Jumpingmanjim posted:

I can think of a book the government would like banned.

open24hours posted:

It's really too early to know if plain packaging has had a real impact. It won't really be possible until the people who were 12-16 or so when plain packaging came in are in their 20s and you can compare their smoking rates to the current ones.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

I can think of a book the government would like banned.

open24hours posted:

Any book. Should it be possible for a government to ban a book assuming it doesn't depict an actual crime like a snuff book or whatever?

Endman posted:

I can't tell if you're serious or not. Auspol is buried under so many levels of irony and disingenuous rhetoric that I'm completely unable to interpret anything at face value.

tithin posted:

Endman posted:

I'm probably not the best person to ask about book banning since I'd welcome an internet filter if it actually worked as described and blocked access to child pornography instead of the unrealistic clusterfucks that have been proposed thus far.

I am literally Stalin.

Endman posted:

I can't tell if you're serious or not. Auspol is buried under so many levels of irony and disingenuous rhetoric that I'm completely unable to interpret anything at face value.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

im permabanned poster Endman. i first started reading AusPol when i was about 12. by 14 i got really obsessed with the concept of "irony" and tried to channel it constantly, until my thought process got really bizarre and i would repeat things like "stop the boats" and "first dog on the moon is funny" in my head for hours, and i would get really paranoid, start seeing things in the corners of my eyes etc, basically prodromal schizophrenia. im now on antipsychotics. i always wondered what the kind of "ironic" style of AusPol humor was all about; i think it's the unconscious leaking in to the conscious, what jungian theory considered to be the cause of schizophrenic and schizotypal syptoms. i would advise all people who "get" AusPol to be careful because that likely means you have a predisposition to a mental illness. peace.

Endman posted:

I'm probably not the best person to ask about book banning since I'd welcome an internet filter if it actually worked as described and blocked access to child pornography instead of the unrealistic clusterfucks that have been proposed thus far.

I am literally Stalin.

open24hours posted:

Any book. Should it be possible for a government to ban a book assuming it doesn't depict an actual crime like a snuff book or whatever?

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Surely there's plenty of places you can report CP sites to currently without needing an internet filter?

You hope when they arrest the creeps with CP rings they don't just go "welp, the website is hosted in Denmark, can't do poo poo about it".

Milky Moor posted:

That's actually what happens in a lot of cases. It's why a lot of sites with that sort of thing are hosted in Eastern Europe and such places. It's why law enforcement tend to go after the idiots who stalk chat rooms and try to set up meets with underage kids, import material or upload a lot of it online.

Milky Moor posted:

Why should we ban books that depict an 'actual crime'?

open24hours posted:

I'd probably argue that giving people the ability to commission crimes and then profit from the distribution of images of those crime is a greater risk than preventing the publication of those types of books.

NTRabbit posted:

https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/707090402340315136
https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/707091867611955200

Nationalise Boomer assets imo

Milky Moor posted:

Absolutely. But then, really, the problem is people profiting off the crime and not the item itself, no?

Jumpingmanjim posted:

How do you feel about plain packaging?

Recoome posted:

Wow denying the holocaust is next level stuff

Solemn Sloth posted:

Secretary of the department of Australia for Australians

Recent comparisons of immigration detention centres to ‘gulags’; suggestions that detention involves a “public numbing and indifference” similar to that allegedly experienced in Nazi Germany; and persistent suggestions that detention facilities are places of ‘torture’ are highly offensive, unwarranted and plainly wrong – and yet they continue to be made in some quarters.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Consistent with the law of the land, and under direction of the government of the day, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection operates a policy of keeping children in detention only as a last resort, and releasing those children that might be in detention as soon as reasonably practicable.

This is a very contentious area of public policy and administration. Sometimes emotions rise and facts gets distorted. For the reputation of my Department and its officers, it is crucial that I set the record straight: the Department and its uniformed operational arm, the Australian Border Force, does not operate beyond the law, nor is it an immoral ‘rogue agency’.

Recent comparisons of immigration detention centres to ‘gulags’; suggestions that detention involves a “public numbing and indifference” similar to that allegedly experienced in Nazi Germany; and persistent suggestions that detention facilities are places of ‘torture’ are highly offensive, unwarranted and plainly wrong – and yet they continue to be made in some quarters.

In the same vein, any contention that prolonged immigration detention represents "reckless indifference and calculated cruelty," in order to deter future boat arrivals, do not pass even the most basic fact check. The number of children in detention would not be falling if that were the case.

The resources devoted to providing medical and support services, and the commitment of doctors, service providers and departmental staff to the welfare of those individuals, undercuts emotive and inflammatory claims to the contrary.

The Department’s operations are underpinned by the law of the land. In this regard, the High Court of Australia has upheld the legal foundations for both ‘turn back’ and ‘take back’ maritime operations (in a case brought down in January 2015) as well as regional processing arrangements (in the case known as M68, brought down in January 2016).

While policy can be debated, there should be no place for falsehood, rumour and unfounded speculation. People smugglers are constantly poised to jump on any relevant mistruth in order to convince prospective asylum seekers to pay them to get to Australia.

That is also why official statements on this issue have to be precise and unambiguous as to the essential objective of government policy. The maritime path to Australia is closed; and people subject to regional processing will not be allowed to settle in Australia.

What is often overlooked in so called commentary on this issue (and even, regrettably, in some media reporting) are the facts. Significant progress has been made over the past year to move children and their families from detention into the community. As I write, there are now 58 children who arrived by boat in held detention, down from a peak of almost 2000 back in 2013.

Much recent commentary has centred on a group of asylum seekers temporarily in Australia for medical treatment. A large number of this group are family members accompanying those in need of treatment. Consistent with policy and law, they will be returned to Nauru or Papua New Guinea at the conclusion of their treatment. The policy of the Government is that these persons will not be allowed to settle in Australia. No child will be returned to a place of harm, and we will exercise appropriate discretion and compassion in making decisions on a case-by-case basis, without fanfare.

Those returning to Nauru will return to a full open centre arrangement for all transferees and settled refugees. All are free to come and go from the accommodation centre 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Within the Department we have taken significant steps to enhance oversight, advice and scrutiny being applied to the care of those in detention, including children. The Department’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr John Brayley, provides me and the Commissioner of the ABF with impartial professional medical advice on health matters.

We have also increased our engagement with independent oversight bodies including the Minister’s Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Consistent with advice provided to me by the Department’s Chief Medical Officer, all transferees and refugees in Nauru and Papua New Guinea receive appropriate mental health care. The Department’s service provider’s support these Governments to provide health services, including mental health care, broadly commensurate with Australian community standards.

Recognition of an individual's mental health needs is particularly pertinent because many individuals in detention arrive with pre-existing mental health issues and may have experienced traumatic events in their country of origin or on their attempted journey to Australia.

For this reason the Department and its service providers support individuals with a range of specialist care options including mental health assessments and individualised care plans. The Department provides access to mental health nurses, counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists to individuals transferred to Australia for medical care.

The Nauru and Manus RPCs both have mental health care staff onsite, including mental health nurses, counsellors, torture and trauma counsellors, psychologists and a psychiatrist. There are also additional mental health care staff based at the Nauru Settlement clinic.

Since December 2014 significant improvements have also been made to infrastructure, education and health and welfare services in Nauru.

Around $37 million has been spent upgrading medical facilities in Nauru, which has a population of about 10,000 people. This includes, at the Republic of Nauru Hospital, a new surgical inpatient ward and medical building as well as the installation of a CT scanner which is also available to transferees, refugees and local Nauruans.

This is supplemented by improved neonatal and obstetric services and the establishment of visiting specialist consultation and surgical services to transferees.

The Australian government has also provided additional settlement accommodation in hard-walled buildings, expanded the Nauru Primary School, built a new Community Resource Centre and upgraded the island’s water supply. To support education, we have provided expatriate professional development and teacher support services (a total of 11 teachers) in Nauru schools and five school counsellors.

I must also address ongoing and consistent claims that those expressing opinions on immigration detention are “risking jail by speaking out”. While often repeated, this claim is also wrong and unsupported by any facts.

The secrecy and disclosure provisions in Part 6 of the Australian Border Force (ABF) Act are not unique. These types of provisions are similar to those which apply to partner agencies and a wide range of other Commonwealth agencies with responsibilities for the management of confidential or protected information. They do not prevent, for example, medical professionals from seeking the best clinical outcomes for their patients.

In the midst of this debate, the Department will continue to focus on the fair, dignified and humane treatment of people in our care. We make decisions compassionately, consistent with Australian law. We will continue to reduce the number of children in detention as soon as practicable, within the law, as we have done in recent years.

Ultimately, the Department shares the same goal as its critics – to have no children at all in immigration detention, consistent with the law of the land

open24hours posted:

Now that I've thought about it a bit more I think it's a bit more complex than I originally implied. For example, if someone wants to film or photograph themselves shooting heroin and distribute it and it's in no way coerced then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. On the other hand, if someone films themselves assaulting someone or coercing them into doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do then I think the people profiting and the item are both part of the problem. The item being available, even if no one is making money from it, seems, at the very minimum, like pretty big violation of the victim's privacy.

LibertyCat posted:

Negative gearing is awful but killing it for new homes is a big "gently caress you, we're pulling the ladder up behind ourselves" from the boomers.

I'd like to see migration scaled back by 50% to reduce demand. Many Australians want quarter acre blocks and the lifestyle it brings - BBQs, dogs, not living in the bleak hellscape that is a modern city. Our net migration rate is twice that of NZ/UK/USA and 6x France and Germany. Knock it back and that's more room for everyone else.

tithin posted:

tithin posted:

LibertyCat posted:

I'd like to see migration scaled back by 50% to reduce demand. Many Australians want quarter acre blocks and the lifestyle it brings - BBQs, dogs, not living in the bleak hellscape that is a modern city. Our net migration rate is twice that of NZ/UK/USA and 6x France and Germany. Knock it back and that's more room for everyone else.

my stepdads beer posted:

Perhaps we should build more traditional cities then, instead of modern ones. You know, all those places we spend big bucks on to travel to once a year like Paris and Venice and Barcelona. Japan seems to be really good at it we should just copy them.

quote:

High migration is about the only thing keeping us going at the moment, anyway. Encouraging more residents (including existing ones) to move to non-capital cities would take some of the pressure off, at least.

Graic Gabtar posted:

There simply isn't a situation that can't be summed up by a Simpson's still these days is there?

It's a strange statement to make for something that people care less and less about despite the best efforts of left leaning media to breathe life into it.