Section 18C and D - Freedom of speech is doing as well as can be expected.

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief said:
I don't know what your position is now.

You said the current threshold for 18C is fine, it's just the words that need changing.

Now 18D is wrong?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

My position is the thresholds in 18C are too low and the exemptions under 18D are too narrow
 
Power Raid said:

​
and yes you did refer to racism in your post but the issue at hand was clearly not racism as both were Indonesians. rather than highlight your mistake, and for the benefit of readers, the correct issue at hand related to discrimination in employment. Specifically the issue was where the person lived and then a secondary variable being the immigration status.

It should be noted in many RDAs around the world, it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on immigration status. In Australia, like many of our other laws, policies and constitution, we either enshrine discrimination or in this case silent on the issue. Legal advice received, specifically states care should be taken to avoid discrimination based on immigration status despite court rulings to the contrary to date. The reason being, it is not relevant to the persons ability to do the job.



Your comment of:

"Because we have 18D that states that it has to be done deliberately to insult.
Not just because someone finds it upsetting"

is factually incorrect and if it were correct, then we probably wouldn't being having the debate re 18C.

18D is too limited as the wording requires a positive test. In short one has to prove it was artistic, public interest, genuine academic interest, scientific, fair report of public interest (not just a fair report), fair comment of genuine held belief. Changing the legislation to your proposal, would completely simplify the act. GOOD SUGGESTION!
Click to expand...
On the ropes again, PR? Had to just copy paste the same meaningless word salad from before?

Couldn't answer my questions so you need to change it and add elements. If it wasn't racist, you should have just answered "no". But you can't lie straight in bed, so I can't see how you could answer a straight question.

At the end of the day, picking one person instead of another is discrimination.
You will be discriminating one way or another.

And none of it has anything to do with the RDA or the freedom of speech.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Moo said:
Have you seen the apology?
Click to expand...

Yes I have. Seemed faux and lawyer weasel words to me but that's not the poinmt, others would have a different view.

The point is her slander/libel whatever was committed on a high rating ABC program to a huge national audience and if it was a tissue of falsehood or misrepresentation then the apology remedy needs to be made on the same program. That's how it worked with Andrew Bolt's run in with 18C.
 
GuruJane said:
Yes I have. Seemed faux and lawyer weasel words to me but that's not the poinmt, others would have a different view.

The point is her slander/libel whatever was committed on a high rating ABC program to a huge national audience and if it was a tissue of falsehood or misrepresentation then the apology remedy needs to be made on the same program. That's how it worked with Andrew Bolt's run in with 18C.
Click to expand...

Cool - do you know where? ....I'd like to read it and make my own call on it?
 
CM86 said:
On the ropes again, PR? Had to just copy paste the same meaningless word salad from before?

Couldn't answer my questions so you need to change it and add elements. If it wasn't racist, you should have just answered "no". But you can't lie straight in bed, so I can't see how you could answer a straight question.

At the end of the day, picking one person instead of another is discrimination.
You will be discriminating one way or another.

And none of it has anything to do with the RDA or the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Lol nice spin CM

You made a false statement re 18d and then try and deflect it rather than put your hand up

You make a mistake on identifying the issue in your own scenario highlighting racism when the issue was where they lived and immigration status.

You make a mistake re thinking the RDA is the "race discrimination act rather than the racial discrimination act.

You fail to understand the purpose of anti-discrimination acts.

You ask for links provided to you many times in the past.


But anyway, carry on
 
Chief said:
But when I pointed out the threshold would not change just by changing a word, you agreed.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

My position is very clear that the thresholds are too low.

In the case you are referring to the amendments proposed by the commission, you are right. Their proposal changes words but not the threshold. It is a positive they accept change has to happen but embarrassing they proposed what they did. But what else could you expect from the incompetent organisation they have proven to be attested by QUT.

Please refer my recommendations previously posted.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief said:
They'll never get their money, which is why one of the idiots applied for costs against her lawyer.

In the case of Idiot v Idiots...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

this may not be a silly as it seems.

I'm sure there is a lawyer in the BF ranks who could provide guidance of what happens when lawyers act outside of their charter.........such as this case
 
University of Technology administrative assistant Cindy Prior, who unsuccessfully tried to sue three students under 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, has been ordered to pay costs of about $200,000.

Federal Court judge Michael Jarrett on Friday in Brisbane made the order against Ms Prior while dismissing costs against her lawyer Susan Moriarty who was in turn awarded costs for having to defend herself.

Costs of about $100,000 were awarded in total to Tony Morris QC, who defended Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell, while the compensation to Alex Wood’s barrister Michael Henry is believed to be about $100,000.

Judge Jarrett awarded standard costs against Ms Prior for Mr Morris but standard costs and indemnity costs against Ms Prior for Mr Henry after she failed to accept an apology from Mr Wood in March this year.

“I am of the view that the refusal of the offer was imprudent,” Judge Jarrett said.
 
Todman said:
University of Technology administrative assistant Cindy Prior, who unsuccessfully tried to sue three students under 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, has been ordered to pay costs of about $200,000.

Federal Court judge Michael Jarrett on Friday in Brisbane made the order against Ms Prior while dismissing costs against her lawyer Susan Moriarty who was in turn awarded costs for having to defend herself.

Costs of about $100,000 were awarded in total to Tony Morris QC, who defended Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell, while the compensation to Alex Wood’s barrister Michael Henry is believed to be about $100,000.

Judge Jarrett awarded standard costs against Ms Prior for Mr Morris but standard costs and indemnity costs against Ms Prior for Mr Henry after she failed to accept an apology from Mr Wood in March this year.

“I am of the view that the refusal of the offer was imprudent,” Judge Jarrett said.
Click to expand...
No big deal, she can just declare herself bankrupt.
 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/438d7814ebde35825a5c51e4c77e6902

Section 18C complainant Cindy Prior faces being pursued into bankruptcy after a judge ordered she pay an estimated $200,000 in legal costs for three QUT students who were accused of racial hatred over Facebook posts.

Ms Prior, on stress leave since late May 2013 from the Queensland University of Technology’s indigenous-only Oodgeroo Unit, was in talks with her solicitor, Susan Moriarty, after judge Michael Jarrett made his finding in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane late yesterday.

Judge Jarrett rejected arguments by Ms Prior’s barrister, Susan Anderson, including that the ill-fated and controversial legal action to win $250,000 compensation from the students should be treated differently because it was brought in the public interest.

The judge, who last month dismissed Ms Prior’s section 18C Racial Discrimination Act case against the students as having “no reasonable prospects of success”, made a distinction between public interest litigation and the personal financial benefit she sought as compensation.

Tony Morris QC, the barrister who had promised two of the students, Calum Thwaites and Alex Wood, that he would charge no fees or disbursements unless costs could be recovered from the other side, told The Weekend Australian that all the legal costs would be calculated and delivered in a bill to Ms Prior’s legal team.

“If Ms Prior cannot pay the costs, she will be bankrupted — and if she recovers any money from QUT, the trustee in bankruptcy will be asked to make a claim on those funds to pay her legal costs,’’ he said.

Ms Prior is continuing an action for $250,000 damages against QUT over the way it handled the Facebook saga.

Costs were awarded on an indemnity basis, meaning the sum will be significantly higher in relation to Mr Wood because he had offered to settle the case in March with an apology but no payment.

Judge Jarrett said: “Costs should follow the event. This is not a ‘no costs’ jurisdiction. The proceedings were commenced in this court by Ms Prior. It was her decision.”

While Ms Prior faces financial ruin unless she can raise the money, her solicitor was spared the rare ignominy of being ordered to pay costs personally.

Judge Jarrett said as the case was not completely “hopeless”, he rejected a bid by Mr Wood’s barrister, Michael Henry, to have costs awarded against Ms Moriarty.

Mr Wood will have to find an estimated $15,000 to pay for the failed bid.

During legal argument yesterday, Mr Morris said his client Mr Thwaites had “done nothing wrong whatsoever” and had not written anything offensive on Facebook, while Jackson Powell had merely made a “poor attempt at humour” with his post: “I wonder where the white supremacist lab is.”

Mr Morris told Judge Jarrett that in the build-up of the case, which was with the Human Rights Commission for 14 months, the students were “held to ransom to get $5000 (from each) for a fighting fund”.

Mr Powell’s Facebook post came after Mr Wood wrote: “Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation?”

Mr Wood wrote it shortly after he was ejected from the Oodgeroo Unit by Ms Prior after she had asked him whether he was indigenous. Judge Jarrett found that Mr Wood’s words “were rallying against racial discrimination” and not a breach of section 18C, which makes it unlawful to cause offence or humiliation on the basis of race.

Judge Jarrett also rejected Ms Prior’s attempt to press ahead with a subpoena to Facebook to try to discover the identity of someone who wrote a post with the word “fellows”. He has previously found that Mr Thwaites, who attended court yesterday, had not posted the term.

Ms Prior’s lawyers raised several arguments to try to avoid a costs order, citing the public interest in section 18C, but Mr Wood’s barrister, Anthony Collins, said the racial vilification allegations she levelled were “of the highest level of seriousness”, lacked merit and involved an unreasonable pursuit. He told the court: “In a clinical and objective way, they could never have succeeded. There was an absence of scrutiny by Ms Moriarty.”

Ms Moriarty’s barrister, Damien O’Brien QC, said it was a serious and wrong claim that Ms Moriarty had “thought up, crafted and brought the case” for an ulterior purpose, and she should be given the benefit of doubt.

Click to expand...
 
Lebbo73 said:
It is good to see that she is stressed. Hopefully, soon to be bankrupt!
Click to expand...
Bankruptcy not that bad know of a couple of companies that have only to be rebadged a few years later.
Just need to set your self up well beforehand.
She probably lives week to week anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
Australian politician ‘sold out’ to foreign regime after being recruited by spies, Asio boss says
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
6K
Rob R
R
Festerz
Alan Jones accused of multiple sexual assaults
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
8K
Not Important
N
HurleyHepsHird
Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba
94 95 96 97 98
Replies
2K
Views
79K
MrsBlueSky
MrsBlueSky
M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
peetoo
peetoo
Taylor
What do you expect of the Federal ALP?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
154
Views
6K
Crankyhawk
Crankyhawk
HurleyHepsHird
Allegations that Hillsong engaged in large scale money laundering, tax fraud and misuse of Jobkeeper to buy assets.
Replies
18
Views
1K
Ice-Wolf
Ice-Wolf
K
Power prices 30.6.2023 as a means to measure
Replies
2
Views
349
Harro59
H

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top