I anticipate that any requests to clamp down on the daily racist, neo-nazi hate-mongering that has come to dominate this board - will be met by FD quite seriously asking if quoting the Quran should also be banned.

Mothra losing it again over trying to run the shop.

Would Mothra's bodyguard please bring his cab around to the front door. The lady is not in a fit state to see herself home.

May i ask what i did to get so far up your nose, Bogey?

I mean, i don't really think about you at all .. but you really think about me, don't you.

Link please gweggy 

Or another fib?

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:


Correct, this forum belongs to us. The lefties keep getting banned.. 

Dr Mengele wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 2:26pm:


The link to Stormfornt?

Sure.

www.cowardlyscum.com

Dr Mengele wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:


www.cowardlyscum.com/photos/2017

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 3:40pm:


I post on both forums, because I'm welcome on both. 

Cyberracism Home
Racial Vilification Law in Australia




1. Racial Hatred Defined
2. Complaints to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
3. Relevant Federal Cases
4. Other Criminal and Civil Legislation on Racial Vilification

This paper outlines what constitutes racial hatred under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and provides an overview of the complaints process of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). It also briefly outlines two cases of significance to the regulation of race hate on the Internet: Jones v Toben [1] and Dow Jones Company Inc v Gutnick. [2] The relevant state and territory provisions on racial vilification, including criminal sanctions, are also outlined.

1. Racial Hatred Defined

Since the introduction of provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, [3] the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race. Specifically, the Act states:

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 group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group. [4]

A variety of acts can constitute racial hatred, including speaking, singing and making gestures in public, as well as drawings, images, and written publications such as newspapers, leaflets and websites.

There are three essential components of this unlawful conduct:

1) The act must be done in public;
2) It must be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the people against whom it is directed; and
3) It must be done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the group against whom it is directed.

These elements are considered individually below. It should be noted that some public acts are exempt from the provisions. The exemptions are outlined later in this section.

1) The act is done "otherwise than in private"

The legislation requires that the act be done "otherwise than in private". Words, sounds, images or writing communicated to the public are acts done 'otherwise than in private'. [5] As the Internet is one means by which words, sounds, images and writing are communicated to the public, the legislation clearly applies to this medium. In addition, any act done in a public place or within sight or hearing of people who are in a public place is an act done 'otherwise than in private'. [6] A public place is defined by the Act as "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". [7] Consequently, in addition to the Internet, the legislation applies to behaviour in shops, pubs, streets, talkback radio, workplaces, public transport, sporting arenas and parks.

Conversely, if the act happens in private, for example, as part of a private telephone conversation or in a private place, such as a person's home, it is not unlawful. [8]

2) The act is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate

The victim's perspective is the measure of whether an act is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate. For example, if derogatory comments are made against Indigenous people, the central question to ask is whether those comments are likely to offend or intimidate an Indigenous person or group, not whether they have this effect upon a non-Indigenous person.

At the same time, the victim's response to the words or image must be reasonable. That is, the "yardstick should not be a person peculiarly susceptible to being roused to enmity, nor one who takes an irrational or extremist view of relations among racial groups." [9] This is called the 'reasonable victim' test. [10] The 'reasonable victim' test allows the standards of the dominant class to be challenged by ensuring cultural sensitivity when deciding the types of comments that are considered offensive. [11]

3) The act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the group

The conduct must be racially-based in order for it to be covered by the legislation. There might be several reasons for an offensive communication and, in such cases, it is only necessary that one of these reasons be race, colour or national or ethnic origin. [12]


https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/racial-vilification-law-australia

Oh look the lefties are citing racial vilification laws again. 

Gweggy already tried to have me arrested for that and failed dismally.

Dr Mengele wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:19pm:


Your Aryan credentials are fully above board, Doctor. You should have nothing to worry about.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:35pm:



I can't speak for the others but hanging you will do me.

I think FD should cop a months ban .. with no reason given

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:




oooo nice one john  mother will love you for that one..

so glad your not speaking for me..

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:


Are you STILL mad about that?

Perhaps lefties aren't wanted here? 

Dr Mengele wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:44pm:


what do you mean still mad? I was never mad, I just want an explanation.

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:


The Doctor just gave you your explanation, leftard. Suck it up.

Mattyfisk wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:47pm:



Is the Doctor a FD sock?

Now it all makes sense.

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:


Exactly. You'll notice the Doctor's promotion of a rival political discussion board is still up.

Eins volk, eins Reich, eins Fuhrer, no?

John Smith wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:



thats what I said... I was answering what you claimed..

how do you feel about LIARS   people spreading untruths via the websites....

dont you think when it comes to HATE   that thats where racism begins ... but sadly doesnt end there..

however accusing People of HATING   without justification   could also be a reason for closing down this website..

fd is from what little I have read asking honest questions... he can be a bit insistent I grant that.. but on the whole they are questions about a subject he seems most interested in..

has he told anyone they are FULL OF HATE...

I havent seen it myself...

but I can point him to where I have been told i am full of HATE   and have actually spread it around both his forums.....

from what I read here... that could be a crime....

and I am most unhappy about those lies..

freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 9:29pm:


Have you taken down the Stormfront promotion?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2017 at 9:33pm:


No. He hasn't.

Slow learner you think? Or just dedicated to his cause?

red baron wrote on Nov 18^th, 2017 at 7:31am:


Muslims and the morally bankrupt leftists are the only people who don't believe we should be free to criticise Islam.

For leftists criticism of all other religions is ok but for some reason they don't believe people should be allowed to criticise Islam.