24 hours ago Pauline Hanson said she is not "letting it go". Looks like there will be a High Court appeal.

Hi ttbn,

Then she can claim it was all said UNDER PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. Maybe Dennis Denuto will act on her behalf; “In summing up, it's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe... ah, no, that's it, it's the vibe. I rest my case.”

Hanson was involved in major defamation litigation regarding allegations she made outside parliament against former senator Brian Burston concerning behaviour in a parliamentary office, resulting in substantial court-ordered damages.

Hi ttbn,
As you know I'm not opposed to support for Palestinians.
And I don't want Australia turned into Greater Israel.
There's a few issues Shoebridge stands up for that I have to commend him on, but I'm not generally supportive of progressives.

The point I wish to add, is that us voters never win.

If a politician has one policy or position you would support;
Then they are sure to also have 2 positions that you'd oppose.
Every single one of them, because they all sellout in the end.
No one wins, we all lose.

Jus this sham called democracy where we all go home feeling optimistic stupidly thinking that our team had a small win this week.
Its all total bs, it's a road to nowhere.

Albo, Angus, David, Pauline. These are our saviours?
It's a clownshow of incompetents that disagree constantly and achieve little without screwing things up just as often.

AC,

Given the level of antisemitism in Australia, there is no chance of us becoming a “Greater Israel”. You can rest easy on that.

You can support Palestinians or whoever, but I'm not sure how that ‘support’ works. I don't think that you are the type to break Australian law and go there to help out; do you send them money? How is your ‘support’ working for Palestinians? Israel still has the upper hand; it has been beating off your Palestinians for about 80 years.

Let's just say you prefer Palestine, I prefer Israel, but neither of our opinions means diddly squat in real terms. The never-ending conflict has nothing to do with us or our country.

What we do agree on, I think, is that our political class of all colours is absolutely crap, completely uninterested in what we or anyone else thinks.

It is fine to talk endlessly about an apparent injustice.
But what, in practice, can we do about it?
For one thing, we can make it clear to politicians that we don't approve.
This discussion should help with that.
We can also change the way we vote if we wish.
Or in extreme cases a public protest might be initiated.
But generally speaking, our hands are tied.
We must wait to see how legal processes pan out.
And perhaps make further protest if we disagree with the outcome.

I dislike both Faruqi and Hanson, and think both of them made nasty and vicious comments.

I do not think, though, that either of their comments should be illegal.

Freedom of speech is a vital part of democracy, and that includes freedom to be nasty and vicious.

18C is broad and vague and leaves courts to interpret what is “reasonably likely” to offend a “reasonable” person. Calls for repeal or reform have not just come from the right – Philip Adams, Jillian Trigg and the Australian Law Reform Commission have all criticised it.

One of the unfortunate consequences of making this a legal issue is that it transfers responsibility for sanctioning unacceptable behaviour from the community to the courts. Hanson should be utterly condemned for her comments. So should Faruqi. Instead, one appears to be vindicated while the others can be portrayed as a free-speech martyr rather than a spiteful bigot.