he is luckey they didnt lock him up
the justice systym is qld is living in the dark-ages

they think they can simply pass moralising laws
and do..you cannt smoke/here..you cant let a plant grow
there is a new-law on the way...OUTLAWING...swearing

this is what happens..when lawyers..go into politics/with moralising adgendas..then lawyers make the laws/

then former lawyers..become/judges..judge the laws..
then former judges/ie former lawyers..hear the appeal...and qualify it into law...L.A.W

and suprise suprise..next time/
the judge wont be ALLOWED to be considerate..
because the judge MUST obey..whatever the higher-courts have ruled..

your only seeing the first steps

next the lawyers/govt..pass a NEW legislative rule
then the court of appeal..validates it
and presto..we got a new law...so swearing becomes a crime

dont say/you didnt know
or claim..you wernt told
this is how govt works

and worse..the preceedant/having gone to appeal..
is in future dissalowed..on appeal,..because it has allready been decided..by appeal..!

and..you can swear all you like
but then..its too late

but thats how..its done
in the..'put it where the sun/dont shine/sun-shine'...sunshine state

the state/where the..two party/ex lawyers
run the mate/rate franchise..for their mates

while ever more policing/the public-weal..into submission
via revenue raising/oppression and threats of force and jail

suzeonline,
Scratch a "progressive", reveal a totalitarian.
Jail somebody for three years for being nasty?
Welcome to the "tolerant" world of the left.
Let's just jail anybody who sends nasty emails to shy and sensitive politicians.

Offensive yes, criminal no.

IMHO Police sufficiently alarmed to pursue respondent in court only because complaint came from MP's office !

IF Premier and MP's really want such language to NOT be acceptable should STOP proclaiming others right to so abuse Police doing their job, as well as other members of the community.

Well, Foxy is right...and since he sent these words which are considered to be 'offensive' via a fax machine he did indeed breach the telecommunications laws and should have been charged.

That said, apart from the content of this fellows emails, our MPs should be getting stern emails from all of us about their abject failure to perform for the monies they plunder from our backpockets.

The few letters that do return to authors of concerns are not ever worth receiving, written in a tone that shows they are not interested in responding to the actual concerns.

Whatsisname writes copious books on the topic of pollie-speak... Keatings old speech writer... can't think of his name.

I think the context is important here.

If he had been standing on a street corner, haranguing passers-by with his "views", I think it would be totally appropriate for a passing copper to whisk him away, and charge him with some sort of public order offence. Likely outcome, a $50 fine and a stern warning.

But using the same language in a fax, addressed, one presumes, to an individual?

The easiest thing in the world: bin it.

Why create such a fuss?

The outcome is now far, far more destructive than simply ignoring the idiot.

It has forced the courts into a position where they really had to declare "de minimis non curat lex", taking into account the scale of the "damage" caused by one fax.

Regrettably, that is then blazoned across the headlines as "Race-hate words 'not offensive to reasonable people'" - which, of course, is arrant nonsense when generalized in this manner.

Of course "race hate words" are offensive. But it's one thing for the soap-box loony to shout "all n8gg8rs are bludgers" to the world at large, but if the bloke at the bar leans across and says the same thing, do you hop onto your phone and dial the police?

Of course not.

The whole incident has been blown out of all proportion.

Some people are so keen to big-note their political correctness, they lose all perception of scale. And in doing so, they create opportunities for people to be precious about our freedom of speech, when the incident hardly warrants a footnote.

Proxy,

We all defecate but would you accept a stranger deliberately doing so in your lounge room, in front of your children or in your office next to your desk. I doubt it, yet in principle you offer the same argument. Just because it's 'everyday(?) language' amongst a limited demographic doesn't mean it's either common in the greater community or acceptable.

any person has the 'right' to break the law or not knowing full well there will be sanctions. This man clearly chose to vent his prejudices on several occasions in an offensive way....I have no sympathy for him.

Unless he's declared incompetent being 64 years old is no excuse.
no is it particularly old (as in old duffer)
BTW a duffer is a livestock thief.

As for your unsupportable claim that "scratch a......." that is poor argument to cover both prejudice and intellectual laziness.

In my various activities I guess I've heard most obscenities, profanities etc but *never* necessary to a meaningful objective point.

I don't know where and who you associate with but I can honestly say I rarely hear those terms today....this is 2010 not 50's slaughter yard. Times have changed get with times.