Anti Discrimination Laws
LEGAL experts have questioned whether Labor's draft anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, arguing the expansion of federal powers is a step too far into community life that will ensnare students, parents, employees and even sports spectators. And Mardi Gras discriminatory comments included?
As the Senate inquiry into the bill prepares to hold its first hearings this week, constitutional law professors Nicholas Aroney of the University of Queensland and Patrick Parkinson of the University of Sydney say it could also fall foul of our international obligations and may lead to successful court challenges.
The Greens yesterday joined the chorus of concerns over the proposed legislation, which will make it unlawful to offend or insult others.
OK. This means that a judge whom fraudulently steal $165.280.87 cents and I can’t call him a thieving degenerate shyster? That Nicola Roxon knowing that such judge is a crook and I can't call her a protectoral of crooks and doing so she is in breach of Crime Act 1914 Sect 43 and automatically she become a criminal? And I can't say that?
The Salvation Army says it would rather use resources to help the needy than defend claims against people who say they've been insulted.
The Senate inquiry has received more than 580 submissions from business, unions and state governments over the move to consolidate five anti-discrimination laws into one act to meet a 2010 election promise.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon says the government will take on board any recommendations from the Senate inquiry but also says there has been a "vicious" campaign aimed at rolling back existing protections.
She means protection of crook judiciaries as already she and senate does??
Every body know that the senate is a tools for the Labor Government and such move will deteriorate the freedom of the citizens and empower communism doctrine in our way of life.
Professor Parkinson and Professor Aroney write in their submission they have "grave doubts" about the constitutionality of parts of the draft.
"The exposure draft is a very radical and controversial expansion of the scope of commonwealth law, which in some respects may well exceed the commonwealth's constitutional powers," they say.
"It proposes several very far-reaching changes and extensions to the current reach of commonwealth laws."
The pair also share fears expressed by others about the extension of the definition of "unfavorable treatment" so it is unlawful to offend and insult.
But they say the bigger problem is the proposal to expand the scope of anti-discrimination law from people in power, employers and vendors to all those in "any area of public life". So if they don't do their job properly we can't call them inept useless parasites. Hei dear Nicola, they are wasting public money
The bill defines "public life" as work, education, membership of clubs and participation in sporting activities.
"A bully in a school playground, a rude customer who pushes in front of someone waiting in a queue at a takeaway restaurant, an inconsiderate employee who gossips about another employee, and a spectator who abuses a referee at a child's soccer game - all of these behaviours involve treating others unfavourably in some respect or another," they write.
"This extends the reach of the law very far into areas of community life which have hitherto been regulated by other norms."
They say the commonwealth has "no legislative power" to reach into public life, and court challenges to the constitutionality of the law would "not be unlikely and their prospect of success would not be weak".
Professor Parkinson and Professor Aroney believe there are other constitutional problems with the bill, including that it may infringe on international obligations to ensure freedom of speech, religion, association and cultural expression.
In its submission, the Salvation Army says it is concerned people may be offended by its use of religious icons and symbols.Yeah we must abolish all Christian icons to please a minority which could be offended but we must endure the view of women wearing burkes with an opening slit for their eyes.