Is Mise,

I see - so you will always have something to say
and nothing to contribute. As I said - clueless!

Foxy,

You brought in the Irish priests, I thought that I was contributing to a conversation with you.

Speaking of opinions.
Opinions should never become policy without testing to see if there is any validity.

Example, it would seem that it was someone’s opinion that the markings fo lane lines on our roads were not wide enough, so now thousands if not millions of litres of extra paint is being used to paint wider lines, even though the existing. Line width had been good enough for the past hundred years.

Even if some justification can be found for the wider lines on the roadways there can be no good reason for painting wider demarkation lines for parking spaces.

Here is Martin discussing the Totalitarian Government of Western Australia, and their support of the Chinese Communist Party.
http://www.facebook.com/ACLobby/videos/4138976596185699

I believe Foxy's views align with the Western Australian Government, on her points which is not democratic freedom of speech but totalitarian.

Either through forgetfullness or ignorance
many Australians don't appear to realise
free speech is not a legal right they hold.

In fact Australians are subject to a variety of laws
restricting free speech- including defamation law,
hate speech law, sexual harassment law, and laws against
threatening others.

While desirable in theory truly free speech would open up
vulnerable people to intimidation and attack.

Thought you were totalitarian:
Foxy said, "Australians don't appear to realise
free speech is not a legal right they hold.

In fact Australians are subject to a variety of laws
restricting free speech-"

Who defines what opinions one can hold in Australia?
Look at WA and Vic for this answer.