Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[Loonerty]

 

[Lore]

Didn’t we have roughly the exact same conversation about the merits of listening to Milo whatsisname? Some people claiming he had a message and his hyperbole was worth it to make a point...?

 

[DapperJong]

I trust the scientists on climate change and hate how it has become a political issue (from both sides). Also think climate is just one part of the issue - the rate at which fertile land and water is being polluted could have just as catastrophic consequences as changes in climate if they continue.

No time for Greta though and any linking of climate/environmental issues to political ideologies. Personally think a combination of technology and the West's version of capitalism is the most likely to find some long term solutions but the current divisions on this issue sure aren't helping (again I blame both sides).

Also, China.

I get what you are saying but how can it not be a political issue? Also, we have a prime minister that brings lumps of coal to question time. That Western capitalism? If you've got no time for Greta, and that's it, perhaps you aren't looking closely enough at both sides.

 

[Darealrath]

I get what you are saying but how can it not be a political issue? Also, we have a prime minister that brings lumps of coal to question time. That Western capitalism? If you've got no time for Greta, and that's it, perhaps you aren't looking closely enough at both sides.

That's an example of what I don't like. It should be a political issue in the sense there is a role for governments, but I don't think it should be a left/right thing which creates a lot of division because too many people support parties blindly (again, both sides). It also shouldn't be used to push political ideologies which IMO are irrelevant to the issue but seems to be happening more. Probably as a result of the current left/right division on the issue/science (which I don't think makes a lot of sense from an ideological standpoint anyway).

 

[DapperJong]

That's an example of what I don't like. It should be a political issue in the sense there is a role for governments, but I don't think it should be a left/right thing which creates a lot of division because too many people support parties blindly (again, both sides). It also shouldn't be used to push political ideologies which IMO are irrelevant to the issue but seems to be happening more. Probably as a result of the current left/right division on the issue/science (which I don't think makes a lot of sense from an ideological standpoint anyway).

What you're saying is an ideological approach in itself. I would love everyone to being holding hands in unity as well, but the fact is a lot of people fundamentally disagree on a lot of things. I agree that left/right distinction is terrible. You have to remember that Greta isn't a politician. And I haven't seen a lot/if any align themselves with her. The only ones that engage are the ones that despise her, because she isn't good for them. Protest is something I heavily support and that's what she is doing.

 

[Darealrath]

What you're saying is an ideological approach in itself. I would love everyone to being holding hands in unity as well, but the fact is a lot of people fundamentally disagree on a lot of things. I agree that left/right distinction is terrible. You have to remember that Greta isn't a politician. And I haven't seen a lot/if any align themselves with her. The only ones that engage are the ones that despise her, because she isn't good for them. Protest is something I heavily support and that's what she is doing.

I think we just disagree on how much we support the form of the protest rather than the right to, which I'd never oppose.

 

[DapperJong]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Lore]

 

[The Speaker]

Wouldn't need the bill if certain quarters (that are now complaining about the bill) hadn't spend the past decades trying to whittle down religious freedoms in the first place.

Having said that, the ACL (for example) actually argues that a religious discrimination bill is not the best way to protect freedoms (and is unnecessary given state laws already in place), but that the bill originally contained certain extra clauses that made it worthwhile.

 

[DapperJong]

Nothing to do with Scotty liking rugby and a good old church singalong.

 

[The Speaker]

Nothing to do with Scotty liking rugby and a good old church singalong.

Wow, its almost like politicians are humans and will be most active on issues that they have personal connections to.

Do you know why William Wilberforce decided to lead the campaign for the abolition of slavery? Because he was a public Christian at a time when such people were derided by the public, and a group of his Christian friends convinced him that he should use his position to achieve a great thing for humanity. Personal connections and relationships make the world go around.

 

[DapperJong]

Wow, its almost like politicians are humans and will be most active on issues that they have personal connections to.

Do you know why William Wilberforce decided to lead the campaign for the abolition of slavery? Because he was a public Christian at a time when such people were derided by the public, and a group of his Christian friends convinced him that he should use his position to achieve a great thing for humanity. Personal connections and relationships make the world go around.

I don't think all Christian's are bad. Relax. There are plenty of great people I know who realise that morality and their faith don't always mesh and sometimes they even question their teachings. Imagine that!

But that first sentence is pretty interesting. I think it's part of a massive problem Scott has, no desire to address things he doesn't care about. And that empathy training hasn't worked.

 

[The Speaker]

I don't think all Christian's are bad. Relax.

I know you don't have a problem with all Christians, I'm just making the point that every single politician of every stripe will have the most interest in things that they are personally connected with because they know those things best eg. the abolition of slavery.

There are plenty of great people I know who realise that morality and their faith don't always mesh and sometimes they even question their teachings. Imagine that!

Depends on whose teaching it is, what they're teaching, what conclusions they draw from their questions, why they're raising questions...

But that first sentence is pretty interesting. I think it's part of a massive problem Scott has, no desire to address things he doesn't care about. And that empathy training hasn't worked.

Like pretty much every other government, then.

 

[DapperJong]

I know you don't have a problem with all Christians, I'm just making the point that every single politician of every stripe will have the most interest in things that they are personally connected with because they know those things best eg. the abolition of slavery.
Depends on whose teaching it is, what they're teaching, what conclusions they draw from their questions, why they're raising questions...
Like pretty much every other government, then.

That's all fine, but Scott is having a particularly bad run. I'd put slavery abolishment high on a needs list. I wouldn't put this religious freedom bill anywhere near it.

 

[The Speaker]

That's all fine, but Scott is having a particularly bad run. I'd put slavery high on a needs list. I wouldn't put this religious freedom bill anywhere near it.

It is when the people who need it are the ones who voted for you, especially those who switched from the ALP

 

[DapperJong]

It is when the people who need it are the ones who voted for you, especially those who switched from the ALP

I can't remember that getting that much of a run in his campaign.

 

[DapperJong]

Who the hell NEEDS a religious freedom bill hahaha wow

 

[The Speaker]

Who the hell NEEDS a religious freedom bill hahaha wow

hahahaha probably every single religious person currently employed by a company, running a business or a student in an education institution LOL

 

[DapperJong]

hahahaha probably every single religious person currently employed by a company, running a business or a student in an education institution LOL

Explain why. Because I legit don't get it. Explain it like I'm a gay man perhaps? Get me to understand and it respect it.

Why should religious people be protected over those that their religion condemns?

Tell me why it's ok for you to tell me, a gay man, that I am going to hell.

 

[The Speaker]

Explain why. Because I legit don't get it. Explain it like I'm a gay man perhaps? Get me to understand and it respect it.

Why should religious people be protected over those that their religion condemns?

Tell me why it's ok for you to tell me, a gay man, that I am going to hell.

That's not actually how freedoms work. You tell me why I shouldn't be legally allowed to say such a thing (even though I wouldn't actually state that so bluntly), just as legally you are allowed to say that religious people deserve eternal punishment or whatever (even though you may never state something like that).

Freedoms place everyone on the same ground in a way that rights cannot, because rights can be given and taken away, and if they conflict, one must overcome the other.

 

[DapperJong]

You tell me why I shouldn't be legally allowed to say such a thing

Because it's immoral.

just as legally you are allowed to say that religious people deserve eternal punishment or whatever

Also immoral.

I feel unconvinced of your need, but really, I really want to try and understand it. At the moment I really don't see many Christians being treated unjustly just because they are Christians.

 

[The Speaker]

Because it's immoral.



Also immoral.

So the law should govern morality?

I feel unconvinced of your need, but really, I really want to try and understand it. At the moment I really don't see many Christians being treated unjustly just because they are Christians.

It's not a matter of there being lots being treatly unjustly at the moment (though there are quite a number of late), because that's not how common law systems work. It's about one happening which establishes a precedent by which many can be treated unjustly in the future. That's why the Folau case was so big, that's why the government under Malcolm Turnbull had an expert panel assess religious freedom. There have been scores of cases taken before the courts and tribunals, the vast majority of which haven't succeeded because (as I mentioned above, there are already many protections in state legislation), but there are some gaps that have emerged which this legislation would ideally cover, particularly related to employment and education.

There are some case studies presented in the HRLA and ACL's joint submission to the aforementioned expert panel:

104. Several cases in which the Human Rights Law Alliance has assisted during the past two years demonstrate this phenomenon. Names have mostly been redacted in favour of pseudonyms at the request of the parties, but the cases are briefly stated here to demonstrate the threats to freedom of religion emerging in social, corporate and related spheres.
105. The mechanism by which most cases are brought on is either through institutional codes and bureaucracies, or anti-discrimination and vilification laws.
106. This list is very much incomplete, carrying just a cross-section of the matters in which the Alliance has was involved.
107. If the Panel is interested in unredacted, more detailed summaries of these and potentially other cases, a strictly confidential supplementary report could be supplied under parliamentary privilege.
108. A student at a major Australian university was recently suspended for a minimum of six months and conditions imposed on his enrolment following two incidents. First, he prayed for a fellow student struggling with anxiety (with her permission). Second, in response to a direct question from a classmate, he indicated that he would be happy to be friends with a homosexual person although he “would not necessarily agree” with homosexual conduct. The grounds relied on for the action were that he caused the student to “feel unsafe.” He was verbally warned not to speak about religion on campus.
109. A teacher at a government school engaged in a debate on Facebook concerning same-sex marriage. He shared news articles in support and offered his own contrary opinion, which is one informed by his Christian convictions. He was insulted in the local media as “homophobic” and was placed under investigation for suspected breaches of discipline by the relevant Department of Education.
110. A Commonwealth public servant with a conservative and Christian cultural heritage was given an official warning and placed under further investigation for suspected breaches of discipline after expressing his views at work. He had expressed concern at the pressure being placed on staff to march in a “pride” parade and had asked to be removed from the internal “pride” newsletter mailing list as he found some of the content offensive to his sensitivities around sex and related matters.
111. When his Christian views became known to employees, the General Manager of a Melbourne digital services agency was challenged about the content of the safe schools program. He indicated his disagreement with the teaching, but affirmed his belief in tolerance and respect. He was summarily dismissed for his beliefs and later obtained a settlement for unfair dismissal.
112. A medical practitioner with honorary status at a major Australian university recently gave talks in a church and a school, carrying a Christian view on human sexuality and conduct, her area of professional expertise. The university and a professional association of which she was a member both received complaints. Her membership with the association was terminated, whilst her honorary status was retained after she received legal representation, though warnings were issued.
113. A Christian Western Australian couple with two of their own children applied to be foster parents of children under the age of six. Their application progressed without a hitch until they were asked to disclose their Christian views of sexuality and sexual conduct. A decision notice was issued thereafter, indicating their application to foster children was refused on the basis that their beliefs rendered it “unsafe” for children to be placed in their care.
114. A faith-based school operating according to Christian convictions around gender was recently the subject of a complaint to VCAT alleging transgender discrimination for not allowing a girl to wear a boy’s uniform (the allegation is disputed by the school). The complainant has demanded the school adopt polices that contradict its convictions and donate money to a transgender group. The school is threatened with further legal action if they do not comply.
115. A woman who holds accreditation with a family counselling service gave a talk challenging the queer theory view of transgenderism and gender identity. She was the subject of complaints to the qualifying body and had her accreditation terminated.
116. A man who worked for a national insurance firm engaged in a forum on the company’s intranet. Several had posted voicing their support for same-sex marriage. He voiced his opposition. The posts were deleted, and he received a letter from human resources indicating that he would have to attend a meeting at which it would be discussed, “what action should be taken up to and including dismissal.” The proceeding was dropped after he obtained legal representation.
117. Two medical doctors who declined on conscientious grounds to refer two lesbian couples for IVF treatment, due to their religious convictions around family and IVF itself, where the subject of complaints to the Medical Board. One received an official warning whilst the other had the proceedings dropped after obtaining legal representation.
118. A children’s party entertainer based in Canberra updated her Facebook profile image to include the official “it’s ok to vote no” frame during the same-sex marriage postal vote campaign period. She was terminated immediately from her job by her employer who was upset by her religiously motivated views, alleging it would be unsafe for her to continue working with children.
119. Refer to paragraphs 93 and 95, above, concerning vilification cases against Cornerstone Presbyterian Church and Archbishop Julian Porteous for teaching Christian doctrine.
120. When discrimination norms over-reach in favour of certain attributes, or without regard to other human rights and freedoms, they derogate from the rights and freedoms of others in the community. This is often reflected not only in various legislation, but also in how those standards are reflected in various institutions and groups. Without protection for the religious and other freedoms of Australians, such breaches of human rights can go unaddressed.
121. It is our observation that such matters are becoming more frequent and more difficult to defend. This is due in no small part to debate and subsequent change to the law on marriage.
122. Recommendation: The Expert Panel should investigate options for a Commonwealth law that provides redress to persons whose religious freedom has been infringed.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I'm not fussed re: the speech parts. We still have protections where speech causes demonstrable harm - defamation, incitement to violence, etc. If someone wants to politely inform me I'm going to hell for living in sin and fathering a child out of wedlock, I'll give them a polite Hail Satan in return and roll on.

It's the clauses allowing denial of medical treatment, education, employment and so forth on the basis of religious practice, lack thereof, personal life choices and turns-out-not-choices-at-all that are deeply troubling.

 

[Runk]

Hey DapperJong, have you heard of 'Christian persecution complex?' It's a fascinating point of view and sums it up nicely for mine.
It's basically a 'Everyone is trying to destroy us' mentality and therefore they seem to always feel persecuted, particularly when that perception is attached to Govt decisions and perceived social norms.

 

[The Speaker]

Speech, whatever. We still have protections where speech causes demonstrable harm - defamation, incitement to violence, etc. It's the clauses allowing denial of medical treatment, education, employment and so forth on the basis of religious practice, lack thereof, personal life choices and turns-out-not-choices-at-all that are deeply troubling.

Imminent lawless action, as the United States calls it. Freedom of speech in Australia is not as well protected as it is in the US.