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 
Send Topic Print
first 18c threat against OzPolitic (Read 5608 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Feb 12th, 2017 at 7:53am
 
Be careful what opinions you express here.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 11:36pm:
Yadda, I don't care what you feel or believe.  You have offended me and I am raising a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.   You will be summonsed to appear before the Human Rights Commission.   You will have to defend your remarks after they have been examined. 

Quote:
And it is disingenuous for you to suggest that you are at loss to understand my feelings towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia,       when i have on many occasions [here on OzPol] explained at length, why i do feel that my animosity towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia, is justified.
 

You may feel it is but do I?  Nope.   I am offended.   We shall have to see what the Human Rights Commission has to say on the topic.   Hopefully you will be held responsible for your comments and claims about Muslims.   They are disgusting comments.  They deserve for you to be punished under the law.

Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16513
A cat with a view
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #1 - Feb 12th, 2017 at 7:55am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 7:53am:
Be careful what opinions you express here.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 11:36pm:
Yadda, I don't care what you feel or believe.  You have offended me and I am raising a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.   You will be summonsed to appear before the Human Rights Commission.   You will have to defend your remarks after they have been examined. 

Quote:
And it is disingenuous for you to suggest that you are at loss to understand my feelings towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia,       when i have on many occasions [here on OzPol] explained at length, why i do feel that my animosity towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia, is justified.
 

You may feel it is but do I?  Nope.   I am offended.   We shall have to see what the Human Rights Commission has to say on the topic.   Hopefully you will be held responsible for your comments and claims about Muslims.   They are disgusting comments.  They deserve for you to be punished under the law.






To Brian_Ross, et al,     i say,      Bring it on!


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13169
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #2 - Feb 12th, 2017 at 8:33am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 7:53am:
Be careful what opinions you express here.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 11:36pm:
Yadda, I don't care what you feel or believe.  You have offended me and I am raising a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.   You will be summonsed to appear before the Human Rights Commission.   You will have to defend your remarks after they have been examined. 

Quote:
And it is disingenuous for you to suggest that you are at loss to understand my feelings towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia,       when i have on many occasions [here on OzPol] explained at length, why i do feel that my animosity towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia, is justified.
 

You may feel it is but do I?  Nope.   I am offended.   We shall have to see what the Human Rights Commission has to say on the topic.   Hopefully you will be held responsible for your comments and claims about Muslims.   They are disgusting comments.  They deserve for you to be punished under the law.





The battle cry of the Social Justice Warrior.

Fukkn lefty wankers.  Grin Grin Grin Grin

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 9602
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #3 - Feb 12th, 2017 at 8:37am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 7:53am:
Be careful what opinions you express here.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 11:36pm:
Yadda, I don't care what you feel or believe.  You have offended me and I am raising a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.   You will be summonsed to appear before the Human Rights Commission.   You will have to defend your remarks after they have been examined. 

Quote:
And it is disingenuous for you to suggest that you are at loss to understand my feelings towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia,       when i have on many occasions [here on OzPol] explained at length, why i do feel that my animosity towards moslems and the moslem community in Australia, is justified.
 

You may feel it is but do I?  Nope.   I am offended.   We shall have to see what the Human Rights Commission has to say on the topic.   Hopefully you will be held responsible for your comments and claims about Muslims.   They are disgusting comments.  They deserve for you to be punished under the law.



Since it's Brian we only have to watch what we say about Islam because he would like us to have Islamic Blasphemy laws just like Saudi Arabia-Pakistan and Iran where people are frequently executed for criticising Islam.

Brian has no problem whith Christian or Jew bashing he only wants to stop people criticising Islam. Cool
Back to top
 

If you speak of the harms of 1-2 centuries of European imperialism but ignore 1-2 millennia of Turk-Arab imperialism you are the problem.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Online


Bored with racism/Islamophobia/
Xenophobia

Posts: 14599
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #4 - Feb 13th, 2017 at 12:10am
 
...

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
Back to top
 

Quote:
Quote:
Answer the question, [you know who].   How many Muslims do you know personally?

I don't know Brian. I only know the religious views of a fraction of the people I know.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16513
A cat with a view
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #5 - Feb 13th, 2017 at 10:07am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 12:10am:

Yadda, I will be contacting the Human Rights Commission tomorrow morning.  Lets see what they have to say.




Brian, this is going to be the basis of my argument/defence....



Reason dictates......

Every moslem, is a moslem.

A moslem is a follower of ISLAM.       < -------- dictionary definition.



Google;
Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim

"There is no god except for Allah alone; and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."


By definition, every moslem is a follower of what ISLAM endorses, promotes, and encourages.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1484729546/1#1
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1484729546/11#11



Moslems living in Australia, live within a secular nation, a secular nation ruled by secular laws.

And yet, moslems who live in Australia,        choose to associate themselves with ISLAM,           and by definition, moslems who live in Australia choose to associate themselves with what ISLAM demonstrably promotes.
.......in ISLAM's tenets and doctrines.



Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #6 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:40pm
 
Any limitations on Free Speech should meet the following standard: there should be a threat of imminent lawlessness or physical harm as a result of the speech. This is loosely known as 'fighting words.'

In the case of an internet forum, there's no risk of 'imminent lawlessness' or physical violence.

Offending a person should not be criminalized.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10995
ACT
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #7 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:51pm
 
Good advice freediver!

We are not exempt from the law on here!

Like it or Not some members should pull there heads in!



Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #8 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:00pm
 
Who else do you think should get sued for their opinion Red?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10995
ACT
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #9 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:10pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:00pm:
Who else do you think should get sued for their opinion Red?


I dont know freediver but I am sure some skate close to the wind after what happened to those students at the Queensland University for a far more trivial thing being said than some say on here!

It is only a matter of time I reckon even if Brian is just all BS about reporting it!

I really think the 18C laws do need  downgrading in my opinion after that QLD UNI nonsense!




Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6612
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #10 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:50pm
 

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

             (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

                     (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

                     (b)  is done in a public place; or

                     (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

             (3)  In this section:

"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.


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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10995
ACT
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #11 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:01pm
 
Perhaps

Brian Tsk Tsk

or

Aussie The Lawyer

can explain all that to us in regards to Brian Tsk Tsks threat to report a post!

Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #12 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:08pm
 
Redmond Neck wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
Perhaps

Brian Tsk Tsk

or

Aussie The Lawyer

can explain all that to us in regards to Brian Tsk Tsks threat to report a post!



Ima not coming into this.  Effendi will know if Mr Ross has been able to interest 'Triggs.'
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10995
ACT
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #13 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:38pm
 
Frank wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:50pm:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
                             (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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html


So were the Qld university students comments fair comments?




Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16513
A cat with a view
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #14 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 7:16pm
 
Frank wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:50pm:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

......

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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html





.



Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1486851017/14#14
Quote:
The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 9:50am:

As for what can be said in a public forum,

I've seen posts from your right wingers with death threats against many minority groups

so presumably anything goes.





You are mistaken, 'anything' does not 'go', on a public forum such as this.

But arguments and opinions, based in truth,         and arguments and opinions based in reason, with supporting evidences, should be lawful, imo.

If they are not, then bring it to a court of law to be tested.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #15 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 7:49pm
 
Brian has just crossed the line on this forum board by going 'A Bridge Too Far' with threats of taking someone to court for expressing candid opinions about a certain immigrant community in Australia.

This is the same Brian Ross whose own forum board is so bereft of members because of his draconian rules that he has to hypocritically spend most of his time here at OzPolitic where the rules are far more tolerant and liberal.

I vote to ban him permanently from this board NOT because of his own views, but because he has appointed himself to be a snitch and a stooge to a government department that wants to censor freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet.

I'm putting up a poll.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #16 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 7:50pm
 
The poll is as above.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #17 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:07pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 7:50pm:
The poll is as above.


I think Brian Ross was kidding. Besides, he doesn't have a case. The Human Rights Commission wouldn't waste their time with an internet forum.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #18 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:10pm
 
Herbert......

Quote:
I vote to ban him permanently from this board NOT because of his own views, but because he has appointed himself to be a snitch and a stooge to a government department that wants to censor freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet.


Do you realise how self contradictory that post is?  You want him banned because you want to censor his freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet because...you say......he is draconian about it at his own Forum.

Cheesy

Anyway....this Feedback Sub-Forum is not the place to discuss a ban, Herbert, so no more here from me.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6612
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #19 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:43pm
 
Redmond Neck wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:38pm:
Frank wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:50pm:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
                             (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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html


So were the Qld university students comments fair comments?





yes.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Peace \/ man

Posts: 12621
Northern NSW
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #20 - Mar 11th, 2017 at 10:55pm
 
Frank wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:43pm:
Redmond Neck wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:38pm:
Frank wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:50pm:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
                             (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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html


So were the Qld university students comments fair comments?





yes.


Yes.
Back to top
 

nu ninda an ezzateni watar ma ekuteni
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #21 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02am
 
Aussie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Herbert......

Do you realise how self contradictory that post is?  You want him banned because you want to censor his freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet ...


Nonsense.

He crossed the line when he announced he would arrange for a member here to suffer penalties at law for expressing opinions about our Muslim community.

It's going way beyond the pale of Free Speech on a forum board when someone states that he intends to lodge proceedings against a member whose opinions he disagrees with. Threatening to do so is one thing, but making assurances that he will contact the relevant authorities to have them prosecute a case against Yadda - is in a very different ballpark.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 15823
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #22 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:12am
 
Sounds like a threat to breach the privacy rule.
Back to top
 

Wokka Wokka Wokka
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #23 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:31am
 
Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:12am:
Sounds like a threat to breach the privacy rule.



There's that too.

No promises by him to have gregg and John Smith brought to account with the relevant authorities for publicly vilifying, demeaning, and belittling Bobby with 'homophobic' accusations of his being gay.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Marla
Gold Member
*****
Online


American Central Dust

Posts: 5943
Colorado
Gender: female
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #24 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:36am
 
...and don't over look Blooby's autism.
Back to top
 

You're like a picture on the fridge that's never stocked with food
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #25 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:12am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02am:
Aussie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Herbert......

Do you realise how self contradictory that post is?  You want him banned because you want to censor his freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet ...


Nonsense.

He crossed the line when he announced he would arrange for a member here to suffer penalties at law for expressing opinions about our Muslim community.

It's going way beyond the pale of Free Speech on a forum board when someone states that he intends to lodge proceedings against a member whose opinions he disagrees with. Threatening to do so is one thing, but making assurances that he will contact the relevant authorities to have them prosecute a case against Yadda - is in a very different ballpark.


It was A joke.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #26 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14am
 
Marla wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:36am:
...and don't over look Blooby's autism.


QUIET, Americanette!

Shouldn't you be on Spring Holiday in Florida with all the rest of them?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #27 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:15am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:12am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02am:
Aussie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Herbert......

Do you realise how self contradictory that post is?  You want him banned because you want to censor his freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet ...


Nonsense.

He crossed the line when he announced he would arrange for a member here to suffer penalties at law for expressing opinions about our Muslim community.

It's going way beyond the pale of Free Speech on a forum board when someone states that he intends to lodge proceedings against a member whose opinions he disagrees with. Threatening to do so is one thing, but making assurances that he will contact the relevant authorities to have them prosecute a case against Yadda - is in a very different ballpark.


It was A joke.


From what do you make that groundless assumption?

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #28 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:22am
 
Frank wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:50pm:
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

             (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

                     (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

                     (b)  is done in a public place; or

                     (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

             (3)  In this section:

"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.


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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html


That's reassuring. BTW, who gets to decide what is reasonable?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #29 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:30am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:15am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:12am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02am:
Aussie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Herbert......

Do you realise how self contradictory that post is?  You want him banned because you want to censor his freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet ...


Nonsense.

He crossed the line when he announced he would arrange for a member here to suffer penalties at law for expressing opinions about our Muslim community.

It's going way beyond the pale of Free Speech on a forum board when someone states that he intends to lodge proceedings against a member whose opinions he disagrees with. Threatening to do so is one thing, but making assurances that he will contact the relevant authorities to have them prosecute a case against Yadda - is in a very different ballpark.


It was A joke.


From what do you make that groundless assumption?



Because a person like Brian Ross wouldn't waste his time bringing such an issue to the Human Commission. He has better things to do. He's just stirring you up, and it seems to have worked. Besides, the HRC isn't going to care about what goes on (on) an internet forum. I would humbly request that you cease this nonsense.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #30 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:32am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:22am:
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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html


That's reassuring. BTW, who gets to decide what is reasonable?


The highlighted wording is so rampant with opportunities for subjective interpretation and screwing around with what the offender intended and what he didn't - that it would almost be impossible to get a conviction.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13169
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #31 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:41am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:30am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:15am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:12am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02am:
Aussie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Herbert......

Do you realise how self contradictory that post is?  You want him banned because you want to censor his freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet ...


Nonsense.

He crossed the line when he announced he would arrange for a member here to suffer penalties at law for expressing opinions about our Muslim community.

It's going way beyond the pale of Free Speech on a forum board when someone states that he intends to lodge proceedings against a member whose opinions he disagrees with. Threatening to do so is one thing, but making assurances that he will contact the relevant authorities to have them prosecute a case against Yadda - is in a very different ballpark.


It was A joke.


From what do you make that groundless assumption?



Because a person like Brian Ross wouldn't waste his time bringing such an issue to the Human Commission. He has better things to do. He's just stirring you up, and it seems to have worked. Besides, the HRC isn't going to care about what goes on (on) an internet forum. I would humbly request that you cease this nonsense.



But they cared about a short private conversation in a study room in a second rate university, so why not a public forum?


Firstly don't threaten someone unless you intend to carry out that threat

Secondly, if you are not known for your jocularity and intend on making a 'joke' use a fkken smiley face to show your intent.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #32 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:46am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:30am:
Because a person like Brian Ross wouldn't waste his time bringing such an issue to the Human Commission.

He has better things to do.


He had time to give Yadda some concern about being reported to a government authority.

Threatening is one thing, but assuring someone that he fully intends to report him as having breached the 18c laws is no joke and not a matter to be taken lightly.

AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:30am:
He's just stirring you up, and it seems to have worked.


Unless you're a Brian Ross sock you know no such thing.





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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #33 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:47am
 
BigOl64 wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:41am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:30am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:15am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:12am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02am:
Aussie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 8:10pm:
Herbert......

Do you realise how self contradictory that post is?  You want him banned because you want to censor his freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet ...


Nonsense.

He crossed the line when he announced he would arrange for a member here to suffer penalties at law for expressing opinions about our Muslim community.

It's going way beyond the pale of Free Speech on a forum board when someone states that he intends to lodge proceedings against a member whose opinions he disagrees with. Threatening to do so is one thing, but making assurances that he will contact the relevant authorities to have them prosecute a case against Yadda - is in a very different ballpark.


It was A joke.


From what do you make that groundless assumption?



Because a person like Brian Ross wouldn't waste his time bringing such an issue to the Human Commission. He has better things to do. He's just stirring you up, and it seems to have worked. Besides, the HRC isn't going to care about what goes on (on) an internet forum. I would humbly request that you cease this nonsense.



But they cared about a short private conversation in a study room in a second rate university, so why not a public forum?


Firstly don't threaten someone unless you intend to carry out that threat

Secondly, if you are not known for your jocularity and intend on making a 'joke' use a fkken smiley face to show your intent.



I'm not familiar with the specific case you're talking about. Even if the HRC did care, they shouldn't and this is a reflection of their social justice warrior streak. A university is a place for expression, as is a forum.

No court of law would take seriously what anyone on this forum would say, unless (I presume) there was clear evidence of a process of organizing and recruiting people to carry out violence (which there isn't). I would be extremely surprised if any court of law took seriously what people said in an internet forum.

Second, a joke probably isn't the correct term I should use. Brian Ross likes being provocative. I understand how such a threat could come across as disconcerting to yourself, given the 18C of the Act; I'd probably be worried for a few days if someone made a threat like that. In reality, however, making Islamphobic comments (and I don't know you well enough on this forum to make that assertion about you) is quite different to the Andrew Bolt case.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #34 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:49am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:46am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:30am:
Because a person like Brian Ross wouldn't waste his time bringing such an issue to the Human Commission.

He has better things to do.


He had time to give Yadda some concern about being reported to a government authority.

Threatening is one thing, but assuring someone that he fully intends to report him as having breached the 18c laws is no joke and not a matter to be taken lightly.

AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:30am:
He's just stirring you up, and it seems to have worked.


Unless you're a Brian Ross sock you know no such thing.


Even if he was serious, I highly doubt that any court would take seriously such a claim.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #35 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:14am
 
BigOl64 wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:41am:
Firstly don't threaten someone unless you intend to carry out that threat.


Here's the distinction - Ross didn't threaten, but gave assurances in two posts as to what he intended to do.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am by Lord Herbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #36 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:15am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:49am:
Even if he was serious, I highly doubt that any court would take seriously such a claim.


That's not the issue here.



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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #37 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:20am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:15am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:49am:
Even if he was serious, I highly doubt that any court would take seriously such a claim.


That's not the issue here.





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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #38 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:21am
 
Quote:
Because a person like Brian Ross wouldn't waste his time bringing such an issue to the Human Commission. He has better things to do. He's just stirring you up, and it seems to have worked. Besides, the HRC isn't going to care about what goes on (on) an internet forum. I would humbly request that you cease this nonsense.


I think it is more likely that the HRC, despite their flaws, had the sense to ignore Brian's complaint. I assure you Brian does not have better things to do. After all, he apparently has a doctor of divinity.

Quote:
The highlighted wording is so rampant with opportunities for subjective interpretation and screwing around with what the offender intended and what he didn't - that it would almost be impossible to get a conviction.


And yet their have been plenty, because the ambiguity works in the HRC's favour. They can pick and choose how to impose themselves on those they disagree with. And even where there is not a conviction, spending a fortune on a lawyer alone is a strong enough incentive for most to self-censor.

Quote:
No court of law would take seriously what anyone on this forum would say, unless (I presume) there was clear evidence of a process of organizing and recruiting people to carry out violence (which there isn't). I would be extremely surprised if any court of law took seriously what people said in an internet forum.


Australian courts jailed Gerald Fredrick Toben for his opinion on matters of modern history, published on a website far less popular than this one, with no evidence at all of violent intent or organisation.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #39 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:36am
 
Quote:
Australian courts jailed Gerald Fredrick Toben for his opinion on matters of modern history, published on a website far less popular than this one, with no evidence at all of violent intent or organisation.


Ok, I just looked up briefly the case regarding Toben. He was jailed in Germany. In Germany they have specific laws against that sort of stuff. He also appeared before a magistrate in London. How did the Australian courts jail him?

He was jailed in Australia for 3 months for 'contempt of court' not because of what he wrote.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #40 - 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.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #41 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #42 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am
 
AugCaesarustus 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.

Both our politician Conway and the United Nations have wanted to censor the balls off freedom of speech on the Internet, and it should grieve us all to witness Brian Ross helping in this regard.

It's time he came out from under his rock and made a Statement of Retraction and Regret here for all to see.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #43 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am
 
AugCaesarustus 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. His expression of his opinion was the act that landed him in jail.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #44 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am:
AugCaesarustus 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #45 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
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: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #47 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
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
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #49 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #50 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:02am
 
AugCaesarustus 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
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #51 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:07am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:02am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #52 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #53 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:15am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #54 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:26am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:15am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #55 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:45am
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:26am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:15am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:10am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:01am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:51am:
AugCaesarustus 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
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6612
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
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
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
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
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
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
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
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #60 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:08am
 
Gee, you are getting desperate now Soren.  It is the fault of Triggs and the HRC that a schmedia person died.  Call in Plod, quickly!   We cannot let cold blooded killers stay free, can we.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6612
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #61 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:32am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on 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.



Why ignore a fascist buffoon like Brian?? Why give him a free pass?? Because he is threatening you with Tim Jong-un?
...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #62 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:43am
 
Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:32am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on 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.



Why ignore a fascist buffoon like Brian?? Why give him a free pass?? Because he is threatening you with Tim Jong-un?
http://www.billleak.com.au/uploads/2/4/5/5/24558836/20-10-2016-tim-jong-un-galle...


He's definitely not fascist.

I'm not giving him a pass. He should apologise.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9602
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #63 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:48am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 7:49pm:
This is the same Brian Ross whose own forum board is so bereft of members because of his draconian rules that he has to hypocritically spend most of his time here at OzPolitic where the rules are far more tolerant and liberal.

I vote to ban him permanently from this board NOT because of his own views, but because he has appointed himself to be a snitch and a stooge to a government department that wants to censor freedom of speech in the market place and on the internet.

I'm putting up a poll.



Looking at the poll results the tribe has spoken, time to boot Brian's sorry ass from this forum.  Smiley
Back to top
 

If you speak of the harms of 1-2 centuries of European imperialism but ignore 1-2 millennia of Turk-Arab imperialism you are the problem.
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #64 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:50am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:43am:
He's definitely not fascist.

I'm not giving him a pass. He should apologise.


If he wasn't a fascist he would have a thriving forum board instead of the one he has which has been totally stultified by rigid and uncompromising rules.

Stultify: cause to lose enthusiasm and initiative, especially as a result of a tedious or restrictive routine.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #65 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:54am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:50am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:43am:
He's definitely not fascist.

I'm not giving him a pass. He should apologise.


If he wasn't a fascist he would have a thriving forum board instead of the one he has which has been totally stultified by rigid and uncompromising rules.

Stultify: cause to lose enthusiasm and initiative, especially as a result of a tedious or restrictive routine.


I say not a fascist because he's not right wing. If you want to accuse him of totalitarianism, then use that word; or call him a Stalinist, if you want to be ideological because he's a leftist.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #66 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:58am
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:50am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:43am:
He's definitely not fascist.

I'm not giving him a pass. He should apologise.


If he wasn't a fascist he would have a thriving forum board instead of the one he has which has been totally stultified by rigid and uncompromising rules.

Stultify: cause to lose enthusiasm and initiative, especially as a result of a tedious or restrictive routine.


Totalitarian may be too strong a word. Authoritarian may more suitable if you choose to describe him as such.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #67 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:01pm
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:48am:
Looking at the poll results the tribe has spoken, time to boot Brian's sorry ass from this forum.  Smiley


Bye Bye Bye ...


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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #68 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:05pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:01pm:
Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:48am:
Looking at the poll results the tribe has spoken, time to boot Brian's sorry ass from this forum.  Smiley


Bye Bye Bye ...




I thought we agreed to have a poll about him apologising? Are you reneging on our agreement? Are you abrogating the earlier agreement?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #69 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:07pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:05pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:01pm:
Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 11:48am:
Looking at the poll results the tribe has spoken, time to boot Brian's sorry ass from this forum.  Smiley


Bye Bye Bye ...




I thought we agreed to have a poll about him apologising? Are you reneging on our agreement? Are you abrogating the earlier agreement?


Immediately following your suggestion I said let him set up the poll himself.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #70 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm
 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #71 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm
 
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6612
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #72 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:16pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.

Someone who threatens another on these boards with 18C and Timmie should be booted, on principle, as the enemy of free speech.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Redmond Neck
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 10995
ACT
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #73 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:19pm
 
Tsk Tsk Bwian!

You have gone too far you leftie ratbag c....!

Ban the barrstard  freediver!

Enough is enough and I am not going to take it anymore!!  Angry Angry Angry Angry

Back to top
 

The Scam The Government Providers -
Job Services Australia (4 Corners 23/2/15)
Private Health Insurance
Family Day Care
My Aged Care
NDIS
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #74 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:28pm
 
Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:16pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.

Someone who threatens another on these boards with 18C and Timmie should be booted, on principle, as the enemy of free speech.


As opposed to people like you who want to stifle his free speech and expression by booting him off.

It will not matter what the Poll outcome is...Membership here is not based on popularity.  If it was, there would not be many left standing.

Careful what you wish for.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #75 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:46pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


Free speech and expression comes with the risk of negative consequences as Brian is now finding out.

Yadda is not a confessed paedophile, or serial killer, or rapist, or arsonist, or escaped prisoner, or Muslim terrorist, and as such he deserves better than to be targeted by Brian Ross in the way he has.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #76 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:50pm
 
Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:16pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.

Someone who threatens another on these boards with 18C and Timmie should be booted, on principle, as the enemy of free speech.


Mmm. Who does that sound like?

Stalin.... Hitler....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #77 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:51pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:46pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


Free speech and expression comes with the risk of negative consequences as Brian is now finding out.

Yadda is not a confessed paedophile, or serial killer, or rapist, or arsonist, or escaped prisoner, or Muslim terrorist, and as such he deserves better than to be targeted by Brian Ross in the way he has.


If Brian has called him those things (which is unacceptable), then this would fall under 'defamation.' Obviously, Yadda has been defamed on this forum, which accounts for nothing really.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6612
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #78 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:53pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:22am:
Frank wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:50pm:
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

             (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

                     (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

                     (b)  is done in a public place; or

                     (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

             (3)  In this section:

"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.


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.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html


That's reassuring. BTW, who gets to decide what is reasonable?



Timmie Jong-un, of course. For a third of a million dollars a year.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 15823
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #79 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:57pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


I'd say it constitutes a direct threat to another member which is against the rules.
Back to top
 

Wokka Wokka Wokka
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #80 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:57pm
 
Quote:
That's reassuring. BTW, who gets to decide what is reasonable?


A Court.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #81 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:04pm
 
Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:57pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


I'd say it constitutes a direct threat to another member which is against the rules.


It wasn't a physical threat and nothing has happened, and nothing will happen. If something happens, then we can decide what to do.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #82 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:08pm
 
The decision of the People's Court has reached a verdict.

61.5% to 23.1% in favour of exile to Devil's Island ~ The penal colony of Cayenne, commonly known as Devil's Island, was a famous prison of the 19th and 20th century off the coast of French Guiana.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #83 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:13pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:04pm:
Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:57pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


I'd say it constitutes a direct threat to another member which is against the rules.


It wasn't a physical threat and nothing has happened, and nothing will happen. If something happens, then we can decide what to do.



So many people suffering from dyslexia here.

There was no threatening. Brian did not threaten anyone. He's totally innocent of having threatened anyone.

Jesus, give me strength O Lord.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 15823
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #84 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:32pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:04pm:
Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:57pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


I'd say it constitutes a direct threat to another member which is against the rules.


It wasn't a physical threat and nothing has happened, and nothing will happen. If something happens, then we can decide what to do.


There are rules against disclosing a forum members personal details.
Taking someone before the HRC would obviously result in such.

Threats should be treated as stated, and it's not for us to decide if the person making the threat is willing or able to fulfil them.
Back to top
 

Wokka Wokka Wokka
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #85 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:33pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:13pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:04pm:
Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:57pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


I'd say it constitutes a direct threat to another member which is against the rules.


It wasn't a physical threat and nothing has happened, and nothing will happen. If something happens, then we can decide what to do.



So many people suffering from dyslexia here.

There was no threatening. Brian did not threaten anyone. He's totally innocent of having threatened anyone.

Jesus, give me strength O Lord.


A threat is an intention not carried out. As far as anyone is concerned, Brian Ross has not reported anybody to the HRC. Has he actually carried it out?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #86 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:34pm
 
Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:32pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:04pm:
Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:57pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:09pm:
If you boot Brian off, you are only doing what you accused him of: stifling free speech and expression.


I'd say it constitutes a direct threat to another member which is against the rules.


It wasn't a physical threat and nothing has happened, and nothing will happen. If something happens, then we can decide what to do.


There are rules against disclosing a forum members personal details.
Taking someone before the HRC would obviously result in such.

Threats should be treated as stated, and it's not for us to decide if the person making the threat is willing or able to fulfil them.


Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No. Wait for a subpoena first.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #87 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:47pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:33pm:
A threat is an intention not carried out.


Wrong.

A threat is a warning that certain actions will be undertaken should the target of grievance not henceforth desist and refrain from continuing in the same vein.

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


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #88 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm
 
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #89 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:22pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?


Have you been contacted by Triggs' Mob, Effendi?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #90 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:23pm
 
Aussie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:22pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?


Have you been contacted by Triggs' Mob, Effendi?


Not that I know of, but that does not mean they haven't been contacted by Brian.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #91 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:28pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
Aussie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:22pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?


Have you been contacted by Triggs' Mob, Effendi?


Not that I know of, but that does not mean they haven't been contacted by Brian.


Surely you would expect to have been contacted by 'Triggs' if Mr Ross had made a complaint about content here.  If not, it is quite possible he made the complaint and 'Triggs' has decided it does not meet some threshold to bother contacting anyone.  I imagine that if there was anything serious, you, as Owner/Admin here, would have heard by now.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38416
I like fish
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #92 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:30pm
 
I would expect them to ignore Brian.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #93 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:31pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?


Inquiring minds want to know where we can buy this crystal ball that gives you such wonderful powers of clairvoyance.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #94 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?


Because I just know. Brian Ross likes to provoke, and he's getting the response he wants. Come on, seriously, who would waste their time?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #95 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:30pm:
I would expect them to ignore Brian.


So would I Effendi, so why the drama aimed at a Member?  Perhaps this Thread needs a better home in Relationships?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #96 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:37pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:47pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:33pm:
A threat is an intention not carried out.


Wrong.

A threat is a warning that certain actions will be undertaken should the target of grievance not henceforth desist and refrain from continuing in the same vein.



Isn't that what he did? If not, please explain what he DID do.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #97 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:11pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:37pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:47pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:33pm:
A threat is an intention not carried out.


Wrong.

A threat is a warning that certain actions will be undertaken should the target of grievance not henceforth desist and refrain from continuing in the same vein.



Isn't that what he did? If not, please explain what he DID do.


What you did, Brian, was to make this statement to Yadda (who happens to be one of the least offensive members of this board) :

Quote:

"You may feel it is but do I?  Nope.   I am offended.   We shall have to see what the Human Rights Commission has to say on the topic.   Hopefully you will be held responsible for your comments and claims about Muslims.   They are disgusting comments.  They deserve for you to be punished under the law.

**

"Yadda, I don't care what you feel or believe.  You have offended me and I am raising a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.   You will be summonsed to appear before the Human Rights Commission.   You will have to defend your remarks after they have been examined".

I was caned solidly and often for 7 long years at boarding school for the most trivial of infractions of the rules, and so I'm not too happy to be witness to Yadda being treated in this way.

REPENT BRIAN, or suffer the consequences!

Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:17pm by Lord Herbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #98 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:16pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:11pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:37pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:47pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:33pm:
A threat is an intention not carried out.


Wrong.

A threat is a warning that certain actions will be undertaken should the target of grievance not henceforth desist and refrain from continuing in the same vein.



Isn't that what he did? If not, please explain what he DID do.


What you did, Brian, was to make this statement to Yadda (who happens to be one of the least offensive members of this board) :

Quote:

"You may feel it is but do I?  Nope.   I am offended.   We shall have to see what the Human Rights Commission has to say on the topic.   Hopefully you will be held responsible for your comments and claims about Muslims.   They are disgusting comments.  They deserve for you to be punished under the law.

**

"Yadda, I don't care what you feel or believe.  You have offended me and I am raising a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.   You will be summonsed to appear before the Human Rights Commission.   You will have to defend your remarks after they have been examined".




That's a threat.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #99 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:23pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:16pm:
That's a threat.


Brian - I know it's you. Game's up. Confess all, and throw yourself upon the mercy of the membership here.

We, all of us, are but frail human beans with our idiosyncrasies and foibles of character.

REPENT! and set your soul free from Eternal Damnation!

The clock is ticking and time is running out for you, Brian. CONFESS! Throw yourself upon the mercy of the People's Court here.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #100 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:23pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:16pm:
That's a threat.


Brian - I know it's you. Game's up. Confess all, and throw yourself upon the mercy of the membership here.

We, all of us, are but frail human beans with our idiosyncrasies and foibles of character.

REPENT! and set your soul free from Eternal Damnation!

The clock is ticking and time is running out for you, Brian. CONFESS! Throw yourself upon the mercy of the People's Court here.


Are you implying that I am Brian Ross? That I am using two nicknames?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #101 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:31pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm:
Are you implying that I am Brian Ross? That I am using two nicknames?


Brian has done this before, but he's not a Robinson Crusoe in this regard.


It is not a trivial matter to categorically state to a fellow member of a discussion board that you fully intend to report him to the relevant authorities.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #102 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:37pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:31pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm:
Are you implying that I am Brian Ross? That I am using two nicknames?


Brian has done this before, but he's not a Robinson Crusoe in this regard.


It is not a trivial matter to categorically state to a fellow member of a discussion board that you fully intend to report him to the relevant authorities.


Ok. So, if you believe that I'm Brian Ross, would be willing to accept an apology from me?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #103 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:53pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:31pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm:
Are you implying that I am Brian Ross? That I am using two nicknames?


Brian has done this before, but he's not a Robinson Crusoe in this regard.


It is not a trivial matter to categorically state to a fellow member of a discussion board that you fully intend to report him to the relevant authorities.


Ok. So, if you believe that I'm Brian Ross, would be willing to accept an apology from me?


Very, very clever!   Grin

Herbert?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #104 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:59pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:37pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?


Because I just know. Brian Ross likes to provoke, and he's getting the response he wants. Come on, seriously, who would waste their time?


I have known Brian as a forum member for over 10 years, and so I think I'm in a better position to judge than you are.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #105 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:08pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:31pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm:
Are you implying that I am Brian Ross? That I am using two nicknames?


Brian has done this before, but he's not a Robinson Crusoe in this regard.


It is not a trivial matter to categorically state to a fellow member of a discussion board that you fully intend to report him to the relevant authorities.


Ok. So, if you believe that I'm Brian Ross, would be willing to accept an apology from me?


No.

And that's because there is still an element of doubt as to whether or not you are yet another of Brian's socks. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because there's one key word Brian uses that has been entirely absent in all of your posts.

I hereby unshackle you from suspicions of being yet another of Brian's alter egos.

Go in peace and sin no more.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #106 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:08pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:59pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:37pm:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 2:02pm:
Quote:
Has he done it? No. Will he do it? No.


How do you know this?


Because I just know. Brian Ross likes to provoke, and he's getting the response he wants. Come on, seriously, who would waste their time?


I have known Brian as a forum member for over 10 years, and so I think I'm in a better position to judge than you are.


Ok, so let's wait and see what happens. I hope that nothing happens, and if it does then I'll be right on your side: ban Brian Ross.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4349
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #107 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:09pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:37pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:31pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:24pm:
Are you implying that I am Brian Ross? That I am using two nicknames?


Brian has done this before, but he's not a Robinson Crusoe in this regard.


It is not a trivial matter to categorically state to a fellow member of a discussion board that you fully intend to report him to the relevant authorities.


Ok. So, if you believe that I'm Brian Ross, would be willing to accept an apology from me?


No.

And that's because there is still an element of doubt as to whether or not you are yet another of Brian's socks. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because there's one key word Brian uses that has been entirely absent in all of your posts.

I hereby unshackle you from suspicions of being yet another of Brian's alter egos.

Go in peace and sin no more.


And that would be, tsk, tsk, tsk....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 32708
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #108 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Ok, so let's wait and see what happens. I hope that nothing happens, and if it does then I'll be right on your side: ban Brian Ross.



He crossed the line when he assured us of his intention - not 'threatened' - to take legal action against Yadda.

That is totally unacceptable.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #109 - Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:27pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
Ok, so let's wait and see what happens. I hope that nothing happens, and if it does then I'll be right on your side: ban Brian Ross.



He crossed the line when he assured us of his intention - not 'threatened' - to take legal action against Yadda.

That is totally unacceptable.


Where did he do that, Herbert?  I thought he merely said he would inform 'Triggs' of his concerns.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
kemal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 532
Gender: male
Re: first 18c threat against OzPolitic
Reply #110 - Mar 17th, 2017 at 7:08pm
 
The votes are in, the judgment is announced.


Brian has been voted out.


Go away brian liar.
Back to top
 

Brian Ross on why Muslims kill Quote:-" It appears to be a cultural thing, rather than something they have learnt from their religion, despite what you appear to believe."
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print