Dear Banjo,

I know that when you post, you
post from the heart, and you're
one person who at least tries to
see things from various perspectives
and not just simply your own.

I appreciate your taking the time to
read the websites I gave. And fair
enough, if you don't agree with the
last one. Dr Eva Sallis,
does not have any hidden agenda. She's
speaks from a position of experience
however, especially as far immigrants go.
She's worked with them over many years in a
wide variety of situations. And has dealt
with many of their problems.
She's also from an immigrant background
herself, and cares deeply about her work.

Dear TBC,

Thanks for your input.

Much appreciated.

Dear Pelly,

Always a voice of reason.

Pelican,
I would like to get your interpretation of the words 'critisism' and 'vilifacation'.

Foxy,
I did not say that AAR had a hidden agenda. I said they embrace a wider agenda than their name. Obvoiusly as advocates for 'illegal' immigrants or boat people. There is nothing hidden about that.

I do not think much of Eva Sallis's handling of accuracy in that document.

Dear Banjo,

My apologies.

I misunderstood.

And, you are of course entitled to your
opinion.

Anyway, while I'm here I would like
to Thank each and every poster
who contributed to this thread.
It went on for much longer than I had
anticipated - and there have been a
wide variety of responses - which was
to be expected considering the topic
that seems to produce emotive reactions.

Banjo, I'm not sure that Pelly is still
reading this thread so in answer to your
question perhaps the following website
may be useful:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2893

For me this thread has now run its course.
I don't have anything new to add.
So you all on another thread.

Banjo
There was a recent case mentioned on another thread on OLO where one neighbour engaged in a continuous racial tirade and torment of their adjoining neighbours including swearing racial obscenities, dumping rubbish and other acts of harassment.

This is an obvious case of racial villification but I concede the lines are sometimes vague and blurred which is why any legislation on villification should be clearly defined.

I do not see criticism of religion to be a breach unless of course there is continuous harassment of an individual similar to the case above purely based on race or religious orientation.

Dear Pelly.... with that last post you set the stage for my new discussion on human rights.

You say Vilification legislation should be clearly defined.. I suggest chucking it as far as we can into the muddiest part of the Yarra.

The law we have is draconian and designed to favor the complainer...which opens the door for widespread abuse.

Canada.. the human rights basketcase of the world.. is a good example.

This is part of the problem with our law.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rarta2001265/s9.html

9. Motive and dominant ground irrelevant

(1) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.

That's mind numbing. It sure as hell matters in cases of death.. "intent"..."motive" make the diff between manslaughter and wilful murder.
HOw in this world can 'motive' not be relevant ? ? ?

This is clear evidence of the Marxist/Frankfurt school/Marcusian/Lefist movement to destroy freedom and genuine criticism.

There is sooooo much SUBJECTIVE rubbish between the ears of HREOC commissioners..they need a good decoke and valve grind. ( a Port and Polish would not go astray either)