316usman/thematic2b huggingface dataset:
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632036003.pdf (Australia)
Submission on Government’s Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill To put it plain and simply, I feel threatened by some of the amendments proposed by the Government’s Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill.

As a young Christian woman with strong beliefs and a black-and-white view of many issues, I am concerned that some of the new amendments will cause more discrimination than it will supposedly prevent.
I agree with Former NSW Chief Justice James Spigelman who believes the new laws could threaten true freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Australia.

I strongly believe that laws should restrict hate speech and protect people's dignity against assault and group-directed attacks but I don’t think it is right to extend this over protecting people's feelings against mere ‘offence’.
We cannot all have the same view about every issue and to say that some cannot voice their own opinions for fear of causing “offence” is to curb the freedom our country tries hard to protect.

As mentioned in Spigelman’s speech, unlike existing s 18C (or its replacement by the new s 51), there is no element of objectivity, as found in the words “reasonably likely to offend”.

The new Bill, therefore, appears to contain a subjective test of being offended.
None of Australia’s international treaty obligations require us to protect any person or group from being offended.

We are, however, obliged to protect freedom of speech.

We should take care not to put ourselves in a position where others could reasonably assert that we are in breach of our international treaty obligations to protect freedom of speech.

Take for example my views on homosexuality as a Christian.
I try hard to express my views in a sensitive manner although I strongly believe homosexual relations are wrong.

Although I do not condone hate speech at all, I still believe I have a right to express my opinions without fear of offending someone and therefore being prosecuted by the law.

As outlined by ACL, and in agreeing with them, if discrimination is defined to include behaviour that “offends or insults” it will invariably increase the likelihood of vexatious claims.
It also moves the onus of proving there was no unlawful discrimination to the respondent if a complainant establishes prima facie a case, leading to concerns of nuisance claims.

Some amendments fail to outline the importance of balancing the right to non- discrimination with other human rights including religious freedom and freedom of association.
Many churches and other religious organisations are small and poorly equipped to deal with an increase of regulation and complaints, which may come with the new Bill.

Please consider my concerns, which are probably better articulated by James Spigelman and ACL, and the negative impact that these amendments may have to other important values including freedom of speech and freedom of religion – as they are all interwoven.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632071767.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION STATUS Self Employed Are you registered with the Medical Benefits Scheme as Self-Employed?
Yes No MBS Registration # _____________________________ Name ________________________________________________ Gender M F Address _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone # ______________________/ _______________________/ _______________________ Company/Business Business Registration # _____________________________ Name of Company/Business__________________________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone # ______________________/ _______________________/ _______________________ CERTIFICATION I _____________________________________________ hereby make application for information regarding contributions paid to the Medical Benefits Scheme by the afore mentioned above.
Please address the letter to ________________________________________________________.

________________________________ Signature _________________________________ Title/Position _________________________ Date REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION STATUS OFFICIAL USE Receipt # Research Detail Employer # Employer’s Name Contribution ………………………..……….

Registration Date_____________________ Signature of Clerk REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION STATUS
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632073024.pdf (Australia)
Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 3
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632087243.pdf (Australia)
Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 149 Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 149 Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 149 Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 149
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632095151.pdf (Australia)
Basically we are against any tightening or increase of anti discrimination or vilification laws, indeed we would like them loosened & decreased.

These sorts of laws are basically the Government ie.

“Big Brother” telling individuals what they should think, say or believe.

They are an imposition on free speech, freedom of conscience & freedom of religion.

Such laws have caused problems in some of our States & other nations like UK.
Minorities who are covered by such laws have used them to gain power over those who disagree with their way of life, their culture or even religion.

It is a fact that in UK homosexual groups have targeted & prosecuted businesses that for religious reasons did not want 2 people of the same sex or 2 unmarried people sharing a bed.

Where were the rights of the business owners??

Why can’t individuals decide what they personally think , & who they want to have living in their holiday camps/homes.etc.
A good case in point is the CYC Philip Island camp.

We note there are exemptions for religious bodies but know that could easily be changed in the future – it has in other places.

We believe Aged Care Facilities should not be forced to have homosexual residents.

This could be embarrassing & awkward for other existing residents – what about their rights??

We truly think there is far too much ‘political correctness’ which basically takes away freedom of speech, thought & religion.
There can never be a situation where everyone has equal rights because one person’s right can take away another’s rights.

CYC Philip Island Camp for example.

That was a clear case where the law said people should to do something against their religion & conscience – where were their rights??

The problem when it comes to implementing such laws is that what one person sees as discrimination or offense may not be the intention.
When it goes to court it can be very difficult & costly to prove & particularly to argue for religious conviction.

Please do not implement the proposed changes
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632096627.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
Understanding Social Security Terms As an insured person, you may have heard or seen certain terms and wondered what they meant, or how they apply to you.

For a better understanding of Social Security, a glossary of general terms is shared below.

Active Employer: Any employer or self-employed person owning a business to which at least one contribution payment was made during a given period.
Active Insured Person: Any person aged 16 years to the pensionable age in respect of whom at least one contribution has been paid to the Social Security Fund during the reference year.

Annual Insurable Earnings: The total insurable earnings in those pay periods for which contributions were paid in a given contribution year.

Beneficiary: A person who is entitled to a cash benefit.

For example, Sickness Benefit.

Claimant: An insured person claiming a benefit or on behalf of an insured person.
Confinement: The period for which a woman gives birth to a child whether alive or dead.

Contribution: A contribution is the total amount of an employer’s and an employee's obligation to the Fund.

For 2018, Private Sector employees would see a deduction of 5 ¼% from their ABSSB.

Understanding Social Security Terms.

Copyright 2018.

© earnings.

The employer pays 7 ¼% on the employee’s behalf.

Contribution Week: A period of seven days commencing from midnight between Sunday and Monday.
Contribution Year: Any calendar year in which an insured person pays thirteen or more weekly contributions or the monthly equivalent thereof.

Insurable Earnings: The total amount of earnings up to $6,500 that an insured person makes from his or her employment.

Pension: Long-term Benefits - Age, Invalidity, Survivors and Non- contributory Old Age Assistance - paid on a monthly basis.

Private Sector: All establishments, inclusive of self-employment, not classified as Public Sector.
Public Sector: All government establishments including statutory organizations.

Social Security Card: A card issued with a unique Social Security number for the purposes of contribution payments, making an enquiry, or claiming a benefit.

For more information, visit our web site at www.socialsecurity.gov.ag ; or Join us on Follow us on ABSSB.

Understanding Social Security Terms.

Copyright 2018.

©
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632118523.pdf (Australia)
I am writing with great concern about the Human Rights and Anti- Discrimination Bill which I believe is a threat to the freedom of expression held dear by Australians.

What price being free to think if we cannot toss those thoughts about among ourselves and others?

Most of us would never intentionally offend somebody, but this is life - offence happens and we just have to get on with it.
The concept of being guilty until proven innocent immediately gives the upper hand to a devout liar accusing an innocent person of causing offence, and using this law to horrendously offend that innocent person - albeit indirectly.

A very sneaky backhand kind of offence which could become legal.

Perhaps Nicola Roxon could find something a little more positive to pour her talents into - it would truly be a terrible legacy for her to leave this bill behind when she exits parliament.

Celia McCoy
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632133729.pdf (Australia)
Dear Secretary I write to oppose the Human Rights and Anti-discrimination Bill.

I am making the following submission to the Committee: 1.

I believe the Bill severely restricts FREEDOM OF SPEECH, as people can so easily be "offended" over an issue.

This means, I assume, that they could take legal action.

2.

I am concerned that those who will potentially handle such cases, could take on a "big brother" role.

It sounds like a mine field to me with so many potential levels of "offense".
The courts, already over committed would have so many more cases with which to deal.

Yours faithfully Edwin Holt
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632145617.pdf (Australia)
The Clerk of the Committee.

Dear Sir/Madam, There are several anti-discrimination laws in the ACT and in other States which mean a person may not discriminate re a person’s sexual orientation.

If Marriage happened to be redefined I believe many people in the public, as well as those in business could by at the risk of receiving complaints if they had religious beliefs which were different from the proposed changes in the Marriage Act.
For seventeen years’ groups, have assembled and prayed outside the ACT Health Building where abortions are performed.

Groups and individuals were respectful and spoke to anyone who approached- no one from the group reached out to passers-by or to those entering the building.

Legislation was passed in the ACT to prevent these peaceful gatherings.

A restricted area was marked out.

Some people have been fined for praying silently in the restricted area.
This has put the Police under some pressure to decide, by whatever means possible, who is “praying” – if a person is “praying”.

Police have several duties, but this is an imposition on their precious time and is hardly allowing freedom of movement and or religion.

The Human Rights Commission has been active in Queensland and has shown by its treatment of students at QUT, that discrimination is alive and well.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other International Covenants recognise the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

There are other examples of which I am sure you are aware.

Please bring some common sense back into the law in this area.

Yours faithfully, B. Cains.

Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 141
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632156198.pdf (Australia)
Submission to the Inquiry into the use of the Quinoline anti- malarial drugs Mefloquine and Tafenoquine in the Australian Defence Force.

st My name is Paul Gleeson, and I served with the 1 Australian Regiment from 1999 – 2006.

In 2000 I deployed to East Timor as part of 1RAR and was apart of the Mefloquine vs Tafenoquine Anti-malaria trials.

These are my recollections.


Battalion of the Royal (ii) identifying and reporting adverse drug reactions from Quinoline anti-malarial drugs The first Term of reference I would like to address is among ADF personnel; I believe that the participants on the trial were reluctant to come forward with adverse reactions to the drugs because we were told by the Commanding Officer of the Unit (LTCol John Calagari), before we started the trial, that “if we didn’t take it ( the trial drugs) we weren’t going.
(Deploying)” Therefore Soldiers didn’t want to report any adverse reactions for fear of being sent home to Australia or non-deployment.

I heard him say those words on 2 separate occasions to gathered bodies of Soldiers, before we left.

That left no doubt in my mind, and others, that to not participate in the trial would mean that we weren’t going to deploy to East Timor.

This also ties in with f) any other related matters.
The idea that the Trial conducted with The First Battalion, of the Royal Australian Regiment, in East Timor in 2000-2001 was a Voluntary trial is false.

As pointed out previously, we were told that if we didn’t participate in the trial we weren’t deploying to East Timor.

That was made clear to us and we believed what we were told by the Hierarchy.

Use of the Quinoline anti-malarial drugs Mefloquine and Tafenoquine in the Australian Defence ForceSubmission 79
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632162320.pdf (Australia)
THE SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEE The adequacy and efficacy of Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regime PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday 9 November 2021 Committee Room 2S3 Parliament House, Canberra Time Witness 9.00 am Panel: AML Experts (Submission 6) Initialism Pty Ltd (Submission 8) Arctic Intelligence (Submission 12) 10.00 am Panel: Police Federation of Australia (Submission 20) Mr John Chevis 11.00 am Morning tea 11.15 am Dr John Coyne, Strategic Policing and Law Enforcement, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Submission 10) 12.00 pm Lunch 1.45 pm Transparency International Australia (via videoconference and in person) (Submission 17) 2.30 pm Australian Banking Association (via videoconference) (Submission 22) 3.15 pm Afternoon tea 3.30 pm Panel: Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ) (via videoconference) (Submission 5) Institute of Public Accountants (Submission 9) Financial Planning Association of Australia (via videoconference) (Submission 11) CPA Australia (via videoconference) (Submission 37) 4.30 pm Adjournment Committee Secretary: Sophie Dunstone PO Box 6100, Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: +61 2 6277 3560 Email: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au Internet: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632161354.pdf (Australia)
Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 147 Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 147 Domestic violence in AustraliaSubmission 147
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632165668.pdf (Australia)
Hi, I am writing in regards to the Greens Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill.

I support for the Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill and its amendments in general.

I support for the Green’s Bill to pass through Parliament first, before any consideration is given to the Attorney-General’s proposals for amendments.

I support for the repeal of the sedition offences because they can be applied in a discriminatory way.
I support for the proposed amendments to the definition of “terrorist act”, because the current definition allows individuals to be targeted and charged on the basis of their religious or political beliefs.

I support for the repeal of the offence of ‘possessing things connected to a terrorist act’ and the offence of ‘association with a terrorist organisations or its members’.
I support for the repeal of the presumption against bail for terrorism offences, and the ‘dead time’ provision for excluding investigative periods for police detention (which was used to detain Dr. Haneef).

However, there are two areas where the report does not go far enough: The system for banning ‘terrorist organisations’ should be repealed altogether as it is an arbitrary and draconian measure.
The ASIO compulsory questioning powers should also be repealed because they undermine personal freedoms and create unwarranted anxiety and fear.

Thank you for considering my views.

Regards, Kaled Elhassan
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632170090.pdf (Australia)
As regards the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, I am against this bill as I believe it to be a threat to our freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion, as well as being against natural justice.

It should be rejected.

I find it quite appalling that the accused party has to prove his/her innocence.

This completely reverses the onus of proof so that the basic principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is violated.
This means that anyone can bring any sort of malicious accusation against any other party simply because the accuser has a minor score to settle.

Religious freedom should be upheld at all costs, so that any member of any religion can express disagreement with any other religion without fear of being labeled as a criminal.

This is all part of a robust democracy which encourages robust debate.

No one has a right not to be offended – we all, however, have the right to defend our beliefs and principles.
Yours sincerely Christine Elam
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632194512.pdf (Australia)
FACEBOOK - Religious bigotry and misinformation drive anti-halal campaigns Stickers sold by Mike Holt of Restore Australia.

He tells people to ‘plaster them everywhere’ and advises them to deny posting the stickers if they get caught.

Boycott Halal Certification in Australia makes outrageous claims about certified businesses and encourages people to contact them with abuse.

Boycott Halal in Australia, warning Australian businesses that they intend to close them down.

They harass businesses relentlessly.


Boycott Halal in Australia’s proposal for compulsory labelling.

Yes, they’re serious.

Pauline Hanson, confusing the value of halal certified goods with certification fees, a miniscule amount by comparison.

She asks ‘where does all the money go?’ Misinformation is rampant.
Third party certification of foodSubmission 1333 - Attachment 1 Q Society’s anti-halal campaigner (Kirralie Smith, Halal Choices) would deny Australian businesses the economic benefits of halal certification.

(Picture from a Q Society video currently before the courts for alleged defamation of an Australian halal certifier.)
Q Society and other halal boycott campaigners want mandatory labelling of halal certified foods so they can more effectively target and boycott business which have halal certified products.

Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer, invited to Australia by Q Society.

Spencer is a US anti-Islam blogger and Q Society board member.

Geller’s US anti-Islam groups are classified as hate groups by a US law centre.

Do we want these people influencing Australian food trade policy?
Geert Wilders was banned from entering government buildings in WA when he was last here.

He’ll be back soon to launch Q Society’s party, Australian Liberty Alliance.

Cory Bernardi met with him in Europe.

This inquiry seems to have been called by a few politicians who take instructions from an Australian hate group.

Third party certification of foodSubmission 1333 - Attachment 1
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632199362.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
ANTIGUA & BARBUDA SOCIAL SECURITY PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 2017 Active Insured Population P  Total Active Insured Population - 42,517  Central Government  Statutory Corporation  Private Sector  Self-Employed - - - - 8,997 3,893 27,727 1,900  Total Contributing Employers Income (Unaudited)  Total Income - - 4,930 EC$142.933 M  Total Contribution Income  Central Government -  Statutory Corporation -  Private Sector -  Self-Employed - EC$139.516 M - EC$ 27.628 M EC$ 12.106 M EC$ 96.404 M EC$ 3.378 M  Other Income - EC$ 3.417 M Administration R  As a % of Contribution Income -  As a % of Total Income -  As a % of Insurable Earnings - 11.5% 11.2% 1.4% Benefit Payments  Total Benefit Payments (Unaudited)  As a % of GDP - - EC$132.967 M 3.2% New Short-Term Benefit Awardees R  Total Short-Term Benefits Claims - 7,441  Sickness Benefit  Maternity Allowance  Maternity Grant  Funeral Grant  Age Grant  Other Grants - - - - - - 5,566 608 655 343 263 6 New Pension Awardees R  Total New Pension Awardees - 1,109  Age Pension  Invalidity Pension  Survivors Pension - - - 891 89 129 Active Pension Recipients R  % Snr Citizen receiving Age Pension - 82.1%  Total Active Pensioners by Type 11,031  Age Pensioners  Invalidity Pensioners  Survivors Pensioners  Old Age Assistance - - - - - 9,704 252 1,029 46  Contributor to Pensioner Rate - 3.8:1 1 Overview of ABSSB’s Performance 2017 Benefits Expenditure  Total Benefit Payments increased by 8.9%.
 Age Pension totaled EC$115.955 million1.

 Age Grant increased to EC$1.058 million2; an increase of 104.8% relative to 2016 payout for this benefit.

 Payments for Short-Term Benefits increased by 7.9% to EC$8.662 million for the period under review.

 With an 8% increase in Sickness Benefit claims for 2017, payments to this  The ABSS database has revealed that the oldest pensioner is 103 years - with first pension payment being in 1976.
 A total of 21,312 beneficiaries received at least one benefit payment from the ABSSB – an increase of 3.5% compared to the 20,584 beneficiaries for 2016.

Collection of Contributions  There was a recorded 17.6% increase in Contribution Income for 2017 when compared to the previous year, 2016.

This was due primarily to the overall contribution rate increase of 11.5% effected 1st February benefit increased marginally by 2.8%.

2017.
2017.

 Payouts for Maternity Benefit and Funeral Grant increased by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively.

 There were 891 age pension awardees as at 31 December 2017 resulting in a 4.8% increase to the active age pensioners’ population relative to 2016.

1 Unaudited 2.

Unaudited 2 The performance measures for 2017 indicate a marked improvement in contribution income receipts.

For the first time since 2009, net contribution income was greater than benefit expenditure.
This was due to the contribution rate increase, the elimination of the reduced age pension and the increase in the pensionable age to 61 years.