Pathetic "Aboriginal" whiner

She behaved oppressively and then expected those she oppressed to say nothing about it.  And in the event they said NOTHING threatening to her.  It is all in her imagination, probably driven by a guilty conscience about her own poor behaviour.  All that the students said was social criticism.  She's the ugly white woman in the center of the photo below



A Brisbane woman who seeks $250,000 in damages in a racial vilification case against three university students for Facebook posts has described feeling “at risk of imminent but unpredictable physical or verbal assault” after reading what they wrote.

Cindy Prior, an administrative officer who has been unable to work for two years since she turned non-indigenous students away from the computer lab of Queensland University of Technology’s Oodgeroo Unit, had “nightmares, fear and sweating”, and felt “unsafe and frightened to return to work”, according to her newly sworn affidavit.

“I feel completely let down by all the people involved in this episode. It ended my career and my tertiary studies,’’ said Ms Prior, a member of the Noongar tribe.

“I was unwell for a very long time, unable to go outside my home, hospitalised for panic ­attacks and reduced to living off $450 a week for nearly two years. I am deeply disappointed that my private case has now become public, and I have been publicly vilified by people I don’t even know or who know me, or who don’t know the full story which led to the ending of my career at QUT.”

The case, which is shaping as a test of the controversial section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, came before judge ­Michael Jarrett in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane yesterday as lawyers for the students sought to have the case dismissed.

Tony Morris QC told the court one of his clients, Jackson Powell, whose Facebook post said “I wonder where the white supremacist computer lab is”, was being sarcastic and could not possibly have caused “offence, insult, humiliation or intimidation which has profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights”.

“There is nothing inherently offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating about Mr Powell’s words. On the contrary, it is obvious that Mr Powell was making a joke,’’ Mr Morris said.

“There is no reference to Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders or indigenous persons … there is an unequivocal and emphatic protest against racial segregation, regardless of the particular race, colour, or national or ethnic origins of the persons who benefit from such segregation.

“At worst the joke was in bad taste, but there was no evidence anyone (including Ms Prior) was offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated.”

Mr Morris said his other client, Calum Thwaites, had insisted he had not made a Facebook post that featured the word “nigger”, and he had complained to Facebook an unknown person had set up a false profile. There was not a shred of evidence to suggest Mr Thwaites was not being truthful.

Section 18C constituted an “extreme ... encroachment on ­traditional liberties, including freedom of speech”.

Michael Henry, counsel for the third student, Alex Wood, said his post — “Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous students computer lab. QUT stopping segregation with segregation” — was a factual and innocuous statement made after he had been ejected by Ms Prior “in a manner which he perceived to have been aggressive and unpleasant”.

“It is not directed at any person but rather at QUT itself as a critique of their policy of mandating substantive segregation,’’ he said.

Judge Jarrett intends to rule only on the students’ arguments that they have no case to answer, not constitutionality questions as to the legitimacy of section 18C.

Ms Prior’s lawyer, Susan Anderson, said she would want to cross-examine Mr Thwaites to test his claims he did not post.

Ms Prior said in her affidavit that she couldn’t “even think about going back (to work) there” as the students “knew me” and she was terrified of being “physically attacked by them”.

She told a doctor she had “chest pains, anxiety and an ongoing fear of returning to the workplace due to concerns about my physical safety”.

Judge Jarrett has reserved his decision.

SOURCE






Greenies trying to crawl to the workers

After their attacks on coal companies have caused big problems for those companies, Greenies are trying to shield themselves from the fallout of that.  If the companies go broke, it will be bad news for their employees. And the Greenies don't want to be the target of unhappy employees.  So the press release below is an appeal to the corporate regulator to "do something" about the companies concerned.  What the regulator could do is unknown

Environmental Justice Australia and Greenpeace International today alerted the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to a number of Australian creditors who would be at risk should Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private sector coal company, file for bankruptcy.

Many of Peabody’s senior lenders are calling for the company to file for bankruptcy in the U.S. However, this could risk Peabody’s Australian employees’ redundancy entitlements, while Australian state governments could be left to foot the bill for rehabilitating mines if Peabody’s financial assurance is insufficient.

Peabody owns nine operating coal mines in Queensland and New South Wales seemingly via a subsidiary registered in Gibraltar. Peabody's Australian assets secure, in part, a financing facility worth US$1.2 billion for the company. Not only will Peabody's likely bankruptcy impact whether its operations in Australia will continue, but the company’s complicated structure may determine if Australian creditors get a fair deal.

David Barnden, a lawyer from Environmental Justice Australia specialising in finance and climate change, said:

"Peabody is in poor financial health. It has a complicated holding structure and is highly leveraged. Bankruptcy appears imminent. ASIC has been asked to investigate whether Australian creditors will get a fair deal if and when bankruptcy occurs. Potential creditors include workers who may have redundancy entitlements and the New South Wales and Queensland state governments which might need to pay for rehabilitation costs beyond any financial assurance held for Peabody's mines. It is a matter of public interest that Australian creditors are protected to the full extent of the law."

Marina Lou, lawyer from Greenpeace International, said:

"Regulators in the U.S. have already raised concerns that taxpayers could be left on the hook for coal mine reclamation obligations as the coal industry declines, and a Peabody bankruptcy would significantly exacerbate these risks. Australian regulators should also be investigating the risks to protect taxpayers and the environment from a potential Peabody bankruptcy.

“Australian taxpayers have already heavily subsidised this industry during its decline and now they may also need to bail it out and clean up its mess after it finally closes down too.

“We need ASIC to act because this isn’t a one-off. There are many other struggling mining companies in Australia and unless proper plans are made for when they go bankrupt, the overall cost to the country and mining workers could be far greater.”

EJA and Greenpeace have identified a number of potential creditors of Peabody's Australian operations. They include workers at Peabody's mines who may miss out on entitlements, and the governments of New South Wales and Queensland, which may become creditors if Peabody's financial assurance is insufficient to rehabilitate its mine sites.

In this scenario, either the taxpayer will foot the bill for rehabilitation costs or sites may never be rehabilitated. Unfortunately, the long-term nature of environmental issues associated with voids from open-cut coal mines, such as acid mine drainage, means liabilities may not crystallise until long into the future.

As a result of these public interest concerns, ASIC has been asked to investigate the relationship between Peabody and its Australian subsidiaries.

Press release from EJA






‘Thieving police’ caught out by mock drug sting in S. Australia

MOCK drug growing rooms were used in elaborate stings to collect evidence against a group of police officers accused of stealing from crime scenes.

The Adelaide Magistrates Court on Thursday heard two “test case” houses were set up as “targeted integrity tests” after the Anti-Corruption Bureau was tipped off that officers were allegedly stealing seized property.

Iain Mott, 53, Jed Raymond Coffey, 35, Michelle Kay Hack, 28, and three other officers whose identity remains suppressed, have been charged with theft-related offences. Three of the officers are arguing that they have no case to answer.

The officers were current or former members within the Sturt Local Service Area at the time of their arrest, and allegedly stole alcohol, tools and electronics.

They were charged following joint investigations by police and the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption.

Prosecutor Jeff Powell told the court the items allegedly taken were of limited value and included two bottles of whiskey, perfume, walkie-talkies, transformers and a Bosch screwdriver set.

He said the intricate trap was ethical as the officers were left “unaided” and uninfluenced” over whether to act appropriately with the items.

“They (the houses) did nothing more than provide an opportunity,” he said. “It was up to the defendants whether to remove the items or not.”

Mr Powell said recordings allegedly capture one of the officers, whose identity remains suppressed, saying “f---ing good, don’t put them (items) in property, they can go in our toolbox”.

Mr Powell alleged other recordings capture one of the officers saying it would be good to give a seized tool to another accused officer’s father.

“They were taken by him dishonestly and in our submission with the intention to infringe on the propriety rights of the owner,” he said. “His motives were to treat the items as his own property and, as such, against the wishes of the owner.”

He alleged items were not checked in as police evidence and several items were found under the desk of Mott — the supervising officer.

Mott’s lawyer, however, argued his client was not in charge of the team that went to either of the mock drug houses and did not attend the raid.

Mott, and two other officers whose identities have been suppressed, have asked a court to dismiss the charges against them due to a lack of evidence.

Magistrate Paul Foley will hear further no case submissions from their lawyers before making a ruling next month.

SOURCE






Last chance to catch up on vaccination for child care subsidies

The Coalition Government's No Jab No Pay policy is encouraging parents to do the right thing for their children and public health, with a sharp rise in the number of children being immunised against preventable diseases.

This is great news for Australian children and our community.

The spread of many dangerous diseases can be prevented, and we must do all we reasonably can to protect all children. The benefits for the broader community from high rates of immunisation are vital.

The Commonwealth Government is aiming to increase this number to at least 95 per cent to ensure Australia has herd immunity for diseases like measles, whooping cough and chicken pox.

Babies under six months are at the greatest risk of severe whooping cough disease and death. High vaccination rates help to protect our most vulnerable, including young babies and those unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons.

Parents who fail to fully immunise their child according to the National Immunisation Program, are putting their child and the community at risk of infectious diseases.

Scientific research confirms immunisation is the safest and most effective way to protect against vaccine-preventable diseases.

The No Jab No Pay policy reflects this fact, and is designed to lift the national immunisation rates by providing a stronger financial incentive for parents to immunise children.

At the end of 2014, there were 39,523 Australian children registered as conscientious objectors. Twelve months later, that figure had dropped to 30,092.

Following the announcement of the No Jab No Pay policy, the percentage of 12 to 15 month year old fully-immunised children rose from 90.69 per cent in 2014 to 92.28 per cent by the end of 2015.

Families currently receiving Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate have just over a week left to get their child’s immunisations on track by 18 March 2016 to avoid missing out on child care payments.

The overwhelming number of Australian families who have immunised their children before the March 18 deadline has put pressure on state and territories processing these records and this has caused slight delays. Some jurisdictions need extra time to add all the records into the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register.

This is a positive challenge to have.

To protect families who have done the right thing and because the delay in records is beyond the control of parents, the Department of Human Services will continue to pay Child Care Benefit beyond that date until the immunisation register is up to date. 

While some jurisdictions have excellent immunisation rates, others are disturbingly low. The south coast of Tasmania has a vaccination rate of just 73 per cent and Fremantle has a vaccination rate of 78 per cent. This is a terrible outcome for the children of those areas.

Under the Commonwealth Government’s No Jab, No Pay laws, which began on 1 January 2016, children must be up to date with their vaccinations, have a valid medical exemption or be on a catch-up schedule for parents to keep receiving Child Care Benefit, Child Care Rebate and the FTB Part A supplement.

Parents whose children do not meet the requirements by the end of their grace period will start incurring a debt for any child care payments they receive from that date, which they’ll have to repay.

Parents who do not intend on vaccinating their child can ask the Department of Human Services to stop their child care subsidies straight away, to avoid incurring a debt.

Now is the time for parents to get their child fully immunised. It is the right thing to do for their child and the right thing to do for their community.

We know the devastating consequences vaccine-preventable diseases such as whooping cough can have.

As part of the full immunisation package, the Government committed a further $26 million for incentive payments to GPs and other immunisation providers to help children in their practice overdue for vaccinations. The Government’s approach has included: improving public vaccination records and reminder systems and greater public awareness of the benefits of vaccinations.

While parents have the right to decide not to vaccinate their children, taxpayers should not have to endorse a choice that compromises public health. 

Parents whose children are not vaccinated, or do not have a valid medical exemption or are not on a catch-up schedule by 18 March 2016, will start incurring a debt for those child care payments and they will have to repay that debt. Parents should check the letter they received from the Department of Human Services to confirm when their grace period will end.

The No Jab, No Pay policy also applies to the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) Part A supplement, but the delay will not affect the FTB Part A supplement, as it is paid after 30 June.

For more information about the changes to immunisation requirements, go to www.humanservices.gov.au/immunisation

Federal press release

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here