Looking for Lateline Business?
You can find Lateline Business items from 2006 to 2011 on the Lateline Business website.
↧
GREAT LATELINE BUSINESS 23/9/13
↧
The Gods Themselves - Asimov GOOGLE LINKS
The Gods Themselves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_ThemselvesJump to Asimov's relationship to the story - [edit source | edit]. In a letter of February 12, 1982, Asimov identified this as his favorite science fiction ...Isaac Asimov's The Gods Themselves: In which scientists are jerks ...
io9.com/.../isaac-asimovs-the-gods-themselves-in-which-scientists-are-jer...Jul 17, 2010 - At long last we come to perhaps the biggest name in science-fiction literature. Settle in for a long, long — long — look at what might be the least ...The Gods Themselves: Isaac Asimov: 9780553288100: Amazon ...
The Gods Themselves [Isaac Asimov] on Amazon.com. *FREE* super saver shipping on qualifying offers. Only a few know the terrifying truth--an outcast Earth ...The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov - Reviews, Discussion ...
Rating: 4 - 18,765 votesFeb 10, 2000 - The Gods Themselves has 18765 ratings and 486 reviews. Dirk said: What's a man supposed to do? Here is a novel that is greatly revered by ...
↧
↧
Anti gravity / free energy cold fusion lunacy lunatics
http://www.free-energy-info.com/
anti gravity / free energy cold fusion lunacy lunatics
anti gravity / free energy cold fusion lunacy lunatics
Skeptic Tank Treasure: Crank quack science / anti-science lunacy
www.skeptictank.org/treasure/CRANK/index.htmSkeptic Tank Treasure: Crank quack science / anti-science lunacy ... greatly in these archives as do many other lunatic pseudo-science assertions. ... Dan A. Davidson from his book 'A Breakthrough to New Free Energy Sources'. ... ZIP patent for producing electricity via harnessed gravity * CNF-PATS.ZIP Cold Fusion PatsA Machine to Die For: The Quest for Free Energy | Watch Free ...
topdocumentaryfilms.com › TechnologyMachine to Die For is about the search for perpetual motion and free energy. ... These guys don't really understand aerodynamics or G-forces or anti-gravity ..... My bet is onCold Fusion and the theoretic work of a guy called Frank Znidarsic. .... They described to me what they called “the 15 second lunatic test” where you can ...Anti-gravity and Levitation - Suppressed Science - LunaticOutPost
lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Anti-gravity-and-Levitation-Suppressed-ScienceSep 23, 2012 - 15 posts - 6 authorsFree Energy scams are the biggest money-makers of scam-artists today. ... Cold Fusion, although virtually ignored by mainstream academic ...John K Hutchison - YouTube
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxBlQv5dK9-WT-qwaXU4...John Hutchison anti gravity Part 1 ... such as Cold Fusion, Anti-Gravity, and Military Energy Weapon Technology, which are ... John Hutchison, Nikola Tesla, and 'New Energy' / 'Free Energy' research: ..... Jesse does not believe I am a lunatic.LUNATICS 'R US: The Santilli/Wood/Sunstein Gambit | Veterans ...
www.veteranstoday.com/.../lunatics-r-us-the-santilliwoodsunstein-gambit...Jan 20, 2013 - I am all for “free-energy technology”–if it exists! ... ravings convey the impression that anyone associated with 9/11 Truth is a lunatic. ..... that it was done using positron, anti-matter or anti-gravity, devices–which are also DEWs. .... arrested and placed into the Fusion Centers Data Mining system as Dissenters.Crank Dot Net | technology
www.crank.net/technology.htmlIt is a new website that releases FREE to the public MANY SECRETS and MANY SYNERGIES of SECRETS. ... With this device scepticists and believers of rotationalanti gravity and the theory of ..... conspiracy . technology . paranoia . lunatics . .... is the international magazine for cold fusion and new energy technologies.Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion - Scientific American
blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-again...Oct 29, 2012 - Cold fusion has a handful of diehard supporters (many of whom are ... Perhaps you feel these plucky, anti-establishment rebel scientists ...We can achieve hot nuclear fusion, but it requires more energy than it .... do a good sophomore experiment are suddenly free to suggest that the .....Bohemian Gravity!The Disclosure Project - Steven Greer Interview with Jean-Noel ...
www.disclosureproject.org/transcripts/JeanNoelBassior-Nov2005.htmSome scientists are trying to fabricate motors that extract energy from the ... [for more on Dr. Mallove and cold-fusion technology, check out PureEnergySystems.com.] ...We can also demonstrate the antigravity effects of high-voltage systems .... true, we'd never run it because it's associated with tabloids and the lunatic fringe. ALPHA weighs in on antimatter - physicsworld.com
physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/.../alpha-weighs-in-on-antimatterApr 30, 2013 - Although they did not see any evidence that anti-atoms respond to gravity... in the universe – and the precise nature of dark matter and dark energy. ... Gravity orantigravity ... While the ALPHA team gets its gravitational-mass data "free" ...Remember that lunatic dropping weights from that leaning tower, we ...UFO Encounter Fuels 30-Yr Quest For Magnetic Energy - Rense.com
www.rense.com/general58/UFOencounterfuels30yr.htmTwenty-nine years ago, during the global energy crisis of 1975, David Hamel was ...ship floated in an anti-gravity bubble powered by electrically charged vortical airflow ....fringe even among wind, solar, geothermal and cold-fusion advocates. ... relegated to the lunatic fringe, even if the products are commercially viable.
↧
25/11/13...BDS case professor hits back on costs
SHARE
YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY
NEW! Discover news with your friends. Give it a try.
To get going, simply connect with your favourite social network:
To get going, simply connect with your favourite social network:
Facebook
A LANDMARK lawsuit against Sydney academic Jake Lynch over his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel faces an early challenge, with the defence to argue a key aspect of it is unfair.
Professor Lynch's legal team will claim that the test case, in which Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin alleges his stance on BDS is racist and discriminatory, places him at a disadvantage because none of the five applicants is normally resident in Australia.
"We will be wanting the applicants to establish how they will pay my costs in Australia if an order is eventually made against them," Professor Lynch told The Australian.
The case, which begins with a directions hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney on Wednesday, is regarded as a critical test of Australia's anti-discrimination laws on one hand and freedom of expression on the other.
Several prominent Australian Jewish academics -- including some who oppose BDS -- back his right to support it as an expression of academic freedom, and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has disowned Shurat HaDin's action.
Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has instituted an academic boycott of Israeli institutions, including declining to support an application from Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon for an exchange program.
Professor Lynch's legal team will be headed by the high-profile barrister and author Stuart Littlemore QC.
When news of Shurat HaDin's action against Professor Lynch broke last month, one of his fellow CPACS academics and allies, Stuart Rees, told journalists "silks are lining up" to represent him pro bono.
But Professor Lynch would not discuss the basis upon which Mr Littlemore's services had been secured.
Shurat HaDin describes itself as a private legal group which uses the law to fight terrorism and anti-Semitism around the world. It is not seeking financial restitution from Professor Lynch, but court orders requiring him to apologise for his BDS campaign and desist from it.
↧
EX Climate Change Dispatch- THAT WASCALLY WABBIT!!
It's time to get Sewious as Elmer Fudd
is about the Wascally Wabbit.
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 9:01 AM
Subject: Climate Change Dispatch news (in this message: 3 new items)
Climate Change Dispatch news (in this message: 3 new items) |  |
- Global Warming Activism: Another Year, Another U.N. Flop
- A Thanksgiving Weather Forecast, Global Warming Style
- UN Climate Agreement: Rich Nations Face Climate Compensation Claims
Posted: 24 Nov 2013 01:45 PM PST It's time to get Sewious as Elmer Fuddis about the Wascally Wabbit.Why do they bother? At this time every year, the U.N. holds a meeting of the Parties to its climate change treaty adopted at the Rio “Earth Summit” twenty-one years ago, and in force for 19 years. In the intervening time, there isn’t a single shred of evidence that it has done anything about global temperature. In no small part, that’s because global temperature hasn’t done very much. Two years after it went into force—if you believe the surface temperature history that scientists consult the most—we entered into an era with no significant additional warming. That makes it kind of hard to find any signal resulting from the treaty. |
Posted: 24 Nov 2013 12:48 PM PST  Americans planning to travel around the East Coast this Thanksgiving are in for a real weather treat:A nor’easter is swirling together and it could hit the east coast just in time for Thanksgiving, Quartz reports. |
Posted: 24 Nov 2013 12:43 PM PST  The ongoing United Nations (UN) climate negotiations in Warsaw, Poland ended with an agreement called the “Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage (IMLD)”. “We have seen essential progress. But let us again be clear that we are witnessing ever more frequent, extreme weather events, and the poor and vulnerable are already paying the price,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC in a press statement. “Now governments, and especially developed nations, must go back to do their homework so they can put their plans on the table ahead of the Paris conference,” she added. --Neha Sethi, Live Mint/The Wall Street Journal, 24 November 2013 |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Change Dispatch To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
↧
↧
Catalaxy - Bolta : The obscenity of political correctness in the AFL
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/12/15/the-obscenity-of-political-correctness-in-the-afl/
![]()
From:Catallaxy Files
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:22 AM
Subject: [New post] The obscenity of political correctness in the AFL
AFL cancels Christmas for James HirdAndrew BoltDECEMBER152013(10:22am)AFL chief Andrew Demetriou is a man of the hard Left - a fervent global warming preacher and “reconciliation” proselytiser whose board has long been heavily staffed by people with deep connections to Labor. Under Demetriou in particular the AFL has become a metaphor for a modern socialist state. No club may succeed too well without being punished. Clubs have strict salary caps. The failing are given extra help. And, of course, the leaders of this football land run propaganda campaigns to encourage right-thinking. But, of course, the danger is that the inevitable one - that leaders of such a state become so convinced of their right to power that they are overbearing. Dictatorial. Almost vindictive when their power and their judgement has been questioned:
|
0 Comments
↧
Previous recent items re BDS / ECAJ ex Cognate blog
Previous recent items re BDS / ECAJ ex my 'Cognate' blog
↧
Earlier ex my Socialist Dystopia blog
↧
Greens ignore Israel's rights ex ECAJ 17/12
WHEN Norman Finkelstein, an icon of the anti-Israel movement, blasted the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign as a "duplicitous, disingenuous cult", his words were met with a great sense of betrayal among the campaign's adherents. After all, Finkelstein was once revered as a veteran campaigner who, among many other things, called Israel a "satanic state".
Finkelstein had experienced no great awakening. At the centre of his disassociation with the BDS movement, which has hijacked the Palestinian cause, is what he calls a "deliberate ambiguity" on Israel's basic right to exist. In Greens senator Lee Rhiannon, Australia has its own longstanding supporter of the anti-Israel movement. Unfortunately, the leaders of BDS in Australia have yet to heed Finkelstein's advice to be open about their aims and to cease their selective application of international law.
During a typically vitriolic and hateful speech in the Senate earlier this month, Rhiannon urged Australia "to cease military co-operation and trade with Israel ... as a small but significant step". In a new and bizarre line of attack, Rhiannon justifies this call on the basis that Israel perpetuates war and conflict to battle-test its weapons for "public marketing by the Israeli arms industry" as a means of boosting its sale of weapons to countries like Australia.
In her latest allegations, one detects a near pathological aversion to the Jewish state. As one would expect from Rhiannon, nowhere does she recognise that Israel has a very real and genuine need to defend itself. Nor does she entertain the idea that the Israeli army could have any legitimate defence function whatsoever.
To be sure, Israel exists only because it has defended itself from three invasions, two intifada, Iranian proxy campaigns, numerous border incursions, and the constant threat of war from enemies who do not bother to veil their desires to destroy Israel in the misappropriated language of human rights. This is the function of the Israeli army.
While presented as a pacifist's rebuke to militarism, Rhiannon's argument is steeped in double standards. If she opposes militarism in all its forms, why is Israel the only country with which Australia should sever military ties? If indeed her message is one of peace and demilitarisation, one could have expected her to start by calling for the disarming of a state less vulnerable than Israel.
There is also an uncomfortable inconsistency between Rhiannon's assault on Israel's means of defence and her history of support for the Soviet Union, which built and maintained an empire through force and coercion and whose arms exports had a uniquely deleterious impact on the world, not least in the Middle East. In the 1980s, shortly after Rhiannon led solidarity delegations to the Soviet Union, Moscow was responsible for 34 per cent of the world's arms trade, and supplied such states as Libya, Syria and Iraq. This is precisely the sort of hypocrisy to which Finkelstein refers.
While the anti-Israel movement goes to great lengths to demonstrate that its hatred of the Jewish state should not be mistaken for a hatred of the Jewish people, it is deeply troubling that Rhiannon's latest assault casts the Jewish state in a historically dubious and familiar light. The image of the Jew as a war profiteer, conspirator and driven solely by money is steeped in anti-Jewish tradition and it is alarming that such accusations have now been evoked and transferred to the Jewish collective, the state of Israel. Senator Rhiannon and her peers in the anti-Israel movement should recognise that advancing Palestinian rights does not need the denial of Israel's right to exist as a national home for the Jewish people.
Alexander Ryvchin is the public affairs officer at the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
↧
↧
Freedom on the offensive - George Brandis prepares a human rights trap 18/12
GEORGE Brandis is setting a diabolical trap for Labor and the Greens. He intends to force them to declare. Do they believe in human rights, or simply in pandering to complaining constituencies in exchange for political support?
The Attorney-General began to bait his trap with the announcement yesterday of the appointment of Institute of Public Affairs policy analyst Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission as "freedom commissioner", but this is only part of the plan.
Brandis has thought deeply about rights and liberty during the past few years.
He watched Labor's attempts to stifle free speech and cow the media. He has considered both the philosophical and political dimensions of the issues involved. And he came to government with an audacious plan.
Brandis believes he can expose the Left as morally bankrupt opportunists who pay mere lip service to genuine concepts of human rights and reclaim for the Liberals - small-l liberals, in particular - the mantle of liberty.
The immediate response to Wilson's appointment suggests his strategy can succeed.
Twitter lapsed into incoherence. "Arch-conservative authoritarian Tim Wilson appointed to Human Rights Commission," one twit spluttered, their outrage apparently blinding them to the fact that Wilson is a proudly gay libertarian campaigner for marriage equality.
Supposedly more measured minds also missed the real strategy. "What does Tim Wilson mean when he says 'I will put freedom on the offensive'?" Andrew Giles, the Labor member for Scullin, Victoria, demanded to know.
"What does this mean for the protection of human rights?"
The Greens chimed in with "Appalled by Tim Wilson human rights appointment. Ideological appointment to drag away from human rights into a free-for-all."
All these and more had read the headline of Brandis's media release announcing the appointment and the first few paragraphs, but failed to finish.
The Attorney-General praises Wilson as "one of Australia's most prominent public advocates of the rights of the individual".
"He has published and broadcast widely on the topics of personal freedom, liberal democratic values and the rule of law," Brandis continues. "He was at the forefront in thwarting recent attempts to erode freedom of speech, freedom of the press and artistic freedom - rights and freedoms Australians have always held precious.
"The appointment of Mr Wilson to this important position will help to restore balance to the Australian Human Rights Commission which, during the period of the Labor government, had become increasingly narrow and selective in its view of human rights."
Then came the clincher. Yet it was missed. "Next year, I intend to bring forward reforms to the commission," Brandis says.
These reforms, The Australian understands, are yet to be finalised. Yet it is almost certain that they will require legislation. And that will mean Labor and the Greens will have to make a stand.
What will they back - the human rights Brandis speaks of in his media release, or the human rights establishment and the culture of complaint with its professional victimhood, hurt and outrage, which can be assuaged only by public money?
Brandis's opposition counterpart, Mark Dreyfus, appears to have spotted the wedge and ducked the debate for now.
Instead, he simply "questioned" the appointment, saying: "By appointing Mr Wilson, Senator Brandis has sent a strong signal about exactly the kind of blatant political agenda he wishes to pursue as Attorney-General."
Dreyfus's riposte, however, ignores Brandis's philosophical commitment to human rights - let alone its long evolution.
The Attorney-General studied human rights law at Oxford under the famed legal philosopher and constitutional scholar Ronald Dworkin.
He was also taught by Joseph Raz, a giant in legal, moral and philosophical circles but little known outside the academic world.
After he returned to Australia, Brandis spent eight years teaching jurisprudence at the University of Queensland, concentrating on the work of the great liberal and libertarian philosophers, figures such as the American thinkers Robert Nozick and John Rawls.
This has led Brandis to develop a personal philosophy of human rights and politics.
The Attorney-General has a deep belief that conservatives and the Right of his own party have made a serious mistake in recent decades by opposing too much of the human rights agenda that has been put forward.
He believes liberals have missed a key opportunity to embrace the debate and enshrine freedom of speech as the greatest of all rights. Worse, he believes his side of politics has failed to advance a genuine agenda of liberty while also failing to expose a fundamental contradiction in the Left's position on human rights.
Brandis believes the Left - as former Labor attorney-general Nicola Roxon proposed to do with her anti-discrimination legislation - seeks to protect people from being offended when they speak and act on human rights.
And he knows that laws can prevent people from being offended only by limiting the freedoms of others. He has a fundamental objection to what he sees as the Left's human rights agenda: advancing some freedoms by limiting others.
With all this in mind, Brandis believes his side of politics should be on the front foot in the debate. Hence his bold step yesterday.
"For years the Labor Party has been allowed to get away with sailing under false colours by claiming the human rights debate as its territory," the Attorney-General tells The Australian.
"To our shame, we on my side of politics have too often conceded that ground to Labor when we should have been fighting for it ourselves."
Brandis puts human rights at the heart of the Liberal Party's philosophy.
"The reality is that while the Labor Party was created to defend class interests and the Country Party was created to defend sectional interests, the only political party represented in the Australian parliament which was created for the very purpose of protecting the rights of the individual is the Liberal Party," he says.
"Human rights is our core business and it is my firm intention to ensure that the real human rights, in particular the fundamental human freedoms, are restored to the heart of the human rights debate, where they belong."
Brandis makes his views on the importance of these matters amply clear in yesterday's statement.
He says: "I have asked Mr Wilson to focus on the protection of the traditional liberal democratic and common law rights, including, in particular, the rights recognised by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" - the article mandating freedom of expression.
Brandis has already staked out this territory as a key battleground.
He has said the abolition of the "Andrew Bolt" provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, which make it unlawful to offend and insult people because of their race, will be his key priority.
The move to amend or repeal Section 18C of the act, a key election commitment, will change the definition of racial vilification to eliminate at least two of the grounds that were used in a court ruling against the columnist over articles about light-skinned Aboriginal people.
Brandis has held consultations about whether his amendments should go further and wind back other potential grounds for liability.
The Attorney-General sees the new Human Rights Commissioner as a strong and capable ally.
"I chose Tim Wilson for this role because I saw in him a person who had the philosophical integrity, political smarts and personal toughness to take this cause to the heart of the action," he says.
And he has made it clear that he will press on with his agenda in the face of opposition from the ALP: "If the Labor Party does decide to adopt an anti-freedom position then we will deal with the crossbench senators," Brandis says.
Wilson, too, is spoiling for a fight.
"I'll be putting freedom on the offensive, where it belongs," he tells The Australian. He nominates free speech and media freedom as his two key priorities, saying both had come under attack under the last government.
"Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential for a free society," Wilson says.
"A free media is a direct extension of the importance of free speech and are one and the same in importance.
"We need to remove the restrictions that have stopped people saying what they think and believe.
"Only through a contest of ideas will our society flourish," Wilson continues, condemning the proposals by the previous Labor government to change anti-discrimination laws to ban conduct that "offends or insults".
"We shouldn't have restrictions on what may offend or insult because they just end up restricting speech and stop incorrect ideas being challenged and rebutted," the new commissioner says.
Wilson expresses concern at the muted response to the media regulation and anti-discrimination laws put forward under Labor.
"It is clear that there were proposals in the last parliament to restrict free speech and freedom of the press," he says. "Thankfully those were defeated, but it was deeply concerning to see them so easily come under attack and so little opposition to be voiced in the community, apart from a few learned sources.
"I was disappointed that some people, who should have been staunch defenders of free speech, didn't stand up and assert the importance of these essential features of our democracy."
Now, the fight for freedom is on. The trap has been set.
↧
The building blocks for a free society Tim Wilson 18/12
AUSTRALIA'S most fundamental human rights have been diluted over decades. It is time to recognise them as central and essential building blocks for a free society.
Attorney-General George Brandis has asked me, as Australia's next human rights commissioner, to focus on traditional liberal democratic and common law rights, particularly article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
From a classical liberal perspective, traditional human rights are a set of universal principles about the rights of individuals that protect their freedom including freedom of movement, association, worship, property and self-determination.
More important, human rights are not a gift bestowed on us by government; they are our basic birthright as free people.
All rights should be defended, but the human right most being neglected is free speech. Arguably freedom of speech is the most important human right. It is the human right necessary to protect and defend all other human rights.
Article 19 of the covenant states: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."
Article 19 ought to be the human rights community's starting point. But at the moment it seems more like a footnote.
Increasingly free speech has been pushed aside in favour of laws and regulations designed to stop people being offensive to each other, a steadily expanding corpus of anti-discrimination and defamation law, and the growing momentum towards restrictions on speech online.
Some of these new threats have come from politicians, responding to the latest moral panic. Others are the result of a judiciary incrementally lowering the bar on what constitutes legitimate speech.
But too often these threats have come from the very human rights activists and organisations that ought to be defending free expression.
This time last year the government presented for Australia's consideration a radical new change to Australia's anti-discrimination laws, the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill.
The bill was sold to the public as a minor consolidation of our labyrinthine discrimination laws. But it would have made it unlawful to offend someone, in any work-related environment, on the basis of a long list of attributes including their political opinion.
As such, it represented a fundamental threat to free expression. It would have buried Australian workplaces in litigation and had a substantial chilling effect on speech. Sadly, when such a fundamental human right was under attack, many human rights advocates didn't raise an eyebrow. In its own submission the Australian Human Rights Commission did not defend free speech.
Of even greater concern, the commission recommended "further consideration of possibilities for the bill to cover discrimination on the basis of all protected attributes in all areas of public life", not just the workplace.
If such a recommendation were implemented it would have been a wholesale assault on democracy. Political debate ought to be robust. That is a sign of health. We want politics to be a topic of passion.
Human rights activists have been missing in action on the way our mandatory film and literature classification system suppresses speech. They ran dead on the previous government's internet filter.
Even more extraordinary was the absence of human rights voices in the debate earlier this year about media regulation.
A direct extension of free speech is press freedom. Protecting free speech is fundamental to the operation of liberal democracy. It is an essential principle for freedom of the press. Free speech and press freedom are one and the same; they are essentially interchangeable and mutually reinforcing concepts.
As 19th-century French liberal Benjamin Constant argued in his 1815 work, Principles of Politics: "Restrain(ing) the freedom of the press is to restrain the human race's intellectual freedom. The press is an instrument such freedom can no longer do without, the question of press freedom is therefore the general one about the development of the human mind."
Rather than identifying the proposed new media regulation as a dangerous reversion to state supervision of the free press, many human rights activists underplayed the threat or outright ignored it.
As human rights commissioner I will seek to reorient the human rights debate towards liberal democratic values and the philosophy of individual freedom. The most obvious freedom of speech issue this parliament will face is the Coalition's promise to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C has recently been controversial because of the Andrew Bolt case but, as its supporters are first to say, it has been used against many other Australians.
I will be urging the full repeal of section 18C. It is an unjustifiable limitation on free expression. The best way to undermine offensive or hateful language is not to shut it down, it is to challenge it, expose it for its flaws. The solution is more speech.
It is a central tenet of liberal democracy that the government's primary task is to protect our human rights, not restrict them.
Tim Wilson is Australia's next human rights commissioner.
↧
Row over freedom of speech job for Tim Wilson page 1 The Oz 18/12
Tim Wilson has been appointed to the Human Rights Commission. Picture: Stuart McEvoy Source: News Limited
CRITICS may call it a resumption of hostilities in the culture wars, but the government insists its appointment of Institute of Public Affairs policy analyst Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission will restore balance to the debate over individual liberty.
As Labor and the Greens condemned the move and Twitter erupted, Attorney-General George Brandis praised Mr Wilson as "one of Australia's most prominent public advocates of the rights of the individual".
"He was at the forefront in thwarting recent attempts to erode freedom of speech, freedom of the press and artistic freedom rights and freedoms Australians have always held precious," Senator Brandis said.
He warned that the commission had "become increasingly narrow and selective in its view of human rights" under Labor.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus questioned the appointment.
"By appointing Mr Wilson, Senator Brandis has sent a strong signal about exactly the kind of blatant political agenda he wishes to pursue as Attorney-General," Mr Dreyfus said.
"Earlier this year the IPA made a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee calling for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission. How can Mr Wilson possibly undertake the role of a human rights commissioner when it's obvious he has such contempt for the commission itself?"
Greens spokeswoman Penny Wright said the government "cannot be trusted to look out for all Australians".
"The Attorney-General has already made it clear he thinks some human rights are more important than others, including that free speech ought to trump anti-discrimination laws," Senator Wright said.
Mr Wilson, 33, is a graduate in public policy from Monash University. He has spent seven years with the Institute of Public Affairs think tank, where he has headed up its climate change policy and intellectual property and free trade unit.
He is also a senior fellow at New York's Centre for Medicine in the Public Interest.
Former Australian youth representative to the UN Samah Hadid slammed the appointment as "an absolute farce". Support for the appointment came from Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome, who praised Mr Wilson as a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage.
Politics and HRC appointments are no strangers. Mr Wilson's fellow commissioners include Hawke government minister Susan Ryan and Tim Soutphommasane, a former ABC presenter, fellow of left-leaning think tank Per Capita and staffer to Bob Carr during his days as NSW premier.
News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt, who in 2011 fell foul of provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act Senator Brandis has pledged to repeal, welcomed Mr Wilson's appointment but contrasted the ABC's reporting of it with its coverage of Dr Soutphommasane's.
"I'm startled," Mr Bolt said. "Tim Soutphommasane was a Labor member from a left-wing think tank and he is welcomed; Tim Wilson was a Liberal member from a conservative think tank and he is attacked.
"If ABC chairman Jim Spigelman wants evidence of ABC bias look at the coverage of Tim Wilson's appointment."
Senator Brandis charged Mr Wilson with the task of protecting "the traditional liberal democratic and common law rights", including, in particular, freedom of expression.
He told The Australian: "I chose Tim Wilson for this role because I saw in him a person who had the philosophical integrity, political smarts and personal toughness to take this cause to the heart of the action."
↧
The Left goes missing in defence of free speech Editorial The Oz 19/12
THERE is, sadly, only a small and quiet constituency for press freedom and free speech in this country.
It is probably smaller in number and softer in voice than the inner-urban hipster brigade, with its advocacy for bicycle lanes, graffiti-artist festivals, bushy beards, single-origin coffee and the playing of nuclear-free whale music.
Whatever the price-tag, there are niche support groups for faster internet pipes via the National Broadband Network, for the public broadcaster to push boutique green-Left propaganda and for tougher anti-discrimination laws.
But where are the champions, many of whom are leaders in the academy, media and social movements, when the most important human right of all, free speech, is under an all-out assault?
That question naturally comes to mind following the appointment by Attorney-General George Brandis of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission as "freedom commissioner", a novel promise made in opposition. On Tuesday, Senator Brandis said the move would "restore the balance" to the commission, which under Labor had become "increasingly narrow and selective in its view of human rights".
Certainly when the former Labor government proposed tough new media regulations, the HRC did not spring to the defence of the press. Nor did the rights-seeking political Left, which chooses the freedoms it likes and the boutique groups it believes should be protected.
Senator Brandis told The Australian that human rights is "core business" for the Abbott government and has instructed Mr Wilson to focus on article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which outlines freedom of expression.
"It is my firm intention to ensure that the real human rights, in particular the fundamental human freedoms, are restored to the heart of the human rights debate where they belong," the Attorney-General said.
Mr Wilson has established a public profile for his libertarian opinion writing and research on climate change policy, intellectual property and free trade at the right-wing Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne.
He was also at the forefront of opposing the Gillard government's aggressive attempts to limit press freedom (in the wake of its misguided and malign act to have a media inquiry). Mr Wilson spoke up against the unhelpful amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act by former attorney-general Nicola Roxon that nobble free speech and the muddle-headed attempt by former communications minister Stephen Conroy to introduce an internet filter.
As well, he has supported artistic expression in the face of censorship. Writing on our opinion page yesterday, Mr Wilson argued that free speech was the human right most being neglected: "It is the human right necessary to protect and defend all other human rights." Naturally, we could not agree more.
Mr Wilson's appointment has aroused protest. He was a member of the Liberal Party. The IPA is a strong supporter of business, advocating less regulation, lower taxes and smaller government, promoting individual liberty rather than collectivist values. Mr Wilson has previously called for the abolition of the HRC. Bizarrely, which means true to form, the Greens have said the Abbott government cannot be trusted to "look out for all Australians" because it has highlighted the importance of free speech.
Yet Senator Brandis has erred in this appointment, but not for giving primacy to freedom of expression. It is highly provocative. Choosing Mr Wilson has been a red rag to the bearded bulls of the twittersphere, progressive causes and leftist media spruikers at the ABC, Fairfax Media and the web publishers.
Just as the previous Rudd government made a mistake in July when it named political philosopher, Left activist and Labor staffer Tim Soutphommasane as Race Discrimination Commissioner, the Coalition has chosen a high-profile and effective partisan warrior as freedom commissioner. The opposition's legal affairs spokesman, Mark Dreyfus, said the move displayed a "blatant political agenda". It's hard to disagree. Still, both new commissioners are in their early 30s and their lives have been spent in the rarefied worlds of academia, party politics, policy think thanks and media celebrity, across every platform. Surely attorneys on both sides of the political divide could have opted for men or women of broader life and career experience in these instances? That aside, the reaction to Mr Wilson's elevation is in sharp contrast to the way Dr Soutphommasane's appointment was greeted, particularly at the national broadcaster.
The ABC reported Senator Brandis being on the defensive about his choice of Mr Wilson, who was "from one of Australia's most conservative think tanks". The IPA is hardly conservative and, in any case, Mr Wilson is a classic liberal, who is a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage. Five months ago, Dr Soutphommasane was described in an ABC report as a mere "political commentator" and an award-winning writer, while being praised by HRC president Gillian Triggs as an "influential thinker".
His previous role at a progressive think tank was reduced to "a fellow of Per Capita". So far, there's no sign of creating a hypocrisy commissioner, although in the spirit of Voltaire, The Australian will always stoutly defend the right of Greens, Labor, Liberal and Nationals politicians, even stray ABC broadcasters, to freely express themselves
↧
↧
Letters The Oz 19/12
THE row over the appointment of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission illustrates the challenges the progressive side of politics faces in the future.
THE appointment of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission is an excellent first step in the overdue reform of this renegade agency ("Row over freedom of speech job", 18/12).
However, it is wrong to claim this will restore balance because the commission remains under the control of bureaucrats pursuing a Labor-Greens agenda with a commitment to statist intervention in many areas of life in our society.
These apparatchiks have made it clear they are eager to use the powers of the commission to attack anyone who threatens or questions this agenda.
Good luck to Mr Wilson but there is still much to be done if our basic liberties are to be reclaimed.
Merv Bendle, Inverloch, Vic
Party political appointments are nothing new for the Right or Left, and something that we can't control unless stricter guidelines are put in place. What we can control is our reaction and engagement with appointees.
Listening achieves more than condemning. Rather than putting someone in a box, we should encourage them to think outside the box. It's time to put down the loud hailer and extend a hand if we are to win hearts and minds in this political cycle.
Alex Greenwich, independent state MP for Sydney, Paddington, NSW
THE hostility over the appointment of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission by those on the Left shows just how intolerant they are of the views of many Australians who would support his appointment.
A robust, civilised disagreement of opinion is out of the question for them. These people presume ownership of the "progressive" version of morality and wisdom; their tactic is to demonise as evil anyone holding a contrary outlook.
They would love to shut down discussion of freedom of speech to establish ideological control over those whom they despise. It is especially rich of Greens spokeswoman Penny Wright to presume to speak for all Australians when she belongs to a party supported by barely a tenth of the voting population.
Ian Mastin, Woodgate Beach, Qld
THREE cheers for the appointment of Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission. His appearances on the ABC as the token conservative are a welcome relief from the Greens-Left group-think of other commentators.
His sharp intellect and classical liberal perspective will ensure that his contribution to the debate over individual liberty will be invaluable.
E. Baxter, Pullenvale, Qld
FINALLY, someone who has another opinion is appointed to the Human Rights Commission. The previous Labor-Greens government loaded the deck with their people over the past six years. Voices of dissent have been effectively silenced on our ABC.
Tim Wilson will move towards addressing the imbalance in our freedoms. We are the lucky country, but it is not before time that we should show some individual and personal responsibility as well as human rights.
Neville Wright, Kilcunda, Vic
I SUPPORT Tim Wilson's appointment. His goal should be to unite Left and Right. We should relearn the wisdom of Voltaire's maxim and defend the freedoms of those whose views we oppose.
Far more speech-chilling work is done by a plethora of federal, state and territory laws similar to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Only a freedom of political communication act that overrides those laws can ever be effective. Legislation could be enacted after July with support from libertarians in the Senate without Greens-Left support.
Graham Hyde, Adelaide, SA
What is with the confected outrage from the Left over the appointment of a lone conservative to the Human Rights Commission?
After all, Labor has been stacking public positions with mates for the past six years. I welcome more such appointments to restore some balance.
David Edwards, Chapel Hill, Qld
I know nothing about Tim Wilson, but judging by the outrage in Greens, Twitter and ABC circles, his appointment to the Human Rights Commission must be a smart pick.
David Meredith, Singleton, NSW
It is refreshing to see someone appointed to the Human Rights Commission who actually believes in human rights and not human control.
Iain Rae, River Heads, Qld
Given the cacophonous condemnation of freedom of speech advocate Tim Wilson's appointment to the Human Rights Commission, it is clear that those on the Left (including the ABC) do not believe free speech to be a human right.
Andrew Lake, Edwardstown, SA
I must say that opposition Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen and his colleagues are doing a great job of scaring the community witless with wild tales of the horrors looming under the Tony Abbott regime.
John Vautin, Kilcoy, Qld
I swear Tim Winton could write me out a parking ticket and make me feel proud ("Wide brown land", 14-15/12). The man has a capacity for words matching the country he loves.
↧
The Oz Cut and Paste re BDS 19/12
The New York Times, December 15:A GROWING campaign among American professors to isolate Israel reached a milestone when a large group of scholars is expected to reveal whether its members endorsed an academic boycott of Israel to protest Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
The American Studies Association has never before called for an academic boycott of any nation's universities, said Curtis Marez, the group's president and an associate professor of ethnic studies at the University of California, San Diego. He did not dispute that many nations, including many of Israel's neighbours, are generally judged to have human rights records that are worse than Israel's, or comparable, but he said, "one has to start somewhere".
Former president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, on US public broadcaster PBS, December 15:
THIS particular academic boycott is much worse, it is much worse because the idea that of all the countries in the world that might be thought to have human rights abuses, that might be thought to have inappropriate foreign policies, that might be thought to be doing things wrong, the idea that there's only one that is worthy of boycott, and that is Israel, one of the very few countries whose neighbours regularly vow its annihilation, that that would be the one chosen, is I think beyond outrageous as a suggestion. I said some time ago with respect to a similar set of efforts that I regarded them as being anti-Semitic in their effect, if not necessarily in their intent. And I think that's the right thing to say about singling out Israel.
Doing wrong can never be acceptable. Summers:
IF there was an academic boycott against a whole set of countries that stunted their populations in some way, I would oppose that because I think academic boycotts are abhorrent, but the choice of only Israel at a moment when Israel faces this kind of existential threat I think takes how wrong this is to a different level.
Damned statistics, Ross Gittins, The Sydney Morning Herald, yesterday:
YOU have heard of painting by numbers, but these days the great fad is management by numbers. I call it the metrification of business -- although it's just as prevalent in the public service. If you know what the initials KPI stand for you'll know what I'm talking about. When the push for micro-economic reform was at its height, someone got the bright idea that if you calculated and made public the equivalent of key performance indicators for all the many responsibilities of the state governments, you'd encourage them to compete amongst themselves to improve their standing in the league tables . . . I've been around long enough to know measurement can be a trap.
Gittins, on the launch of The Sydney Morning Herald Wellbeing index, December 6, 2011.
OUR purpose is not to supplant GDP but to fill the vacuum left by the absence of a timely, more comprehensive, single indicator of social progress. The problem is we have fallen into the habit of regarding GDP as something much more: the nation's bottom line, a measure of the progress our society is making, the supreme indicator of our wellbeing . . . GDP was never intended to fill that role and, as every economist will concede, it is quite inadequate to the task . . . Among the many limitations of GDP is that it fails to take adequate account of the natural environment . . . GDP takes no account of the way the quality of our health contributes to Australians' wellbeing.
Twittering on. Bernard Keane, 29706 followers, December 16:
DEAR The Oz, thanks for republishing my tweets but I reach more people on Twitter than your freefalling readership cheers BK.
The Australian, November 16:
THE latest monthly EMMA (Enhanced Media Metrics Australia) data release, covering the 12 months to October, showed stable newspaper print and digital audiences for most titles compared with the September period. News's national title The Australian (totalled) 3.2 million.
↧
No hate for Israel! Rhiannon! 19/12
ALEXANDER Ryvchin engages in personal vilification in an attempt to discredit the speech I made in the Senate that sets out why Australia should cease military aid and military trade with Israel ("Greens ignore Israel's rights", 17/12).
I do not have a "near pathological aversion to the Jewish state" nor do I make "vitriolic and hateful speeches".
I also do not deny Israel's, or any country's need to defend itself. I support a two-state solution, which is the policy of the Australian Greens. This policy recognises Israel's right to exist in peace.
Ryvchin avoids the issue most relevant to successful Palestinian and Israeli peace talks -- achieving justice for Palestinians. Labelling legitimate criticisms of Israeli government treatment of Palestinians as anti-Semitic is a misleading and shameful tactic.
Lee Rhiannon, Greens senator for NSW
↧
Race discrimination talks: letter THE OZ 19/12 ex THE SIX!!!!!
WE refer to your online story "Attorney-General George Brandis wins approval for changes to Racial Discrimination Act" (9/12). We did not give any approval to changes to the Racial Discrimination Act.
On the contrary, we continually stressed our view that the case has not been made for the act to be amended.
The courts have consistently interpreted part IIA of the act in a way that prohibits racially vilifying conduct only if it is profound or serious in nature. We remain of the view that sections 18C and 18D appropriately balance the need to provide protections against vilification with the need to protect freedom of expression.
The Attorney-General put to us several general ideas but no specific legislative proposals for amending section 18C of the act and section 80.2A of the Criminal Code. He asked us to think about these ideas. We agreed to consult with our communities and meet him again early next year.
We commend the government for engaging in a serious consultation with us, which we have been seeking for some time. All of us, including the Attorney-General, acknowledged that it might not be possible for us to reach an agreement, but any draft legislation that the government might put to the parliament next year can only benefit from the consultations.
Kirstie Parker, Les Malezer, National Congress of Australia's First Peoples
George Vellis, George Vardas Australian Hellenic Council
Randa Kattan, Arab Council Australia
Tony Pang, Chinese Australian Services Society,
Patrick Voon, Chinese Australian Forum
Peter Wertheim, Executive Council of Australian Jewry
↧
↧
I CANNOT FIND BRANDIS' ARTICLE OF 9/12: DANBY'S LINK DOES NOT WORK.
FROM GS: I CANNOT FIND BRANDIS" ARTICLE OF 9/12: DANBY'S LINK DOES NOT WORK.
It matters not much, methinks.
Geoff Seidner
###############
home
press releases alliance against racial discrimination stands up against murdoch presshttp://www.danbymp.com/press-releases/2007-alliance-against-racial-discrimination-stands-up-against-murdoch-press.html
home
press releases alliance against racial discrimination stands up against murdoch press
Alliance against Racial Discrimination stands up against Murdoch press
Tuesday, 10 December 2013 03:41
353 hits
Letter to the Australian
Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2013 11:40 AM
To: 'letters@theaustralian.com.au'
Subject: True story, false headline
Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2013 11:40 AM
To: 'letters@theaustralian.com.au'
Subject: True story, false headline
We refer to your story ”Attorney-General George Brandis wins approval for changes to Racial Discrimination Act” (9 December 2013). Neither the headline nor the opening paragraph is correct. We did not give any approval to changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. On the contrary, we continually stressed our view that the case has not been made for the Act to be amended.
The courts have consistently interpreted Part IIA of the Act in a way that prohibits racially vilifying conduct only if it is profound or serious in nature. We remain of the view that sections 18C and 18D of the Act, taken together, carefully and appropriately balance the need to provide protections against racial vilification with the need to protect freedom of expression.
The Attorney General put to us several general ideas, but no specific legislative proposals, for amending section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and section 80.2A of the Criminal Code. He asked us to think about these ideas. We agreed to consult with our communities and meet with him again early next year.
We commend the government for engaging in a serious consultation with us, which we have been seeking for some time. All of us, including the Attorney General, acknowledged that it might not be possible for us to reach an agreement, but any draft legislation that the government might put to the Parliament next year can only benefit from the consultations.
Kirstie Parker and Les Malezer, Co-chairs, National Congress of Australia's First Peoples; George Vellis, Co-ordinator, Australian Hellenic Council; George Vardas, Secretary, Australian Hellenic Council; Randa Kattan, CEO, Arab Council Australia; Tony Pang, Secretary, Chinese Australian Services Society; Patrick Voon, President, Chinese Australian Forum; Peter Wertheim, Executive Director, Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
Kirstie Parker and Les Malezer, Co-chairs, National Congress of Australia's First Peoples; George Vellis, Co-ordinator, Australian Hellenic Council; George Vardas, Secretary, Australian Hellenic Council; Randa Kattan, CEO, Arab Council Australia; Tony Pang, Secretary, Chinese Australian Services Society; Patrick Voon, President, Chinese Australian Forum; Peter Wertheim, Executive Director, Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
- The original story published by The Australian containing the false claims can be viewed here
↧
Update ex my Cognate Blog re BDS / ECAJ
↧
Legal Affairs: Rights commission's odd man out...20/12
Tim Wilson has been appointed to the Human Rights Commission. Source: Supplied
TIM Wilson's appointment to the Human Rights Commission will be judged by one test: is he tough enough to pick fights with his new colleagues and force real change at an institution that has dropped the ball?
To succeed, Wilson needs to muscle up and disrupt the orthodoxy that has produced a very unusual human rights watchdog.
This is the organisation that remained relatively silent as freedom of speech faced some of its greatest challenges.
It also needs to be remembered that the commission, publicly at least, supported disability commissioner Graeme Innes when he ran an online campaign against Myer because Innes did not agree with remarks by chief executive Bernie Brookes.
Wilson's appointment is unusual - but not because of his past political affiliation or his involvement with a think tank. That is now par for the course.
The real difference is that the other commissioners administer federal anti-discrimination statutes while Wilson has a much bigger, far more important job.
He is responsible for protecting common law rights and freedoms. The real significance of the appointment is that these rights and freedoms frequently conflict with rights overseen by his new colleagues. This is why institutional tension is inevitable and welcome. And if those disagreements erupt in public, so much the better. It will reassure the community that the commission truly understands that no rights are absolute.
Wilson's role is to be a one-man ginger group. But even before he gets his feet under the desk, he faces a serious challenge. If the commission adopts a collegiate approach, as favoured by its president Gillian Triggs, Wilson's views will be overwhelmed.
If that collegiate approach requires the commission to speak with one voice, Wilson inevitably would be silenced on contentious issues. A collegiate approach also would mark a change since May when Triggs did not know in advance when Innes launched his online campaign against Myer. Brooks had told a Macquarie Securities conference that a levy to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme was not good for Myer's customers. Commission emails, obtained by The Australian's Hedley Thomas, show that Triggs disagreed with the actions of Innes.
Wilson's posting is important in another way: it recognises that the source of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by most Australians is the common law - not federal and state statutes.
It is important to protect particular groups with statutes.
But the common law, which protects everyone, remains the bedrock of the nation's liberties and is a birthright, not a gift from politicians.
The problem is that it has been increasingly overlooked - and hollowed out - in the mistaken belief that rights bestowed by governments on particular groups are more important.
This can be seen by the overwhelming silence of the publicly funded human rights industry when freedom of speech is at stake.
While dreaming of an imaginary world governed by charters, they have neglected the real world of the common law.
There have been honourable exceptions. The Human Rights Law Centre, for example, courageously intervened as amicus curiae to support freedom of speech in the High Court case over the homophobic street preaching of Adelaide's Corneloup brothers.
But where was the Human Rights Commission? Unpopular causes that rely on common law freedoms are the real test for rights advocates.
The commission, rather late in the piece, did speak up about the adverse impact of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act - the Andrew Bolt provisions.
But Wilson, in his former role at the Institute of Public Affairs, was a far more effective advocate on that subject.
The commission was also less than voluble when the former government proposed a system of statutory regulation of the content of newspapers - another sharp
contrast with the approach taken by Wilson and the IPA.
When Attorney-General George Brandis said this appointment would restore balance to the commission, many people mistakenly viewed that as a reference to political balance. Instead, it will go a long way to restoring the structural balance of the commission's work.
But it will do so only if Wilson is not required to fall into line with the orthodoxy. He should not be required to hide the fact he is - and should remain - the odd man out.
Instead, the commission should be embracing its future as a broader institution. This is, after all, just the beginning of the Brandis agenda on human rights reform. He has already called an inquiry into statutory encroachments on common law rights and liberties, and next year he plans to make more changes to the commission.
What we are witnessing is the inevitable and very welcome backlash against the erosion of common law freedoms - the freedoms of the majority - that have been a feature of public life in the past few years.
↧
