This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
I haven't read the bill, I have read a few articles with opposing views so some parts of the bill I like in principle and others I don't in principle.
I like this quote from the article
As the Religious Freedom Report said: “Australia does not get to choose, for example, between protecting religious freedom and providing for equality before the law. It must do both under its international obligations.”
We don't have a constitutional right to free speech. This bill if enacted would give people/organisations the rights to say what they want if that is part of their genuine religious beliefs, but if by saying those things it causes harm to others, that's where the conflict between different laws happens.
The Bill has barely got through the Lib/Nats internal process with several moderates dissenting, I expect Labor to pass it in the house but seek amendments in the Senate
Free speech, saw an American on his way to Australia Sunday night, they asked him if he’s worried about our strict policies if the virus breaks loose again. “You guys got it right, our amendments and rights meant we got it seriously wrong’. “ he called it something else but I said amen!
Free speech is all well and good until you use it for gaslighting. Need to teach people manners first!
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Generally, I think we should be envious of America’s constitutional defence of free speech and seek to emulate it here. It’s just a pity for them that such destructive laws as the right to own guns come with the same package.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
See that phone in your hand, the battery is a Lithium Ion battery. A key ingredient in making them is Cobalt.
70% of the worlds Cobalt comes from the Congo in Africa. around 30% of that comes from "artisanal" miners. Old fashioned way. Pick and shovel and child labor.
stui magpie wrote:See that phone in your hand, the battery is a Lithium Ion battery. A key ingredient in making them is Cobalt.
70% of the worlds Cobalt comes from the Congo in Africa. around 30% of that comes from "artisanal" miners. Old fashioned way. Pick and shovel and child labor.
My teenage son is a fan of US singer Azealia Banks. A few weeks ago he was having a laugh because she went on the attack on social media about "hypocritical vegans" getting on their high horses, even though they use cell phones despite the Cobalt mining practices.
^That must be a misprint. Surely they meant to say men's participation in the economy ranks 70th on the WEF's list, because "identity politics has gone too far"
Who thinks this trick isn't being used far and wide?
"In a program called 'Communicate with Care,' Google trains and directs employees to add an attorney, a privilege label, and a generic 'request' for counsel's advice to shield sensitive business communications, regardless of whether any legal advice is actually needed or sought. Often, knowing the game, the in-house counsel included in these Communicate-with-Care emails does not respond at all," the DOJ told the court. The fact that attorneys often don't reply to the emails "underscor[es] that these communications are not genuine requests for legal advice but rather an effort to hide potential evidence," the DOJ said.
The DOJ made its argument in a motion to sanction Google "and compel disclosure of documents unjustifiably claimed by Google as attorney-client privileged" and in a memorandum in support of the motion. "The Communicate-with-Care program had no purpose except to mislead anyone who might seek the documents in an investigation, discovery, or ensuing dispute," the DOJ alleged.
CCing lawyers is a common practice, but the DOJ says Google took it to an "egregious" level. "Google's institutionalized manufacturing of false privilege claims is egregious, spanning nearly a decade and permeating the company from the top executives on down," the DOJ said.
The practice "continued unabated after the company was on notice of the Department of Justice's investigation and even after the filing of the complaint in this action," the DOJ said. The DOJ also said, "it is well settled that copying an attorney does not confer privilege" on its own.
