Student computer rooms at universities are usually very busy places, used around the clock and on weekends. Students often have to book times to use a computer. But, in my limited experience, computer rooms set aside for Indigenous students tend to be, shall we say, lightly used. Let's be honest: they're often empty - Indigenous students use the mainstream computer rooms with their non-Indigenous class-mates. I've been on-campus at QUT, Kangaroo Point Campus, and had to wait to use a computer, there was a line of us, waiting impatiently with urgent assignments to complete.

Twenty-five-odd years ago, I managed an Indigenous student space at a SA campus: it had a room for students to relax in, a work-room, and a computer room. Students would often bring their non-Indigenous friends to use the computer room together, but otherwise it was usually empty. There may have been occasions when non-Indigenous students asked if they could use one of the computers, and if so, I wouldn't have said no. The equipment was provided by the campus, after all, not by any specific Indigenous funds from Canberra.

I don't know how specifically-Indigenous spaces are used now, perhaps in the more assertive and segregationist internal atmosphere of Indigenous programs these days, there is more hostility to non-Indigenous students having anything to do with Indigenous students on the part of staff: but I couldn't possibly comment.

There are good and bad ways of handling issues, and in my view, Ms Prior's way was not appropriate.

Joe

If people don't know that abc makes up fake news by now they are likely to die in ignorance. Yes private media does it as well but not at tax payer expense.

Hear, hear and well said Joe!
Alan B.

I don't know why any one is surprised. Alan Austin is known for writing factually deficient and politically biased polemics masquerading as analysis.

However, the Independent Australian is where journalism goes to die.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few factual inaccuracies in this "story".
Most of the major ones have been dealt with in this article, written in response to Mr Thwaites:

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/calum-thwaites-peddles-murdochs-falsehoods-in-on-line-opinion,10710

Happy to discuss, as always ...

Alan,

I find your articles to only have a distant relation to the truth. Your deliberate cherry picking /omission of facts that suit your particular rant creates articles that are far more mendacious than anything from any reputable news media including NewsCorp.

You have not substantiated any criticism of Calum Thwait. It was clear from the outset that Cindy Prior's claim to be offended was extremely feeble and her attempts to extract money from the students and QUT using the AHRC were simple extortion.

1. The Coroner like the AHRC does not have the power to start or stop prosecutions but its determination on a case will strongly influence whether prosecutions proceed. The failure of the AHRC to act responsibly and inform Ms Prior of the weakness of her case and terminate the proceeding while making this clear led to a frivolous law suit, Cindy Prior now owing $250 000 in damages, and the reputation of the AHRC trashed.

2. You have provided no evidence that the AHRC tried to get CP to terminate her extortion attempts.

3. When it became apparent that CP intended to pursue the students, it was incumbent on the AHRC to give them more than a few days to prepare for the mediation and more than a single short mediation meeting to settle the issue. The fact that most of the students had insufficient notice to get to the meeting highlights the shoddy work of the AHRC.

4 The comment by the Judge:
"It seems that Ms Prior's solicitor, QUT and the Commission all knew that the respondents had not previously been notified of the proceedings in the Commission. To say the least, it is surprising that those parties assumed that it was appropriate to proceed in that way... one cannot but wonder why they were so treated."
In judicial terms, this is a stern rebuke. Surprise indicates that the action the AHRC differed wildly with the appropriate actions.

5 Your footnote to Calum is spiteful and unprofessional and typical of the Irrelevant Australia blog for which you write.

Not at all, Shadow Minister. The opposite is the case. Pretty sure you will find everything I have written is 100% correct.

Yes, you are right about Ms Prior’s feeble claims. Her action was doomed from the outset. I have asserted this consistently from the moment this first made the news.

Unfortunately, the Murdoch media has for five years consistently said that Section 18C is a great danger because it allows people to seek compensation just for being offended.

1. Nonsense. The AHRC did advise Ms Prior of the hopelessness of her case. But she had been convinced by The Australian and other news outlets that she could get compensation because she was offended.

The AHRC did terminate the case. Ms Prior commenced court action two months later.

No, Ms Prior does not owe $250,000 in damages. That is false.

2. Evidence for that is in the three embedded hotlinks:

“The AHRC tried for months to get Prior to drop the case. So did her first legal team. She eventually abandoned both and went to court with new lawyers. (There is abundant evidence here, here and here.)”

3. Nonsense. According to whom?

4. Yes, it was a rebuke directed at the cause of the delay. Clearly, that was the intransigence of Ms Prior and her lawyers. Not the AHRC or the QUT.

Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Alan A

I see Alan has published the article that he submitted to OLO on Independent Australia, at the same time taking a swipe at the integrity of On Line Opinion. So you should be aware of a number of things.

1. I agreed to publish Calum's piece because IA refused to publish it. I find the idea that a publication would not publish a well-written response unethical.

2. When Alan submitted his piece to me I said I was not going to facilitate a "tit-for-tat" and they'd both had their say, albeit in different publications, and that was that. That's the way these things ought to work. You don't want matters to drag on until everyone is bored senseless. Nor do you want someone with lots of time on their hands, hounding someone who has to work and study and is trying to set up a career.

3. Alan said that Calum's piece had errors of fact. That might be the case. I pointed out to Alan that this is an opinion site. I do not tell authors what to write. Our theory is that truth will out from claim and counter claim.

4. Alan claims that IA does not publish material that is incorrect. If this is the case they would not have published his response to Calum's article. Without reading past his five point summary I can spot 5 claims that are incorrect. But that's opinion for you.

It's a pity that Alan and IA have decided to smear Calum and OLO, but that's life I guess. IA represents one of the biggest problems of the new media - self-sustaining black holes of smear and innuendo where truth is gradually torn apart. Ironic that he demanded a platform on OLO because it is ethical to provide a place for answers, but his preferred platform is one that doesn't meet that high standard.

Alan,

I meant Cindy Prior now owes $250 000 in legal fees to the students' lawyers.

1,2 - I have followed all your links, and there is no actual evidence of any advice by the AHRC to Cindy Prior that her case was hopeless. In fact, they with Gordon and Slater helped her come to a settlement with QUT. The only evidence that she got adverse advice is when she dropped G&S, but the AHRC continued to assist her. The AHRC terminated the support based on the judgement that conciliation was not possible without any mention of the merit of the complaint. If they had done so the extortion and frivolous court case would not have happened.

That CP managed to extort $5000 ea from some of the other students is proof that 18c enables extortion.

3- After mediating with QUT for roughly 2 yrs, giving the students a few days notice of a meeting which most could not attend, and then an hour or so of mediation is piss poor and smacks of gross incompetence by the AHRC or deliberate bias.

4- As the Judge actually mentioned the Commission in his rebuke, your rebuttal is false. So far your statements are incorrect.

Nonsense, SM,

Have you read the judgments? Where did you get the $250,000 figure?

The students’ barrister, Anthony Morris QC, worked for free.

Re 1,2: The proof is in the timeline. The AHRC dumped Ms Prior on 25 August 2015. She then started court action with new lawyers two months later.

Ms Prior did not come to a settlement with QUT before the AHRC terminated her complaint.

That Ms Prior managed to extort $5000 from some students says nothing about section 18c. The judgments prove overwhelmingly that it put the students at no risk whatsoever.

Re 3: Completely false.

Re 4: The judge mentioned the Commission, QUT and Ms Prior’s solicitor. He did not single out any one for criticism. He expressed surprise.

It is clear from the documentation that QUT had taken responsibility for notifying the students – NOT the AHRC.

It is abundantly clear now from the final outcome that the intransigent party was Ms Prior.

You have got pretty much everything wrong here, SM. Are we right in guessing you read The Australian?

Cheers,
Alan A

Hi again Graham,

I also disagree with the decision of the editor of Independent Australia to refuse to run Calum Thwaites’ article in response to mine. That is his decision, not mine. You and I agree on that.

Just one example of a false statement in Mr Thwaites’ piece is this: “Having consistently ignored the story for a full 6 months, the ABC and Fairfax entered the fray only when the case was nearing its conclusion …”

That is patently untrue. Many articles ran in the Fairfax media within six months of the first report on 3 February 2016.

These include:

1. QUT student faces $200,000 bill in Facebook post racism row
Sydney Morning Herald, 15 April 2016

2. QUT racism case 'legal blackmail': Senator
Sydney Morning Herald, 19 April 2016

3. QUT students claim human rights 'discrimination'
The Brisbane Times, 1 May 2016

4. QUT tried to settle Facebook race case for students
Sydney Morning Herald, May 3, 2016

5. Facebook subpoenaed over 'racist' QUT post
The Canberra Times, June 13, 2016

Graham, you claim that “I can spot 5 claims that are incorrect” in my article. Pretty sure you can’t.

Can we test this please? Nominate just one, and we can examine it.

Thanks, Graham.

Cheers,
AA

Each of your five claims is wrong. And SM has demonstrated that on a number above. I'm not going to waste my time adding to that.

Sorry, Graham.
None of those statements is inaccurate in any way.
All the evidence clearly supports them.
Yes, they contradict what The Australian has told you. But The Australian is wrong.
The assertions from SM have been shown to be incorrect.
If SM or you have any actual evidence to show where my statements are in error, it would be very helpful for either of you to post it here.
Thanks, Graham,
Alan A

Alan, I don't rely on The Australian to form my opinions and made a submission to the parliamentary free speech inquiry. You can read it here. https://aip.asn.au/2016/12/submission-to-federal-government-free-speech-inquiry/

I've read a number of the cases in this area, and it appears you haven't otherwise you couldn't assert what you have asserted. That includes the Prior case. I think SM pings you most tellingly when he takes on your claim that no one uses 18c to extort money. He points out:

"That CP managed to extort $5000 ea from some of the other students is proof that 18c enables extortion."

The readers of IA might get taken in by trolling like this, but I'd like to think OLO has a superior type of reader. They benefit by engaging with other points of view, and they welcome the opportunity.

Not at all, Graham.

Section 18C does not allow compensation for people in Cindy Prior's position who are offended. The outcome of the court case proved that. That was precisely what I said would happen back in February 2016.

The $5000 shake-downs are not the result of the racial discrimination act. They are the result of people being deceived by the malicious campaign of misinformation about the act.

The whole sorry saga was the result of appalling misinformation.

On the matter of trolling, Graham, please check that this assertion appears in Calum Thwaites’ article:

“Having consistently ignored the story for a full 6 months, the ABC and Fairfax entered the fray only when the case was nearing its conclusion …”

That is patently untrue. Many articles ran in the Fairfax media within six months of the first report on 3 February 2016.

These include:

1. QUT student faces $200,000 bill in Facebook post racism row
Sydney Morning Herald, 15 April 2016

2. QUT racism case 'legal blackmail': Senator
Sydney Morning Herald, 19 April 2016

3. QUT students claim human rights 'discrimination'
The Brisbane Times, 1 May 2016

4. QUT tried to settle Facebook race case for students
Sydney Morning Herald, May 3, 2016

5. Facebook subpoenaed over 'racist' QUT post
The Canberra Times, June 13, 2016

Then please insert a line at the end of the article indicating that you now know this is a false allegation.

Then we can move onto the other false allegations in the piece.

Thanks, Graham.
Alan A

Alan,

Apparently, you did not read the judgement.

"She initially lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the matter went to Federal Court, where she lost her case and was ordered to pay the costs, estimated at $200,000 for the students’ lawyers. However, the parties do not expect that she will be able to find the money."

The students' barrister worked on the basis that he would not charge the students, but certainly, can claim from Cindy Prior.

1,2 The timeline does not support your claim. QUT offered a settlement conditional on her not pursuing the students which she refused, at this point G&S withdrew. The AHRC never dumped CP, they simply withdrew without comment leaving the students vulnerable to extortion.

You admit that CP used 18c and lawyers to extort money from the students, yet claim that it has nothing to do with 18c? I see a logical deficiency in your argument?

3. Simply saying "completely false" is not a rational response. What explanation can you give for the AHRC's complete failure to give the students a platform to make their case?

4. Good that you changed your position to admit that the judge included the commission in its rebuke.

QUT wished to settle the claim on behalf of QUT and the students, however, once CP made it clear that she intended to pursue the students separately, the AHRC had now the responsibility to start conciliation attempts with the students. In this duty, it failed miserably.

Thanks SM.

Before responding, can you please show us where you found this paragraph which you present in quotes?

"She initially lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the matter went to Federal Court, where she lost her case and was ordered to pay the costs, estimated at $200,000 for the students’ lawyers. However, the parties do not expect that she will be able to find the money."

It is just not true.

Thanks, SM.

More soon ...

AA

The $5000 payments were made because the defendants did not want to run the risk of the litigation. Nothing to do with The Australian. Doesn't have to be in the legislation for that to be a potential outcome. Extortion is encouraged by the existence of legislation allowing a party to sue, particularly when it empowers the plaintiff more than the defendant. Happens frequently in employment law as well. Suggest you stop making a fool of yourself Alan.

There was never even the slightest faintest smallest teeniest feeblest chance of litigation succeeding, Graham. The outcome when the Prior matter went to trial proved that.

In fact, every case that has ever gone to trial proved that. There has never been a successful claim for just being offended. Not ever.

The spate of $5000 shake-downs only started after the Bolt case in 2011 when The Australian began its tawdry campaign to convince the community that s18C was a threat to free speech. It wasn’t. It isn’t. It never will be.

Now please place a note at the end of Calum Thwaites’ piece advising that his accusation against the Fairfax organisation is patently false.

Thanks, Graham.

Alan,

Here is another link from the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/judge-denies-qut-admins-18c-racism-appeal/8324078

"Federal Court Justice John Dowsett dismissed Ms Prior's case in November on the grounds it did not have reasonable prospects of successfully bringing a racial hatred case. On Friday, Justice Dowsett denied her leave to appeal his decision. She is now facing having to pay costs of up to six figures to students Calum Thwaites, Jackson Powell and Alex Wood."

Alan,

You have yet to provide any evidence that Calum Thwaites’ points are incorrect. So far Calum has been far more honest than you.

Thanks, SM.
Yes, I agree with that quote from the ABC absolutely. It is spot on!
That is exactly what I have been saying all along.
There was never the slightest chance that those students could possibly have been found guilty. None whatsoever!
They were absolutely NOT engaged in a long-term campaign of racial hatred against that poor woman.
So they were never vulnerable at any stage – despite the dire warnings of the Murdoch media that s18C was a threat to free speech. Bollocks!
Will be back tomorrow to tidy up the other issues, SM.
Meanwhile, see if you can find where that ridiculous quote came from about Cindy Prior who “lost her case and was ordered to pay the costs, estimated at $200,000 for the students’ lawyers”.
I’m guessing The Australian. That is bollocks also.
Nightcap time here.
Bon nuit, SM. A demain.
AA

Alan,

You agree with the ABC that CP is facing costs up to 6 figures i.e. $100 000, yet the $200 000 that the Australian estimated is Bollocks? You certainly lack consistency, especially when the legal fees for a barrister can be $1000/hr.

The Shakedowns using 18c also coincided with the reign of Jillian Triggs and Tim S, and their touting for complaints of offence. 18c is absolutely a threat to free speech as none of the shakedowns of the students or the many other complaints settled would be possible without the vague and subjective measure of "offend" and the huge cost of defending frivolous actions.

Calum Thwaites hit the nails on the head.

Thanks Alan, I've reread Calum's piece and suggest if you are so worried about the truth being ascertained that Independent Australia either correct or withdraw both your original piece and your response to Calum's piece as they are obviously both wrong on a number of issues, as demonstrated in Calum's piece and on this thread.

Anyone who reads the three pieces and these comments together will know that, and that is how we treat our readers - as adults who can make up their own minds. It is not up to me to mine every article for things that I disagree with, or worse, that you disagree with, and then annotate them.

Hi again SM,

On the matter of costs, we already have the judgment from Judge Jarrett that Ms Prior must pay $4000 to one of the respondents and $10,780 to another two. We are awaiting the decision on the fourth respondent – one of the students.

The total will be well short of $100,000, but nowhere near $200,000. So, yes, that is absolute bollocks.

The Australian simply concocts what it wants its ignorant readers to believe.

The shakedowns began in 2012 after The Australian commenced its tawdry campaign to falsify the outcome of the Eatock v Bolt judgment – which it has done quite successfully.

The outcome in court of the Prior matter shows overwhelmingly that there is no problem whatsoever with s18C. No-one has ever been disadvantaged by the correct application of that section.

Plenty of people have been disadvantaged by being sucked in to believing that it allows compensation just for being offended. It doesn’t. It never did. It never will. The campaign by The Australian to convince you it is bad law is the cause of these shakedowns – and of all the distress to all parties in the sad and sorry saga of Cindy and the students.

Don’t let them suck you in, SM.

Cheers,
AA

Alan,

I welcome your admission that the ABC talks just as much bollocks as the Australian, but not as much as you clearly.

18C - Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

It is clearly written that with conditions that it is illegal to offend someone. And as the term offend is so subjective it is entirely up to the judge to determine whether it meets community standards, which themselves are exceptionally vague and subjective.

That many people have been unfairly targeted and hurt as these students were by the incorrect application of this law shows that not only is it used to punish free speech, but it is used for extortion.

That Cindy Prior managed to inflict huge costs on QUT and the students and got away with a slap on the wrist shows exactly how powerful a weapon 18c is for unscrupulous rent seekers.

Hi SM,

The ABC sometimes gets things wrong, but never intentionally. The Australian, in contrast, deliberately lies to you routinely.
All we know about costs against Cindy Prior so far is that Judge Dowsett awarded $4000 to Alex Woods and $10,780 to Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell. Ms Prior has paid them.
There will be more to come, but probably not much more.
Anything else is speculation.

SM, you are revealing precisely the distorted misunderstanding of section 18C that The Australian wants you to have.
This is what The Australian says:
“Section 18C makes it illegal to say anything which is ‘reasonably likely … to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people’ because of their ‘race, colour or national or ethnic origin’.”
That is an exact quote. With a fullstop.
It leaves out the heading of the section: "Part IIA—Prohibition of offensive behaviour based on racial hatred." And it leaves out the critical conditions which have been developed by the cases.

The humiliating or intimidating statements made MUST BE part of a sustained public campaign clearly motivated by racial hatred.
That part of the application of the RDA is critical. It is an outrageous distortion by The Australian to leave out the critical conditions.
It is just as bad as saying “An adult can be charged with murder for hitting a child.”
Of course that is false.
But the full sentence is true: “An adult can be charged with murder for hitting a child with such force that the child is killed.”
What The Australian is doing is exactly like sprouting half that sentence – and then campaigning for the murder laws to be scrapped.

Don’t let them suck you in, SM?
AA

Alan,

You along with many from the left claim that The Australian lies yet are unable to produce actual examples. Over 1000s of articles produced every year only a handful have included incorrect information which compares starkly with the shoddy record of IA.

Your latest post contains a blatant falsehood:

18c and its qualifier 18d are below:

"The humiliating or intimidating statements made MUST BE part of a sustained public campaign clearly motivated by racial hatred." is patently false, otherwise Bolt would have been cleared.
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

The problem is not that there is a theoretical chance of 18c being abused but real cases where the threat of a ruinously expensive court case (for those that can't find pro bono lawyers) or the handing over of a few $1000 to a grub and his activist lawyers.

The QUT students could have been vindicated and financially bankrupt.

Not at all, SM.

There are countless examples of falsehoods from The Australian. For example:

1. "Section 18C makes it illegal to say anything which is 'reasonably likely … to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people' because of their 'race, colour or national or ethnic origin'.”

2. "You can hardly blame (Cindy) Prior for slogging it out in the courts. The law — section 18C — invites her to put her alleged pain ahead of freedom of expression."

3. "And the deceptively labelled Human Rights Commission is there to usher the case into court, bypassing the most basic human right — to speak freely."

4. "Defamation laws rightly exist to protect people’s reputation. But section 18C is a direct hit on words that merely hurt someone’s feelings."

5. "In 2011, columnist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching section 18C for expressing his views on how people identify as indigenous."

6. "Reforming section 18C was never about Bolt. It’s about a handful of QUT students who wrote a few comments on Facebook poking fun at racial segregation at QUT."

All six are clearly false. They are all from same article. Easily googled. They have been repeated countless times.

The killer blow to the case advanced here by The Australian is in the judgments handed down in this very matter. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Cindy Prior was offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated. So she should have won hands down if what The Australian and you are claiming were true.

But she didn’t. She lost comprehensively – as I said she would back in February 2016. She lost because the actions of the students were NOT part of a sustained public campaign clearly motivated by racial hatred as evidenced by multiple lies.

Time to revise your views in the light of realities, SM.

Cheers,
AA

Alan,

None of the 6 snippets you have taken out of Janet Albrechtsen's column are falsehoods. While they are not complete and sometimes overly concise, they are not false.

1 This does not mention section 18d, but in itself is not false.

2 This is also true, and she succeeding in extracting monies from some students before a barrister offered his services pro bono and stopped her.

3 The AHRC should not do this but functionally does. It does help with deputy Tim S actively encouraging people to complain.

4 Offending someone is hurting someone's feelings.

5 Having read the judgement, this is overly simplified but not false.

6 Here she is stating her opinion.

0/6 so far for you Alan.

Your next paragraph is a lie. Note that in Woods' case against CP's lawyers for bringing a frivolous case, he lost as the judge determined that the case was not completely hopeless, which actually verifies what the Australian and I were saying.

So 0/7

That the comments were not of a sustained public campaign was irrelevant to the case.

So 0/8.

If those statements from The Australian were true, SM, then how come Cindy Prior lost her case so quickly, so easily and so comprehensively?

As the judge said:

"my decision in this case was entirely unremarkable. It did nothing than extract the principles from the decisions in the superior courts – the Federal Court and the High Court – that apply to cases that assert a contravention of s.18C and then attempt to apply those principles to the facts before me. This case creates no precedent. This case is simply an application of the facts to the law."

This is exactly what I said would happen. It is the opposite of what The Australian said would happen.

Correct, SM?

Cheers,
AA

AA

Incorrect. But I can see why your articles are such bollocks.

Neither I nor the Australian, or any other paper saw any merit in CP's case. Neither did any of us declare that she would win. Nor does anything in JA's article claim so either. The issue is that CP like others was using flawed legislation to extort money.

What is abundantly clear is that CP's objective was to use the threat of ruinous court costs based on flawed and vague legislation to extort money from QUT and students, and probably would have succeeded without a civic-minded Barrister offering his services pro bono.

Alan,

Did CP's actions affect the careers and plans of those students in any way ? Yes.

Did the AHRC appear to be going into bat for CP ? Yes.

Did the AHRC and QUT do the right thing and promptly inform the students that there may be court cases against them, as breaching s. 18 ? Yes.

Suck it up and move on.

Joe

Hi again SM and Joe,

So who do you believe?

The supporters of s18C of the RDA who have been saying all along that it posed absolutely no risk to those students whatsoever? Or do you accept the narrative of The Australian that it is bad law, a threat to free speech, it makes it an offence just to humiliate or intimidate someone on racial grounds, it imposes a punishing process when someone makes a complaint and should therefore be abolished?

You can’t have it both ways, chaps.

This whole sorry saga of Cindy and the silly students is the direct result of so many people being sucked in by The Australian. Had they not been, there would have been no need for lawyers – as in the landmark Kelly-Country v Beers, there would have been no $5000 shake-downs, and it would have been over in the court room in less than an hour - with no financial cost to those accused.

The damage done to the students, the university, the academics, the AHRC, lawyers and the complainant are all the result of a tawdry campaign of misrepresentation of the Act, led by The Australian.

There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for blaming the Act. Or the AHRC. There has never been a case where the Act has served to punish or disadvantage anyone unfairly. Not ever. The RDA remains a proven, time-tested, invaluable community safeguard – unlike The Australian, of which the opposite is true.

Cheers, chaps,
AA

Alan,

Clearly given the time, expenses, the extortion money paid and the reputational damage suffered by the students, it is obvious that "The supporters of s18C of the RDA who have been saying all along that it posed absolutely no risk to those students whatsoever" are complete morons.

Clearly given this case and other extortion attempts the vague and subjective terms "offend and insult" need to be removed from 18c.

The consequences to CP and her lawyers are a direct result of their greed and attempted extortion. The reputational damage to the AHRC was because of their incompetent handling of the case, TS's touting for complaints and Triggs lying to the Senate.

Not at all, SM. The opposite is true.
If those students had read Independent Australia in February 2016, they would know that they were home free. They were innocent. They did not need to do anything. They could have ignored the whole Murdoch-fuelled fiasco completely.
One of the students – Kyran Findlater – was advised by a Brisbane solicitor to do just that and walk away.
Unfortunately, he hadn’t read IA. He had read The Australian – which told him the opposite. The silly goose paid up $5000.
At least one student just walked away. He paid nothing.
That’s what they all should have done.
The RDA is clear, and the cases make it crystal, that those students had nothing to fear from the RDA whatsoever.
It was The Australian which conveyed the dire messages that it was bad law, it should be repealed, it hinders free speech, they had offended someone, so they were in breach, so they must play along, get a top QC, put their lives on hold and eventually pay up.
Look at the reality, please, SM.
Cheers,
AA

Alan,

I would only take your legal advice if I wanted to get hanged for jaywalking.

All of the students ended up with reputational damage, two paid a $5000 extortion demand, one was overseas I think and two of the students who refused to pay incl Woods who issued a public apology ended up in a court case that would have cost them 10s of $1000s and a huge amount of time to defend.

At this point, anyone claiming that 18c posed absolutely no risk to those students whatsoever is either an imbecile, a liar or both.

Complete and total nonsense, SM.
Please look at the judge’s decision. He said that Ms Prior’s complaint “had no reasonable prospects of success” and was “bound to fail”.
The s18C and 18D cases make it crystal clear: to violate the Act, the conduct must be part of a sustained campaign of vilification motivated by racial hatred, involving multiple malicious lies.
That is how it has always been interpreted. Ref Creek, Jones, Kelly-Country, Bropho, Bolt, etc.
Tragically for the students and Ms Prior, the Murdoch media has lied about the Act for the last six years and convinced a lot of people it is bad law.
It isn’t.
Those students didn’t need to fork out $5000 to Ms Prior’s lawyers or any money to anybody else. They didn’t even need lawyers. Ref Kelly-Country v Beers.
If they had done what Chris Lee did and ignored the whole tawdry try-on, it would have cost them nothing.
Reputational damage was not caused by the Act. It was caused by The Australian publishing the students' names – even though it knew full well they they were all completely innocent.
Don’t let them suck you in, SM.
Cheers,
AA

Alan,

You are singularly one of the most mendacious posters I have met. You make wild claims and provide as proof links that have bugger all to do with the issue. Kelly-Country v Beers does not confirm one thing that you have claimed.

That CP's case heavily affected the students is not in dispute, and if Chris Lee had been named in the case and ignored it he would have been in severe trouble.

If the case was entirely frivolous, Wood's suit against CP's lawyers would have succeeded and issued a warning. However, his case failed as the judge ruled that CP's case was not hopeless, and if the barrister had not acted pro bono the students would have been vindicated but out of pocket by upward of $100 000.

Now please review the information and stop lying.

Nonsense, SM.
Chris Lee was named in the case. Ninth respondent. See here:
file:///D:/Alan/Documents/Freelance%20July%202017/Indigenous/Cindy%20Prior%20S18%20RDA/prior-v-queensland-university-of-technology-ors-no-2-2016-fcca-2853.pdf
He did ignore it. He did not get into severe trouble.
Kelly-Country v Beers is a case where the appellant successfully defended a claim against him without legal representation.
Correct?
Apology, please, SM.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Alan A

Alan,

You are as mendacious as ever, You still haven't given anything to prove "The s18C and 18D cases make it crystal clear: to violate the Act, the conduct must be part of a sustained campaign of vilification motivated by racial hatred, involving multiple malicious lies." yet you perpetuate the lie.

On top of that, you claim that the Australian is lying when it says "Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity." When it is cut and paste from the AHRC. Are they lying too?

Chris Lee dodged a bullet by not turning up and risked a summary judgement. It was luck not good judgement.

Similarly, your example of Kelly-Country v Beers is complete bollocks as neither party had representation. The students going alone against a company of lawyers would be idiotic.

Apologies please Alan.

External link for the case showing Chris Lee as ninth respondent is here:

https://theaustralianatnewscorpau.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/prior-v-queensland-university-of-technology-ors-no-2-2016-fcca-2853.pdf

Cheers,
AA

How did you do that, SM?
Someone just deleted your post and my reply to your post, then replaced your post with another one.
Impressive.
Are you Graham Young?
Thanks, SM.
Cheers,
AA

You're dreaming Alan,

I don't see any of my posts missing and I am certainly not Graham Young.

At this point, I think I shall retire as well with a basic summary:

1 You have not disproven one iota of Calum Thwaites' article.

2 The students and others have suffered damage in costs time wastage and reputational damage through the misuse of the flawed 18c.

3 18c irrespective of its original intentions, can and has been used as a weapon against free speech

4 The sheer vitriol and irrationality of your crusade against The Australian leaves questions as to your sanity.

And as George Carlin said 'Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

Sorry, SM. Wrong on all counts.

1. Mr Thwaites wrote this: “Fairfax media's coverage … consistently ignored the story for a full 6 months …”
Paragraph 5. Correct?
That’s easily proven false by reading the many Fairfax articles in the early months. See above.
His other errors have been exposed, with reference to the evidence, at Independent Australia.

2. S18C is perfectly fine. It requires no amendment whatsoever.
The damage suffered – by many people, including the students – is due to widespread misunderstandings about the RDA following deliberate misreporting thereupon.

3. No-one has ever had their rights to free speech curtailed by the correct application of S18C. Not ever. Not once. The fact that Ms Prior lost her action adds strength to this claim.

4. If The Australian had respected the privacy of the students and the other participants, in accordance with the principles of all media codes of ethics, they would not have suffered anything like the stress, strain, anxiety and loss of reputation they claim to have endured.

If The Australian had not conducted its campaign of misrepresentation of s18C since 2011, this whole sorry saga would never have begun in the first place.

Cheers, SM.
AA

Hi Alan, none of your posts have been deleted, and it is offensive of you to suggest that they have. Everyone who posts here knows that I don't delete posts unless they breach forum rules, and while your posts are bizarre, they do not breach forum rules. I also inform the offender that they have breached the rules and their post has been deleted, and sometimes apply a penalty, depending on the gravity of the breach.

It is also against forum rules to operate a sock puppet, and I bounced one (posing as two) posters the other day for just that. Anyway, anyone who reads SM and reads me knows our writing styles are quite distinct.

Your detection of a conspiracy on OLO, where none exists, could be quite a useful tool to use in terms of analysing your claims of a conspiracy against S18C from The Australian.

Alan,

Lying again?

Your claims that No-one has ever had their rights to free speech curtailed by the correct application of S18C is complete rubbish.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/why-abolish-18c-consider-this-vexatious-complaints-threat-to-free-speech/news-story/fffa3ed01b6b8c73768ac1d2ad07bed8

In yet another abuse of 18c Sokhom Prins — the author of emails referring to writers at The Australian as members of a “WHITE RACIST POSSE has taken members of the press to court in spite of the AHRC dismissing it out of hand.

While Sokhom Prins has no chance of winning the case, she has inflicted a considerable cost on the defendants, who even if costs are awarded are unlikely to be able to recover much.

As for your claim wrt Fairfax, it was roughly August when Cindy prior launched her vexacious court action, and March when Fairfax first reported. This is roughly 6 months... Correct?