AUSSIEPOLITICS

Discuss Australian politics and other general stuff
 
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share
 

 Hanson-Young at it again.

Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 02 Aug 2018, 9:25 am

Sarah Hanson-Young makes good on threat to sue David Leyonhjelm
By Michaela Whitbourn
2 August 2018

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has made good on her threat to sue Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm for defamation over a series of comments she says held her up to “public shame and disgrace” by accusing her of hypocrisy and misandry.

Late on Wednesday Senator Hanson-Young became the first sitting Australian politician to file defamation proceedings against a fellow parliamentarian under substantially uniform national defamation laws, which commenced in the states and territories in early 2006.

She is suing Senator Leyonhjelm over a series of comments made between June 28 and July 2 on Sky News, the ABC's 7.30 program and Melbourne radio station 3AW, along with a media statement posted on Medium.com.

The comments followed a heated Senate debate about violence against women, during which Senator Leyonhjelm told Senator Hanson-Young she should "stop shagging men".

Senator Hanson-Young is not suing over the comments in Parliament as they are protected by parliamentary privilege. Senator Leyonhjelm repeated the comments outside Parliament.
Advertisement

Senator Hanson-Young claims the publications convey three defamatory imputations, including that she is a "hypocrite" in that she "claimed that all men are rapists but nevertheless had sexual relations with them" and had "made the absurd claim" during parliamentary debate that "all men are rapists". She has denied making that claim.

Senator Hanson-Young says Senator Leyonhjelm also defamed her by suggesting she is a "misandrist, in that she publicly claimed that all men are rapists".

She says aggravated damages should be awarded because Senator Leyonhjelm knew the claims were false and proceeded to publish them to a mass audience including her "child and family, in order to hold her up to public shame and disgrace".

His conduct was malicious and he continued to make the claims "for his own ... publicity and self-aggrandisement", persisting even when the comments were met with "widespread condemnation by prominent persons in the community and by the community generally".

The Greens Senator has opted to file the case in the Federal Court in Sydney, where her lawyers are based. Selecting the Federal Court rather than a state or territory-based Supreme Court has potential strategic advantages, including that the case is likely to be listed for hearing at an earlier date.

A jury – common in District and Supreme Court defamation proceedings – is also unlikely to hear the case in the Federal Court. Some litigants regard this as an advantage but a jury may work in a party’s favour, depending on the case.

In a statement, Senator Hanson-Young said: “The defamatory statements Senator Leyonhjelm made and continues to make are an attack on my character, and have done considerable harm to me and my family.

“I’m calling this out because it is wrong. No woman, whether she be working behind a bar, in an office or in the Parliament, deserves to be treated this way, and it needs to stop.”
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 02 Aug 2018, 9:26 am

Personally I hope she loses.
I actually get Leyonhjelm's point.
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptySun 05 Aug 2018, 8:40 am

‘Tepid whinge’: David Leyonhjelm fires back at Sarah Hanson-Young

LIBERAL Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm has accused Sarah Hanson-Young of a “tepid whinge” after she filed a defamation suit against him alleging attacks on her private life.

Senator Hanson-Young has filed the action in the Federal Court against Senator Leyonhjelm over comments he made on Sky News and 3AW radio in Melbourne.

“The defamatory statements Senator Leyonhjelm made and continues to make are an attack on my character, and have done considerable harm to me and my family,” the Australian Greens senator said in a statement on Thursday. Senator Hanson-Young said she was taking action because such treatment was wrong.

“No woman, whether she be working behind a bar, in an office or in the Parliament, deserves to be treated this way, and it needs to stop,” she said. “It was always my preference that Senator Leyonhjelm apologise and acknowledge how hurtful, defamatory and damaging his comments were, however he refuses to do so.” Senator Leyonhjelm revealed in a statement on Thursday night he’d engaged Senior Counsel to “strenuously” defend the claim.

He labelled the lawsuit a “whinge”, and called into question Senator Hanson- Young’s crowdfunding of her legal fees.

“She and her supporters have to date raised more than $60,000, pledging to use the funds to advance the cause of the sisterhood by fighting intimidation, bullying and ‘sexist slurs on my professional reputation’ through court action,” he said.

“Yet the Statement of Claim I received (on Wednesday) contains no such allegations. Instead it is a tepid whinge that I have insinuated she is a hypocrite and a misandrist.” Senator Leyonhjelm told Senator Hanson-Young on the floor of parliament to “stop shagging men” after he believed she said all men are rapists. He then later went on television and radio to make further comments about her private life.

Senator Hanson-Young has said if she wins damages from Senator Leyonhjelm she will donate them to Plan International and the Working Women’s Centre SA.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/tepid-whinge-david-leyonhjelm-fires-back-at-sarah-hansonyoung/news-story/99c9d7b329eb48a9e519803806ed556a
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyTue 07 Aug 2018, 9:29 pm

No news is good news I suppose I hope she get her rear end handed to her though.
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 08 Aug 2018, 8:31 am

Whinging and whining never gets anybody anywhere. Stupid woman.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 6:19 pm

Leyonhjelm is a fool. He will lose this case and pay a large sum to Hanson-Young. Good on her for taking him on. He should never have opened his trap outside of the Parliamentary chamber. By repeating his scurrilous lies on radio, he has allowed her to sue him and she will win. He is a fool.
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 6:27 pm

Pollies   ALL of them ... are fools.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 6:46 pm

Neferti wrote:
Pollies   ALL of them ... are fools.

For fools, they do very well. Remember, we elect them, what does that make us? Mmmm?
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 6:53 pm

I do NOT approve of COMPULSORY voting ... yes, I know it is not compulsory to actually vote, just to turn up and get your name marked off ... otherwise a $20 fine.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 7:01 pm

Neferti wrote:
I do NOT approve of COMPULSORY voting ... yes, I know it is not compulsory to actually vote, just to turn up and get your name marked off ... otherwise a $20 fine.

What we generally refer to as "compulsory voting" was arrived at under a lot of deliberation back in the early days after Federation. Until it's introduction, we had the same problem most "voluntary voting" electorates have - a lack of voter turn out. It was the same reason why Saturday was chosen as the day on which voting was to occur - that way employers could not deny their employees the right to vote on election day. It was also why we introduced the secret ballot.

Overseas, the UK does not have a secret ballot and still relies as does the USA on the insane first past the post counting system which can result in the least popular candidate gaining sufficient votes to defeat the most popular candidate(s). The UK can trace who votes for which candidated. In the USA, they are required when registering to indicate which party they intend to vote for, if they wish to take part in the Parties' primary voting process. Both ideas would be abhorrent to an Australian. Indeed, it was an Australian unionist who first introduced the secret ballot to American politics.

Downunder, we use one of the fairest voting systems (preferential) and we use secret ballots. You're right you're not required to actually cast a vote at election time, just have your name marked off the list of voters as having attended the polling station. So, IMHO that is not too onerous task to show that you have taken an interest in who would govern us.

Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 7:11 pm

I also disagree with "preferential voting".  IF I want to vote for Joe Blogs as my local MP, I do not want "preferences" going to some odd bod.

The UK and USA have the "register to vote" system.

Australia is the only country in the World that has the COMPULSORY voting ... although I think Argentina (or somewhere in South America) comes close.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 7:48 pm

Neferti wrote:
I also disagree with "preferential voting".  IF I want to vote for Joe Blogs as my local MP, I do not want "preferences" going to some odd bod.

Then you believe that the least popular candidate should be able to win a seat...

Quote :

The UK and USA have the "register to vote" system.

Yes but each uses the information in different ways. The UK can trace votes, the USA knows which party you favour.

Quote :

Australia is the only country in the World that has the COMPULSORY voting ... although I think Argentina (or somewhere in South America) comes close.

I was always taught, many, many moons ago, that apart from Australia only the Communist Bloc' had compulsory voting a few minor South American countries. Nowadays, there is no more Communist "Bloc'". I see voter registration and voter mark off as being a minor inconvenience. Compared to the US where only some 40% at most vote in their federal election and in the UK, only about 50-60% vote in their General Elections, our turn out is much better at about 90%.
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 8:18 pm

If you want the system of voting to be fair and democratic then Preferential Voting should not be Compulsory.
You shouldn't be forced to vote for someone you don't want to in order for your vote to be valid.
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 8:20 pm

As for Hanson-Young.... I hope she loses.
Even though talking outside the Senate was stupid on Leyonhjelm's behalf.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 9:52 pm

Veritas wrote:
If you want the system of voting to be fair and democratic then Preferential Voting should not be Compulsory.
You shouldn't be forced to vote for someone you don't want to in order for your vote to be valid.

Of course, you're assuming that someone is actually standing by your elbow, making sure that you're actually accepting and marking the ballot paper, now aren't you?

In reality, you're not even required to accept a ballot paper. Nor are you required, if you do accept a ballot paper, to mark it in any way, before placing it into the ballot box. All you are required to do is attend the Polling Station and have your name marked off. The only compulsion exists in your imagination.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 9:52 pm

Veritas wrote:
As for Hanson-Young....  I hope she loses.
Even though talking outside the Senate was stupid on Leyonhjelm's behalf.

She won't lose. Leyonhjelm will.
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 10:00 pm

brian ross wrote:
Veritas wrote:
If you want the system of voting to be fair and democratic then Preferential Voting should not be Compulsory.
You shouldn't be forced to vote for someone you don't want to in order for your vote to be valid.

Of course, you're assuming that someone is actually standing by your elbow, making sure that you're actually accepting and marking the ballot paper, now aren't you?  

In reality, you're not even required to accept a ballot paper.  Nor are you required, if you do accept a ballot paper, to mark it in any way, before placing it into the ballot box.  All you are required to do is attend the Polling Station and have your name marked off.  The only compulsion exists in your imagination.  

Re your first question
the answer is no.
We are talking about voting at an election not invalidating a vote.
Compulsion to mark every box to make ones vote valid is not imaginary.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyWed 15 Aug 2018, 10:05 pm

Veritas wrote:
brian ross wrote:
Veritas wrote:
If you want the system of voting to be fair and democratic then Preferential Voting should not be Compulsory.
You shouldn't be forced to vote for someone you don't want to in order for your vote to be valid.

Of course, you're assuming that someone is actually standing by your elbow, making sure that you're actually accepting and marking the ballot paper, now aren't you?  

In reality, you're not even required to accept a ballot paper.  Nor are you required, if you do accept a ballot paper, to mark it in any way, before placing it into the ballot box.  All you are required to do is attend the Polling Station and have your name marked off.  The only compulsion exists in your imagination.  

Re your first question
the answer is no.
We are talking about voting at an election not invalidating a vote.
Compulsion to mark every box to make ones vote valid is not imaginary.

There is no compulsion, either to accept a ballot or to mark it in a valid manner. All you are required to do is attend the polling station and have your name marked off. Not an onerous duty to ensure that you understand you have the opportunity to vote IMO. No on stands by your elbow, forcing you to accept a ballot paper or to mark it in a valid manner. So, please stop bullshitting.
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 9:31 am

If you can find where I stated that making a valid vote was compulsory, do so.
Otherwise you can stop creating strawmen.
Back to top Go down
DreamRyder



Posts : 48
Join date : 2018-07-25
Location : Australia

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 2:56 pm

Forcing one to even have to show up to a polling place to have their name struck of a list of registered voters is absolutely abhorrent, & fly's in the face of what is commonly known today as Democracy. It is government exerting it's will over the Liberties, Freedoms, & Rights of the People. Totally unacceptable.....

My views on Preferential Voting.......eg if there is one (1) office being sought after by six (6) people, every voter should get a ballot with six (6) names on it, with a box after each name to be marked off to designate the voters choice.

I clearly mark off the box next to the name of the person I wish to be elected, & I leave all the other 5 blank.....unmarked.

No 1st preference, 2nd preference, etc........ I only prefer one person to win, & the others can all go to hell....I don't care about them whatsoever.

When all the votes are tallied, the person who gets the most votes marked off will be declared the winner on that 'race' for the one (1) office in contention. The other 5 are all equal losers....



Last edited by DreamRyder on Thu 16 Aug 2018, 3:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 3:13 pm

DreamRyder wrote:
Forcing one to even have to show up to a polling place to have their name struck of a list of registered voters is absolutely abhorrent, & fly's in the face of what is commonly known today as Democracy. It is government exerting it's will over the Liberties, Freedoms, & Rights of the People. Totally unacceptable.....

My views on Preferential Voting.......if there is one (1) office being sought after by six (6) people, every voter should get a ballot with six (6) names on it, with a box after each name to be marked off to designate the voters choice.

When all the votes are tallied, the person who gets the most votes marked off will be declared the winner on that 'race' for the one (1) office in contention.

No, 1st preference, 2nd preference, etc........ I only prefer one person to win, & the others can all go to hell....I don't care about them whatsoever.



Australia has and continues, despite it's own best efforts, to lead the world in what the word "democracy" actually means. Your moaning and carping suggests you'd be better off moving to the undemocratic USA or UK if you don't like the way we do democracy downunder.

Preferential or much better Optional Preferential voting is the second fairest electoral counting method in the world (only the Hare-Clarke system is better). First-past-the-post voting simply splits the votes and allows the least popular candidate to win the election.

Preferential or Optional Preferential voting ensures that the candidate who receives the greatest number in total of votes wins the election. I am unsure why people find it difficult to understand. I learnt about it in Secondary School. It isn't hard.
Back to top Go down
DreamRyder



Posts : 48
Join date : 2018-07-25
Location : Australia

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 3:48 pm

brian ross wrote:
DreamRyder wrote:
Forcing one to even have to show up to a polling place to have their name struck of a list of registered voters is absolutely abhorrent, & fly's in the face of what is commonly known today as Democracy. It is government exerting it's will over the Liberties, Freedoms, & Rights of the People. Totally unacceptable.....

My views on Preferential Voting.......eg if there is one (1) office being sought after by six (6) people, every voter should get a ballot with six (6) names on it, with a box after each name to be marked off to designate the voters choice.

I clearly mark off the box next to the name of the person I wish to be elected, & I leave all the other 5 blank.....unmarked.

No 1st preference, 2nd preference, etc........ I only prefer one person to win, & the others can all go to hell....I don't care about them whatsoever.

When all the votes are tallied, the person who gets the most votes marked off will be declared the winner on that 'race' for the one (1) office in contention. The other 5 are all equal losers....



Australia has and continues, despite it's own best efforts, to lead the world in what the word "democracy" actually means.  Your moaning and carping suggests you'd be better off moving to the undemocratic USA or UK if you don't like the way we do democracy downunder.

Preferential or much better Optional Preferential voting is the second fairest electoral counting method in the world (only the Hare-Clarke system is better).   First-past-the-post voting simply splits the votes and allows the least popular candidate to win the election.

Preferential or Optional Preferential voting ensures that the candidate who receives the greatest number in total of votes wins the election.   I am unsure why people find it difficult to understand.  I learnt about it in Secondary School.  It isn't hard.

When the next election rolls around, they won't see me, or my mark on any ballot, nor will I ever be 'completely fined' (made to pay the government) for my 'chosen right' not to make a vote, or even show up to a vote. I consider myself a sovereign individual.
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 4:31 pm

brian ross wrote:
Veritas wrote:
brian ross wrote:
Veritas wrote:
If you want the system of voting to be fair and democratic then Preferential Voting should not be Compulsory.
You shouldn't be forced to vote for someone you don't want to in order for your vote to be valid.

Of course, you're assuming that someone is actually standing by your elbow, making sure that you're actually accepting and marking the ballot paper, now aren't you?  

In reality, you're not even required to accept a ballot paper.  Nor are you required, if you do accept a ballot paper, to mark it in any way, before placing it into the ballot box.  All you are required to do is attend the Polling Station and have your name marked off.  The only compulsion exists in your imagination.  

Re your first question
the answer is no.
We are talking about voting at an election not invalidating a vote.
Compulsion to mark every box to make ones vote valid is not imaginary.

There is no compulsion, either to accept a ballot or to mark it in a valid manner.  All you are required to do is attend the polling station and have your name marked off.  Not an onerous duty to ensure that you understand you have the opportunity to vote IMO.   No on stands by your elbow, forcing you to accept a ballot paper or to mark it in a valid manner.   So, please stop bullshitting.  
Brian,

I think that you will find that IF you wander into the Polling Booth, get your name crossed off, take the ballot and then just WALK OUT, one of the officious attendants will stop you and demand that you attend the booth and do something with the ballot paper, fold it and poke it in the ballot box!

I have attended to vote, as required, and found my name conveniently NOT on The List.  Great, I thought. I hadn't moved house or anything either. The officious attendant stated that I would get fined $20 if I didn't vote ... second opinion from another officious attendant stated that if I wasn't On The Rolls I wouldn't get fine and promptly handed me a bunch of papers to fill out. I said "Thanks, mate" threw the papers in the bin and wandered out, very pleased with myself for NOT voting or getting a 20 buck fine. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 4:36 pm

Australia is NOT a democracy ...

Quote :
Australia is a federation, a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. This means that Australia: Has a Queen, who resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in Australia by a Governor-General.


We should NOT be forced to Vote.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 4:42 pm

DreamRyder wrote:
When the next election rolls around, they won't see me, or my mark on any ballot, nor will I ever be 'completely fined' (made to pay the government) for my 'chosen right' not to make a vote, or even show up to a vote. I consider myself a sovereign individual.

Then move. It is how we do democracy downunder. If you don't like it, stop whinging and move to the USA/UK where they will show you how much they value your non-contribution to their ideas of democracy.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




Hanson-Young at it again. Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Hanson-Young at it again.
Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
AUSSIEPOLITICS :: News & Current Affairs-
Jump to: