18 August 2009

Bill Posters Innocent Under ACT Human Rights Laws

| che
Join the conversation
12

The ACT Greens and ACT Liberals are standing up for Bill Posters and declaring him innocent under the ACT Human Rights Legislation.

The ABC brings this story on how Jon Stanhope wants to persecute and prosecute poor old Bill Posters.

While the Greens have put out this release on why Bill Posters should be protected.

I’m sure there will be a small section on how it doesn’t apply to political advertising, just like being on the No Call List.

Join the conversation

12
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

The elected ministers of this Government are apart of a party who has set up a scam to avoid the payment of taxes, after the removal of services that is always replaced by a tax or infringement cost.

today its low-income signage; next its posts like this, followed by this web site, and the person who viewed such content in 20 years time.

Fact is that these parties have committed a criminal act with the intent to defraud on a mass scale, without implement of disallowance dated before advertisment is displayed (as requied with current law).

A great way to promote compliance with the law – if caught, make up a law with no responsibility but to goal your political foes. Anyone else is subjected to legal abuse, a que, and removal of rights before being goaled.

Err wasn’t there a young Stanhope staffer caught defacing public property in the past? Stanhope defended him to the hilt back then:

http://the-riotact.com/?p=170

But then, consistency has never been a strong point for Jon.

of course, when Bill Posters starts getting fined we’ll happily let him go up on RiotACT to advertise himself at much less the cost of the fine

AG Canberra: No, it does not make anything illegal that wasn’t already illegal. It just seeks to make the organiser of the event also responsible when their marketing contractors put up illegal signs.

There is and will be nothing wrong with signs like that, that aren’t permanently attached to anything. You’ll note that sensible non-Government events also put up signs like that – I’ve seen ones around for the Canberra Musicians Club, Hall Markets, and the Hare Krishnas free vegan food.

Will this cover the signs put beside the roadside – advertising ACT Gov events (teddy bears picnic, carols by candle light, party in the park etc)?

Grapes of Sloth1:27 pm 19 Aug 09

As someone who voted for Ms Le Couter at the last election, I have to say I’m REALLY disappointed in her opposition to the new law and her deliberate misrepresentation of what it says. I actually thought the Greens would be, as they claimed, above politics. Doesn’t seem to be the case.

The new law doesn’t deal with hopscotch players at all – putting chalk marks anywhere is already illegal under the Crimes Act – check it out folks (look at sections 119 and 120). More importantly, the on-the-spot fine arrangement already excludes giving tickets to anyone breaching section 120 if they are under 16 – I reckon that covers most players of hopscotch.

More importantly – why would ANYONE sanction deliberate vandalism of property – either private or public, even in the name of so called free-speech? As someone who has had their property besmirched with posters, I can tell you , they’re damned hard to get off.

However, it is not illegal for political parties to put up the posters in the first place, hence they cover their ass both ways.

That’s just a load of cobblers. It’s just as illegal to paste political posters onto fixed bits of infrastructure as it is to paste gig posters. There’s always a few barnies about this at election time, when overenthusiastic supporters go putting political stickers on everything that stays still long enough.

That’s why election signs aren’t permanently affixed to things – like the little temporary real-estate-agent-style signs with their own stakes, or ones that are put around poles without actually being stuck to the them. It would be just as legal to do gig posters the same way (it’s just too expensive for the promoters).

(By the way, the proposed law is about making Mr Bill Posting illegal, instead of Mr Bill Posters… Its called the Crimes (Bill Posting) Amendment Bill 2008)

The HRC doesn’t say he’s innocent, just that making him illegal gives the HRC serious concerns about the human rights and freedoms normally exercised by Bill Posting, and is inconsistent with the right to Freedom of Expression outlined in the ACT Human Rights Act.
It also mentions that by limiting Bill Posting only to public land, it would have a disproportionate effect on young people and children, by criminalising their behaviour, which is inconsistent with their right to special protection, and indirectly discriminates against them.

http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/downloads/submissions/08%20ACT%20Human%20Rights%20Commissioner.pdf
Having the opportunity to partake in the pleasures and responsibilities offered by Bill Posting really seems a foundation of Canberran youth freedom.

The submission from the HRC (A body itself created by Stanhope) reads like it is trying to tell Stanhope he’s written a shit law. If only they’d say it to his face…

I looked at the some of the submissions made on this. I see that its not just the greens saying that the Government has made some bad law here. The ACT Human Rights watchdog, the Human Rights Commission, also listed a whole lot of human rights issues:

http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/downloads/submissions/08%20ACT%20Human%20Rights%20Commissioner.pdf

Seems like a pretty worrying law.

OP: I’m sure there will be a small section on how it doesn’t apply to political advertising, just like being on the No Call List.

The basis of this law, is that if someone puts up an illegal poster advertising xyz, then the organisers of xyz can be prosecuted. However, it is not illegal for political parties to put up the posters in the first place, hence they cover their ass both ways. I wonder, if I printed out a bunch of posters for that evangelical ‘church’ on drakeford and posted them everywhere, if we could get the church in trouble?

If the government cant hold parents responsible for their own childrens actions, why are they trying to hold businesses accountable for the actions of an individual theyve possibly never even met before, claiming to work on their behalf?

I agree with Caroline. Whilst I can’t imagine anybody pressing charges over a child’s game of hopscotch it certainly annoys me that they could.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.