The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Jekyll and Hyde: the poor man’s Anti-Discrimination Bill > Comments

Jekyll and Hyde: the poor man’s Anti-Discrimination Bill : Comments

By Moira Clarke, published 2/1/2013

While the draft legislation deals religious bodies a magnanimous hand, religious individuals are less fortunate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I certainly do not wish to be deliberately intimidated or publicly humiliated. Intimidation is particularly obnoxious.
That part of the act should be worded to limit behavior that is, "reasonably likely to intimidate or publicly humiliate" but no one, or no organization, deserves any better protection than that. If I do or say something idiotic why should other people not be able to be critical of me and my ideas. How otherwise would I learn?

When a religious or any other group such, as the anti-vaccination folk speak or write crap, I am entitled to call it what it is and criticize the supporters as misinformed. If they feel offended or insulted they have brought it on themselves by peddling un-evidenced views.

I agree with the previous comment that once any group receives any minor government support they should provide the full range of services permitted under the law in that field and provide it to everyone.

We should not allow the Vatican to dictate anything in the medical care or employment area. In fact, in many fields, the hierarchy's opinion is of little real value.

We have seen the limited range and ability of the Vatican's collective intellect in ethical matters in recent years. In the past I would have been burned at the stake for making such a remark and the religious wish to achieve a return to that situation.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 11:08:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religions do receive public money by way of grants; and tax exemptions & tax deductions -

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Hillsong-Church-got-federal-funds/2005/02/17/1108609349680.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/kevin-rudds-church-of-choice-gets-36000-grant/story-fn3dxiwe-1225783242238
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 11:11:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting and timely article. It is beyond belief that maintenance of these special privileges for institutions whose continuing existence is based on perpetuating unfounded, irrational beliefs, totally devoid of any objective evidence base, can continue into the 21st century in a supposedly secular country and in an age of advanced science and technology!

There is an interesting related article I read this week: "Why Should Religion Get a Free Ride?", by Greta Christina, from "The Beacon", Journal of the Melbourne Unitarian Peace Memorial Church, December 2012: 12 – 14. See www.melbourneunitarian.org.au It asks "Why should religion, alone among all other kinds of ideas, be free from attempts to persuade people out of it?
Posted by Rosemary Sceptic, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 11:15:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You've won me Moira. The whole thing is a crock of something very smelly, forced upon us by the do gooders, ratbags & bleeding hearts.

The whole thing should be dumped in the giant garbage bin of history, or we will suffer so many unintended consequences, we may all have to be struck dumb.

That bottle red head in Canberra had best be very careful what she has the bottle blond in Canberra sign into law. [Will I still be able to tell the truth like that].

You see I find the appearance, &/or the sound of our Julia extremely offensive. I'm sure there are many hundreds of thousands with similar feelings.

What will the law require be done to prevent this woman offending me by her continued appearance in public? Will it require her to be locked in a windowless, sound proof room to prevent this offence?

As you can see, none of it can ever work. There are some who are possibly even offended by my telling of what I find offensive.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 11:17:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Free speech needs to include a right to offend!
If I offend members of the murderous Taliban, by calling them recidivist criminal cowards, who quite deliberately and knowingly, murder innocent women and children/volunteer health/foreign aid workers, then expect our own moral values/scruples to protect them from deserved reprisals!
Given they being the very worst kind of recidivist cowards, continue to hide behind non-combatant woman and children.
Then that should remain my guaranteed, freedom of speech right, but particularly, if manifestly true!
We do need a long overdue bill of rights, which must enshrine freedom of speech; and the freedom of the press, to expose criminal behaviour; and or, official corruption!
Like say lobbyists with very deep pockets and or questionable ulterior motives? None of who ought to be able to hide behind a very big bank account; Silks and a self evidently manipulated, system of concurrently over burdened law!
I believe we can walk and chew gum.
Or put another way, routinely and ridgedly, protect an individual right to personal privacy, and freedom of speech!
Much larger more punitive penalties should ensue, where personal privacy is invaded!
This should mean, even officialdom ought to require a endlessly renewable and justifiable court order, to invade any persons' personal privacy or space!
Except say, where they accept a paid or unpaid, board or public service position or responsibility!
Even so, official breeches cannot continue to be condoned; or remain sacrosanct, as occurred in the extreme injustice imposed by officialdom on Doctor Haneef, or Mz Roue; and or, numerous and well publicized others, we'd have never ever known about, but for the freedom of the press!
Perhaps enforced early retirement ought to also include loss of pension and retirement privileges; and include a black mark that would preclude an offending former police person, judge, Lawyer etc i.e., from ever being able to accept a paid position on a board or public service?
Even an honest mistake cannot be allowed as a defence for officialdom; given, ignorance of the law is never ever one either!
See, problem solved?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 11:23:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear McReal,

<<Religions do receive public money by way of grants; and tax exemptions & tax deductions>>

It's not religions that do, but organised bodies that claim to be religious. Any receipt of public money drives such organisations further away from religion, even while they retain their false name and claim.

As an example, one of the tenets of most religions is "thou shalt not steal". Government money, having been robbed away from people against their will, is stolen money. It's a wonder how so-called 'religious' organisations reconcile themselves with partaking of it!

Dear Julian,

Thanks for your support, but truancy laws call for the incarceration of innocent children. I remember myself going to year 1 in school even though I already knew everything they taught there, even though I was heavily bullied, for the sole reason that I wanted to protect my parents from going to jail. I was a little hero, but that should not be necessary. Families should be able to decide for themselves on matters of education as well as be able to protect their children from state-indoctrination. Families should be able to limit the type of teachers and classmates to which their tender children are to be exposed.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 11:38:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy