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.