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.