Hi Cossomby,

Yes, it may be understandable but also inflammatory: each side in any of those conflicts will feel slighted and wronged by any monument put up by the other. If they involve Australians, well and good, but unless they do so, they should be left at the door, so that people can get on with their lives, and new lives at that.

For anybody interested in the Rufus River battle, see www.firstsources.info, on the South Australian Protector's Letters page, 1841, for a first-hand account. If it was a 'massacre', then it was more or less the only one in South Australia, by the way. It is also covered in 'Voices From the Past', a commentary on the Annual Reports (1837-1950s) of the Protector, by Crooks & Lane, available now on Amazon and Book Depository. Incredibly good value.

Joe

Dear Cossomby,

I totally agree with you.

We can learn a great deal from history and it
should not be whitewashed.

Rev. Bill Crews who has allowed for the statue
to be placed in the Uniting Church run Foundation's
gardens in Ashfield said -

"This is not a diatribe against Japan. It's
about the way women get treated in all wars. It's
about the dark side of human nature.
We don't accept violence against people, we don't
accept people being abused or sexually exploited.
The statue says this is wrong."

Japan used Korean, Chinese, Dutch and Australian
women as sexual slaves in WWII.
Anyone having doubts in this regard - should
take out the DVD - "Paradise Road," (1997 film)
directed by Bruce Beresford - starring Glenn
Close, Cate Blanchett, Wendy Hughes ...

The statue is about calling an end to war and
violence and the security of human rights.
It's a shame that the Japanese Community in
Australia can't come on board.

Foxy,

There are several aspects to 18c that make it simply bad legislation.

Firstly, legislation is meant to be objective, and the terms "offend" and "insult" are purely subjective which leaves it up to the judge to determine what is reasonable. The result of which are many cases where this is being used to extort money, for example the recent case of Ms Prior who used the threat of legal action to extort money from some QUT students. That she lost in court did not stop the students racking up $200 000 in legal fees, which they are unlikely to retrieve from Ms Prior.

Secondly the "defense" offered in 18D is no defense against huge court costs and an activist AHRC that encourages frivolous court action.

Finally, making offending someone unlawful, makes free speech unlawful which is a crime against humanity in itself.

That you rail against the Japanese have filing a complaint is hypocrisy as it is a clear case of "what is good for the goose.."

I am so glad that Jesus was into actions rather than token gestures usually with a left leaning political dogma attached to it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I fully respect your opinion and those of others
who find fault with 18C. Each of us for a variety
of reasons have different opinions on the subject.
The following link explains why do some politicians
want 18C changed:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-01/what-is-section-18c-and-why-do-some-politicians-want-it-changed/7806

I happen to be one who does not want it changed.
If my opinion disagrees with yours - this does not
mean that we will not be able to agree on issues in
the future. We'll simply have to agree to disagree
on this one.

Interesting development on 18c.
Ms Prior's barrister is arguing in the appeal that 18c makes it an
offence to criticise a situation that promotes discrimination !
The judge is puzzled.

The whole thing makes a plot for Gilbert & Sullivan.