~ archived since 2018 ~

Australian minister: 'I don't know what the PM said [about sexual harassment], but I agree with whatever she said' | guardian.co.ok

funnyfaceking

April 27, 2012

3 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/apr/27/australian-minister-video?CMP=SOCNETTXT6966

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Australian minister: 'I don't know what the PM said [about sexual harassment], but I agree with whatever she said' \| guardian.co.ok
Author	funnyfaceking
Upvotes	3
Comments	6
Date	April 27, 2012 10:01 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/sv363/australian_minister_i_dont_know_what_the_pm_said/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/australian-minister-i-dont-know-what-the-pm-said.1023068 https://theredarchive.com/post/1023068

Comments

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]HowardB 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HowardB 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It's actually a lot more serious than the stupidity suggests. The MP, who was bribed with the Speakership to switch sides in a hung parliament, is caught in PM Gillard's own IR laws which remove the presumption of innocence in sexual harassment charges. The AG and government don't seem to know their own laws.

AG Nicola - affirmative action - Roxon: "We cannot live in a world - we might as well have no legal system if we just say as soon as the allegation is made, that then it's proven true".

Small problem, that's exactly the legal system we now have thanks to Labor.

"In all Adverse Action matters under the FWA, the Respondent is presumed guilty unless they prove otherwise. We call this “the reverse onus of proof. The reverse onus of proof, section 361 of the Fair Work Act (authored by the PM while IR minister), requires that an allegation is presumed to be true if a person alleges that another person took adverse action against them for some particular reason. The burden of disproving the allegation is placed on the second person against whom the allegation is made"

Thus, Slipper has in fact contravened PM Gillard's FWA until such time as he “proves otherwise” and no presumption of innocence exists under this Labor drafted legislation.

Clearly it was designed by the radical feminist PM to protect women but in this irony she has trapped her own government.

The lawyers union and radical feminists also teamed up to remove the inconvenience of having a presumption of innocence and protections from perjury in the family law (family violence) amendments. Shared parenting legislation had caused litigated divorce (profit) to drop 22%.

Speaker assumed guilty under Labor's dangerous laws

[–]funnyfaceking[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HowardB 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BinaryShadow 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link