Support NeoGAF

[A More Normal Bird]

What pisses me off to no end is the reaction to these comments by the mainstream press, the SBS and politicians. Everyone decries these comments as inappropriate and yet I haven't seen an articulated response to his arguments expressing why they think they're inappropriate nor why they disagree. Blasting someone and saying that they're inappropriate without actually articulating anything is both lazy and meaningless.

I had the same thought this morning. But of course for a politician there's nothing to lose in decrying his points but quite a bit to risk in debating them, because it's not about history, it's about myths and legends. As it is this bloke is against mateship and bravery and larrikinism; attempting to engage his points opens the door to something more than that, which could potentially blow back on you.

Funnily enough the tweet that (imo) is the most obviously inappropriate is the one about drunk white racist gamblers that actually says nothing about soldiers. I think SBS have some grounds here as far as a broadcaster's relation with their audience goes. It's also possibly the most inaccurate of the bunch (jokes about the logistics of bombing Japan and the fact that there are definitely people who fit his description aside). Whilst the other tweets can be debated on historical grounds, that one is a generalisation that ignores how pervasive the idealised view of Gallipoli/ANZAC Day is, as well as how that view isn't mutually exclusive with a more multi-faceted perspective. Maybe if he hadn't posted the tweets in angry-rant mode he might've provoked a better public debate

Spoiler

(or not)

or at least kept his job

Spoiler

(...yeah probably not that either)

.

 

[Jintor]

War is terrorism though right

 

[legend166]

His classification of the Gallipoli landings as a imperialistic invasion doesn't make much sense. The Ottoman Empire wasn't a neutral country. They were a belligerent in the war. I don't understand his point here. Britain didn't start WWI with imperialistic intentions. Heck, they were close to not even fighting at all - had Germany not invaded Belgium they may have just not even bothered with the whole thing.

Obviously you can't defend acts of a horrific nature by individual soldiers. Literally every side in every war known to man has soldiers that have committed horrible acts. Because war is awful and that's what happens. But no one is celebrating that. People feel a connection to it because it's a tragic story of young men thousands of km's from home who showed courage in the face of adversity despite basically being involved in a hopeless exercise brought about by some inept British generals. If he had just come out and said "Man, war sucks, I feel a bit weird that we 'celebrate' what is really the worst of humanity. I wish it was just more sombre remembrance and a resolve to never let something like that happen again" no one would care because it would be a statement with some intelligence behind it.

And the portrayal of the atomic bombs as terrorism is historical revisionism and does nothing but achieve the end result of making the word 'terrorism' meaningless. Japan started a imperialistic war of aggression and were resolved to either fight to the last man or force a peace whereby their could maintain their government which started the whole thing in the first place. The narrative that they were about to surrender anyway isn't based on anything. Firstly, the people talking about surrender in the Japanese government had no authority to surrender. And the surrender they were proposing wasn't total anyway, which is what the Allies were justifiably seeking so Japan couldn't just rise up again in 20 years and start screwing with south east Asia all over again.

It's easy to look back in hindsight during a time of unprecedented peace and throw words around like terrorism. It's especially easy to do it when the 'perpetrators' were the evil Americans and their capitalist cronies. But it ignores the realities of the time and the world that those who made that decision lived in. Like, my mind can't comprehend what happened during WWII. You had Japan trying to take over the entirety of South East Asia and killing tens of millions of people in the process. Think about that. Tens of millions of people. That along would be a significant, massive tragedy in human history. And it was the lesser theatre in the war. At the same time you had the most murderous and evil regime in the history of the world fighting the Nazi's on the Eastern Front (see what I did there? Seriously though it was like 1A vs 1B in terms of who was more awful. History looks at Stalin better because he didn't have any stupid racial theory behind his murders, just his own paranoia. They both had a complete disregard for human life). It was lose-lose for Eastern Europe.

That's the other thing - this narrative they they only dropped the atomic bombs to stop the Soviets invading was also completely justified if we're going to play hindsight heroes and look at what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe compared to how Japan flourished.

But at the end of the day - it comes down to this: don't start none, won't be done. The blame for the tragic deaths of those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki lies squarely at the feet of the government of Imperial Japan, not the Allies.

Anyway. this whole idea that all those who feel a connection to ANZAC Day are beer swilling (white) bogans defending rape and murder is just something I haven't seen played out at all in actual real life. At least the attempts to paint Australia Day as some jingoistic, racist, party celebration has a small relation to facts in the actions of a minority of morons.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

War is terrorism though right

If war is the continuation of politics by other means, and terrorism is asymmetric warfare aimed at achieving political goals, then... politics is terrorism?

 

[Jintor]

If war is the continuation of politics by other means, and terrorism is asymmetric warfare aimed at achieving political goals, then... politics is terrorism?

Shit.

 

[Fredescu]

Anyway. this whole idea that all those who feel a connection to ANZAC Day are beer swilling (white) bogans defending rape and murder is just something I haven't seen played out at all in actual real life.

I don't think there are many people that think this.

People feel a connection to it because it's a tragic story of young men thousands of km's from home who showed courage in the face of adversity despite basically being involved in a hopeless exercise brought about by some inept British generals.

I don't think there are many people that think this either, though definitely more than the former.

 

[Yagharek]

You guys keep talking about facts but I'm not sure why. The facts aren't really in dispute. Some Anzac soldiers did rape and pillage, Japan was nuked etc. Whether dropping the bombs constituted an act of terrorism is a question that can not be answered factually one way or another. Similarly you can't answer the question of whether Anzac day is worth celebrating with mere fact, it's an opinion.

My point was if the facts are true, then his tweets shouldn't constitute a sackable offense. Just because he goes against the popular narrative in a snarky tone is not that bad.

Except maybe some poorly chosen hyperbole. That does no argument any good. Also generalisations. But the point has an element of truth to it, but not quite on the scale he seems to think.

 

[Yagharek]

It would require a definition of terrorism to be broad enough to kind of make the term almost useless, no? I get that there's an argument for calling everything that instills fear "terrorism", but sometimes that argument feels like an excuse for using an emotive term. That doesn't invalidate your point that it can't be answered factually though.

The word terrorism has had no meaning for the best part of a decade.

 

[Fredescu]

The word terrorism has had no meaning for the best part of a decade.

Reminds me of #5 in the Cracked terrorism article: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-weirdest-things-weve-learned-since-911/

#5. Apparently Anything Can Be Called "Terrorism"


Let's be clear: I was absolutely, completely for the "War on Terror" in 2001. It seemed like the clearest-cut conflict in world history: the modern, democratic world versus primitive fundamentalist savages who thought they could rewind the clock on civilization by a thousand years if they blew up enough innocent children. My liberal friends who recoiled at the idea of a war on terror or asked things like "But how do we know when it's over?" seemed to be either terrifyingly oblivious or outright evil. "You're supposed to be progressive, but you're standing up for murderous medieval theocrats who consider women to be cattle? Grow some balls!"

Then, a weird thing happened. While 9/11 was fresh in our minds, on TV they started showing a PSA saying that anyone who bought or sold marijuana was also a terrorist:

Well ... OK. So the idea is that drug money funds terrorist groups indirectly? Sounds kind of shaky, but hey, you can never be too careful in a Post-9/11 World!

Then, several years later, when some Muslims wanted to build a new community center in New York, that was called an act of terrorism. Then I was told that a Middle Eastern news network was a terrorist organization. Then I heard a politician refer to labor unions as terrorists. Then we had the 2008 economic collapse, and that was called "economic terrorism." When Republicans in Congress demanded budget cuts, that was terrorism, too. The political stalemate over those cuts? Terrorism! The mass "Occupy" protests that were held in response? More terrorism, according to the FBI. A guy leaking secret government documents to the press? Terrorism, motherfucker!

Hey, it's a Post-9/11 World -- we can't take the risk of not calling something terrorism, goddamnit, or else people might not pay attention to it. In the last few years I've heard either pundits or politicians stick the "terrorist" label on pro-abortion-rights protesters, Republicans in Congress, WikiLeaks, Monsanto, Walmart, drug dealers, a teenager posting rap lyrics on Facebook, and people who are mean to you. So after 12 years, we've settled on a very clear definition of terrorism, which is "anyone doing something that is harmful in some capacity."

And here's the thing: Half of you reading this are saying, "Sure, it's silly to call drug dealers terrorists, but have you read about the evil shit Monsanto does to poor farmers? They really are terrorists!" Exactly! Because we're too busy deciding which bad people we want to call terrorists, we never stop to consider whether or not it's become a meaningless label. After all, we can't just stop using the label against the people we hate, otherwise they might use it against us.

Meanwhile, we kind of lost track of the fact that the thing we were originally calling terrorism -- extremists blowing the shit out of large numbers of innocent people -- had kind of stopped happening. Because as it turned out ...


#4. It's Actually Really Hard to Pull Off a Large-Scale Terror Attack

 

[Yagharek]

More people die from falling out of their beds.

 

[Myansie]

Anyway. this whole idea that all those who feel a connection to ANZAC Day are beer swilling (white) bogans defending rape and murder is just something I haven't seen played out at all in actual real life.

The beer(it was rum more likely) swilling white bogans the image comes from is the ANZACs themselves. Talk to any baby boomer about how they remember ANZAC day as a kid and its an image of stupefyingly drunk ANZACs passed out in the street. They came back with some major PTSD.

ANZAC day is not a celebration. It's a remembrance. It's regret. Lest we forget means don't do it again. Remember last time? It was a disaster. The problem is that the last time is on going. Our memory doesn't last past dawn. That's the real tragedy of all those wasted lives. Unless we learn from it, than it was all for nothing.

The thing about Gallipolli is it is impossible to gloss over how much of a balls up the whole thing was. I think all Australian's 'get it'. The problem we have at times is we forget and get wrapped up in the nationalistic pride side of it. From a nation's conscious it is actually a deeply introspective event. Hence the dawn service and minute's silence.

It's a national tragedy in the same way 9/11 is to America. Only we did it willingly.

 

[legend166]

My comment about the bogans was related to the tweet:

Second last one.

 

[Yagharek]

It's safe to say we learnt nothing from the disaster given how easily led to war this country is.

Add to that the complete failure to support ptsd suffering returned vets. Only the dead are remembered, the living are ignored each and every budget.

 

[Fredescu]

My comment about the bogans was related to the tweet:

I don't see him accusing them of defending rape and murder in that tweet, unless you're referring to something else in relation to it. I think there's a huge middle ground between "people defending rape and murder" and "people are aware of the details of the Gallipoli campaign and use the day to remember that war is awful" and I think the majority of people occupy that middle ground.

 

[Myansie]

My comment about the bogans was related to the tweet:


Second last one.

Yes, I realised that. I wasn't defending him.

 

[hidys]

Tanya Plibersek is pushing to end the conscious conscience (I'm an idiot) vote on equal marriage and mandating that MP's vote according to the party platform.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...-conscience-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/6423946

About fucking time.

 

[Yagharek]

I thought all votes were unconscious

 

[Dryk]

Normally I don't like people being forced to toe the party line. But she's right, it's beyond ridiculous at this point.

 

[Yagharek]

Homophones everywhere

 

[hidys]

Normally I don't like people being forced to toe the party line. But she's right, it's beyond ridiculous at this point.

Also the fact that with a conscience vote it would never pass, even if both parties have one.

 

[JC Sera]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...ons-from-schools-to-family-businesses/6424334

Really fucking unsurprising after the "free buildings" and ultranet

 

[mjontrix]

If war is the continuation of politics by other means, and terrorism is asymmetric warfare aimed at achieving political goals, then... politics is terrorism?

2deep4me.

But there's many forms of terrorism, whether its good or bad depends on the person using it and their perspective. Financial Terrorism (Banks playing high risk bets for profit), Destructive Terrorism (ISIS killing people), Environmental Terrorism (Greenpeace going after whaling ships) etc.

Similarly you can't answer the question of whether Anzac day is worth celebrating with mere fact, it's an opinion.

Bingo.

Like Australia Day (I'm sure the Aboriginal people would not consider it a day of celebration), nor would Palestinians consider April 23rd a day of celebration (Israel Independence Day).

Tanya Plibersek is pushing to end the conscious conscience (I'm an idiot) vote on equal marriage and mandating that MP's vote according to the party platform.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...-conscience-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/6423946

About fucking time.

It'll split the party completely, hence why they won't do it. Especially if Senators are involved and they become independent, reducing Labour's influence overall in politics. It'll happen in the next decade as the older members retire and the younger members eventually gain the upper hand. Even then depending on the replacements might still have a standstill.

Both sides would be better off making the default type of unions Civil Unions; and give the bestowing of Marriage exclusively to Religious bodies. Everyone would be happy then. So you'd just convert everyone's marriage certificate to the civil union equivalent, welfare and such would be based on that and you could get a piece of paper from a religious body with marriage on it if you really, really wanted to. And then you just Ctrl-F "marriage" with "civil union" in the numerous Acts and fix up all the gender and related stuff. The religious are happy, non-religious happy so even if someone only got married it wouldn't be recognized as a civil union by the government (so what civil unions only get currently they would get) unless they actually got a civil union certificate, and couldn't claim any benefits and stuff. All legal/government documents would only have civil union, no reference to marriage at all. All other countries would accept it, heck probably would start a trend worldwide with that.

 

[bomma_man]

arksy is this you

 

[Quasar]

Both sides would be better off making the default type of unions Civil Unions; and give the bestowing of Marriage exclusively to Religious bodies. Everyone would be happy then. So you'd just convert everyone's marriage certificate to the civil union equivalent, welfare and such would be based on that and you could get a piece of paper from a religious body with marriage on it if you really, really wanted to. And then you just Ctrl-F "marriage" with "civil union" in the numerous Acts and fix up all the gender and related stuff. The religious are happy, non-religious happy so even if someone only got married it wouldn't be recognized as a civil union by the government (so what civil unions only get currently they would get) unless they actually got a civil union certificate, and couldn't claim any benefits and stuff. All legal/government documents would only have civil union, no reference to marriage at all. All other countries would accept it, heck probably would start a trend worldwide with that.

That's been pretty much my stance for ages. And then if religion A is happy with same sex marriage they can go for it.

 

[Rubixcuba]

arksy is this you

Well that was interesting, haha.

 

[D.Lo]

That's been pretty much my stance for ages. And then if religion A is happy with same sex marriage they can go for it.

Same here. 'Marriage Equality' is a misnomer, since every adult in Australia has the equal right to marry under its current definition of a male and a female who are not closely related.

So the argument is to change the definition of marriage, not to make it 'more equal'.

The legal stuff is the the legit argument, and civil unions fully fix that if the state part of it becomes that.

The state should be in the legal and contract business, not in the 'spiritual vows' and personal relationships business.

 

[bobnowhere]

arksy is this you

I wonder if they are related to the same people who insist that every Australian government since 1973 is invalid due to Whitlam incorporating Australia or some such nonsense.

 

[Box of Bunnies]

So the argument is to change the definition of marriage, not to make it 'more equal'.

The definition that was only put into the Act a decade ago, with the express purpose of making it less equal?

 

[bomma_man]

We could change the entire legal structure of how relationships work to avoid making religious people angry

or

We could just let gay people get married

 

[Jintor]

We could change the entire legal structure of how relationships work to avoid making religious people angry

or

We could just let gay people get married

realpolitik baby

 

[D.Lo]

We could change the entire legal structure of how relationships work to avoid making religious people angry

or

We could just let gay people get married

Gay people can get married. Just not to someone of the same gender.

No straight person has any more rights to it. It's people wants that are different.

Don't call it equality, call it 'changing the definition to fit with some others people's wants'.

I'm not actually against it, I just hate emotion-appealing disingenuous claims.

 

[Jintor]

Ow. My head hurts. That's some twisted wordage brah.

 

[bomma_man]

We'll call it separate but equal!

 

[Aarglefarg]

How do people who are intersex who can not get married to anyone fit into that?

It might also help you to understand why it is called marriage equality by thinking about it in terms of not being allowed to marry someone on the basis of your sex.

 

[Jintor]

Don't call it equality, call it 'changing the definition to fit with some others people's wants'.

I'm not actually against it, I just hate emotion-appealing disingenuous claims.

is marriage about committing yourself to an opposite sex person or is it about committing yourself to another person?

 

[wonzo]

ban all marriage imo

 

[Elaugaufein]

Gay people can get married. Just not to someone of the same gender.

No straight person has any more rights to it. It's people wants that are different.

Don't call it equality, call it 'changing the definition to fit with some others people's wants'.

I'm not actually against it, I just hate emotion-appealing disingenuous claims.

This argument seems to be rather close to "The Rich and the Poor are equally culpable to the law when it comes to stealing food to feed their family". Which is to say that while its technically correct in abstract theoretical terms in terms of actual impact on people its not close at all.

 

[D.Lo]

is marriage about committing yourself to an opposite sex person or is it about committing yourself to another person?

To religious people and traditionally - an opposite sex person for the creation of a family, and management of family property rights.

For the state - originally for managing property rights and responsibility for children. Now with incredibly easy divorce laws and legal acknowledgement of deficit relationships it's essentially meaningless anyway. So I have no care if it gets changed myself.

As it is now, the word has a definition. It's fine to want to change that.

It's very much like how pro-abortionists call their cause 'womens right to choose' and anti-abortionists call their cause 'right to life' - as if the pros are baby murderers and the antis are sexist and pro-discrimination. Both are misleading chants when there is much more nuance to people's reasons and positions on things.

This argument seems to be rather close to "The Rich and the Poor are equally culpable to the law when it comes to stealing food to feed their family". Which is to say that while its technically correct in abstract theoretical terms in terms of actual impact on people its not close at all.

True. I'm not arguing against the cause, I'm arguing against the name.

Anyway doesn't really matter it is going to happen. Tanya is correct regarding how there shouldn't be a conscience vote on it (it's not life and death and is the party policy), but it's bad politics right now IMO.

 

[Jintor]

It seems closer to definition clarification (i.e. since we are talking about it in a legal/state context then that is the definition we're looking for) than a definition change, although of course there are groups that either think the state/religious definitions should be equivalent or don't even see a differentiation between them

proteins on things?

 

[D.Lo]

Sorry this isn't really Australian Politics, it's a worldwide argument.

I think it's a horrible place to go for actual anti-discrimination, it's basically 'be exactly the same white picket fence thing'.

I've largely reached this opinion from reading opinions from within the social left. Largely that marriage itself is bullshit and discriminatory

EDIT: Just removed a link to get back on topic.

Proteins = positions lol.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Sorry this isn't really Australian Politics, it's a worldwide argument.

I think it's a horrible place to go for actual anti-discrimination, it's basically 'be exactly the same white picket fence thing'.

I've largely reached this opinion from reading opinions from within the social left. Largely that marriage itself is bullshit and discriminatory

EDIT: Just removed a link to get back on topic.

I don't think I really disagree with this position. But the state chose for whatever reason to use marriage as a mechanism for passing on actual benefits which makes it a state function , and religions at the time didn't object (well enough for it to matter, I'm sure some did) likely because it entrenched their social power further.

I admit that I'm also personally deeply skeptical that the religious would actually be okay with striking all reference to marriage from laws and replacing it with civil union, and effectively assigning the term to purely private definition. The dislike of gay marriage is at its root because they feel their religion requires hostility to gays, the marriage as a religious function thing is pretty much window dressing in most cases (eg for Christians there's a long list of other crimes of equal or greater consequence to homosexuality that are perpetually ignored (I'm unaware of anyone refusing service to people who wear mixed fibres) and an almost equally long list of types of marriages that aren't between one man and one woman that were acceptable by religious law, many of which would horrify these people (like the slippery slope argument to polyamorous marriage which is brought up is in direct conflict to Solomon who also had a whole bunch of consorts on the side).

 

[hidys]

It'll split the party completely, hence why they won't do it. Especially if Senators are involved and they become independent, reducing Labour's influence overall in politics. It'll happen in the next decade as the older members retire and the younger members eventually gain the upper hand. Even then depending on the replacements might still have a standstill.

Both sides would be better off making the default type of unions Civil Unions; and give the bestowing of Marriage exclusively to Religious bodies. Everyone would be happy then. So you'd just convert everyone's marriage certificate to the civil union equivalent, welfare and such would be based on that and you could get a piece of paper from a religious body with marriage on it if you really, really wanted to. And then you just Ctrl-F "marriage" with "civil union" in the numerous Acts and fix up all the gender and related stuff. The religious are happy, non-religious happy so even if someone only got married it wouldn't be recognized as a civil union by the government (so what civil unions only get currently they would get) unless they actually got a civil union certificate, and couldn't claim any benefits and stuff. All legal/government documents would only have civil union, no reference to marriage at all. All other countries would accept it, heck probably would start a trend worldwide with that.

It won't split the party. The ALP didn't split on asylum seekers or climate change action so it won't split on this. At absolute worst one maybe two MPs spit the dummy and and walk but I doubt even that will happen, probably just Joe De Bruyn and a few other troglodytes will complain and then have to get over it. Keep in mind that even most American Democrats support the issue now, I hardly think that the ALP is that much more conservative than them.

To your second point, frankly changing the entire structure of marriage would be far more difficult than you let on and quite frankly religious and non-religious people/ groups would be upset by such a radical change. It would be easier to just let same-sex couples marry.

This is the way things are going and it would be far more practical to support position of just allowing same-sex couples to be married. Christ even America is probably going to have this right nation wide soon since it is likely the Supreme Court will rule in favour. We will be the very last Anglosphere country to attain this right.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It won't split the party. The ALP didn't split on asylum seekers or climate change action so it won't split on this. At absolute worst one maybe two MPs spit the dummy and and walk but I doubt even that will happen, probably just Joe De Bruyn and a few other troglodytes will complain and then have to get over it. Keep in mind that even most American Democrats support the issue now, I hardly think that the ALP is that much more conservative than them.

To your second point, frankly changing the entire structure of marriage would be far more difficult than you let on and quite frankly religious and non-religious people/ groups would be upset by such a radical change. It would be easier to just let same-sex couples marry.

This is the way things are going and it would be far more practical to support position of just allowing same-sex couples to be married. Christ even America is probably going to have this right nation wide soon since it is likely the Supreme Court will rule in favour. We will be the very last Anglosphere country to attain this right.

There's a mistake you're making here, which is that the ALP is as close to the Greens as it is the Liberals. And that's generally not true, the ALP is weighted more heavily to its right than its left, so strict enforcement of Left policy is more likely to cause a break than Right. There's also the matter that a number of the Left hang on in the hopes of achieving something by being in one of the parties of government (which I think is a pretty vain hope given that the ALP hasn't exactly been a progressive powerhouse at any point in the last 30 years) , but the Right can pretty much just jump straight over to the other party of government.

 

[mjontrix]

We could change the entire legal structure of how relationships work to avoid making religious people angry

or

We could just let gay people get married

The other thing the government can do is since they're in charge of the contract can easily check at the time of union whether or not either partner is unioned already, mentally fit, debts/child support etc.

Easy to check if you're about to tie yourself into something that you weren't aware of or not.

Forced marriages (Forced unions) will cease to exist, good luck since you'd be going to an office for the signing. And then changing things will become so much easier (multiple partners? Sure). Find marriage outdated but want to be partnered to your partner? Done.

 

[hidys]

There's a mistake you're making here, which is that the ALP is as close to the Greens as it is the Liberals. And that's generally not true, the ALP is weighted more heavily to its right than its left, so strict enforcement of Left policy is more likely to cause a break than Right. There's also the matter that a number of the Left hang on in the hopes of achieving something by being in one of the parties of government (which I think is a pretty vain hope given that the ALP hasn't exactly been a progressive powerhouse at any point in the last 30 years) , but the Right can pretty much just jump straight over to the other party of government.

And that assumes that the right is against marriage equality, which I don't think most of Labor Unity are, certainly Bill Shorten isn't.

And even if most were against it they still aren't going to jump, to suggest so is patently absurd. They may not be a bastion of progressive reform, but they aren't Tories. Even if they were looking at this purely from a self-interest perspective (which they are known to do all to often) they would likely destroy most of their political careers in the process of such an action. They need the ALP more than the ALP need them.

 

[Yagharek]

Same here. 'Marriage Equality' is a misnomer, since every adult in Australia has the equal right to marry under its current definition of a male and a female who are not closely related.

This is the dumbest argument in circulation on the matter.

It walks a line between non sequitur and utter ignorance with finesse.

Its the equivalent of dumb republicans disproving climate change with snowballs in washington.

 

[Elaugaufein]

And that assumes that the right is against marriage equality, which I don't think most of Labor Unity are, certainly Bill Shorten isn't.

And even if most were against it they still aren't going to jump, to suggest so is patently absurd. They may not be a bastion of progressive reform, but they aren't Tories. Even if they were looking at this purely from a self-interest perspective (which they are known to do all to often) they would likely destroy most of their political careers in the process of such an action. They need the ALP more than the ALP need them.

No, you're right that its certainly not all of the Labor Unity , but there's enough of them (and enough influence) that the parties official stance is conscience vote even though that's in direct violation of their party platform and their party rules (which is that they vote internally and then vote as a block on that outcome*). I'm also not sure that they would all necessarily lose their careers, those who hold those views tend to be from pretty specific backgrounds and strongly labor seats (ie Catholic Workers Union descended) so they might well be safe by jumping and stating it as taking a stand.

But yes you're right that there's not a lot that could (they'd both need to strongly believe in that position and be in an electorate that's both Labor and strongly socially religious with fairly conservative views). The real danger would be the loss of those unions voting power but honestly giving the changing demographics and attitudes that's not likely a serious long term threat either.

*I'm not sure I think this is good policy in terms of politics in a national sense but it certainly is in terms of block power.

 

[hidys]

This is the dumbest argument in circulation on the matter.

It walks a line between non sequitur and utter ignorance with finesse.

It's the same argument Justice Antonin Scalia used in the US.

It was silly then and it's silly now.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It's the same argument Justice Antonin Scalia used in the US.

It was silly then and it's silly now.

The sad thing is that the common law systems in various countries are full of ridiculous ideas like this in order to put a pretty cover on things that would be unacceptable to handle by reasonable interpretations of the law.

Intent does not, has not and will never actually follow the bullet* and in no way is a criminal responsible for things that happen during the commission of their crime that aren't reasonably forseeable either but these are both valid legal maxims in the US for purely social reasons.

*The bullet does usually the intent but that's a different logic all together.

 

[hidys]

No, you're right that its certainly not all of the Labor Unity , but there's enough of them (and enough influence) that the parties official stance is conscience vote even though that's in direct violation of their party platform and their party rules (which is that they vote internally and then vote as a block on that outcome*). I'm also not sure that they would all necessarily lose their careers, those who hold those views tend to be from pretty specific backgrounds labor seats (ie Catholic Workers Union descended) so they might well be safe by jumping and stating it as taking a stand.

But yes you're right that there's not a lot that could (they'd both need to strongly believe in that position and be in an electorate that's both Labor and strongly socially religious with fairly conservative views). The real danger would be the loss of those unions voting power but honestly giving the changing demographics and attitudes that's not likely a serious long term threat either.

*I'm not sure I think this is good policy in terms of politics in a national sense but it certainly is in terms of block power.

It's just as likely that the conscience vote exists because Gillard was against it. Now that the leader is supportive of the issue there may be more support in the party room to abolish the conscience vote.

Also there is a pretty loose connection between the factional allegiance of the MP and the seat they hold (I used to live in one of the most progressive seats in the country and it was held by an SDA type) and even if there was a connection they would lose. Most people vote according to party allegiance rather than the MP and there really aren't many votes anymore in appealing to traditional Labor voters who are also against same-sex marriage.