Auspol August: Half-baked enraged drivel

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol August: Half-baked enraged drivel

NTRabbit: Aug 15, 2012; i wear this armour to protect myself from the histrionics of hysterical women

bitches

Vladimir Poutine posted:

Labor support the chaplaincy program too though. IIRC the rushed legislation that got rejected in the high court the second time around came in under Rudd.

Pretty sure Labor only support the chaplaincy program when schools can choose to get funding for secular 'chaplains', which are specifically excluded in the Liberal plan.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 12:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 18:32

EvilElmo: May 10, 2009

Lid posted:

gently caress the High Court

This scheme has been to the High Court twice already and twice found to be wrong.

So now they give the money to the S/T who will take the money. Maybe implement it, but more likely, use it to crack down on criminals to be tough on crime. Or build a pointless road.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 13:08

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

hell yeah

# ? Aug 27, 2014 13:12

Senor Tron: May 26, 2006

We have a Labor government here in South Australia, the state government should just take the money and then use it to hire religious and secular workers. The Feds can't withdraw the money then without looking awful.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 13:29

Ragingsheep: Nov 7, 2009

Senor Tron posted:

The Feds can't withdraw the money then without looking awful.

As if that's going to stop Tony.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 13:42

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

Ragingsheep posted:

As if that's going to stop Tony.

Yeah, I expect SA, especially the more prominent Labor sections, to get the poo poo kicked out of them by the federal government over the next couple years. Because really, what've they got to lose?

# ? Aug 27, 2014 13:43

NTRabbit: Aug 15, 2012; i wear this armour to protect myself from the histrionics of hysterical women

bitches

Cleretic posted:

Yeah, I expect SA, especially the more prominent Labor sections, to get the poo poo kicked out of them by the federal government over the next couple years. Because really, what've they got to lose?

You mean the illegal and illegitimate government who won the election because the SA Liberals, instead of going after marginal seats, sank all their campaign money into shoring up those 30 point leads in blue riband seats, and hilariously failed vendettas against the independents, because independents have no place in government?

The SA Liberals would need 5 years of intensive training to get themselves up to the level of Napthine's Liberals.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 13:55

Vladimir Poutine: Aug 13, 2012

Cleretic posted:

Yeah, I expect SA, especially the more prominent Labor sections, to get the poo poo kicked out of them by the federal government over the next couple years. Because really, what've they got to lose?

I expect Abbott will not give the slightest poo poo about SA if Victoria changes hands later in the year. At the moment solo-Labor state SA is like a big red square, poking out of the southern ocean like a middle finger in the general direction of Abbott, but polls in Victoria are looking on Labor's side.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 14:04

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

quote:

Websites accidentally blocked
ASIC reveals access to 250,000 websites was blocked after its staff failed to understand IP addresses.

Ahahahahh

# ? Aug 27, 2014 14:22

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Paingod556 posted:

He was serious. Then this happened-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBZbdQdPzE

fffff pussy. I'd have had them airlifted to the Syria/Iraq border and said to the locals "Have at it lads, and remember: Youtube that poo poo or it didn't happen"

# ? Aug 27, 2014 16:39

Fruity Gordo: Aug 5, 2013; Neurotic, Impotent Rage!

Scylo posted:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/08/26/aboriginal-woman-who-dies-wa-jail-was-there-unpaid-fine-0

Julieka Dhu who was 22-years-old at the time of her death earlier this month, was in jail for four days for failing to pay a $1000 fine.

It's emerged that not only was Ms Dhu released from hospital multiple times after complaining she felt unwell but she was locked up as part of the WA government's policy of paying down outstanding fines through prison time.

After complaining to police about severe pain, vomiting and partial paralysis she was twice taken to a local hospital but on both occasions declared well enough to be sent back to prison depsite reportedly not being seen by a doctor reported he Australian newspaper.

Her family is now demanding answers from the WA government.

Her uncle Shaun Harris questioned how someone who was dying could be sent back twice to prison with an all clear from the hospital.

�How on earth did the WA health system, the Hedland Health Campus, apparently miss such an obvious health problem on more than one occasion, such as toxic poisoning and officially declare Julieka fit to be held in police custody?" Mr Harris told The Australian.

�And why did the police refuse her proper medical treatment by unjustifiably dismissing Julieka�s begging and multiple cries for �urgent medical attention?��

WA attorney general Michael Mischin is standing by the policy.

"It is not a matter of automatically jailing people as a default on paying fines, there are a number of ways people can avoid being put in jail," he said.

"If they choose not to avail themselves of that then [there is nothing] the government can do about it but to say there is no consequence if you refuse to pay a fine means that people have a licence to break the law maybe in petty ways but without consequences and that just reduces the respect for the rule of law."

Shadow Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ben Wyatt criticised the approach saying the cost doesn't justify the incarceration over fines of only a few thousand dollars.

"I've long had the view that locking people up to pay down fines when you don't resolve the underlying issue is a terrible way to operate a justice system, it's a terrible way to operate the finances of the state," he said.

"Ultimately it costs more to keep someone inside than the fine that they're paying down".

Mr Wyatt also said the policy targets the poor and will only maintain the high incarceration rate of Indigenous people.

Family and community members have been critical of the Port Hedland Health campus that Julieka Dhu was admitted to three times and their conduct is currently being investigated.

The family want the harsh penalties that lead to her arrest to be changed.

There's a vigil on Monday at 5:30pm at Martin Place in Sydney to protest black deaths in custody and express solidarity with protesters in Ferguson. I've shared it on my Facebook but I can't figure out how to get the link since I'm still stuck on my ipad, so if someone could post the link to it that'd be cool of you tia

# ? Aug 27, 2014 22:18

annatar: Jan 14, 2007; hellol

The Williams case was not about the actual school chaplaincy program, it was about the constitutionality of funding small programs using the big list at the back of the old Financial Management and Accountability Regulations.

Government could easily constitutionally fund the chaplaincy program by passing a separate Act. The problem for any government is that there's 400ish other programs on that list.

# ? Aug 27, 2014 22:23

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

NTRabbit posted:

Pretty sure Labor only support the chaplaincy program when schools can choose to get funding for secular 'chaplains', which are specifically excluded in the Liberal plan.

How is this not religious discrimination, though? I don't understand how a secular government can make provisions for this sort of thing and have it be legal, how can they legislate in a requirement that someone taking a state funded job be "religious" and what sort of tests do they specify to ensure that the religion is legitimate? Do they have a list somewhere of approved religions?

Sorry to keep returning to this point, when I really think on the whole spectrum of things this government has done, this particular policy isn't at the top of my poo poo list but I don't understand how this policy can exist without other policy in place to actually determine religiousness such that they can ensure that atheists can't get paid under this policy.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 00:28

BloatedCorpse: May 11, 2005; Downstairs

duck monster posted:

fffff pussy. I'd have had them airlifted to the Syria/Iraq border and said to the locals "Have at it lads, and remember: Youtube that poo poo or it didn't happen"

Should we really send white american cult-members to Iraq to scream at Iraqis that they're all faggots and God hates them?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 00:32

Laserface: Dec 24, 2004

BloatedCorpse posted:

Should we really send white american cult-members to Iraq to scream at Iraqis that they're all faggots and God hates them?

If it means two terrorist groups fight to the death, yes.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 00:41

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

annatar posted:

Government could easily constitutionally fund the chaplaincy program by passing a separate Act. The problem for any government is that there's 400ish other programs on that list.

No they couldn't. The High Court held in Williams No 2 that the law providing for the funding of the chaplaincy program was not supported by any constitutional head of Commonwealth legislative power. Making a separate Act for it doesn't change that fact. You still need a head of power for that Act, and the High Court has told them that they don't have one.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:22

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:56

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Serrath posted:

How is this not religious discrimination, though? I don't understand how a secular government can make provisions for this sort of thing and have it be legal, how can they legislate in a requirement that someone taking a state funded job be "religious" and what sort of tests do they specify to ensure that the religion is legitimate? Do they have a list somewhere of approved religions?

Sorry to keep returning to this point, when I really think on the whole spectrum of things this government has done, this particular policy isn't at the top of my poo poo list but I don't understand how this policy can exist without other policy in place to actually determine religiousness such that they can ensure that atheists can't get paid under this policy.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution

Actually we aren't an explicitly secular state. It could be argued from our head of state being the head of the Church of England (Betty) that we are a theocracy. The constitution mentions nothing about religion (apart from the Betty references) what-so-ever. The US Constitution is a whole other matter.

I agree that this isn't the most important thing in Australian politics at the moment but it would be nice if the people who are explicitly being put into schools for the 'welfare' of students were actual trained professionals and not borderline psychotics/pedophiles without relevant skills or training.

To the main game. The cognitive dissonance in Julie Bishops head must be doing her long term harm. Buzz word of the day is 'Humanitarian'. Apparently it is our 'Humanitarian' duty to support the US in another war in Iraq. We don't have time to debate it in parliament because it's a 'Humanitarian' crisis and if we don't act we are monsters who are letting the world down and cowards for not upholding the 'Humanitarian' rights of the people in Iraq/Syria.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/am-with-chris-uhlmann/5702082 Listen if you dare.

Julie specifically mentioned that these victims of the 'Humanitarian' crisis are fleeing for their lives. Surely it would be our 'Humanitarian' duty to give them refuge then? THE gently caress NO! loving JESUS WEPT! Bleeding heart loving lefty tree huggers! It's about us blowing the loving poo poo out of things in their wide brown land. They are the problem we don't want to import their problem... :psyboom:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/19/australia-going-to-unthinkable-lengths-to-return-syria-detainees-emails-show

quote:

The lengths to which the Australian immigration department has gone to facilitate the repatriation of traumatised Syrian asylum seekers detained in offshore detention centres has been extensively revealed in departmental emails obtained under freedom of information laws.

Human rights experts have criticised the actions, saying Australia was doing the �unthinkable� by endeavouring to return Syrians.

The emails support reports from Guardian Australia in March, showing that Syrians detained offshore told Australian immigration department officials they would be killed if they returned to Syria, but the department facilitated plans for their repatriation nonetheless. This included sharing asylum-seeker identity documents with the Syrian consulate in Australia, booking flights via Jordan, and endeavouring to issue an �ultimatum� to force them into a decision on repatriation, despite a number of them being severely mentally ill.

At no point in any of the disclosed emails is conflict in Syria, which has seen more than 100,000 people die and 2.56 million refugees flee the civil war, discussed. And at no point are concerns about the asylum seekers� safety back in Syria articulated.

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), tasked with facilitating asylum-seeker returns in offshore detention, does not facilitate repatriation to Syria because it is too dangerous.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-det.php

quote:

Of particular concern is the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Department towards the increasing number of unaccompanied minors in detention. There is a serious conflict of interest between the Minister's role as guardian to unaccompanied minors, which requires him or her to act in the best interests of the child, and the Minister's powers to determine refugee status and detain unauthorised arrivals, including minors.

LALALALALALALLALLLA I can't hear you!

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:05

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

Cartoon posted:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution

Actually we aren't an explicitly secular state. It could be argued from our head of state being the head of the Church of England (Betty) that we are a theocracy. The constitution mentions nothing about religion (apart from the Betty references) what-so-ever. The US Constitution is a whole other matter.

I agree that this isn't the most important thing in Australian politics at the moment but it would be nice if the people who are explicitly being put into schools for the 'welfare' of students were actual trained professionals and not borderline psychotics/pedophiles without relevant skills or training.

To the main game. The cognitive dissonance in Julie Bishops head must be doing her long term harm. Buzz word of the day is 'Humanitarian'. Apparently it is our 'Humanitarian' duty to support the US in another war in Iraq. We don't have time to debate it in parliament because it's a 'Humanitarian' crisis and if we don't act we are monsters who are letting the world down and cowards for not upholding the 'Humanitarian' rights of the people in Iraq/Syria.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/am-with-chris-uhlmann/5702082 Listen if you dare.

Julie specifically mentioned that these victims of the 'Humanitarian' crisis are fleeing for their lives. Surely it would be our 'Humanitarian' duty to give them refuge then? THE gently caress NO! loving JESUS WEPT! Bleeding heart loving lefty tree huggers! It's about us blowing the loving poo poo out of things in their wide brown land. They are the problem we don't want to import their problem...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/19/australia-going-to-unthinkable-lengths-to-return-syria-detainees-emails-show

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-det.php

LALALALALALALLALLLA I can't hear you!

How can something repeated so often not be true?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:09

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Cartoon posted:

It could be argued from our head of state being the head of the Church of England (Betty) that we are a theocracy. The constitution mentions nothing about religion (apart from the Betty references) what-so-ever.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

quote:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116

Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:43

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

Cartoon posted:

Actually we aren't an explicitly secular state. It could be argued from our head of state being the head of the Church of England (Betty) that we are a theocracy. The constitution mentions nothing about religion (apart from the Betty references) what-so-ever. The US Constitution is a whole other matter.

This surprises me. The secular nature of government and the responsibility not to pass laws in deference to any religion over any other (or no religion) comprised like three different questions on the citizenship test I took not long ago. I'd presumed this was drawn from a constitution of some sort, I didn't realize that the constitution was ambivalent about the issue.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:45

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Serrath posted:

This surprises me. The secular nature of government and the responsibility not to pass laws in deference to any religion over any other (or no religion) comprised like three different questions on the citizenship test I took not long ago. I'd presumed this was drawn from a constitution of some sort, I didn't realize that the constitution was ambivalent about the issue.

It's not, scroll up!

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:45

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Cartoon was obviously talking about maritime law as there are no judges in Australia

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:48

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

A primary school principle sent this to parents. Yes.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:49

Fruity Gordo: Aug 5, 2013; Neurotic, Impotent Rage!

No loving way. Link.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:51

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Gough Suppressant posted:

Cartoon was obviously talking about maritime law as there are no judges in Australia

i loled

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:56

Milkfred E. Moore: Aug 27, 2006; 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.'

Lid posted:

A primary school principle sent this to parents. Yes.

You have to source this. :stare:

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:57

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Fruity Gordo posted:

No loving way. Link.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...2-1227039339257

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:04

Fruity Gordo: Aug 5, 2013; Neurotic, Impotent Rage!

Those On My Left posted:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

Is it possible that they get around its anticonstitutionality because going to see the chaplain is voluntary? That seems to be the only legalistic excuse to me.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:05

Mad Katter: Aug 23, 2010; STOP THE BATS

Newsflash: QLD LNP MP says a racist thing:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/28/asian-drivers-dont-know-road-rules-says-lnp-mp-vaughan-johnson

quote:

Asian drivers have �no comprehension� of the road rules, a Queensland Liberal National Party MP has said, even though he admitted he did not have any figures to back up his claim.

The member for Gregory, Vaughan Johnson, has been campaigning for a driving and road rules test for foreigners wanting to drive in Queensland.

He said driving conditions in Australia were different to those in other parts of the world and some foreign drivers, particularly those of Asian descent, did not understand the road rules even in their own country.

�I�m not against Asian people, don�t get me wrong � but a lot of those Asian people come from an environment where they have no comprehension of road rules in their own country,� he told Fairfax Radio on Thursday.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:07

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Those On My Left posted:

i loled

Rats I missed that bit when I skim read it (Should have googled it rather than rush read it). My point about it not establishing a secular government, specifically, stands despite section 116.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:07

GoldStandardConure: Jun 11, 2010; I have to kill fast
and mayflies too slow; Pillbug

Lid posted:

A primary school principle sent this to parents. Yes.

I heard this being talked about on the radio this morning. Wow that letter is even worse than it was reported.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:08

Amethyst: Mar 28, 2004; I CANNOT HELP BUT MAKE THE DCSS THREAD A FETID SWAMP OF UNFUN POSTING
plz notice me trunk-senpai

How do you get to be a school principal anyway? All of the principals I've know have been MBA type dick heads who don't give a poo poo about students.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:08

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Fruity Gordo posted:

Is it possible that they get around its anticonstitutionality because going to see the chaplain is voluntary? That seems to be the only legalistic excuse to me.

From the judgment:

quote:

Section 116 of the Constitution states that "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth". The plaintiff contends that the "school chaplain" is an "office ... under the Commonwealth" and that the definition of "school chaplain" in the Guidelines imposes a religious test for that office. To qualify as a "school chaplain", a person must be recognised "through formal ordination, commissioning, recognised qualifications or endorsement by a recognised or accepted religious institution or a state/territory government approved chaplaincy service".

...

The chaplains engaged by SUQ hold no office under the Commonwealth. The chaplain at the Darling Heights State Primary School is engaged by SUQ to provide services under the control and direction of the school principal. The chaplain does not enter into any contractual or other arrangement with the Commonwealth. That the Commonwealth is a source of funding to SUQ is insufficient to render a chaplain engaged by SUQ the holder of an office under the Commonwealth.

It has been said in this Court that the meaning of "office" turns largely on the context in which it is found, and it may be accepted that, given the significance of the place of s 116 in the Constitution, the term should not be given a restricted meaning when used in that provision. Nevertheless, the phrase "office ... under the Commonwealth" must be read as a whole. If this be done, the force of the term "under" indicates a requirement for a closer connection to the Commonwealth than that presented by the facts of this case.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:09

Milkfred E. Moore: Aug 27, 2006; 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.'

Amethyst posted:

How do you get to be a school principal anyway? All of the principals I've know have been MBA type dick heads who don't give a poo poo about students.

No, that's pretty much it, yeah.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:10

Fruity Gordo: Aug 5, 2013; Neurotic, Impotent Rage!

Ah ok, it wasn't sent to parents, but staff, that is way less of a surprise. Also not that much of a surprise that the department did jack poo poo about it.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:11

Fruity Gordo: Aug 5, 2013; Neurotic, Impotent Rage!

Those On My Left posted:

From the judgment:

Wait I don't get this. No public school staff are employed by the commonwealth, so none of them could be considered officers of the commonwealth anyway. So did the high court only strike down the legislation because the commonwealth was setting a directive about religious pastoral care instead of secular, but if they do it by the back door by directing funding to the states and threatening withdrawal if the states employ secular youth workers (ie, youth workers who aren't contracted to a religious Ngo like the salvos, who insist upon commitment to Christian ideals as a condition as employment)? This is so confusing. I don't think the NSW department of education puts school-by-school positions out to tender by LGA or if they even could. How do you enforce this without breaching the state anti-discrimination act. If I owned a small business I wouldn't be able to use 'I hate police and therefore won't take their custom', I'd be sued.

Fruity Gordo fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Aug 28, 2014

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:19

Fruity Gordo: Aug 5, 2013; Neurotic, Impotent Rage!

Milky Moor posted:

No, that's pretty much it, yeah.

Yeah, it's pretty bad. The public school I'm at now is pretty horrible, there is no soap in the children's toilets and the principal has decreed that when I teach about sexuality, sexual safety and informed consent that I'm not allowed to show any methods of contraception or explain their use, but I'm expected to tell the children that sexting is unacceptable and that some forms are illegal (ie an 11yo girl sending a picture of her vagina to another child is disseminating child pornography). So, the principal acknowledges that 11-12yos are becoming sexually active, but they shouldn't know how to protect themselves because that's dirty. I've been tossing up whether or not I should make an official complaint, but it likely wouldn't do poo poo and just make me even less employable if word spread in the area that I have half a brain and all of a conscience.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:28

Orkin Mang: Nov 1, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

Fruity Gordo posted:

(ie an 11yo girl sending a picture of her vagina to another child is disseminating child pornography).

What? She's 11.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 18:32

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

One actual good thing that the Victorian state govt is doing with introducing specific laws about sexting(targeting non-consensual sexting), is de-criminalising consensual sexting amongst minors, it will no longer be considered a child pornography offence.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol August: Half-baked enraged drivel

«‹›97 »