• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fredescu

Member
CIpjMh6UEAQGlQW.png


Wonder how much higher yesterdays one will be.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Shaneus said:
Maybe members of parliament should have thick skin, or develop it:
Click to expand...

Completely and utterly agree, it's just that the defence that Fairfax pleaded, public interest, requires that the defamatory remarks be made in good faith...and they had some good evidence that it wasn't.
 
D

danm999

Member
Arksy said:
Completely and utterly agree, it's just that the defence that Fairfax pleaded, public interest, requires that the defamatory remarks be made in good faith...and they had some good evidence that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah if you're gonna try and argue qualified privilege, best not to have the word "crucify" anywhere near things, no matter the context.
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
Treasurer for sale! probably available for short term lease until late 2016.

Arksy said:
Completely and utterly agree, it's just that the defence that Fairfax pleaded, public interest, requires that the defamatory remarks be made in good faith...and they had some good evidence that it wasn't.
Click to expand...


Yeah the internal emails gave a pretty good indication of what they wanted. It will be interesting to see if it tempers Fairfax in any way, newscorp can't be tempered of course, that would be against free speech. :p

One good thing out of the Four Corners report is that at least all sides of politics are talking of funding reform. Hell even Wyatt Roy is calling for limits. I probably wouldn't advocate for full public funding but some upper limit and very strict reporting of donations to parties along with very strict punishments for trying to circumvent the system would be a start including loss of seat and bi-election costs to be born by the party at fault. Fully auditable membership lists and any donation above the standard yearly membership fee to be published within 3days/7days or something like that. It's probably not a good idea to publish names of people that join political parties, but anyone that makes a donation is fair game.

Also commercial in confidence, fuck that!
 
J

Jintor

Member
Arksy said:
Completely and utterly agree, it's just that the defence that Fairfax pleaded, public interest, requires that the defamatory remarks be made in good faith...and they had some good evidence that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

So... is the Tele being genuine with every headline it screams? o_O

that's possibly even more frightening than if they were malicious!




but yeah. maybe don't tell people you're planning to crucify people

or at least keep it in oral language unrecorded by man or machine *shrug*
 
A

Arksy

Member
Jintor said:
So... is the Tele being genuine with every headline it screams? o_O

that's possibly even more frightening than if they were malicious!




but yeah. maybe don't tell people you're planning to crucify people

or at least keep it in oral language unrecorded by man or machine *shrug*
Click to expand...

I don't know why they didn't argue it was analogous to this case. I'm hoping they appeal. This should absolutely apply here IMO.
 
B

bomma_man

Member
Arksy said:
I don't know why they didn't argue it was analogous to this case. I'm hoping they appeal. This should absolutely apply here IMO.
Click to expand...

I guess it goes to intent, ie, whether they actually believed what they were saying. But I remember another case where intentionally and blatantly defamatory political pamphlets were allowed....
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
bomma_man said:
I guess it goes to intent, ie, whether they actually believed what they were saying. But I remember another case where intentionally and blatantly defamatory political pamphlets were allowed....
Click to expand...

The public interest arguments for journalism and politics are different so that doesn't surprise me.


Yrael said:
This was a good read (on David Leyonhjelm and the downsides of his libertarian philosophy):

http://theconversation.com/on-nanny...es-the-moral-thinness-of-libertarianism-43916
Click to expand...

But the distinction between positive and negative discrimination is (pretty vapid) sophistry. The real difference between positively discriminating for A and negatively discriminating against !A is 0. There might be arguments for making that discrimination but pretending they are inherently different is silly.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Think of Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson complaining that that the law – and not just social sanction – prohibits racially loaded terms being used by some people but not others. This misses the point that the words in question aren’t just words used to denigrate minorities: they’re words used by white people to denigrate others.

Wilson doesn’t magically stop being white when he speaks, and he doesn’t get to sidestep the historical meanings of a white man using those words. None of us gets to be the pure monad of ahistorical, acultural reason the Enlightenment imagined us to be.

But this charge of “reverse racism” is deeply attractive from a certain perspective. It’s a way of pretending you can talk about racism, or sexism, or homophobia, without talking about power. That’s comforting for those who sense true equality would mean that they – we – might have to give up some of that power.
Click to expand...

It's a really disingenuous and fallacious form of argument when someone is arguing that position because they don't want to give up any of the entrenched power they have. This sort of ad hominem nonsense is everywhere and it shits me to tears.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Arksy said:
It's a really disingenuous and fallacious form of argument when someone is arguing that position because they don't want to give up any of the entrenched power they have. This sort of ad hominem nonsense is everywhere and it shits me to tears.
Click to expand...

Yes. I actually support some forms of discrimination as a temporary (on a societal scale) measure to remedy the disadvantages inherent in systemic oppression. I do have reservations against blanket bans on speech as one of those things though, though my issues are largely dealt with in the forms of exemptions for academic purposes and political argument. It is also fallacious to argue for discrimination in order to give yourself the power to judge/censor someone solely because they are a white male anglo saxon protestant, the state of being oppressed doesn't make an argument more (or less) correct. If your argument is wrong then it doesn't become any less wrong because the person who says that your argument is wrong is part of a group that is oppressing/has oppressed you.

ETA - I appear to be arguing for lesser speech restrictions than Arksy. Maybe I need to see a doctor.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Yes. I actually support some forms of discrimination as a temporary (on a societal scale) measure to remedy the disadvantages inherent in systemic oppression. I do have reservations against blanket bans on speech as one of those things though, though my issues are largely dealt with in the forms of exemptions for academic purposes and political argument. It is also fallacious to argue for discrimination in order to give yourself the power to judge/censor someone solely because they are a white male anglo saxon protestant, the state of being oppressed doesn't make an argument more (or less) correct. If your argument is wrong then it doesn't become any less wrong because the person who says that your argument is wrong is part of a group that is oppressing/has oppressed you.

ETA - I appear to be arguing for lesser speech restrictions than Arksy. Maybe I need to see a doctor.
Click to expand...

Well...uh..I...um...agree..I guess.

The problem I have is that the article was implying that for one reason or another Leyonhjelm's views were somehow disingenuous and had an ulterior motive for what he was arguing, which is a weird considering it was saying he was a man of clear principle just a few paragraphs earlier.

This isn't to talk about the merits of his argument one way or another. An argument is either a good or bad argument and it's the thing that we should be focusing in on.

FWIW, I really don't mind limited positive discrimination either, as long as it's, as you say, a temporary measure designed to level the playing field. Indigenous people is where it's needed the most. I don't really care about the referendum because I'm not really certain it'll change anything (I mean I'll probably vote yes, because symbolism is kind of nice too...but I'd rather have something substantive, personally I'd want a few reserved parliamentary seats for indigenous people. Like they have in NZ..but I highly doubt that'll ever happen).
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Arksy said:
Well...uh..I...um...agree..I guess.

The problem I have is that the article was implying that for one reason or another Leyonhjelm's views were somehow disingenuous and had an ulterior motive for what he was arguing, which is a weird considering it was saying he was a man of clear principle just a few paragraphs earlier.

This isn't to talk about the merits of his argument one way or another. An argument is either a good or bad argument and it's the thing that we should be focusing in on.

FWIW, I really don't mind limited positive discrimination either, as long as it's, as you say, a temporary measure designed to level the playing field. Indigenous people is where it's needed the most. I don't really care about the referendum because I'm not really certain it'll change anything (I mean I'll probably vote yes, because symbolism is kind of nice too...but I'd rather have something substantive, personally I'd want a few reserved parliamentary seats for indigenous people. Like they have in NZ..but I highly doubt that'll ever happen).
Click to expand...

I thought you were following up my comment as opposed to your previous one. All is right in the world again. Also we apparently pretty much agree on this but I think we already knew that (?) which is why I was confused..

I support the idea behind the referendum (and if it was some kind of document other than the Constitution in which a recognition was being proposed it'd be an easy yes. I also support the repeal of it being okay to discriminate against people based on race.).
I'll probably end up voting Yes anyway , since the value of repealing the discrimination provision is likely greater than my objection to the almost certainly purely symbolic recognition of a special group in the Constitution without any real context.

Our voting system really wouldn't work well with reserved seats though. In either house though the Reps would be messier. Then again the function of the House of Reps is kind of messy anyway , its Majoritarian nature over limited districts frequently leaves 40%+ of the population without any meaningful representation, based on the swing of 2% of the vote. The Senate has its own problems (in that it dis-proportionality favours states with smaller populations) but its generally better at not disenfranchising vast swathes of the population.

It works in New Zealand because their voting system already reserves seats to ensure the overall makeup of the legislature reflects the general population, while giving specific areas focused representation. In that makeup its pretty trivial to add some "virtual districts" for the indigenous population without messing anything up.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Elaugaufein said:
I thought you were following up my comment as opposed to your previous one. All is right in the world again. Also we apparently pretty much agree on this but I think we already knew that (?) which is why I was confused..

I support the idea behind the referendum (and if it was some kind of document other than the Constitution in which a recognition was being proposed it'd be an easy yes. I also support the repeal of it being okay to discriminate against people based on race.).
I'll probably end up voting Yes anyway , since the value of repealing the discrimination provision is likely greater than my objection to the almost certainly purely symbolic recognition of a special group in the Constitution without any real context.

Our voting system really wouldn't work well with reserved seats though (in either house really but especially the Reps*).

*Then again the function of the House of Reps is kind of messy anyway , its Majoritarian nature over limited districts frequently leaves 40%+ of the population without any meaningful representation, based on the swing of 2% of the vote.
Click to expand...

I'd definitely want it in the Senate, maybe rotating seats every 8 years for various indigenous tribes/nations. I'd want it in the Senate because it's the house of the states/territories and feel like indigenous tribes would fit well within that paradigm. I don't really know...or local elections within indigenous communities. I don't know how it would work, but I feel like that representation is the real key to narrowing the gap.
 
D

DrSlek

Member
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...lenge-the-department-to-prosecute?CMP=soc_567

Today the Border Force Act comes into force. It includes provision for a two-year jail sentence for “entrusted persons” such as ourselves if we continue to speak out about the deplorable state of human rights in immigration detention without the express permission of the minister for immigration and border protection. This strengthens the wall of secrecy which prevents proper public scrutiny.
Click to expand...

We are aware that in publishing this letter we may be prosecuted under the Border Force Act and we challenge the department to prosecute so that these issues may be discussed in open court and in the full view of the Australian public.
Click to expand...

NOW DROP THE MIC!
 
J

JC Sera

Member
btw I made a thread in offtopic about the Open Letter

I am just
speechless at the bravery of these people
but I fear the government is going to just ignore them and hope they just disappear into obscurity

which will most likely happen
 
D

Dryk

Member
JC Sera said:
btw I made a thread in offtopic about the Open Letter

I am just
speechless at the bravery of these people
but I fear the government is going to just ignore them and hope they just disappear into obscurity

which will most likely happen
Click to expand...
If the government ignores them then the legislation has no teeth which is also a good outcome
 
Y

Yrael

Member
Elaugaufein said:
But the distinction between positive and negative discrimination is (pretty vapid) sophistry. The real difference between positively discriminating for A and negatively discriminating against !A is 0. There might be arguments for making that discrimination but pretending they are inherently different is silly.
Click to expand...

Elaugaufein said:
Yes. I actually support some forms of discrimination as a temporary (on a societal scale) measure to remedy the disadvantages inherent in systemic oppression.
Click to expand...

It seems like you do understand that there's a difference then, right?

DrSlek said:
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...lenge-the-department-to-prosecute?CMP=soc_567





NOW DROP THE MIC!
Click to expand...

Good on them. I'm so sick of this country's government and its appalling stance on asylum seekers.
 
E

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I'm so ashamed of this country :(
 
J

JC Sera

Member
Some bitter part of me feels like this is going to massively over shadow the Asylum seeker and Aboriginal land rights problems, and the Coalition is gonna be so smug "look how progressive we are, giving people these rights they always deserved".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
969
mansoor1980 replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
23K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
210K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Top Bottom