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.