Day one of the court battle between Canadian gender critical activist Chris Elston and Australia’s online harms regulator started with a burst of drama, as a trans-identified activist who has a criminal record for issuing death threats against Elston disrupted the court from the virtual online gallery.
Regardless of one's position on "transgenderism" the issue is once again that of freedom of speech.
Nothing that I have seen Chris Elston say or write appears in any way to display hatred or violence towards his targets.
On the other hand, mobs screaming "Gas/where's/f*** the jews" and similar sentiments seemingly repeated ad nauseum at multiple gatherings would appear to fit the description of "hate speech".
I wonder how many posts on this theme have been censored by the eKaren?
Why does Australia have a non Australian regulating its thought laws? Who and how did this eSafety thing become established and funded. Gagging opinion, which essentially what is being enacted by eSafety,…to use phrases often employed by Australian ‘leaders’ a) Doesn’t pass the pub test and b) is very unAustralian!!
Since when have Australians needed to fund a non elected group, led by a non Australian opinion judge to tell them what to think. The whole theme seems an absurdity from Orwellian novel.
Rather than entertaining the outcomes of this group ( and thus giving relevance to the absurdity) why are you not combating the very existence of this weird eSafety body?? I can understand Australians being manipulated by the fear of illness, or coerced by the threat of job loss during the Covid fiasco. But when did Australians lose their backbone to fight the hypocrisy of something like eSafety which is essentially using legislation and public funding to ‘bully’ people into acceding to its judgement of what to think??
Julie Inman Grant is a dual citizen who, like 30% or so of Australians, was not born here. She has lived here for decades, is married to an Australian, and has Australian children. She's as Australian as any of the rest of this 1/3 of the population in that sense.
If you were to suggest that bureaucrats in such high positions shouldn't be allowed to hold dual citizenship then I would say yes, I think it's fair that they be held to the same conditions as politicians, and there is a case to be made that Inman Grant should surrender her American citizenship.
I don't support abolishing eSafety because I don't think the problem is its existence. I think the problem is overreach. I would be satisfied with eSafety returning to its original mandate of protecting children from violent and CSA content, and perhaps also the 2017 addition of dealing with image-based abuse, mainly revenge porn. If people want to abolish eSafety they would still need to provide its core services, simply under a different organisational structure.
Regardless of one's position on "transgenderism" the issue is once again that of freedom of speech.
Nothing that I have seen Chris Elston say or write appears in any way to display hatred or violence towards his targets.
On the other hand, mobs screaming "Gas/where's/f*** the jews" and similar sentiments seemingly repeated ad nauseum at multiple gatherings would appear to fit the description of "hate speech".
I wonder how many posts on this theme have been censored by the eKaren?
I was wondering the same actually.
I’ve also seen pro-Palestinian voices being censored on social media but again, unsure of eSafety’s foot print in this regard.
Mmm, for some reason the names David Irving, Sarah Wilkinson and Antoinette Lattouf come to mind at this point.:)
$806? Mmm. And that is probably rounded. 🤡
Why does Australia have a non Australian regulating its thought laws? Who and how did this eSafety thing become established and funded. Gagging opinion, which essentially what is being enacted by eSafety,…to use phrases often employed by Australian ‘leaders’ a) Doesn’t pass the pub test and b) is very unAustralian!!
Since when have Australians needed to fund a non elected group, led by a non Australian opinion judge to tell them what to think. The whole theme seems an absurdity from Orwellian novel.
Rather than entertaining the outcomes of this group ( and thus giving relevance to the absurdity) why are you not combating the very existence of this weird eSafety body?? I can understand Australians being manipulated by the fear of illness, or coerced by the threat of job loss during the Covid fiasco. But when did Australians lose their backbone to fight the hypocrisy of something like eSafety which is essentially using legislation and public funding to ‘bully’ people into acceding to its judgement of what to think??
Julie Inman Grant is a dual citizen who, like 30% or so of Australians, was not born here. She has lived here for decades, is married to an Australian, and has Australian children. She's as Australian as any of the rest of this 1/3 of the population in that sense.
If you were to suggest that bureaucrats in such high positions shouldn't be allowed to hold dual citizenship then I would say yes, I think it's fair that they be held to the same conditions as politicians, and there is a case to be made that Inman Grant should surrender her American citizenship.
I don't support abolishing eSafety because I don't think the problem is its existence. I think the problem is overreach. I would be satisfied with eSafety returning to its original mandate of protecting children from violent and CSA content, and perhaps also the 2017 addition of dealing with image-based abuse, mainly revenge porn. If people want to abolish eSafety they would still need to provide its core services, simply under a different organisational structure.
Unelected? Non Australian?
Is this significant?
I mean, would the legislation be far more acceptable if the person responsible had been an elected Australian?:):):)
https://youtu.be/URz-RYEOaig?si=lqM9gEzkl_o-Ey3k