**STATE Parliament is set to pass new legislation making it a criminal offence to “insult” Gaming Minister Michael O’Brien. **
Fines of up to $11,945 will be given to anyone found guilty of upsetting the minister and his staff under the extraordinary new offence.
The Baillieu Government is seeking changes to the Gaming Regulation Act which it says are “reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of the minister and authorised persons”. If passed, the ruling will become law.
The amendment proposed to the Act will make it an offence to “assault, obstruct, hinder, threaten, abuse, insult or intimidate” the minister or authorised persons exercising “due diligence” in monitoring gambling systems such as pokies.
I had no idea that shit was this bad over in Australia.
“assault, obstruct, hinder, threaten, abuse, insult or intimidate”
Interesting wording, however “Assault, abuse, threaten and or intimidate” would be illegal in this country for anyone against anyone else for any reason. “Obstruct and Hinder” would be illegal against anyone who has the right to be doing what they are doing, I.E. you can’t keep me from getting to my own property.
About the only one I really have a problem with is the “Insult” part. Again just about any of those words could be “Mis used” in one way or another.
**If that were true, every referee/umpire/sports official could have every team coach arrested, ever. **
I’m assuming you’re referring to this.
Interesting wording, however “Assault, abuse, threaten and or intimidate” would be illegal in this country for anyone against anyone else for any reason.
And as I said “Interesting wording”. We have laws in this country that prohibit, assault, abuse, threatening and or intimidation. Of course you could define kicking sand on an umpire as any of the above as well, but of course that doesn’t typically rise to the “Legal definition”, which is my overall point.
If the coach hit the referee with a baseball bat you can bet your but he’d be arrested and that pretty much covers both assault and abuse. If a coach said he was going to kill the referee, charges would likely be brought forth as well if the referee thought the coach was serious. If the coach said he was going to kill the referee’s family if he didn’t call a game in his favor, that would likely be intimidation charges.
Hell, you could have plenty of damning evidence with only the things coaches say about the ref’s mother. That’s the slippery slope. Who determines intent, what really constitutes abuse or insult, etc.
This being Australia, you’re likely to see an increase in insults against the minister just because people have been told that they are not allowed to.
Aren’t all of those actions, with the possible exception of “insult”, already illegal against anyone? Why single out the Gaming Minister? This sounds like something the US would cook up; my opinion of Australia just went down a notch.