Government Arseclown George Brandis

[DivideandMultiply]

Er no I didn't.

..

Vehemently disagree. IP protection has long existed. Its just that in a digital age people think they should be free to steal. I agree the penalties are absurd, however there is some logic to protection. Property rights being protected is the cornerstone of free markets.

..

That is just ridiculous. I have zero financial interest in border control, copyright protection etc.

This only reinforces my position.

He is pro security state intervention, pro anti terror laws, pro police state creep and you are pro Brandis, as long as he is anti 18c.

 

[medusala]

This only reinforces my position.

He is pro security state intervention, pro anti terror laws, pro police state creep and you are pro Brandis, as long as he is anti 18c.

bollocks. I am not pro police state. Don't know specifics re terror laws, I am against most of them. I have zero problem with security services stopping grubby lawyers trying to milk billions from Australia. They are protecting property rights. That is what the state is for.

Why cant you attack 18c? What is your issue with doing so?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

bollocks. I am not pro police state. Don't know specifics re terror laws, I am against most of them. I have zero problem with security services stopping grubby lawyers trying to milk billions from Australia. They are protecting property rights. That is what the state is for.

Why cant you attack 18c? What is your issue with doing so?

So you are happy on our government violating the rights of others, or the rights of our citizens to protect big corporate interest.

 

[medusala]

So you are happy on our government violating the rights of others, or the rights of our citizens to protect big corporate interest.

You want to overturn big pharma patents as well? Scrap all intellectual property rights? You may as well argue people should be able to squat in company buildings. Protecting property rights is fundamental to society operating successfully. I am not in favour of theft.

re anti terror laws - how do you deal with the vast numbers of Islamic fanatics in the West? They are citizens, you cant just deport them. Noone wants anti terror legislation that affects normal people, so what do you do? Doing nothing clearly isn't an answer (see UK).

Its an unsolvable problem caused by idiot government immigration policies. We all pay the price now one way or the others.

Why no attacks in recent years? MI5 are doing a great job? Anti terror legislation working? The clowns learning to behave themselves?

Does anyone really know?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

You want to overturn big pharma patents as well? Scrap all intellectual property rights? You may as well argue people should be able to squat in company buildings. Protecting property rights is fundamental to society operating successfully. I am not in favour of theft.

re anti terror laws - how do you deal with the vast numbers of Islamic fanatics in the West? They are citizens, you cant just deport them. Noone wants anti terror legislation that affects normal people, so what do you do? Doing nothing clearly isn't an answer (see UK).

Its an unsolvable problem caused by idiot government immigration policies. We all pay the price now one way or the others.

Why no attacks in recent years? MI5 are doing a great job? Anti terror legislation working? The clowns learning to behave themselves?

Does anyone really know?

Any excuse will do hey meds?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

This is super dodgy.

First the CEO of the Royal Commission into child abuse retires with no explanation, now we find out it is being de-funded to fund the sham that is the home insulation scheme Royal Commission. Tony getting his way by subterfuge and doing the bidding of his mates, all with Brandis's compliance, disgraceful.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...epartment-has-confirmed-millions-of-d/5482568

Millions of dollars in funding for child sex abuse royal commission redirected to home insulation inquiry

New documents reveal millions of dollars of funding for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse have been re-directed to the home insulation inquiry.

The Opposition is demanding Attorney-General George Brandis give a complete explanation to show the Abbott Government is fully committed to getting justice for victims of child sexual abuse.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was set up by former PM Julia Gillard and has been hearing harrowing stories from victims since the beginning of last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...epartment-has-confirmed-millions-of-d/5482568

You can spot Brandis's lie a mile away. First the commission hasn't ended, so how can the funds be realocated. Second, the CEO and others have commented that the commission didn't have the required funds and resources to deal with all information and that thirdly, many have been calling for the commission to be naturally extended, so it can continue to go over the vast volumes of cases and evidence

This is dastardly stuff

Also it seems, Brandis lied about this to the senate in February


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-home-insulation-inquiry-20140527-392gv.html

George Brandis reveals funds for child abuse royal commission were diverted to home insulation inquiry


The federal government met a third of the cost of its royal commission on the former government's home insulation scheme by redirecting funds from the royal commission on institutional responses to child sexual abuse.

Attorney-General George Brandis has revealed that his department's $6.7 million contribution to funding the home insulation inquiry came from savings in the child sexual abuse inquiry's capital budget and from legal assistance that was not required for witnesses to that inquiry.

The revelation corrects a statement by Senator Brandis to a Senate committee in February, when he was asked if there had been any offsets from other inquiries to fund the insulation royal commission and replied: ''No.''

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-home-insulation-inquiry-20140527-392gv.html

 

[Gough]

George Pell likes this

 

[Pessimistic]

If true, ill be on the streets protesting and gus can think what the hell it likes

Class warfare and war on vulnerable kids. Makes maggie t look positively warm hearted

 

[greennick]

This is super dodgy.

First the CEO of the Royal Commission into child abuse retires with no explanation, now we find out it is being de-funded to fund the sham that is the home insulation scheme Royal Commission. Tony getting his way by subterfuge and doing the bidding of his mates, all with Brandis's compliance, disgraceful.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...epartment-has-confirmed-millions-of-d/5482568



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...epartment-has-confirmed-millions-of-d/5482568

You can spot Brandis's lie a mile away. First the commission hasn't ended, so how can the funds be realocated. Second, the CEO and others have commented that the commission didn't have the required funds and resources to deal with all information and that thirdly, many have been calling for the commission to be naturally extended, so it can continue to go over the vast volumes of cases and evidence

This is dastardly stuff

Also it seems, Brandis lied about this to the senate in February


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-home-insulation-inquiry-20140527-392gv.html



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-home-insulation-inquiry-20140527-392gv.html

So, the CEO has come out and backed up Brandis that the funding was not needed. Further, Brandis said in February that some funding was reallocated as it was not needed. So, how did he lie?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

So, the CEO has come out and backed up Brandis that the funding was not needed. Further, Brandis said in February that some funding was reallocated as it was not needed. So, how did he lie?

The CEO has not specifically said that, interesting interpretation. Nor did she back Brandis.

She said that it was true that in one area, the spend was lower than projected however and most importantly, they are not at the end of their funding cycle. Likewise, costs have been far higher in other areas and there have been requests made to both extend the commission, because it can't fully address all claims and for greater resources because the volume of information received has been far higher than expected. If you had been reading up on the commission, you would know that this has greatly limited the scope of investigation. The CEO also recently resigned, no reason given.

Brandis lied, because he said in February, no funding was redirected.

 

[AM]

The CEO has not specifically said that, interesting interpretation. Nor did she back Brandis.

She said that it was true that in one area, the spend was lower than projected however and most importantly, they are not at the end of their funding cycle. Likewise, costs have been far higher in other areas and there have been requests made to both extend the commission, because it can't fully address all claims and for greater resources because the volume of information received has been far higher than expected. If you had been reading up on the commission, you would know that this has greatly limited the scope of investigation. The CEO also recently resigned, no reason given.

Brandis lied, because he said in February, no funding was redirected.

That should make him foreman material under the Abbott manifesto.

 

[greennick]

Brandis lied, because he said in February, no funding was redirected.

In the next sentence he said it had been reallocated as it was not needed.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

In the next sentence he said it had been reallocated as it was not needed.

No, that is what he said in response to current questioning, post the tabling of documents to the senate.

 

[greennick]

No, that is what he said in response to current questioning, post the tabling of documents to the senate.

In the February hearings, Senator Brandis had indicated that "no money has been taken away" from the sexual abuse royal commission, although he did add that "there was an underspend that was reallocated".


From the ABC article. So, unless the ABC has misreported it?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

In the February hearings, Senator Brandis had indicated that "no money has been taken away" from the sexual abuse royal commission, although he did add that "there was an underspend that was reallocated".


From the ABC article. So, unless the ABC has misreported it?

Article has been updated since I posted it, even the headline has changed.

However, this is the specific fib I was referring to re denial that funding was reallocated to pink bats.

The revelation corrects a statement by Senator Brandis to a Senate committee in February, when he was asked if there had been any offsets from other inquiries to fund the insulation royal commission and replied: ''No.''

 

[Gough]

Party of free speech, my elegant posterior.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...d-of-award-over-criticism-20140528-394t3.html

A dumped Liberal Party moderate has been stripped of an award after publicly criticising the Abbott government and the conservative right.

A fresh war has erupted in the ACT Liberal Party with Gary Humphries stripped of the prize by a committee on which his successor, Senator Zed Seselja, sits.

The former ACT chief minister was due to receive the Margaret Reid award for more than 25 years of outstanding service to the Liberal Party.

But the prize was revoked by the ACT branch last month after Mr Humphries wrote an opinion piece for The Canberra Times criticising the ACT Liberals as ''foot soldiers'' for Tony Abbott.

 

[Gough]

My, my, my, another one, if this is Brandis' idea of free speech I dread to think what he considers censorship.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...-changes-to-racehate-laws-20140529-395yj.html

Labor Senator Lisa Singh has accused Attorney-General George Brandis of ''gagging'' race discrimination commissioner Tim Soutphommasane, while allowing ''freedom'' commissioner Tim Wilson to speak on the government's proposed changes to the Race Discrimination Act.

During Senate estimates hearings, Senator Brandis also clashed with outgoing disability discrimination commissioner Graeme Innes over the downgrading of Mr Innes' role.

Mr Wilson was asked during the hearing by Senator Singh whether he supported Senator Brandis' assertion in March that Australians have a ''right to be a bigot'', and on the proposed changes to the Race Discrimination Act, which the Attorney-General is preparing to alter again.

The proposed changes to race-hate laws set out in the Act have drawn an avalanche of protesting submissions from ethnic and communities groups, while Senator Brandis' own backbench has also strongly criticised the winding back of legal protections.

Senator Singh asked Dr Soutphommasane – a critic of the government's changes – to comment but committee chair Ian Macdonald ruled the questions out of order as it was ''hypothetical'' and sought an opinion.

Senator Brandis said he was of ''aware of Dr Soutphommasane's views on this. I think Dr Soutphommasane's views are very well known to the public.''

 

[DivideandMultiply]

My, my, my, another one, if this is Brandis' idea of free speech I dread to think what he considers censorship.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...-changes-to-racehate-laws-20140529-395yj.html

Absolute scum.

Champion of freedom, the freedom to not criticise government policy or motives and the freedom to do exactly what you are told.

 

[greennick]

Article has been updated since I posted it, even the headline has changed.

However, this is the specific fib I was referring to re denial that funding was reallocated to pink bats.

Which he corrected/clarified in the next sentence. I can see why everyone jumped on the he lied bandwagon once the earlier version was described to me (I only read the updated article), though that clearly isn't the case. It was pretty shitty reporting by the ABC, almost a news.com like omission. That 1% budget cut is taking affect already...

 

[mottrain]

Absolute scum.

Champion of freedom, the freedom to not criticise government policy or motives and the freedom to do exactly what you are told.

ROFL right and Labor never did any of that? In fact Labor were so against that s**t Roxon attempted instigating a law that totally banned speech that simply calling a gay person a fairy after they swore at you profusely could see you get given a charge for discrimination and a much serious penalty in comparison.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Which he corrected/clarified in the next sentence. I can see why everyone jumped on the he lied bandwagon once the earlier version was described to me (I only read the updated article), though that clearly isn't the case. It was pretty shitty reporting by the ABC, almost a news.com like omission. That 1% budget cut is taking affect already...

No you are confusing what he said.

He didn't clarify at all. He was asked two questions. Did they transfer money from the commission, to which he said they didn't, then he clarified that there had been savings.

He was also asked, did they transfer money from another commission into the pink batts royal commission, to which he said no. A clear lie.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

ROFL right and Labor never did any of that? In fact Labor were so against that s**t Roxon attempted instigating a law that totally banned speech that simply calling a gay person a fairy after they swore at you profusely could see you get given a charge for discrimination and a much serious penalty in comparison.

I don't care what labor tried to do, it isn't relevant.

A number of their former policies I was very vocal about and far more active in my protest than now.

 

[samFFC]

Ludlam questions Brandis and ASIO Director-General about the drone killings of two Australians in Nov 2013:

 

[samFFC]

Also, the Roast had a good go at Brandis last night, eventually awarding him the "Dicky":

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/roast/LE1359H043S00

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Ludlam questions Brandis and ASIO Director-General about the drone killings of two Australians in Nov 2013:

The bloke on the right, looks deeply nervous. My guess, be it in a year or or weeks, we will find out that the Australian's killed were not geneuine threats.

From the careful questioning and answers from Brandis, I can also see that both he and Ludlum expect there may be significant backlash and even legal backlash at the international level over drone strikes in the future.

Brandis framed everything in a way that his opinions were based on advice given, if it was given, but refused to admit confidence or that he was asserting compliance with all forms of law. He created an out, you can also see that whilst the questions were aimed at establishing what happened to Australian citizens, Ludlum was also wedging Brandis into a corner in preparation for the future if and/or when this issue is revisted. Likewise he did well to try and highlight both our subservience to the US, as well as the attorney generals/intelligence services callous indifference for it's own citizens.

I think Brandis's stupidity, and arrogance is going to see him burnt at the proverbial political stake sometime in the future, even if no longer in government. These things don't go away.