|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 07:03 |
|
Lid posted:gently caress the High Court 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 |
|
hell yeah
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 13:12 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
quote:Websites accidentally blocked Ahahahahh
|
# ? Aug 27, 2014 14:22 |
|
Paingod556 posted:He was serious. Then this happened- 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 |
|
Scylo posted:http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/08/26/aboriginal-woman-who-dies-wa-jail-was-there-unpaid-fine-0 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:56 |
|
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? 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 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. 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 |
|
Cartoon posted:http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution How can something repeated so often not be true?
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:09 |
|
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
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:43 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Cartoon was obviously talking about maritime law as there are no judges in Australia
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:48 |
|
A primary school principle sent this to parents. Yes.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:49 |
|
No loving way. Link.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:51 |
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Cartoon was obviously talking about maritime law as there are no judges in Australia i loled
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:56 |
Lid posted:
You have to source this.
|
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:57 |
|
Fruity Gordo posted:No loving way. Link. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...2-1227039339257
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:04 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:07 |
|
Those On My Left posted:i loled
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:07 |
|
Lid posted:
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 |
|
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 |
|
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".
|
# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:09 |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 07:03 |
|
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 |