I can understand her tribe wanting to support Gillian Triggs and honour her in some way, but to award her for her contribution to free speech would appear positively Orwellian.

But that is what Liberty Victoria has done https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/03/human-rights-commissioner-gillian-triggs-wins-voltaire-freedom-of-speech-award

I can't think of one thing that Triggs has done that has advanced the cause of Free Speech, but I can think of lots of things she has done that have diminished it. Starting with the QUT students case. And Soutphommasane's persecution of Bill Leak happened on her watch.

But no doubt there is a case to be mounted, so I thought I'd throw it up here for comment.

GrahamY,

I saw that yesterday evening after being alerted to the possibility (it had in fact already happened) by a post on OLO.

My thoughts immediately turned to the plight of the QUT students.

I can only put it down to Group Think, which is common regrettably.

http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

I wonder how each of those involved in the decision is feeling now?

Quote "I wonder how each of those involved in the decision is feeling now?"

Probably as stupid as the idiots that gave Obama a Nobel peace prize.

Awards are given for a reason. We may not always
understand them and of course they can cause
controversy amongst many who may feel that the
person receiving the award is not worthy of it.

In the case of former President Obama's Nobel
Peace Prize - that he received after being in office
for only a very short time - the award was not for
what he achieved - but as an encouragement for what he
could achieve and strive for (like peace in the
Middle East).

As far as the Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs
and her award is concerned?

I know that a group of
50 academics have pointed out that independent public
office holders are an important part of modern
democratic societies.

The Australian Bar Association and
the Law Council of Australia have similarly argued that
the personal and vicious attacks on Triggs by former
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, George Brandis and his
colleagues, and many others, amounted to an
underpinning of justice and the protection of human rights.

Dr Binoy Kampmark writes in an article in the
Eureka Street magazine - that "the sentiments expressed by
Brandis and his colleagues is seemingly -
that a human rights
organisation sanctioned by government legislation is only
doing its job if it whitewashes government policies, functioning
as an executive mouthpiece rather than its scrutineer".

He goes on to say that, "in circumstances where rights and
their abuse requires discussion and means of redress
stinging attacks on the Australian Human Rights Commission and
its President serve as sinister echoes of a vision Australians
should be wary of."

I don't know much about the achievements of Gillian Triggs.
All I can recall is that her work and focus on issues such
as the inquiry into children in detention has been critical.
I believe that the attention that her report garnered in
that area, forced the government later into action in
removing children from detention. That in itself would be
a great achievement.

The reasons for her award are explained in the link below:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/03/human-rights-commissioner-gillian-triggs-wins-voltaire-freedom-of-speech-award

GY Art they say is in the eye of the beholder, minute bits of script are in my eye. Put it both together and you can come up with two dozen different meanings. The most meaningless piece of daily humor
can ig'night into catastrophic consequences because of global access to what is accepted as humor for someone.

The world is not ready : for home grown humor. it's a multi national thing. and that is a bigger problem than FTA'S which are easy.

Hi Foxy, not one of your points relates to anything she has done to further free speech.

Chris Kenny expresses sentiments similar to mine, but more eloquently:

"This is the ultimate sellout of the human rights crowd. Triggs is lauded not for adhering to their lofty principles but for being on the right side of their partisan political debates. Look at her record: she delayed an inquiry into children in detention for 18 months for political reasons; pursued three university students for years over innocuous Facebook posts; allowed the commission to spruik for complaints that were then taken up against cartoonist Bill Leak; and has repeatedly misled and been forced to correct her evidence to various parliamentary inquiries." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/chris-kenny/an-absurd-twist-on-voltaires-edict/news-story/39921f72584739c98f46fc590efdfd7a

I'm friendly with two former human rights commissioners, and Triggs couldn't hold a candle to either of them.

Hi Graham,

I suppose it depends on the way you look at things.
Perhaps it was her determination to keep on doing
her job and speaking out despite the attacks to
silence her that could qualify as standing up for
free speech under pressure so to speak. After all
it is actions that count not opinions. I'm sure
you'll agree.

I suspect the lefties would think she qualifies for Australian of the year.

The ongoing frenzied behaviour of the Left seems finally to have flipped the balance of their tiny minds. A Nobel peace prize for the North Korean lunatic next?

No. I think a knighthood may be in the works
for one of our hopeful (hanging on for dear life)
esteemed politicians.

They only hand out knighthoods in countries like the UK, PNG and NZ Foxy, and we don't allow dual citizenship in pollies, so I'm not sure who you have in mind.

I have a problem finding anything that Gillian Triggs has stood up for, apart from her own affrontery. She has mislead parliamentary inquiries, and been quite incompetent in the running of the HRC. To characterise that as standing up for free speech is ridiculous.

Next time MT stands up for misleading the public, will you be arguing for him to receive a free speech accolade?

Hi Graham,

Perhaps the following link may help clarify the Knights
and Dames of the Order of Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Knights_and_Dames_of_the_Order_of_Australia

This other link explains why attacking Prof. Gillian Triggs is
wrong:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-21/bradley-triggs-and-human-rights-why-attacking-her-is-wrong/6030256

We are told that Prof. Triggs conclusions on particular cases
are open to debate. However I agree with the statement that
the personal criticism that she's copped is undeserved.
Especially from a government and its members that are supposed
to be objective and recognise the independence of the Australian
Human Rights Commission and its President since
the AHRC has no power to do more than investigate and recommend.

cont'd ...

The following link is an excerpt from Prof. Gillian
Triggs on the future of human rights in Australia.
Some of the Commission's achievements under her leadership
are also listed. She continued to do her job and speak
out, despite the attacks and pressures put on her to
resign. She continued nevertheless. That is something to
be admired. Many people would have simply walked away from
the job.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/stories/prof-triggs-human-rights-australia

Foxy, "However I agree with the statement that the personal criticism that she's copped is undeserved"

For balance it is only fair to point out that very recently you were making pleas for the same person to be allowed to depart her role at the end of her time with some dignity. You said,

"Mistakes do happen from time to time - and I accept that.

As for her position as President of the HRC and what she should do? She has already informed the Attorney-General that she will not be staying after July when her term expires. I think it would be fair to allow her to leave with some dignity instead of turning all this into a political witchhunt."

'Has Gillian Triggs committed perjury a 3rd time?'
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7667&page=4

If Triggs had no case to answer you wouldn't have said that.

leoj,

You neglected to add that in an earlier post on page 2 of
that particular discussion I addressed Shadow Minister and
argued from the following link:

http://womensagenda.com.au/leadership/profiles/gillian-triggs-responds-to-malcolm-turnbull-s-attacks-on-the-hrc/

that, "Triggs term in office as the Human Rights Commissioner has
coincided with an unprecedented politicisation of human rights.
This is due in part to Australia's highly contentious treatment of
asylum seekers and also the possibility of amending the Racial
Discrimination Act - which is very much a concern."

We're told that Triggs' role has been well and truly in the
firing line."She has faced a sustained campaign of public
criticism. Her integrity and professionalism has been called
into question. She has been accused of lying, playing politics,
and even her personal life torn apart."

"And at every turn she has continued to step up and fulfill her
role. She has not backed down or packed it in. Miraculously
she has not succumb to any temptation to run away or fall
apart."

"She has stepped up day after day. One foot in front of the
other. And there's a powerful lesson for all of us in that."

Foxy,

There is a need for balance.

You ignore and are in denial of Triggs' shabby, unfair treatment of those QUT students, some of whom were bullied by the powerful AHRC into handing over large sums of money.

There are other serious concerns where Triggs' ethics are concerned, but what about you put yourself in the shoes of those QUT students and describe what it might feel like to have your rights and you future in the hands of this very powerful bureaucrat?

leoj,

There certainly is a need for balance.
I totally agree. That is why we need to
resort unfashionably to the facts and the
law before deciding which colour of outrage
suits the occasion.

The facts are given in the following link:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/17/gillian-triggs-defends-human-rights-commissions-handling-of-qut-18c-case

We are told that the Queensland University of Technology racial
discrimination complaint dragged on for more than three years without resolution because it was expected to be settled, not because of the
Human Rights Commission's processes. the Commission and
University have told a Senate committee.

Read the link to get the full story of what was involved.

Foxy,

No, that is NOT balance. All you are doing is loading up one side to defend the indefensible shabby treatment of those students and the trampling of their rights (and futures!) into the ground.

Gillian Triggs and the AHRC she headed should have lead protectors of the rights of those QUT students.

You were asked to put yourself in the shoes of the QUT students. Hopefully some compassion for them might have led to some new discovery and some balance. That can be done without taking sides. But you refuse to do that, why?

Words missed,
'Gillian Triggs and the AHRC she headed should have BEEN THE lead protectors of the rights of those QUT students.'

leoj,

How about you read for yourself the links given,
including this one:

http://womensagenda.com.au/leadership/profiles/gillian-triggs-responds-to-malcolm-turnbull-s-attacks-on-the-hrc/

You are doing what PM Malcolm Turnbull did. It is deeply misleading
in suggesting that the HRC had brought the case. As the Commissioner
explained to Leigh Sales on the 7.30 Report - "We never bring
cases and we are purely passive in that sense."

"We don't prosecute, we don't pursue, we don't instigate proceedings."

When asked by Leigh Sales why the Commission had not thrown out
the QUT case sooner, Triggs was resolute.

"The Commission is bound to accept any complaint that is in
writing that alleges a breach of discrimination law. So the
first obligation is to accept the complaint and then to
investigate it and conciliate it". She went on to explain that
the Commission deals with around 20,000 matters each year and on
average they concilliate about 76 per cent of those within
4 months".

The link goes on to say that the cases that command media
attention are the distinct minority which inevitably warps
the public perception of the HRC's role and dealings.

What did impress was that "throughout the interview Triggs
was measured and methodical; it was impossible to watch
without admiring her tenacity and grace under fire. It's
a lesson in resilience and leadership."

As the article adds, that's not to say that there were
not any missteps. There were. But missteps are part of life.
Show me a leader who has never fumbled. How many of us
would emerge from scrutiny of our every word and action
without mistakes being revealed?

How about you showing a little bit of compassion yourself
this time for a lady who's shown so much grace under fire.
You're ignoring the facts being presented to you about
what her and the Commission's job actually is and what
their powers really are.

I support the retention of Ms Triggs and Mr Soutphommasane in their current positions, and for as long as the AHRC exists.

Their abuse of position and attempted destruction of the QUT students, in the face of that ridiculous charges, and of the wonderful Bill Leak, in his plea for attention to the root causes of so much Indigenous youth misery ( which Ms Triggs and her side-kick showed so little concern about) demonstrates all too clearly that the AHRC is a blot on the human rights landscape.

So perhaps one way for the AHRC to be shown to be morally bankrupt is to let them speak out again and again, and let us know how low they can go, and how much of a threat, to the fundamental rights to the freedom of expression in Australia, they represent.

Fools and bastards should have the same rights to freedom of expression as other Australians. Let them continue to open their mouths and make outrageous assertions in print, so that we can see how flimsy and precious our rights are.

Joe

Foxy,

Are you so incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of those poor students whose lives and careers are forever affected?

What if it had been you?

Re: Triggs & 18 (c)...from http://controcurator.org/browse/article/5828ead6e4b0eb4ebf273aef

"Its not that the Human Rights Commission requires more power the law as it stands just needs to be appropriately applied. To have said what she did, it might be assumed that Triggs had been poleaxed by too much bullying from the media and politicians.

Related: Section 18C explainer: what is it, and why do some politicians want it changed?

What does need close attention is section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act the defence to what otherwise would be offences under 18C. The context here are performances, exhibitions or artistic works or discussion and debate for academic, artistic or scientific purposes.

For the media the defence extends to fair and accurate reporting of any matter of public interest or a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest ...

Professor Rolph points out there are problems with 18D, not least of which is that it imports the ineffective fair comment element from defamation law, thereby creating difficulties for media defendants in 18C cases.

If only these swivel-eyed campaigners would recognise that it is 18D that needs fixing, not 18C, then the mental health of the entire nation would be a lot better."

From: http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abolishing-section-18c-aka-free-speech-for-the-few,9697

Second, racism (an example of "othering") has been an important tool of the Australian ruling class in dividing the working class against each other and uniting major sections of our class with the bosses against a fictitious "enemy". The Indigenous, Irish, Chinese, Jews, Germans, Asians, Muslims, refugees non-whites generally — the list goes on and on.

On a very simple analysis, it is nothing more than panem et circenses. So the lead performer has now been given an award for her performance then ?

leoj,

This dispute was initially between Ms Prior and
the university. It should have stayed there and
been resolved. The university did not play its
part in what it said it would do.

Of course we all feel sorry for the students and their
families. This dispute should have been stopped by the
university from the very start.

cont'd ...

leoj,

I forgot to add.

We can argue this case for ages. It won't change a
thing. Prof. Gillian Triggs will receive her award
in July whether any of us like it or not.

Dearest Foxy,

Yes, and she can attend every annual Festival of Very Slightly Dangerous Ideas held by the Uni of Sydney every year. That would be appropriate.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I'm not sure about Prof. Triggs attending every year
but attending at least once would do a lot of good.

Prof. Triggs is an
eloquent speaker and she certainly would have a great
deal that she could say on "dangerous ideas"
from her own experiences.

After all -

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which
the established authorities are wrong".
(Voltaire).

Dearest Foxy,

That's an interesting quote. One could say also that

"It is dangerous to be wrong in matters on which the established authorities are wrong in different ways".

OR

"It is dangerous, for one's reputation, to persist in being wrong in matters on which the established authorities may just be right".

And, of course, as you would readily agree, none of those vapid declarations may be conclusive.

What did Triggs do ? She used her position to castigate QUT students when she could have brought that matter to a very swift conclusion by simply observing that it didn't stand a chance. She and her side-kick tried to drag down and destroy a wonderful and brave cartoonist with a burning concern for Indigenous disadvantage.

On the other hand, by her dreadful misuse of powers, she has provided a wonderful caution for all of us about the vital value of free speech, one of those value that we take so much for granted.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I shall repeat what I cited earlier -

Lets resort unfashionably to the facts and the law
before deciding which colour of outrage suits the
occasion.

See you on another discussion.

BTW: For your information - the HRC doesn't have the
power to stop claims likely to fail in court.

Hi Foxy,

I fully concur:

"Let's resort unfashionably to the facts and the law before deciding which colour of outrage suits the occasion."

What ?! You've switched sides ?! Isn't that just a bit - forgive me - politically incorrect ? Relying on "the facts" ? I've lost quite a few friends that way :(

I presume that the HRC can exercise its discretion as to whether it wants to be involved in any particular case, or not. Whether somebody wants to bring a case to court is up to them.

Joe

Dear Joe,

You need to learn more
about what the HRC can and can't do and what it's
role is and the powers that it posseses.

I shall leave it there.

It's up to you.

Congratulations to Liberty Victoria for announcing Gillian Triggs as their award winner.

She has been a strident, powerful warrior for those without a voice, for those refugees and staff kept silenced by dictatorial offshore detention policies, and most particularly for those hundreds of children in detention who had so few of our powerful prepared to speak for them.

Without her advocacy, her pugnacious energy and her steadfast values the cruel, punitive and morally reprehensible treatment of some of the most vulnerable in our care would have continued with only muted challenges.

To those many Gillian gave voice to she should most certainly be honoured and there will come a time in history when we as a nation will look back in shame to what we did to those seeking refuge and Gillian Triggs will be one of the few reasons for us to hold our heads up.

Good on ya.

SteeleRedux, 'Gillian this and 'Gillian that'

Posters such as yourself demonstrate the chasm between the leftist 'Progressives' (Regressives) and the real Left whose legitimacy they like to claim.

Any self-respecting Leftie's skin would crawl at the cringing, genuflecting, supplicant, obsequious servant who is now so urgently keen to present his undying praise and devotion to a capricious empress of the legal establishment, one of the self-entitled and very, very well provided for, comfortable forever as guaranteed by the superb golden handshake courtesy of the taxpayer.

The adulation certainly isn't because of any service done for free speech, or for any consideration for the 'Useful Idiot' drones who are stroking and tending this Queens Bee of the leftists. It is because she has in some way realised your hatred for the society you are part of and more directly, by appearing to be politically partisan, that she has 'earned' your fleeting loyalty.

The end justifies the means, huh? And what about those QUT students she so roughly used and whose rights she abused? What about Bill Leak too?

Dear Steele,

The following link explains why Prof. Gillian Triggs
received the award:

http://libertyvictoria.org.au/content/gillian-triggs-takes-out-free-speech-award

I'm tempted to buy tickets to the event in July and
organise a table. My husband has made the offer (It's
close to my birthday). What an evening that would be.

leoj,

You've got a very disturbing habit of labelling
people whose opinions don't agree with yours.
Labels belong on clothes, not people.

Stop it.

I imagine the board deciding these awards rolling over and laughing. The only criteria is that one is an avowed left whinger.

We had Barack Obama awarded the Nobel peace prize for being black,
Al Gore awarded the Nobel peace prize for climate change whilst personally consuming at home and at more fossil fuels than 10 normal US families,
Whine Swan getting the best Treasurer award whilst presiding over the greatest deficits in Aus history and a plethora of fiscal cock ups, etc, etc.

Now we have Gillian Triggs awarded a prize for defense of free speech while using the mechanisms of state to punish people for speaking freely.

What's next? Putin awarded the peace prize?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Vladimir Putin has already won The Big Brother award.

But if you're interested there's The Foot in Mouth Award
or The Golden Raspberry.

I'll happily nominate you for either.

Foxy,

Actually both should go to Triggs for twice having to apologise for lying to the senate.

I'm sorry, but Triggs is an incompetent, despicable old tart who couldn't give a crap for the lives of the students that she tried to ruin for political gain. Australia will be a better place when she is booted out of her $400k p.a. ivory tower.

Dear Shadow Minister,

History will be the judge.

I wouldn't place my money on the outcome if I
were you though.

Shadow Minister,
Well said, Bravo
Unfortunately this women is just one of the so called "honored" that gladly draw their outlandish government
pay packets each week and believe they actually earn it.
400k a year is equal to the pensions of 35 aged and under paid people who genuinely have earned their rest.
GT rot in hell

Dear Foxy,

What a marvelous idea. I think the dinner would be a great opportunity to hear Ms Triggs while supporting Liberty Victoria. If you do manage to go I would be very keen to hear your thoughts.

While the primary reason for the angst toward Prof Triggs is because she dared expose the immoral conduct towards refugees by successive governments, it is not difficult to see misogynist attitudes playing a role in the defamatory responses from within the ranks of the Coalition.

Even here one can see that attitude writ large in Shadow Minister's calling her a “despicable old tart”. A tart is someone who sleeps with others for money, a prostitute. It is quite evident he is more than comfortable using this kind of gender and value laden insult toward an esteemed Australian.

Gillian Triggs has stared down some of the most bullying behaviour ever directed at an independent chair in Australia's history. I admire her values, her strength and her tenacity. She has honoured the role.

Foxy, "I'm tempted to buy tickets to the event in July and organise a table. My husband has made the offer (It's close to my birthday). What an evening that would be"

What hubris!

A ring side seat to the further humiliation of the victims, the young QUT students and the cartoonist who unlike yourself, had compassion for the suffering of others.

You were invited but consistently ignored and refused the invitation extended to you several times in this thread (and still open now) to at least say you had some feeling and a measure of compassion for the plight of those QUT students who were done a dreadful wrong by the very powerful, but arbitrary and capricious* Human Rights Commission headed by Gillian Triggs, herself a highly skilled lawyer of long experience.

*'“Arbitrary and Capricious” refers to: A wilful and unreasonable action without consideration or in disregard of facts or law or without determining principle.' - Black's Law Dictionary.Feb 3, 2015

Dear Steele,

I will let you know how things pan out regarding
the dinner. I've got friends who are interested
in forming a table and the evening is also for a
good cause. The money collected will go towards
funding for human rights.

It is a shame, I agree when some people feel the
need to be abusive on discussion forums. It's a
huge turn off and makes one cringe. The
art of debating is a skill that is not easily
acquired. However, there are posters on this
forum whose comments I do look forward to reading.
That's the reason I keep coming back.

leoj,

You have consistently ignored the links and
explanations given on this discussion.
As well as my comments on page 4, where I
clearly expressed my sympathy for the students
and their families. Yet you persist with your
derogatory comments

Yes/no: Triggs announced the findings of an investigation into refugee children on Manus and/or Nauru. She found that in 2012-2013, there were hundreds of children in detention. By the time she released her report, there were two. Hundreds under labor, report delayed, election, coalition government and numbers of refugee children in detention reduced to two. THEN report released.

Yes/no: very poor case mounted against three students, destroying their studies and careers in the process. HRC with discretion to drop the case at any time.

Yes/no: HRC touted for complaints against the wonderful Bill Leak, thereby partly burying the issues leading up to child incarceration the NT. Piss-weak case dismissed. Death of Bill Leak.

Liberty ? 'What is it good for' ? Well, obviously Triggs has done well out of it. Vive liberte ! Vive liberte de parler ou ecrire ? Not so much.

Joe

Foxy,

Compassion is in the doing. Your sympathy for the students and the families fails the 'pub test' where you continually rationalise ways out for Triggs and for the Commission and leave the QUT students as necessary collateral damage for the greater good (which in itself is debatable).

Triggs is the master of plausible denial who takes unfair advantage of her legal training and power.

Your hubris might be a dead giveaway too :(

Foxy,
Reading your link, it is clear that Liberty Australia, the body that gives out these "awards" is an insubstantial, self appointed group of left whinge activists, and that all the "awards" are for a particular left whinge political agenda.

Triggs record of flamboyant and outrageous pronouncements, such as that the ANZ should compensate a man they fired for not revealing his criminal record for bank robbery, for being caught lying to the senate twice, for postponing an inquiry to benefit Labor, and finally using her position to persecute QUT students through the courts for expressing their opinions, makes it clear that this loathsome degenerate got the award for extreme partisanship towards labor and the greens in yet another case of left whinge back slapping, and that this award is not worth the paper it's printed on.

In a couple of months Triggs will be gone leaving only a skid mark on record of the AHRC and Turnbull will replace her with someone with actual ethics and competence.

Dear Shadow Minister,

And where will Mr Turnbull find such a person among
his colleagues?

Foxy,

Firstly, anyone would be more ethical and competent than Triggs,
Secondly, Tim Wilson for starters,
Finally, liberals unlike labor is capable of appointing someone suitable outside their ring of supporters.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not sure that I would agree with your choice of
Tim Wilson as the Human Rights Commissioner. He's
been a vocal critic of the HRC and during his time at the
IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) the institute called for the
abolition of the Commission. There are other things that
he stands for that I find disturbing. (argued against plain
cigarette packaging, supported Andrew Bolt in his Racial
Discrimination case) and much more. He's a bit of a concern.
I suspect he'll do whatever the government wants him to do.
Objectivity does not seem to be his forte. For that matter,
your comment on the Liberal Party - does not hold much water
either as their record thus far shows.

cont'd ...

Dear Shadow Minister,

If the Liberals are capable of appointing people
outside their circle of supporters as you claim.
Why haven't they done so?

Bill Shorten (who has been rather quiet about Trigg's award) and his impatient heir apparent 'Albo' are having 'racism' problems. The hugely sensitive ABC has spotted an ad on another channel,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-08/albanese-shorten-labor-australians-first-ad-criticised/8506358

Where are the Australian Human Rights Commission's heavyweights, Professor and President Gillian Triggs and Dr Tim Soutphommasane, Race Discrimination Commissioner when they are really needed?

And why haven't the self-0acclaimed 'Progressives', Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese sought their advice proactively?

The baying leftist 'Progressive' commentariat are hot to trot(sky).

It is all politics and there are millions of taxpayers dollars up for grabs. And for those reserved seats on the Gravy Train.

That's a truly appalling advert, I'm with SHY on this one. How much thought would it have taken to include - if you're going to go down the road of tokenism - an African or certainly an Indigenous person ? Obviously, they needed a far bigger crowd to avoid the obvious tag of tokenistic. But how hard would that have been ?

And surely the slogan "Employ Australians First" should include all people in Australia able to work, including people who have recently arrived as migrants or refugees, on the way to becoming citizens. How could they have been overlooked ?

Utterly dumb-arse.

Joe

Damn right!

You'd think that Shorten, Albo and Co (Penny Wong asleep at the wheel?) could do some of the heavy lifting for Professor Gillian and Dr Tim and round up an ethnic, er make that multicultural, mob for a Labor ad.

Well, where does the ABC always manage to find them and reliably leftist 'Progressive' to boot, with the most creative questions (to be read out as though seeing them for the first time, which is likely)?

What will Waleed Aly say? Maybe some here are waiting for that. Whatever Sue Carland tells him to say one supposes. Waleed and Bill Shorten may have some things in common. Or is it just the monkey grip?

Sry, not being one of the 'chosen ones' and existing in the universe outside of the echo chamber (a tough job, but I manage), I sometimes miss things.

That lady with the ostentatious headdress bigger than a Russian Orthodox Priest's and not far off a grain silo, is Susan, not Sue.

Dress up is so much fun for girls.

And here is Bill 'Whatever She Says' Shorten who never was sure of what he stood for, but recently it is said to be, "diversity of skin colour, gender and sexuality — Safe Schools BS," [with thanks to Mr Latham].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf4nlIEHfaU

If you lock up children, without charge or trial, indefinitely, in circumstances known to produce adverse medical outcomes, then in my book that makes you a child abuser.

Worse still, if you refuse the generous offers of other states to take some of these Asylum Seekers in then the behavior goes to the "knowing and deliberate infliction of mental harm with an intent to destroy."

Regardless of any of her other failings, the fact that she put the spotlight on the child abusers in Canberra is a very good thing.

..

We ought remember that what the HRC is supposed to be is a full legal implementation of the relevant treaties, covenants and treaties that Australia has signed up to, which is to say strictly speaking the relevant international law is required to be implemented into local law. But of course, few states do this preferring rather to sign up and not follow through purely for a fake news opportunity to look good.

In other words, all the HRC is another tin pot, grossly overpaid hive of filthy, dead wood, pencil fiddling wig parasites. It doesn't have to be that way, but like most things in this crappy little country it is unfortunately. But that is the fault of a morally bankrupt political establishment.

What a bad joke this country is.

I think the child abusers protesteth too much.

Dream On,

So why did she 'put the spotlight' on two years too late ? Why did she delay her report until Labor was out of office and the Coalition had acted on the detention of children, reducing their numbers massively ?

I suspect 'dead silence' will be your reply.

Joe

Dear Joe,

The following two links may be of interest:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/revealed-abbott-government-tried-to-remove-gillian-triggs-as-head-of-the-australian-human-rights-commission-20150213-13du7s.html

And

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/green-the-speech-abbott-could-have-made-about-triggs/6263032

Not really, Foxy. I've put my oar in, and I'm sick of going around in circles. Defend the indefensible as much as you like, I've got more important things.

Joe

We are told that there is a proposed new Gillian Triggs Award.

" [The] proposal is that we have an annual Gillian Triggs Award to commemorate her tenure as head of the Australian Human Rights Commission".

"The award should be annually presented to the person, of whatever gender they choose to have, irrespective of national ethnicity, race, creed, colour or religion, who has shown the most dense, obtuse and hypocritical understanding of human rights in Australia."

The following link may be of interest:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/05/04/the-gillian-triggs-award/

There you go, Foxy !

Dear Loudmouth,

It is my experience that one needs to be even handed when rowing on one's own otherwise you will continue doing circles.

Contenders for the Gillian Triggs Award would be many and it is said, some would be more equal than others.

Some worthy nominations apart from Triggs herself,

"Peter Garrett should get the GT award for his support of oh@s in the insulation industry.
The greens should be nominated for the GT awards for supporting illegal immigrants rights. ……to end up on the bottom of the ocean.

And of course the GT award would be won by Malcom Turnbull for his never ending commitment to the ideals of conservatism, freedom and small government."

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/05/04/the-gillian-triggs-award/

But shouldn't the misnamed 'Liberty Victoria' be the first to step forward to receive a Gillian Triggs Award?

Steele,

Well, yeah, that's what I was getting at. Thanks for picking that up. It's encouraging that there are such great minds on OLO.

Joe

How about we award Bill Shorten the champion of Australia sorry white Australians award.

Dear Joe,

Don't be disheartened or jealous of Steele's mind.

As C.S. Lewis argued, "The next best thing to being
wise oneself is to live in a circle of those who are".

So you're in good company with Steele posting on OLO.

As for me? Being a square keeps me from going around in
circles. ;)

Thanks, Foxy, I'll try to take your advice :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I'll try to do the same.

I've just had things put into perspective for me.

We received a telephone call this evening. The
husband of a very close family friend is in
hospital. He was suffering from pneumonia.
They discovered a tumour on his brain.
The prognosis is not good.

runner,

Shorten would also be a shoo-in for a Gillian Triggs Award (GT) for 'representing' workers in his prior and present roles.

Foxy, SR,

What rational people despise is the rank hypocrisy of the left whingers. Just remember the cries for Barry O'Farrell to resign when he mislead ICAC over receiving a bottle of wine? He did the honorable thing and resigned.

Whereas Trigg's lies and incompetence are ignored simply because she is one of them.

The minimum expectations of an appointee to the head of an independent government agency are:
1 To fastidiously avoid the appearance of political bias
2 To be honest to a fault,
3 To carry out the duties of the position with due respect to the rights of all parties

To which Triggs failed miserably in every way.

As for holding the government to account she failed miserably here too, simply because she had become a laughing stock.

All the next AHRC has to do to excel is to simply do the exact opposite of Triggs.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I certainly trust that the next AHRC will certainly
not do the exact opposite. That it will not whitewash
government policies or function as an executive
mouthpiece for the government. That it will address
circumstances where rights and their abuse require
discussion and the means of redress. That the
undermining of justice and the protection of human rights
will not become neglected.

We can only hope that the politicisation of human rights
will cease. We trust that the new Commissioner will be
allowed to fulfill their role according to the law.
Australian and international. And that the new
Commissioner will not succumb to any temptation to run
away or fall away. They have big shoes to fill replacing
Prof. Triggs. Doing the opposite to what she did would be
a great loss not only for human rights but for our nation's
reputation globally.

In the interests of balance after Foxy's purple praise of Triggs,

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/05/gillian-triggs-magnificent-failure/

This reader comment sums up the view of many,

"One would have thought it impossible to top the appalling audacity and bare-faced falsehood of Gillian Triggs, but Liberty Victoria succeeded brilliant!y. Voltaire, whose name they shamelessly usurped for their award, is reported to have said, and I paraphrase: “I don’t agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” Given Triggs’ perfect record of vigorously persecuting people for what they said or drew, makes this a nauseating travesty of decency. Triggs’ “angelic” picture on the cover of the magazine is the revolting icing on the putrid cake."

Foxy,

As for whitewashing I'm sure that you are referring to the period from 30/7/2012 to 30/9/2013 when hundreds were dying at sea 30 000 were in detention incl 5000 children and Labor set up the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres, and Triggs was as quiet as a church mouse.

Leoj's link says it perfectly:

"The woman to be honoured also presided over the AHRC during the ill-fated Queensland University of Technology case, which saw blameless students locked in a three-year legal battle against a complainant who took issue with their criticism of a computer lab segregated by race, further demanding substantial cash payouts to assuage her hurt feelings. Such is Ms Triggs’ managerial competence that the victims of that complaint were not notified for months that their ludicrously alleged racism had become the subject of official inquiry.

But none of that matters, of course. As is always the case when Ms Triggs gets her facts wrong (funny, but those lapses of memory always seem to serve her purpose of the moment), she has expressed regret “in hindsight” for the commission’s shoddy handling of the QUT affair while still refusing to apologise to the students whose lives have been forever affected. As good parents tell their children, it requires a measure of bravery and decency to apologise. Lesser individuals prefer to “regret in hindsight” the damage they do and leave it at that.

As twisted an irony as it is, Liberty Victoria prefers to ignore Triggs’ history of attempted gagging and thought-policing. The worthies who will hail her have instead elected to give her the award for “work and the courage she has exhibited in the face of very withering criticism from the government from time to time.” Translated, that means anyone who presides over debacle after debacle can still demonstrate merit by staying at their desk and promoting yet even more debacles. It is the equivalent of honouring a person mired in public disgrace who does not ask to be left alone with a revolver."

Dear Shadow Minister,

I've had my say in this discussion.

I have nothing further to add.

Cheers.

Foxy,

It's hard to defend the indefensible.

yep the defender of free speech. She now cheers Abdel-Magied and condemns Bill Leak. Nothing like a feminist choosing her sides. I wonder if she agreed with Greer criticising the size of Gillard's backside. I sure she believers herself to be logical even when she reported seeing guards with guns when their was no gun. Blind to whatever does not suite her narrative. Oh well for 300000 plus per year from the taxpayer we should drain the SWAMP.

What about the APS Values and Code of Conduct that should also apply to the AHRC? Or have previously well understood words like ethics and integrity lost all meaning? Forever muddied by the Progressives' ethical relativism, political correctness and 'Post Truth'?

"APS Values and Code of Conduct

1. APS employees' practices, actions and behaviours are expected to be of the highest ethical standards and represent the best value for the Australian community. The APS Values (the Values) and the Code of Conduct (the Code) provide the standard of behaviour expected of agency heads and APS employees.

2. The APS Commission considers that the duty to act with integrity and with the highest ethical standards imposes a reporting obligation on all employees with regard to suspected misconduct. In some circumstances, particularly for employees with managerial responsibilities, it could be a breach of the Code for an employee not to report suspected misconduct. APS employees therefore should report behaviour which is inconsistent with the APS Code of Conduct.

3. The APS Values and APS Employment Principles articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS and provide the framework within which employment powers are exercised. The APS Code of Conduct and Values are provided at Attachment A. The Code is also set out in the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) and is available on the Human Resources intranet site."

Dear Shadow Minister,

You stated, "It's hard to defend the indefensible."

No. it isn't.

To quote in part from the English author, Neil Gaiman
a quote that is very appropriate to this discussion:

"If you accept - and I do - that freedom of speech is
important, then you are going to have to defend the
indefensible. That means that you are going to be
defending the right of people to read, or to write, or
to say, what you don't say or like or want said. The
law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not
make distinctions between what you find acceptable and
what you don't ..."

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“As for whitewashing I'm sure that you are referring to the period from 30/7/2012 to 30/9/2013 when hundreds were dying at sea 30 000 were in detention incl 5000 children and Labor set up the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres, and Triggs was as quiet as a church mouse.”

What a load of nonsense. Just go to the AHRC web site to see how active the commission and Triggs were during this period.

These are her own words in 2013;

“The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s most recent finding against Australia related to the indefinite detention of refugees with adverse security assessments. The Committee not only found that these refugees’ indefinite detention was arbitrary, it also found that it was ‘inflicting serious psychological harm upon them’, which amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”

“As at 5 September 2013, there were 6,579 people in closed immigration detention facilities in Australia, including 1,428 children. As at 6 August 2013 there were 52 refugees being held in indefinite detention as a result of receiving an adverse security assessment. The detrimental mental health impact of prolonged and indefinite detention is well-documented. In 2012–13 there were 846 reported incidents of self-harm across Australia’s immigration detention network.”
“As at 5 September 2013 there were 1,254 asylum seekers detained on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.”
“In June 2013 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, having examined the laws and legislative instruments underpinning the regional processing regime, concluded that there was a significant risk that the regime was incompatible with a range of human rights. The Commission concurs with this assessment.”
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/asylum-seekers-refugees-and-human-rights-snapshot

Cont...

cont...

These are parts of a speech she gave in 2012;

“First, I am concerned that the transfer of asylum seekers to a third country for processing of their claims for refugee status appears to penalise asylum seekers on account of their unlawful arrival in Australia, in contravention of the express terms of the Refugee Convention.”
…
“I am also concerned about the arrangements for refugee status determination in Nauru and on Manus Island”
…
“I have serious concerns that asylum seekers transferred to third countries will be detained arbitrarily and for indefinite periods.”
…
“The potential transfer of children, either in family groups or unaccompanied, to a third country is another matter of serious concern. While the transfer of unaccompanied children seeking asylum to a third country is lawful under Australian law, it is likely to breach Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
…
“The devastating impact of long-term detention on the physical and mental health of asylum seekers detained in Nauru and Papua New Guinea...”

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/current-issues-australia-faces-relation-its-treatment-refugees-2012

Quiet as a mouse? Yer right.

For balance, how should the sentiments expressed in that quote have been applied by the AHRC and Triggs where the QUT students and Bill Leak were concerned?

Referring of course to the quote from the English author, Neil Gaiman.

Foxy,

You're right, you're defending the indefensible quite vigorously.

SR.

Firstly, the first link was a released in October 2013 after the Coalition was in power

Secondly the second link was of a speech given to a handful of people in WA and was as hard hitting as wet lettuce. The victims of the speech would have come away knowing only that Triggs was concerned.

Neither of you have addressed the real issues I raised such as why Triggs delayed the inquiry that was due early 2013 to 2014, why she lied twice to the senate, and why she treated the QUT students so abysmally?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Not true. All of the issues have already been
addressed in links given in this discussion.
You simply don't make distinctions between
what you find acceptable and what you don't.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Get off the grass. Are we going to be that pedantic? Okay, this is a small sample of Triggs speaking out during that time.

Triggs had tried to access both Nauru and Manus in 2012 but was told she did not have jurisdiction to do so.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/official-barred-from-visits-to-nauru-manus-island-20130304-2fh2g.html

Her “scathing” report of Christmas Island visited in 2012 is here;
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/idc2012_christmas_island.pdf

These were some of the remarks about what she found;
http://www.smh.com.au/national/christmas-island-harsh-and-overcrowded-human-rights-report-20121213-2bdj6.html

Triggs appeared on 4 Corners in april 2013
“I think it's very hard to understand how anybody could imagine that sending children to this environment could possibly be in their best interests. And one has to argue about not only the legal but the ethical dimensions of using some children and some families to send some sort of deterrent message that clearly is not being effective.”
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/29/3745276.htm

Her she is challenging Gillard's policy;

"there will be no opportunity for the High Court to review whether regional processing will be conducted in accordance with human rights standards".
"The repeal of the human rights protections in the Migration Act violates one of the first recommendations of the expert panel
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/new-offshore-processing-regime-bars-appeal-on-asylum/news-story/47e1cc134cc1bbb5c5d89843b093b643

These were all within your narrow time frame and there are many other instances.

I say it again Triggs was not as 'quiet as a mouse' as you so maliciously asserted. She was in there fighting for the human rights of refugees all along and it pissed off both sides of politics. But as usual it was your lot who took the attacks to the next level.

And look, you are still at it now. Two months and she will be gone. Time to give it a rest mate.

I think it is time you all retired from this discussion after all it seems you are going round in circles.
In opposite directions

SR,

I read most of you links and as I said before none of Trigg's comments before Sept 2013 was more than motherhood statements with the force of wet lettuce. Compared to the ruckus she tried to kick up after Sept 30 2014 when Labor was gone is ridiculous, and comparatively as quiet as a mouse.

Foxy,

I know you tried to address the issues but failed miserably. Nothing changes that she was deeply biased, lied to the senate and disgracefully persecuted innocent students.

That she is gone in 2 months is great news for all Australians and for free speech.

Thank you, SM, yes indeed.

Hopefully we will soon have a head of the HRC who actually supports the freedom of speech that so many people have fought for, for centuries, freedoms that totalitarians everywhere despise and fear.

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

It appears you are conceding that Triggs was vocal during the time that you claimed she was as quiet as a mouse, but that you perceive the volume was not at a significant level to properly attack the Labour Party.

You sir are an extraordinarily partisan person.

Dear Loudmouth,

What myopic rubbish my friend.

Here is a little test. Do you also believe the refugees we are keeping in highly stressful, punitive, and dehumanising detention also deserve a voice? Do you believe those doctors and other support workers tasked with attending to their welfare should be silenced with threats of two years in prison for voicing their concerns about the treatment and conditions of these unfortunate people?

Think about that for a minute. Two years of imprisonment for daring to speak out.

Faux or selective indignation is rather unattractive at the best of times. Best you stop now.

Shadow Minister,

Well done. You are really rattling the cages of the Left-wing misfits. Keep up the good work.

Hi Sgteele,

"Do you also believe the refugees we are keeping in highly stressful, punitive, and dehumanising detention also deserve a voice? "

Apart from international covenants on refugees and illegal entry provisions, no. They attempted to enter Australia illegally. I feel very sorry for them and their foolishness, but no, I don't think they have any more rights than are covered by international agreements.

There are more than 68 million displaced people in the world currently. Millions are in refugee camps, mainly of course in the Middle East and northern Africa, in "highly stressful, punitive, and dehumanising" conditions, through no fault of their own. A great many would have applied for refugee status in Australia, filled out the proper paperwork and joined the long, long queue.

So do I think that should queue-jumpers have some sort of special rights ? No. But I do think they should be flown back to their points of departure, from which they can fill out the proper refugee entry forms and get on the back of the queue, as soon as possible, with no prejudicial treatment either way, and wait their turn.

Joe

There is a cartoon/cover page in The Spectator today depicting the “obscene hypocrisy” of the Triggs 'free speech' award.

Triggs is standing there with the Free Speech sash; Henry the Eighth has the Husband of the Year sash; the North Korean maniac has Pacifist of the Year; Joe Stalin has the Humanitarianism, and one of the Kardadashwhatever females has Natural Beauty.

A comical way to reveal the evil of Triggs and her filthy organisation, but it works.

The editorial states that “Gillian Triggs, in the last twelve months, has done more to suppress free speech in this country than any single other individual.”

Hear! Hear!

I wonder if the HRC will now hound Sarah Dudley and Anton Emdin, the creators of this magnificent comment, to death as they did with Bill Leak.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Just because you don't accept the explanations being
given does not mean that I've failed miserably Sir.
It's simply a question of objectivity. You are
inclined to perceive facts selectively and to interpret
them accordingly. That is something over which I have
no control.

Here is another link for your information:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/28/bill-leak-could-have-ended-18c-complaint-earlier-says-gillian-triggs

ttbn,

Is it really so hard to provide people with links to these things?

http://spectator.com.au/content/uploads/2017/05/001_specaus_13-may_issues.jpg

You were asked for a link on another thread and your only response was, "Today's Australian."

Oh, boy. It's that irrational issue you have with soft copies again, isn't it?

You do realise that identical material cannot vary in credibility simply because the medium has changed, don't you?

Apparently not.

"Triggs is standing there with the Free Speech sash;
Henry the Eighth has the Husband of the Year sash;
the North Korean maniac has Pacifist of the Year;
Joe Stalin has the Humanitarianism, and
one of the Kardadashwhatever females has Natural Beauty"

Ah, diversity in the qualifiers for the coveted Gillian Triggs Award. She would like that.

Now, if the receivers of the GT Award could just be reminded to adopt the traditional 'GT Look' when receiving the Award. The startled, 'Is that a dog turd on my shoe, or is it just Australian (Eeew!) serfs being squashed underfoot?'.

Dear Loudmouth,

I did not ask you about special rights for refugees rather about their basic right to free speech, to be able to tell their stories. I particularly asked about the 2 year jail term held over the heads of Australians who wanted to speak out about the treatment of those on Manus and Nauru. Surely this is the most egregious denial of the right to free speech of Australians we have seen in this country since the war, yet you studiously refuse to address it.

You don't really care about free speech do you? You want the right to offend to be unchallenged but are happy seeing those who feel a strong moral imperative to highlight the abuses inflicted on other human beings in the care of this nation to be jailed for 2 years.

You might want to stand up for the rights of people like Andrew Bolt to sling mud rather than the health professionals risking jail time for giving voice to those who are suffering. That is indeed your prerogative. But please don't get high and mighty about it, you don't have that right.

Steele,

You asked me about the rights of illegal immigrants: I answered you to the best of my ability. I don't know anywhere near enough about the other issue to comment.

Joe

Triggs just demonstrates that the fruit of feminism and emily's listers is as nasty hateful and deceitful as any boys club. She is a good example as to why quotas produces such bad results.

Foxy,

You latest link is a prime example.

"The racial discrimination complaint against Bill Leak would have been dropped months earlier if the cartoonist had taken up the opportunity to assert his cartoon was drawn in good faith, the Australian Human Rights Commission president, Gillian Triggs, has revealed."

Here Triggs misled the senate and had to retract her comments because Leak and the Australian had submitted via their lawyers that assertion, roughly one week after the disclosure of the complaint.

SR,

I almost missed your posts. Triggs in her first 14 months with labor in charge delayed an inquiry, and said the very basic minimum to justify the nearly $500k she'd pulled down, in spite of the vast numbers of people that Labor was killing and detaining.

Triggs is the most partisan one.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Your information is not quite accurate.

Bill Leak's lawyers did contact the Commission but
Bill Leak was not prepared to make a written
submission as requested. He wanted a Court hearing.

Give it a miss guys your boring everyone to no end

That is the argument of an apologist Chris. The issue isn't boredom, it is right or wrong. This woman has disgraced herself in office. If she were on my side of the debate I would think people would have abandoned her as irredeemable. It seems to me that the other side sticks to "my side right or wrong". Think about how Bronwyn Bishop was treated, compared to this. They are on a par.

Foxy,

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/03/the-late-bill-leaks-submission-to-the-freedom-of-speech-enquiry-repeal-18c.html

The letter is clear as to his motivation and how it applied to section 18D

"Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has conceded she did receive a response from the legal team representing Bill Leak, a cartoonist from The Australian, after a complaint was made against him under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The concession, made in an opinion piece written yesterday for The Guardian, comes after Professor Triggs initially told a Senate hearing the commission had never received a defence from Leak’s lawyers under section 18D of the act.

She has since offered a confused narrative of events by appearing to acknowledge receipt of a letter from Leak’s lawyers, but arguing it was insufficient to constitute a formal submission or “good faith” defence under section 18D.

Addressing the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee on February 28, Professor Triggs said the case against Leak could have been dismissed had “at least a simple statement been made that he acted in good faith”.

She also said a “justification was never provided” for the cartoon that triggered the complaint and which depicted an Aboriginal police officer handing over a wayward boy to his beer-drinking father.

In her piece yesterday, Professor Triggs acknowledged she had received a letter from Leak’s legal team, but argued this did not amount to a formal legal submission. She instead claimed it rejected the concept of a formal submission in favour of a public platform for Leak.

“His lawyers wrote to us saying that Leak ‘does not intend to make any submission’ to the commission. We were told that Leak instead wanted a public hearing where he could appear and give evidence about his motivations,” she said."

SR,

Any government work comes with a confidentiality clauses that one is free to sign or walk away. These are used by left whinge governments just as much as any other.

Anybody who can defend Triggs in any way at all is a right off.

What Triggs' defenders choose to ignore but is a crucial consideration, is the alleged continual flouting of the Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct by Gillian Triggs and other senior staff of the AHRC. It is set out in the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act) and doubtless the AHRC's own conditions for staff remind its employees of the fact and likely disciplinary action for possible non-compliance. I posted it earlier and of course Foxy and ors were obliged to ignore it,

Posted by leoj, Thursday, 11 May 2017 12:34:57 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7758&page=13

Triggs's and the AHRC's alleged transgressions against the APS Values and Code of Conduct have been of considerable embarrassment to the Public Service Commission, to other agency heads and to the Senior Executive Service. But what about the AHRC's own staff and APS employees generally, where even mild suspected transgressions against the APS Values and Code would be investigated exhaustively and they would likely be stood down as well?

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, where Gillian Triggs and the AHRC can do what they like, but other obviously lesser mortals must not, lest they feel the full weight of the Public Service Act descending upon them.

contd..

continued..

on John Menadue's site there is an article by Ramesh Thakur, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, who is professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. An excerpt,

"Too many Triggs defenders allow their distaste of the government to cloud their judgment of her performance. Their efforts to ring-fence Triggs in a halo ignore her many self-inflicted wounds. Her performance and judgment have been questionable and worse, damaging to the cause of human rights protection and to the institutional integrity of the AHRC itself. The QUT students’ lawyer Tony Morris QC told Senators on 13 December that her refusal to answer their questions about the case because it was before the Federal Court was a ‘gross insult’ to Australian judges. Former Human Rights Commissioner Sev Ozdowski believes Triggs has demonstrated a lack of professionalism as AHRC president. Complaints that are clearly trivial, vexatious and frivolous should be promptly dismissed. Instead in the QUT case, the AHRC was guilty of significant and unreasonable delays, lack of transparency and the denial of natural justice to the students."

http://johnmenadue.com/?p=8904

John Menadue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Menadue

That was back in January and there were more revelations to come!

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You for confirming what I posted in my earlier
post regarding the Bill Leak case and Prof. Triggs
explanations.

I've had my say on
this discussion. It's quite obvious that we perceive
things differently. But that's fine. If the world consisted
simply of some self-evident reality that everyone perceived
in exactly the same way, there might be no disagreement
among observers.

Before leaving this discussion I'd like to quote from
a link I gave earlier which pointed out that -
"Triggs term in office
as the Human Rights Commissioner coincided with an
unprecedented politicisation of human rights. This was due
in part to Australia's highly contentious treatment of
asylum seekers and also the possibility of amending the Racial
Discrimination Act which was very much a concern."

We were
told that "Triggs' role has been well and truly in the firing
line. She has faced a sustained campaign of public criticism.
Her integrity and professionalism has been called into
question. She has been accused of lying, playing politics,
and even her personal life torn apart."

The author tells us "at every turn Prof. Triggs has
continued to step up and fulfill her role. She has not backed
down or packed it in. Miraculously she has not succumb to any
temptation to run away or fall apart."

"She has stepped up day after day. One foot in front of the
other. And there's a powerful lesson for all of us in that."

Thank You for a robust discussion. I look forward to our
next one.

Cheers.

Turning a blind eye to the APS standards doesn't cut the mustard. This is current policy,

http://www.apsc.gov.au/managing-in-the-aps/ses

It is time that some here did some critical thinking outside of that echo chamber.

From the sentiments expressed on Menadue's site alone it is glaringly obvious that the Labor of some years ago, even of Rudd, has been hijacked by an elite who disguise themselves as Left and traditional Labor, are anything but that, appear to be only out for themselves and their mates.

Honestly, how representative of the (old) Left or (old) Labor is Triggs, who would deny natural justice to QUT students and allow them to be held for ransom? The only thing lower would been for her to similarly cock her leg on student nurses. Most students and nurse trainees live on instant noodles. What about the huge informational and power imbalances? -Not of any interest apparently.

Speaking about 'Progressives' like Triggs and her mob, how come they are almost invariably so very comfortably well off and in sinecures funded by the ordinary workers that they so obviously despise and must make life decisions for?

Foxy,

I see that you are no longer disputing that Triggs lied to the senate.

Considering that the thread was about Trigg's getting a bogus award for defending free speech, which she set about persecuting, against which you offered no defense, I do think that the discussion is closed.

Dear Shadow Minister,

This discussion - has been quite a revelation.
I'm glad that you agree that it is time to
close it. We should have done that earlier.

GrahamY,
I am in no way an apologist.
In fact I personally believe the woman should be strung up on the 'Rack of Ridicule' however that
would only be accelerating her path towards martyrism ( as she no doubt seeks)
The more we pro and con this argument the more air time we give her.
Ignore her and stop watching the ABC. Maybe they will get the message when the ratings fall.

 chrisgaff1000,

“Ignore her and stop watching the ABC. Maybe they will get the message when the ratings fall.”

Triggs will be totally forgotten a couple of months after she is replaced by another horrible (how could they not be horrible and want such a job?) person. But, unfortunately, the ABC doesn't have to worry about ratings as it has us to pay for it no matter how many people – and it's less that 30% of the population now – watch it. The ABC simply does not care. The politicians who could put it to death simply do not care. We are stuck with it.

We can, perhaps, take some comfort in the fact that very few Australians watch or listen to the ABC and, therefore, are blissfully ignorant of the Left-wing shite that is put out by it. At voting time, they have made up there own minds about matters without the influence of the ABC.

Chris,

There is no shortage of apologists, for that arrogant troglodyte Triggs, who are happy to airbrush out her lies, and incompetence in return for her strict adherence to left whinge parties and their extremist identity politics.

Giving Triggs an award for defense of free speech is like giving Pol Pot an award for defense of human rights.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If you have an opinion about Prof. Triggs
raise your hand.
Now put it over your mouth.

Dearest Foxy,

When was it you were going to retire from this discussion ? Nellie Melba would have been exhausted long ago, what a wimp :) If there was a genuinely earned prize for The Comeback Kid, .......

A couple of hundred years ago, boxing matches had no limit, they continued until one gave in, or was knocked out, or (gratefully, I suspect) died. I know how the boxers felt.

Love,

Joe

Foxy,

I believe you want to silence my opinion?

How very Triggsian of you.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No. Not your opinion.

Just your malice.

Hi Foxy,

Wow ! Farewell tours can be exhausting, can't they ? Melba managed only a handful, but then she was far older, well in her sixties. Perhaps if she had learnt new songs, or even new variations on her old songs ? Perhaps something like, "I'm beginning to see the light !" or "Stormy weather" or "This nearly was mine". Or of course, "I've got a little list" - or the whole of The Mikado.

So much to choose from, she wouldn't have ever got off the stage .......

Joe

Foxy,

My objection to the abuse of power, incompetence and deceit of a very senior public official is now "malice"?

So now you are trying to silence me by accusing me of hate speech? How very Triggsian and left whinge of you. I guess the next steps on the left whinge censorship list would be to accuse me of racism and fascism.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Go back and read your posts regarding Prof. Triggs.
And the language you have used regarding her.
You have to accept the responsibility for the
language you have used. It has been malice and is
not acceptable to most people. If that sort of
language is acceptable to you and the circles in
which you move than I guess you don't know any
better.

Foxy,

I reviewed my comments and consider them all appropriate and applicable. However, if you and SR choose to be snowflakes and take umbrage at the most extreme definition of words then there is no reasoning with you, and your IQ is more questionable than your morals. For example an artist that prostitutes himself is probably doing commercials not selling his body.

As for the circles I move in, they have the literary horsepower to move beyond 16th century puritan interpretations and values.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thanks for sharing and bringing a chuckle (or two)
into our lives.

Welcome back, Foxy !

When are you retiring again from this discussion ? Not yet ?

[Exits left, huffily. And re-enters centre-stage. Then exits yet again].

Dear Joe,

After you.

'Happily you can't say what you want around the kitchen table for we are listening'

..But hold onto that OLO page because Triggsie is following in the footsteps of her sponsor, the truth-challenged Julia Gillard ('Who?', you might ask). That puff story with the Womens Weekly (where a feminist history was revealed and 'young women' peed upon for not kowtowing to the feminists) and the recent self-justifying speeches will be followed by a book. All just like Julia.

However it is George Orwell who be having the last word. His books do sell . They are read and he was right of course.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You had mentioned "16th Century puritan interpretations
and values" in an earlier post.

I recently came across an interesting article on
that period. It stated that "it is difficult to
empathise with those people so in turn we judge
them". People like Henry VIII for example.

The
mentality and morals of another era often makes
it difficult to either understand or identify with
those people. We often hear the phrase, "They were
people of their time". Yet we often forget that
we are people of our time. The article pointed out
that no doubt in another 500 years no one will be
able to fathom us out either. Likewise we will be
judged and no doubt found wanting. We are all products
of our time and within our time we cope as best we can
with whatever life throws at us.

It sometimes pays to remember that before making
judgements on others.

Foxy,

I don't disagree with you at all, I just fail to see what point you are trying to make.

I try to avoid obscenities, but don't sanitize my speech to exclude words that are common parlance, but if misinterpreted could be slightly offensive.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If using words like:

despicable old tart who couldn't give a crap.

loathsome degenerate.

arrogant troglodyte.

And comparing her to Pol Pot.

Is normal speech for you.

There's nothing more left to say.

For real obscenity, acts and omissions that grossly offend against morality, how can the elephant in the room be missed, which is the shabby treatment of the QUT students and Bill Leak by the AHRC and Triggs?

If only there were any real Left around.

Foxy,

Your faux outrage lacks even a shred of credibility. I have not heard one peep from you when left whinge posters say even worse things about conservative politicians.

The whole reason for the thread is the Orwellian award (from a far left whinge organisation) for defense of free speech to a person that has made it her business to use the state to punish people for speaking freely.

That Triggs' tenure of the AHRC has been a debacle that would make Trump blush replete with blatant bias, incompetence, outrageous posturing, and outright dishonesty makes her unwavering supporters look like hypocritical dullards.

I can only imagine the wild cries and outrage from left whingers if the replacement for the pretentious scoundrel Triggs wavers even a jot from the requirements of the job.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You, as far as I am concerned have no credibility
whatsoever.

Hi Foxy,

I disagree about Shadow Minister's credibility, but even if it were so, if he/she meets that criterion, one wonders why Triggs and our Shadow Minister aren't being awarded the Prize jointly :)

Do you have anything concrete, relevant or positive to add ? Perhaps during one of your future comeback tours, you could try Woody Guthrie's "So long, it's Been Good to Know you !"

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

If you don't like my opinion of Shadow Minister,
he can always improve.

As far as your advice to me regarding this discussion?
I am curious as to why don't you give similar advice
to Shadow Minister. After all he keeps "coming back"
as well. Why single only me out?

But you're right. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens:

"To describe this discussion as a piece of ... would
be to run the risk of a discourse that would never
again rise above the excremental."

Foxy,

I take it from your reply that you have no answer for your silence on left whinge rantings, and I take your trite ad hominem as an admission of hypocrisy.

Gillian Triggs is an attacker of free speech not a defender, and anybody that values freedom of speech would consider her vile.

P.S.

Joe's comment to you was based on your previous stated leaving of the thread. As I never "left" I cannot be coming back.

Dear Shadow Minster,

My ad hominem?

My hypocrisy?

And this coming from one of the most effluent posters
on this forum.

I wonder what Shakespeare would have seen as Gillian Triggs' hamartia and responsible for her final, almost inevitable fall from grace?

Although I do believe that she was poorly served and possibly set-up by some nasty critters in the swamp that is the 'human rights' in Australia, including the external influences who are rarely seen above water and are 'coincidentally' in the vicinity when the water turns claret.

To some, Professor Triggs herself is necessary collateral damage where the ends justify the means. Australia might be hicksville compared with the US and Europe, but it does have some very nasty saltwater crocs who smile and smile and ..etc.

As well, there was one occasion at least and arguably more, where she would have been better advised to examine and admit to her own inattention.

Not implying the presence of any of those media-stereotyped age-related memory 'problems'. Simply that we are all human and sometimes our brains through our reconstructed memory have us believing and maybe stating remembered 'facts' that are not always true to or even representative of what transpired at the time. The tabloid media and people who should know better are prone to sensationalise such human errors as lies, whereas they are anything but that.

But then again, maybe Gillian Triggs' own personality and legal training might not allow her to admit fault.

Gillian Triggs should have relied on her own intuition, her own felt sense and politely refused that politically loaded 'award' from that Victorian crew.

Some must have smiled.

Foxy,

Yes, applying different sets of standards to different people based on your ideology is hypocrisy.

leoj,

Idi Amin used to award himself medals incl the Victoria Cross, the small left whinge self appointed committee liberty Victoria that granted this award is just as crass, and the award isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

I suspect the award evening is a fund raising exercise by these opinionated wind bags, where left whinge suckers can gather and tell each other how wonderful they are for a small fee.

But Triggsie might like to be compared with Shakespeare's tragic heroes.

She has a gift for drama and has already done some stage departure practice. There is a lengthy soliloquy in the making and on misogyny, naturally enough. Triggsie is multiskilled, she can also bask in the reflected injustice of the 'racism' that so unfairly judged that ABC-approved Muslim lady, Er sorry, WOO-marn, with the silo headdress who rolls her Rs so beautifully. As though she has a mouthful of something oily.

For Triggsie, there is the Womens Weekly readership to revisit. She would want to sound homely, armchair and dog, that sort of thing. Restrained grandmotherly dress, more vicar's wife and NO expensive trinkets, necklaces especially. And constantly discriminated against by men. Julia Gillard and other Emily's Listers would advise.

As for Liberty Victoria's 'Top Award' (their description) being anything less than that, all should be reminded of the freedom of speech luminaries who went before. This timely article goes into that,

http://tinyurl.com/kek33cn

Dear Shadow Minister,

So glad that you agree!

Foxy,

So glad that we concur that Triggs is an opinionated windbag.

Dear Shadow Minister,

No.

Applying different sets of standards to
different people based on your ideology is more
than hypocrisy and you have displayed that so well
in this discussion.

Foxy,

Really, can you provide one example where I applied a different set of standards to someone in this post?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Try from page 6 onwards.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You touted Tim Wilson to take over from Triggs. How do you view his record as the Human Rights Commissioner?

Hi Steele,

Hmmm ....... yes, a right-winger. I'm trying to remember any blatantly improper judgments or recommendations that he made.

Nope, can't think of any. So your point is ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote;

“Hmmm ....... yes, a right-winger. I'm trying to remember any blatantly improper judgments or recommendations that he made. Nope, can't think of any. So your point is ?”

Yet again I think you have made my point beautifully.

I would say in complete confidence that you couldn't think of any “judgments or recommendations that he made”. This was a bloke pulling $350,000 PA and racking up extraordinary expenses of around $80,000 one year yet all we heard was a bit on gay rights. Triggs wasn't the Human Rights Commissioner he was, yet not a peep about Australia's treatment of asylum seekers.

I object strongly to paying someone that much just to rubber stamp government policy. Surely the HRC should be challenging the government of the day to strive for better human rights outcomes. Why should we have such a person in the role?

Dear Steele,

Tim Wilson during his years as policy director of
the Institute of Public Affairs called for the abolition of
the Human Rights Commission. His appointment as
Commissioner certainly raised quite a bit of controversy
as a result. Comments like, "How can Mr Wilson possibly undertake
the role of the Commissioner when it is obvious he has such
contempt for the Commission itself." And, "It's not often
that you get a job helping run an organisation that you've
spent years saying shouldn't exist."

Different strokes for different folks.

Steele,

The salary and expenses go with the position. Trigs took the money as well, and fair enough, that's what you get when you're head of the HRC. So, again, what's your point ?

If you are against such high levels of expenditure for such a useless position, perhaps you might echo Wilson's heroic recommendation (per Foxy) to abolish the AHRC ? I'd second that :)

Joe

Foxy,

As I thought, you cannot come up with a single specific example.

I would assume that you would also condemn the almost exclusive appointment of trade union heavies to Fair work?

SR,

While public servants are perfectly entitled to their own political opinions, they are bound to perform their duties professionally, as per their mandate, in a manner that is free of political bias.

That you have completely failed to point out any infraction by Tim Wilson in his position in the AHRC is proof that he was a sound appointment that contrasted against Triggs' many blatant failings.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/20/tim-wilson-government-should-apologise-over-sacked-nauru-save-the-children-staff

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/tim-wilson-morrison-response-asylum-seeker-data-breach-undesirable

Dear Shadow Minister,

Every time you post you apply different sets of
standards to different people based on your
ideology. I gave you the reference to page 6
onwards where you claimed that former US President
received the Nobel prize because he was black.
Which was wrong. Then Steele gave you Tim Wilson
which you mentioned as Human Rights Commissioner.
Yet despite the man's lack of achievements - you
thought he was excellent in the role. Proving our
points. Here is another link on Tim Wilson.
I'm sure that you'll find something wrong with that
as well. Everybody is wrong except for your side of
politics - right? Everybody else is biased. You're
not.

http://theaimn.com/49343-2/

Foxy,

My comment about Obama's Nobel prize was sarcastic, primarily because he got the prize shortly after becoming president, before he had achieved anything of substance, and certainly before achieving anything anywhere near the levels required for previous winners.

Secondly, claiming that I thought that Tim Wilson was "excellent in the role" is a lie. My claim was that TW was a sound appointment in that he had not broken any of the protocols required of a public servant in discharging his duties, in stark contrast to Triggs.

WRT your link, I'm not sure under which rock you found this one.

The article is a typical left whinge polemic, devoid of fact and consisting entirely of spite. The article seems focused on TW not pursuing a sufficiently left whinge agenda in a area for which he is not responsible, and ignores the instances where he backed up Triggs against the libs

"HUMAN Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has thrown his support behind his embattled president Gillian Triggs, refusing to give oxygen to the political attacks clouding the findings of her children in detention report.

Speaking today at the National Press Club in Canberra, Mr Wilson said he supported all his commission colleagues but also backed the Coalition’s border protection policies saying “stopping the boats matters."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/tim-wilson-opens-up-over-gillian-triggs-report/news-story/4190c846c5781be30b4cce058318a8fc

Dear Shadow Minister,

I was going to respond to you in further detail
however I have decided not to because this has gone
on for long enough and has not achieved anything
really productive. It's getting quite ridiculous.

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

Steele & Foxy,

So ...... Tim Wilson, a right-winger, broke no protocol when he was in that position ? He criticised the Coalition government over its handling of illegal refugees ? He defended the rights of Australians to freedom of expression, there's no evidence otherwise ? But apart from being a right-winger, he did nothing wrong ? Is that your position ?

Dead silence was the stern reply, while the Comeback Kid gets ready to re-enter, Stage Left, again.

No offence intended, Foxy :)

Joe