Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Feb 17, 2013

Gillard’s ‘human rights’ advertisement

The Australian Taxpayers Alliance has had a little fun with the Gillard government’s so called human rights legislation, which seems designed to stamp out any form of freedom of speech.
 Owing to public outrage over the possibility that lawsuits could be launched over nothing more than a vague claim to having offended on nearly any issue, abolition of the presumption of innocence, and public funding of claimants, the government is creating an image of having backed off some of the more draconian provisions. The problem though is that it hasn’t: 

It appears the Senate committee examining the bill will next Monday be presented by the Attorney-General's Department with "options" that include the removal of clause 19(2), which would have outlawed conduct that caused offence or insult.  
However, those who have seen the bill for what it is - an outrageous attack on our most fundamental freedoms - shouldn't be opening the champagne yet. No decision has been made to abandon the provision, notwithstanding the strength of the community reaction against it. Besides, there is a lot more wrong with the bill that the government has shown no sign of giving up on.  
The entire history of the Gillard government's attempt to use anti-discrimination law as a Trojan horse to impose a far-reaching regime of political correctness, which would reach into almost every corner of Australian life, has been marked by deviousness and outright dishonesty. 
Roxon has sought to conceal the radical ambition of her social agenda by repeatedly asserting the bill is nothing more than "a consolidation" of five existing anti-discrimination acts. (How often have we heard members of the Gillard government, from the Prime Minister down, use the "nothing to see here" defence?) 
As recently as last week, cabinet secretary Mark Dreyfus (who, as the government's only QC, should have known better) claimed, falsely, that the bill was "nothing more than a consolidation" that did not "expand the range or scope" of existing law. 
Normally a government simply uses spin to disguise its intentions rather than deliberate deceit and outright lies. If this passes though, nobody will be able to point this out because of the act.

No comments:

Post a Comment