RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C/ Magistrate Lisa Stapleton / Offensive words

So who makes the decision that  it is offensive in the first place. It's time people toughened up.

It is particularly disturbing that the shonky NSW Magistrate  Lisa Stapleton  also  believes words can be taken out of context. Clearly this incompetent NSW magistrate is out of touch with community standards.

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

             (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

                     (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

                     (b)  is done in a public place; or

                     (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

             (3)  In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

And what makes me laugh  louder is  Magistrate Lisa Stapelton wants me to show remorse for exposing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OZloop

Australia: One nation under surveillance

.

• All Blog Posts
• My Blog
• Add

Australia: One nation under surveillance

• Posted by steve davies on November 22, 2013 at 7:00am
• View Blog

What we are seeing in Australia today is a veil of censorship, secrecy and the surveillance being drawn across government and Australian Public Service agencies. When it comes to monitoring by public service agencies there is a dangerous lack of transparency and accountability.

All of this is a threat our freedoms, our right to know, better government and better public services. And we are not being asked if this is the sort of society we want.


At the end of this post are links to the more detailed article Australia: One nation under surveillance and additional documentation. Before continuing you may want to view our Talking points.


Secrecy
The recent Melbourne Age piece Silence echoes across Canberra as the Coalition clams up says it all.

But two months since the election, it's increasingly becoming apparent that a "no-surprises" government is coming at the cost of open government.

As shown in the Canberra Times piece Cash sought for FOI brief releases we are increasingly seeing Australian Public Service agencies pulling back on Freedom of Information.

But more than a month after the Abbott government was sworn in, none of its briefs has been released.

A veil of secrecy is being drawn around government and the public service. This is despite the Coalition's Policy for e-Government and the Digital Economy stating they will,

accelerate Government 2.0 efforts to engage online, make agencies transparent and provide expanded access to useful public sector data

To be fair, it was the previous Labor Government that wanted to expand digital surveillance powers to mass surveil the communications of citizens.


Silence
In the meantime the Australian Public Service has been going its own merry way. Most notably, by seeking to prevent public servants from engaging in any discussion of public service issues with members of the public via social media. Under the guise of cyber-bullying they are now attempting to shut citizens up. To find out more about this read my post The Australian Public Service thinks the barbarians are at the gate

In my talk at the IPAA social media seminar held in September I highlighted the need for public interest discussions between public servants (in a private capacity) and the wider community. Near the end of my talk the Government's Chief Technology Officer asserted that these freedoms did not exist and proceeded to repeat the Australian Public Service Commission's view that harsh criticism is not on.

The Australian Public Service Commission's policy on harsh criticism is nonsense. These freedoms need to exist to ensure transparency and accountability. What Australian Public Service agencies are doing under the guise of this policy is creating an environment where self-censorship and the hiding of information will flourish. Mind you, they are watching you.

APS agencies may have systems in place for monitoring emails and tracking postings, comments, websites, blogs, etc. for content about their agency or employees, including by designating staff to monitor online content.

Your right to know
May have systems in place? The community has a right to know. Which leads me to the nature of surveillance in Australia.

• The security and policing agencies are the top tier of surveillance. They have access to the latest technologies enabling mass surveillance.

• Then we have Australian Public Service agencies. They have acquired technologies to monitor what is being said and who is saying it via social media. They are, if you like, the second tier of surveillance.

• Sitting beneath that we have the administrative and legislative glue that holds Australian Public Service agencies together and plays an important role in ensuring censorship and secrecy.

Why be concerned
It is bad enough that we are surveilled roughly 800 times per day. See The Australian Government Snoop Patrol. What we are now seeing is evidence that Australian Public Service agencies are building a surveillance state by stealth.

What is very clear in all of this is that transparency and accountability need to be ramped up to prevent the erosion of democracy and bad behaviour on the part of public service agencies.

Given the power of technology and the bureaucracy we need, like Canada, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure the ethical use of our information and freedom of the press. If we do not we may very well end up with a system of total surveillance that is impossible to dismantle.


Find out more
Read the detailed paper Australia: One nation under surveillance


Consider Views from the street


View actual Surveillance and monitoring purchases

View, share and discuss our poster Democracy. That's what the entire issue of surveillance boils down to.

Views: 825

Tags: aps, apsc, censorship, democracy, freedom, secrecy, surveillance, values

ShareTwitterFacebook

• < Previous Post
• Next Post >

Comment

You need to be a member of OZloop to add comments!

Join OZloop

RSS

Welcome to
OZloop

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Useful sites

APS Bullying


badHealthqld

Crikey

Data.gov.au

eGovernment Resource Centre

Govloop


To see more sites or suggest other please visit our links page.

© 2014 Created by steve davies.

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!

Truax v. Corrigan - 257 U.S. 312 (1921)

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921)

Truax v. Corrigan

No. 13

Argued April 29, 30, 1920

Restored to docket for reargument June 6, 1921

Reargued October 5, 6, 1921

Decided December 19, 1921

257 U.S. 312

Syllabus

1. Where the issue is whether a state statute, in its application to facts specifically alleged and admitted by demurrer, violates the plaintiff's rights under the Constitution, this Court must analyze the facts as averred and draw its own inferences as to their ultimate effect; it is not bound by the state court's conclusion in this regard, nor by that court's declaration that the statute is merely a rule of evidence. P. 257 U. S. 324.

2. The bill showed in substance that the defendants, for the purpose of winning a strike called by the defendant labor union over terms and conditions of employment in plaintiffs' restaurant, conspired to injure or destroy the business by inducing actual and prospective customers to withhold their patronage, and to that end caused the restaurant to be picketed by men who, throughout business hours, were stationed at the entrance proclaiming in a loud voice its "unfairness" to union labor, and who patrolled the sidewalk before it and, by word of mouth and through banners and handbills, made and circulated abusive and libelous attacks upon the plaintiffs, their business, their employees and customers, with threats of like consequences to future customers, and that much injury to the business resulted. Held that the bill stated a plain case of conspiracy and actionable wrong. P. 257 U. S. 327.

3. If, as it seems to have been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Arizona, the law of that state (Rev.Stats., 1913, par. 1464) regulating injunctions in labor controversies grants the defendants in this case immunity from any civil or criminal action for the wrongs above stated, or leaves them merely subject to criminal prosecution for libel, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law. P. 257 U. S. 328.

4. The legislative power of a state can only be exerted in subordination to the fundamental principles of right and justice which

Page 257 U. S. 313

the guaranty of due process in the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to preserve, and a purely arbitrary or capricious exercise of that power, whereby a wrongful and highly injurious invasion of property rights is practically sanctioned and the owner stripped of all real remedy, is wholly at variance with those principles. P. 257 U. S. 329. New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, distinguished.

5. The distinction between peaceful secondary boycotts and the present case considered. P. 257 U. S. 330.

6. The relations of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment considered. P. 257 U. S. 331.

7. The equal protection clause was aimed at undue favor and individual or class privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality, on the other; it secures equality of protection not only for all, but against all, similarly situated; it is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. P. 257 U. S. 332.

8. Assuming that a state legislature may vary equitable relief in the state courts at its discretion, and even take away their equity jurisdiction altogether, the equality clause forbids that it deny such relief to one man while granting it to another under like circumstances and in the same territorial jurisdiction. P. 257 U. S. 334.

9. A state law which specially exempts ex-employees, when committing tortious and irreparable injury to the business of their former employer, from restraint by injunction, while leaving subject to such restraint all other tortfeasors engaged in like wrongdoing, is unreasonable and without any just relation to the acts in respect of which it is proposed. P. 257 U. S. 337.

10. Such a classification cannot be upheld as a legalized experiment in sociology; the very purpose of the Constitution was to prevent experimentation with the fundamental rights of the individual. P. 257 U. S. 338. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1; New York Central R. Co. v. White, supra, and similar cases distinguished.

11. In view of the construction placed by the state court upon Ariz.Rev.Stats., 1913, par. 1464, in this case, and because the equal protection clause applies only to state action, the conclusion that the statute is in part unconstitutional does not mean that § 20 of the Clayton Act, an act of Congress similarly worded but very differently construed, is also invalid. P. 257 U. S. 340. Cf. American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, ante, 257 U. S. 184.

12. Paragraph 1456, Ariz.Rev.Stats., 1913, making general provision for issuance of injunctions, is separable from par. 1464, supra, having been adopted by the Territory and continued by

Page 257 U. S. 314

the state constitution as a state law before par. 1464 was enacted as an amendment, and the unconstitutionality of the latter does not affect the continued operation of the former. P. 257 U. S. 341. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, distinguished.

20 Ariz. 7 reversed.

Error to review a decree of the Supreme Court of Arizona which affirmed a decree of the Superior Court of Cochise County dismissing upon demurrer the complaint of the present plaintiffs in error in their suit to restrain the defendants from committing the acts described in the opinion.

Page 257 U. S. 320

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Sexual abuse in the Armed Forces in Australia
It is no surprise that there is so many unresolved sexual harassment  rape complaints in the Armed Forces in Australia that has gone on unresolved.
Considering complaints are to the Defence Force Ombudsman  which is part of the shonky Commonwealth Ombudsman it is  certainly disturbing
The Defence Force Ombudsman has no investigation policy .
The Commonwealth Ombudsman protects systemic corrupt conduct and corruption in Federal Government agencies.
The Ombudsmans statistics  show  less than 20% complaints are investigated . Because there is no proper investigation there is no proper results  allowing Government agencies to continue atrocious practices

 Print  Email Facebook Twitter  More

Defence sex abuse: Rape and assault claims implicate serving ADF officers

Four Corners 

By Michael Brissenden and Alex McDonald

Updated 1 hour 55 minutes ago

VIDEO: Serving Defence officers implicated in sexual abuse allegations (ABC News)

PHOTO: The Defence Abuse Response Taskforce is wrestling with a number of allegations that implicate serving officers. (Australian Defence Force)

RELATED STORY: Hurley mulls action against officers accused of sex abuse

MAP: Australia

More cases of rape and sexual assault in the Defence Force have been unearthed where the alleged perpetrators are either serving officers or working for Defence.

The victims have not been contacted by the Government taskforce set up to compensate those who were abused in the military.

Len Roberts-Smith, the chairman of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART), says he is wrestling with a number of allegations that implicate serving officers.

"We've made a deliberate decision very early on that we would not chase down [victims] who did not come to the taskforce voluntarily," he said.

He concedes the issue of sexual abuse within the ADF is much larger than has ever been publicly acknowledged and expects the taskforce will identify hundreds of perpetrators.

DART has already assessed more than 2,400 complaints of abuse, paid $22.7 million in compensation and referred 63 matters to police.

But Mr Roberts-Smith cannot confirm whether all the perpetrators identified by DART will be pursued by the ADF or civilian authorities.

"We need to grapple with that issue," he said.

"We do expect to have a lot of names that weren't identified previously."

One victim interviewed as part of a Four Corners investigation into abuse at the Defence Force Academy had a nasty reunion with a man she says raped her when she was a second year ADFA cadet.

She is still a serving officer and her alleged abuser, a senior member of the ADF, arrived at the base where she is stationed earlier this year.

The woman, who cannot be named, told Four Corners: "It all just came flooding back, like it had happened the day before yesterday."

Alleged offenders promoted to senior roles

She is one of the ADFA 24, a group of about two dozen cadets who were sexually abused at the officer training college between 1994 and 1998.

Most of those cases were never properly investigated and some of the alleged offenders have now been promoted to senior roles in the three arms of the Defence Force.

Getting to the bottom of the ADFA 24 cases became one of the primary objectives of DART after the DLA Piper Report into defence abuse warned in 2012: "It is possible that male cadets who raped female cadets at ADFA in the late 1990s … may now be in middle to senior management positions in the ADF."

How can they have this whole taskforce, have this whole system set up for people who had been through what I’d been through and we weren’t made aware of it?

Kellie Gunnis

Under its terms of reference, the taskforce must assess whether any ADFA 24 victims or perpetrators are still serving members of the ADF.

Victims had until the end of May last year to lodge a complaint with DART.

Another ADFA 24 victim, Kellie Gunnis, had no idea the compensation scheme existed until she was approached by Four Corners.

"When [DART] was mentioned to me for the very first time, I was in complete and utter shock," Ms Gunnis said.

"How can they have this whole taskforce, have this whole system set up for people who had been through what I'd been through, and we weren't made aware of it?"

Victim tried to take own life after 'bishing' ritual

Ms Gunnis was sexually harassed during her first year at ADFA in 1996, and on her 18th birthday was tied down by a group of fellow officers, doused with food and water and thrown in a wheelie bin – a ritual known as bishing.

Others have described receiving similar treatment at the academy.

Ms Gunnis then tried to take her own life.

"I was calling out for help because I wasn't coping," she said.

When the ADF sent her to Brisbane's Enoggera Barracks to be closer to her family, an officer who was supervising her recovery sexually assaulted her.

"He was my superior. After it happened I felt wrong. Nothing felt right," she said.

Ms Gunnis reported the incident to Queensland Police but was persuaded not to take the matter further.

Come to me and I'll do something about it.

General David Hurley

Four Corners has established that the soldier who allegedly assaulted her rose to a senior rank and is still employed by Defence.

Only seven of the ADFA 24 victims have made submissions to the taskforce and the Gunnis case has not been considered because no formal complaint was made to DART.

The outgoing Chief of Defence, David Hurley, says he has the names of eight serving officers who are thought to have sexually abused ADFA cadets.

General Hurley has asked anyone with information about the ADFA 24 cases to contact him directly.

"Come to me and I'll do something about it," General Hurley said.

Plan Millennium aims to identify alleged rapists

The ADF has amassed thousands of documents that could be used to identify many more alleged rapists, including former ADFA cadets.

The project, known as Plan Millennium, has brought together 63,000 service police records from across the ADF.

These documents have been digitised and made available to DART.

It is unclear how DART will use this information or whether other cases uncovered by Plan Millennium will be investigated.

Victims and military insiders interviewed by Four Corners say the DART compensation scheme is inadequate and question whether perpetrators will ever be brought to justice.

"They don't even contact people for simple things like they've had the taskforce," Ms Gunnis said.

"It's just another excuse."

Objections to Discharge/ Magistrate protects systemic corrupt conduct/ AFSA Management protects systemic corrupt conduct/ Veronique Ingram

So why was David Cooper in Bankruptcy for 8 years?
It was because he filed a false statement of affairs that the Shonky Manaagement at AFSA tried to protect.
Further to this on friday at the Downing Centre Court in Sydney a Shonk Magistrate Lisa Stapleton found it was aso highly offensive that this conduct has been exposed on the internet.
Further to this Stapleton found that Veronique Ingram had never been investigated by the Australian Public Service Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman contrary to factual evidence and she had been defamed.
So trulely this magistrate should go and look at the correct terminology and the Law of Defamation. If she fails in defamation law then what else is she highly deficient in???

Under Common law to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.^[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.^[2]
False light laws protect against statements which are not technically false but misleading.^{[3
What has Stapleton's gain for protecting systemic corrupt conduct and corruption???]}

Objections to Discharge

Back to Insights

What is an objection to discharge?

Under normal circumstances a person's bankruptcy will automatically end three years after the bankrupt's Statement of Affairs is filed with AFSA. This is called a discharge from bankruptcy. However the trustee of a bankrupt estate may extend the period of a person's bankruptcy by lodging an objection to discharge.

Why object to a bankrupt's discharge?

An objection to discharge may be use as a punishment for some action taken by the bankrupt before or after bankruptcy, or a method of encouraging them to cooperate with the trustee. There are also times when it would be in the interest of the creditors or the general public that the bankrupt not be discharged at the usual time because the bankrupt has committed some offence under the Bankruptcy Act.

When can a trustee object to a bankrupt's discharge?

An objection may be lodged at any time during the bankruptcy, but there needs to be statutory grounds to do so. An objection must be lodged before the discharge to be effective, as you cannot extend the time of a bankruptcy that has ended. The opportunity to object is gone once a bankrupt has been discharged.

How does a trustee object to a bankrupt's discharge?

The trustee lodges the required notice of objection with ASFA and forwards a copy to the bankrupt. Once that notice is recorded by AFSA on the NPII (the National Personal Insolvency Index is the statutory register) the objection will have legal effect.

For how long will the bankruptcy be extended?

A bankruptcy may be extended for either two or five years, making the period of the bankruptcy either five or eight years. The period of extension will depend on the particular statutory ground for the objection. The usual discharge provisions will then apply at the new extended periods, with automatic discharge occurring at the end of the extended period.

In effect the objection only takes effect once the original discharge date is reached, as the objection only extends the date of discharge. The bankrupt would have remained bankrupt during the first three year anyway.

How is the length of the extension determined?

The extension period is determined by the statutory ground under which the objection was lodged. A "special ground" will result in a five year extension, and a "non-special ground" will result in a two year extension.

What are the grounds for objecting?

The objection must be based on a very specific statutory ground. These grounds are:

Special Grounds (five year extension):

1. failure to provide written information about their property or income;
2. failure to disclose particulars of income or expected income;
3. failure to pay a contribution amount to the Trustee;
4. spent money or disposing of assets or spending monies with five years before bankruptcy without adequate explanation;
5. leaving and not returning to Australia when requested;
6. failure to sign a document as required by the Trustee under the provisions of the bankruptcy Act;
7. making a transfer that is void under section 121 of the Bankruptcy Act;
8. Intentionally providing false or misleading information to the Trustee;
9. Intentionally failing to disclose a liability that existed at the time of bankruptcy; or
10. Failing to disclose a beneficial interest in any property.

Other Grounds (two year extension):

1. continuing to manage a corporation in contravention of the Corporations Act and without leave being granted;
2. leaving Australia and not returning;
3. making a void transfer under section 120 or 122 of the Bankruptcy Act;
4. misleading conduct by the bankrupt involving an amount in excess of an indexed amount, currently $3,901;
5. failure to disclose a liability that existed at the time of bankruptcy;
6. failure to comply with section 77(1) or Section 80;
7. failure to attend a creditors' meeting under certain circumstances or an interview or examination without reasonable excuse; or
8. failure to disclose a beneficial interest in property.

What if there is more than one ground?

If there is more than one ground, the period of extension will be based on the ground with the longest period. The time periods are not cumulative. If the ground with the longest period is subsequently lifted, the period of extension will then be based on the next longest period attached to a remaining ground. The period of extension may still be the original extension period if two special or two non-special grounds apply and only one is lifted.

Is there a difference between objection notices for special and non-special grounds?

The main difference in the objection process is the amount of information required on the notice. The trustee used to have to state a reason when lodging any objection. Reasons are no longer required for objections based on special grounds due to the natur of those grounds. The notice only requires information on the ground on which the objection is based and the evidence that the ground exists. Objections based on non-special grounds still require reasons to be given in the notice.

Can an objection be withdrawn?

The trustee may withdraw an objection at any time. The trustee will normally withdraw the objection if the grounds have been satisfied. But the trustee does not have to withdraw it, especially if the objection is based on a special ground. If all grounds have been satisfied, the notice of objection may be completely withdrawn.

Does withdrawing an objection end the bankruptcy?

If the bankrupt would have normally been discharged during the period that the objection was in force (if the three years expired during the objection period), withdrawing the objection will automatically discharge the bankrupt as at the date of the withdrawal of the objection, not the original discharge date. If the objection is withdrawn during the normal three year bankruptcy period, the bankruptcy will end by automatic discharge at the end of that three year period.

Can the objection be removed by a higher authority?

The Bankruptcy Act provides a review process. The bankrupt may apply to the Inspector-General to review the decision to lodge an objection. The request for a review must be made within 60 days of the notification of the objection being received by the bankrupt. The Inspector-General must first decide whether or not to review the objection, and if they decide to do so, review the objection and make his decision within 60 days after the receipt of the request.

The Inspector-General must decide the review on the following basis:

1. Whether the ground is a ground set out under the Act;
2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support that ground; and
3. The conduct of the Bankrupt before the Objection was lodged.

It is more difficult to have an objection based on a special ground removed as there are no reasons for the Inspector-General to review, and no consideration is taken of the conduct of the bankrupt after the lodgment of the objection. That is, even if the bankrupt finally complies with the trustee's requests, the bankrupt's conduct will not automatically give rise to a removal or withdrawal of the objection.

To have an objection based on a special ground removed, the bankrupt may have to show that circumstances existed that do not justify the objection in the first instance.

Disclaimer
The enclosed information is of necessity a brief overview and it is not intended that readers should rely wholly on the information contained herein. No warranty express or implied is given in respect of the information provided and accordingly no responsibility is taken by Worrells or any member of the firm for any loss resulting from any error or omission contained within this fact sheet.

Last Updated: 25.09.2013