We all know that the truth can sometimes hurt and offend some people but really is that a reason to prevent people from speaking or writing the truth. Have any of the most recently high profile cases been brought because they incited hatred or violence against anyone based on their race? No they were brought because people told the truth?

Let’s face it if we deprive the use of a university facility to certain people based on their race or colour, is that university practicing segregation? Yes it is, and as someone who witnessed Apartheid first hand on many occasions in South Africa I am aware of what that means.

So why should someone have the ability to try and extract $5000 hush money from seven students and when three refused take them to court to try and extract $250,000 from them because she claimed she had been offended by the truth.

Why should Bill Leak have been hounded to an early death because he had the courage to publicly say through a cartoon what is common knowledge in the community. The simple truth he portrayed is that in certain dysfunctional aboriginal community’s parental neglect of their children caused by alcohol consumption is a problem.

So why would a light skinned aboriginal living in Europe at the time be offended by a cartoon that she claims subjected her to racist taunts when she walked down the street. Not because she reads the Australian every day over breakfast, but because she was encouraged to be offended by a taxpayer funded HRC commissioner under section 18c.

This section will be subject to a High Court challenge in its present or amended form sometime, as eminent lawyer’s state that nowhere, does the constitution give any government control over what a person may say or think. This is why people like Ross Tyson are fighting a rearguard action to defend the indefensible.

These same people think it is right for LBTG hardliners to harass, intimidate and offend certain Christians because of their belief over same sex marriage but be an offence for someone to offend people of a certain race who practice a religion that advocates the death penalty for homosexuals.

You can’t have it both ways Ross either you believe in free speech and the basic right for the truth to be told and people being informed, or you believe in a form of censorship that allows certain people to dictate what people may say.

Owners of aquarium fish are being reminded that koi carp are classified as a noxious aquatic species in Victoria and must not be held without authorisation. Koi carp pose a significant risk to native fish populations in lakes and rivers and should not be kept as aquarium or pond fish anywhere.

It is illegal to hatch, grow, hold, buy, sell or transport any noxious aquatic species. In Victoria, noxious aquatic species include koi carp alongside other well-known freshwater fish such as common carp, mosquito fish, oriental weather loach, tilapia and cichlids.

These are all invasive species that potentially threaten wild ecosystems by outcompeting native fish and destroying natural habitat. We only issue permits in exceptional circumstances for these species given the risks.

Those who ignore the rules could face fines or for serious offences, may end up in court. Last year, a 51-year-old Ocean Grove man was fined $1745 in the Geelong Magistrates Court for possessing koi carp. 

Members of the community are urged to report the presence of noxious aquatic species, including koi carp, by ringing 13FISH (133474).