Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[Power Raid]

I'll save you some time.

They didn't quote the posts from the other two. But mention that one claimed it was just meant to be a joke. And they all say it was a "legitimate expression of their freedom of speech".

FTR

the quote was "where is the white supremacist computer lab"

 

[Power Raid]

It's been Bolt's personal crusade, and rather than being silenced as he would have you believe, he's used his not inconsiderable influence to begin a campaign to repeal what was a little used, largely ignored law. That why the focus is on him, he's made sure it is.

I think the world would be a better place if we all just ignored Bolt and any of his crusades. Our laws are bigger and more important than Bolt.

 

[Gough]

I'm not the one pushing his barrow mate, you are.

 

[Power Raid]

nah

 

[Contra Mundum]

Perhaps balance out 18C with jail terms and or fines where a legal case is brought forward unsuccessfully; causing stress, financial loss and reputation damage.

Putting it into perspective, there must be balance in a system.


In context of the hypocrisy of the left; the left seem to want an "emotional" one way street rather than a practical balance in real life.

But it's hardly ever litigated!! FFS the fair comment exemption is a representation of balance

 

[Power Raid]

But it's hardly ever litigated!! FFS the fair comment exemption is a representation of balance

two issues here.

1) Once you have to start looking at defences it is too late. As highlighted with this case, the defence costs and out of court settlements for university students was ridiculous and the cost to the public enormous?

why? some over-sensitive person got their knickers in a knot and could point to the simple threshold of "insulted"

or more likely a lazy person who felt there was an easy way of extorting $200,000 out of young people. She obviously wasn't successful her endeavours but cost the public and the university over $1m.

2) I would suggest the case highlighted speaks for the need to revisit the thresholds. would you suggest "were is the white supremacist computer lab" a reasonable complaint to warrant the courts time? is claiming "that QUT was stopping segregation by using segregation." a reasonable complaint to warrant the courts time?

Once an issue goes to court, even if you win you have lost. the cost, time and stress is enormous and in this case unjust.


Do you really feel this case was reasonable? I here the arguments about fair comment but people should be able to voice an opinion, even if insulting and NOT fair comment. It should not be a court matter unless it is in the workplace.

Intimidation etc of course is reasonable thresholds.

 

[My name geoff]

This video reminds me of another video I saw posted on here..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANy...6mfmQ9saJjS_dTUBjBVJtk6cs72Yxqg&v=hX9KBNuNy_0

Highlights the lunacy of the people who argue incessantly and don't want to even entertain the idea that a lot of Muslims may actually believe in Islam.

 

[CM86]

FTR

the quote was "where is the white supremacist computer lab"

For the record, one of the facebook post was "ITT N-words[sic]".

Another post — “ITT fellows” — was attributed to another student, Calum Thwaites, who has emphatically denied that he had anything to do with the post
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...b/news-story/b80de339339f2d5588839ac06f3c8909​

 

[Contra Mundum]

two issues here.

1) Once you have to start looking at defences it is too late. As highlighted with this case, the defence costs and out of court settlements for university students was ridiculous and the cost to the public enormous?

why? some over-sensitive person got their knickers in a knot and could point to the simple threshold of "insulted"

or more likely a lazy person who felt there was an easy way of extorting $200,000 out of young people. She obviously wasn't successful her endeavours but cost the public and the university over $1m.

2) I would suggest the case highlighted speaks for the need to revisit the thresholds. would you suggest "were is the white supremacist computer lab" a reasonable complaint to warrant the courts time? is claiming "that QUT was stopping segregation by using segregation." a reasonable complaint to warrant the courts time?

Once an issue goes to court, even if you win you have lost. the cost, time and stress is enormous and in this case unjust.


Do you really feel this case was reasonable? I here the arguments about fair comment but people should be able to voice an opinion, even if insulting and NOT fair comment. It should not be a court matter unless it is in the workplace.

Intimidation etc of course is reasonable thresholds.

We are talking once every two years mate

 

[Power Raid]

We are talking once every two years mate

how often did we charge people for witch craft or sodomy but we managed to make the effort to get statutes right

 

[KGBeast]

Scotland Yard is now spending over 5m pounds scouring social media for wrongthink. Germans are being arrested for voicing concern about their massive refugee intake on social media. Orwellian?

 

[Power Raid]

Another great Hypocrisy of the left



clean energy

 

[WA ROO]

Germans are being arrested for voicing concern about their massive refugee intake on social media. Orwellian?

With YouTube,Facebook and Twitter working with the German authorities
Really scary part is that the person Merkel appointed to work with the social medias is ex Stasi

 

[My name geoff]

One minute the left are telling us we are overreacting in regards to immigration, next minute they tell us to hoard food and water for impending attack lol
http://www.news.com.au/world/hoard-...s/news-story/f631bd2022ca433cd7c97de68cbc9090

 

[Number37]

two issues here.

1) Once you have to start looking at defences it is too late. As highlighted with this case, the defence costs and out of court settlements for university students was ridiculous and the cost to the public enormous?

why? some over-sensitive person got their knickers in a knot and could point to the simple threshold of "insulted"

or more likely a lazy person who felt there was an easy way of extorting $200,000 out of young people. She obviously wasn't successful her endeavours but cost the public and the university over $1m.

2) I would suggest the case highlighted speaks for the need to revisit the thresholds. would you suggest "were is the white supremacist computer lab" a reasonable complaint to warrant the courts time? is claiming "that QUT was stopping segregation by using segregation." a reasonable complaint to warrant the courts time?

Once an issue goes to court, even if you win you have lost. the cost, time and stress is enormous and in this case unjust.


Do you really feel this case was reasonable? I here the arguments about fair comment but people should be able to voice an opinion, even if insulting and NOT fair comment. It should not be a court matter unless it is in the workplace.

Intimidation etc of course is reasonable thresholds.

1. Point 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. Court cases help to set the boundaries via precedent.
2. The pre-trial process is designed so that both parties can assess whether it is worth their while proceeding.
3. If you take something to court your legal representation has to sign a declaration that your case has a reasonable prospect of success, if not they can be liable for all costs.

 

[Power Raid]

With YouTube,Facebook and Twitter working with the German authorities
Really scary part is that the person Merkel appointed to work with the social medias is ex Stasi

In Germany's defence, they have stuffed up their immigration policy (along with the entire EUs) that they have no choice but to squash and anti-islamic and anti-race debates as it will end ugly.

Personally I think it is too late and although I can't see a jewish type round up, I can see decades of horrendous acts against muslims and vice versa across Europe (especially France).

The hypocrisy of the Left is they will take no ownership of the cause of the problem being an uncontrolled immigration policy and denying foreigners the right to access work.

 

[Gough]

I heard THE LEFT!!!!!! kill kittens, and make angels cry.

 

[Mofra]

The hypocrisy of the Left is they will take no ownership of the cause of the problem being an uncontrolled immigration policy and denying foreigners the right to access work.

Who is denying foreigners access to work?

Open borders are a Hayekian/Friedman/neoliberal wet-dream, right of centre.

 

[Power Raid]

1. Point 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. Court cases help to set the boundaries via precedent.
2. The pre-trial process is designed so that both parties can assess whether it is worth their while proceeding.
3. If you take something to court your legal representation has to sign a declaration that your case has a reasonable prospect of success, if not they can be liable for all costs.

and you must know then, that liable for all costs doesn't mean all costs.

Precedent? Would you like to be defending yourself and forking out your own money................but comforted by the fact you are building Australia's precedent on what constitutes someone's feelings? Do you have hundreds of thousands to waste?

This piece of legislation as explained was poorly drafted legislation which had no basis or recommendation. The thresholds were recommended for the workplace but some overzealous input saw this expanded to what it is today.

but hey, if people can defend this and want this great. I simply look at
1) all other anti-discrimination acts in Australia have different and more sensible thresholds
2) our government has doesn't abide by the spirit of the agreement
3) Many Australian's think saying a bad word about a nation of origin is insulting but denying a person the right to work based on a nation of origin is not insulting or acceptable.

For the purpose of this thread, only 3) is relevant and I would ask some one from the left to explain how:

"saying a bad word about a nation of origin is insulting and warrants legal action but denying a person the right to work based on a nation of origin is not insulting or acceptable."

 

[Power Raid]

Who is denying foreigners access to work?

Open borders are a Hayekian/Friedman/neoliberal wet-dream, right of centre.

FTR - I am not for open borders on refugees or open borders on labor, as it simply doesn't work and won't work until we have a global framework over wages, taxes and social security. So in this regard I half agree with the left (the left generally think open borders for refugees is OK but labor is not OK).

In answer to your question, many on the left are anti-labor whose nation of origin is not Australia. You see and hear this in the case of 457s and "Australian jobs for Australian workers" is a catch cry was one racist union. I sometimes think unions are pulling the piss on the "Australian jobs for Australian workers" as the guy behind the megaphone usually has a scottish accent.

Regardless of the reasons behind why there needs to be controls around immigration and labor, it is hard to deny that denying someone employment based on the nation of origin is not insulting. Given that is the case, it suggests it is just one of the reasons the threshold of insulting in 18C is too low.

 

[Power Raid]

I heard THE LEFT!!!!!! kill kittens, and make angels cry.

there is no hypocrisy in that.........please stay on thread

 

[nicky]

I have a new hero. He's onto the regressive left, hours of entertainment here https://www.patreon.com/davecullen

Wow that guy is off his head.... lol @ at the s**t people watch.

I just watched the regressive news on "hilary closing down alternative media" - what the guy lacks in brains and rationality, he makes up for in humour. Was pissing myself.

Seriously though, you're struggling if this guy is your hero. He is genuinely paranoid and deluded.

 

[CM86]

3) Many Australian's think saying a bad word about a nation of origin is insulting but denying a person the right to work based on a nation of origin is not insulting or acceptable.

For the purpose of this thread, only 3) is relevant and I would ask some one from the left to explain how:

"saying a bad word about a nation of origin is insulting and warrants legal action but denying a person the right to work based on a nation of origin is not insulting or acceptable."

This has been explained to you many times, in many threads, by many posters.

You just keep ignoring it.

If someone refused someone a job in Australia, because they are originally from a different country, that is discrimination.


You're saying you want an international company to come to Australia, and ship over international workers, instead of employing Australians.
This doesn't benefit the Australian economy, or Australia.
And if anything it would be used to take advantage of international workers and avoid Australian workplace laws and statutes.

So, as long as they live in Australia, they can originate from any country.

There are plenty of ways already for anyone from any country to come and work in Australia.

But you ignore all of that, and try to make some claim of racism, because we don't want to import cheap labour into this country.

We already have a high enough level of unemployment. Are you saying you want to create more unemployment in Australia?
What about the fact that if you are able to temporarily hire 50 Indonesians for the same cost of 2 Australians, you destroy the market and drive down wages?

Pay the Indonesians a little more than they would be paid in Indonesia. Treat them however you want, because you can fire them and kick them out of Australia any time you want.
And when the job is done you kick them all back to Indonesia.
Who benefits in the long run, apart from the CEO and shareholders?

You pretending that opposing the Trans pacific partnership agreement is racism is ridiculous and pathetic. You either need to stop doing it, or provide some actual evidence that it is A) racist or B) Racially motivated.

 

[Mofra]

FTR - I am not for open borders on refugees or open borders on labor, as it simply doesn't work and won't work until we have a global framework over wages, taxes and social security. So in this regard I half agree with the left (the left generally think open borders for refugees is OK but labor is not OK).

The labor right would still be regarded as left of centre and certaionly aren't pro-foreigner in any respect.

In answer to your question, many on the left are anti-labor whose nation of origin is not Australia. You see and hear this in the case of 457s and "Australian jobs for Australian workers" is a catch cry was one racist union. I sometimes think unions are pulling the piss on the "Australian jobs for Australian workers" as the guy behind the megaphone usually has a scottish accent.

Unionism is dwindling, militant unionism moreso - hardly emblemic of the "the left" as some sort of generalization.

Regardless of the reasons behind why there needs to be controls around immigration and labor, it is hard to deny that denying someone employment based on the nation of origin is not insulting. Given that is the case, it suggests it is just one of the reasons the threshold of insulting in 18C is too low.

What restrictions are there in Australia for anyone not on a holiday visa?
I understand the 3 month rule for working visas but that's hardly a widespread denial of the opportunity to work.

In any case, it's actually quite difficult to be found in breach of 18C as there is the mens rea component is sufficiently high, and even Bolt had to constantly and consistently lie in multiple 'articles' for the burden of proof to be sufficiently met.

 

[Power Raid]

This has been explained to you many times, in many threads, by many posters.

You just keep ignoring it.

If someone refused someone a job in Australia, because they are originally from a different country, that is discrimination.


You're saying you want an international company to come to Australia, and ship over international workers, instead of employing Australians.
This doesn't benefit the Australian economy, or Australia.
And if anything it would be used to take advantage of international workers and avoid Australian workplace laws and statutes.

So, as long as they live in Australia, they can originate from any country.

There are plenty of ways already for anyone from any country to come and work in Australia.

But you ignore all of that, and try to make some claim of racism, because we don't want to import cheap labour into this country.

We already have a high enough level of unemployment. Are you saying you want to create more unemployment in Australia?
What about the fact that if you are able to temporarily hire 50 Indonesians for the same cost of 2 Australians, you destroy the market and drive down wages?

Pay the Indonesians a little more than they would be paid in Indonesia. Treat them however you want, because you can fire them and kick them out of Australia any time you want.
And when the job is done you kick them all back to Indonesia.
Who benefits in the long run, apart from the CEO and shareholders?

You pretending that opposing the Trans pacific partnership agreement is racism is ridiculous and pathetic. You either need to stop doing it, or provide some actual evidence that it is A) racist or B) Racially motivated.

but that's not the point and as disclosed above I am not an advocate of no control on immigration or labor.


the point is, how can anyone advocate the threshold of insulting in 18C unless they can defend that denying someone employment is not insulting.

by way of background

Racial discrimination happens when a person is treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin or immigrant status.


"saying a bad word about a nation of origin is insulting and warrants legal action but denying a person the right to work based on a nation of origin is not insulting or acceptable."