JesseEwiak
Member
The right of white people to say whatever they want with no reprecussions is truly the most important right. Oh, do you hear some non-white people drowning in the ocean? Weird.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
The right of white people to say whatever they want with no reprecussions is truly the most important right. Oh, do you hear some non-white people drowning in the ocean? Weird.
I have zero problems running deficits for a few years.
Although I have a morale objection to big government and can't wait to see the fat trimmed down.
It will also eventually be good for the economy, people moving out of the public sector and into the private sector means more revenue for government. It also means that revenue can go to more useful things than salaries. (It won't go into anything useful but that's beside the point).
Freedom from government persecution for your political views is pretty damn important.
Although I have a morale objection to big government and can't wait to see the fat trimmed down.
It will also eventually be good for the economy, people moving out of the public sector and into the private sector means more revenue for government. It also means that revenue can go to more useful things than salaries. (It won't go into anything useful but that's beside the point).
Freedom from government persecution for your political views is pretty damn important.
JesseEwiak
Member
If that was actually happening, that'd be an issue. Thankfully though, from what I've read, this is the usual right-wing whining about politically correct speech and their being actual consequences to being racist assholes, no matter how coded the language is. But again, even if it was true, I think the Human Rights Commissioner should have more worrying problems than what well paid political bloggers have put upon them.
Yep. Good thing we pretty well have that covered so we should focus on the things we don't have covered. Which are the hard unpopular problems since they effect poor people, or brown people, or people who just arrived, or disabled people, or gay people, or some other subset that would love to worry about their political views being persecuted but have other things on their plate at the moment.
Hi, I'm the implied freedom of political communication, it's nice to make your acquaintance
I wouldn't be so worried if every single case that's gone before the High Court on this issue hadn't been struck out. Especially with Heydon J in the preachers case basically being like...
"Oh god please seek leave to overturn. Please this is so rubbish. Put it out of its misery!"
...I seriously need re-read it.
All I remember was being incredibly angry at the court for the obvious blunder of reasoning.
"Well since Rundle Mall is a road, the government has some interest in ensuring safety of that motorway."
"It's a mall you dolts", I remember screaming and shaking my fists in the air before turning giant and green and going on a rampage.
I don't know. That's probably because anything remotely dealing with development by the State Government goes into one ear and out the other, my brain refuses to process such words as they might instill false hope.
No no no, everyone has the right to get in your face at all times unless you are on property you own, right
The constitution actually states that the government can't regulate political discourse. You are free to spout whatever bullshit political views you want, no one can't really stop you from doing so. The courts can only really start getting involved where there is something else involved.
Andrew Bolt can spew all the crackpot political shit he wants. When he says shit like "Indigenous people with mixed heritage are just as lazy as fully Indigenous peoples but they're not real Indigenous people so should not get government support", the courts can get involved.
In the case of Rundle Mall, there was a specific council law that stated that no one was allowed to "preach, canvass, harangue, tout for business or conduct any survey or opinion poll" without permission on roadways. This limits political discourse and the key thing to note is that the High Court did take the constitution into consideration as the government cannot regulate political discourse.
But they came to a conclusion that the council law was theoretically valid and, while it unfortunately limited political freedoms, the preachers are breaking the law and cannot limit the safe and convenient use of the roads. Which is an entirely fair result if they were truly disrupting the flow of traffic day in and day out.
Andrew Bolt can spew all the crackpot political shit he wants. When he says shit like "Indigenous people with mixed heritage are just as lazy as fully Indigenous peoples but they're not real Indigenous people so should not get government support", the courts can get involved.
In the case of Rundle Mall, there was a specific council law that stated that no one was allowed to "preach, canvass, harangue, tout for business or conduct any survey or opinion poll" without permission on roadways. This limits political discourse and the key thing to note is that the High Court did take the constitution into consideration as the government cannot regulate political discourse.
But they came to a conclusion that the council law was theoretically valid and, while it unfortunately limited political freedoms, the preachers are breaking the law and cannot limit the safe and convenient use of the roads. Which is an entirely fair result if they were truly disrupting the flow of traffic day in and day out.
Incorrect, the constitution contains no such passage. Freedom of political communication is entrenched in the constitution, but it's not explicit. It's an implied right on the basis that in order for a democracy to be able to function properly, political discourse needs to be free. See Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
It's not a roadway, it's a mall. No cars are allowed in.
All that traffic flow.
Even if it is an implied right, the High Court still took the right into consideration. In Liberal Party of Australia v City of Armadale, they directly ruled against the City of Armadale's ban on political material on private property (or something along these lines) stating that they cannot restrict political communication especially during a looming state election. Implied right or not, the High Court is very aware of this right and takes it into consideration as a right that any group or person in Australia is entitled to.
But this really doesn't change my point. The court and government are not intentionally restricting political discourse, they are preventing what is basically unsolicited advertising that is restricting and disrupting people's use in a public thoroughfare. Despite your fears that Australia is trying to limit political freedom, it is not. It is aware of the implications of the ruling (and the council law in question) but they determined that the preachers were breaking existing laws that they admit is restricting political freedom and were disrupting people's use of the "road"*. Its a pragmatic ruling.
I admit its not what we consider to be a "road" but I'd actually consider this more disruptive if only because its more difficult to get away from them and you have to constantly deal with them if you're in a nearby restaurant or shop.
Its like if the Trots opened up shop in Degraves Street, Melbourne.
*They actually argued the semantics of what a road really is. I think they agreed on public pathway because let's be honest, its clear what the law is trying to state.
But this really doesn't change my point. The court and government are not intentionally restricting political discourse, they are preventing what is basically unsolicited advertising that is restricting and disrupting people's use in a public thoroughfare. Despite your fears that Australia is trying to limit political freedom, it is not. It is aware of the implications of the ruling (and the council law in question) but they determined that the preachers were breaking existing laws that they admit is restricting political freedom and were disrupting people's use of the "road"*. Its a pragmatic ruling.
I admit its not what we consider to be a "road" but I'd actually consider this more disruptive if only because its more difficult to get away from them and you have to constantly deal with them if you're in a nearby restaurant or shop.
Its like if the Trots opened up shop in Degraves Street, Melbourne.
*They actually argued the semantics of what a road really is. I think they agreed on public pathway because let's be honest, its clear what the law is trying to state.
Wrong.
Politics is the vehicle of change and it's only through full frank public discourse do we get true progression. Progression where good ideas triumph over bad ideas. Progression where hatred and ignorance can be confronted and changed. You can't convince racists to give up their racist beliefs by marginalising them.
Because of its status of a vehicle of change, the integrity of the system is paramount. We're not only talking about freedom of speech, we're talking about the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and the entire liberal (small-l) philosophy behind it.
I come from a family of political dissidents, a number of whom (including my own father) have been imprisoned for their political beliefs. I have seen first hand the effect of political suppression. The prosecutions for criticising the government, the arrests for the mere possession of alternative books, mass detentions for peaceful protests. I also come from a family who belong to a historically oppressed minority. I've seen what it leads to, and I honestly couldn't give a shit if it means bunch of racist twats sit in their basement sprouting hateful bullshit.
That's a great long term perspective on the issue. However, in the short term, if you're going to (for example) park a bus across a highway and yell about your political beliefs, you're still going to get arrested for being a twat. That's what I mean when I say it's not the be all and end all. It has to be weighed appropriately against other rights and aims of government and of society.
Oh, yeah, fair enough...but in that case it's not the speech you're targeting and he's not being arrested or prosecuted for his political beliefs. He's being arrested for parking a bus in the middle of the highway.
Except they're not sitting in basements spouting racist shit. They're writing for major newspapers, working for major businesses, work for major radio stations and have their own television shows. They have the ability to influence how people react and act.
Australia is not like the countries your parents come from as it is doubtful you will get thrown into prison for any of these extreme reasons, except perhaps in Sir Joh's state. Yes, we have to be vigilant about our rights and liberties (which they should really be doing in QLD). No, we cannot accept a world where there is absolute freedom to express your politics in any way or form because there is a responsibility to what you say and do.
Australia is not like the countries your parents come from as it is doubtful you will get thrown into prison for any of these extreme reasons, except perhaps in Sir Joh's state. Yes, we have to be vigilant about our rights and liberties (which they should really be doing in QLD). No, we cannot accept a world where there is absolute freedom to express your politics in any way or form because there is a responsibility to what you say and do.
Yes, they have an ability to influence the way people think, that's the point. They're advocating a political point of view.
If you don't have absolute freedom to express your point of view you're tacitly going to go down the road where heterogeneous and unorthodox viewpoints are outlawed. Absolute freedom of expression is the only way to ensure that it doesn't happen.
I admit there's a problem when it comes to determining where exactly to draw a line in the sand and say 'these opinions are unacceptable to express in civilised society' (although I think probably we can safely say that, for example, the Child Molestation Party or the Kill Everybody Who Disagrees With Me Party will never get a significant foothold in Australia), but I do think if you're going to advocate a political position you should at least be able to present evidence and be able to do so in a legitimate manner to prove that your political opinion isn't completely made up out of dogshit.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think it's the public's responsibility to expose those hacks, and so far the public has done an exceptionally good job at exposing lies, blowing the whistle and convincing people that there's a better way.
I just don't think the state needs to use the full force of the law to suppress hateful bullshit. The public can do that job well enough. The public would wholeheartedly reject those parties without any need for the state to outlaw NAMBLA.
Advocating a political point of view is valid and everyone can do this, even if it can be confirmed as misinformation or completely outlandish. This is nothing new. The Trots can constantly hand out magazines, they're free to express themselves however they want. No one is stopping them.
But there are laws in place that specifically prevent the intentional discrimination of another group. That's different from political discourse. Its basically the equivalent of bullying for personal gain.
You state the public is good at dismissing the hacks but that's not even remotely close to being the truth. If that was the case, most of The Australian's columnists wouldn't be able to find work but they're still writing and still respected as being intelligent. I'm not talking about political differences here but talking about making up complete falsehoods to perpetuate things like racism.
I agree the State shouldn't need to use the law to suppress anything. There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere and I don't know where that is. But nothing I've read in newspapers, on TV or seen from university political clubs has me convinced that any of these people can be trusted to create a political opinion that isn't some way complete dogshit. Regulations exist because people can't be trusted enough to express political views in good faith.
But there are laws in place that specifically prevent the intentional discrimination of another group. That's different from political discourse. Its basically the equivalent of bullying for personal gain.
You state the public is good at dismissing the hacks but that's not even remotely close to being the truth. If that was the case, most of The Australian's columnists wouldn't be able to find work but they're still writing and still respected as being intelligent. I'm not talking about political differences here but talking about making up complete falsehoods to perpetuate things like racism.
I agree the State shouldn't need to use the law to suppress anything. There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere and I don't know where that is. But nothing I've read in newspapers, on TV or seen from university political clubs has me convinced that any of these people can be trusted to create a political opinion that isn't some way complete dogshit. Regulations exist because people can't be trusted enough to express political views in good faith.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Cronulla.
These things don't exist in a vacuum, where there are people with bad ideas and the objective public weigh them on their merits and decide whether or not to listen to them. Media publications and personalities develop audiences and receive varying degrees of implied validity from their occupation. They shape the public discourse via their views.
I don't want to seem blunt because what your family went through sounds terrible, but I think it explains a lot about your views. If you look at the Australian media landscape, right now, can you honestly say that hate speech (thinly veiled or not), bias, inaccuracy and concentrated ownership aren't bigger problems, with more real world consequences, than some slippery slope towards authoritarianism?
Sentence structure is a nice thing to know how to do.
Why is big government bad? Because it's a concentration of power. Which we are trying to redistribute via a system of democracy. As you weaken that power it redistributes. Where is power redistributing to? Large corporations. How are they structured? If they were governments we would class them as fascist dictatorships. The power structure is very heavily run from the top down. Democracy is not apart of the modern corporation.
Your theory of big government is the root of all bad is flipping us out of the frying pan and into the volcano.
Mr Wilson has previously said the Human Rights Commission is an organisation that should not exist
Mr Wilson says he wants the commission to focus on promoting freedom of speech, and says one of his first priorities will be pushing for the repeal of section 18C of the Federal Racial Discrimination Act.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...ot-tied-to-rights-commissioners-views/5163674
Mr Wilson says he wants the commission to focus on promoting freedom of speech, and says one of his first priorities will be pushing for the repeal of section 18C of the Federal Racial Discrimination Act.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-...ot-tied-to-rights-commissioners-views/5163674
Yep. That one human right that he is interested in. Utter wanker.
Anyone who understands 18C knows that its just a broad test determining whether or not you are discriminating against another party. It doesn't stop you from spouting controversial and racist views, god most of the press already does this. You just can't take up Keith Windschuttle talking points to discriminate against Indigenous Australians, which is entirely fair if you're not an actual open racist or a historical revisionist.
Which does kind of hint at the attitudes held by Tim Wilson.
roosters93
Member
Funny how Brandis is trying to distance himself from Wilson when he said the same thing about the Bolt act before the election
Abbott announces $100m plan to help 'liberated' Holden workers find jobs
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-18/abbott-announces-support-package-for-holden-workers/5163950
"Some of them will find it difficult, but many of them will probably be liberated to pursue new opportunities and to get on with their lives,"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-18/abbott-announces-support-package-for-holden-workers/5163950
"Some of them will find it difficult, but many of them will probably be liberated to pursue new opportunities and to get on with their lives,"
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Experience in manufacturing seatbelts should prove handy when making some new bootstraps.
Liberated? Like they were slaves to GM or something? What the fuck sort of lazy spin doctoring is that?
Yeah, don't get me started on that shit. Behaviour codes beyond law abiding that can result in humanitarian visas being cancelled? Including language that means going to a protest would be included? Get the fuck out of here.
Yeah, that's really weird. You talk to people on the street and they all know about austerity.
Straight out of the Dubya playbook.
That's a really odd argument. Governments wield power, real power. The power to make laws. Think about what a law is, it's a way of compelling people to act a certain way using violence or the threat of violence if you refuse.
Governments can raise armies, forcibly expropriate money from people, they can place people in solitary confinement and on occasion have engaged in mass violence and genocide.
Corporations can't do any of that. They are therefore in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM analogous to a government. Until a corporation can enact laws and engage in violence, this analogy remains quite silly. The best a corporation can do is fire someone, or give money to a political cause. They're not angels but I can't really see a corporation on the world scale as evil as our own government, which has invaded a number of other countries and has engaged in a campaign of eugenics, forcibly separating young children from their mothers.
Corporations are effectively running the western world right now. They are more powerful than any government, they wield immense wealth and power to lobby and enact whatever agendas they want.
The mining industry successfully removed a sitting prime minister. News Ltd contributed massively to electing a corporate ball-washer. I could go on.
Corporations, through money, create legislation. They do not have term limits, they do not retire, they do not die so their wealth can be redistributed. Who do you think is more powerful (considering all ways, not just force, but influencing public opinion, able to get their ideas implemented, and ability to avoid repercussions for mistakes), News Ltd or Tony Abbott?
Um, private companies have engaged in alot of violence in the past >.< From the British East India company to many others.
- Status