Aussie wrote on Mar 21^st, 2017 at 5:02pm:


Well said. Especially get rid of the lawyers.

John Smith wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 11:22am:


How about the fact that seven young men were sued for it at the QUT? I watched The Bolt Report last night and one of them was on there and you could see the toll that it took on him. That fat batch Cindy Prior meanwhile, apparently went broke through it so there no winners. Not that she has any of my sympathy, she did it to herself so deserves everything that she gets. Those young men on the other hand did nothing wrong yet it obviously took a huge toll on them so they have my sympathy.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 7:53am:


It's a very appropriate day to announce this. People swearing at wogs and blacks are now in harmony with the law. 

ProudKangaroo wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 7:53am:


Being aggressively critical of someone because of his colour, is racism. Being aggressively critical of someone because of his culture or religion is most definitely not racism despite what today's liberal-Lefty luvvies will tell you.

In my day racism was entirely based upon colour and appearance - and not ethnicity, culture, or religion. It was only later that the Leftwing broadened the goalposts to include just about any criticism of people who are not of white, Christian background.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 1:28pm:


Come on mate, you're playing a game of semantics to justify your own bigotry at best. 

It may not fit the definition of "racism" of old, but it is intolerance and discrimination nonetheless.  It's a no brainer that this should be unacceptable in most circumstances, but that would require equality for everyone, something the likes of you see as oppression and want to fight against. 

That's your failing, not anyone elses.

You can complain about the snowflakes and luvvies all you like or look back at how things were in your day, but the reality is things change.

You can't simply get a job by turning up anymore, and at the same time, a Uni degree won't get you a job anymore either.  The world has changed and continues to do so.  We should not forget the past, there are valuable lesson there, but just because things are tough now is no reason to regress and go backwards with solutions and "in my days" that can't possible work in the current landscape. 

That's an important point that just doesn't seem to penetrate into the die hard conservative crowds.  But luckily those types generally don't have long left on this earth anyway.

I understand wanting things to stay the same or be like they were is the cornerstone of conservatism, but just because that resonates with you personally doesn't make it right.

We should as a society be able to have an intellectual debate on any topic and it should not be subject to censorship or punishment in anyway, but discrimination based on race, religion, culture, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, whatever, despite how normalised it seems in these forum, it should have no place in our society.

18C and D are not issues of free speech but do look like it for those who do want to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, culture etc etc.

The last big name to fall foul of these provisions was Andrew Bolt, but he's no champion of free speech.  He was found guilty because he was a lying sack of poo and his article held no basis in reality.

And even if he was "unfairly prosecuted", his free speech was not curtailed one bit.  His original article is still online and he has more outlets that publish his works than ever before.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it would take some actual evidence that a change is required and the dangers of leaving things the way it is would outweigh the dangers of changing it in order for me to support such.

That hasn't happened, not even once yet in all the years since these changes keep getting brought into the spotlight by the right wing nutters and their supporters.

If you think you can explain how, please, be my guest.

matty wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 12:55pm:




If he was worried about the toll why say it. The big problem with those who want to defend free speech is that they are only worried about themselves and their right to free speech.

The other big problem is that people forget that with the right to free speech, comes the responsibility to think before you do. Bolt fails on this on numerous occasions.

Quote:


If you can't defend what you have said with any of the above ......... sorry what you've said makes you a racist bigot with nothing to add to anything.

There was no need to change anything, Turnbull caved YET AGAIN to those indebted to Bolt
Plus it's almost as good a SSM for diverting attention away from things that actually matter like energy policy

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2017 at 2:21pm:


The other thing people seem to forget is that the Government are claiming there is a restriction on free speech in the same week one of their Ministers was telling business leaders not to give their opinion on Same Sex Marriage and "stick to their knitting".

They only like free speech when it suits them and Turnbull is weak as piss for backing down to the far right nutters on this.

I see no mention of the three students who accidentally wandered into an INDIGENOUS ONLY LAB who were confronted, probably abused, ( but thats ok they are white and we all know you can insult white people whenever you like) they posted an (insulting possibly racist remark) which some bleeding heart Aboriginal lass took $250,000,00 worth of offense and took them to court.

These three students settled out of court because.
1) they were broke students and could not afford to
2) because they knew the system would go against them.
2) they knew their names would be kicked around and it could ruin their careers

The lass came out with some free grog money
She stll had her (INDIGENOUS ONLY LAB) and tge three students were suitably chastied and now in more debt
And the politically correct nazis cried out in glee.

What a crok of shite
Firstly
Motheaten will deny that the Aboriginals ever get any special treatment etc etc, and yot once again we have an indiginious only lab, imagine if it were a white only lab?

Secondly
Why do our black (or predominanty white now) bretheren require their own SPECIAL lab?

Lastly
One can not give offence, one must take offence
And these days there is a whole industry around this hurt feeling exercise in legal thefth
Im offended by many of the activitie, statements and accusations levelled at my race by any number of groups
But I also know that white people cannot be offended, no mater what is said to or about us.

This law sucks like a jet engine intake
It needs to be changed
But the bleeding hearts will continue to scream
Racist
Bigot
Islamaphobe

The world of logic, fair play, honesty and equal rites is so far skewed to the left that its now totally F#€KED