Its not Perth, its Adelaide
1 Like
2 Likes
Wow. Iâm surprised. I wonder what the written judgement will say to explain the courtâs reasoning for rejecting both complaints.
The drawbacks with the status quo are demonstrated through a simple counterfactual: what if Gaynor had instead vocally praised the ADFâs approach? He would still be an army reservist. Indeed, this is what the APSC wants of public servants â its guidance stressed âthis doesnât stop you making a positive comment on social media about your agency.â But the contest of ideas â the Miltonian concept underlying much of the philosophical grounding for free speech â becomes moot if only one side can speak. Such âcontent-basedâ restrictions on expression should be subject to exacting scrutiny.
Whether we agree with their views or not, every member of Australian society should be able to engage in political debate without fear of retribution by the state. That includes public servants and those enlisted in the armed forces. In refusing to hear Gaynorâs appeal, the High Court has missed a significant opportunity to protect freedom of expression in this country. Our democracy is poorer for this omission.
A shame that adding an explicit freedom of speech to the Australian Constitution has also been rejected; while public servants obviously should be careful about being impartial and so not openly criticising - nor praising - the govât of the day, donât recent events show why the current situation (a lack of constitituonally protected speech) is a problem?
Ha. Now theyâre interested in freedom of expression. 
Who (âtheyâ)?
R E S P E C T F U L
1 Like
Are rape jokes also respectful? Asking for a friend.
Given News Corpâs paywall Iâll just have to guess what threat of violence is in that report (until it is reported elsewhere).
On the ABC Radio Melbourne thing, it seems someone (Faine?) screwed up by being so surprised as to ask for clarification and so running out the delay. Hopefully a warning for other radio call-ins.
But here was the tweet.
A sad day when the Central Committee of the Supreme LNP are engaging in central planning for private companies:
So much for the LNP being the party of business & less government interference?
Whereâs the Finance Minister lashing out about the Soviet threat from his own party?
Will the LNP at least shut up with their overblown nonsense about Labor somehow being a bunch of communists who are going to destroy business?
In hindsight Faine probably should have dumped it. But surely more people would be thinking âgee Don, youâve overstepped the mark this timeâ than be nodding in furious agreeo.
One thing I like about Raf Epstein is heâll read out the vile texts other ABC presenters usually wonât touch in order to shine a light on the scumbags like Don.
Outrage! Outrage! Outrage!
In reality, it was probably some far-left loser characterising what he thinks is a far-right view, in another fake-hate incident. Theyâre becoming really boring (and so obvious to spot by anyone with half a brain!).
That radicalised far-left ânewsâ site indeed looks as its labelled - junk.
1 Like
Ha. Thanks for posting that ando, shows once again quite clearly how only some isolated incidents from hateful individuals concern those on the far-left.
The thing that irks me about this âwe shouldnât have a debate over same sex marriage because it involves civil rightsâ thing is that such a blanket reason (we shouldnât do X because Y involves [concept generally everyone agrees on]) can be applied to so many different topics to shut down discussion even though a lot of people will object to it.
Hereâs an example.
Imagine if someone said that we shouldnât have a debate on, say, whether we should ban animal products (primarily large volume sales like meat) from sale in Australia.
If you look at it from one perspective, it makes total sense to ban sales of meat. Animal welfare is clearly something that everyone agrees on. Anyone who disagrees with promoting animal welfare is a total piece of shit who should be totally disregarded because they think that animals donât deserve to live a life without needless pain and suffering.
Even with âhumaneâ killing, most animals are kept in squalid, unnatural conditions for most of their lives which obviously distress them. We live in a modern world where other plant-based alternatives for the most common animal products are available. Why should people be allowed to buy products made from slaughtered animals which have been kept in poor conditions for their short lives just because they find it more palatable and enjoyable?
Of course animal products would probably still be required for certain medicines and other applications, but far fewer animals would be required to be killedâŚ
Now, there is the other side of the story which most people who are not vegetarians today would believe, which is thatâŚanimal lives are worth considerably less than human lives/weâre at the top of the food chain, and so itâs OK to kill them for food. Thereâs also the argument that we ânaturallyâ have evolved to eat meat, so we should be allowed to continue eating meat.
Any point brought up by people opposing the change could be opposed with âWeâre no longer barbarians. Tradition is no excuse for cruelty or harm - If we continued traditions weâd still have slavery, ritual sacrifice of children, etc. Have some empathy for the poor animals who are suffering for your dining pleasure.â
So tell me, why shouldnât the Australian Government legislate to ban the sale of most animal meat products effective immediately? Why should we have a debate over this when the logical conclusion is so clearly in favour of banning meat products?
Now letâs change a few things aroundâŚ
Imagine if someone said that we shouldnât have a debate on, say, whether we should allow gay people to marry (polygamous marriages still not permitted though) in Australia.
If you look at it from one perspective, it makes total sense to allow gay people to marry. Civil rights is clearly something that everyone agrees on. Anyone who disagrees with civil rights is a total piece of shit who should be totally disregarded because they are probably homophobes, racists and bigots.
Even with âtraditionalâ marriage, around 33% of couples will eventually divorce, which flies in the face of the supposed âsanctity of marriageâ. We live in a modern world where LGBT people are well-accepted in society. Why should LGBT people be excluded from being permitted to marry their significant other just because they are of the same sex?
Now, there is the other side of the story which most people would believe, which is that marriage is sacred and traditions, etc. etc. etc.
I could probably refute any point that anyone brings up with âWeâre no longer barbarians. If we continued traditions weâd still have slavery, ritual sacrifice of children, etc. Have some empathy for the people who canât marry the people they love.â
So tell me, why shouldnât the Australian Government legislate to allow LGBT people to marry effective immediately? Why should we have a debate over this when the logical conclusion is so clearly in favour for legalising it?
I hope people can understand where Iâm coming from here. The first block of text with the meat ban is something that would be scoffed at today (as the article linked below probably was), but in 20-30 years Iâd imagine there would be a fairly strong push for it (maybe sooner if they make a few advances in lab grown meatâŚ).
The second block of text with same sex marriage is something youâd probably have seen written in a university magazine 20-25 years ago, was scoffed at at the time, yet it is something that is agreed with by (probably) a majority of people in this country.
I guess my point is, everyone has a different perspective of the issue, and thatâs why itâs important for a diverse range of opinions to be aired to understand the reasons why people think the way they do.
A few things:
I should say that I am a total omnivore and consume meat for entirely selfish reasons.
Iâm also voting Yes in the survey (have I mentioned this enough?).
4 Likes
Mmmmm⌠baconâŚ
1 Like
Sure sweetie, thatâs totally what happened.
Why is it the right has a complete lack of standards (consistency)?
In one breath saying Thatâs obviously lefty-generated fakery, then immediately turning around with Look at this proof that the left are hateful!
Itâs an easy answer. Because itâs easy to blame a boogieman. And because, despite the fact weâre all Australians, segments of the right have shifted into believing that left-wing politics is their mortal enemy.
Youâre starting to see the right wing take sides with, or at least defend the actions of, neonazis and white supremacists. They hate us more than people who advocate putting others (Jews, LGBT) to death. And weâre going to see a lot more of that happening.
Itâs scary, because these are our fellow countrymen.
1 Like