Dnarever wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 7:44pm:


No. The Act is clearly duplicitous,  vague and too easily corrupted. Scrap it. Sack the lot. Burn down their offices. Salt the earth.

Does that image not say that Aboriginal Fathers are not only drunks, they do not know that name of of their kids?

If that does not breach 18C and leave him with no defence under 18D, I am not typing this.

That is yet another reason why Turdfull is suddenly keen to just make it about 'harass.'

Giving evidence to Senate estimates on Tuesday, Triggs said the commission had twice written to Leak giving him the opportunity to assert that he had drawn the cartoon in good faith.

Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act specifies publication “done reasonably and in good faith” as a defence against a racial discrimination complaint under section 18C.

Leak did not respond to the commission, despite publicly explaining that his cartoon was intended to explore social issues in Indigenous communities such as absence of parental supervision leading to juvenile crime – exactly the sort of public interest debate 18D was designed to protect.

No investigation into Bill Leak cartoon after complaint dropped

 
“Had he responded by making a good faith point, we would almost certainly have ended the matter precisely at that moment,” Triggs said, in response to questions from the independent senator Derryn Hinch. “Despite these two requests to him to justify an 18D basis for the cartoon, we received no response.”

Grendel wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 9:05pm:


Is there some interpretation other than that Leak was telling us that Aboriginal Fathers are not only stereotypical barefoot useless desert dwelling pissheads they also stereotypical do not know the names of their Aboriginal kids who are also stereotypical petty criminals?