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.