Gestapo Muzzler Gillian Triggs: “we have had an emphasis on the proper limitations of freedom of speech”

We need more unelected wakademics to “emphasise the proper limitations”.  As long as its ‘proper’, what could go wrong?

The public defends freedom, the “Human Rights Council” imposes ‘limits’

The council should change its name. It doesn’t defend human rights but threatens.

“Social Justice” Professor Gillian Triggs: turning  bright-eyed young law students into ‘social justice’ parasites with a ‘burning passion’.

Related:

Andrew Bolt

Last week the head of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, struggled to nominateanything her commission had done to protect our free speech – now under such attack from the Gillard Government.

In fact, she suggested repeatedly she was more interested in defining the limits of free speech than in defending it. Just one of many examples in her testimony to a Senate committee:

Senator BRANDIS:  Professor Triggs, … it cannot have escaped you or the members of the commission that in the last 12 or 18 months or so in Australia we have had a very, very vigorous debate about freedom of speech. We could probably trace its origins, at least in the recent past, to the decision in the Bolt case, and then we had the Finkelstein report, which took—in my view—an expressly illiberal view of freedom of the press. It mounted a very specific and direct critique of classical liberal values and favoured a collectivist view of values. Then we had the draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill. We have had the two national newspapers, the Australian and the Financial Review, in their editorial columns and in their opinion pages, agitating this issue on an almost weekly basis. Frankly—and this is not a personal criticism of you, Professor Triggs—the Human Rights Commission, as far as I can see, has been largely missing in action from this profoundly important national debate about one of the most important human rights: freedom of speech and expression.

Prof. Triggs : Senator Brandis, I think that you are looking at only one side of this coin, if I may put it that way. In other words, the other side of the coin is: how do the rules on racial vilification and limitations of freedom of speech impact on that right? Because the public debate has focused, as you say, stimulated by the Bolt case and by the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill and the Hon. Mr Spigelman’s speech—

Senator BRANDIS: And the Finkelstein report.

Prof. Triggs : we have had an emphasis on the proper limitations of freedom of speech. I think it would be fair to say that we have been very much in action over the last few months on this question, but we have not been emphasising the right to freedom of speech; we have been emphasising the way in which the balance in relation to it is established either under the current legislation or under the bill that is now proposed for the future.

This morning, on Channel Seven, Triggs was more frank than she was before the Senate about her support for even tougher restrictions on free speech. She said she supported the Government’s plans – since abandoned – to make it unlawful to “offend” someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or (I assume) the other attributes the Government listed, from political opinion to social origin. But, she said regretfully, we had to listen to the public and the public was against this limitation of their rights.

It says something very serious that the public is defending its most basic of human rights against the opposition of the Human Rights Council.

The council should change its name. It doesn’t defend human rights but threatens.

3 thoughts on “Gestapo Muzzler Gillian Triggs: “we have had an emphasis on the proper limitations of freedom of speech””

  1. Freedom must be an absolute. Once one starts to put limits on freedom, it is no longer freedom but curtailment.
    Curtailed freedom is just another form of tolerence.

    If something is wrong, tolerating it is wrong.
    If something is right, it has no need of your tolerence.

  2. This isn’t a human rights council – it’s a group rights enforcer!

    The ONLY limit to Free Speech, should be the Truth!

    There is no false “right” to not be offended by the often-painful truth!

    That only pretends valid objective educational warnings are subjective threats! It pretends all objective facts are really only subjective opinions, and that people are such fallible victims that they can never really tell the difference between them!

    It pretends people have the false right to remain irresponsibly wrong! That there’s no wrong answers! It deprives people of their real right to learn from their mistakes, and to become right by learning to solve problems!

    As even Aristotle noted long ago, slander is only pre-judice, and vice-versa; presenting accusatory opinions as if they were facts (making accusations against someone else, BEFORE having the facts straight)! And that breaks the Golden Rule of Law (to not attack first)!

    Of course, aggressively chanting or yelling a truth at someone in a threatening manner ALSO breaks the Golden Rule, because all threats are psychological attacks (aka: bullying, intimidation, coercion, duress, extortion, “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are crimes.

    But ‘threatening’ a criminal with his just punishments, after he’s already committed his crimes, isn’t a theat so much as a promise!

    The only other way speech should be limited, is if it incites un-just violence against innocent others (as opposed to legislators and police chiefs calling for violence against those who have already attacked innocent others, as in if they call for the death-penalty, for instance).

    The Defense of Truth should always apply.

  3. Here she is again:

    Seeking the best interests of children in detention

    THERE are more than 1000 asylum-seeker children living behind the wire and steel fences of closed detention facilities in Australia. For these children, boredom and isolation is an ever-present problem. They are not free to visit the local park or playground. They can’t go to the beach for a swim. They can’t visit a museum or library or go to the movies. And many of them have limited access to education.

    GILLIAN TRIGGS, if these “asylum-seeker children” are so close to your heart, why don’t you put them up in your house at your expense and leave us racist-bigot Islamophobes the fuck alone?

    Commission to revisit issue of child detainees

    PATRICIA KARVELAS THE AUSTRALIAN

    This is the same fucktard who can’t find the money to pay Tim Wilson, who is appointed to her commission to ensure freedom of speech:

    THE Australian Human Rights Commission will devote much of its resources on a year-long inquiry into the issue of children in immigration detention, 10 years after the Howard government’s probe into the controversial practice. In a bold statement against the new Abbott government’s tough immigration policy, the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, will this morning release the terms of reference and discussion paper – obtained by The Australian – on why the commission believes another major investigation into the mandatory and closed detention of children seeking refugee status in Australia is now needed. (Source)

    Attorney-General George Brandis calls out the hypocrites now running the Human Rights Commission - hypocrites who should resign in shame after smearing new freedom commissioner Tim Wilson as a threat to bullied children…..

Comments are closed.