It seems like you do understand that there's a difference then, right?
i ain't the kinda person to make fun of an evolving position
Wouldn't be totally shocked if Abbott reverses his position on same-sex marriage in the coming days/weeks.
Probably won't though, but it's possible.
I'd lose even more respect for him if he does (we're already in negative values)Wouldn't be totally shocked if Abbott reverses his position on same-sex marriage in the coming days/weeks.
Probably won't though, but it's possible.
Sadly this is probably trueHe won't change and he'll be seen as stronger for it. "He recognised the beliefs of the community are more important than his private beliefs." Like when Howard allowed a conscience vote on stem cell research.
Wouldn't be totally shocked if Abbott reverses his position on same-sex marriage in the coming days/weeks.
Probably won't though, but it's possible.
I understand that (temporary) discrimination can have beneficial uses (heck the arguments in favour of some of the worst discrimination laws passed historically were that they were to benefit society (or even the group to be discriminated against)).
I don't think that there's a differences between favouring one group and disfavouring all others . If you're going to make the argument that positive discrimination is not inherently bad while negative discrimination is (as opposed to it being a semantic difference), then there are problems: e.g favourable laws for people of X descent is positive discrimination, but they remain as wrong as laws that impose penalties on everyone but X (negative discrimination.
Unless you're defining positive discrimination as discrimination with beneficial societal outcomes and negative as the opposite. But the article doesn't seem to be doing so (it would be impossible to classify something as positive discrimination in advance by this definition, the only way to tell would be to try it). It wouldn't really a position that can be argued against either since its kind of tautological.
He won't change. The hardcore Christian lobby saved his bacon in February and he's not strong enough in his own party to betray them yet. He just won't comment and will go on about ISIS or something.
finding out that australia despite polls is actually against gay marriage would be a fucking blow, i have to admit
To make things clearer and ground the conversation in real examples, the root of it is that Leyonhjelm is against recognition of Aboriginal Australians in the Constitution because this is singling out a group on the basis of race, which he defines as racist. However, this is a form of "colour blindness" that completely ignores historical context. For one, it ignores the mass displacement, marginalisation and cultural genocide perpetrated against Aboriginal people, which still has effects that continue today. As it's written the Constitution still acts as though the country's national story began with the arrival of Europeans, and ignores the cultural history that had already existed for thousands of years beforehand. As Recognise.org.au puts it:
"In fact, all Australians are acknowledged in the Constitution as the people of the Commonwealth. But by its silence on Australias long and impressive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history before 1901, our founding document implies the first chapter of our national story either didnt happen or isnt important. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have lived in this land for tens of thousands of years. Recognition would acknowledge that first chapter of our shared story. At the moment, our Constitution mentions Queen Victoria and the British Parliament and lighthouses, beacons and buoys but doesnt acknowledge the existence of the first Australians. We need to put that right."
He won't change. The hardcore Christian lobby saved his bacon in February and he's not strong enough in his own party to betray them yet. He just won't comment and will go on about ISIS or something.
I would say that it is a bigger factor that he can't afford to be undermined by parliament on an issue that the majority of Australians support.
He will suffer more damage from that than the ACL could possibly do to him.
I actually mainly agree with him. Calling out one group for specific recognition in the Constitution is likely to be problematic.
Having just had a look at the Preamble and a scan over the other sections (which are pretty much just instructions for how government works): I don't actually see any mention of history at all. Every reference to Britain or the Queen is in the context of their relinquishment of Australian into a Commonwealth and the Queen's position of head of state. There's nothing in there about the Glorious History of the British Empire.
But it really does depend on context, if there going to insert a bit about history in to the preamble then yes, of course the entire history should be acknowledged.
Labor has left the door open for the caucus to reverse Kevin Rudd's rule that makes it nearly impossible for the party's elected leader to be toppled in a midnight coup.
The Australian Labor Party's draft national constitution, published on its website, includes changes made to the way the leader is elected - by an equally weighted ballot of caucus and party members.
But significantly, it does not include the caucus-approved rule that the prime minister can only be removed if 75 per cent of MPs agree to force a ballot. This is lower - 60 per cent of caucus - for an opposition leader.
Sounds familiar, that last bit.Pressed on whether the caucus rule had been left out of the draft national constitution, Mr Shorten deferred the question to party headquarters.
"You'd have to ask the federal Labor Party for that but what I would say is that in terms of the assumption underpinning it, is there unity in the party? Yes there is," he said.
The Freedom Man.
"Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson was unable to comment to AusDoc on jail threat for doctors speaking out on abuse"
https://twitter.com/australiandr/status/613161065916973056
He literally responds underneath saying that's not true.
How so? Australian and Torres Strait Islander people are in a rather unique position, having been dispossessed from their traditional Australian homeland and having had their heritage completely trampled on. I don't think including a statement of recognition and respect in the Constitution is going to create any negative effects for everyone else.
Edit: I've been looking into this more to get more perspective. I think the main problem that people have with it is that in the end a statement of recognition is potentially something of a "symbolic" gesture without meaningful weight, which stings when funding for Indigenous services continues to be cut. I can agree with that, actually.
You don't see any potential problem with a document that defines a nation making an aside to specifically saying a group is different from all other citizens ? That bit is going to be there basically forever. That group will always be different. Forever.
That was surprisingly well researched for channel 10.Say what you will about The Project, but it's nice to see such forceful language about this in prime time: http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/extra/season-6/silencing-detention-whistleblowers
I added it my OP, thanks a lot. The guy they got to replace pickering actually seems to care about shit, not just on this issue. Whenever I manage to catch the show, at any rate.Say what you will about The Project, but it's nice to see such forceful language about this in prime time: http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/extra/season-6/silencing-detention-whistleblowers
Say what you will about The Project, but it's nice to see such forceful language about this in prime time: http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/extra/season-6/silencing-detention-whistleblowers
Ah fuck I missed that. I assumed he meant want to stop the boats, as in stop people dying out on sea. But thats benefit of the doubt.It was great up until "look, we all want to stop the boats".
I really wish people would stop using those stupid catchphrases. The issue is so much more complex than stopping boats.
A leading thinktank has renewed calls for the Abbott government to cut generous superannuation tax concessions as part of a meaningful effort to get the budget back on track.
The Grattan Institute says four revenue measures reducing superannuation tax concessions, changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing, broadening the GST and the introduction of a broad-based property levy would be a downpayment on achieving long term fiscal sustainability.
I am shocked, absolutely shocked I say, by this revelation.This first paper aims to point out many of the current budget forecasts are unreliable and Australian governments are, in essence, hiding behind overly optimistic forecasts in order to delay the imperative of budget repair.
It says successive governments have taken advantage of the wriggle room provided by the vagueness of where Australia is in the economic cycle, and talked up their position by pointing to surpluses or near surpluses towards the end of each budgets forward estimates.
I really hope this number is wrong.By 2054-55, the reduction in real spending for hospitals could be as large as $78bn.
It was great up until "look, we all want to stop the boats".
I really wish people would stop using those stupid catchphrases. The issue is so much more complex than stopping boats.
But knowing my colleagues as I do, the overwhelming feeling is: 1) we support the definition; 2) this is a distraction - which, I note, Bill Shorten welcomes, which tells me everything I need to know about this issue...
...
And might I add, it happened with the republic debate. The newspapers screamed to vote "yes, yes" in banner headlines but the people voted "no, no." And so just because journalists allegedly reflect the national opinion is not necessarily right.
...
And might I also just say this to you: The Labor Party and other journalists tell us, time and time again, that we are living in the Asian century. Tell me how many Asian countries have redefined marriage?
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Well, OK. Many countries we would associate ourselves with closely socially have, though, haven't they?
ERIC ABETZ: Well, are we in the Asian century or not? It's amazing how certain people try to pick and choose in relation to debates. All of a sudden the United States, which is usually condemned, is now being celebrated on the bizarre decision of a five-four majority in the Supreme Court.
So let's get some rationality and balance back into the debate. That is what I'm seeking. That is what I'm pleading for. And when you get that balance, people start reconsidering their superficial attitude to what would be a fundamental transformation and, I believe, a negative transformation of our society.
Shaking my fucking head.
The NSW senator also criticised her moderate colleagues for showing "bad judgment" by allowing independent MP Cathy McGowan to co-sponsor the bill.
"Why are we giving her a platform? We have just started a campaign to win her seat [of Indi] back," she said.
Nasty little parties don't get torn apart when there are enough nasty little christian hypocritical supporters in marginal seats.
i look forward to us following asian countries on climate change, public transport, public housing, generous pensions and foreign aid
No but you see it's Labor and the rest of the lefty lynch mob who are claiming that it's the Asian century, whereas the current government which is busy signing FTAs with Asian nations are being realistic and saying it isn't. Consequently, when the lefties say its the Asian century or criticise the US but then turn around and support gay marriage they're being hypocrites, but when the right thinking right oppose it they're merely aligning themselves with Australia's closest allies like the US and maintaining the tradition of being the only country in the Anglosphere to not have marriage equality. It all makes perfect sense if you're actually insane.For a government recently who;
Knighted a British Prince.
Engaged in a competitive circle jerk with Labor about how much they loved the Magna Carta.
Pointed loudly and often to the UK's terrorism laws to justify their own.
I find the "we must follow Asia's example" talk pretty hollow.
No but you see it's Labor and the rest of the lefty lynch mob who are claiming that it's the Asian century, whereas the current government which is busy signing FTAs with Asian nations are being realistic and saying it isn't. Consequently, when the lefties say its the Asian century or criticise the US but then turn around and support gay marriage they're being hypocrites, but when the right thinking right oppose it they're merely aligning themselves with Australia's closest allies like the US and maintaining the tradition of being the only country in the Anglosphere to not have marriage equality. It all makes perfect sense if you're actually insane.
I see Cathy's office has subcontracted the LNP to write material for her reelection campaignHonestly Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells answer to why no SSM bill is even funnier and more politically transparent.
I see Cathy's office has subcontracted the LNP to write material for her reelection campaign
With all the noise on TV today, it appears as though the marriage equality bill isn't even going to see the floor, let alone cabinet. Looks like the stacked committee that decides what can be voted on is either going to deny it or just mire it down until, they think, everyone forgets.