Society/Culture Gay marriage approved in the UK

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

CotchNCo

Club Legend
Mar 29, 2012
2,874
4,862
Boston, USA
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, Arsenal
i don't go and i don't hate it at all , i ask that you behave in a manner borderline human and not as a degenerate

Yes sir.

I6JOMzY.gif
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Jan 1, 2013
1,996
1,802
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Which is utterly woeful by Mordy. ie some groups get offended more easily than others. Arbitrary muppetry.

"reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned"

Fantastic. Lets ask a nutcase member of Hillsong / Hari Krishna, Orange People, Waco inhabitants or the like what they think. Absolutely staggering that people can defend such stupidity let alone the ruling by a failed ALP candidate.

So from "ordinary and reasonable member", you take this as meaning a "nutcase member"? Interesting logic.

But anyway, what is the relevance of 18c again?
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Jan 1, 2013
1,996
1,802
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Surely your argument relies on people's self identification with a group and not your interpretation of what group they identifiy with?
No, my argument doesn't rely on his self identification at all.

My argument is that louismaxwell hasn't proved that mardi gras is offensive to anyone but himself. His whole argument is "I AM personally offended", not whatever group he identifies with.
So whether he identifies himself as a catholic, straight or a transsexual is completely irrelevant without first proving that mardi gras is offensive or discriminatory against those said groups. Which he hasn't done because his argument is that HE is offended, not an entire community or group.
So if louismaxwell belonged to group, let's call them Catholics, who were offended by some aspects of the gay mardis gras then a judge should conclude that the conduct was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people based on an assessment by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people.
And if I took you to court for murder then a judge should conclude that you are guilty of murder? Surely there's a piece of the puzzle missing here. Evidence? Something? Anything? Pretty much everything but the verdict? That's not how courts work.

Under what premise do you claim that if Catholics took say the organisers of Mardi Gras to court, the judge would find Mardi Gras guilty of discrimination against Catholics? what precedent are you using? Where's the objective assessment?
FWIW, I'm not Catholic and I'm not offended by the gay mardis gras. Just highlighting the the flaws of 18c.
18c is irrelevant and I'm pretty sure there's already thread regarding it.
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong
My argument is that louismaxwell hasn't proved that mardi gras is offensive to anyone but himself. His whole argument is "I AM personally offended", not whatever group he identifies with.
So whether he identifies himself as a catholic, straight or a transsexual is completely irrelevant without first proving that mardi gras is offensive or discriminatory against those said groups. Which he hasn't done because his argument is that HE is offended, not an entire community or group.

Cool. So if loius were to get a few of his mates together who were also offended, that would be evidence of a group being offended. I don't think it would be that hard.

Under what premise do you claim that if Catholics took say the organisers of Mardi Gras to court, the judge would find Mardi Gras guilty of discrimination against Catholics? what precedent are you using? Where's the objective assessment?

18c is irrelevant and I'm pretty sure there's already thread regarding it.

Not discrimination. Under 18c people being offended by actions or words is enough to prohibit those actions or words.
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Jan 1, 2013
1,996
1,802
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Cool. So if loius were to get a few of his mates together who were also offended, that would be evidence of a group being offended. I don't think it would be that hard.

Not discrimination. Under 18c people being offended by actions or words is enough to prohibit those actions or words.

We're going around in circles here. Simply stating you are offended is not evidence of anything, whether it is one person or a hundred.

Let's look at 18c:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Ignoring the fact that absolutely no evidence or reasoning whatsoever has been put forth by either of you, and of course that the racial discrimination act is completely irrelevant anyway, Part (b) means the claim does not qualify under this act (amongst many other things).

Is Mardi Gras done because of what ever louis', so far, unnamed group is? No.

We use precedents to give us predictable outcomes for court cases, so once again, which precedent are you using here to assume that someone can just waltz into a court room with a few of their mates, state they are offended by x group and subsequently have someone charged under 18c?
 
With the passing of Gough Whitlam i wonder will this be an impetus to pass the gay marriage act as a tribute to the former PM, as their was conjecture that Gough may have been Australia's first gay head of state. It would be a fitting show of respect to Gough as another ground breaking piece of reform to be remembered by inclusive of all the other reforms that he led the way on in the past.
LOL.
How's Nick going in retirement?
Must be pounding you now he has no outlet for his nervous energy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong
We're going around in circles here. Simply stating you are offended is not evidence of anything, whether it is one person or a hundred.

Let's look at 18c:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Ignoring the fact that absolutely no evidence or reasoning whatsoever has been put forth by either of you, and of course that the racial discrimination act is completely irrelevant anyway, Part (b) means the claim does not qualify under this act (amongst many other things).

Yes, you are correct in your argument and I was wrong. Catholics who are offended by the gay mardi gras could not reasonably take action under 18c.
 
Oct 4, 2005
3,191
2,899
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
Yes, you are correct in your argument and I was wrong. Catholics who are offended by the gay mardi gras could not reasonably take action under 18c.

You'd hope not. It's more in the realm of my values are different to yours.

18c is about attacking people for race, colour or national or ethnic origin. Something which should be banned.

On the other hand, laws that say "you must act within the values of my religion" don't really have a place in a democracy.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back