Take a good look at yourselves folks.

Take a look at the posts so far and evaluate the differences of opinion and who's on who's side. That's exactly what this proposed legislation wants to do and is all about. Divide and conquer. It's the greatest play in the Marxist idiom. Create artificial class struggle and play falsely on the moral highground creating victims to support and foster. The purpose is to divide social wellbeing and set brother against brother, sister against sister, and sister against brother. They first create the problem and then they exacerbate it, demonstrate attempts to solve it, but never do, leaving folks angry, frustrated and most importantly, holding hatred for their fellow citizens

In such an environment, governance of a police state can thrive because the citizens are too busy being full of hatred and distrust for their class enemies to be bothered to be critical of the government. This proposed legislation is designed to create exactly that, community division.

And all you good folk are already falling into your roles, taking the bait and starting the class war. You're already building walls and trenches to fight the battle, each believing that they hold the moral highground. When in reality, you're all good people with just slightly different points of view, who, left alone would agree to disagree, move on and get over it. There is no issue.

Hatred is exactly what Roxon and Co want. They want division amongst the people so they can be the rulers and masters.

But hey, right now I'm taking advantage of the fact that the legislation isn't law yet and to tell you that I think you're all acting very stupidly. You see, after the legislation is passed, and it will be, I won't be able to write this. I'll become public enemy No1.

Anyway, good luck folks, you're all gonna need it. Me? I'm hoping to go somewhere into eastern Europe maybe, where the folks there have had a gutfull of all this sort of rubbish and are now working cohesively towards freedom.

Cheers.

I side with the view that the article is simplistic. Human beings are much more complex than that. At our best we may be immune to the taunts of those who's opinions we don't value but we also for the most part social creatures. For most acceptance by our peers is valued to some degree. Most of us have our weak points where we are more sensitive than others.

We are certainly never in a position to truly judge how robust another person is (especially in an unsolicited prank call). We generally don't know what other pressures someone may be facing in their lives.

The basic premise is true, offence is taken, not given but we are not all that strong all the time. Taken as a license that belief is the mark of a bully just as hiding behind hurt feelings and offence can be the mark of a bully on the other extreme.

It could also be argued that attachment to material possessions is a choice not an absolute yet we mostly accept that should not give others the right to deface our property.

I don't much like the idea of the laws, I find it easy to envisage them being trivialised used to support abuse rather than decency but the tone of the article bothers me as well.

runner, I see the carry on about Tim's comments as mostly more swipes in political games rather than as genuinely offensive. A game his partner and her party have happily played but a sad one never the less. A man trying to use his position to help men be more aware of important health issues is not someone I'm happy to see the target of that game regardless of what I think of his partner. Frankly when I get that particular check the smaller the finger ding the check the better.

R0bert

First Finkelstein and now the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination draft bill.

Why does this bill exempt religion from prosecution when religion is the main source of discrimination [Sections 32 and 33]? This would mean women still cannot become Catholic priests and Islamic women would have no right to not wear the burqa.

In addition why does the Bill exempt members of parliament and arguably bureaucrats from prosecution when the legislature is the other main source of discrimination [Section 15(2)]? This would mean any elected official, even outside the protection of parliamentary privilege, could still offend under the description of the Act.

The Act also propose a reversal of the onus of proof [Section 124]; it is a maxim that it is legally impossible to prove a negative which is what anyone who has been accused of an offence under the Act would be required to do.

To create new rights involves compromising or destroying old rights. It is clear that this Act would compromise many aspects of the right to free speech; and it would do so without touching the main sources of discrimination.

Cohenite says "Islamic women would have no right to not wear the burqa."
Whilst I agree with the rest of your post and don't understand why religious people should have a monopoly on discriminating against others, I didn't think the legislation was going to make it compulsory for muslim women to wear the burqua. If the legislation doesn't enforce it and there is no other law requiring them to wear the burqua then how can they not "have the right not to wear the burqua?"

I guess the issue with the burqa would be that people arguing against the burqa would be caught by this legislation and that absence of support for those muslim women who do not want to wear the burqa would not be there, making it easier for the pressure within Islam for women to wear the burqa to be sustained.

But you are right, there is nothing specific within the Bill which in itself mandates that muslim women wear the burqa.

God how precious we are all getting.

I was about 5 years old when I was taught that old ditty that goes,
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".

I wonder just how old some people will have to be to actually understand what that means.

One really has to wonder if it is worth perpetuating a society which is full of people so weak they can't stand anyone talking meanly to them.

It is perhaps a good thing it is not worth perpetuating, as it is sure to slide out of existance on it's own slime very soon.