Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Should Brian Ross be permanently banned?

No    
  7 (35.0%)
Yes    
  10 (50.0%)
Only suspended for a time.    
  3 (15.0%)




Total votes: 20
« Created by: Lord Herbert on: Mar 11th, 2017 at 7:50pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Send Topic Print
first 18c threat against OzPolitic (Read 13412 times)
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #45 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action.

The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case.

The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence.


It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c.


The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #46 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:57am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia. The opinion that got him into jail was a matter of history. So our courts have been brought in by the HREOC to impose the dominant paradigm of thought on people.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Probably the best sex he's ever had.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 46879
At my desk.
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #47 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action.

The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case.

The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence.


It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c.


The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court.


Of course they are related. The court order was that he stop expressing his opinion. If he had self censored he would not have been jailed. He continued expressing his opinion, so he was put in jail. Expressing his opinion was the act that got him in jail. The court order did not change whether he is allowed to express his opinion. It merely increased the punishment beyond what the HREOC could impose in order to achieve compliance with the HREOC and section 18C. The bottom line is, 18C means we cannot promote an incorrect and unpopular version of history, and our legal system will impose whatever penalty is necessary to enforce this, including imprisonment. The court order was merely an expression of 18C.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #48 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:57am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia. The opinion that got him into jail was a matter of history. So our courts have been brought in by the HREOC to impose the dominant paradigm of thought on people.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Probably the best sex he's ever had.


Using the state as a tool to seek one's own agenda is akin to totalitarianism.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #49 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action.

The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case.

The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence.


It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c.


The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court.


Of course they are related. The court order was that he stop expressing his opinion. If he had self censored he would not have been jailed. He continued expressing his opinion, so he was put in jail. Expressing his opinion was the act that got him in jail. The court order did not change whether he is allowed to express his opinion. It merely increased the punishment beyond what the HREOC could impose in order to achieve compliance with the HREOC and section 18C. The bottom line is, 18C means we cannot promote an incorrect and unpopular version of history, and our legal system will impose whatever penalty is necessary to enforce this, including imprisonment. The court order was merely an expression of 18C.


Ok, so we need to be specific here. Did the court order that he take down his website? If so, would he have been allowed to propagate his views via another medium, such as in writing or otherwise. If the latter is no, then I agree the law goes beyond the limits of Freedom of Expression, in which case you and I agree.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #50 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:02am
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Thank you. I appreciate that.


I've been bailed up three times by both federal detectives and State detectives on the word of others, with each time being proved to be totally innocent of any wrong-doing. I can assure you it's not a pleasant experience, and 'fingering' someone for official policing action should not be thought of as a 'bit of a lark' or just a minor matter. 

When Ross returns here from the Dole Office I hope he'll have the decency to apologise to Yadda and promise to make a donation to a charity as penance for launching this melodrama. 

If we've all got to confine ourselves to Politically Correct posts, then this forum board may just as well be terminated for the same reason that Brian's own forum board is dead-in-the-water for not allowing anything other than feeble and lacklustre exchanges between the members.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:14am by Lord Herbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #51 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:07am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:02am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:20am:
Look, I appreciate your point of view. I wouldn't make that kind of threat or 'claim of intention' to anyone, and he should'n't have done it. I also don't think that his comments justify expulsion from this Forum.

I think he should apologize, but I guess he would be too stubborn to do that. Maybe you should create a poll asking if Brian should apologize. I would vote yes for it.


Good post. You're showing some willingness to compromise here.

I'll leave a new poll for Ross to organise.


Thank you. I appreciate that.


I've been bailed up three times by both federal detectives and State detectives on the word of others, with each time being proved to be totally innocent of any wrong-doing. I can assure you it's not a pleasant experience, and 'fingering' someone for official policing action should not be thought of as a bit of a lark or just a minor matter. 

When Ross returns here from the Dole Office I hope he'll have the decency to apologise to Yadda and promise to make a donation to a charity as penance for launching this melodrama. 


Ok, based on your experience, I can understand why you're understandably upset and concerned.

I suppose my own knowledge of what goes on in this regard is a bit limited. I agree then that it's an issue, and that the Government should do more to protect Freedom of Speech. As a Libertarian, I defend Free Speech, and that the limits of it should be a narrow as possible, certainly not a 'tip off' from someone.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 46879
At my desk.
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #52 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action.

The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case.

The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence.


It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c.


The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court.


Of course they are related. The court order was that he stop expressing his opinion. If he had self censored he would not have been jailed. He continued expressing his opinion, so he was put in jail. Expressing his opinion was the act that got him in jail. The court order did not change whether he is allowed to express his opinion. It merely increased the punishment beyond what the HREOC could impose in order to achieve compliance with the HREOC and section 18C. The bottom line is, 18C means we cannot promote an incorrect and unpopular version of history, and our legal system will impose whatever penalty is necessary to enforce this, including imprisonment. The court order was merely an expression of 18C.


Ok, so we need to be specific here. Did the court order that he take down his website? If so, would he have been allowed to propagate his views via another medium, such as in writing or otherwise. If the latter is no, then I agree the law goes beyond the limits of Freedom of Expression, in which case you and I agree.


He was not ordered to take down his website. He was ordered to stop saying certain things on it. The court took it upon itself, under the auspices of 18C, to impose what opinions he could express on his own website.

Not sure if he was allowed to express his opinions elsewhere, and I don't think it makes a difference to whether this violates freedom of expression.

Nor can you justify saying it is not a limitation on freedom of expression if he was ordered to take down his own website because of his opinions on it. It is no different to the government banning a book because of the opinions in it, but making no specific rulings on whether the author is allowed to write another book.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #53 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:15am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action.

The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case.

The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence.


It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c.


The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court.


Of course they are related. The court order was that he stop expressing his opinion. If he had self censored he would not have been jailed. He continued expressing his opinion, so he was put in jail. Expressing his opinion was the act that got him in jail. The court order did not change whether he is allowed to express his opinion. It merely increased the punishment beyond what the HREOC could impose in order to achieve compliance with the HREOC and section 18C. The bottom line is, 18C means we cannot promote an incorrect and unpopular version of history, and our legal system will impose whatever penalty is necessary to enforce this, including imprisonment. The court order was merely an expression of 18C.


Ok, so we need to be specific here. Did the court order that he take down his website? If so, would he have been allowed to propagate his views via another medium, such as in writing or otherwise. If the latter is no, then I agree the law goes beyond the limits of Freedom of Expression, in which case you and I agree.


He was not ordered to take down his website. He was ordered to stop saying certain things on it. The court took it upon itself, under the auspices of 18C, to impose what opinions he could express on his own website.

Not sure if he was allowed to express his opinions elsewhere, and I don't think it makes a difference to whether this violates freedom of expression.

Nor can you justify saying it is not a limitation on freedom of expression if he was ordered to take down his own website because of his opinions on it. It is no different to the government banning a book because of the opinions in it, but making no specific rulings on whether the author is allowed to write another book.


I agree that it was a 'limitation' but you and I need to be specific about what is going on here. We're not sure that it was a blanket ban on his views.

Ultimately, the issue is whether or not that case and this case, the Brian Ross case, have any equivalence; and I don't believe that they do.

As I stated in a previous post, I don't condone what Brian said, and I believe he should apologize for it. After that, let's move on.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 46879
At my desk.
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #54 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:26am
 
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:15am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action.

The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case.

The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence.


It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c.


The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court.


Of course they are related. The court order was that he stop expressing his opinion. If he had self censored he would not have been jailed. He continued expressing his opinion, so he was put in jail. Expressing his opinion was the act that got him in jail. The court order did not change whether he is allowed to express his opinion. It merely increased the punishment beyond what the HREOC could impose in order to achieve compliance with the HREOC and section 18C. The bottom line is, 18C means we cannot promote an incorrect and unpopular version of history, and our legal system will impose whatever penalty is necessary to enforce this, including imprisonment. The court order was merely an expression of 18C.


Ok, so we need to be specific here. Did the court order that he take down his website? If so, would he have been allowed to propagate his views via another medium, such as in writing or otherwise. If the latter is no, then I agree the law goes beyond the limits of Freedom of Expression, in which case you and I agree.


He was not ordered to take down his website. He was ordered to stop saying certain things on it. The court took it upon itself, under the auspices of 18C, to impose what opinions he could express on his own website.

Not sure if he was allowed to express his opinions elsewhere, and I don't think it makes a difference to whether this violates freedom of expression.

Nor can you justify saying it is not a limitation on freedom of expression if he was ordered to take down his own website because of his opinions on it. It is no different to the government banning a book because of the opinions in it, but making no specific rulings on whether the author is allowed to write another book.


I agree that it was a 'limitation' but you and I need to be specific about what is going on here. We're not sure that it was a blanket ban on his views.

Ultimately, the issue is whether or not that case and this case, the Brian Ross case, have any equivalence; and I don't believe that they do.

As I stated in a previous post, I don't condone what Brian said, and I believe he should apologize for it. After that, let's move on.


It was not a blanket ban. It was a ban on specific views. Holocaust denial in particular was one of them. He was still allowed to offer an opinion on which breakfast cereal tastes best.

The wording of the ruling is hopelessly legalistic and convoluted, as you would expect from something born of 18c, but that is the consensus on what it meant for his right to express his opinion.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #55 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:45am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:26am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:15am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:41am:
His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.

I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true.


Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action.

The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case.

The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence.


It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c.


The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court.


Of course they are related. The court order was that he stop expressing his opinion. If he had self censored he would not have been jailed. He continued expressing his opinion, so he was put in jail. Expressing his opinion was the act that got him in jail. The court order did not change whether he is allowed to express his opinion. It merely increased the punishment beyond what the HREOC could impose in order to achieve compliance with the HREOC and section 18C. The bottom line is, 18C means we cannot promote an incorrect and unpopular version of history, and our legal system will impose whatever penalty is necessary to enforce this, including imprisonment. The court order was merely an expression of 18C.


Ok, so we need to be specific here. Did the court order that he take down his website? If so, would he have been allowed to propagate his views via another medium, such as in writing or otherwise. If the latter is no, then I agree the law goes beyond the limits of Freedom of Expression, in which case you and I agree.


He was not ordered to take down his website. He was ordered to stop saying certain things on it. The court took it upon itself, under the auspices of 18C, to impose what opinions he could express on his own website.

Not sure if he was allowed to express his opinions elsewhere, and I don't think it makes a difference to whether this violates freedom of expression.

Nor can you justify saying it is not a limitation on freedom of expression if he was ordered to take down his own website because of his opinions on it. It is no different to the government banning a book because of the opinions in it, but making no specific rulings on whether the author is allowed to write another book.


I agree that it was a 'limitation' but you and I need to be specific about what is going on here. We're not sure that it was a blanket ban on his views.

Ultimately, the issue is whether or not that case and this case, the Brian Ross case, have any equivalence; and I don't believe that they do.

As I stated in a previous post, I don't condone what Brian said, and I believe he should apologize for it. After that, let's move on.


It was not a blanket ban. It was a ban on specific views. Holocaust denial in particular was one of them. He was still allowed to offer an opinion on which breakfast cereal tastes best.

The wording of the ruling is hopelessly legalistic and convoluted, as you would expect from something born of 18c, but that is the consensus on what it meant for his right to express his opinion.


Ok, let's leave at that. There's no point going on about a legal case we can't change. We both agree that the 18C needs to be revised. That's all that matters.

Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 39679
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #56 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:51am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 12:10am:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Tsk, tsk, so saying that one poster offends me, suddenly turns me into a "social justice warrior"?

I wonder what that makes the people who get offended by Muslims/Indigenous Australians/Immigrants/Asylum Seekers/etc.?

Yadda, I will be contacting the Human Rights Commission tomorrow morning.  Lets see what they have to say.  FD, I hope you are prepared to surrender Yadda's IP number to the Australian Federal Police when they come a'callin'?    Roll Eyes


Are you happy now, Gillian Triggs? And you, Tim Soutphommasane, race pimp and sinecured Labor hack, what are you saying in private about the man you abused with the full weight of the misplaced trust and budget Australians invest in your filthy Human Rights Commission? Bill Leak, the Australian cartoonist and a man worth a hundred of each of you, is dead, carried off by a heart attack at the age of 61.

How do you feel about that, you pair of trough-snouters and gold-plated apparatchiks. Are you suppressing grins? You should be because this is more than you could have expected.

You wanted to silence him, to grind the slashing blade of his humour to a dull edge with your sanctions and harassment and point-blank refusal to recognise truth, even when it bit you on the arse.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/03/bill-leak-persecutors/

These are the people Brian Buffoon instinctively turns to, the bloody ratbag.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #57 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:51am
 
Being threatened at least gives one a warning, which then allows for the option to discuss and negotiate, but just to come out like a bolt from the blue with assurances of getting you into trouble with the law because your opinions are not 'halal' with the Muslim community - is beyond the pale and counter-productive to open and honest discourse on a forum board.

I want to see Brian prostrate himself and ask for Yadda's forgiveness.

Esther 4:1 ... "When Mordecai Brian learned of all that had been done, he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the city, wailing loudly and bitterly".

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #58 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:01am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:51am:
Being threatened at least gives one a warning, which then allows for the option to discuss and negotiate, but just to come out like a bolt from the blue with assurances of getting you into trouble with the law because your opinions are not 'halal' with the Muslim community - is beyond the pale and counter-productive to open and honest discourse on a forum board.

I want to see Brian prostrate himself and ask for Yadda's forgiveness.

Esther 4:1 ... "When Mordecai Brian learned of all that had been done, he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the city, wailing loudly and bitterly".



Prostration and begging for forgiveness would not be accepted by Brian. I think a simple statement of apology should be sufficient for purposes of this forum.

I think in future, instead of responding to Brian posts, just ignore him; or respond to my posts instead (until you get sick of me) - I'm more willing to be centrist on issues.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #59 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:03am
 
Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:51am:
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 12:10am:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Tsk, tsk, so saying that one poster offends me, suddenly turns me into a "social justice warrior"?

I wonder what that makes the people who get offended by Muslims/Indigenous Australians/Immigrants/Asylum Seekers/etc.?

Yadda, I will be contacting the Human Rights Commission tomorrow morning.  Lets see what they have to say.  FD, I hope you are prepared to surrender Yadda's IP number to the Australian Federal Police when they come a'callin'?    Roll Eyes


Are you happy now, Gillian Triggs? And you, Tim Soutphommasane, race pimp and sinecured Labor hack, what are you saying in private about the man you abused with the full weight of the misplaced trust and budget Australians invest in your filthy Human Rights Commission? Bill Leak, the Australian cartoonist and a man worth a hundred of each of you, is dead, carried off by a heart attack at the age of 61.

How do you feel about that, you pair of trough-snouters and gold-plated apparatchiks. Are you suppressing grins? You should be because this is more than you could have expected.

You wanted to silence him, to grind the slashing blade of his humour to a dull edge with your sanctions and harassment and point-blank refusal to recognise truth, even when it bit you on the arse.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/03/bill-leak-persecutors/

These are the people Brian Buffoon instinctively turns to, the bloody ratbag.



No need to get carried away. It's not like he's started World War 3.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Send Topic Print