One of the changes we could also make is remove the cowards castle.
Or so-called Parliamentary privilege to impune, without any real consequence.
If Andrew bolt just happened to be a politician, and made his, too white speech inside any of those chambers, he would be largely free of any official reprisals, and able to continue to offend and re-offend, just as long as he withdrew and apologised.
None of which would have prevented the harm he did to folks, with a proud ancestral background.
I mean to say, my family all have the same forbears, yet some of them are blue eyed blonds, while others have black fizzy hair, brown eyes and permanent suntans.
Others seem to tan more easily than most, without burning.
Me, I tan in patches and burn in others. [Great natural camouflage.]
Yet, green eyes, golden hair and a really wicked and mischievous sense of humour, identifies me as a tripled distilled Celt.
Would I be offended, if some mean-spirited person, claimed I was too brown to be a Celt?
You betcha!
And I'd be even more offended if he/she hid inside a cowards castle, while making such a remark; or indeed, any other unfounded or unprovable accusation or personal vilification.
Politicians ought to be able to produce some verifiable evidence of wrong doing, before accusing or implying others, of being responsible for such activities!
Our parliaments cannot be allowed to become prejudging Kangaroo courts, without also being required to adhere to the standard rules of evidence!
What gives offence or vilifies outside parliament, also does so inside!
One set of rules; and or, rights for pollies and very different others for you and I?
No thanks.
Rhrosty.

Moira and her supporters deny the social diaster of an education system that is godless. It appears she is more interested in 'rights ' of minorities than the good of society. Most parents want the 'right ' to have the choice of sending their kids to be educated with godly values or secular dogma. Parents are voting with their money and feet. In fact those sending their kids to private schools are paying twice. They support the godless system with their taxes and then pay private fees. Sending kids to schools that push godless values is equal to child abuse.

Dear Runner,

I agree with your last post.

What worries me though, is your lack of interest in minority freedoms ("It appears she is more interested in 'rights ' of minorities than the good of society."):

It is about time that you recognise that we, religious people, ARE a minority in this country. If you want your religious freedom respected, then your only non-violent option is to allow the same freedom to all other minority groups.

runner,
As usual you never let evidence get in the way of your story. You hardly ever comment with supporting evidence on this site.

Please study the research undertaken on social justice in the 31 OECD countries. The first six places were Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands, not one of them a strongly religious country, or one where private or church based schools play a significant role. The religious USA was ranked 27th. The top UK heritage country was Canada at ninth.
Finland is at the top in the education stakes.

One other comment stated that Julia Gillard should be kept in a windowless room. She has very bit as much right to express her party's views as Abbott, Hockey, Robb or Turnbull and what they talk about as far as budgets and economics shows that they either don't understand money theory or they deliberately mislead. Gillard is closer to the truth on budget and money matters far more often than the four horsemen of the right.

'If you want your religious freedom respected, then your only non-violent option is to allow the same freedom to all other minority groups '

Yuyutsu

Who has ever suggested violence? I think you are getting secularist view of the unborn and Islam mixed up with followers of Christ.

I am a strong supporter of choice unlike the fundamentalist atheist who want tax payers money spent only on pushing their dogmas. Maybe home schoolers should also get a slice of the tax pool as they usually do a great job educating their children.

Foyle tries to attack my views on the basis of 'social justice ' research. Please give us a break and don't insult my intelligence with such nonsense. I am sure social justice research also reveals how sexist Australians are (probably conducted by Indian members of the UN).

The constitutional rights of free speech seem ridiculous should they come with caveats. The State or the Executive with full powers to decide what constitutes 'hate' speech is just as scary as the most rabid hater.

My faith is more in ordinary human beings to be able to distinguish the 'nutters' who spread hate and ill-will.

The experience with Andrew Bolt is one such lesson. He was called out on his lack of research and less than illuminating journalistic skills. Those who were targeted already had the right to pursue Bolt in the courts.

While I understand the ideas behind such a Bill and the perceived good intent, there is a risk of these provisions being further and further extended and revised until one is too afraid even to voice a contrary opinion or to raise concerns about various customs or practices by groups of people, religious or otherwise.

Many years ago listening to a Geologist speaking at the National Press Club who questioned creationism and made some comment against a religious group and who was pursued by that group relentlessly. In the end, the legal process cost him a lot of money despite winning the case (from memory) he was essentially ruined. This should never be able to happen and is more of a constraining of rights than the opposite. I wish I could remember his name but the NPC site does not appear to archive older speeches.

Discrimination is another matter in an employment setting. But how can one prove they are discriminated against. How does one prove someone is ageist, racist, religionist, or sexist. Employers always discriminate choosing the person THEY think best to do the job or to fit in with the current team.

I don't think it hurts to have anti-discrimination legislation in place to affirm the rights of all particularly disabled people who may often find they are the best person for the job but not as 'employable' based on perceptions of their abilities. Always difficult to prove and uphold. Incentives to hire disabled people may also prove more fruitful than punishments for not.