The Forum > General Discussion > Has Gillian Triggs committed perjury a 3rd time?
Has Gillian Triggs committed perjury a 3rd time?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
It's my opinion that she is a disgrace to the position and either needs to resign or be charged with contempt or perjury.
"Correspondence from the Australian Human Rights Commission shows that Gillian Triggs has made more misleading statements to parliament, this time about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Professor Triggs, who chairs the commission, has misled parliament about unexplained delays in the commission’s complaint-handling process, the impact of the defences to section 18C and how her organisation dealt with Bill Leak, The Australian’s cartoonist.
The discrepancies between her statements to parliament and the content of correspondence from one of her most senior officers is the latest in a series of incidents in which she has been forced to apologise for memory lapses.
Her latest fumble, which came to light on Tuesday at a Senate estimates hearing, left senators with the false impression that Leak and The Australian did not try to justify a cartoon that was the subject of a complaint under section 18C.
“We received no response,” she told the hearing.
Section 18C, which is the focus of disquiet within the federal parliamentary Liberal Party, makes it unlawful to do anything that causes people to feel offended, insulted, intimidated or humiliated because of their race, colour or ethnic background. She also gave evidence the complaint would almost certainly have been terminated immediately if Leak had sought to justify it by using the defences in section 18D.
Legal correspondence between the commission and lawyers for Leak and The Australian indicate that those assertions are at odds with what was set down in the formal exchange of letters. Leak and The Australian did respond to the complaint and, when they invoked the defences in section 18D"