What if We Couldn't Write to You Anymore

^^^ They'd need to bring back the right of jury trials too. How many people try to worm their way out of that?
 
Rolling your eyes ( here ) and having one-on-one meetings with your staff ( here ) might also get you sued as they could be considered as bullying!

Note Eric Abetz's comments in the first article

Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said the code "reads like something out of the socialist playbook".

He said that at Senate Estimates, departmental officials confirmed that where an employer unintentionally bullied an employee, and the employee didn't consider it to be bullying, if another "sensitive" employee had observed this and actually interpreted the behaviour as bullying they could take action.

"Albeit it was unintentional and it wasn't taken as bullying, the third party would be entitled to compensation, counselling and all the rest," Senator Abetz said.
Click to expand...

Along the lines of the "reasonably likely to cause offence" discussed previously. Who the heck writes these things?
 
bordsilver Who the heck writes these things?
Click to expand...

This

7468_216283_402086859863926_1977841774_n.jpg
 
AUSTRALIAN law enforcement and government agencies have sharply increased their access without warrant to vast quantities of private telephone and internet data, prompting new calls for tighter controls on surveillance powers.

Government agencies accessed private telecommunications data and internet logs more than 300,000 times during criminal and revenue investigations in 2011-12, a 20 per cent increase on the level of surveillance activity in the year before.

Figures from the federal Attorney-General's Department show that on average, these agencies obtained private data from telecommunications and internet service providers 5800 times every week.

The data available to government agencies under federal law includes phone and internet account information, outwards and inwards call details, phone and internet access location data, and details of Internet Protocol addresses visited (though not the actual content of communications).
Advertisement

Data access is authorised by senior police officers or officials, rather than by a judicial warrant.

New South Wales Police were the biggest users of telecommunications data, with 103,824 access authorisations in 2011-12. Victoria Police accessed data 67,173 times in the same period, while the Australian Federal Police did so 23,001 times.

Snip

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/tec...ut-warrants-20121130-2amwp.html#ixzz2Dkm59DDf
Click to expand...
 
Who reckons social media is on the radar? Besides things like the Arab spring saw this in news this morning:

Gail Liston and Melanie Arnost said:
In Darwin, police say they believe social media was to blame for a large party in the rural area that got out of control overnight.

Police were called to a property at Humpty Doo, in Darwin's rural area, where about 300 people had gathered.

Watch Commander Bob Harrison says it took police about two hours to disperse the partygoers, who threw rocks and bottles at officers and their cars.

"What we find is social media is a very useful tool for partygoers," he said.

"Once it gets on to social media, it spreads like wildfire.

"What you think is going to be a small party suddenly turns into a big party and, unfortunately, when you have got alcohol involved, young people and things, it can get out of hand really fast, as this one did in Humpty Doo."
Click to expand...

Police enforcement would be so much more effective if social media was monitored and controlled, yes? Can see Roxon on TV now rabbiting on about "responsible use", "magnet for trouble", "importance for knowing ...", "help law enforcement", "prevent unwanted ...", "won't somebody please think of the children?" etc.
 
A one page fact sheet that I was emailed on the proposed "Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill" that hasn't had anywhere near enough media attention.

Simon Breheny said:
On 20 November 2012, the Commonwealth Attorney-General made public an Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 ('the Bill'). The Bill was referred to an inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Submissions to the inquiry close on 21 December 2012, with its report due by 18 February 2013.

The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 makes a number of significant changes to anti-discrimination law in Australia, including:
broadening the definition of discrimination to include conduct that 'offends' and 'insults' (clause 19-2)
making it easier for a person to claim they were discriminated against, by requiring them to establish only that they were personally offended, not that a reasonable person would have been offended (cl 19-2)
expanding the range of personal characteristics against which it is unlawful to discriminate, to include not only matters such as disability, race, and religion, but also 'political opinion' and 'social origin' (cl 17-1)
reducing the legal protection of a person accused of discrimination, by:
declaring them guilty unless they prove their innocence, i.e. the 'onus of proof' is reversed (cl 124-1)
restricting their right to legal representation (cl 110-4)
requiring them to pay all the costs of their own defence even if they are found to be innocent (cl 133)

If passed into law, the consequences of the Bill are far-reaching.

[h]Impact on freedom of speech and thought[/h]
Almost any comment about anything has the potential to offend someone under the Bill. There would be a chilling effect on freedom of speech and thought if someone could claim the expression of a political viewpoint insulted them and was therefore discriminatory.
The consequences of the Bill go beyond restricting speech. Flying the Australian flag would be unlawful if a person felt such an action insulted them on the basis of their political opinion.

[h]Impact on freedom of religion[/h]
The Bill would make it unlawful for a person to publicly express their religious belief (for example, by wearing a crucifix) if another person was offended because of that other person's religion.
The Bill would also make it unlawful to debate religion and religious practices if another person was offended because of their religion.

[h]Government officials gain enormous power[/h]
Both the potential grounds of discrimination in the Billsuch as a person's political opinion or their social originand the defences against claims of discriminationsuch as the conduct being 'in good faith' and having a 'legitimate aim' (cl 23-3)are unclear and vague. These ambiguous terms give bureaucrats and judges broad discretionary power to determine the boundaries of lawful behaviour.
Discrimination on the grounds of political opinion and social origin is unlawful if it is in connection with 'work and work-related areas' (cl 22-3). These terms are so broad as to potentially apply to spheres of activity well beyond the workplace. Furthermore, the government intends to take a 'broad' interpretation of what constitutes 'work-related areas' (Explanatory Notes, p 31).

[h]Process and penalties[/h]
An accusation of unlawful discrimination starts a legal process that could last years. Complaints are heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Federal Magistrates Court, or the Federal Court of Australia. Penalties for unlawful discrimination range from a forced apology, to the payment of monetary damages, to court-ordered censorship (cl 125).
Click to expand...
 
"Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill" - Canada has gone through this problem for near on 10 years. They even have a human rights commission that acts as a Napoleonic/Continental-style Inquisitional court whom the commission use to target anyone who expresses an unpopular opinion. Or even an orthodox opinion when it comes to traditional culture.

Sad all the Anglosphere countries have to go through all the same problems.
 
Allowing only a Government line approved message in western countries is nothing new. In Germany for example its a crime to deny the holocaust happened as David Irving found out when he got sent to the slammer for a couple of years.

Fortunately we have Common Law in Australia but in reality, whos going to go to the High Court to enforce your freedom of speech? You'd be risking $100k in lawyer fees if you lost so whats the point ?
 
This is an interesting contemporary example of the unintended side effects of reducing media freedoms. Lance Armstrong's drug use was potentially hidden for years by UK's media laws (I deliberately say "potentially" because it's not clear why reporters in other countries didn't run with the story).

For years Sunday Times sports writer David Walsh pursued Lance Armstrong as a drug cheat, and also a bully and serial litigator capable of destroying his enemies financially to protect his bogus image of sporting success.

Armstrong sued Walsh and his employer, successfully silencing his major critic in a country whose defamation laws are so plaintiff-friendly that they have in recent years given rise to the phenomenon of libel tourism.
Click to expand...


http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/lance-armstrong/4473370
 
People will always find a way to express free speech, eg. onion web. Google 'tor browser' and have a read. This is how thousands of people are able to get drugs delivered to their door, whilst remaining anonymous.

I downloaded the program to have a browse. It works very slowly, but the info sent is heavily encrypted and difficult for anyone to track. It can be great for protecting your privacy, although DO NOT EVER search for porn on this tor network. There are some sick farkers out there that love have anonymity.
 
AngloSaxon said:
"Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill" - Canada has gone through this problem for near on 10 years. They even have a human rights commission that acts as a Napoleonic/Continental-style Inquisitional court whom the commission use to target anyone who expresses an unpopular opinion.
Click to expand...

There isn't anything inherently wrong with an Inquisitorial court, it just works differently.

For example, the juge d'Instruction acts independently in pro-actively investigating cases and isn't involved in the trial phase of a prosecution. The trial phase is operates as what we'd consider a "normal" adversarial system. That means cases tend not to even go to trial unless the investigating judge is reasonably confident they know whodunnit based on the evidence they have. They don't ignore evidence which doesn't happen to suit the police's case either - if they find evidence to exonerate a suspect, they tell the police to go back and look for another suspect.

Having the court operate in parallel to law enforcement is arguably more efficient and unarguably less likely to end up with shoddy plea bargaining after the cops whack someone with a dozen charges and offer to knock it back down to one small one if the defendant admits they're guilty of it. The investigating judge knows beforehand what can be proved and what can't be so the suspect only gets charged with crimes they're likely to be successfully prosecuted for. If they load the charge sheet, the trial judge will get annoyed at all the frivolous charges and the investigating judge will get a bad reputation for their poor procedure and wasting the trial court's time.

That said, Canada does have a problem with the defamation law. It's a bad law, but it's quite well enforced, so the problem lies more with the politicians than the legal system.
 
If it does pass the solution is mass civil disobediance directed at Comrade Roxon & a Wong who can't do anything right :P

Kind Regards
non recourse
 
May be too early to say "Yay", but Roxon seems to be listening to common sense and is backing down.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has moved to scrap a controversial element of the Government's proposed anti-discrimination laws amid a public backlash over concerns it could limit free speech.

Ms Roxon has asked her department to redraft sections of the legislation to remove a clause that would have prohibited conduct that "offends or insults".

"It seems to me clear that there are better options than the one that's being proposed and we'll take it forward from there." Ms Roxon told AM.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/roxon-moves-to-scrap-controversial-discrimination-law/4492742

I find the comment "asked her department to redraft sections of the legislation" funny. Makes it sound like serious, hard work. It'll take longer to send it to the printer than to search and delete a few words. Whew! Another hard day's work at the department. Better call three meetings to make sure we do it properly :P
 
Big A.D. said:
AngloSaxon said:
"Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill" - Canada has gone through this problem for near on 10 years. They even have a human rights commission that acts as a Napoleonic/Continental-style Inquisitional court whom the commission use to target anyone who expresses an unpopular opinion.
Click to expand...

There isn't anything inherently wrong with an Inquisitorial court, it just works differently.

For example, the juge d'Instruction acts independently in pro-actively investigating cases and isn't involved in the trial phase of a prosecution. The trial phase is operates as what we'd consider a "normal" adversarial system. That means cases tend not to even go to trial unless the investigating judge is reasonably confident they know whodunnit based on the evidence they have. They don't ignore evidence which doesn't happen to suit the police's case either - if they find evidence to exonerate a suspect, they tell the police to go back and look for another suspect.

Having the court operate in parallel to law enforcement is arguably more efficient and unarguably less likely to end up with shoddy plea bargaining after the cops whack someone with a dozen charges and offer to knock it back down to one small one if the defendant admits they're guilty of it. The investigating judge knows beforehand what can be proved and what can't be so the suspect only gets charged with crimes they're likely to be successfully prosecuted for. If they load the charge sheet, the trial judge will get annoyed at all the frivolous charges and the investigating judge will get a bad reputation for their poor procedure and wasting the trial court's time.

That said, Canada does have a problem with the defamation law. It's a bad law, but it's quite well enforced, so the problem lies more with the politicians than the legal system.
Click to expand...

There is everything wrong with it. The judge you call the investigating judge usually ends up being the trial judge too. The principal of "innocent until proven guilty" is a British Common Law principal that does not exist as we understand it under the European inquisitorial system where the judge is in practice running the prosecution. And that's just the start.

Have you heard of the European Arrest Warrant? Lots of opposition to it in the UK as its' set up under an inquisitorial system that allows prosecutors to arrest a suspect and extradite them and only then start their investigation - resulting in many cases of people arrested and held without charge while the e.g. Bulgarian Police go about their regular duties. When they find the time they may conduct parts of their investigation and 6 months later realise they have the wrong suspect. They don't even have a bail application mention with a magistrate to determine if the person should be held. They are just held indefinitely.

Common Law is our heritage, and it's a much fairer system than that derived by a dictator who it took the British two continental wars to subdue (Napoleon).
 
^ The Spanish system pre-dating Napolean was (still is) the Inquisatorial system was it not? I seem to remember reading about the dynamics of the Spanish Bureaucracy during the Inquisition days and it was all guilty until proven innocent (with a bit of torture thrown in when they could organise the relevent "committee members" to all turn up at the same time and laboriously documented etc). Your history is much better than mine on all this.
 
^ Well theres a good question. I am unsure if the Spanish actually had a codified system of law operating under the inquisitors, as opposed to Napoleon who standardised and codified the French inquisitorial system and spread it to everywhere he conquered. I may have do some reading!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top