All Activity

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-23/riverina-principal-to-stand-aside-antisemitism-investigation/106260992 The antisemitism law will be tested on this Imam as well, I've read where the law is retrospective.

Well that post will test the new amendments in the hate speech law - watch out!

Anyone with half a brain hates Trump, thinks Pauline is a joke, and thinks conservative Yanks who only want to travel here to break out society the way they've broken theirs, should stay the hell out. Although I wish Trump were dead, and think it would be a huge benefit to the planet if he were, I would never encourage anyone to act on that wish and I don't think anyone else here would either.

40+ degree heat? You have to be kidding me.

See above.

The reason that question is asked is because alcohol stays in the mouth for a little while after consumed. The question is asked to ensure that there is no alcohol in the mouth which would result in a positive screening test, but a later analytical test would show a negative result. You have to remember that the roadside test is only a screeing test. A person is only arrested for the purposes of undergoing an analyitcal test using a breath analysis machine if the screening test has indicated that "there may be present in the bloood the prescibed concentration of alcohol". Here's one that happened when I was doing RBT on a Sunday morning. I tested a bloke and the screening device showed an inordinatgely high result. The bloke showed no signes of intoxication, and was astounded at the result. He said he had not been drinking, and then said that he had used mouthwash after cleaninghis teeth a short time before. (He was going to the newsagent to ge the Sunday papers.) I held him at the site for about 15 miunutes and asked him to wash his mouth out with water. I tested him agasin and got a negative result. We both learned about mouth alcohol from that.

I've always considered the major parties as the worst offenders of hate speech. They hate Pauline Hanson, and they hate anyone who opposes them. They hate conservative foreign visitors who want to give talks to audiences here. And they hate Trump. In your thread "What is Trump up to now", you'd better watch what you say. You won't be able to advocate for his death anymore.

Generally, I favour speech being as free as possible. Obviously inciting someone to violent acts or impuning someones reputation with falsehoods needs some limits on it. I am not necessarily an enthusiastic supporter or detractor of the new bill. My point is that these are not new restrictions; they have been tweaked as far as I can see. It is hard to argue that all of a sudden, we are all going to be highly regulated. The things you could say are not really so different from before. There will always be controversial edge cases. "Is it likely to incite violence or not?" I would suggest that for most of us, we are unlikely to ever stray into that territory since we obviously haven't previously.

It was enough for 'Little to be Proud of' to pull the pin.

We already have laws that place some restrictions on speech. Free speech has never been absolute. These are things you could have problems with threaten people incite violence harass or intimidate defame others. These restrictions have been around for many years. Why are you not all nervous about these restrictions? Have you actually read any of the bill? The Bill would introduce a new aggravated offence for religious or other leaders who advocate or threaten force or violence against groups, members of groups, their close associates, or their property, in contravention of sections 80.2A to 80.2BE of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The offence applies if a person, in their capacity as a religious or other leader, advocates or threatens force or violence in the course of providing religious instruction, or religious or secular pastoral care.

Unless they list exactly what you can say, and what you can't say, we'll be just taking a chance.

This is short summary https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/fact-sheet-combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026

It relates to another thread regarding ignorance of the law. We don't know in detail what this new law entails. I've heard that saying something about the honoured suntanned leader of another country in the northern hemisphere could be considered hate speech and get you in serious trouble.

Just wondering in what way it will curtail your speech. What is it you want to say but think you will no longer be able to say?

Because the idiots that do drink then drive lie about not drinking. Better to spend a couple of minutes to get them off the road than have them wipe you out.

Because a small number of people do drive drunk. Random breath testing literally does save lives. If it is a choice between offending your overly delicate feelings or preventing a drunk driver from killing someone, I think most rational, well-adjusted people will accept the trade-off.

Jeez, you do seem to be overly sensitive. When you fly, and you go through airport security, are you upset because you think the security staff are accusing you of carrying weapons? Random breath testing is not just about catching an individual who is a danger on the road, but more importantly, it is a deterrent against attempting to drink and drive. There are already laws against what you can and can't say (defamation). Do you believe that this means "everyone is a suspect?" There are many things we are called upon to do to keep society running relatively smoothly. When I rent a car (or many other transactions), I am not offended by having to show my driver's license or ID. I don't believe I am presumed to be guilty of anything. When travelling overseas, whilst it is a slight burden, the customs officer may want to look inside my bag. I do not take this as some kind of personal attack or allegation. None of these examples makes me feel "guilty"

Why do the cops pull you over then? And why do they ask if you've had anything to drink, but then test you anyway even if you say "NO" They don't believe you, and assume you're lying. Guilty before being proved innocent.

Look up behavioural economics.. It isn't really economics at all; it is a term, I imagine couched to hide its true intent as some academic branch of economics, that is about using psychological techniques of marketing to maximise selling people stuff they don't need or really want. It wouldn't do to call that branch of marekting, "manipulative marketing", now, would it?

Actually, the RBT stop is an "arrest". However reliquishing the right not to be arrested at random is something we do for the greater good. It is a means of protecting ourselves from injury caused by an intoxicated person, and is a means of contributing to the protection of others. For the vast majority of people, being stopped eventually becomes a mnor inconvenience for a few minutes. However, I know that any interaction with police that one does not initiate triggers fear because of all the adverse propaganda we have been fed that police will go looking for some offence not related to RBT. I know I get scared when I'm pulled in.

But it is the least likely place to be invaded by the mad mango mob. I'll take my chances.

What better place for Madpete, eh?