Vladimir Poutine posted:

Graic Gabtar posted:

In my opinion 18c ain’t great.

I don’t like it that three university students were dragged through a looong legal process for what appears to be a complete cash grab.

I don’t like that it seems academics can be dragged through the courts for what could be interpreted as thought crime.

I don’t like that Bolt and News Corp weren’t sued for shitloads instead of creating a flag for every right wing nut job to rally under.

(That also being said it was done under 18c to prove a point that has now backfired spectacularly. Everyone was so gleeful when we had our first ‘convicted racist’, now probably not so much.)

Seems like “PC gone mad” and “silencing free speech” are staples in middle class dinner party conversation now. I think that is bullshit. I’m a conservative, but it’s embarrassing.

I’m pissed off that Turnbull’s legislative agenda is completely rooted (you don’t need to comment on the agenda – I get it) because of 18c. Obviously this reason is self interest but gently caress it.

I don’t like it because it based on “feels”. I get that it’s the whole point, but I don’t like laws where people are going to find themselves in a process where they will cut themselves either way.

I am also worried that above right wing nut jobs are going to double tab 18c so hard because no-one seems to want to come to the table on this. Feels like we’re going to go backwards 50 years.

I know you all think I’m a racist oval office but as you can’t judge me by real life actions (so I’ll still be a racist oval office) but I’m pretty much on board with what it’s trying to do.

So basically it’s screwed. By wording and now reputation. I’ve read quite a few of the cases under 18c (shock) and we’ve still got a long way to go. However, 18d isn’t stopping the edge cases.

So there you go. Say what you will. I’m in too much of a good mood to care anyway.

(Still looking for that photo)

Vladimir Poutine posted:

Starshark posted:

I want Chris Uhlmann to read this post because when you were asked to articulate why Trump won in the US, you brought up race

Recoome posted:

also ratbag craig please gently caress off if you think that the racial discrimination act is somehow a bad thing

Graic Gabtar posted:

I’m pissed off that Turnbull’s legislative agenda is completely rooted (you don’t need to comment on the agenda – I get it) because of 18c. Obviously this reason is self interest but gently caress it.

Starshark posted:

I want Chris Uhlmann to read this post because when you were asked to articulate why Trump won in the US, you brought up race. None of this poo poo about the economy, or globalism, or uncertainty of employment - race. My taxi driver on the way to work is convinced that Trump won because "Obama didn't do enough about Muslims". If Uhlmann really wants to get to the heart of why Trump won, he needs to get his head out of his arse and realise that it boils down to a fear of the other (Muslims, Mexicans, women) and nothing to do with coal jobs going out the window.

Graic Gabtar posted:

I don't recall that. I was replying to this...

BBJoey posted:

with careful analysis like 'trump voters are all racists' the democrats hopes for 2020 is looking bright

Starshark posted:

According to this exit poll, the under 50k earners (those you would call 'poor') favoured Clinton. If it was about the economy, you'd see them vote Trump. And it's not just race, it's misogyny as well. Clinton had to fight with one hand behind her back because if she showed too much emotion she was a bitch.

Birdstrike posted:

hillary is a milquetoast technocrat with no policy platform and no capacity to understand let alone be able to address the problems caused by gross wealth inequality and unemployment, and why would she as a prime beneficiary of this system

but the real problem was everyone else

I guess I earned this av

thank you g-d bless

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Starshark posted:

According to this exit poll, the under 50k earners (those you would call 'poor') favoured Clinton. If it was about the economy, you'd see them vote Trump. And it's not just race, it's misogyny as well. Clinton had to fight with one hand behind her back because if she showed too much emotion she was a bitch.

Graic Gabtar posted:

In my opinion 18c ain’t great.

I don’t like it that three university students were dragged through a looong legal process for what appears to be a complete cash grab.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

BBJoey posted:

ah, the analysis goes even deeper: trump voters are racist and sexist. with top minds like you on their side the dems are sure to sweep the house, senate and presidency in 2020.

MysticalMachineGun posted:

There will be no nukes, no armageddon - instead there'll just be a higher number of legal immigrants kicked out of America, higher numbers of abuse of minorities and more young, poor American youths sent off to war(s).

Business as usual, eh?

freebooter posted:

How sure are you that President Trump will not decide to nuke, say - I don't know know, just to pick a city at random - Raqqa?

freebooter posted:

Oh well that's reassuring then.

Barnaby Joyce is on ABC24 waffling about something about how the "gravitas" of the office will smooth everything out. This widespread concept that everything will be okay and Trump will somehow prove to be something other than the clueless baboon he has repeatedly proved himself to be is loving delusional.

EoinCannon posted:

Barry Cassidy looked angry and baffled on news breakfast this morning, none of the usual banter

QUACKTASTIC posted:

e. Republicans are probably going to have every level of government; the rank & file GOP would love it if Trump was actually charged with whatever fraud/corruption/pedophilia things he's being investigated for, so they can replace him with one of their own.

norp posted:

What exactly is the process for replacing a president? Pence becomes president until the next election or do they hold a new election early?

ewe2 posted:

I expect surprises from Trump, not least that he doesn't do half of what he promised and a lot that no one was expecting. I think there are good odds that once they get through the first flurry of their social program of revenge, they'll resort to domestic stagnation and foreign policy adventurism because that seems to be the Republican way once they run out of ideas. That's bad for us, btw. It's bad for us that Trump wants to economically attack China. Globalization isn't something Trump can even stop. It's more likely that he'll take a bunch of cash in return for doing nothing. We'll see, because now the dog has caught the car and now has to figure out what to do with it.

MysticalMachineGun posted:

VP steps up in all cases is what I heard. Not sure about how a new VP is picked.

Bent Wookiee posted:

This would make sense if they were actually convicted under 18c, but the judge threw it out as not applicable. This shouldn't really be held up as a case for repeal.

quote:

NSW Government accused of weakening protections around public spaces By Liv Casben and Sarah Gerathy Updated about 11 hours ago

The New South Wales Opposition says the Government can more easily privatise and sell off public spaces, including beaches and parks, under new laws changing the way crown land is managed. The legislation, which has been described as the biggest shake-up of crown land for 120 years, was passed through the New South Wales Parliament on Wednesday. The bill gives the Lands Minister the power to hand over control of crown land to other government agencies, if they consider it in the public interest. It was debated for almost eight hours overnight on Tuesday in the Parliament's Upper House, before it began its final journey through the Lower House on Wednesday. Despite a number of amendments, critics are still concerned the Government will be able to bypass checks and balances to sell off crown land.

Bill not properly scrutinised, Foley says

Labor said the bill had not been scrutinised enough and had raised the prospect that important public land like Sydney's Centennial Park could be sold off under the legislation. "The Baird Government wants nothing more than to put a for sale sign up on public land and amenities," Opposition Leader Luke Foley said. "By avoiding scrutiny it hopes to avoid a public backlash." But Lands Minister Niall Blair rejected that criticism, and said there would be far greater community engagement in decisions about crown land. "The scare campaign from Labor, the Greens and their supporters has failed and the management of crown lands will be better as a result," he said. "This is about putting the community back at the heart of decisions about their land."

Academic says move 'not in the public interest'

Jacquie Svenson, a solicitor and lecturer at Newcastle Law School, disagreed. She has been following the legislation through Parliament. She was also solicitor for a community group who successfully challenged the privatisation of part of King Edward Headland Reserve in Newcastle in 2014. Ms Svenson said the bill flies in the face of public interest. She said, under the bill, crown land would be openly commercialised, and fees could be charged for entry. "Beaches are almost always crown land and this bill opens the way for entry fees to be charged for their use. It is something that already exists in parts of the USA and Europe," she said. Greens MP David Shoebridge is also extremely critical of the legislation. He said while the Upper House amendments successfully protected the state's 200 or so commons, the bill "still leaves public land vulnerable to privatisation".

Crown Land, Our Land is a community group that has been fighting the sell-off of crown land.

Spokesperson Emma Brooks Maher said the legislation was "privatisation on steroids". "This bill doesn't just mean [it's] open slather to commercialise crown land, it lets the Minister rubber stamp all the shady deals currently cheating the public," she said. "What's worse - the shonks can now issue mega-dollar subleases to big-business mates, and keep the profit."

quote:

New police watchdog can't recycle other agencies' staff, NSW Police Association says By police reporter Jessica Kidd Updated about 10 hours ago

The Police Association of New South Wales (PANSW) is urging the state's new police watchdog not to re-hire staff from the three integrity agencies it replaces. Last night, the NSW Parliament passed laws to establish the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC), which replaces the Police Integrity Commission, the Inspector of the Crime Commission and the Police and Compliance Branch of the ombudsman's office. It means the LECC is solely responsible for investigating serious police misconduct and corruption as well as overseeing the handling of complaints. "It is now crucial to ensure the new Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) does not replicate the mistakes of the past agencies," Police Association president Scott Weber said. "The LECC must begin with a new culture of professionalism and accuracy, and a respect for lawful procedures and the truth. This will only be achieved if staff from the Police Integrity Commission and Police Division of the Office of the Ombudsman are not employed by the LECC."

Recruitment of agency staff to begin soon

Police Minister Troy Grant said the Government would soon begin the process of recruiting the LECC's chief commissioner, deputy commissioners, CEO and other senior staff. He said the new body will simplify and strengthen oversight of the state's police force. "[This will] ensure that we have a strengthened, more robust police oversight body," Mr Grant said. "That will give the confidence ... and the surety that police corruption and misconduct will be better monitored." The bill to create the LECC was passed after a number of amendments from Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile which were aimed at bolstering procedural fairness procedures for police officers. "Procedural fairness is obviously an important legal principle," Mr Grant said. "So the Commission needs to adhere to those principles but also have the strength to make sure that they have every resource and capability to uncover misconduct within the police force and any evidence of corruption at the same time. The balance has been struck and I believe that the legislation has landed to make sure that the LECC will have every opportunity and will give the community absolute confidence that they'll be able to hold police to account when needed."

Police campaigned for 'fair oversight'

PANSW President Scott Weber said the Association had "consistently campaigned for a fair police oversight system. One that is effective without denying police officers' procedural fairness," he said. "For too long, the multi-agency system of police oversight has subjected police to multiple investigations, delayed resolution, unreliable outcomes, and unjustified damage to officers' careers and wellbeing. This new culture must be fostered by the creation of extensive commission policies, establishing standard procedures for the commission's use of all coercive and covert powers, and the conduct if the commission during hearings. Only then can police have full confidence in an impartial police oversight system that is transparent, professional and effective while providing accountability."

The NSW Government wants the LECC to be up and running by the start of 2017.

quote:

Young Indigenous leaders call for change after damning child removals report By Avani Dias Posted about 2 hours ago

From Yirrkala on the Territory's east coast to inland Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley, young Indigenous leaders want to make decisions about their own communities, instead of leaving it to people in offices in the big cities. "We need to make school a better place, make better understanding for kids, do more culture investing and law and culture at school, like learning about skin and language groups," Hozaus Claire from Fitzroy Crossing said. "It's very important because that's where all our respect comes from, our law and culture. We need more strong leaders, we need more true leaders, leaders that are going to set goals and aim for it and then actually hit the target."

Those targets are the subject of a devastating national report, which warned the number of Indigenous children in out-of-home care was set to triple in 20 years.

The report urged the Government to find a new national strategy to address the 15,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who will not be sleeping with their parents tonight. "A big impact that happened on me from a young age [was] seeing another person being taken out of my community, and having to come back and not to have that connection with your country and that knowledge," Rodriguez Wilson from the Arnhem Land community of Gunbalanya said. "The Government needs to get its act together, you need to come out and see what our communities are like."

Report says status quo not evidence-based

The Family Matters report said the Northern Territory Government was not engaging enough with evidence and informed solutions to concerns around child neglect, abuse and removal. It did note the NT had improved in some areas like the rate of child protection notifications and the number of children removed by child protection authorities. However, it also showed the Northern Territory had the poorest legislation for Aboriginal participation in the child protection system. It said the NT also needed an Indigenous peak body and commissioner for children, and there was a significant lack of Aboriginal families involved in decisions related to child removals. "It's got a significant impact in the NT, a number of children get taken off their families and the numbers here keep increasing," Priscilla Collins from the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency said. "Children should be taken off their families as a last resort, what they really should be doing is putting money into early intervention and prevention rather than putting all the money into reacting to the problem."

NT Chief Minister Michael Gunner said the Government would invest $3 million in non-government organisations to help families before children were taken away. "In the NT there's about 10,000 reports that occur that aren't serious enough to trigger the child protection notification but they're a warning bell to show that family is in trouble," Mr Gunner said. "What we've said is let's work with the NGO sector to put support around that family to make sure it never actually goes to that next level." But Ms Collins said $3 million was not enough to deal with the problems. "Three million dollars is very little money, what we're looking at here is a lot of systemic issues that have been going for a number of years that haven't been addressed," she said. At the Remote Indigenous Youth Leadership Summit, the young leaders overwhelmingly called for children to stay on country. "My people, Aboriginal people, have the right to grow up on their land with their people, with their culture and learning the traditional ways of the land," Joseph Shannon, 18, from Tennant Creek said.

Pocket Billiards posted:

I'm sure I read that a 45% import tariffs for goods from China is a Trump policy? That's a big loving deal I don't hear many people talking about.

Cartoon posted:

The butt hurt is strong in the AV buyers around here. Almost as strong as the birdstrike butt hurt. If you are sincere about the ban - post a ban me, or was it all just a cheap excuse for some cowardly parting shots?