;DSintiger said:
It does actually provide real practical use in how to structure society. It provides the knowledge to lift millions from poverty.
I find that interesting.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
It does actually provide real practical use in how to structure society. It provides the knowledge to lift millions from poverty.
I find that interesting.
Thought this was a good article from Ricky Muir, in The Guardian, about the Government's massive politicking and grandstanding atm.
It's a slippery slope if we enact laws based on fear rather than reason
Ricky Muir @Ricky_Muir
If our government wants to strengthen citizenship laws, it should do so calmly, not by spreading fear – that is doing the job of the terrorist
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Immigration minister Peter Dutton and attorney-general George Brandis at a press conference in parliament house, Canberra this afternoon, Tuesday 23rd June 2015. Photograph by Mike Bowers for Guardian Australia #politicslive
‘If members of the government honestly believe that they have a good policy they should sell it to the people without the unnecessary fear mongering and scare campaigning.’
Thursday 25 June 2015 07.30 AEST Last modified on Thursday 25 June 2015 09.48 AEST
When it comes to the citizenship debate, I agree with David Leyonhjelm who accused the government of “trying to wedge Labor on national security from the start”.
But I’d take it one step further – not only are they trying to “wedge” Labor, they are trying to wedge all non-government parliamentarians.
We are told, as is the public through the media, that if we do not support the proposals we do not care about national security.
The 'allegiance to Australia' bill: arguably unconstitutional, definitely questionable
This, in my eyes, is a grab at potentially excessive powers simply through ruling by fear. In ruling by fear, we are tricked into a mindset that it is OK to give away our privacy. We are told that if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
Just because you are not doing anything wrong, does not mean that you have no right to privacy.
While I completely agree that 50 Australians fighting abroad is devastating, the reality is there are over 23 million Australians who have not and will not ever consider these acts; 23 million people who have a right to freedom, privacy and the presumption of innocence.
When I was young I remember asking if Santa was real. This was followed by a comment like, “Come here mate, we need to have a talk.” After this talk I was disappointed, but understood and accepted the reality.
I also remember questioning whether God was real at a similar time. Unlike the Santa question, this ended a little different. It was more along the lines of, “If you don’t believe in God, you will go to hell,” followed by a descriptive definition of demons, fire and all sorts of things which filled me with fear. So much fear that I essentially believed the boogie man was coming to get me, would pull the blankets over my head and pee the bed.
Now, many years later, I see the same ruling-by-fear tactics being handed down through the media by our own prime minister and attorney general.
When government overreach – such as granting a minister unprecedented powers and by-passing judicial process – was questioned, the government’s approach was to instil fear in the ALP.
‘We won’t let you back’, Abbott told dual-nationals fighting with ‘terrorist armies.’ Link to video
“The ALP want to roll out the red carpet for terrorists” is what we were told. I sat in our great “democratic” Senate chamber and listened to George Brandis spray this at the ALP in question time, at the same time Tony Abbott was saying the exact same thing in the lower house. I guess they both got the same briefing paper on how to wedge the ALP (without it being leaked this time).
If members of the government honestly believe that they have a good policy they should sell it to the people without the unnecessary fear mongering and scare campaigning. If they are so convinced that they are making a decision in the best interests of Australia, they should be prepared to be scrutinised and have a good, calm argument to back up their views – not jump up and down screaming that the boogie man is coming in the hope that everybody will pull the blankets over their head and pee the bed.
I agree that those who travel abroad to fight against us with Isis should feel the full weight of the law. I do not accept by-passing our judicial system, nor do I believe removing citizenship and leaving our “problems” in a situation where they can continue to commit crimes is good policy. I do believe that we should strengthen our current laws and consider life imprisonment without parole for those found guilty, but not without a proper judicial process to ensure that we do not falsely accuse a single innocent person.
We have a separation of the executive and judicial powers for a good reason.
The government has introduced the creatively named Australian citizenship amendment (allegiance to Australia) bill 2015. I will need to examine the provisions of this bill closely but my initial reaction is that it could have been a lot worse, but it could be better.
At first glance, it appears the separation of powers has been respected, however senior public servants will have a role in deciding whether a dual national meets the criteria to have their citizenship taken away.
Tony Abbott has left open the possibility of amending the bill so that it applies retrospectively. Although there is no express or implied prohibition on the making of retrospective laws in the Australian constitution, we need to tread very carefully.
I do not accept the mentality of ruling by fear and I worry about the slippery slope we may head down if we allow government to enact laws based on fear rather than rationale.
If our government has a desire to strengthen laws they should do so factually and calmly, not by spreading fear – that is doing the job of the terrorist.
The report from the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security will be telling. With Labor indicating possible support, it looks like the wedge has done its job.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/its-a-slippery-slope-if-we-enact-laws-based-on-fear-rather-than-rationale?CMP=soc_567
It's a slippery slope if we enact laws based on fear rather than reason
Ricky Muir @Ricky_Muir
If our government wants to strengthen citizenship laws, it should do so calmly, not by spreading fear – that is doing the job of the terrorist
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Immigration minister Peter Dutton and attorney-general George Brandis at a press conference in parliament house, Canberra this afternoon, Tuesday 23rd June 2015. Photograph by Mike Bowers for Guardian Australia #politicslive
‘If members of the government honestly believe that they have a good policy they should sell it to the people without the unnecessary fear mongering and scare campaigning.’
Thursday 25 June 2015 07.30 AEST Last modified on Thursday 25 June 2015 09.48 AEST
When it comes to the citizenship debate, I agree with David Leyonhjelm who accused the government of “trying to wedge Labor on national security from the start”.
But I’d take it one step further – not only are they trying to “wedge” Labor, they are trying to wedge all non-government parliamentarians.
We are told, as is the public through the media, that if we do not support the proposals we do not care about national security.
The 'allegiance to Australia' bill: arguably unconstitutional, definitely questionable
This, in my eyes, is a grab at potentially excessive powers simply through ruling by fear. In ruling by fear, we are tricked into a mindset that it is OK to give away our privacy. We are told that if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
Just because you are not doing anything wrong, does not mean that you have no right to privacy.
While I completely agree that 50 Australians fighting abroad is devastating, the reality is there are over 23 million Australians who have not and will not ever consider these acts; 23 million people who have a right to freedom, privacy and the presumption of innocence.
When I was young I remember asking if Santa was real. This was followed by a comment like, “Come here mate, we need to have a talk.” After this talk I was disappointed, but understood and accepted the reality.
I also remember questioning whether God was real at a similar time. Unlike the Santa question, this ended a little different. It was more along the lines of, “If you don’t believe in God, you will go to hell,” followed by a descriptive definition of demons, fire and all sorts of things which filled me with fear. So much fear that I essentially believed the boogie man was coming to get me, would pull the blankets over my head and pee the bed.
Now, many years later, I see the same ruling-by-fear tactics being handed down through the media by our own prime minister and attorney general.
When government overreach – such as granting a minister unprecedented powers and by-passing judicial process – was questioned, the government’s approach was to instil fear in the ALP.
‘We won’t let you back’, Abbott told dual-nationals fighting with ‘terrorist armies.’ Link to video
“The ALP want to roll out the red carpet for terrorists” is what we were told. I sat in our great “democratic” Senate chamber and listened to George Brandis spray this at the ALP in question time, at the same time Tony Abbott was saying the exact same thing in the lower house. I guess they both got the same briefing paper on how to wedge the ALP (without it being leaked this time).
If members of the government honestly believe that they have a good policy they should sell it to the people without the unnecessary fear mongering and scare campaigning. If they are so convinced that they are making a decision in the best interests of Australia, they should be prepared to be scrutinised and have a good, calm argument to back up their views – not jump up and down screaming that the boogie man is coming in the hope that everybody will pull the blankets over their head and pee the bed.
I agree that those who travel abroad to fight against us with Isis should feel the full weight of the law. I do not accept by-passing our judicial system, nor do I believe removing citizenship and leaving our “problems” in a situation where they can continue to commit crimes is good policy. I do believe that we should strengthen our current laws and consider life imprisonment without parole for those found guilty, but not without a proper judicial process to ensure that we do not falsely accuse a single innocent person.
We have a separation of the executive and judicial powers for a good reason.
The government has introduced the creatively named Australian citizenship amendment (allegiance to Australia) bill 2015. I will need to examine the provisions of this bill closely but my initial reaction is that it could have been a lot worse, but it could be better.
At first glance, it appears the separation of powers has been respected, however senior public servants will have a role in deciding whether a dual national meets the criteria to have their citizenship taken away.
Tony Abbott has left open the possibility of amending the bill so that it applies retrospectively. Although there is no express or implied prohibition on the making of retrospective laws in the Australian constitution, we need to tread very carefully.
I do not accept the mentality of ruling by fear and I worry about the slippery slope we may head down if we allow government to enact laws based on fear rather than rationale.
If our government has a desire to strengthen laws they should do so factually and calmly, not by spreading fear – that is doing the job of the terrorist.
The report from the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security will be telling. With Labor indicating possible support, it looks like the wedge has done its job.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/its-a-slippery-slope-if-we-enact-laws-based-on-fear-rather-than-rationale?CMP=soc_567
The hoopla surrounding this Q and A comment has been hysterical.
Abbott & his lapdogs seem determined to use it as a smokescreen for controlling or destroying the independent broadcaster.
Seems they want to tear down anything perceived as free in this country. From health to education to freedoms of speech. :'(
Abbott & his lapdogs seem determined to use it as a smokescreen for controlling or destroying the independent broadcaster.
Seems they want to tear down anything perceived as free in this country. From health to education to freedoms of speech. :'(
Tigers of Old said:
While I don't like the way they have gone about it, and they are unintentionally transparent in their attacks on Aunty, QandA gambled and lost on this occasion. He should not have been allowed to speak and Tony Jones should have quit while he was behind. Even my man-crush Waleed Aly disguised but ultimately failed to adequately reign in his own seething long enough to land a blow on The Project. There was a bit more background added on the New Matilda website which suggests Zaky may be one of the new breed of Islamic apologists. The type we see in the UK, where they step right up to the edge of inciting hatred but then back away and claim not have the extremist views we know they do. It is "reverse dog-whistling" if you like.
Tigers of Old said:
"People do have a right to be bigots you know"
"In a free country people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted."
"People like Mr... should be free to express any opinion on a social or a cultural or a political question that they wish to express"
"But we also want this country to be a nation where freedom of speech is enjoyed.
"And sometimes, Madam Speaker, free speech will be speech which upsets people, which offends people."
the above are quotes from Brandis and Abbott defending the right of free speech. surely the role of the public broadcaster is to ensure the right to free speech the government holds so dear is upheld.
So "freedom of Speech" should allow a convicted terrorist a voice on the ABC.
But Andrew Bolt must be silenced.
I think I understand this.
But Andrew Bolt must be silenced.
I think I understand this.
poppa x said:
I can't stand Bolt but he can write whatever and say whatever he likes (and does) in a democracy. I just choose not to listen or read it. Zaky is also entitled to speak freely as an Australian, doesn't mean I am listening to him either. People will make up their own minds but they won't if the Government controls what we see and hear.
poppa x said:
not too many people are defending what he said.
personally i was pointing out the obvious, and expected, hypocrisy from the government.
when the debate was about the right of people to be racist to minority group the government gave a strong defence of the right to free speech. when a muslim says something they dont like suddenly they want that speech to be silenced.
and they want the ABC to censor free speech.
poppa x said:
Bolt lies all the time and is never held to account. Thats the issue for me. He's also an extremest, or at least he would have been considered an extremest not so long ago, maybe not now the way politics has been dragged to the right with an extremest government and a weak opposition. Bolt's lies and extremism are on the conservative right side of politics, he champions the views of the powerful, so thats OK apparently.
Anyway its a straw man you're putting up, as oldie said, nobody is saying he should be silenced. I think he's a bullying borderline psychopath who should be held to high standards of journalism and broadcasting (good luck with that), but not silenced
I'm with KR on this. Q&A were silly to give Zaky a national media platform to air his views.
Freedom of speech is fine, but there is no need for the ABC to give a convicted terrorist sympathizer who hasn't changed his views, a national TV platform to argue his case. Same way I don't think they should give an unrepentant pedophile a similar opportunity.
Freedom of speech is fine, but there is no need for the ABC to give a convicted terrorist sympathizer who hasn't changed his views, a national TV platform to argue his case. Same way I don't think they should give an unrepentant pedophile a similar opportunity.
There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. The line can't keep shifting or we're in treacherous territory.
I want everyone to be able to express their view and I want to be able to form my own judgements on what I wish to listen to no matter how offensive it might be.
They're just words. Make your own mind up on what they mean, don't have it made for you.
I want everyone to be able to express their view and I want to be able to form my own judgements on what I wish to listen to no matter how offensive it might be.
They're just words. Make your own mind up on what they mean, don't have it made for you.
Baloo said:
I've seen zillions of debates on live TV where I have vehemently disagreed with the people giving their views just as I did with Zaky.
Couldn't care less that the ABC had him on there. Didn't make me want to rush off and join ISIS, I doubt anyone did.
Tigers of Old said:
spot on. The government has form on championing freedom of speech if its conservative views being spoken (Bolt saying blacks get an armchair ride, Jones saying windfarms cause painful death etc), and shutting down freedom of speech if its views it doesn't agree with or are critical being spoken (Gillian Trigg reporting that kids are traumatised in detention, the SBS reporter saying ANZAC day is warmongering).
Baloo said:
They're not a demographic who are likely tuning into QandA on Aunty either. Better ban Youtube too.