UK defamations laws might change - for the worse... Watch what you post!

[norwest]

Interesting stance considering your thoughts on "Bishop Tony" and that he will legislate "compulsory Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday"

And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd.

I am sure that is what they thought when every other totalitarian regime said when they wanted to gain power.

We have a totalitarian regime? Man the walls, arm the populous and get the wife and kids into the underground shelter. No 'condescending smiley' required.

Up to nearly 20 comments and no one has actually looked at the proposal, just lined up on the usually sides, as I said, Australians are sheep.

Why do assume no one has the common sense to look at the proposal before commenting on said proposal?

I read 'it' when it was released, quite a deal of differing opinions since and my comments thus far in this thread are based on the extreme nature of the fear mongering.

I'm actually a moderate and think our best alternative could be Malcolm Turnbull, himself a moderate and one of the very few small 'l' liberals left in this country and I think the legislation we have at present is sufficient. However, the claims made in here parroting the fear mongering exaggerations of a far right political lobby group and adding some spice with words such as nazi, totalitarian ect. are more at home in one of Alan Jones morning rants and a Pauline Hanson maiden speech.

You and I will soon get to vote out a party considering any legislation not to our liking and replacing them with the alternative that best suits our requirements. Or, is there a risk the existing government will suspend elections indefinitely and declare martial law, just like a totalitarian regime would have done?

[Bally]

Some reading material for those that are interested. If you can honestly read the highlighted causes and think this is a good plan, god help us all.


Link to the actual proposal
http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/D...20Draft%20.pdf


Link to IPA fact sheet
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/public...fact-sheet.pdf


Clauses of proposal as highlighted by the IPA

Clause 19.2 19.1 included for clarity

Division 2—Meaning of discrimination
19 When a person discriminates against another person, and related concepts
Discrimination by unfavourable treatment
(1) A person (the first person) discriminates against another person if
the first person treats, or proposes to treat, the other person
unfavourably because the other person has a particular protected
attribute, or a particular combination of 2 or more protected
attributes.
Note: This subsection has effect subject to section 21.

(2) To avoid doubt, unfavourable treatment of the other person
includes (but is not limited to) the following:
(a) harassing the other person;
(b) other conduct that offends, insults or intimidates the other person.

Ballys comments. Please note that the categories that you can be offended about is extend to the list below:
It is also worthwhile noting that the proposal also defines that you can be offended on behalf of an associate, or about a condition that you have or may have in the future. Throw some discussions open around your next BBQ and see how many combinations and permutations arrive from this that can see you IN COURT

Clause 19.2 above also removes the reasonable person protection.

(1) The protected attributes are as follows:
(a) age;
(b) breastfeeding;
(c) disability;
(d) family responsibilities;
(e) gender identity;
(f) immigrant status;
(g) industrial history;
(h) marital or relationship status;
(i) medical history;
(j) nationality or citizenship;
(k) political opinion;
(l) potential pregnancy;
(m) pregnancy;
(n) race;
(o) religion;
(p) sex;
(q) sexual orientation;
(r) social origin.

Next Clause 17.1 is the list above

Bally's comments

social origin.
I'm not sure if that means I can get in trouble for Tasmania jokes, or comments that someone comes from a family of toffs

Political Opinion
I for one will want the Canberra press gallery hauled off to court at first opportunity, they have been offending me for years

I'm not sure how I can offend someone re industrial history, unless this is related to union activity, so I'm probably already offended, or am sure to be in the future

Anyway, the it is pretty freaking obvious the opportunity for abuse here.

Next Clause 124.1
124 Burden of proof in proceedings under section 120 etc.
Burden of proof for reason or purpose for conduct
(1) If, in proceedings against a person under section 120, the applicant:
(a) alleges that another person engaged, or proposed to engage, in conduct for a particular reason or purpose (the alleged
reason or purpose); and
(b) adduces evidence from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that the alleged reason or
purpose is the reason or purpose (or one of the reasons or purposes) why or for which the other person engaged, or
proposed to engage, in the conduct;
it is to be presumed in the proceedings that the alleged reason or purpose is the reason or purpose (or one of the reasons or purposes)
why or for which the other person engaged, or proposed to engage, in the conduct, unless the contrary is proved.

Bally's comments
So, once you wade through the legal gobbledy gook, the final phrase "unless the contrary is proved" tells the story.
This is where the burden of proof is now shifted to the defendant and the they must show how their offensive (only to complainant, not a reasonable person)
comment or action was justified.

So our defendant is guilty, because and individual is offended, (no reasonable person test, they just claim to be) and then must justify their remark. No more water cooler humour, satire, irony or sarcasm anywhere except in bed with your partner, sexual role play between consenting adults may be the only defence left.

How can any supporter of any party think this is good policy

Next clause 110.4
(4) Unless the person presiding at the conference consents:
(a) an individual is not entitled to be represented at the
conference by another person; and
(b) a body (whether or not incorporated) is not entitled to be
represented at the conference otherwise than by a person who
is an officer or employee of that body.

Bally's comments.
Perhaps this was designed to stop it becoming a gold mine for lawyers, but it clearly denies me the right to get legal defence once I crack the illadvised remark about the Greens in front of a staff member I had to discipline, who is now offended on behalf of a Green party associate they met 4 years ago. and who will at no cost tie me up with responses and attendance at the human rights commission as an absolute minimum. with no legal representation. If I get legal advice prior to the actual appearance all costs are mine.

Now I have broken this down for you, can anyone really say this is good policy

I also do not understand why people continually refer to the fear of what Abbott might do, while the current government DOES worse right now.
this government has introduced the following ideas
internet censorship
inlimited internet monitoring by an unusually large number of organisations, the number of horrors in this proposal was amazing.(topic for another time)
proposed putting limits on the freedom of the press
and now this ridiculous piece of tripe that will have some amzing fallout if implemented

I would also like it noted that I didn't compare anyone to the nazis, I noted that those that had allowed their elected officials to turn their countries into totalitarian regimes were obvious more sensative to it happening again, because they would be in the streets.

Hope this helps

[Kym]

If you can honestly read the highlighted causes and think this is a good plan, god help us all.
<snip>
Hope this helps

Well put. The issue is that whenever you legislate you end up reducing freedom. And in this case the potential for abuse is way too much.

[ameerat42]

Up to nearly 20 comments and no one has actually looked at the proposal, just lined up on the usually sides, as I said, Australians are sheep.

Bah!*

(*From Bah! Humbug!)

[Lance B]

And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd.

So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.

We have a totalitarian regime? Man the walls, arm the populous and get the wife and kids into the underground shelter.

So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?

No 'condescending smiley' required.

Condescending smiley?

Why do assume no one has the common sense to look at the proposal before commenting on said proposal?

I read 'it' when it was released, quite a deal of differing opinions since and my comments thus far in this thread are based on the extreme nature of the fear mongering.

I'm actually a moderate and think our best alternative could be Malcolm Turnbull, himself a moderate and one of the very few small 'l' liberals left in this country and I think the legislation we have at present is sufficient. However, the claims made in here parroting the fear mongering exaggerations of a far right political lobby group and adding some spice with words such as nazi, totalitarian ect. are more at home in one of Alan Jones morning rants and a Pauline Hanson maiden speech.

Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well. All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.

You and I will soon get to vote out a party considering any legislation not to our liking and replacing them with the alternative that best suits our requirements. Or, is there a risk the existing government will suspend elections indefinitely and declare martial law, just like a totalitarian regime would have done?

What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

[norwest]

So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.

No and please don't attempt spin. I said "And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd." How do you turn that into I'm saying my opinion isn't relevant so why post it? Don't try to bull.... a bull......



So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?

You know I didn't say that so why ask?



Condescending smiley?

Reference to the smiley in your post



Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well.

If the comments made by you in this thread could be considered moderate in any way shape or form then I'll flap my arms and fly around the wildlife forum. They are alarmist, worst case scenario fear mongering and devoid of moderation.

All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.

Yes, due diligence. Like ummmm errrrr, lets see. Well, if we don't like a particular legislation how about we vote them out and replace them with others of our preference with different policies and promising to repeal the previous legislation? Now there's a new one, eh? I think they call it democracy.



What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but

Then, when you say "when every other totalitarian regime", leave out the 'other' and it won't include the present.


that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

And in both Federal and State parliament, minority groups have had the same position of balance of power, like the shooters party, one nation, family first and other parties from wacko extremists through to religious sects and the loonie left have in the past, have at present (shooters party in NSW?) and will in the future. And they get the boot in the next election or the new parliament has a majority and the minority loses their balance of power status. As mentioned previously, it's called democracy.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

And I've said I think the existing legislation is sufficient and if, and that's a very big 'IF', the new proposal was to come into being and we don't like it then we can vote the buggers out and have it repealed by a like minded alternative party. I think I previously mentioned what that's called.

[Kym]

FWIW this sort of crap has already happened in Victoria under its vilification laws.
Ignoring other issues with this case, the vilifications laws were badly mis-used... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_N...ion_of_Muslims

[norwest]

Then vote the existing government out and replace them.

And church of fire ministries, a racist, openly muslim hating religious nutcases is not a wonderful example of 'My freedoms have been taken from poor old me'. Nor is Danny Nalliah, an absolute nut case, an open hate spreader of islam and the whacko that said the Black Saturday bushfires were a consequence of Victoria's abortion laws.

Alarmists, hate and fear mongering nutters of the best kind available on red light special at Kmart in the damaged goods department. The poor innocent buggers were treated badly for their hate speeches.

[Kym]

But the real issue is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
And the vilification laws go way to far, the supreme court etc. eventually sorted it.
It was a setup in the first place.

[Lance B]

Quote Originally Posted by Lance B View Post
So, you're saying that your opinion isn't relevent? If so, why post it? I really don't understand your comment, or why then you stated it.

No and please don't attempt spin. I said "And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation. Good Gawd." How do you turn that into I'm saying my opinion isn't relevant so why post it? Don't try to bull.... a bull......

It is you that it is saying that your opinion isn't relevent. I mean, why would you say sarcastically: "And I'm sure 'norwest's' flippant comments on a photographic forum will gain as much exposure and have as much influence as a release of the official political opinion of a well known national political lobby organisation."

All I was saying is why do you think your opinion isn't relevent???

No spin involved. I am just wondering why you think your opinion isn't warranted or valuable?

So, you're saying it could never happen? Ever?

You know I didn't say that so why ask?

And you talk about me giving spin? Hmm. So, you are saying that it could happen some time in the future?

Condescending smiley?

Reference to the smiley in your post

It was the Sarcastic smiley, not condescending. There is a difference. It was in reference to the fact that I wondered why you accused me of being alarmist and then said that "once Abbott gets into power and that he will legislate "compulsory Church on Sunday, Sin on Monday." Isn't that alarmist?

Wow, we are drawing a long bow on this one. I would have you know I am a moderate as well.

If the comments made by you in this thread could be considered moderate in any way shape or form then I'll flap my arms and fly around the wildlife forum. They are alarmist, worst case scenario fear mongering and devoid of moderation.

I can have moderate politcal views and yet still be alarmed and alarmist at certain aspects of legislation. One doesn't preclude the other. Again, there is a difference.

All I am saying is that we need to be mindful and not be complacent about letting politicians make rash decisions such as this paricular legislation. As Steve Axford has stated, "Australia has in my memory always been moderate, even the right wing or left wing lunies are moderate by world standards.", which is a fair point and quite correct looking at Australia's political history and it seems that you are making a similar point, but that doesn't mean that it will always stay this way and the very fact that we think we are moderate means that it can make it easy for these sorts of dangerous legislations to be passed as most of us have the habit of thinking "she'll be right, mate" as "no one would do the wrong thing" thus, due to this apathy, possibly allowing certain agenda's through parliament without due diligence.

Yes, due diligence. Like ummmm errrrr, lets see. Well, if we don't like a particular legislation how about we vote them out and replace them with others of our preference with different policies and promising to repeal the previous legislation? Now there's a new one, eh? I think they call it democracy.

And me giving an opinion here stating that the proposed legislation is not a good idea is the wrong thing to do? Who is to say that they will actually be voted out? Who is to say that this legislation is buried and forgotton about by the time a new government gets into power and by then possibly too late. I think voicing disatisfaction before the fact is better than trying to repeal it later after the damage is done and lives possibly destroyed by incorrect legislation or implementation of said same.

What? Where did this come from? Never said that and never intimated that our current government had totalitarian overtones, but

Then, when you say "when every other totalitarian regime", leave out the 'other' and it won't include the present.

Oh dear, taking every nuance literally, however, you know what I meant but you are being quite neferious to suit your case. As we both know that the current government isn't a totalitarian regime, so how could you get that idea??? Sheesh!

that doesn't mean that factions and minority groups do not. Like it or not, minority groups like the Greens, have certain power over the current Labor Party and can wield this power to try to get what they want and this can be dangerous. I said that there is the possibility that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that we need to be vigilant and not just allow this sort of legisaltion through without proper discussions and debate. Freedom of speech is a very important aspect of our rights.

And in both Federal and State parliament, minority groups have had the same position of balance of power, like the shooters party, one nation, family first and other parties from wacko extremists through to religious sects and the loonie left have in the past, have at present (shooters party in NSW?) and will in the future. And they get the boot in the next election or the new parliament has a majority and the minority loses their balance of power status. As mentioned previously, it's called democracy.

It is quite rare for minority parties to have balance of power rights like the Greens and the independants of Oakshot and Windsor have at the moment. Again, trying to repeal legislation after the fact is more difficult than not letting it through in the first place, hence the reason for mine and other's posts here. We are voicing an opinon which is still allowed and I hope it will continue to be so regardless of this silly legislaton.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match so I leave you to your own thoughts. For me, I'd rather this not be allowed to pass as law, and if it does, then we deserve what we get.

[Bally]

norwest,

Do you think this proposal is good policy.

If so why, I find no redeeming value in it. Although the goal of removing the complexity of the existing laws is a good, the proposal also undermines many of our existing rights, would have the effect of limiting free speech and far out way the benefits.

Cheers

[norwest]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has it's limits.

If what one says has intent to damage and/or harm or incite damage and/or harm of another I defend my right to prevent you from doing so.

The mother of my Kids, (my former wife) now both in thier twenties, is of South East Asian heritage and birth. We were married when I lived In Asia for a period in the early 1980's. The kids were raised during the Pauline Hanson period, when she was at her notorious top.

If you, Kym, as father, were to hear the populous put downs of your kids when arseholes thought you were out of earshot or didn't realise a connection, would you tell them "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

If you were to hear other kids mimicking what they'd heard from their mum or dads, perhaps television or even Granddad or Grandma with old fashioned views that parroted all that Hansom squawked. Thinking it was justified to use bigoted and nasty language because it was so popular and fashionable at the time to do so, would you tell them "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

If your daughter tells you one night at the age of 6 that she wished her skin was more like mine instead of her mum's so people would like her more.

If you shot sports and your son was an extremely talented elite teenage sportsmen whose games you shot when you had the chance. And because your son was a stand out among his elite peers and because he 'looked different' he was an easy mark for the less than gracious spectators, usually the fathers of the opposition players. "Smash the ching". "Go back where you belong, slope head". 'Nigger", "Black C" you name it, he copped it. Soccer is like that and the higher the level the worse it gets.

Now, would you Kym, walk up to the racists arseholes and tell them "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", tell your kids to ignore it so it goes away but it never does, might you kick their arse till it bled or perhaps just skin the knuckles from time to time when enough was enough, like I did without my kid's knowledge?

As I said, it has it's limits. Just ask my kids, whom to this very day know only too well where those limits are. No has a right to hurt or be a catalyst for hurt to my kids or anyone else. Not you, not that ugly excuse for a human being, Pauline Hanson and not anyone else.

[Bally]

norwest,

I'm very sorry that you and your kids put up with that sort of crap, but it doesn't make this good policy

[bobt]

after the election results have been posted we will almost certainly have to contend with Abbott the Rabbit. Now that IS scarey.

It's doubly scary when you consider that if that happens it will mean that every second person you look at will have made that choice deliberately, without duress. We like to think that it's just a minority who would willingly vote for him, but in fact it will be a majority. Now that is a very scary thing to contemplate, and it makes you wonder what sort of a society we are actually living in that could voluntarily make such a choice.

It also makes one wonder why neither the US or Australia seem able to find better leaders from among their millions of people. Are these really the best choices we can offer ourselves?

[norwest]

norwest,

Do you think this proposal is good policy.

If so why, I find no redeeming value in it. Although the goal of removing the complexity of the existing laws is a good, the proposal also undermines many of our existing rights, would have the effect of limiting free speech and far out way the benefits.

Cheers

No. I have said a number of times that the existing legislation is sufficient. You missed that?

Oh dear, taking every nuance literally, however, you know what I meant but you are being quite neferious to suit your case. As we both know that the current government isn't a totalitarian regime, so how could you get that idea??? Sheesh!

We know the present government isn't nazi but that hasn't stopped the word being used in this thread.

Lance, as my English literature major wife would say to me, if your grammar specifies a particular meaning in a sentence do not expect me to be aware you mean otherwise.

I did not know you meant otherwise and not a happy lad that you claim I'm not telling the truth. Don't try to blame me for a failure of your own grammar and don't even hint that I am a liar. Now take your own bloody advice before you accuse me of something else.

Anyway, I am obviously not going to change your mind and I'd rather this not degenerate into a slanging match

- - - Updated - - -

norwest,

I'm very sorry that you and your kids put up with that sort of crap, but it doesn't make this good policy

Hey fella, did I claim that? It was all to do with the limits of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Again, did I claim that?

[Bally]

Norwest,
I did miss the fact that you thought this policy was bad, and more importantly, I think you are taking my questions/comments way more personally than intended.

And bob, I voted for Krudd, and him and the follow up had been a disaster, and they have raised more risky policy than even JH post 911 in regard to freedom of speech and action

So yes I hope a majority of aussies are smart enough to remove these cowboys. And yes is is a great shame we don't have better polititicians, but I vote for a party, not person

[norwest]

Norwest,
I did miss the fact that you thought this policy was bad, and more importantly, I think you are taking my questions/comments way more personally than intended.

Bally, if you make comments alluding that posters are sheep and don't have the common sense to read the proposal before commenting, are they meant to smile and send you flowers? If you say sorry to what happened to your kids and then qualify it with a 'but', do you want a pat on the back or a strong reminder that genuine apologies for poor treatment of children never come with a qualification.

[Bally]

Norwest,

Perhaps in future I will moderate my generalisations with a word like "most" as in most australian are sheep, and most are so politically unaware as to be not dissimilar to sheep.

And I am 100% sorry that your children have suffered verbal abuse of any sort, but I'm not taking any sort of personal responsibility for those idiots, it was not an apology, it was an expression of sadness.

The "but" was to seperate the two issues. Lots of bad things happen to good people, there is no relationship between that and this government writing bad proposals.

I'm sorry if you feel any of this was in anyway personal. See, that is an unconditional apology

[ricktas]

Thanks Bally

Norwest, this is not an attack on you or your views, it is members of this site expressing their opinions, to which they are entitled. I suggest you stand back, take a deep breath and remember that this is a thread for members to post their views on the topic. Just cause they disagree with you, does not make them wrong. The only person who has brought their own family into this, and tried to imply others views, caused your past angst, is you. Everyone else is generalising the discussion. You have strong views on this, and this is to be admired, but remember others views may differ and they are allowed to.

Warning to ALL : If these personal attacks continue, I will be banning those who over-step the line. This will be the only warning. Discuss the issues and not attack others for their views, please!

[livio]

Wow this will be cool, in some ways I hope this one gets up. Then both Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon who offend me will have to justify their rants. We could have them locked up in the legal system for years.

Seriously though so much for a fair go. Better get your kids to study law, I can see the legal system being the only area to benefit from this.

Kind Regards
Livio