|
What is that bill of rights madness, what the gently caress, you'd think things like fair justice etc would be in there, not underground loving imaging.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
There's also nothing about free speech That is in precedent from the High Court deeming it an implied right for representative politics to work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:53
|
|
|
I can't remember whether this is a popular opinion or not but seriously, gently caress having a Bill of Rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I can't remember whether this is a popular opinion or not but seriously, gently caress having a Bill of Rights. I was thinking about this today, what stops the government from doing horrible things to refugees? Law. Except that government controls law and can change them at will. So you need something above that which the courts can hold the government accountable to, which can only be changed by the public, in our case it's the constitution, so wouldn't enshrining certain rights in the constitution be a good thing? I agree you need to be careful about it, but it's a handbrake on government action that goes beyond "we repealed all the laws that protect you so eat poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 10:20
|
|
|
hooman posted:I was thinking about this today, what stops the government from doing horrible things to refugees? Law. Except that government controls law and can change them at will. So you need something above that which the courts can hold the government accountable to, which can only be changed by the public, in our case it's the constitution, so wouldn't enshrining certain rights in the constitution be a good thing? I agree you need to be careful about it, but it's a handbrake on government action that goes beyond "we repealed all the laws that protect you so eat poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Good luck getting a referendum to pass to add basic human rights to the Constitution. Sneak it in the side door by making it only protect middle class (means tested!) or better white men and small business owners, then expand it over time
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 10:27
|
|
|
hooman posted:What is that bill of rights madness, what the gently caress, you'd think things like fair justice etc would be in there, not underground loving imaging. I remember Nick McKim, I think, posting about how we need a bill of rights because we're the only democracy that doesn't have one, which is crazy untrue, it's uniquely American and bad and ignored. "Cruel and unusual punishment", yet regular torture and botched executions, 13th amendment explicitly allowing enslavement of ten percent of the population, etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 10:49
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Sneak it in the side door by making it only protect middle class (means tested!) or better white men and small business owners, then
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:03
|
|
|
Billboards from a Victorian government campaign that aims to encourage conversations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have been pulled because the Outdoor Media Association said they were potentially in breach of rules against racial vilification. The “Deadly Questions” campaign has been rolled out by Aboriginal Victoria as part of the push toward a treaty between the state and Aboriginal people. It encourages non-Indigenous people to ask questions they had been afraid to ask of Aboriginal people for fear of being branded ignorant or racist and provides video or written responses from individual Aboriginal people around the state. Questions already on the site include “Why should I be sorry for something I didn’t do?” and “Can you get more welfare if you’re Aboriginal?” A number of those questions were due to be plastered around Melbourne on billboards operated by APN Outdoor. But the contract was dropped after APN Outdoor referred the material to the Outdoor Media Association (OMA), which in turn referred them to Ad Standards. In a statement, OMA said two of the seven proposed ads were found to potentially be in breach of the section of the Australian Association of National Advertisers code of ethics banning racial vilification. “While we recognise the purpose of the advertisement is to raise awareness of an important issue and that the advertisement is meant to provoke a reaction and drive visitation to the website, Ad Standards advised that two of the executions could potentially be found in breach of section 2.1 of the AANA code of ethics if the advertisement attracted complaints,” a spokeswoman from OMA said. “This information was provided to our OMA members.” The Aboriginal affairs minister, Natalie Hutchins, said it appeared the advertising body had missed the point of the campaign. “I’m disappointed by APN’s decision and this unfortunately proves why we need to have a campaign like Deadly Questions,” Hutchins said. The chief executive of APN Outdoor, James Warburton, said that submitting advertising material to OMA and Ad Standards for review was its usual practice, and later told the agency that created the ads that it had been advised two of the ads were potentially in breach of the code of ethics. The ads were then pulled from APN Outdoor, but will run on JC Decaux, which also does outdoor advertising and tram wrappers. A spokeswoman from Aboriginal Victoria said the questions were meant to be challenging, and said it was ironic that in challenging racism it could be accused of racial vilification. “We understand that some of the questions asked by the public – and that we are repeating in the campaign — are provocative, but that’s the point,” she said. “To have an open discussion we need to acknowledge that some ugly viewpoints exist.” Aboriginal Victoria said it needed the media to support the process, which it said would break down barriers as part of the path toward negotiating a treaty. “It’s incredibly disappointing to have APN and the OMA dictate what they think is appropriate with regards to discrimination, when these questions are ones that we invited, are providing responses to, and represent the real conversation that Victorians want to have,” she said. Legislation to establish the supporting framework for negotiating a treaty or treaties with Aboriginal Victorians, including the framework around a representative body that has been likened to the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament, is due to be debated in the upper house this week. If it passes, it will be the first legislation formally signalling an intent to negotiate a treaty with Aboriginal people in any Australian jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:06
|
|
|
Rude exemption of what "deadly" means
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
Lid posted:“While we recognise the purpose of the advertisement is to raise awareness of an important issue and that the advertisement is meant to provoke a reaction and drive visitation to the website, Ad Standards advised that two of the executions could potentially be found in breach of section 2.1 of the AANA code of ethics if the advertisement attracted complaints,” a spokeswoman from OMA said. “This information was provided to our OMA members.” There's a whole drat process here including the complaint that wasn't actually made being judged for appropriateness by the industry group then submitted to a community panel, and the worst that could've happened was they'd've been made to take the ads down
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:40
|
|
My first car was a stick
|
hooman posted:I was thinking about this today, what stops the government from doing horrible things to refugees? Law. Except that government controls law and can change them at will. So you need something above that which the courts can hold the government accountable to, which can only be changed by the public, in our case it's the constitution, so wouldn't enshrining certain rights in the constitution be a good thing? I agree you need to be careful about it, but it's a handbrake on government action that goes beyond "we repealed all the laws that protect you so eat poo poo". I'll try and keep it as brief as I can for the sake of everyone reading, but my reasons for opposing (what I'll call a Charter, but could be a Bill of Rights, etc.) essentially boil down to: 1. In practice, I think you could achieve the desired outcomes through regular legislation, so; 2. It'd be a huge and unnecessary expense; 3. We can barely pass one referendum at a time, let alone an entire Charter; 4. Depending on who writes it, it could well end up loving things even more (for instance, I think our treatment of refugees is abhorrent, but I can't imagine the current government writing a Charter which would rectify that), which means that; 5. By enshrining it within the Constitution, it becomes even harder to alter or repeal as cultural values and society change, which can be good but can also be a negative, especially since; 6. We'd likely have to rehash some old battles - for instance, it'd be hard to imagine such a Bill not including some kind of "right to life", and living in the state with the least restrictive abortion laws, gently caress having that fight all over again, and even worse, losing, which would; 7. Potentially gently caress over individual states which are already doing good things (again, see abortion law) and infringe on states' rights (  ); and8. Create confusion if there's a discrepancy between the Constitution and the Charter; and 9. Entrenching rights also defines and limits them, and if that leads to a poor outcome, again, good luck rectifying that without even more time and expense, since legislation can be changed at the drop of a hat, but the Constitution can't. I don't discount a Charter as being inherently bad - that is, I can see some pros - but I think it has the potential to do a lot more harm than good, and at this point into our history and jurisprudence, I don't see it as something we couldn't possibly live without. If you were starting a new country from scratch, or in the aftermath of some great disaster or war or something, fine, but for what it would offer, where we are now, and the potential ways it could go wrong? I'd need a lot more to convince me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:41
|
|
|
Primary schools across Australia have begun sending letters about the video game Fortnite to parents, warning of its “negative effects” on students. Several schools in New South Wales and Victoria have issued newsletters about the popular multiplayer game, which is played by an estimated 40 million people worldwide. Sydney’s Bondi Beach public school told parents there had been “a noticeable change in some behaviours in the classroom and in the playground, that are directly linked to Fortnite”.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
Lid posted:Primary schools across Australia have begun sending letters about the video game Fortnite to parents, warning of its “negative effects” on students. lol they can go back to playing Grand Theft Auto Online I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I'll try and keep it as brief as I can for the sake of everyone reading, but my reasons for opposing (what I'll call a Charter, but could be a Bill of Rights, etc.) essentially boil down to: That doesn't sound very good
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
bandaid.friend posted:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-20/this-is-the-first-indigenous-run-police-station-in-australia/9861778 I bet the drop in 'youth crime' is that the aboriginal officers aren't keen to arrest them for the crime of being aboriginal in public
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
The only good cop is... an indigenous cop?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
LIVE AMMO ROLEPLAY posted:The only good cop is... an indigenous cop? The only good cop is a deadly cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
Greens just voted in support of the Stage 2 personal tax cut plan. Traitors. They accidentally voted in support of it, while trying to vote against a Labor amendment
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:The only good cop is a deadly cop. concerning
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Thought I would have heard it here first but the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is doing a massive telethon today on World Refugee Day. They got a bunch of celebrities on the phones (Shaun Micallef  ) as well as an online auction and they are smashing their targets. All up it looks like a surprisingly slick operation to me.Consider chucking them some money ya bums
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:
This is doing my head in at the moment. Our policy is evil, there's no high road for Australians, but now we''ve inspired a madman to reality shearing levels of evil. I found myself genuinely pondering the "worst timeline" cliche today. And since apparently losing your children is the price I know why people don't riot and guillotine. But we should.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:14
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-20/burning-kites-from-gaza-damage-farms-forest-in-israel/9891734 on second thought delete the abc
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Greens just voted in support of the Stage 2 personal tax cut plan. https://twitter.com/workmanalice/status/1009372467041746944
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
What the gently caress Greens
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Greens just voted in support of the Stage 2 personal tax cut plan. How do you accidentally vote for something you're actively against? Whoops I voted for Clive Plamer but really I'm against being a total cockhead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
Gridlocked posted:How do you accidentally vote for something you're actively against? [checks notes]
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
Is that a joke or can you really trick a senator into a vote and then say no backsies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
AgentF posted:Thought I would have heard it here first but the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is doing a massive telethon today on World Refugee Day. They got a bunch of celebrities on the phones (Shaun Micallef 10bux sent. They are 20k short of the 800K they want, with 10 minutes to go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Wait so the fumble didn't actually result in the bill getting passed did it? Because accident or not, that's a serious indictment of their ability to represent the members.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
LIVE AMMO ROLEPLAY posted:Is that a joke or can you really trick a senator into a vote and then say no backsies? They weren't tricked, they were incompetent and hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
AgentF posted:Thought I would have heard it here first but the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre is doing a massive telethon today on World Refugee Day. They got a bunch of celebrities on the phones (Shaun Micallef Cool, just put $50 in for this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:They weren't tricked, they were incompetent and hosed up. please, like you've never been stuck in a meeting and failed to ask 'wait, what the gently caress are we voting on' before now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:please, like you've never been stuck in a meeting and failed to ask 'wait, what the gently caress are we voting on' before now. I've never been in a meeting where anything actually mattered enough that if I fell asleep it would matter. Did this actually get it to pass? Because if so, wow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:They weren't tricked, they were incompetent and hosed up. Seems like both to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
AgentF posted:Seems like both to me. Genuine question because my understanding is it was pretty much a knee-jerk reaction to opposing a Labor amendment and I'm sure it may well be more complex than that, but how were they tricked?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Genuine question because my understanding is it was pretty much a knee-jerk reaction to opposing a Labor amendment and I'm sure it may well be more complex than that, but how were they tricked? By being idiots
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
iajanus posted:By being idiots And apparently the gag on discussion of the bills made it unclear exactly what bill & amendment was being voted on at any given time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:And apparently the gag on discussion of the bills made it unclear exactly what bill & amendment was being voted on at any given time. Until shown any evidence about this being more complicated than it sounds I'm prepared to believe they just hosed up the "oppose Labor" thing they were going for, by being muppets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 14:27
|
|