occasion said he was agnostic about antisemitism. He really should be deported with utmost prejudice.

  4. King Koala

    Multiculturalism is a failure and can only exist through the constant threat of force, thought policing and some form of censorship.

  5. King Koala

    he was agnostic about antisemitism

    He is right. J ews are just another race and racism covers anti semitism as well as anti aboriginalism or anti arabism or anti europeanism (oh wait, the last one is not a protected group).

  6. Biota

    Definitely not up to the task, unless some staff have been setting her up. For example her claim that Bill Leak’s legal team had not submitted a ‘good faith’ defence was according to the advice that she received. So was someone telling her porkies?

  7. Baldrick

    Triggs and Southpossumarse are being paid not to be ‘reasonably intelligent people’.
    If they were reasonably intelligent people, they’d be out of a job.

  8. Supplice

    She’s a haughty-looking woman.

    And that one on the right looks like she just sat on a pie.

  9. Bruce of Newcastle

    Soutpom and Triggs really do deserve a good tar and feathering.
    Then sue their arses off to pay the poor students, Bill Leak and every other victim they’ve been persecuting.

  10. JC

    So was someone telling her porkies?

    I actually don’t think so, Biota. I reckon that it’s due to her own incompetence and that of the staff in that sewer dump called the HRC.

    They’re all just useless , incompetent morons with bad intentions. It’s a terrible combination.

  11. Leo G

    “No reasonably intelligent person would have understood Mr Powell’s posts as other than humour or irony,’’ Justice Dowsett found.

    Literal translation:
    No not-unintelligent person would have accepted as true that Mr Powell’s posts were not not-literal.
    Talk about ironing.

  12. JC


    Shut up. You opinions are worthless and stupid. You dishonor this blog.

  13. B Shaw

    🙂 Had to stop and think for a second, Supplice

  14. calli

    She’s a haughty-looking woman.

    Horrid. Having to sit next to that little brown man.

    The things one must endure to maintain the rage.

  15. King Koala

    JC, explain to me:

    1. How j ews are neither a race nor a religion and therefore not protected by either anti racism or religious vilification laws?

    2. How come, despite 40+ years of multiculturalism, we still need the threat of government force, self censorship and soft censorship to force people of different cultures to even tolerate each other and that is not a failure?

    Thinking outside your leftist delusions is hard, I know. All your life raised on PC nonsense is tough conditioning to break. Perhaps you should go visit The Greens website instead.

  16. Wozzup

    Those two are neither reasonable nor intelligent by definition. What do you call a Leftist who is reasonable and intelligent? A Conservative.

  17. Tim Neilson

    No reasonably intelligent person …

    Do you think that Triggs and He Whose Name Must Not Be Mispronounced actually didn’t know that?

    Don’t underestimate your enemy.

    “The more intelligent the man, the more vile the scoundrel.” [The incomparable Bulldog Drummond, in “The Black Gang” by “Sapper”.] Triggs and HWNMNBM aren’t unintelligent.

  18. Frank

    It is hard to keep up with left wing thought on race. Sometimes we are told that the “between group differences are less than the within group differences” and therefore there is no such thing as biologically determined race. Because; science, and ignoring that the previous sentence negates its own conclusion. But then we are told we are in need of special laws for race based grievance pimping.

    It can be tricky to keep up.

  19. Pingback: What the judge said | Catallaxy Files | Cranky Old Crow

  20. John L

    Now listen to Andrew Hastie, the future of the Liberal party. His outstanding speech shames the quislings:
    I rise today also to speak about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and its report on the freedom of speech in Australia, particularly as it pertains to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
    I note that this is a fraught issue, with many stakeholders and with many submissions, and I acknowledge the diversity of opinion. I think that is a very good thing; it reflects a healthy Australian society. The fact that we are having this debate here is also an indicator that we have a healthy, functioning democracy.
    There are a number of things that I want to say up-front, because those opposite have misconstrued many of our positions with words like ‘divisive’ and ‘hysteria’. I want to make it very clear where I stand, so I want to lift the bonnet a bit on my thinking before I get to 18C itself. I am not a libertarian, but I am a Liberal, which is to say that I am committed to freedom: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of enterprise and a whole host of freedoms that we hold dear in this country. Of course, today we are talking about freedom of speech.
    I am going to quote John Donne and, at risk of sounding terribly heteronormative, I am going to use the original words of his poem:
    No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
    Freedom only makes sense in the context of community. We do not live in isolation from each other in this country. We have constant exchange with our neighbours. We have a mutual dependence upon each other, which is why we come together to form local, state and federal governments. That reflects our search for order and our desire to secure our collective freedoms. Government is especially important when we come together to do tasks that we cannot do ourselves, especially in emergencies. So I just want to make clear that I am not a libertarian; I am a Liberal, and I believe in limited government, in the separation of powers and in the diffusion of power. That is why our Westminster system, I think, is the best system of government in the world, and I am proud that Australia has that as our system of government.
    But alongside those freedoms and rights come responsibilities. As I said, we have a mutual dependence upon each other. At the heart of our democracy is the volunteer spirit. In an ideal world, every Australian would self-regulate or self-govern, but of course that is not true. But it does raise the question: what role does government have in our lives? Is it the supporting act or is it the main protagonist? I am of the view that it is the supporting act, and my point about 18C is that it ultimately is symbolic of government overreach. It is government overreach interfering in the lives of individual Australians and regulating one of our most basic freedoms, which is freedom of speech.

    I also want to be very clear on my anthropology, my view of humankind. I believe that all people are endowed with respect and inherent worth and dignity, whatever their race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex or sexuality. It does not matter: everyone is deserving of respect, because we are all endowed with inherent worth. I want to state that upfront very clearly. I also believe that a healthy civic society means that government can step back out of our lives. We call these mediating institutions or prepolitical institutions, and every single electorate has them. We start with the family and we work outwards to clubs—sporting clubs, Rotary clubs, Surf Life Saving clubs—churches, temples, mosques, schools and charities—you name it. They are in every single electorate around this country, and I believe they should be the first line of defence against discriminatory speech. They should be the first line of defence. I would rather see them empowered than big government interfering in people’s lives, which I think is what has been the case with the exercise of 18C. Of course, in my electorate, and I am sure around the country, people have disengaged from civic society, so this is a task that all Australians should be engaged in: to rebuild a strong civic society.
    Back to the topic of the Racial Discrimination Act and 18C. This is part of the question: what sort of a society do we want? Do we want one regulated by the state, or do we want one regulated by the citizenry? Do we want the state as the main protagonist or the supporting act? I think we have seen with the QUT case and the Bill Leak case that 18C has allowed vexatious litigation to creep into our society, where people are being inhibited in the exercise of their freedom of speech. We are seeing creeping political correctness across the board. We are seeing it in universities and schools. Not every Australian fully understands what 18C means, but for a lot of people it is emblematic of that creeping state interference and political correctness.
    George Orwell wrote a famous essay, ‘Politics and the English language’, and in that he argued that language and thought are intimately related, so if we are to truly exercise freedom of conscience we need to have the freedom to exercise our speech as well. Of course, ‘If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,’ as he famously made clear. If we have the state regulating our speech, you also have the state regulating our thought, and I think that looks a lot like 1984, another great book by George Orwell.

    The cases that have been litigated under 18C have caused a lot of psychological stress and trauma to those involved and also significant financial cost. I think of Bill Leak. You may not like Bill Leak’s cartoons, and that is fine. I find them funny. I have found some of his cartoons to be very risque and found that they push the boundaries, but that is who he is. I want to acknowledge that after the ‘Je suis Charlie’attacks in January 2015 he had the courage to do a cartoon in which he illustrated the Prophet Mohammed. Whatever you may think of that, he showed significant courage. He had to relocate his home because of death threats to him on the internet. I find it rather ironic in a free society that when he published a cartoon—whatever you might think of that cartoon—he was then pursued under 18C for that cartoon. What the terrorists themselves could not achieve in a free society, we had a mechanism of government for, which was used to pursue him for another cartoon of his. I think that is just unacceptable.
    I turn to the report itself and recommendation 1. I approve of recommendation 1, which recommends addressing racism in Australian society. Absolutely we need to address racism. We need to address racism in all the mediating institutions that I just mentioned. Recommendation 2 says:
    Recognising the profound impacts of serious forms of racism, the committee recommends that leaders of the Australian community and politicians exercise their freedom of speech to identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech where it occurs in public.
    I affirm that absolutely. In fact, I copped a flogging on Facebook a couple of weeks ago after Larry Pickering’s comments at the Q Society. I condemned his remarks. I condemned him for what he said about gay people and I condemned him for what he said about Islamic State and their barbarous acts in Iraq and Syria. A lot of people said I overstepped the mark. Great! I am happy for that. I enjoyed the flogging, in a sense, because it was another healthy indicator that democracy is alive and well and everyone can have their point of view.
    I now turn to recommendation 3, and specifically to where it says:
    (c) removing the words ‘offend’, ‘insult’ and ‘humiliate’ from section 18C and replacing them with ‘harass’; I think we need to do that. My colleague Senator James Paterson last night said that in this parliament we have a unique opportunity, a pathway where we have consensus around some of these recommendations. I recognise that this parliament is a tough one. It is rather austere from a legislative point of view. It is difficult to get legislation through. But I think we can all agree, on the evidence, that the QUT case, the Bill Leak case and others are a step too far. We absolutely need to reform the legislation. Politics is the art of the possible. I would rather not have 18C at all. I know that is not going to be achieved, but I do think we need to make changes. We need to make the threshold much higher to avoid the vexatious litigation that we have seen.
    Ultimately, as I said, I am a Liberal, so I am going to err on the side of individual liberty. I hope that my fellow Australians are committed to a united country that is not divisive; that can preserve freedom and also ensure that the responsibilities of individual citizens are enforced and met. Section 18C has a chilling effect and we need reform. That is why I endorse it.

  21. H B Bear

    Where exactly does a Kangaroo Star Chamber fit in the Australian court hierarchy?

  22. Leo G

    Sometimes we are told that the “between group differences are less than the within group differences” and therefore there is no such thing as biologically determined race. Because; science, and ignoring that the previous sentence negates its own conclusion.

    A better argument is that biologically determined race implies a deterministic process which precludes random biological process outputs from defining the result. Moreover, the biological process of human reproduction involves random processes which are not deterministic.
    This implies that biological race does not exist in an individual. It can only be a statistical characterisation of a group.

  23. Adelagado

    That photo really does say it all.

  24. Robber Baron

    That photo really does say it all.

    Yup…an a&$#hole and a [email protected] All paid for by us.

  25. TC

    Was that photo taken at the Koo Wee Rup Christmas party?

  26. The Deplorable Barking Toad

    Supplice wins the internets for the day by a farking mile

    Well done sir (or madam)

  27. Leo G

    That photo really does say it all.

    Shootpomms and Triggafigga, chic by jowl.

  28. Michel Lasouris

    Haughty? you bet! Just the look of distaste on this bitches face whilst her “colleague” speaks! I can’t wait for the day that she is forced to quit and hopefully return to her Home in UK.

Comments are closed.