HUMAN Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs should resign for allowing an untenable racial discrimination case against three Queensland university students to get as far as the Federal Court, a QC says.

Queensland University of Technology students Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell were being sued by Cindy Prior, an indigenous administration officer, under the Racial Discrimination Act’s controversial section 18C. The $250,000 lawsuit was thrown out by Brisbane’s Federal Court Judge Michael Jarrett on Friday after he found Ms Prior did not have reasonable prospects of successfully bringing a case against the trio.

Outside court, Mr Thwaites’ lawyer, Tony Morris QC, slammed Professor Triggs for allowing the case to get so far.

Mr Morris said Prof Triggs sat on the case against the students for 14 months before they were told a complaint had been made against them, and no inquiries were made.

He said the commissioner should have told Ms Prior there was no substance to her claim and dismissed the complaint.

“Triggs takes $400,000 a year out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country for a job she doesn’t bother to do,” Mr Morris said. “If the woman had any decency whatsoever, her resignation would be on the attorney-general’s desk on Monday.” Mr Thwaites said he was extremely relieved at the outcome and happy to be able to get on with his life.

Ms Prior was not in court for the judgment and is said to be facing a six-figure bill if the students recoup their legal costs from her.

She had argued she was unable to continue working face-to-face with white people following a series of Facebook posts made after Mr Wood was asked to leave an indigenous-only computer lab at the QUT in 2013.

“Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation,” he wrote.




–– ADVERTISEMENT ––iThe post attracted a number of responses, including one from Mr Powell who wrote: “I wonder where the white supremacist computer lab is.” Mr Thwaites is alleged to have written “ITT (N-word)” but has denied being responsible for the post.

Several other students have settled with Ms Prior out of court, reportedly for $5000 each, while QUT is still subject to a lawsuit.

The university released a statement late on Friday saying it was pleased the matter had been resolved “as far as the three students are concerned and regrets that the issue has taken so long to come to a conclusion for them”. The case has been a rallying point for opponents of 18C, which makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people. On Friday, Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson joined the growing number of voices calling a parliamentary inquiry into changing the law. Mr Paterson said while he was relieved the judge had found the students had no case to answer, they should never have endured such an appalling legal process. “This judgment doesn’t give them back that time, or their reputations, or the stress of having to endure these false allegations and defend themselves,” Mr Paterson said.

Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam said the Turnbull government could no longer stick its head in the sand on section 18C. “The proof that the human rights regime is damaged beyond repair is now plain for all to see,” Mr Roskam said.

Frank wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 3:19pm:


Of course it's not okay, it's ludicrous.

She lost her case, by the way.

Frank wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:


That's a tough one, old boy. What do mendacious old Lutherans add to our lives that nothing else has?

I'm curious.

18c should remove the words "offend" and "insult", but the reality is it doesn't preclude bigoted speech that isn't based on complete fabrications (as was the case with Bolt). Bill Leak wasn't gagged for his cartoons, despite the fact that we know they "offended" lots of Aboriginal people. I suspect you can pretty much say whatever racist vile rubbish you like as long as its not directly threatening someone. The sole exception to this of course is holocaust denial - which our own first law officer has stated is de-facto a case of racial vilification. And I'm certain removing the words "offend" and "insult" won't change this. But removing racial vilification laws entirely just to stop the gagging of holocaust denial is not the solution. In this case common sense should prevail and a legitimate historical debate about holocaust denial should not be considered racial vilification.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D

Exemptions
                   Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

                     (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

                     (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

                     (c)  in making or publishing:

                              (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

                             (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Karnal wrote on Dec 18^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:


Er....the Sydney Opera House was designed by a Lutheran. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 17^th, 2016 at 4:47pm:


Bolt lost his case Gandalf.