Australian Politics Forum - Threat to freedom of speech isn't 18c

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Threat to freedom of speech isn't 18c
Reply #45 - Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:52pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Threat to freedom of speech isn't 18c
Reply #46 - Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:55pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Threat to freedom of speech isn't 18c
Reply #47 - Dec 17^th, 2016 at 2:58pm

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