AUSSIEPOLITICS

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

Share
 

 Hanson-Young at it again.

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

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptyThu 02 Aug 2018, 9:25 am

First topic message reminder :

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

AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 4:44 pm

Neferti wrote:

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

I have worked numerous elections, both Federal and State as a polling official. As a polling official you are told that you are not competelled to chase anybody for a vote. All they are required to do is to place the ballot paper (if they have received one) into the ballot box and exit the polling station. No compulsion is used to force them to accept a Ballot Paper or to mark it. QED.
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 865
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 4:54 pm

brian ross wrote:
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.
Cut the personal abuse, Brian. Insinuating that a Member is not an Australian Citizen is a little rich. Forcing citizens to vote is NOT democratic.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptyThu 16 Aug 2018, 6:23 pm

Neferti wrote:
Australia is NOT a democracy ...

Australia is a Parliamentary Democracy. People vote on the people and issues which are important. QED.

Quote :

We should NOT be forced to Vote.

No is "forced to vote". All that is required of you and I keep making this point but it seems some people ignore it - is that you must attend the Polling Station and have your name marked off the list of voters. No one stands by your elbow and demands that you take a Ballot Paper and mark it. I am unsure why you are unwilling to acknowledge that reality.
Back to top Go down
Neferti
Admin
Neferti

Posts : 865
Join date : 2018-07-15

Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptyFri 17 Aug 2018, 8:23 am

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.

Re Compulsory Voting, from the AEC site:

Quote :
Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:

   High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
   Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
   High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
   Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
   Krosch [1974] QdR 107
   ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O'Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13

On a related matter, it is also an offence under the Electoral Act to remove a ballot paper from a polling place.

As voting is compulsory, electors are given a number of ways to cast their vote at an election, including postal voting, pre-poll voting, absent voting, voting at Australian overseas missions and voting at mobile teams at hospitals and nursing homes and in remote localities, as well as ordinary voting at a polling place in their electorate.

Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It is therefore not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote. It is, however, possible to determine that an elector has attended a polling place or mobile polling team (or applied for a postal vote, pre-poll vote or absent vote) and been issued with a ballot paper.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptyFri 17 Aug 2018, 2:40 pm

What the AEC claims is not how Elections are understaken. There is no one standing by your elbow forcing you to accept a Ballot Paper nor forcing you to mark it, once you have accepted it. You are free to leave the Polling Station once you have had your named marked off the Electoral Roll. You are not allowed to exit with a Ballot Paper in your possession.

The AEC might state one thing to the public but what it tells it's Electoral staff is something completely different. We are instructed to ask the elector's name and address, mark their name off the roll, offer them a Ballot Paper and if they refuse it, ask them to leave the Polling Station. If they accept it and attempt to leave with it, they are instructed to place it in the Ballot Box. If they refuse, they are apprehended until the Police are called.

All very simple. I am unsure why you refuse to accept that.
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptySat 18 Aug 2018, 11:59 am

fact... most people who get their names marked off the roll actually make a valid vote.

Compulsory preferencing in many cases ensures their vote may go to someone they do not wish to vote for.

that is not democratic.
Back to top Go down
Veritas

Veritas

Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17

Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 EmptySat 18 Aug 2018, 11:59 am

maybe now we can actually get back on topic?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Hanson-Young at it again.   Hanson-Young at it again. - Page 2 Empty

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

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