Exposing the exposure draft: a law school professor’s insights into the Racial Discrimination Act5/5/2014
BRETT SHANDLER De Minimis speaks with Associate Professor Beth Gaze, MLS’s expert on anti-discrimination law. Following the 2011 Federal Court finding that two columns written by Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt had contravened s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Shadow Attorney-General George Brandis promised to repeal the provision ‘in its current form’ should the Coalition come to power at the 2013 Federal Election. In March this year, the Attorney-General released an exposure draft of legislation to amend the Act, which if enacted will have the effect of narrowing the protections against racial vilification, widening corresponding exemptions, and assessing public acts by reference to the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community rather than those of any particular groups within the community. The draft’s release has precipitated vigorous community debate about the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and protection against racial vilification. To make sense of the exposure draft, De Minimis spoke with Associate Professor Beth Gaze, MLS’s expert on anti-discrimination law.
What are your thoughts on the exposure draft of the RDA amendments? The exposure draft of changes to the RDA proposes changes that would essentially end protection in federal law against speech that is racially offensive or intimidating, by introducing an exception so wide it would cover virtually all situations. Since this is an important policy to protect the rights of people of minority ethnic backgrounds and indigenous people, and to protect community harmony which is a big benefit to all of us, these changes go too far and should be rejected. Interestingly it seems that public opinion is firmly of this view too, in light of the public opinion polls and comments by members of parliament. Many commentators, including some who support retaining s 18C, claim that it sets the bar too low. Do you believe this is the case? Section 18C prohibits conduct including speech that is not in private, and that ‘[offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates]’ someone on the basis of their race or ethnicity. While there has been some discussion in the media recently suggesting that the standard of ‘offence’ is too low and should be deleted, the courts have said that all these criteria are satisfied only where conduct is serious, so a high standard is applied and trivial matters cannot be pursued. Enforcement is by a civil action by the person affected, and in most cases there are little or no damages awarded, so the action really exists to vindicate the principle that intimidatory speech is unacceptable. In my view the inclusion of offence is not inappropriate. Section 18C was adopted in response to the prevalence of seriously offensive racial speech in the community targeting particular groups such as Aborigines, Jews and other groups. Not only is such speech offensive to the group that is targeted, but failing to take action to challenge it may allow it to create a dangerous social environment of racial hostility that can lead to violence, fear and intimidation, and actual harm to people affected. Threats of physical harm are assaults, and clearly prohibited by tort and criminal law. But s 18C deals with the creation of an atmosphere that allows intimidation and hostility to develop and spread. There are many historical examples of the serious effects of such environments. Knowing this, we should not wait until people are at risk of harm before demonstrating social disapproval. History shows the dangers. A good range of defences to s 18C is available, including artistic performance, statements in genuine academic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest. This would allow debate on these issues that is not inflammatory, even if it may be seriously offensive or intimidating, although where it does fall into those categories, courts are likely to be careful to ensure that the conduct is genuinely for a public purpose. So respect for the equal rights of minority people to live safely and without fear, intimidation, threats or being targeted on the basis of their race justifies these laws. So you don’t buy the argument that s 18C in its current form places an unjustifiable burden on freedom of speech? Those in favour of amending or repealing the provision often argue that free speech needs to be better protected. However defamation laws are a much bigger threat to freedom of speech in Australia, in particular because of the use of stop writs, to get an injunction on an interim basis, which threaten large costs against speakers and thereby chill controversial speech. But the opponents of 18C are not suggesting they will reform defamation law, which suggests their concern with freedom of speech is a rather limited one. In the Bolt case, the poor journalism based on wrong facts that could have been easily checked was the only reason why the case breached the law, which suggests that s 18C does adequately protect freedom of expression. We would not want the law to protect false reporting or commentary that could easily have been checked for correctness. The interest of the proponents of reform in having no limits on their exercise of their own speech could be seen as self-interested, as they command excellent media attention – Bolt has a blog and TV show, and the Liberal MPs have media attention and staff to promulgate their views. The groups targeted by such speech often have fewer avenues to respond. Australia’s law is similar to Canada’s approach whereby the racial equality of respect is valued as well as freedom of expression. Australia has one of the highest proportions of people born overseas or whose parents were. Our multicultural community requires us to respect racial equality, and not to simply put freedom of expression at the top of the tree as an absolute value, like the American Supreme Court has done. Beth Gaze is an Associate Professor at Melbourne Law School and an expert in anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws. Brett Shandler is a 3rd year JD student.
dom fammartino
16/5/2016 03:24:41 pm
THE MYSTERYS AND CLUES SURROUNDING THE ANDREW BOLT 18C CASE @ CURRENTLY UNDER THIS TURNBALL GOVERNMENT IDENTITY FRAUD IS NOT A CRIME A "CORRUPT POLITICAL AGENDA TO SPLIT FAMILIES RELIGIONS AND DESTROY ALL GOOD THAT THE WORLD HAS LEFT@ Socialism is a dead end. For hundreds of years, it has failed everywhere it's been adopted. The enthusiasm of our youth for the candidacy of Bernie Sanders @ When my mother was just days from dying of cancer, @The tragedy is, as I have often tried to point out, children are dying because of the “Stolen Generations” myth. I can actually identify more dead or raped children @ The latest of the dead Jews who aren't news to The Age or their many ... with family members of terrorists who had carried out attacks against @ Think of that as our politicians trade in this poison to win your vote, @ to defeat ISIS and all our other 'enemies' – whoever they're supposed to be @ Tony Abbott to Andrew Bolt: immigrants should 'join our team' ..... The only difference being that social media in the form of these blog pages give his ... This article is actually about Tont Abbott, so what are we supposed to ... The Australian sensors obviously prefer bitching over leaders to caring for the dead.@ Andrew Bolt declines my invitation to lunch. ... Instead, the defence argued that the law was only meant to deal with things that incited racial hatred – a view the ... I should be killed @ When one has a look at Bolt's blog, one sees that section 18C does not ... On an unrelated note, I was whistling when I was walking my dog the other day. ... her mother had Jewish heritage after her mother died (para 75). ... As for all the opportunities supposedly only available for Aboriginal people,@ Andrew Bolt's Blog, 28/4/16; Jailing Pauline Hanson; Caught with our pant's down ... Spelling Bolt spelling your meant to be a professional. ... What a whiz Bolt is " I gave this do-or-die advice to Malcolm Turnbull three weeks ago @ In black and white, Andrew Bolt trifled with the facts .... but I will defend to the death your right to say it" @ Andrew Bolt is still on the fringes, whether he stands with Lord Monckton or not ... his claim that he had brought a couple of people back from the dead.@I don't normally blog about Andrew Bolt, because really, what's the .... I don't know why – as I put them up the way I do all my other graphs ... Besides, he'll defend to the death his right to be an utter fan moron@. While the country engages in a national conversation about racism, our leader ... won his defamation case against News Corp blogger Andrew Bolt. ... grieve the death of their Christ, it seems appropriate to recall Pontius Pilate, the ..... What's that supposed to mean?@ The ABC's decision to involve Andrew Bolt in a program about Indigenous .... Isn't it strange we didn't find out which Indigenous leaders were attending ..... What a brain-dead decision by the ABC, @ In 2009 Gerard Henderson's Media Watch Dog blog commenced publication. .... In Russia, some journalists get murdered. .... claimed that “when you are an elected parliamentarian…you are expected and required to read my reports”. ... Bromberg referred to Andrew Bolt's “tone” in his Herald-Sun column @ If the Liberal Party will not call out trade union corruption and its concomitant infection of the ... The royal commission into corrupt unions was supposed to sound the death knell for the ..... On a petition calling for the sacking of Andrew Bolt @Andrew Bolt one man out in critiquing Abbott's first year - looks as though Andrew Bolt is the only journalist giving Abbott the ... What follows here is a random selection of comments from both mainstream media, web sites, journals and blogs. .... “A prime minister expected to lean to caution has thrown it to the winds. ..... Ok, so Mungo is apparently not dead.@Another case created by our absurd attempts to formalise differences of “race” ... She accuses the students of racial vilification under section 18C, which critics call ... a dawn raid on the headquarters of a media company linked to a government critic, .... The sacking of Howard Sattler as 6PR host for asking Julia Gillard @ HERALD Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has lost an action brought in the Federal Court in which ... that the HWT and Bolt contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. ... Facebook · Twitter · LinkedIn · Google · Email ... Emily Ritchie Tony Abbott has dismissed the views of 'delusional @ Even The Guardian this week furthered the myth that the Bolt case was about free speech. It quoted a parliamentarian in relation to the matter, who was reported as ... And then Opposition leader Tony Abbott promised to “champion” ... The lack of truth in conduct which contravenes s 18C @ Dear Julia Gillard. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act silenced Andrew Bolt. It could silence any of us. I'm writing to ask f
domenic fammartino
5/6/2016 09:52:44 am
ANDREW BOLT AND AUSTRALIA DESERVES TGE TRUTH TO COME OUT AND FOR JUSTICE TO PREVAIL
Dom fammartino
25/9/2016 01:26:08 pm
One hallmark of the entire judicial system is to assure everyone a full and fair hearing. If everyone is not afforded that fundamental fairness before it is determined whether someone is innocent or guilty, liable or not liable, then we are left with an unfair process.That process may never allow subjectivity, prejudice, and arbitrariness to replace fairness.the role of a judge is to be totally unbiased towards either party and not allow political or out side influences to effect there decision making. rules of natural justice are to act fairly, without bias, and the right of all parties to be heard. a courts duty of care which causes damage or loss to safety or welfare of themselves or family must never be accepted Basically, someone commits perjury if they lie in their evidence in a court or tribunal on any important issue. It applies to all courts including the family court. "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty
Dom fammartino
10/10/2016 06:46:40 pm
AMERICA IF HILLARY CLINTON SOMEHOW RIGS THIS ELECTION AND BECOMES PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN HAS MADE IT QUITE CLEAR WHAT AMERICA FACES. AND THAT IS FULL SCALE WAR WITH THE MOST POWERFULL MILITARY NUCLEAR READY SUPERPOWER THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. AND THIS WILL BE THE OUT COME OF SUCH AN EVENT. PUTIN DOES NOT STATE SOMETHING OF THIS EFFECT FOR NO REASON AND HE WILL NOT HESITATE TO FOLLOW THROUGH JUST LIKE HIS STANCE IN SYRIA HAS SHOWN. THERES ONLY ONE CHOICE FOR AMERICANS IF THEY EVER WANT TO SEE ANOTHER PRESIDENT AGAIN AND THATS VOTE DONALD TRUMP.😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎 if tomorrow a war were to break out between the US and Russia, it is guaranteed that the US would be obliterated. At a minimum, there would no longer be an electric grid, no internet, no oil and gas pipelines, no interstate highway system, no air transportation or GPS-based navigation. Financial centers would lie in ruins. Government at every level would cease to function. US armed forces, stationed all around the globe, would no longer be resupplied. At a maximum, the entire landmass of the US would be covered by a layer of radioactive ash. We tell you this not to be alarmist, but because, based on everything we know, we are ourselves alarmed. If attacked, Russia will not back down; she will retaliate, and she will utterly annihilate the United States.😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
Domenic fammartino
16/10/2016 02:41:28 pm
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸I do not care if Donald Trump called a woman fat. I do not care if he tried to sleep with a woman or if he likes "beautiful" women. I care that he sent a plane to pick up 200 Marines who were stranded after desert storm. I care that he supports our police officers and first responders. I care that he supports guns and standing behind our military. I care that he supports the death penalty and is AGAINST abortion. I care that he supports enforcing immigration laws. I care that he wants to destroy radical Islamic groups. I care that he supports COAL. These are things I care about. Him talking sexually about women does not bother me. Were they mean words? Yes. Were they words spoken in PRIVATE? Yes. Have you ever talked to your friends about the opposite sex in private and said things? I'm positive all of you have. But, News Flash!! Women have been sexualized for centuries!! Jay-Z, Lil' Jon, Lil' Wayne and every single other rapper helped establish that platform, but people are ok with music blasted all over the radio degrading women. Ever heard of Victoria Secret? Or their fashion show? Ever heard of Hooters? People are ok with that too. Until all of these things are different, women will be viewed this way. Your precious Obama couldn't change that and Hillary can't either. I feel sorry for the women Donald has belittled and said terrible things about. But I'm still much more offended by what Hillary Clinton has DONE over what Donald Trump has SAID... PERIOD!!!! So Trump doesn't do well at the debates, maybe he even sounds childish and incapable. But he is speaking the truth! Just because he's not a polished politician like Hilary or Obama doesn't mean he's unqualified to be president. He cares for this country, not growing the size of his pockets. That man has so much money he could never spend it all. He gets NOTHING out of being president! I'm standing for the man accused of saying mean words. I'll never back a woman under three different scandal investigations, possible murder at Benghazi, and the secretive email scandal which has been nothing but lies from the beginning. Trump 2016!!!
Domenic fammartino
16/10/2016 02:42:59 pm
Americas fate is in there hands if they vote for hillary clinton or she somehow rigs this election its war and game over for america. If they vote for donald trump its peace and america will become great again. AMERICA WAKE UP IF YOU DONT THERE IS A VERY REAL CHANCE YOU WONT SEE ANOTHER PRESIDENT AGAIN. AND WAR AGAINST THE ALMIGHTY NUCLEAR READY RUSSIAN MILITARY SUPERPOWER IS WRITING YOUR OWN DEATH WARRANT**** America is being run by a bunch of fools with a ideology that is not shared by anyone but them, the Obama administration and his idiot women hillary clinton all need to be behind bars, and tried for treason along with the CIA. Taking Five billion dollars of tax payer money to take over Ukraine is and was stupid beyond words. Who the heck do these clowns think they are? It's time people are held accountable for their war crimes.Russia is not the enemy, it is the saviour clearly america is at fault, period. Never does one wants nuclear war, and in the test wars with Russia from the CIAs own reports, war with Russia would last 60 hours maximum and the americans would be destroyed at the hands of the super powerfull RUSSIAN MILITARY SUPERPOWER. . Susanna Power's, Susan Rice, Noonan, Obama, Soros, clinton all need to be in prison, period. They are corrupt evil individuals who assisted ISIS to gain strength and power. Here's Why Vladimir Putin Is The World's Most Powerful Person , No Matter What America Does or potrays to the rest of the world. Vladimir Putin is not the sort to make idle comments.,if he states something it’s because he has meticulously studied and planned it. This man has made the effort to calculate the exact amount of time it would take obliterate america. Russian President Vladimir Putin is simply not a man you want to upset for any reason. pentagon american army expert mr macgregor has stated what the RUSSIAN MILITARY SUPERPOWER would do to america if it come to war ”Defeated isn't the right word, the right word is annihilated," Macgregor told US military expert Mark Perry, During his presentation at the US Congress in November of 2013, Macgregor compared the state of the US Army to a nine-passenger rowboat, in which "four would steer, three would call cadence and two would man the oars," "Even if you increased the Army to 600,000 in its current form… it would still fail. That's the problem and, by the way, the Army knows it," the US military expert said, All of a Sudden....Seven Short Years Have Passed!
Domenic fammartino
17/10/2016 06:17:58 pm
TONY ABBOTT was a man of strong values and morals - too strong for a politition it seems in this day and age. Unlike the Labor low lives that he took over from who destroyed all they touched and abbott had to fix which made his acheivements even greater.
Domenic fammartino
17/10/2016 09:29:22 pm
I wish people stop criticizing Trump for not having any policies. Policies are a dime a dozen.and if you take a close look at them they make great sence. First things first. A nation needs a leader with integrity, honesty and conviction. Trump is that man as was tony abbott. Even those who dribble policies only do it to impress and con people then change them once elected. Obama and the others has proven that beyond a dought. Obama was so useless as President that the people have turned to Donald Trump as their saviour.. and 70 percent of americans dont trust clinton and thats a conservative figure. Australia should take heed .. What an indictment of the mainstream media the Donald Trump phenomenon is. How is it possible to so misunderstand the mood of the American people and also the australian people pauline hanson has proven that fact with her recent success. Abbott was/trashed, abused, ridiculed by the hate media because he did what they said could not be done. Now they are trying to hound him out of parliament, because he threatens to do again (just by being there) what they say cannot be done. It shows that people want a voice free speech and freedom. They want equal rights. These things are what the far left elites hate as they want to control and intimidate and not give people a choice. People should stop trying to analyse Trump and his success. What they need to do is read the following two books of his, to understand why he must be the next president and, contrary to what some say about him, he is certainly not a fool and he is an highly intelligent and skilled individual with a huge heart who loves his country.
Domenic fammartino
25/10/2016 11:16:11 pm
shoves the state between children and their families. ... The Bolt case was the most egregious use of section 18C. Islamist preaches more Jew-hatred in our suburbs | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Domenic fammartino
25/10/2016 11:14:55 pm
shoves the state between children and their families. ... The Bolt case was the most egregious use of section 18C. Islamist preaches more Jew-hatred in our suburbs | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
dom fammartino
26/10/2016 02:39:27 pm
😎😎😎AMERICA VS RUSSIA^^ THE RESULT IF WAR BROKE OUT^^ I PRAY AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUS NATURE OF A CLINTON RIGGED CORRUPT WIN AND HOW IMPORTANT A TRUMP LANDSLIDE IS FOR THE GREAT COUNTRY OF AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE.** if tomorrow a war were to break out between the US and Russia, it is guaranteed that the US would be obliterated. At a minimum, there would no longer be an electric grid, no internet, no oil and gas pipelines, no interstate highway system, no air transportation or GPS-based navigation. Financial centers would lie in ruins. Government at every level would cease to function. US armed forces, stationed all around the globe, would no longer be resupplied. At a maximum, the entire landmass of the US would be covered by a layer of radioactive ash. We tell you this not to be alarmist, but because, based on everything we know, we are ourselves alarmed. If attacked, Russia will not back down; she will retaliate, and she will utterly annihilate the US *** Russian leadership will not “blink.” With great sadness and a heavy heart RUSSIA will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover. Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map. . 😂😂😂 Who's the country that has destabilised the Middle East; who arms most of the worlds despots and dictators; who has dropped the atomic bomb - twice! - who has decimated more countries and caused more human suffering by military, diplomatic and economic means across the globe than any other country?? It's not Russia. The US have a record for attacking and destroying weak smaller nations that can hardly fight back - nations they wish to control and plunder. Russia is a completely different story and the US knows it. There bully and stand over tactics are useless against the might of the nuclear ready russian military super power. Putin has stated that the only reason the US had any interest in relations with Moscow was that Russia was the only country that could "destroy America in half an hour or less." Vladimir Putin is not the sort to make idle comments.,if he states something it’s because he has meticulously studied and planned it. RUSSIA have the "Satan 2" missile its the most powerfull ever designed and is equipped with stealth technology to help it dodge enemy radar systems. It can destroy a whole country in seconds. It can totally demolish and bring destruction to an area the size of 'Texas or France'
Henry HL
27/10/2016 12:10:42 am
Yeah cool story bro
dom fammartino
15/11/2016 09:53:22 pm
Section 18C is the problem it makes it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person because of their "race, colour or national or ethnic origin".political activists and their lawyers have come to realise that section 18C can be used to aggressively pursue political goals.Too often the law is being used opportunistically. Section 18C is being used not as a shield but as a weapon. In silencing, or threatening to silence, opponents in a debate using legal means, complainants remove the possibility of debate. It's unhealthy and it's undemocratic. it prevents discussion of many issues and that should be of concern to all Australians. So ridiculous is the application of Australian racial vilification laws that they can now be used to punish anti-racist sentiment. We are all diminished when anyone’s freedom of speech is taken away. Even if the law never prevents us from saying things we might want to say, today it certainly prevents us from hearing things which we might want or need to hear. It prevents us from knowing what our fellow citizens believe. It denies us the opportunity to refine our thinking and develop our own ideas. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are inseparable. For as long as I am in this place, I will stand up for free speech.
Domenic fammartino
20/11/2016 07:47:12 pm
In Australia live like Australians Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Australia, to work and eat in Australia, should respect Australian culture, and should respect the Australian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslims then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law. Australia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Australia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Australian culture. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Muslims are taking over those countries and they will not take over Australia. The Australian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of Sharia Law and Muslims. When the honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the Australian national interest first, observing that the Muslims Minorities are not Australian.” Islam is not nationalistic. Nationalism is against their religion. That is why they talk of the ummah. The "nation" of islam does not have language and geographical borders as we know them. They turn places where they go into anarchy, because their faith is full of violence and hate, and is against the will of the Almighty God. The real God cannot bless them, because of their belief system, and thus their actions, are against the commands He has given to humanity.
dom fammartino
28/11/2016 11:54:02 pm
the US constitution matters and they should be interpreted according to the founding fathers’ original intentions, not according to what each new generation of unelected judges wants them to mean.Judgments emanating from the country’s highest court ultimately belong to the people, Not a tiny group of legislators and lawyers. Yet here we are in Australia not simply debating indigenous recognition in the constitution but elevating it to a symbolic gold standard of how caring and progressive you are. To oppose it is to be called a racist by the chattering classes. For those who support freedom and democracy the people must have a say.The right for all to have a voice in a public debate about a moral issue is a must. The Supreme Court was set up by the constitution’s framers as a check on the two other branches of government: the legislative and the executive. In particular, it was intended to ensure that neither of those two branches denied individuals certain rights. If political struggles become matters for courts of law, rather than courts of public opinion, people’s rights will eventually loose.If judges act like politicians, the public will treat them like politicians.‘The reason (the confirmation process of a new justice) has become politicised is that the Supreme Court has been making more and more political decisions that are really not resolved by the constitution at all.’It is not for judges to interpret the constitution through the filter of their own political opinions.The Supreme Court interprets the law, it doesn't make it. I get it that many people consider marriage equality to be right; that doesn't make it "a right"Those that oppose marriage equality often chase out the old canard that it is a slippery slope to equal marriage rights for those that engage in bestiality - which of course it isn't in a political sense because politically there isn't sufficient support for bestiality - but legally, how is it different. If the constitution protects a right of intimacy then surely it protects animal lovers. The constitution concerns the right of men and women, not animals, so what would the countervailing constitutional argument for animal rights activists? It might be illegal, but so was sodomy when the constitution was framed. How about poligamy. How about a man marrying two other men and six other women? How about a father marrying his son? That's the slippery slope. It won't happen of course but not for lack of arguments. Let judges be jurists. There is space for those that can reason by analogy to apply extant law to novel situations but the real slippery slope is in cases like the marriage equality case where a political hot button is pressed by a handful of lawyers, not (indirectly) by the people.I personally don't care about whether or not same sex people are free to marry, but I DO care that a majoritarian decision prohibiting same sex marriage was made in some US states - under a Federalist system - and enacted as law, as decided by the people of those states. The US Supreme Court over-ruled that binding constitutional right of the particular State governments, thus contributing to the blatantly undemocratic nature of activist decisions from the highest court in the land in the US. It is very very disturbing when one examines the constitutions and governments of all English-speaking nations. And homosexual couples ARE free to enter into 'civil unions' which are legally binding. This is a case of the bullying lobby for gay rights going out of control. The people have every right to feel that their democratic rights have been trounced and flouted.Some countries, like New Zealand, have no written constitution for their parliament so they were able to enact same-sex marriage at the drop of a hat.You cannot undermine MAJORITARIAN democracy and continue to call it a Democracy. If you're positing that freedom is being safeguarded over democracy then you are talking about a select freedom for the very few and compliance and conformity for everybody else. Dangerous.I point out again; same-sex couples already had legally binding civil unions. That is not a loss of freedom, by even any activist judge's imagination. It was a concerted campaign from a noisy and aggressive minority to have the law framed to suit them, no matter what the rest of the community had decided or even wanted - and which existed according to PRECEDENT. Marriage recognises the dignity of women and the children they bear, that is why it exists. My stance had nothing to do with my personal Catholic beliefs, but ia constitutional matter. The argument I put forward was about the "court’s threat to democracy", if the supreme court ruling should hold sway over state autonomy."Those civil consequences – and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences – can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial law
Domenic fammartino
10/12/2016 04:17:41 pm
NEVER POKE THE RUSSIAN BEAR. Russian strongman president Vladimir Putin is not a man to mess with or upset for any reason. Russia is a world leading nuclear super power and Putin will protect his country, people and interests at all costs.Its in every countries best interest not to cross the worlds greatest leader doing so could easily get your country wiped of the political map in a heart beat. If russia is ever threatened they will not hesitate for a second they will totally obliterate there enemy. Putin is not only the worlds most powerfull and richest man, he is also the most dangerous he has control of the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world and russians are born and bred for battle.
Domenic
20/12/2016 07:49:23 am
Hillary was never going to be the next president of the US. I mean come on guys, we all saw it coming as soon as we heard she was running for presidency. Let's be realistic the people of america and the world over know how corrupt and evil she is and how she is controlled by the globalist elites. It's so stupid that people don't like Trump, because they think that he is a friend of Putin's because of all the fake media news and constant lies. but its OK with Hillary being friends with Middle eastern countries, where they hate America and all there principles. Is this not blalant hypocracy at its finest a typical democratic trait.
domenic
26/12/2016 09:49:19 am
Penny Wong is delusional, presumptuous and arrogant to say Trump's rhetoric does not reflect Aussie views. Penny, you are so are out of touch. Trump's behaviour leaves a bit to be desired but his rhetoric is spot on, and hillarys corruption and countless scandals on a scale never witnessed in history leaves a lot to be desired and is totally unexceptable although it seems ok to penny, this is why Trump is President elect. The fact that Trump won, despite Penny's so called unsatisfactory behaviour, and against the might of the Foundation and massive personal attacks a bias corrupted democratic run media makes his win so much greater. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
December 2021
|