No offence taken MD. A good robust debate is OK. I admire someone who can disagree with a point of view, but do so intelligently. Unlike those who have to resort to epithets such as "do-gooder' and "high horse"

Go Dees

Fair enough. Yet he saw fit to apologise to Houli, which he accepted and the Richmond operative who was shaken by what he heard, who also accepted Burns' apology. To me, if there is any substance to this Age article, there are still a lot of unanswered questions:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/radio-host-john-burns-apologises-for-bachar-houli-terror-slur-20150427-1muoho.html

ivor, do you really believe that john burns in a private conversation to steve price said "bachar houli is a terrorist"

it just doesn't make any sense to me

at the very worst he might have said off-handedly something like "he looks like a terrorist with that beard" or "i don't like the terrorist beard".

the real damage done here i think (giving the circumstances) is making this (out of context) private conversation public and i question the motives of those who did

many people including bachar have now been offended when you can plausibly argue the lack of necessity

anyway, i agree there is a lack of information and unanswered questions but the damage is done

enough now from me

at the very worst he might have said off-handedly something like "he looks like a terrorist with that beard" or "i don't like the terrorist beard".

Still not allowed to even do that.

Still not allowed to even do that.

well censoring/publicizing that sort of frivolous comment made in a private conversation and without malice is not the sort of society i want to live in

No offence taken MD. A good robust debate is OK. I admire someone who can disagree with a point of view, but do so intelligently. Unlike those who have to resort to epithets such as "do-gooder' and "high horse"

Go Dees

It is funny how we read what we want to read. "I admire someone who can disagree with a point of view, but do so intelligently." I took that as a compliment but it could also have been an offhand statement of fact.

Could that apply to hear what we want to hear? I wonder.

Thanks for the mental stimulation.

well censoring/publicizing that sort of frivolous comment made in a private conversation and without malice is not the sort of society i want to live in

Nor I daisy.

well censoring/publicizing that sort of frivolous comment made in a private conversation and without malice is not the sort of society i want to live in

Where are you going DC? Do they allow visitors?

Where are you going DC? Do they allow visitors?

haha mandee........will let you know and you're welcome to visit (but no smart phones, cameras or listening devices)

ivor, do you really believe that john burns in a private conversation to steve price said "bachar houli is a terrorist"

it just doesn't make any sense to me

at the very worst he might have said off-handedly something like "he looks like a terrorist with that beard" or "i don't like the terrorist beard".

the real damage done here i think (giving the circumstances) is making this (out of context) private conversation public and i question the motives of those who did

many people including bachar have now been offended when you can plausibly argue the lack of necessity

anyway, i agree there is a lack of information and unanswered questions but the damage is done

enough now from me

So, I'm not suggesting John Burns should be prosecuted, and there's no doubt that the story lacks the weight of evidence. However, regarding the whole private conversation, public place issue – whether you think it's right or not – the law is quite clear on this.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

© is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

Edited April 28, 201510 yr by pitchfork

No offence taken MD. A good robust debate is OK. I admire someone who can disagree with a point of view, but do so intelligently. Unlike those who have to resort to epithets such as "do-gooder' and "high horse"

Go Dees

Your psuedo intellectual arguments don't impress me nor do they hold water.

As for the phrases you mentioned above - the second of which you claimed not to understand - they refer to someone with a holier than thou attitude such as the attitude you have been inflicting on those of us reading this topic. Your opinion is simply that. Your opinion.

As for your statement that you "left the people concerned in no uncertain terms that what they said was wrong and inappropriate. 'All it takes for evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing'" It is pathetic moral grandstanding at its worst. If you are so concerned about this why don't you head off to Lakemba and let Sheikh Hilaly know what you think of his 'Australian women are uncovered meat' sermon.

Then you make an analogy with Judaism and have the audacity to respond to someone else's post with "Making spurious analogies do not aid or add efficacy to the debate". Pot Kettle black. The fact that you do not even recognise Jewish people as having a religion of their choice is plainly wrong and shows that you simply confuse what is racial vilification and what it legally means in this country. If you want to believe that our supreme leader is a little green man in an orange suit I couldn't care less. Just don't try and foist your views on me and claim you are being racially vilified when I and many others laugh at you.

And claim to stand on the moral high ground where everyone around you is wrong.

You must have some knowledge of the conversation, or how can you assume that the analogies are spurious? Or are you fabricating facts to suit your argument? Who is being spurious?

The private conversation was with Steve Price.

On The Project tonight Price said: “I was there and sitting with John Burns. I didn’t hear that comment at all. So I’m not doubting that the Richmond person says he heard it but I didn’t hear it.”

So are you the Richmond staff member? No one else heard it. It is possible something was misheard.

Simple this is not.

Mike Sheahan sat in for Mark Robinson on AFL360 on Monday night. He explained the circumstances as he was sitting near John Burns. He named the Richmond Official (I haven't heard of him) and said the he (the official) was sitting immediately in front of Burns with his two young children and early in the game he swung around and said to Burns "what did you say?"

Sheahan said the official was visibly upset.

I suspect that Burns may have used the word "terrorist" and the official misheard him. Burns could well have said "Houli looks like a Muslim terrorist". There's been a gross over reaction IMO

Your psuedo intellectual arguments don't impress me nor do they hold water.

As for the phrases you mentioned above - the second of which you claimed not to understand - they refer to someone with a holier than thou attitude such as the attitude you have been inflicting on those of us reading this topic. Your opinion is simply that. Your opinion.

As for your statement that you "left the people concerned in no uncertain terms that what they said was wrong and inappropriate. 'All it takes for evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing'" It is pathetic moral grandstanding at its worst. If you are so concerned about this why don't you head off to Lakemba and let Sheikh Hilaly know what you think of his 'Australian women are uncovered meat' sermon.

Then you make an analogy with Judaism and have the audacity to respond to someone else's post with "Making spurious analogies do not aid or add efficacy to the debate". Pot Kettle black. The fact that you do not even recognise Jewish people as having a religion of their choice is plainly wrong and shows that you simply confuse what is racial vilification and what it legally means in this country. If you want to believe that our supreme leader is a little green man in an orange suit I couldn't care less. Just don't try and foist your views on me and claim you are being racially vilified when I and many others laugh at you.

And claim to stand on the moral high ground where everyone around you is wrong.

Absolutely misses everything. As for your direction for me to go off to Lakemba. I have done plenty of work with the Muslim community in Lakemba. Have you. Talk about moral grandstanding!!!!! Me being racially vilified? Don't think I've ever claimed that. By the way, we also have domestic religious vilification laws in this country.

I'll match my pseudo intellectual arguments with your anytime.

So, I'm not suggesting John Burns should be prosecuted, and there's no doubt that the story lacks the weight of evidence. However, regarding the whole private conversation, public place issue – whether you think it's right or not – the law is quite clear on this.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

© is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

pf, there is no doubt the racial discrimination act is exceptionally (oppressively?) broad in its scope

it even includes a private conversation in sight of a person in a public place

so i could have a private conversation in my house and be in sight of someone in a public adjoining park and be in violation

similarly i could be in a public place and private conversation but only in sight of a complainant (presumably a lip reader or someone with a listening device)

pf, there is no doubt the racial discrimination act is exceptionally (oppressively?) broad in its scope

it even includes a private conversation in sight of a person in a public place

so i could have a private conversation in my house and be in sight of someone in a public adjoining park and be in violation

similarly i could be in a public place and private conversation but only in sight of a complainant (presumably a lip reader or someone with a listening device)

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation

so....what's your point bs?

so....what's your point bs?

They don't have a right to stalk you or an invitation in to your house, surely.

They don't have a right to stalk you or an invitation in to your house, surely.

can't you read my post

i just pointed out how loosely and expansive the wording of the act was

i just gave a couple of hypotheticals that (technically) fits the wording (with respect to "in sight or hearing" and that only the complainant needs to be in a public place at the time)

Edited April 28, 201510 yr by daisycutter

can't you read my post

i just pointed out how loosely and expansive the wording of the act was

i just gave a couple of hypotheticals that (technically) fits the wording (with respect to "in sight or hearing" and that only the complainant needs to be in a public place at the time)

Sorry, misread it.

Sorry, misread it.

no problems

this can be a very emotive subject and where the line is drawn is blurry

Has anyone arrested Houli yet or is he still on the loose?

I was ready to get on PRE and apologize for this when I first heard about it, and then find out that it was not a public slur but part of a private conversation. Without facts, nothing to see move on, I can think of a dozen ways what he said might have been taken out of context.

1984 in every way.

So, I'm not suggesting John Burns should be prosecuted, and there's no doubt that the story lacks the weight of evidence. However, regarding the whole private conversation, public place issue whether you think it's right or not the law is quite clear on this.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

© is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

I must have missed that line where it says you cannot comment on the style of beard someone wears. I understand the need to be a bit more sensitive where someone is of a particular enthnicity that is commonly associated with terrorism, but in a way you could argue it is racist not to say they look like a terrorist if you would say they looked like one were they of a different ethnicity. I think the safer option is to not draw parallels btw people and terrorists.

A boss of mine once suggested I was a pedophile because I said I liked train sets.

I must have missed that line where it says you cannot comment on the style of beard someone wears. I understand the need to be a bit more sensitive where someone is of a particular enthnicity that is commonly associated with terrorism, but in a way you could argue it is racist not to say they look like a terrorist if you would say they looked like one were they of a different ethnicity. I think the safer option is to not draw parallels btw people and terrorists.

A boss of mine once suggested I was a pedophile because I said I liked train sets.

was he correct?

i mean about the train sets - lol

The john burns thing was a private conversation, if we are going to set to bar so low then what the heck is the afl going to do about all those people who abuse the umpires with racial and sexual slurs and innuendos?

The john burns thing was a private conversation, if we are going to set to bar so low then what the heck is the afl going to do about all those people who abuse the umpires with racial and sexual slurs and innuendos?

An example please. Any racial slurs to an umpire could easily see you kicked out. Not sure what you mean so much by sexual slurs or innuendos.