Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Law change

Please read the attached stimulus reading.

  1. Write a response to the stimulus reading, arguing for or against the points made. (275 words).
  2. Ensure that you make reference to any relevant news articles or academic publications to strengthen

your argument.

  1. All sources must be referenced correctly.

Discussion Paper 2 2
This paper is a response that argues for the essay on the comparison and contract of how
the different areas of public policy in Australia are shaped and the role played by the relevant
institutions, participants and forces (Jenny, 2007). The areas of policy represented are all in the
realms of the actions that the government commits and the intentions that are used to determine
the respective actions. In this context, it makes sense to examine the particular languages that
politicians use, because this will form the basis of determining the intentions that underlie their
political choices. Consider the case study given on Tony Abbott the prime minister; it is easy to
determine his innate intents based on his choice of political language (Daniel and Bridie 2014).
And from the illustrations from the various speech experts, it is clearly demonstrated that Abbot
has a traditional view on the issue of gender roles, especially for the case of women – his speech
still betrays him for a traditionalist who has a strong advocacy for traditional male masculinity
and the submissive role women are poised to play (Daniel 2014). This clearly coincides with his
government’s public policy regarding the various legislations addressing issues of gender.
Secondly, this essay points out that racial discrimination is an intent that can be filtered as a
public policy following the speech of politicians. True to this assertion, the prime minister is
prove to this through the changes that Abbott proposed to the racial discrimination act – the
proposal was meant to repeal the “Section 18C, Racial Discrimination Act, that forbids acting
in a manner likely to ‘offend, humiliate, insult and intimidate someone because of their race or
ethnicity” (Heath, 2014). In his address, he referred to the section as a “hurt feelings’ test”, but
the backlash from the public was sufficient evidence that his speech intent was aligned to racial
discrimination (Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, 2014).

Discussion Paper 2 3
Daniel H. (2014), Tony Abbott not keen to revisit racial discrimination law after France attack,
The Guardian, 14 January 2015
Daniel H. and Bridie J. (2014), Tony Abbott faces internal backlash over racial discrimination
law change. The Guardian 18 March 2014
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, (2014) ‘Legislating Religious Correctness: Religious vilification laws
converge with the Islamist vision of a blasphemy-free society’ The Daily Standard 27
October 2014.
Heath A. (2014), Tony Abbott Dumps controversial changes to 18c racial discrimination laws,
The Sunday Morning Herald, August 5, 2014
Jenny Stokes, (2007), ‘Religious Vilification complaint – finally resolved’ 10 July 2007

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.