The Redlands2030.net site has published and promoted a link to a video entitled “A Terminal Case” created by Peter Wear.
It has been pointed out to Redlands2030 that certain of the comments made by Peter Wear in the video and published by Redlands2030 might have been interpreted as suggesting that Mayor Williams has behaved improperly in her position as Mayor.
Redlands2030 did not intend to convey any such suggestion. If the comments did give rise to such a suggestion, they were completely without foundation. For those reasons, Redlands2030 would also ask that anyone who has shared or published the link themselves on social media, remove it immediately.
Redlands2030 greatly regrets any distress or embarrassment that the comments may have caused to Mayor Williams, and insofar as the comments might have conveyed such suggestion, Redlands2030 apologises to Mayor Williams and withdraws any such suggestions unreservedly.
Redlands2030 – 8 April 2019
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
4 Comments
Jan Cox is horrified Redlands Mayor would go so low as to threaten hard working, on behalf of we, the people of Redlands, 2030 Group with legal action for something somebody said?..that hurt her feelings, obviously thin skinned, when politicians on high salaries who take on a leadership position, should have over time grown a thick skin, remembering that the mayor went so far as to, by legal means, deprive a ratepayer of her right to earn a living because of ‘something she said’…by writing to her employer to bring about dismissal. Politicians in general, are not thought of highly anywhere, as whenever I seek an opinion on any issue, whether the person is local or from elsewhere, the reply is always the same which is….. ‘they are all in it for themselves, and all tarred with the same brush’. One needs to ask….”why does Redlands Mayor Williams seek to hurt, as she apparently was hurt, by threatening the 2030 Group with legal action because she can use her high level position to do so, and keep repeating it in the Courier Mail, as the article was there for all to read again yesterday same as the tiring case of the ‘plonker’ councillor issue seen in the Courier Mail for as I recall, an entire year?. My neighbour is horrified at how politicians are behaving these days selling Australia to foreign powers…just look at the circus in Canberra. Redlands Member for Bowman’s floral shirt fit in nicely wearing it in Parliament…as it seems to be ‘anything goes’ today. Advice given to me by ÚS Govt scientist while working in Washington D.C. in 1980s was, and our high flying highly paid leaders should also take note….’never take yourself seriously, take your JOB seriously!
?
Freedom of speech is essential within a democratic society, hate speech is not. Unfortunately the existing defamation law instead of just protecting an individual’s reputation can and is being used to silence the expression of what may be unpopular views for some, especially if they are in public office. It is possible that the inadequacy of defamation laws has led to the social media, because of its anonymity, being used to criticise but often in an abusive manner. Defamation legislation should not be used to limit free speech provided that it is facts based and can be proven to not deliberately aim at damaging a person’s reputation. We are overdue for change in Australia’s defamation laws.
I’m horrified that the Mayor has used legal threats against a hard-working community group, such as Redlands 2030. This is a group trying hard to protect the community of the Redlands and hold the RCC to the standards and aspirations embodied in the original 2030 Community Plan. I do hope that this valued community group has not been forced to pay the Mayor any ” damages”. Perhaps these legal threats really mean that community action against unwanted development, such as Toondah Harbour’s obscene proposal, is finally hitting home. It seems to be true in Australia that only the truly wealthy can afford to threaten legal action.
Unfortunately, under our system of governance, any elected official who accepts a donation from corporate bodies, businesses or individuals, is tainted by the suspicion that there may be a quid pro quo involved. Such is the cost of public service. To make our democracy taint free, public funding of candidates, limits on campaign spending, and banning donations, would make our democracy transparent.