Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> the poster children for 18c
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1481955725

Message started by freediver on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:22pm

Title: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:22pm
Gerald Fredrick Töben was brought before the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for violating section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act by denying the holocaust. The HREOC found against him, but he ignored them, so they escalated the matter to the federal court, who issued a court order enforcing the HREOC findings under section 18c. Toben ignored that also and continued denying the holocaust on his website. He was eventually jailed for his opinion.

Supporters of 18c insist it is not a threat to freedom of speech because of the exemptions under section 18d. However these exemptions did not protect Toben, and would be unlikely to protect others whose views are unpopular. Supporters of 18c try various lies to distance 18c from Toben's jailing, from the subtle to the idiotic. Even I am surprised by how many people are doing this. This is as good a reason as any to defend freedom of speech. If not, you leave yourself at the mercy of this sort of idiocy. Anyway, here they are.



Bojack Horseman wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 11:24am:
He should at least be locked up for stupidity.




longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 12:13pm:

Setanta wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 11:49pm:
A law should not be in place that tells you what you should think and talk about.


And there isnt. Tobin was jailed for contempt of court. I had the displeasure many years ago to communicate with him and felt dirty ever since.

He has his right to an opinion. He does not have the right to disagree with a court and get away with it. And he didnt.




Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 12:50pm:
18c is more about penalising the misuse or abuse of freedom of speech
You are not going to claim that what Bold did was ok are you ?



Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:22pm:
He was jailed for contempt of court - nothing to do with his opinions what he said or 18c.



Dnarever wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:40pm:
Wanker got what he deserved. I doubt anyone cares.




John Smith wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 11:03am:

freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2016 at 10:03pm:
Let's try this again John.

Which of the following is correct?

a) Toben was free to ignore the court orders
b) If you get jailed for something, then you are not actually free to do it


both




Karnal wrote on Dec 13th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

Quote:
18c means you can now be jailed for exercising your fundamental human rights.


Can you show us the legislation than outlines the penalties, FD?




Raven wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 12:13pm:
Your friend Toben on the other hand did commit a crime but not by denying the Holocaust. Justice Branson ordered him to remove the material, he refused.





Raven wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:26pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

Raven wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 2:56pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2016 at 7:18pm:
Raven and John, do you support Toben's right to say the things he said?


Yes. You can say what you like but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say


So you support freedom of speech, as well as jailing people for their opinion?


He wasn't jailed for his opinion.

Do you believe that you should be able to say anything you want without consequence?




John Smith wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 10:56am:
Does FD think we should revoke 'contempt of court' legislation too?
It would seem that if his concern was Tobin, that should be the legislation he should be targeting, instead of lying about 18c.



John Smith wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 1:49pm:
John Smith had a rather stupid suggestion that we respond by trying to get rid of contempt of court legislation rather than 18c (again, see the opening post for quotes)

simply highlighting how stupid your idea is. You want to ban 18c because it resulted in someone going to jail who you believe shouldn't have. Continue that logic through to other laws and you'll see how stupid that train of thought is.



John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2016 at 11:04pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2016 at 9:42pm:
Are you suggesting that Toben's imprisonment is a figment of our imagination?

In some cases, yes.


Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:22pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 9:42pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 9:24pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 9:23pm:
So is he or is he not free to ignore the court orders?


of course he is. And he did.


You'll figure it out one day John. When you do, it will seem like you always knew.


John Smith wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:09pm:
If you get imprisoned for doing something, that means you are not free to do it


No poo Sherlock.


I'm beginning to think you won't figure it out FD.


John Smith wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:29pm:
freedom is a ideology that has nothing to do with the modern world we live in

now, why don't you answer my question? Are you afraid?




Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 2:26pm:
Seems to me that the critics of 18c like to tell lies about past court cases that had absolutely nothing to do with section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.   I wonder why?  Do you think lying?    ::) ::)



Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 8:01pm:
No, I stand by every word I said....and not by every word you have attempted to verbal me with.


As I do.  Toben was convicted of contempt of court, not Section 18c...   ::)



Brian Ross wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 4:10pm:
Toben is free to think what he likes.  He can even discuss it privately.  What he isn't allowed to do is state his anti-Holocaust lies in public.   ::)



Brian Ross wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Setanta wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 9:16pm:
And if 18c did not exist he would never have been in contempt of court.
Do you agree with his right to espouse his opinion, no matter how odious?


What I consider is immaterial, Setlanta.   Toben showed his contempt for a decision that was made against him. 




The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 11:26am:

freediver wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 11:07am:
That's the one. The contempt took the form of denying the holocaust, in violation of 18c.


But he was actually jailed for contempt of court. I'm glad that's cleared up.




Aussie wrote on Dec 12th, 2016 at 6:50pm:
What I said was an accurate description at the time I used them in the context I used them. 




Aussie wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 7:15pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 5:57pm:
Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages?

Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for Contempt of Court by defying a Court Order not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind)


I've corrected the question so that I am not verballed, and to make it accurate in terms of what I said, and not what FD wishes I had said.


Your own words Aussie:


Aussie wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 7:51pm:
Finally...after how many pages, you get it correct:


Quote:
So he was not jailed for denying the holocaust. He was jailed for not ceasing to deny the holocaust?


....as he was ordered to do by the Court.


Your own words again Aussie:


Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:58pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:50pm:
Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust?


How many times must I do that for you freediver?   I have agreed with that.


The evidence you introduced Aussie:


Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm:
Pausing there, it follows from the above that there is no room for dispute that Dr Toben has spent time in prison in Australia for criminal contempt constituted by the publication of material found to have racially vilified the Jewish people and which conveyed imputations including that there was serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred.


After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust?


Yes.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Aussie on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:23pm
THREAD # 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;D

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by gandalf on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:24pm
FD have you come to a decision on whether or not Toben was gaoled for his opinion yet?


freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Raven wrote on Dec 15th, 2016 at 8:26pm:
He wasn't jailed for his opinion.


I did not say he was. This is what I said. Read it carefully now: Do you support freedom of speech, as well as jailing people for their opinion?


Quote from FD's thread entitled Gerald Fredrick Töben - jailed for his opinion

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:33pm
What do you think I meant by that Gandalf?

Did you make a submission on 18c?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by The_Barnacle on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:35pm
Another thread on 18c?

This just supports what I said in the opening post of my own thread.
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots than they are about ensuring the Government is held to account.

The draconian "special intelligence operation" legislation would never get 5 posts running at once

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:45pm

Quote:
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots


That's what freedom f speech means Barnacle.

From your thread - do you agree with this?


Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 12:30pm:
18c has an altruistic reason behind it



Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:09pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 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?


Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 12:30pm:
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.




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

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



mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 1:55pm:
Nobody in Australia has ever been jailed for their opinion.




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.


Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by gandalf on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:49pm

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:33pm:
What do you think I meant by that Gandalf?

Did you make a submission on 18c?


Are you saying you meant something different to what you said? Was Toben jailed for his opinion?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:59pm

Quote:
Can you show us the legislation than outlines the penalties, FD?


Thanks for raising my question, FD, I'd forgotten about that one.

Would you like to answer it?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:01pm

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

Quote:
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots


That's what freedom f speech means Barnacle.


Actually, it's the eopposite. The defence of freedom of speech is normally used when speaking out against the powerful. Racists and bigots use their speech against the powerless.

Freeeeedom, innit.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Dustwun on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:04pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

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

Quote:
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots


That's what freedom f speech means Barnacle.


Actually, it's the eopposite. The defence of freedom of speech is normally used when speaking out against the powerful. Racists and bigots use their speech against the powerless.

Freeeeedom, innit.


What about speaking out against Sunni who bugger all other religions they encounter?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Mr Hammer on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:05pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

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

Quote:
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots


That's what freedom f speech means Barnacle.


Actually, it's the eopposite. The defence of freedom of speech is normally used when speaking out against the powerful. Racists and bigots use their speech against the powerless.

Freeeeedom, innit.
::)

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:11pm

Dustwun wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

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

Quote:
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots


That's what freedom f speech means Barnacle.


Actually, it's the eopposite. The defence of freedom of speech is normally used when speaking out against the powerful. Racists and bigots use their speech against the powerless.

Freeeeedom, innit.


What about speaking out against Sunni who bugger all other religions they encounter?


I'd say you need to know a bit more before you express your Freeeeeedom.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by John Smith on Dec 17th, 2016 at 8:23pm


Are you hoping that if you keep starting theads on this, the facts will eventually change to suit your argument?



https://youtu.be/iDNtqy0zjJA?t=4

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Aussie on Dec 17th, 2016 at 8:51pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 8:23pm:
Are you hoping that if you keep starting theads on this, the facts will eventually change to suit your argument?


This is a typical FD quote bomb.  He carefully selects posts, isolates them out of context and then posts them as a collage, purporting to be integral and in context, in one of these dumbarse 'bombs.'  Really stupid and so obviously disingenuous.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 17th, 2016 at 9:41pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 8:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 8:23pm:
Are you hoping that if you keep starting theads on this, the facts will eventually change to suit your argument?


This is a typical FD quote bomb.  He carefully selects posts, isolates them out of context and then posts them as a collage,


That's true, Aussie. FD's an artist of the highest caliber.

Another masterpiece.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 17th, 2016 at 9:51pm

gandalf wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:33pm:
What do you think I meant by that Gandalf?

Did you make a submission on 18c?


Are you saying you meant something different to what you said? Was Toben jailed for his opinion?


The specific question I was asking was not about the reason for Toben's jailing.


Quote:
This is a typical FD quote bomb.  He carefully selects posts, isolates them out of context and then posts them as a collage, purporting to be integral and in context, in one of these dumbarse 'bombs.'  Really stupid and so obviously disingenuous.


Aussie you have repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting you by quoting you, insisting that your words meant something different in a different time and that the context was also somehow different (despite your complaints about the number of threads on the same topic).

You never explained how the time and context changed the meaning of your words. Would you like to enlighten us? Or is your standard response to accuse people of lying whenever you are caught out?


Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

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

Quote:
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots


That's what freedom f speech means Barnacle.


Actually, it's the eopposite. The defence of freedom of speech is normally used when speaking out against the powerful. Racists and bigots use their speech against the powerless.

Freeeeedom, innit.


Can you give some examples of speech that is covered by freedom of speech? Do you think for example that Toben is part of the powerful majority? Gandalf seems to think it is the Jews' fault. Are we only allowed to use freedom of speech to defend Muslims, dirty hippies and people who cannot make the mental leap from being jailed to being denied freedom?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Aussie on Dec 17th, 2016 at 10:01pm
Your words FD:

....freedom of speech.....

Please define exactly what you mean.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 17th, 2016 at 10:15pm

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

gandalf wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:33pm:
What do you think I meant by that Gandalf?

Did you make a submission on 18c?


Are you saying you meant something different to what you said? Was Toben jailed for his opinion?


The specific question I was asking was not about the reason for Toben's jailing.


Quote:
This is a typical FD quote bomb.  He carefully selects posts, isolates them out of context and then posts them as a collage, purporting to be integral and in context, in one of these dumbarse 'bombs.'  Really stupid and so obviously disingenuous.


Aussie you have repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting you by quoting you, insisting that your words meant something different in a different time and that the context was also somehow different (despite your complaints about the number of threads on the same topic).

You never explained how the time and context changed the meaning of your words. Would you like to enlighten us? Or is your standard response to accuse people of lying whenever you are caught out?


Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:45pm:
[quote]It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots


That's what freedom f speech means Barnacle.


Actually, it's the eopposite. The defence of freedom of speech is normally used when speaking out against the powerful. Racists and bigots use their speech against the powerless.

Freeeeedom, innit.


Can you give some examples of speech that is covered by freedom of speech? Do you think for example that Toben is part of the powerful majority? Gandalf seems to think it is the Jews' fault. Are we only allowed to use freedom of speech to defend Muslims, dirty hippies and people who cannot make the mental leap from being jailed to being denied freedom?[/quote]

Now that's a question.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Setanta on Dec 17th, 2016 at 11:54pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 10:01pm:
Your words FD:

....freedom of speech.....

Please define exactly what you mean.


Want mine?

No political speech should be encumbered by law.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by The Grappler on Dec 18th, 2016 at 12:26am

Setanta wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 11:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 10:01pm:
Your words FD:

....freedom of speech.....

Please define exactly what you mean.


Want mine?

No political speech should be encumbered by law.


But always remember that the body politic is a body that makes the laws etc - and a policy of that body politic of mass extermination or persecution of a specified social group** etc is unlawful illegal ***and should properly cause a calling out of the palace guard... and speaking on such a policy is equally illegal.

Now we all know that various policies of mass extermination of rights and livelihoods have been in place here for forty years... over to you....

**such actions are defined as Crimes Against Humanity by The Hague... yet entire demographics here can be discriminated against and not a word said..... so you need to be always wary of your 'body politic', since it has to power to prevent such things, but here, now - it chooses not to, and instead actively engages in them.  Thus it is complicit and even guilty of initiating these policies..... or at the very least suffering a depraved indifference.....

You know the policies I mean......

*** be wary of confusing 'unlawful' with 'illegal' - 'unlawful' simply means there is no law to cover it at this time - 'illegal' means that it does not accord with the Rule of Law.... thus clearly, many policies of recent advent are illegal but not unlawful, often for the simple reason that there is no apparatus or opportunity for them to be challenged ... affirmative action being but one among them...  8-)

(aced 'em again!).....  ;)

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 18th, 2016 at 7:46am

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 4:35pm:
Another thread on 18c?

This just supports what I said in the opening post of my own thread.
It seems people are more concerned with their right to be racists and bigots than they are about ensuring the Government is held to account.

The draconian "special intelligence operation" legislation would never get 5 posts running at once


Barnacle, you claim to have started the other thread out of genuine support for freedom of speech, but have spent more time downplaying a more direct and explicit attack on freedom of speech. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?


Aussie I went in search of an explanation of how a "different time" (1 week) and "different context" (a thread you insist is on the same topic), somehow makes it misleading for me to quote you directly. I could not find any. What I did find was a rich vein of highly concentrated stupid.


Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 9:28am:
What do you want to say, freediver, which 18C and D precludes you from saying?



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 9:50am:
No need for change.  It does not inhibit you at all.



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 11:17am:
What is that anyone wants to say that 18C/D prevents them from saying?



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 11:47am:
And, it is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind on your part freediver to assert he was jailed in SA for denying the holocaust.



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 12:30pm:
It is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind, freediver, to assert he was jailed for denying the holocaust.  Would you like the relevant links to the actual cases?
What is also relevant is that you must rely on bullshit to support your contention.  Telling.



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm:
So, your retraction and apology will be in your next post?


Quote:
Pausing there, it follows from the above that there is no room for dispute that Dr Toben has spent time in prison in Australia for criminal contempt constituted by the publication of material found to have racially vilified the Jewish people and which conveyed imputations including that there was serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred.



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:20pm:
It sure does.  You lied in the most scurrilous manner. 



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:26pm:
He was done because he lied on relevant issues.....a lie can hardly ne made in good faith, can it.



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:36pm:
See, he lied, so lost the capacity to use the defences in 18D.



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 6:14pm:
Read the rest of the sentence Aussie. What form did the criminal contempt take? Or are you seriously suggesting that because the name of the crime was 'criminal contempt' rather than 'denying the holocaust' that he was therefor not jailed for denying the holocaust?

Yes I am.  He was ordered by a competent Court not to do stuff (irrelevant to his eventual fate what that stuff was) and he defied the Order of the Court. 
You lied to pursue your own little pathetic crusade you say you have mounted for others and not yourself, one you floated here, (even with a sticky no-one else can use here to ensure prominence) to push a barrow of complete bullshit.



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:11pm:
Perhaps you can have a go on this.  What is that you want to say that 18C/D prevents you from saying?



Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:22pm:
[quote]So let me get this straight. The man committed contempt of court by denying the holocaust and was jailed for it,

Read the Judgement I gave you the link to.  He committed a contempt of Court by defying an Order of a competent Court.  When will that get through to you?
[quote]....but that is different to being jailed for denying the holocaust?

Indeed it is.[/quote]


Aussie wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:10pm:
If you are referring to Tobin, he was jailed in Australia for defying a Court Order, and for nothing else.  The embarrassment is yours freediver.  You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth, as usual.



Aussie wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:46pm:
Your are posting absolute garbage.....what you say is totally incorrect, in Law.  Do you think you ought be allowed to mislead people on what is a simple legal concept?



Aussie wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:57pm:

Quote:
In case you have forgotten already, you were attempting to claim that getting jailed for contempt of court that takes the specific form of denying the holocaust is somehow different from getting jailed for denying the holocaust.

Correct.  You said he was jailed for denying the holocaust.  He was not.  He was jailed for defying a Court Order, i.e. contempt of Court.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 18th, 2016 at 9:32am

Aussie wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 5:12pm:

Quote:
Likewise the definition of a court order specifically includes the order given.....

The bloke was jailed for contempt of Court, and for nothing else.  What was his contempt?  He defied a Court Order.
He had already published his denial of holocaust rubbish, and was not jailed for doing so.  He was ordered to cease publishing that material, an Order he defied, and was then jailed for contempt.



Aussie wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 7:51pm:
Finally...after how many pages, you get it correct:

Quote:
So he was not jailed for denying the holocaust. He was jailed for not ceasing to deny the holocaust?

....as he was ordered to do by the Court.



Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:49pm:
Tobin was jailed for defying a Court Order.  Contempt of Court.  That is what he was convicted of and jailed for.  If you have proof otherwise, let's see it.



Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:58pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:50pm:
Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust?

How many times must I do that for you freediver?   I have agreed with that.
What you originally said (and it was a lie) was that he was jailed for denying the holocaust.  Are you now denying you said that, freediver?

Quote:
Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

No, I did not.  I highlighted your lie, one you offered to suit, yet again, your personal agenda.



Aussie wrote on Dec 4th, 2016 at 8:38am:
There you go yet again with deceptive language.  He was jailed for Contempt of Court.  His contempt was defiance of a Court Order.  The Court Order was that he cease distributing holocaust denial material.  He then distributed that material.  Ergo, he was not jailed for denying the holocaust.
How hard is that to understand?



Aussie wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 5:57pm:
Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for Contempt of Court by defying a Court Order not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind)

I've corrected the question so that I am not verballed, and to make it accurate in terms of what I said, and not what FD wishes I had said.



Aussie wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 7:15pm:

Quote:
After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust?

Yes.




Karnal wrote on Nov 28th, 2016 at 4:01pm:
Post-2007 FD wants the Freeeeedom to tell porkies about Boongs a la Bolt.



Karnal wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm:
This is FD's sole reason for defending free speech: he wants to institutionalise hate speech against Muslims.




Raven wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:03pm:
As a society we must balance these rights, which is why 18D is a "get out of jail free" card.
It is a measure of Andrew Bolt's egregiousness in his two columns that he could run afoul of these expansive exemptions.





Karnal wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 3:44pm:
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 17th, 2016 at 4:19pm:
Here you go, FD. This is what your Freeeeedom encourages: the denial of history; the denial of genocide; Nazi apologism.




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



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:
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.


Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 18th, 2016 at 9:35am

Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 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.




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

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



Aussie wrote on Dec 17th, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Quote:
If the law is being misused as it was in Tobins case then I would continue to object and express my opinion.


Neither you nor Tobin get to select when you reckon Laws are being misused.  That is for the Courts.




Dnarever wrote on Dec 18th, 2016 at 7:27am:
He was imprisoned for contempt and he was guilty. It has nothing to do with expressing his opinion. That is a fact.
There is no word play or obfuscation involved, straight plain direct English is the only requirement.



Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 8:57am:
Does anyone know what the problem is with 18c ?
Or what the suggested fix actually is ?



Dnarever wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 9:14am:
I don't agree that it is a freedom of speech issue at all.




John Smith wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 10:42am:

freediver wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 10:40am:
Do you think the guy who got jailed for denying the holocaust had a problem with the laws?
Is it OK to destroy freedom of speech if no-one cares about the victims?

I'm not familiar with the case so can't comment on it specifically.



John Smith wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 10:37am:
And I don't have a problem with 18c ... it's been around for 20 yrs and no one had a problem until the retards fan boy, Bolt, got in trouble for lying.



John Smith wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 6:51pm:
Are you suggesting Toben's jailing had nothing to do with 18c?

it had to do with being in contempt of court.
Why don't you petition to have contempt of court laws changed or revoked?




The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 9:34am:
And do those who oppose 18c actually realize that 18D protects their freedom of speech.



The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2016 at 10:45am:
The only similar case I could find was Gerald Fredrick Töben who was jailed in 2009 for contempt of court

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Brian Ross on Dec 18th, 2016 at 5:18pm

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 1:41pm
Brian do you think Toben should have been jailed for his opinion?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by John Smith on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 2:41pm

freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 1:41pm:
Brian do you think Toben should have been jailed for his opinion?


he was jailed for contempt of court.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Brian Ross on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:37pm

freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 1:41pm:
Brian do you think Toben should have been jailed for his opinion?


He was gaoled for contravening a court order, FD.  No matter how you attempt to dress this, that was why he was gaoled.    ::)

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Raven on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:57pm
Freediver is unable to grasp the fact that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

His inability to understand how the law works means he will continue to post inaccurate statements in threads such as this

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:03pm

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:37pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 1:41pm:
Brian do you think Toben should have been jailed for his opinion?


He was gaoled for contravening a court order, FD.  No matter how you attempt to dress this, that was why he was gaoled.    ::)


Toben acknowledged this himself. He even apologised for it.

Toben is a serial Holocaust-denial law tester. He did the same in two European countries. He acknowledged that Australia did not jail him for denying the Holocaust, as they did in Europe.

FD disagrees with his very own martyr.

Freeeeeedom, innit.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:07pm

Raven wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:57pm:
Freediver is unable to grasp the fact that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

His inability to understand how the law works means he will continue to post inaccurate statements in threads such as this


FD is that rare breed of Freeeedom-fancier who upholds the right to tell you porkie pies.

FD's statements are not just inaccurate. Many are out-and-out fibs.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Frank on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 10:43pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Raven wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:57pm:
Freediver is unable to grasp the fact that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

His inability to understand how the law works means he will continue to post inaccurate statements in threads such as this


FD is that rare breed of Freeeedom-fancier who upholds the right to tell you porkie pies.

FD's statements are not just inaccurate. Many are out-and-out fibs.

At least he's not a vagina like you. Not everyone can be. Or has to be.

You have chosen that path, that's your choice. We get it.


Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:01pm

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 10:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Raven wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 3:57pm:
Freediver is unable to grasp the fact that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

His inability to understand how the law works means he will continue to post inaccurate statements in threads such as this


FD is that rare breed of Freeeedom-fancier who upholds the right to tell you porkie pies.

FD's statements are not just inaccurate. Many are out-and-out fibs.

At least he's not a vagina like you. Not everyone can be. Or has to be.

You have chosen that path, that's your choice. We get it.


Oh yes, and here we have the other one, FD's partner in porkie pies.

The uncanny thing is, of all the serial liars here, FD and your good self are the only two to admit it.

You're really very brave, you know, but can I ask?

Have you ever thought of just going straight?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Frank on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:19pm
And if only we knew what you are blabbering on about, old girl.  Not even you know.  It's all oblique hints and miam miams.






Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 12:39am

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:19pm:
And if only we knew what you are blabbering on about, old girl.  Not even you know.  It's all oblique hints and miam miams.


Oh, I see. Your memory was wiped when you became Frank, eh?

Intelligence and integrity, innit.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Setanta on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 1:01am

Karnal wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 12:39am:

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:19pm:
And if only we knew what you are blabbering on about, old girl.  Not even you know.  It's all oblique hints and miam miams.


Oh, I see. Your memory was wiped when you became Frank, eh?

Intelligence and integrity, innit.


Matty?

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Karnal on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:06am

Setanta wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 1:01am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 12:39am:

Frank wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:19pm:
And if only we knew what you are blabbering on about, old girl.  Not even you know.  It's all oblique hints and miam miams.


Oh, I see. Your memory was wiped when you became Frank, eh?

Intelligence and integrity, innit.


Matty?


No, Setanta, Matty (AKA Mattywisk) has a new sock each week. The old boy (AKA Sore End) only starts them up when he gets banned.

Intelligence and integrity, you see.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Mar 1st, 2017 at 6:31pm
18C: Racial Discrimination Act changes divides Liberal Party backbenchers

www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-01/backbenchers-battle-over-changes-to-racial-discrimination-act/8312626

The Liberal Party is split over whether restrictions on freedom of speech should be watered down, putting pressure on the Prime Minister and Cabinet over which side of the party to favour.

Key points:

No consensus was reached in yesterday's Parliament regarding 18C
Ian Goodenough says he would support changing the wording of the Act
David Coleman does not think that "changes to 18C are appropriate"
Yesterday the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights tabled its report into the Racial Discrimination Act, but failed to reach a consensus on whether Section 18C, which makes it illegal to offend, insult or humiliate someone because of their race, should be changed.

Liberal backbencher and Committee Chair Ian Goodenough said he favoured changing the Act's wording.

"I think there is a fair level of support to make freedom of speech more accessible," he told AM.

While the report had bipartisan recommendations about making sure only people with a genuine claim use the Act, there was no consensus over whether to change part 18C. Instead the report had six suggestions about where to go to from there.

"I would support replacing the words of offend and insult with a higher term, such as harass or vilify," Mr Goodenough said.

"Section 18C was introduced during the Keating government. Words have changed in our society, what it means to offend someone in today's society is a lot different to what it was to offend back 20 years ago, so there needs to be contemporary use of the language."

Mr Goodenough is one of many Liberals who want a re-write of Section 18C. His party colleagues James Paterson, Dean Smith, Eric Abetz are all supportive of changing the Act.

But the debate over free speech is not one-sided. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is facing pressure from the more moderate end of the party, who are worried that watering down free speech sends a bad signal.

'You can't scrap the entire law': Coleman

One of those opposed to change is David Coleman. His Sydney electorate of Banks is diverse, and around 30 per cent of constituents are from a Chinese background.

"I don't think that changes to 18C are appropriate," he told AM.

"I am of the view that the law has been in place for more than 20 years, I think that it has worked effectively in defending against racial discrimination."

He says his electorate does not want to see a change to the Act.

"There is certainly a substantial number of people in my community who are supportive of the existing laws, who have found the existing laws helpful in protecting them against racial discrimination," he said.

Mr Coleman supported the report's recommendations to speed up the legal process, but he strongly opposed moves to broaden free speech under the law.

"It's not the case that simply because you have vexatious claims under a law that you get rid of the entire law," he said.

"There are obviously many aspects of law where vexatious claims are made, and the appropriate way of dealing with that is to address those process issues. But it's a very different matter to say that the law itself should be repealed, and that's not something I support."

He said he would be talking with his Liberal colleagues about why change should not be pursued.

"Well look, obviously the report's just come out. Everyone can now review it and form an opinion. But certainly I have a strong view and I'm certainly happy to discuss that with others."

Mr Goodenough admitted Mr Turnbull and the Cabinet would have a tough job deciding which side to take.

"I think it will be a balancing act between those with multicultural electorates and those who are more conservative," he said.

Cabinet will now consider the report. Any changes to the law it decides to pursue needs to go through a long committee and partyroom process before the big challenge of getting it through the Parliament.

From other news sites:

The Guardian: Liberal infighting begins after 18C report fails to suggest major changes to race hate laws
Katherine Times: Free speech inquiry stops short of recommending major changes to 18C race hate laws
Huffington Post: 'Huge FAIL' As No Changes To 18C Recommended By Parliament Committee
SBS: 18C inquiry leans in favour of 'mainstream Australians' as no major changes proposed
The Australian: 18C review strands Malcolm Turnbull in party row

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Aussie on Mar 21st, 2017 at 7:11pm
Link.

Ima gonna talk there, Effendi......if you are interested.

Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by Gnads on Mar 21st, 2017 at 7:22pm
Why was Toben ordered to face court?

Obviously he was jailed for contempt because he refused to front

but if 18c is so benign why did he have to front court for his opinion in the first place?

Seems like a manipulation of the law .....

if we can't get him under 18c we'll take this tack............

seems like a form of entrapment

Either way it is derived from 18c

and his freedom of speech/opinion has been denied & he has been jailed as a consequence.


Title: Re: the poster children for 18c
Post by freediver on Mar 23rd, 2017 at 8:44am
It's worse than I thought:

Labor eyes extending 18C complaints

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-eyes-extending-18c-complaints-to-gender-disability-and-age/news-story/366d04d0d5efb5fc6ef575e4e3550afc

Labor is considering a secret plan to extend the reach of litigation based on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to include people claiming they have been ­offended or insulted because of their sexual orientation, disabil­ities or age.

A video, obtained by The Australian, shows Labor legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus last week explaining the proposal, which would lead to the Australian Human Rights Commission and the courts facing a new wave of complaints.

Because Bill Shorten has ­rejected changes to 18C, there is a risk that Labor’s plan to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination laws will lead to litigation by the disabled and the LGBTI community that would be determined using the same procedures that apply under section 18C.

The Australian can reveal that the amount of compensation paid as a result of race discrimination complaints to the Human Rights Commission has soared, with companies and governments handing over almost $1 million since 2010 to avoid going to court.

Mr Dreyfus has confirmed that if Labor is elected to government he will be considering imposing a general standard for speech that infringes anti-discrimination law.

Under Labor’s proposal, advocates of same-sex marriage would be empowered, for example, to take legal action under 18C-style laws if they felt offended or ­insulted by those who publicly ­defended the traditional definition of marriage. Those at risk would include priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.

Labor’s proposal also opens the prospect that debate over the cost of the National Disability ­Insurance Scheme could be truncated because of the risk of litigation by those who might feel offended or insulted.

Mr Dreyfus outlined Labor’s thinking during a panel discussion on Wednesday last week with Liberal backbencher Tim Wilson, hosted by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.

In the video of the event, Mr Dreyfus said a Labor gov­ernment hoped to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination legislation and would consider whether there should be a general standard for the type of speech that would ­attract liability under that law. At the moment, separate federal laws make it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex and sexual orientation, disability and indigeneity.

When Mr Dreyfus was asked by an audience member if section 18C should be extended to cover gender and disability, he said Mr Wilson had reminded him of the “failed project which I hope to ­return to of consolidating the five anti-discrimination statutes when we are next in government”.

“One of the things we’ll be looking at is this very point of whether or not we should set a standard about speech generally,” Mr Dreyfus said.

“I want to have standards set in a community which respect the dignity of every Australian. I think it’s very important and something to be fought for.”

When asked yesterday about his remarks, Mr Dreyfus said Labor would never support changes to section 18C of the ­Racial Discrimination Act.

“The consolidation of discrimination law was a policy of the Gillard Labor government,” he said. “My discussion of this issue last week was clearly hypothetical, and is not relevant to the current proposed changes to section 18C which will do nothing but weaken protections against racial hate speech in this country.”

Labor’s proposal has come to light at a time when the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with a surge in complaints by those claiming to have been ­offended and insulted under section 18C. Section 18C makes it unlawful to do anything that causes people to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethnic background.

Under a plan unveiled by Malcolm Turnbull and Attorney-General George Brandis this would be changed to eliminate what they have described as an unnecessary restriction on freedom of speech.

The proposed changes would impose liability only on those who intimidated or harassed others ­because of their race, colour or ­national or ethnic background. The government’s plan would also abandon the test for liability and require all disputes to be decided based on the standards of reasonable members of the community.

This would overturn the current arrangement in which judges are required to adopt the perspective of reasonable representatives of those who complain.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2017. All Rights Reserved.