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 > Right Charlies, but not Charlie > Comments

Right Charlies, but not Charlie : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 27/1/2015

The rest of us with the partial exception of the US have buckled. There are widespread restrictions on speech, in France and elsewhere. Australia has 18C, among many others.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I find that the authors comments are spot on.
18c is supposed to relate to race, but even so I think it is bad
legislation that makes it an offense to say something that just offends
someone.
For example IF I said;
"Aborigines are bludging on the system by claming grants to do something
they could do anyway."
Someone could take offense at that and prosecute me.

It might be wrong and/or in bad taste but that is no justification for going to law.
We have freedom speech so that someone can tell me I don't know what I am talking about and I am stupid.
Interestingly I could not counter sue because they called me stupid
because that is not necessarily racist.

As an aside I could say moslems are stupid because of what they
believe in, but in response I can prove they are stupid.
There are even government reports that say so.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 10:25:33 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
18C is not the problem, but its application certain circumstances may well be?

And easily overcome by a long overdue bill of irrevocable rights!
As claimed to be delivered by the Magna Carta, the later confirming emancipation act; and or, common law?

The problem with that; something like the Magna Carta is not acceded to, or simply denied, and common law rights may need to be interpreted/redefined by very expensive courts and or litigation/legislation?

What we need is a bill of irrevocable rights and no better time to ask when we should have them; is when we have the intended referendum pertaining to including Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders, in the constitution?

Which if linked to a bill of irrevocable rights, inclusive of property rights, may have a vastly better chance of being carried?

But particularly if one of those rights happened to be a right to protect/defend yourself, your person, family members and personal property, with as decided by you appropriate force, including for the aged and or frail, lethal force, given there really is no other effective option?

Given it's impossible to gauge your level of enabled response, it's what you say or swear it is!

Better the attacker/intruder/assailant, is the one laying on a hospital bed or the slab, than the completely innocent householder.

For mine, a pump action shotgun loaded coupled to a mag light; and with a full mag of bean bag ammo, might suffice, and prevent an avoidable fatality, where that is the preferred outcome.

Back up being a 9 mm, auto pistol coupled to a laser point, with a fifteen round mag; particularly in the case of multiple assailants, and as such, intending doing lethal harm!?

As for 18C, with our rights re-installed, let's keep it?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 11:21:00 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
Methinks the bald gonad should curb his denunciation of esteemed Prime Minister Abbott - as Abbott has made himself an endangered species - who won't be PM much longer.
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 6:33:18 PM
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
Section 18C enabled the case against Bolt. All Bolt did was tell the truth, in a straightforward and unbiased manner, and he lost the case.

Legislation which facilitates such a result must not be allowed to stand. The assertion that we have freedom of speech is a misrepresentation.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 9:43:45 PM
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
Section 18C enabled the case against Bolt. All Bolt did was tell the truth, in a straightforward and unbiased manner, and he lost the case.

Legislation which facilitates such a result must not be allowed to stand.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 27 January 2015 9:44:58 PM
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
This Charlie Hebdo farce looks like another false flag event. The Inspector Helric Fredou who was in charge of the investigation commits suicide almost immediately and now his relatives are denied access to the autopsy report. Why would smart terrorists leave their ID behind in the getaway car ?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/26/fredou/
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 5:48:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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