• 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.
H

hidys

Member
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.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Yrael said:
It seems like you do understand that there's a difference then, right?
Click to expand...

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.


Jintor said:
i ain't the kinda person to make fun of an evolving position
Click to expand...


I'm totally the kind of person to make fun of an insincere evolving position for political purposes which it would be. I'm not the kind of person to make fu of a sincere evolving position (I give Tones full credit for his acceptance of transexuals) but we both know how likely that is on this issue.
 
J

JC Sera

Member
hidys said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd lose even more respect for him if he does (we're already in negative values)
like if he won't change it for his sister but will "change" it for political matters, after yeaars of being not changing for anything even political matters, he's a fucking slimeball for the ages

And I want to see him squirm the day SS marriage goes through, instead of his sickening fake smile.
Fredescu said:
He 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.
Click to expand...
Sadly this is probably true
 
F

Fredescu

Member
He 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.
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
hidys said:
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.
Click to expand...

He won't be caught on the wrong side of the result. He would lose all authority if the side he sat was on the losing side. As the numbers firm up on both sides he'll either reaffirm his stand or he'll have yet another "Road to Damascus" moment, probably involving his sister, and he'll support it.
 
D

danm999

Member
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.
 
Y

Yrael

Member
Elaugaufein said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 Australia’s long and impressive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history before 1901, our founding document implies the first chapter of our national story either didn’t happen or isn’t 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 doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the first Australians. We need to put that right."
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Jintor said:
finding out that australia despite polls is actually against gay marriage would be a fucking blow, i have to admit
Click to expand...

That's not really what it would mean. Institutions (which political parties are) have an inherent conservative (mostly in the non-political sense) tendency since to some extent their existence depends on the status quo. It seems to be a bigger deal in effective Two Party systems (like pretty much the entire Anglo-Sphere) since you can stake out a fairly centrist position and anybody further along on the side you are is going to have to suck it up one way or another (whether voting for the lesser of two evils or assigning preferences to you).

The only way you'd find out if Australia was against gay marriage despite the polls would be a referendum but that's unlikely. I'd put money that Australian pollsters accounted for the Shy Tory effect on that poll anyway since it'd track pretty strongly with various other factors they account for when doing political polls.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Yrael said:
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 Australia’s long and impressive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history before 1901, our founding document implies the first chapter of our national story either didn’t happen or isn’t 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 doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the first Australians. We need to put that right."
Click to expand...

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.
 
H

hidys

Member
danm999 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
D

danm999

Member
hidys said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure that'll fuck him too. But in the medium to long term. Ie; an election.

Cross the ACL and the hardliners who saved him, and he might be out from a leadership spill within the week.

I think the remark he made the other day is exactly how it's going to play out. He says he has views, other people have other views. He will try and stay out of it.
 
Y

Yrael

Member
Elaugaufein said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
Hmmm.
Labor set to abandon Kevin Rudd's leadership rules
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds familiar, that last bit.
 
H

hidys

Member
Shaneus said:
Hmmm.
Labor set to abandon Kevin Rudd's leadership rules


Sounds familiar, that last bit.
Click to expand...

That seems pointless TBH. It says there that they're keeping the membership ballot so if they feel like dumping a PM they would still have to have that process, which would politically destroy all candidates involved.

Makes sense for opposition leaders since there is no good reason to keep a useless one of them around and I think we can all think of at least one who would be worth dumping.

Simon Crean
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Yrael said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Y

Yrael

Member
Elaugaufein said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, Constitutions can be amended (which is what's potentially happening now), and secondly, the fact that Indigenous Australians had a cultural history long before the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia is also something that will remain historically true and will never change. Recognising that isn't a problem.

This isn't exactly without precedent. Some of our state constitutions (Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia) already contain a statement recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Here's South Australia's constitution, for example.
 
J

JC Sera

Member
shanshan310 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Also: http://www.theguardian.com/australi...alition-to-cut-superannuation-tax-concessions
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.
Click to expand...
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 budget’s forward estimates.
Click to expand...
I am shocked, absolutely shocked I say, by this revelation.
Seriously read the whole article, its depressing but important.
“By 2054-55, the reduction in real spending for hospitals could be as large as $78bn.”
Click to expand...
I really hope this number is wrong.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Eric Abetz on gay marriage:
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.
Click to expand...
 
D

danm999

Member
A More Normal Bird said:
Eric Abetz on gay marriage:
Click to expand...

The phrase means this is the century of the rise of Asia, not that we have to do whatever Asian countries do.

I'm sure Mr. Abetz knows this of course, and this uhh, argument (that's a really generous name for it though) is all he could muster up.

Honestly Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells answer to why no SSM bill is even funnier and more politically transparent.

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.
Click to expand...

They're in a really terrible position between public approval and their own base, and I hope this is the thing that breaks their nasty little party apart.
 
Y

Yagharek

Member
Nasty little parties don't get torn apart when there are enough nasty little christian hypocritical supporters in marginal seats.
 
J

Jintor

Member
i look forward to us following asian countries on climate change, public transport, public housing, generous pensions and foreign aid
 
D

danm999

Member
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.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
danm999 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A

Arksy

Member
A More Normal Bird said:
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.
Click to expand...

What an absurd argument.
 
M

manipulate

Member
when is it going to be the Australian century

our strategic vision of the future necessitates a Project For The New Oceanic Century

Asia needs to know we finna go waltzing matilda on em

Tone Abet can take the fight single-handedly to daesh
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
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.

I wonder what part of Asia they want to copy. The massive investment in manufacturing? Social housing in Singapore? Massive investment in renewables in China? Or supporting Taiwan so they will probably be the first country to allow marriage equality in Asia? Or maybe, deep racism towards immigrant communities in SEA? Jailing and Death Penalty rates in China? The horrendous oppression towards religious minorities also in China? Ridiculous territorial expansionism? The treatment of women in India?

Abetz should have taken a longer holiday.
 
W

wonzo

Banned
CI5DE_NUMAQm3uT.jpg:large


it never dies
 
R

Rubixcuba

Banned
Doesn't Hanson have her own party?

Also ugh, these rallies really are nation wide. Will need to see who is organising the counter rallies.
 
D

danm999

Member
bobnowhere said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's really a rock and a hard place because while I suspect the Coalition would love to kill this issue, they probably REALLY don't want it brought to an election with Labor on the opposite side.

At least, I suspect they do not. Look at how much nuance Tones uses when he talks about this issue "respecting viewpoints on both sides" compared to his usual slather.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
836
mansoor1980 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
21K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
206K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Battlefield 2042 Briefing – What We Learned From The Open Beta
Opinion Game Dev
35
4K
REDRZA MWS replied
Top Bottom