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 > An eye for an eye in human rights law > Comments

An eye for an eye in human rights law : Comments

By David Palmer, published 23/1/2013

I, as a religious person, find Marr's reference to those of religious faith as 'bigots' deeply offensive and insulting.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:12:29 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
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?
Posted by Asclepius, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:21:36 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
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.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:55:32 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
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.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:39:29 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
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?
Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:39:37 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
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%.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:39:55 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
Given that God doesn't exist and all religion is a major fraud, I can't wait for someone to propose a law that will allow parents to be sued for sending their innocent children to an institution that, daily, will fill their minds with superstitious rubbish and fill them with fear.

Children don't have the intellectual capacity to work out for themselves when they are being lied to and indoctrinated. They rely on their parents and teachers to tell them the truth. When they reach sixteen or so, they begin to think for themselves but for many the damage has been done.

Religion is not about truth, but cleric gaining control over the minds of the gullible and the intellectually weak. Just because the parents swallowed the religious con doesn't give them the right to have their children indoctrinated surely.

Stand up for kids. Stop the religious con now!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:34:15 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
"Yes, these schools are supported by taxpayer funds but then why shouldn't they be taxpayerfunded? These parents are taxpayers themselves."

But that's not the point, is it? Taxpaying citizens who don't have children of school age are still obliged to pay for public education, even though they derive no benefit from it: why shouldn't you? If I choose to hire a bodyguard, should I be entitled to cry off paying that proportion of my taxes which fund our military forces? If I pay Telstra for broadband, can I deduct my tax contribution to the National Broadband Network? Just try it some time.

The point of taxes is to redistribute personal wealth for the general good: if those taxes get handed straight back to the wealthy in subsidies for private schools, they are not performing their proper function.

Let those people who want private education pay for it out of private funds, just like anyone else who wants something special for themselves.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:55:43 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
David Palmer comments coming from some in the clergy towards same sex marriage ie:
"it encourages paedophilia" "Beastiality" "Polygamy" "abuse of children" etc etc
Now if that is not bigotry, what is it, especially coming from those persons who are suppose to be persons of "charity and christian love", yet make their living, by abusing people minds and imposing a false fear.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 5:07:57 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
David G, you are so right, when are people going to wake up that religion is all crap, I am sure all those young men going to the better place to be united with the virgins, may be horribly disappointed when they are all 90 year old virgins, may wish they were better off where they were before they obliterated themselves.
Then we have the white attired man and his purple men all trying to ape the transsexuals, who are not living in this century at all, but he makes sure he keeps all the poor people not using condoms, so they will be forever poor, that will mean he will be kept in the luxury he is used to as they will know nothing different, treating him as some superior being
Then we have the not to use anyone else's blood brigade and so on.
How on earth can anyone believe all this rubbish that is a pack of lies created some 2000 odd years ago
Posted by Ojnab, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 5:29:08 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
In principle I agree with the potential 'dangers' in some of the anti-discrimination law but until I read the actual wording I feel unable to provide an informed contribution. Like most laws much is left to it's application ie. the discretion and commonsense of the judicial system, the Judge etc, but this is not always a fullproof guarantee of fairness or commonsense. How an ordinary person may interpret the law may not always play out as one might think in an investigation and court proceeding.

A can of worms or a storm in a tea cup - I am not sure yet (excuse the cliches) but I can see the potential for abuse if regulators go too far or make the provisions so ambiguous and broad that it might mean anybody is capable of being accused and possibly charged with offending someone. Always better to err on the side of freedoms than restricting them or making law impossibly complex, intrusive and ambiguous. With ambiguity comes scope for abuse and overuse.

One aspect that does concern me is the burden of proof as Pericles raised in the first post. How can anyone prove that the complainant was not offended. Even if one can argue rationally that one ought not to be offended in a particular scenario does not mean the complainant wasn't offended from their point of view. It does read as absurd in that context.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 24 January 2013 9:28:43 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
David Marr is said to represent 'the majority' but from everything I have read and heard from Mr Marr he is speaking from his position as a homosexual; a social group that is still very much a minority.
From close observation of David over many years my conclusion is that David 'has a problem' with christianity because his feelings of guilt surrounding anal sex were instilled as part of his education and the only way he can express the tension between his personal behaviour and his conditioned state is to repeatedly declare how 'bigoted' the church is.
Posted by citizen, Sunday, 27 January 2013 8:32:08 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
That's pretty revealing, citizen. About you, that is.

>>From close observation of David over many years my conclusion is that David 'has a problem' with christianity because his feelings of guilt surrounding anal sex were instilled as part of his education and the only way he can express the tension between his personal behaviour and his conditioned state is to repeatedly declare how 'bigoted' the church is<<

How do you feel about atheists in general?

Do you perhaps suspect that we are all homosexuals with feelings of guilt surrounding anal sex? If not, what possible relevance does Mr Marr's sexual life have to your conclusion? The psychological implications of your comment are pretty interesting, but you probably would not want to explore those right now, would you..

Mind you, I tend to think that attraction to religion in general tends to be infested with feelings of guilt - and let's face it, you have far more things to feel guilty about than the average atheist.

I recall in my youth finding a Catholic lad at my school in floods of tears because he had inadvertently eaten meat in the school canteen... on a Friday! Shock, horror.

Is that the kind of guilt you had in mind?
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 27 January 2013 3:14:44 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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