THE federal government's decision to put its proposed anti-discrimination laws on hold has been welcomed by the Institute of Public Affairs.
The conservative think tank heralded the move, reported in The Australian on Wednesday, as a victory for free speech.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus was reported as saying the government could not proceed with plans introduced by his predecessor Nicola Roxon to draw five existing statutes under a single piece of legislation.

The statutes covering age, disability, race, sex and other forms of discrimination were to be consolidated, with the most controversial change relating to the onus of proof.

The government could not proceed with the draft bill at this time and would be sending it back to the attorney-general's department for more work, Mr Dreyfus told The Australian.

The IPA said it was "outrageous" the government would make it illegal to offend someone because of their political opinion.

The think tank said reversing the onus of proof was another "fundamental problem" and the decision to withdraw the legislation entirely instead of attempting to amend it was the right move.

Under the proposed changes, after the complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent would then have to show the action was justified or didn't amount to discrimination.

The IPA has argued the onus of proof should remain on the person making the accusation as it was often very difficult to prove innocence.

I never liked Roxon so wouldnt trust anything she had anything to do with.

it was an outrageous proposition that could only have come from the idiot ALP.

Usually if the Institute of Public Affairs is against something that's a pretty good reason to be for it, but in this case I think they have a point.

It may be impolite, even antisocial to offend someone but should I be put in jail if Fred Nile doesn't like me saying that Christianity is just a bunch of silly myths? (The police have always claimed a privileged position in this respect though, tending to arrest and charge anyone who calls them bugger**g pigs.)

There's a dividing line somewhere between offending, and harassing or bullying. Perhaps the distinction is between deciding on the basis of the target's subjective feelings (after all a rabid fruitarian might be offended to see me eating a stick of celery), as opposed to how a reasonable person might consider the complained-of conduct (the view of the man on the Clapham omnibus, to use the English legal term).

No doubt Atheists want to ban Christian conviction as well and claim it discriminates against their right to be as corrupt, deceptive, violent, evil and imoral as they please... :)

newtown_grafitti wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Usually if the Institute of Public Affairs is against something that's a pretty good reason to be for it, but in this case I think they have a point. It may be impolite, even antisocial to offend someone but should I be put in jail if Fred Nile doesn't like me saying that Christianity is just a bunch of silly myths? (The police have always claimed a privileged position in this respect though, tending to arrest and charge anyone who calls them bugger**g pigs.) There's a dividing line somewhere between offending, and harassing or bullying. Perhaps the distinction is between deciding on the basis of the target's subjective feelings (after all a rabid fruitarian might be offended to see me eating a stick of celery), as opposed to how a reasonable person might consider the complained-of conduct (the view of the man on the Clapham omnibus, to use the English legal term).

'offence' is a relative term that morphs over time which is something legislation doesnt  do. and the legal system is about 50 years behind the rest of society as well so they would be the worlds worst arbiters of 'offence'.  only 20 years ago if you wore a 'F... You' t-shirt in public you'd be arrested. now, it is okay - even on an airplane (although a quote from the Princess Bride was not!)

Longweekend is an atheist who pretends to be a Christian while saying morality is relative...he is a moral relativist...everything longweekend says betrays his atheism and that God and his law is not the basis of his sense of right and wrong...Please do not be decieved by Longweekend, he is not honest... :)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Longweekend is an atheist who pretends to be a Christian while saying morality is relative...he is a moral relativist...everything longweekend says betrays his atheism and that God and his law is not the basis of his sense of right and wrong...Please do not be decieved by Longweekend, he is not honest... :)

you are a first class moron you obese clown. I was talking about PUBLIC perceptions of morality which are, like it or not, relative.

idiot

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:03pm: Longweekend is an atheist who pretends to be a Christian while saying morality is relative...he is a moral relativist...everything longweekend says betrays his atheism and that God and his law is not the basis of his sense of right and wrong...Please do not be decieved by Longweekend, he is not honest... :) you are a first class moron you obese clown. I was talking about PUBLIC perceptions of morality which are, like it or not, relative. idiot

you betray your humanism with everything you say and deny God with everything you say liar...please do not be decieved by Longweekend who is an Aitheist pretending to be a Christian in order to misrepresent the religion, nothing longweekend advocates is christlike...he is a right wing atheist populist and nothing more than that...let him alone with his dreams of right wing death squads keeping out the barbarian poor...... :)

Longweekend supports the war on terror, he supports insane violent atheist crusades against religion... :)