Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – Australia’s federal hate speech law – has tended to dominate public debate about free speech for the last few years. This has meant other important laws that restrict free speech in broad ways are being overlooked.

The first law that impinges of freedom of speech is the introduction in 2014 of a new power for the attorney-general to declare an operation a “special intelligence operation”, including retrospectively. Once such a declaration has been made, it becomes a crime for journalists to report on these operations.

There is no public interest disclosure exemption under this law. So, even journalists reporting on activities that a government might be undertaking illegally or corruptly can still be prohibited.

Second, a new prohibition introduced in the same legislation on the copying or disclosing of information gathered by employees of a range of intelligence organisations also contained no protection for the disclosure of illegal activities.

In both the US and Europe, mass data collection and retention procedures that were defended by governments as compliant with the law, including stronger human rights laws than Australia has, have subsequently been found to have been undertaken illegally.

In 2015, the federal government introduced a new law prohibiting “entrusted persons” employed in asylum seeker detention centres from disclosing protected information.

http://theconversation.com/free-speech-is-at-risk-in-australia-and-its-not-from-section-18c-64800

The recent laws mean that any Government (ALP or LNP) can cover up it's corrupt and illegal activities by simply declaring it a "special intelligence operation". It then becomes illegal for any journalist to report it.

Instead of the endless whining about 18c you would think that more attention would be paid to these frightening laws.

I conclude that those who endlessly attack 18c really arn't interested purely in freedom of speech. They just want to empower their bigotry and racism

Yes this is a genuine threat to freedom of speech and not 18c.

You don't think jailing people for their opinion is a threat to freedom of speech? Or does it not count if you think they are a wanker?

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 11:39am:

You don't think jailing people for their opinion is a threat to freedom of speech? Or does it not count if you think they are a wanker?

Do you think that it is more important for people to be bigots than it is for the government to be held to account?

I think it is important for people to be free to be bigots. Whether they are or not is less important.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 11:39am:

You don't think jailing people for their opinion is a threat to freedom of speech? Or does it not count if you think they are a wanker?

As you are aware the fact is that nobody was jailed on 18c.

Wankers are jailed for contempt of court just like anyone else.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 11:55am:

I think it is important for people to be free to be bigots. Whether they are or not is less important.

But you find it more important than keeping the government in check

The government deliberately denying people the freedom of speech in order to hide their improper illegal or just controversial or unpopular actions is taking freedom restrictions to a whole different level.

They have created laws with the aim of allowing the government to be in breach of other laws with impunity.

Absolutely disgraceful.

18c has an altruistic reason behind it, this rubbish is just underhanded and dishonest.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 11:55am:

I think it is important for people to be free to be bigots..

Oh, I know.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 11:55am: I think it is important for people to be free to be bigots.. Oh, I know.

We have to have a supply of bigtoes who else will support the Liberals ?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 11:56am:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 11:39am: You don't think jailing people for their opinion is a threat to freedom of speech? Or does it not count if you think they are a wanker? As you are aware the fact is that nobody was jailed on 18c. Wankers are jailed for contempt of court just like anyone else.

Are you aware how Toben violated his court order?

What do you think was the ultimate cause of the court order?


Quote:

18c has an altruistic reason behind it

Why do you feel the need to justify it?

Both 18C and the special powers of the Attorney general are a threat to freedom of speech in Australia, one is not more of a threat than the other.  Time was that any security issue was subject to a "D notice" an agreement arrived at by both the government and the media not to report on matters that both agreed needed to be kept secret.  This worked well back when there were mature and reasonable people in the government and the media who could balance security with freedom of information.  I believe that there were never any more than five or six D notices active at any one time and they were reviewed regularly.

Now we have both oppressive politicians and irresponsible media. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.   ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:03pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 11:56am: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 11:39am: You don't think jailing people for their opinion is a threat to freedom of speech? Or does it not count if you think they are a wanker? As you are aware the fact is that nobody was jailed on 18c. Wankers are jailed for contempt of court just like anyone else. Are you aware how Toben violated his court order? What do you think was the ultimate cause of the court order? Quote: 18c has an altruistic reason behind it Why do you feel the need to justify it?

What do you think was the ultimate cause of the court order?


I don't think it is relevant - you want to play chicken and egg go ahead. The fact stands that he disobeyed a court instruction which caused his incrassation.

Why do you feel the need to justify it

Justifying nothing just stating an obvious fact.

Quote:

What do you think was the ultimate cause of the court order? I don't think it is relevant

Do you think it might have had something to do with 18c? Would that be relevant to whether 18c is a threat to freedom of speech?


Quote:

you want to play chicken and egg go ahead

How is this a chicken and eg thing? Did the court order cause 18c to come into existence? Or is getting you to offer an opinion a game of chicken and egg?


Quote:

The fact stands that he disobeyed a court instruction which caused his incrassation.

Would it be fair to say that you are deliberately avoiding this because you don't want to admit certain truths about it? Be honest.


Quote:

Justifying nothing just stating an obvious fact.

LOL

Wonder if Longy understands the difference between unlawful and illegal as it pertains to 18c?

Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:28pm:

Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal.

You don't get jailed for your opinion.

Oh loooook!!!!!  Yet another 18C Thread.  This'll be the 4th.  Yay!

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:29pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion.

You do in Australia, thanks to 18c.

You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you?

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:37pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you?

Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver.

  International News


Holocaust denier jailed


Ian Traynor
Guardian Weekly


David Irving, the discredited British historian and Nazi apologist, was this week starting a three-year prison sentence in Vienna for denying the Holocaust and the gas chambers of Auschwitz.




people get jailed all over the world for their opinions mothballs.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver.   International News Holocaust denier jailed Ian Traynor Guardian Weekly David Irving, the discredited British historian and Nazi apologist, was this week starting a three-year prison sentence in Vienna for denying the Holocaust and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. people get jailed all over the world for their opinions mothballs.

Firstly, that's not under 18c, you muppet.

Secondly, is it their opinions that got them into trouble? Or what they did with those opinions?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver.   International News Holocaust denier jailed Ian Traynor Guardian Weekly David Irving, the discredited British historian and Nazi apologist, was this week starting a three-year prison sentence in Vienna for denying the Holocaust and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. people get jailed all over the world for their opinions mothballs.

She obviously meant in Australia given the Australian context.  (I do wish she had never asked because FD will now take you all on the usual perpetual motion merry-go-round, as per the other THREE Threads.)

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:44pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:41pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver.   International News Holocaust denier jailed Ian Traynor Guardian Weekly David Irving, the discredited British historian and Nazi apologist, was this week starting a three-year prison sentence in Vienna for denying the Holocaust and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. people get jailed all over the world for their opinions mothballs. She obviously meant in Australia given the Australian context.  (I do wish she had never asked because FD will now take you all on the usual perpetual motion merry-go-round, as per the other THREE Threads.)

Of course people have been jailed in Australia for their opinions. Pauline even got thrown in the can. 18c is a further journey up that road.

Nobody in Australia has ever been jailed for their opinion.

Pauline Hanson was not jailed for her opinion.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

Nobody in Australia has ever been jailed for their opinion. Pauline Hanson was not jailed for her opinion.

Oh yes they have dear. People were  jailed for having all sorts of opinions during the 2nd world war for instance.  You have no idea Mothballs.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:00pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:55pm: Nobody in Australia has ever been jailed for their opinion. Pauline Hanson was not jailed for her opinion. Oh yes they have dear. People were  jailed for having all sorts of opinions during the 2nd world war for instance.  You have no idea Mothballs.

Cite an instance.

For Mothballs- Wartime internment camps in Australia

Cover of An Illustrated Diary of Australian Internment by Edmond Samuels
Cover of An Illustrated Diary of Australian Internment by Edmond Samuels (NAA: A1336, 7597)
In the interests of national security the Australian Government interned thousands of men, women and children during World War I and World War II. Most of those interned were classed as 'enemy aliens', that is, nationals of countries at war with Australia. Internees were accommodated in camps around Australia, often in remote locations.

The National Archives holds records about these camps, their development and administration, as well as about the government policy that established them. Our collection also includes records about the people who spent the war years in internment.


Contents
World War I
World War II
Residents of Australia
Overseas internees
Prisoners of war
Camp life
After the wars
Resources on wartime internment in Australia

World War I

During World War I, for security reasons the Australian Government pursued a comprehensive internment policy against enemy aliens living in Australia.

Initially only those born in countries at war with Australia were classed as enemy aliens, but later this was expanded to include people of enemy nations who were naturalised British subjects, Australian-born descendants of migrants born in enemy nations and others who were thought to pose a threat to Australia's security.

Australia interned almost 7000 people during World War I, of whom about 4500 were enemy aliens and British nationals of German ancestry already resident in Australia.

Records of World War I internment camps

World War II

During World War II, Australian authorities established internment camps for three reasons – to prevent residents from assisting Australia's enemies, to appease public opinion and to house overseas internees sent to Australia for the duration of the war.

Unlike World War I, the initial aim of internment during the later conflict was to identify and intern those who posed a particular threat to the safety or defence of the country. As the war progressed, however, this policy changed and Japanese residents were interned en masse. In the later years of the war, Germans and Italians were also interned on the basis of nationality, particularly those living in the north of Australia. In all, just over 20 per cent of all Italians resident in Australia were interned.

Australia interned about 7000 residents, including more than 1500 British nationals, during World War II. A further 8000 people were sent to Australia to be interned after being detained overseas by Australia's allies. At its peak in 1942, more than 12,000 people were interned in Australia.

Records of World War II internment camps

Residents of Australia

Most internees during both wars were nationals of Australia's main enemy nations already living in Australia. During World War I Germans made up the majority of internees. During World War II, as well as Germans there were also large numbers of Italian and Japanese internees. Internees also included nationals of over 30 other countries, including Finland, Hungary, Portugal and Russia.

Not all internees were foreign nationals. Naturalised British subjects and those born in Australia were among those of German, Italian and Japanese origin who were interned. British-born subjects who were members of the radical nationalist organisation, the Australia First Movement, were also interned.

Men made up the majority of those interned, but some women and children also spent time in the camps.

Overseas internees

Included in the numbers of internees accommodated in Australia were enemy aliens, mostly Germans and Japanese, from Britain, Palestine, Iran, the Straits Settlements (now Singapore and Malaysia), the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia), New Zealand and New Caledonia. Most famous among these groups were the Germans and Italians who arrived on the Dunera from England in 1940. The overseas internees included many women and children.

Prisoners of war

During World War I and World War II, Australia held both internees and prisoners of war. Prisoners of war were members of enemy military forces who were captured or had surrendered, whereas internees were civilians. Most prisoners of war in Australia were sent from overseas, very few were captured in Australia.

Many records do not make a clear distinction between civilian internees and military prisoners of war. The terms ‘prisoner' and ‘internee' were often used for both groups. In many cases internees and prisoners of war were accommodated in the same camps.

There were differences, however, in the rights of these two groups and the way they could be treated by Australian authorities. For example, prisoners of war could be made to work while internees could not. Internees also had to be paid for any work they undertook.

Camp life

Internment camps were administered by the army and run along military lines. During World War I they were often referred to as concentration camps. Camps were established in repurposed institutions such as the old gaols at Berrima and Trial Bay in New South Wales. The largest camp during World War l was at Holsworthy (Liverpool), west of Sydney.

During World War II, internees were first housed in prisons, such as at Long Bay gaol in New South Wales, or impromptu accommodation such as the Northam race course in Western Australia.

Mothballs is wrong again!!!! ::)

British-born subjects who were members of the radical nationalist organisation, the Australia First Movement, were also interned.

They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer.

Jesus.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:23pm:

They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson.

It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud.

The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim.

You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right?

And asylum seekers haven't "done anything wrong" but they ae interned.

Funnily enough, you have no problem with that.

But people being interned for not doing anything wrong is not what we are talking about here.

In Australia, you cannot be jailed for having an opinion.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson.

Just guessing.  During WW11 under sedition laws?  Interned, not jailed?

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right?

She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself.

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:32pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. Just guessing.  During WW11 under sedition laws?  Interned, not jailed?

what's the difference?

miam

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right? She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself.

Focus. She was jailed for fraud. She was later pardoned.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right? She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself.

Crap.  She and Ettridge were convicted of fraud, and sentenced to three years.  They appealed.  Their appeal was upheld.  A verdict of acquittal was entered.  There was no pardon, and proper procedures were afforded them, including Trial by Jury which convicted them in the first place.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:34pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:33pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right? She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself. Focus. She was jailed for fraud. She was later pardoned.

;D ;D ;D ;D She was a political prisoner.

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:40pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:33pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right? She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself. Crap.  She and Ettridge were convicted of fraud, and sentenced to three years.  They appealed.  Their appeal was upheld.  A verdict of acquittal was entered.  There was no pardon, and proper procedures were afforded them, including Trial by Jury which convicted them in the first place.

Pardoned means to be found not guilty and let out aussie. How were the proper procedures upheld when she was jailed when innocent?

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver.

Gerald Fredrick Toben.

Now say something incredibly stupid.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:40pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:33pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right? She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself. Crap.  She and Ettridge were convicted of fraud, and sentenced to three years.  They appealed.  Their appeal was upheld.  A verdict of acquittal was entered.  There was no pardon, and proper procedures were afforded them, including Trial by Jury which convicted them in the first place. Pardoned means to be found not guilty and let out aussie. How were the proper procedures upheld when she was jailed when innocent?

You need to look up what a 'pardon' is.   She was charged with fraud.  She was duly tried in a District Court sitting with a Jury.  The Jury convicted her.  She was sentenced to three years.  She appealed.  The appeal was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which quashed the conviction and ordered a verdict of acquittal be entered in lieu of the conviction (in other words....no re-trial.)

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver. Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid.

No. He was jailed for contempt of court.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver. Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid.

http://www.hildis-animation-tutorials.net/tuts/merry-go-around/merry-goround.gif

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:45pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:40pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:33pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right? She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself. Crap.  She and Ettridge were convicted of fraud, and sentenced to three years.  They appealed.  Their appeal was upheld.  A verdict of acquittal was entered.  There was no pardon, and proper procedures were afforded them, including Trial by Jury which convicted them in the first place. Pardoned means to be found not guilty and let out aussie. How were the proper procedures upheld when she was jailed when innocent? You need to look up what a 'pardon' is.   She was charged with fraud.  She was duly tried in a District Court sitting with a Jury.  The Jury convicted her.  She was sentenced to three years.  She appealed.  The appeal was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which quashed the conviction and ordered a verdict of acquittal be entered in lieu of the conviction (in other words....no re-trial.)

bs. Pauline didn't commit fraud at all. at the re-trial it uncovered a miscarriage of justice and they then had to let them out. end of fa rking story.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:45pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:40pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:33pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:26pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: They weren't interned for having an opinion, Hammer. Jesus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D They hadn't done a crime Mothballs. You tell me why the Australia First Movement were jailed then. And it's highly debatable concerning Pauline Hanson. It is not highly debatable regarding Pauline Hanson. She was jailed for fraud. The Australia First movement jailed? What all of them? Please support your claim. You jut get more wrong every time you type, you do know that, right? She didn't commit fraud. She was pardoned. She was thrown in jail without proper procedure because she offended you leftards. Q2- Wikipedia and all of the other sources. look it up for yourself. Crap.  She and Ettridge were convicted of fraud, and sentenced to three years.  They appealed.  Their appeal was upheld.  A verdict of acquittal was entered.  There was no pardon, and proper procedures were afforded them, including Trial by Jury which convicted them in the first place. Pardoned means to be found not guilty and let out aussie. How were the proper procedures upheld when she was jailed when innocent? You need to look up what a 'pardon' is.   She was charged with fraud.  She was duly tried in a District Court sitting with a Jury.  The Jury convicted her.  She was sentenced to three years.  She appealed.  The appeal was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which quashed the conviction and ordered a verdict of acquittal be entered in lieu of the conviction (in other words....no re-trial.) bs. Pauline didn't commit fraud at all. at the re-trial it uncovered a miscarriage of justice and they then had to let them out. end of fa rking story.

Terminology is important to avoid looking silly.  There was no re-trial.  There was an appeal to the Qld Court of Appeal which upheld the appeal.  Happens often.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:51pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:50pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver. Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. No. He was jailed for contempt of court.

Right on queue.

So, what did he do that was so contemptuous?

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:00pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:51pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:50pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver. Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. No. He was jailed for contempt of court. Right on queue. So, what did he do that was so contemptuous?

He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people.

You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself.

Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it?

I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious.

So i ask again .. and read carefully FD, and think before you answer.

Who has ever been jailed in Australia for holding an opinion?

Quote:

Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it?

Correct. It is also telling other people what your opinion is. A jailable offence now, thanks to 18c.

Keep them coming Mothra. Tell us how it had nothing to do with 18c.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:00pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:51pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:50pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver. Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. No. He was jailed for contempt of court. Right on queue. So, what did he do that was so contemptuous? He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious.

He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people.....

So they didn't like his opinions and jailed him because he didn't remove them. Thanks. You just answered your own argument.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:00pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:51pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 2:50pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:38pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:29pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Do tell Mothra. When you get jailed for your opinion, it is of great comfort to know that 18c merely made your opinion unlawful rather than illegal. You don't get jailed for your opinion. You do in Australia, thanks to 18c. You do realise that that is what they mean by a "threat to freedom of speech" don't you? Name one person who has been jailed for their opinion, Freediver. Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. No. He was jailed for contempt of court. Right on queue. So, what did he do that was so contemptuous? He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people..... So they didn't like his opinions and jailed him because he didn't remove them. Thanks. You just answered your own argument.

Nope. He was not jailed for holding an opinion.

According to Mothra, because they got a court order to enforce it, they had nothing to do with it.


Quote:

Nope. He was not jailed for holding an opinion.

Well done Mothra. He also told people what his opinion was.

Keep going. You will figure it out eventually.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious.

What muddled thinking.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking.

Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion?

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

According to Mothra, because they got a court order to enforce it, they had nothing to do with it.

Yep. Arguing with motheaten is like banging your head against a wall FD.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

According to Mothra, because they got a court order to enforce it, they had nothing to do with it. Quote: Nope. He was not jailed for holding an opinion. Well done Mothra. He also told people what his opinion was. Keep going. You will figure it out eventually.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DweBKa_OoF8/UAhtf-UZOvI/AAAAAAAA_vI/W3ZxwB68i4w/s1600/backpedaling.jpeg

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid.

He was not jailed for holding an opinion.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. He was not jailed for holding an opinion.

so why then?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: According to Mothra, because they got a court order to enforce it, they had nothing to do with it. Yep. Arguing with motheaten is like banging your head against a wall FD.

Oh good for you. You've got Mr. Hammer on your side.

That would tell most people something but you're a special kind of belligerent, aren't you FD?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. He was not jailed for holding an opinion. so why then?

I and many others have already said it.

He was jailed for contempt of court.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: According to Mothra, because they got a court order to enforce it, they had nothing to do with it. Yep. Arguing with motheaten is like banging your head against a wall FD. Oh good for you. You've got Mr. Hammer on your side. That would tell most people something but you're a special kind of belligerent, aren't you FD?

You are so retarded you can't believe that people have been thrown in the can for having opinions that others don't like. That is very naïve. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:15pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. He was not jailed for holding an opinion. so why then? I and many others have already said it. He was jailed for contempt of court.

why?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:15pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:15pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. He was not jailed for holding an opinion. so why then? I and many others have already said it. He was jailed for contempt of court. why?

For refraining from publicising material on his website that vilified Jews.

You think you're laying a trap, don't you. You're so cute.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:17pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:15pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:15pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:12pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? Gerald Fredrick Toben. Now say something incredibly stupid. He was not jailed for holding an opinion. so why then? I and many others have already said it. He was jailed for contempt of court. why? For refraining from publicising material on his website that vilified Jews. You think you're laying a trap, don't you. You're so cute.

Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down?

Quote:

Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down?

I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D?

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:30pm:

Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D?

so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:11pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion?

I am not going to comment on the case. I am simply laughing at "Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it?" So was he holding an opinion or not?

He did far more than hold an opinion. He told people about it. That is how Mothra knows that 18c is not a threat to freedom of speech. All he had to do was keep his opinion to himself.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:34pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? I am not going to comment on the case. I am simply laughing at "Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it?" So was he holding an opinion or not?

Difficult concept for you? Merely holding an opinion is not publicising that opinion.

No-one has been jailed in Australia for holing an opinion.

freediver wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

He did far more than hold an opinion. He told people about it. That is how Mothra knows that 18c is not a threat to freedom of speech. All he had to do was keep his opinion to himself.

No, he could share it. People say on here all sorts of things that contravene 18c.

Are they prosecuted?

No, they're usually backed up.

Publicising something under your own name and inviting public comment that vilifies people is a direct breach of 18 and if indefensible under 18d can be ordered to be taken down.

You cannot go to jail for that opinion though. You can only be asked not to publicise it.

How is this a difficult concept for you?

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:39pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:34pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:10pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:03pm: He refused to remove subject matter that vilified Jewish people. You think you are clever FD but you are really making a fool of yourself. Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it? I have opinions on all sorts of things. Never been jailed for any of them although some are highly contentious. What muddled thinking. Perhaps you can tell me then who has been jailed for holding an opinion? I am not going to comment on the case. I am simply laughing at "Publicising racial vilification is not merely holding an opinion, now is it?" So was he holding an opinion or not? Difficult concept for you? Merely holding an opinion is not publicising that opinion. No-one has been jailed in Australia for holing an opinion.

lol. funny stuff.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions.

Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story.

Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions. Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story. Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is.

How do you know that all of it is true or not overblown for political purposes? History is bad for being corrupted. All of it is. It's been proven that the numbers killed have been massively overblown. Differing opinions on the holocaust should be encouraged because it's pretty sketchy.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions. Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story. Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is. How do you know that all of it is true or not overblown for political purposes? History is bad for being corrupted. All of it is. It's been proven that the numbers killed have been massively overblown. Differing opinions on the holocaust should be encouraged because it's pretty sketchy.

Most European Jews were gassed to death, Homo. Which part's sketchy?

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:38pm: He did far more than hold an opinion. He told people about it. That is how Mothra knows that 18c is not a threat to freedom of speech. All he had to do was keep his opinion to himself. No, he could share it. People say on here all sorts of things that contravene 18c. Are they prosecuted? No, they're usually backed up. Publicising something under your own name and inviting public comment that vilifies people is a direct breach of 18 and if indefensible under 18d can be ordered to be taken down. You cannot go to jail for that opinion though. You can only be asked not to publicise it. How is this a difficult concept for you?

And if you do publicise it, you can go to gaol. Do you not see that for all the weasel words saying otherwise, the law can imprison someone for expressing an opinion.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:59pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:43pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:38pm: He did far more than hold an opinion. He told people about it. That is how Mothra knows that 18c is not a threat to freedom of speech. All he had to do was keep his opinion to himself. No, he could share it. People say on here all sorts of things that contravene 18c. Are they prosecuted? No, they're usually backed up. Publicising something under your own name and inviting public comment that vilifies people is a direct breach of 18 and if indefensible under 18d can be ordered to be taken down. You cannot go to jail for that opinion though. You can only be asked not to publicise it. How is this a difficult concept for you? And if you do publicise it, you can go to gaol. Do you not see that for all the weasel words saying otherwise, the law can imprison someone for expressing an opinion.

Incorrect.  Read the Act.

This is a tad long....but worth the read.  You will better understand why you are incorrect.

Link.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions. Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story. Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is. How do you know that all of it is true or not overblown for political purposes? History is bad for being corrupted. All of it is. It's been proven that the numbers killed have been massively overblown. Differing opinions on the holocaust should be encouraged because it's pretty sketchy. Most European Jews were gassed to death, Homo. Which part's ketchy?

Many of those deaths were not from gas chambers. Most were from disease and malnutrition in the camps. That's what those skinny bodies are. Near the end of the war Germany couldn't even feed it's army let alone internees. The Jews , Gypsies, mentally and physical disabled , gay, Russians, POW's  etc suffered a major injustice by the Nazi's but certain facts need to be set straight. History has been written by emotion and not fact regarding the holocaust. And many people know it.

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:59pm: mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:43pm: freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:38pm: He did far more than hold an opinion. He told people about it. That is how Mothra knows that 18c is not a threat to freedom of speech. All he had to do was keep his opinion to himself. No, he could share it. People say on here all sorts of things that contravene 18c. Are they prosecuted? No, they're usually backed up. Publicising something under your own name and inviting public comment that vilifies people is a direct breach of 18 and if indefensible under 18d can be ordered to be taken down. You cannot go to jail for that opinion though. You can only be asked not to publicise it. How is this a difficult concept for you? And if you do publicise it, you can go to gaol. Do you not see that for all the weasel words saying otherwise, the law can imprison someone for expressing an opinion. Incorrect.  Read the Act. This is a tad long....but worth the read.  You will better understand why you are incorrect. Link.

I have had a read of it, and this particular piece of legislation does not apply to Toben .....yet Toben is still in gaol....for ignoring a court order designed to shut him up. Maybe not 18C, yet the law is till being used to prevent someone expressing an opinion. This is the crux of the matter - not what piece of legislation is being used, but that in Australia the the law is being used to prevent freedom of speech.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:04pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions. Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story. Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is. How do you know that all of it is true or not overblown for political purposes? History is bad for being corrupted. All of it is. It's been proven that the numbers killed have been massively overblown. Differing opinions on the holocaust should be encouraged because it's pretty sketchy. Most European Jews were gassed to death, Homo. Which part's ketchy? Many of those deaths were not from gas chambers. Most were from disease and malnutrition in the camps. That's what those skinny bodies are.

Of course. They starved them to death. That's what concentration camps are for.

Here you go, FD. This is what your Freeeeedom encourages: the denial of history; the denial of genocide; Nazi apologism.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions. Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story. Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is. How do you know that all of it is true or not overblown for political purposes? History is bad for being corrupted. All of it is. It's been proven that the numbers killed have been massively overblown. Differing opinions on the holocaust should be encouraged because it's pretty sketchy. Most European Jews were gassed to death, Homo. Which part's ketchy? Many of those deaths were not from gas chambers. Most were from disease and malnutrition in the camps. That's what those skinny bodies are. Of course. They starved them to death. That's what concentration camps are for. Here you go, FD. This is what your Freeeeedom encourages: the denial of history; the denial of genocide; Nazi apologism.

What's your opinion on our fellow Australians calling jan 26th 1788 Invasion Day?

Quote:

I have had a read of it, and this particular piece of legislation does not apply to Toben .....yet Toben is still in gaol....for ignoring a court order designed to shut him up.

You can't have read it.  Tobin was jailed for three months in 2009.

He was ordered to stop publishing material.  He defied the order.  That is a contempt of Court.  He later apologised for doing so.

As Raven has already pointed out......say what you like, but accept the legal consequences, if any.

There is no Country on this Planet (well....none I know of) where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech.

I asked FD to give us his definition of freedom of speech in one of the other three Threads.  I guess you will not be surprised to learn that he is yet to do so.

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

Quote: I have had a read of it, and this particular piece of legislation does not apply to Toben .....yet Toben is still in gaol....for ignoring a court order designed to shut him up. You can't have read it.  Tobin was jailed for three months in 2009. He was ordered to stop publishing material.  He defied the order.  That is a contempt of Court.  He later apologised for doing so. As Raven has already pointed out......say what you like, but accept the legal consequences, if any. There is no Country on this Planet (well....none I know of) where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech. I asked FD to give us his definition of freedom of speech in one of the other three Threads.  I guess you will not be surprised to learn that he is yet to do so.

Should have read  "Toben was still in gaol."   he was gaoled for contempt of a court which ordered him to stop publishing his opinions. In a free society no court should be able do do such a thing.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Quote: I have had a read of it, and this particular piece of legislation does not apply to Toben .....yet Toben is still in gaol....for ignoring a court order designed to shut him up. You can't have read it.  Tobin was jailed for three months in 2009. He was ordered to stop publishing material.  He defied the order.  That is a contempt of Court.  He later apologised for doing so. As Raven has already pointed out......say what you like, but accept the legal consequences, if any. There is no Country on this Planet (well....none I know of) where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech. I asked FD to give us his definition of freedom of speech in one of the other three Threads.  I guess you will not be surprised to learn that he is yet to do so. Should have read  "Toben was still in gaol."   he was gaoled for contempt of a court which ordered him to stop publishing his opinions. In a free society no court should be able do do such a thing.

Let's say you are in front of a Judge who has issued you with a fine.  Do you reckon you'd get away with "You're an arsehole.  You're a fruitloop, a joke who would not know chit from clay.  The legal system is as corrupt as you are."

What do you reckon would happen next?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions. Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story. Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is. How do you know that all of it is true or not overblown for political purposes? History is bad for being corrupted. All of it is. It's been proven that the numbers killed have been massively overblown. Differing opinions on the holocaust should be encouraged because it's pretty sketchy. Most European Jews were gassed to death, Homo. Which part's ketchy? Many of those deaths were not from gas chambers. Most were from disease and malnutrition in the camps. That's what those skinny bodies are. Of course. They starved them to death. That's what concentration camps are for. Here you go, FD. This is what your Freeeeedom encourages: the denial of history; the denial of genocide; Nazi apologism. What's your opinion on our fellow Australians calling jan 26th 1788 Invasion Day?

I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788.

You call asylum seekers in Europe an invasion, so you're sure to understand.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:45pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:21pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:32pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:30pm: Quote: Vilified. Didn't he deny the holocaust. Why did the powers that be want it taken down? I guess because it infringed on 18C and there was no valid defence under 18D? so under 18c he offended jews by his opinions. Denying the Holocaust is more than just offending a few Jews. Holocaust survivors live in its shadow, as do their descendants. The one thing they left the concentration camps with was the compulsion to get the message out, to tell the story. Denying the biggest genocide of the 20th century is far more than offending the thin-skinned. I'm not sure that denying history should be illegal. But given what such propaganda is capable of achieving, I'm not so unhappy that it is. How do you know that all of it is true or not overblown for political purposes? History is bad for being corrupted. All of it is. It's been proven that the numbers killed have been massively overblown. Differing opinions on the holocaust should be encouraged because it's pretty sketchy. Most European Jews were gassed to death, Homo. Which part's ketchy? Many of those deaths were not from gas chambers. Most were from disease and malnutrition in the camps. That's what those skinny bodies are. Of course. They starved them to death. That's what concentration camps are for. Here you go, FD. This is what your Freeeeedom encourages: the denial of history; the denial of genocide; Nazi apologism. What's your opinion on our fellow Australians calling jan 26th 1788 Invasion Day? I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. You call asylum seekers in Europe an invasion, so you're sure to understand.

Making up comments from me again Karnal. You'd make a great Nazi. Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. But don't get crappy when I call Muslims barbarians  or Jews greedy history distorters and meddlers. Nobody has a right not stop others from being insulted. Get over it and thicken your skin.

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

Quote: I have had a read of it, and this particular piece of legislation does not apply to Toben .....yet Toben is still in gaol....for ignoring a court order designed to shut him up. You can't have read it.  Tobin was jailed for three months in 2009. He was ordered to stop publishing material.  He defied the order.  That is a contempt of Court.  He later apologised for doing so. As Raven has already pointed out......say what you like, but accept the legal consequences, if any. There is no Country on this Planet (well....none I know of) where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech. I asked FD to give us his definition of freedom of speech in one of the other three Threads.  I guess you will not be surprised to learn that he is yet to do so.

No Aussie, he has. He describes it as the Freeeeedom to be a bigot. This is FD's only definition to date, and we're sticking with it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:50pm:

Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like.

I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:57pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline.

You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards?

I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets.

I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false.

Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:14pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies.

So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty.

Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788.


Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way?

And can you please give me proof that all that has been said about the holocaust is true?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way?

Is there something wrong with invading other countries?

Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD.

FD?

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:37pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD?

It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it?

It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it? It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded.

How did most people who came as convicts invade anybody?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it? It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded. How did most people who came as convicts invade anybody?

The British Navy invaded Australia, Homo. You know that. The convicts were just part of the show.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it? It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded. How did most people who came as convicts invade anybody? The British Navy invaded Australia, Homo. You know that. The convicts were just part of the show.

Go and tell that to the white farmers who feed you princess. Show your gratitude.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it? It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded. How did most people who came as convicts invade anybody? The British Navy invaded Australia, Homo. You know that. The convicts were just part of the show. Go and tell that to the white farmers who feed you princess. Show your gratitude.

What do white farmers have to do with Captain Phillip, Homo?

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:58pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it? It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded. How did most people who came as convicts invade anybody? The British Navy invaded Australia, Homo. You know that. The convicts were just part of the show. Go and tell that to the white farmers who feed you princess. Show your gratitude. What do white farmers have to do with Captain Phillip, Homo?

Tell them what you think of Australia's early history while you eat their food.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:58pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it? It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded. How did most people who came as convicts invade anybody? The British Navy invaded Australia, Homo. You know that. The convicts were just part of the show. Go and tell that to the white farmers who feed you princess. Show your gratitude. What do white farmers have to do with Captain Phillip, Homo? Tell them what you think of Australia's early history while you eat their food.

What?

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:58pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:55pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:43pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is there something wrong with invading other countries? Gee, that's a hard one. We'll have to defer to FD. FD? It was good for me because I live in one of the best countries on earth. Why don't you like it? It's good for all of us - a point I understand all too well when I travel overseas and see what other countries are like. But no one in their right mind would ever pretend it wasn't invaded. How did most people who came as convicts invade anybody? The British Navy invaded Australia, Homo. You know that. The convicts were just part of the show. Go and tell that to the white farmers who feed you princess. Show your gratitude. What do white farmers have to do with Captain Phillip, Homo? Tell them what you think of Australia's early history while you eat their food. What?

You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not a thin skinned jew. Put it out there though. Show your gratitude? I could never live off the benefits of an "invasion" and poo on our country like that. I know what's good for me.

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 5:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way?

Is their something wrong with people moving between lands?


The way you go on about boat people coming here you would think so ?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? The way you go on about boat people coming here you would think so ?

Yes, the British Navy, acting under orders from the Home Office and King George III, were simply looking for refuge and found it, right here in jolly old Terra Australis.

Fresh off the boat, innit.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? The way you go on about boat people coming here you would think so ?

I don't want Sunni Muslims. They are a problem.  In fact I don't want people from countries with proven issues. There's nothing wrong with being concerned about the type of people who come here. Also I'm just not the sort of person who can sh it on my country by calling our national day "Invasion Day" when this country gives me so much. I could never bite the hand that feeds me. it's low behaviour.

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 6:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 6:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? The way you go on about boat people coming here you would think so ? Yes, the British Navy, acting under orders from the Home Office and King George III, were simply looking for refuge and found it, right here in jolly old Terra Australis. Fresh off the boat, innit.

Yep, and it gave you and your family a place to live and prosper. You don't seem grateful princess?

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 6:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? The way you go on about boat people coming here you would think so ? I don't want Sunni Muslims.

Aborigines didn't want white Christians. Who should get their way?

You, them, or the Sunni Muslims?

Karnal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 6:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 6:37pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:23pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:14pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Call my family's  forced migration to Australia an invasion like a virus all you like. I don't think we have a public holiday for your family's forced migration, Homo. Maybe you should lobby Pauline. You missed the point. You agree with Invasion Day but don't like the idea of The Holocaust not being accurate even though both could be considered insulting to certain people. Why the double standards? I don't agree with Invasion Day, but I can't see how the colonization of Australia can be perceived as much else. It was an invasion. The British Navy used real guns with real bullets. I don't think Holocaust denial should be discouraged because it's offensive, Homo, I think it should be discourage because it's false. Just as Bolt's 18C charge held because the things he said about "ight-skinned" Aborigines were deliberate porkies. So do you agree or not? You are all over the place My Burqa Beauty. Karnal- I think it's a bit simplistic, but it sums up what happened in 1788. Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? People have been doing it for thousands of years. Do you see how certain people might find that offensive? Re-naming Australia's national day in that way? Is their something wrong with people moving between lands? The way you go on about boat people coming here you would think so ? I don't want Sunni Muslims. Aborigines didn't want white Christians. Who should get their way? You, them, or the Sunni Muslims?

I don't care what aborigines want. I know what I  don't want- bombs going off in the name of a sky fairy.

Aussie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:36pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Quote: I have had a read of it, and this particular piece of legislation does not apply to Toben .....yet Toben is still in gaol....for ignoring a court order designed to shut him up. You can't have read it.  Tobin was jailed for three months in 2009. He was ordered to stop publishing material.  He defied the order.  That is a contempt of Court.  He later apologised for doing so. As Raven has already pointed out......say what you like, but accept the legal consequences, if any. There is no Country on this Planet (well....none I know of) where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech. I asked FD to give us his definition of freedom of speech in one of the other three Threads.  I guess you will not be surprised to learn that he is yet to do so. Should have read  "Toben was still in gaol."   he was gaoled for contempt of a court which ordered him to stop publishing his opinions. In a free society no court should be able do do such a thing. Let's say you are in front of a Judge who has issued you with a fine.  Do you reckon you'd get away with "You're an arsehole.  You're a fruitloop, a joke who would not know chit from clay.  The legal system is as corrupt as you are." What do you reckon would happen next?

That is a reductio ad absurdum and  nothing to do with the issue at hand. If the law is being misused as it was in Tobins case then I would continue to object and express my opinion.  The law may say it is contempt to ignore their ruling, however all who believe in free speech have a duty to object to this sort of back door action by the courts.