[...continued]

I use these soft plastic bags to carry my music, not for shopping:
For shopping I use hard-plastic market-baskets which I brought from Israel - they are sturdy, durable and last for many years.
You can't get them in Australia, so sellers, checkout operators and other shoppers look at them enviably, often asking me where I got them from.

http://www.simhim.com/%D7%A1%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7/
http://www.moussai.co.il/product/%D7%A1%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7/
http://arcaffe.co.il/product/%D7%A1%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A7/

Knowing how useful they are and how many others would love to have them, I wanted to import them wholesale (minimum 1000 baskets) from Israel, not for the money, just to do something good, and market-stalls were even happy to be my distributors.

But there is a problem: the baskets are unmarked. They have no "Made In" sign, no trademark, no nothing written. Australian law therefore does not allow me to import them. I even wrote to the appropriate department asking for an exemption, but never got any reply. That is complexity for you... If things were simpler, people could be so much happier!

John,

"By relying entirely on Megan Davis’s statement where she refers to the Uluru Statement as being "roughly 18 pages long," you're engaging in a dishonest tactic known as 'quote mining'. You've no evidence at all."

I'm just giving you some examples of where Megan Davis said that the Uluru Statement was longer than a page. It isn't dishonesty, it is what she said. As such it is evidence. Here is what Megan Davis said in her Parkes Oration (2018):

"A very powerful part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is that it isn't just the first, like one page statement. It's actually a very lengthy document of about eighteen to twenty pages."

The fact that you acknowledge that such matters as the length of the Uluru Statement are the sort of thing that would be addressed by the legislation I find highly disturbing and excellent reason to oppose it.

Your suggestion that I am being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page borders on the psychotic. The thought of Freisler like miscreants such as yourself being given the legal power to censor, threaten and bully people for expressing legitimately formed opinions is truly horrific.

Here is an excerpt from the Daily Mail about the length of Uluru Statement:

"In their newly released book 'Our Voices from the Heart', Indigenous activists and Uluru Dialogue co-chairs Professor Megan Davis and Patricia Anderson explain that the statement is 15 pages'.

'The Statement was drafted and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Convention's delegates,' it reads.

'It is 15 pages long and includes three elements: the one-page pitch to the Australian people; 'our story' of the First Nations history of Australia; and the explanation of the legal reform.'"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12476437/Voice-uluru-statement-albanese-aboriginal-indigenous.html

I'm sure that OLO's resident Justice Freisler will view this link not as evidence, but as yet more dishonesty on my part and further reason to have people like me publicly censored.

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your reply. I’ll give it some more thought and get back to you.

--

Fester,

Again, quoting someone out of context without acknowledging their full explanation is what’s called ‘quote mining’, and that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

Yes, Megan Davis mentioned the supplementary documentation when she referred to the "18 to 20 pages," but she has repeatedly clarified that the statement itself is one page. Here’s that link again:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

I'm still waiting for you to highlight the sinister changes that Albanese hid in the accompanying documentation.

//Your suggestion that I am being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page borders on the psychotic.//

I haven’t suggested that you’re being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page. I said that quote-mining Davis’s words is dishonest. Even if I did, though, that still wouldn’t come close to “psychotic”, let alone border on it.

The fact that you’re now resorting to over-the-top comparisons like "Freisler-like miscreants" only demonstrates that you’re more interested in personal attacks than actual debate. I’m not here to censor or bully anyone - I’m simply presenting evidence and addressing your misrepresentation of the facts.

I'm also still waiting for you to point out specific provisions in the legislation that would give the government the power to censor. Throwing around dramatic accusations without evidence doesn’t do anything to strengthen your point. In fact, it weakens it because it reveals just how vacuous it is.

That link again:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

Ireland has dropped its Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hate and Hatred Offences) Bill because of public backlash. ‘Backlash’ is not a word you hear in Australia, where democracy is not really valued. Australian politicians don't have to worry about it in the land of noddies.

Most people won't have noticed that the acronym for misinformation and disinformation Bill is MAD. Too busy talking about themselves.

They are probably not aware that the Liberal Party announced their claimed opposition to MAD, officially, only two days ago.

Elon Musk, not politicians, has been the only real protector of freedom of speech: prepared to spend $44 billion to protect speech online. Musk is battling tyrannical governments all over the world, including Australia's regime, which he rightly describes as ‘fascist’.

Politicians fear free speech. They fear the people - though not so much in Australia where the people are as docile as dairy cows, regularly milked of not just free speech, but loads of taxes as well.

The party that used to stand for freedom, the Liberal Party, is also now big on controlling the people rather than serving serving them.

Both the major parties are now at their most dangerous, as the public continues to lose faith in them. They have lost their appeal. All they have left is force.

As one commentator says: “Our country has become the hunting ground of charlatans, criminals, thugs, and ideological zealots – all of whom this bill seeks to protect from public ridicule”.