That is actually a great pity, Mr Palmer.

>>By the way, I’ll let Marr off this time, but maybe not next time...<<

It is vitally important that the extent of this proposed legislation is tested at the earliest possible opportunity. Specifically, the part that shifts the burden of proof (of discrimination or offence) away from the complainant.

In this case, Mr Palmer would only need to allege that he has been offended by Mr Marr's observation; it would be up to Mr Marr to "prove" that Mr Palmer was not offended, there being no "reasonable person" test available as defence.

One can only hope that this approach is modified before put into practice. Unfortunately, the record of this government for applying common sense to legislation of "rights" is not encouraging, as has been patently obvious with their approach to workplace relations. There, too, the burden now falls on the employer to "prove" that an employee has not been offended by, for example, an unsatisfactory performance review. The employee's ability to call a "adverse action" complaint is reflected in this broader, more insidious attempt to impose a thought-police type control over citizens.

Appalling.

It has to stop.

Wow, that's certainly one approach to dealing with argument—threatening legal action. Well done. I was going to write in support of David Marr but I'm too afraid. It's good that the days of the Inquisition are over. Or are they?

It's only a pity that the legislation is not enacted already…

I've already prepared a huge list of politicians of all persuasions I could 'have a go at' under the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill for "other conduct" that has offended and insulted me.

Such an onerous workload could be shared amongst all voters – this is a democracy after all, isn't it?

Plus there's always subclause "19 (3) A person (the first person) discriminates against another person if: (a) the first person imposes, or proposes to impose, a policy; and (b) the policy has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging people who have a particular protected attribute, or a particular combination of 2 or more protected attributes…"

And get this – the policy doesn't actually have to have been imposed, for the question as to whether the conduct is discrimination (or unlawful discrimination), to be subject to this Bill.

Since most government policy is targeted to vested interests, they wouldn't even have the exemption in subclause 21 of being treated as special measures to achieve equality.

Appalled.

It has to start.

I find Marr serves a useful purpose for me.

I ensure that my views are always the opposite of this discriminatory, offensive, prejudiced individual, and can then rest assured that my outlook is correct.

By adopting this approach, I am not even annoyed by his supercilious imbecility.

If women-only gymnasia are to be allowed, will men-only gymnasia also be allowed?
And what about some of the comments in this forum on climate change and Israel/Palestine? Will this Bill spell the end of fearless debate?
And are politicians exempt? As a Northern Territorian, I find our PM's usurping the process of choosing our next Labour Senator highly offensive.
This is a bad law coming from a bad government. If it gets up, will Tony repeal it if he gets up?

So the author is convinced that the sole and only reason for people attending religious schools is religion itself. Not any desire to avoid the great unwashed of the general population? Not any other social or personal benefit seeking? See, for example, the website of Scotts College, http://www.tsc.nsw.edu.au. Scotts is clearly about much more than religion or religious education.

So, the religious education argument is nonsense. This antisocial net is currently cast far too wide and the exemptions should (must?) be more specifically defined in the Act.

If religious exemptions to personal rights are to exist in a fair society, then these exemptions must not be applied generally across all businesses with which any religious body may become commercially involved. Religious exemptions must be limited such that they apply to religious purposes - including the teaching OF RELIGION and the practice OF RELIGION. To argue that they should act generally is to argue that religions may establish separate societies (nations?) within Australia and with this I disagree.

At least the author had the good grace to state that he does not support the exemptions in relation to pregnancy or likelihood of pregnancy, yet these remain intact in the proposed legislation. Why isn't the author's Presbyterian Church campaigning against at least these two existing provisions?

Thus far and by my reckoning, David Marr has 90% of the points and David Palmer 10%.