[LINK] Free speech in Australia

[Adam Todd]

At 12:34 PM 1/08/2006, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>A few rather obvious contentions for you:
>
>1. We don't have a right of free speech in Australia.

This is correct.   In fact with a lot of the new laws (assuming they are in 
fact legal, as many are, when challenged, found not to be) you are actually 
guilty for NOT doing something!

>2. We don't have a Bill of Rights that enshrines the right to free speech

Or a lot of other things.

>3. We don't have any laws that enshrine free speech

Nope, that's right.

>4.We have defamation and other anti-free speech laws that are archaic 
>suppressants of same

Nope, not true.  They were all updated recently.  No longer archaic, they 
are in favour of government and high fliers.  Victims and media aren't able 
to kick it any more.

>5. We have an implied right to free speech on political matters (as the 
>High Court decided in the Theophanous case) ... and that is about the 
>limit of it.

And that is highly limited anyway.

Like speak out about Government or Local Council and find yourself declared 
"Mentally Ill" because your beliefs are unrealistic, of if you are 
intelligent you are mentally ill because no one can belive you might be 
smarter than they are.

>6. We have an ever expanding list of laws and regulations that impinge on 
>our 'right' to free speech ... which we seem to enthusiastically adopt 
>whenever our politicians mention the words 'security' or 'national well being'.

And our rights to remedy, and our rights to sue and heaven help if the 
State takes you to court annual (or even more regular) because if you file 
against them they seek a vexatious litigant order against you, but you 
still have to turn up to face the endless court proceedings year in and 
year out that end up dismissed.  I wonder how is more vexatious!

>In fact we have very very few 'rights' in this country ... and discussing 
>same without realising it is pure naivete.

Did you also know you don't have Rights as a parent in NSW (haven't checked 
the other States but I assume it's the same.)

In 2000 the new Children and Young Person Care and Protection Act was put 
in place.  Apparently it was demanded by the public, very intense demands 
from the public I'm told.

Anyway, the law itself says that the Government "grants" the right of 
guardianship upon a "natural" parent, unless otherwise revoked by the 
Government.

So you aren't even parents!

>There is no right to privacy,

TODD v TELSTRA Supreme Court NSW September 2001.  You are 
correct.  Government agencies can do what they like with your personal 
data, they can publish it, print it sell it, anything.

You have in right to a private cause of action.  This also applies to 
companies and other businesses, they can sell it, .because you have no 
rights to sue or seek remedy.

So when someone next says "But the privacy act says we can't tell you" tell 
them to go read the law!

>right of association,

Oh we have that one.  Although the new Terrorism laws tend to impinge upon it.

>right to creed, belief or whatever.

Well the Mental Health Acts )(Section 11 in NSW) does actually provide you 
with that right.

>There are no civil rights,

No. None of those.  Except to be arrested on the grounds that you might be 
able to do something even if it's impossible to do and there is no means by 
which you can do it.  (Commonwealth Crimes Act)

>workers rights,

Workers don't have rights.  Other than to expect to be paid and if they 
don't get paid not to turn up to work.  However if you go to Centrelink and 
say that you didn't get paid by an employer, you can't claim benefits until 
the "value" of that "income" you didn't get paid "expires."

I was told recently one of the new rules in Newstart was that you had to 
declare income that you has NOT received, (including the Tax Component) and 
they deduct that from your CURRENT payment.

Another one I'm investigating is the apparently, if a freelance person who 
take a small benefit to help them get by, does a job for say $5000, and out 
of that has to hire $4800 worth of equipment, they actually have to declare 
the INCOME as $5000 and Centrelink doesn't take into consideration the 
$4800 in expenses.

And yet another, was a person who spent $106 (each way) on air tickets and 
$55 a night in accommodation to take a job for two weeks because Centrelink 
told her that if she didn't she's loose her benefit for 13 weeks.

She was paid $750 for the two weeks work.    Centrelink did not deduct the 
$982 she had to spend to do the job and so she was unable to pay her rent, 
causing her to be evicted.

To add insult Centrelink further breached her because they could not 
contact her on her home or mobile because they were disconnected for "Non 
Payment" of the bill.

Hmmm.  I digress!

>private property rights or whatever.

Ahhh now that's not so true.  After Syd Plenty told police to leave his 
property, he took a piece of 4x2 to the head of a Police officer and was 
charged with assault, that was dismissed and he was awarded $100,000 
damages because the police did not leave his private property.

TODD V EDDIE TERMOGLUCUO & Ors Supreme Court 20119/06 (or something like 
that) (originally District Court 362/04) is yet to be decided.

Also TODD V STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES 20133/06 is currently progressing and 
a major component is trespass.

I'll advise on another Trespass claim I'm aware of in a few weeks time.

>These are privileges which the various governments of this country grant 
>us (or take away when they deem it necessary) at their discretion.

And that discretion could amount to a 30 second change of discretion.

>And any time people are stupid enough to 'stick up for their rights' or

You mean like me!

>espouse silly ideas like a 'Bill of Rights', politicians and their ilk 
>(from both sides of the political continuum) automatically go into 
>defensive mode and ridicule the notion.

Or change the laws mid proceedings or before you can file a claim!  And 
funny how laws are not retrospective, unless it affects the Government, or 
some benefit to the Government.

>Civil libertarians occupy a place in the media of the country consistent 
>with the 'looney left' ... when in fact most of them are not inclined 
>toward the left at all.

Ahh but better to call anyone with intelligence and logical views, Mentally 
Ill, than to allow them to influence or consider convincing the population 
of "go to work to get paid to pay the mortgage" population.

>'States rights' and federal government rights are enshrined in our 
>Constitution - and very little else. Read it and weep.

Oh don't even think that much is in there really.

Look at ACA v VIPER in 2000/2001 - I put up a Section 51 question and there 
was panic to get rid of me from the proceeding.  Then it was amended into a 
Section 55 question which was never going to suceed.

>But don't get involved in debate about freedom of speech in Australia, or 
>our supposed rights ... until we actually do have rights.

Not going to happen.

Australia is a Penal Colony and will remain as such.  Australia will never 
have "rights" because we're the "left overs."


Shame when the British decided to Occupy Australia and steal the lands from 
the Aboriginals, that they didn't send the Rich and Well off, and leave the 
Convicts in England.

I mean who in their right mind wants to live in dreary wet and cold England?