to me Religion is the politics of "faith"

Of course not. It would however be an amusing social experiment to approach this from the position of architecture and community expectations (as most other developments are assessed) and see how long it took for the word racism to be used.

In the news this morning, there is an article where the council says it will push forward and ignore opposition. A development literally 500m from my house was rejected recently because they wanted to put 400sqm houses in an estate where the smallest house was 610sqm.

It would be interesting to see how many non-religious/hate based opposition letters were sent to council over this mosque. I know on the Gold Coast near where I work they have successfully fought the construction of a 'mega mosque'.



That does not give religion a free pass to build what it wants where it wants. A little bit more community engagement might have prevented a lot of this nonsense we're seeing. Building a massive mosque in the middle of a residential area is going to piss people off. Chances are they will feel it will affect house prices. Money doesn't have a skin colour to brand it racism either.



Indeed. As I keep saying though, the more we hammer their irrational fears it seems the bigger and louder they get.

So Australia has been very naughty RE: Manus Island.

Who'd thunk it?

-PB

As you'd know I'm no fan of religion but ask yourself this question.

Would you have any objection to someone building a Catholic church there instead of a mosque? If the answer is no then you can't knock back a mosque no mater how you try and justify it.

If you believe in the construct that is Australia then by definition you cannot object to a place of worship being built anywhere provided it meets planning guidelines. (Freedom of religion is specifically written into the constitution.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

Otherwise you are a bigot.

And that's Ok, George Brandis said so and I'll defend your right to be one. (I'm a bigot regards other matters.)

Saying things like "I would be strongly against having to look at a Minaret every day" for no other reason than it's a Muslim place of worship is the very definition of bigotry.




Edited by munrubenmuz: 24/11/2015 09:46:39 AM

I would argue a substantial proportion of old white people hold these bigoted views also. In fact, stereotyping old people this way tends, from my experience, to be pretty accurate. It goes to back to the psychology/sociology of in v out groups.

If it was as big of an eyesore as a stereotypical mosque/church then yes. Every development is and should be assessed by it's visual appeal and suitability to the existing landscape. Would you build a 20 storey walk up in an area of single storey houses? No, the council would reject it. Does it change simply because the building is a religious place of worship?

In Ashmore on the G.C the mosque is separated from the residential estate nearby by very large trees which screen it, otherwise it would be a complete eyesore for the downslope estate. The mosque is only really visible from the arterial road and is suitably coloured to fit in with the landscape around it. A very thoughtful development.

If you separate out the fact that it's a religious building (church/mosque/temple/whatever) and factor in the fact that it's just ugly and it's likely to draw down house prices in the area, you've got a reasonable reason to oppose it.



Why does it have to be about the religion itself though? Do I have to ignore the fact that a minaret stands out like dogs balls in a residential area simply because of freedom of religion? Minarets aren't exactly inconspicuous.

If I want to build an apartment tower in a residential area can I just make it a place of worship to circumnavigate council planning schemes?

Not arguing any of that. I specifically said "if it meets planning regulations" then you really don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm betting pennies to pounds if the Mussies decided to build a mosque that looked like an average run of the mill Aussie structure there'd be blokes lining up to object to that too.

Would be interesting to hear their logic in trying to get the project canned.

Besides any of that whether something is architecturally satisfactory is highly subjective. (Which is why there are planning regulations.)

Oh of course I don't doubt that most if not all of those people protesting on the weekend were anti-muslim rather than anti-ugly building.

I'm just bringing up other reasons why people (not those at the rallies) may object. I for one would be worried about a religious centre near my house in fear I'd lose money on my investment. I'm sure a lot of people feel this way. I'm sure it doesn't even have to be about religious buildings either.

In Amsterdam religious buildings are made to fit in with their surrounds. No steeples, no minarets. I would be ok with that here, particularly in older parts of our big cities where we have a lot of heritage listed buildings.

In newer parts they can plan to build them wherever and however they want.

About 12 years ago there was mosque being planned in newport. A lot of people protested and the Mosque wasnt built. Then 2 years later to the day a orthodox church was built on the same patch of land and no objections were lodged to the council. Also in r.a constitution they have freedom of religion as one of their core beliefs.

This........

It varies widely from country to country.

Iran has one of the oldest and long establish jewish populations in the world.

I think you will find that the Christians in countries with authoritarian military regimes are actually protected by the govt.

The issue is that they are targeted by groups like ISIS.

And anyway, what has that got to do with anything? We are not a Christian country. We are a secular one where people are free to worship, or not worship.

We aren't :-k

All this talk of secular laws taking away their rights and what not.,............

NSW just sold their electrical transmission assets, bring on the surging electricity bills.

-PB

So they now have privatised electricy . Geezus what is it with governments wanting to privatizing everything

Churches, mosques and other places of worship are about the religion flexing their dick in everyone's face.

That's why they are usually very big, with big shiny Windows and shit sticking out of them like crosses and minarets. It's about attention and advertising. It's about invading territory.

It's pure dick flexing. Religions should be confined to neutral places of worship like halls. And many religions like a few of the modern Christian ones to their credit, do just that.

Good luck. Churches are marketing geniuses. Send old ladies to everyone's houses to recruit so people are too scared to tell them to mind their own business.

Incorrect...they have been leased................

Sorry I stand corrected, leased for 99 years.

Electricity prices to go up still.

-PB

perhaps....but unlikely to go up the 60% they did under the previous government

also any price rises need to go through IPART, and the lease can be terminated if they don't meet the performance guidelines

Will be nothing more than a rubber stamp, much like ESCOSA is here in SA. Be prepared for millions of dollars of unnecessary "gold plating" of infrastructure to justify price hikes.

Privatisation in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It really comes down to the details.

In SA, the privatisation of electricity assets was brought in by the Liberals to pay down debt post-State Bank collapse.

To maximise the sale price they structured things to increase the amount of profits the private companies could make, hence the unnecessary 'gold-plating' of infrastructure that has happened since, and which has driven up prices.

This is the underlying contradiction at the heart of all privatisations of govt assets - The more efficiently the market is structured, the lower any sales price will be (because less profits are on offer).

Govts tend to sell assets to maximise the money they get, so they don't structure the market as efficiently as they could.

If they actually structured the market to maximise competitiveness, they would make less money but taxpayers would be better off in the long run.

I completely agree.

I remember when they sold off the water on the GC to Allconnex. Our bills went through the roof. Allconnex were everywhere putting in infrastructure we didn't need because they could.

I mean who could blame them, they're a business. Just sucks for us having to pay for it.

Could not believe the bills we got from Allconnex - the outrageously large jump in cost

Poll finds Tony Abbott's assumed security strength a misconception

Date November 27, 2015 - 7:09PM
Heath Aston

'Our response must be as clear-eyed and strategic'

'The strength of our free people will see off these thugs and tyrants as it has seen off so many of their kind before,' says Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Tony Abbott's principal perceived strength over Malcolm Turnbull – his uncompromising approach to national security – is an illusion, according to a surprise national poll.

Three-quarters of people "feel safer" with Prime Minister Turnbull as leader, the Seven-ReachTel poll found.

Even the Coalition voter base overwhelmingly prefers Mr Turnbull directing Australia's response to the global terror threat. Just 32 per cent of Liberal and National Party voters said they felt better protected under the leadership of the tough-talking former prime minister, Mr Abbott.

More than 80 per cent of Labor voters and nearly 90 per cent of Greens voters opted for Mr Turnbull on national security.

The Seven-ReachTel poll of 3144 people, conducted on Thursday night, found 76 per cent of women feel safer with Mr Turnbull having the final say on the deployment of force rather than his predecessor.

A little over seven in 10 men also preferred Mr Turnbull, who this week rebuffed calls from within his government to deploy Special Forces troops to strife-torn Syria and Iraq to take on the terrorist Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS.

Before flying out for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta and the United Nations climate summit in Paris, Mr Turnbull dismissed suggestions Mr Abbott is at the centre of an "insurgency" against his leadership.

Talk of a subterranean resistance made up of disaffected conservatives flared recently after Mr Abbott and some of his backers called for "boots on the ground" in the fights against IS, a position in direct conflict with Mr Turnbull's belief that a strengthened air campaign is the best way forward.

On Tuesday, Mr Turnbull used his first national security statement to Parliament to advocate a "calm, clinical, professional, effective" response to the terror threat post-Paris massacre.

His insistence that "gestures and machismo" would be counterproductive was widely reported as a direct "slapdown" of Mr Abbott's more gung-ho approach to national security.

Treasurer Scott Morrison's warning against any "hot-headed" Australian response to the Paris atrocity was also interpreted as a rebuke to Mr Abbott and his former defence minister Kevin Andrews, who argued publicly that air strikes will not be enough to wipe out IS.

Mr Abbott made headlines around the world and rocked diplomatic relations with Russia when he vowed to "shirt-front" President Vladimir Putin in response to the downing of Malaysia Airways flight MH17 in the Ukraine in July last year.

In February this year, John Lyons, a senior writer at The Australian, revealed Mr Abbott had suggested a unilateral invasion of Iraq, with 3500 Australian ground troops that could halt the advance of IS. The paper reported Mr Abbott had raised the idea with top military planners.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-finds-tony-abbotts-assumed-security-strength-a-misconception-20151127-gla15l.html#ixzz3shEx1dKx
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

It's amusing to read some of the social media comments surrounding 'white student union'.

The absolutely disgusting racism shown by non-white and white-apologist groups is so fucking hypocritical that all one can do is laugh.

I noticed this article this morning: White Student Unions

What I want to know is why people firstly assume this is satire. It seems that people just expect the white devils to sit back and let everyone else complain about everything.

Why should white students have to expect a backlash? Are they not allowed to explore their interests as a minority group would?

It's funny how equality seems to mean that you can have an opinion and an exclusive group as long as you're not white.

Thank you very much leftist feralism.

Are there other union groups at universities in Australia for other ethnic groups?

And if so, then carry on. No-one can whinge.

But if not, then its probably not a good idea for people to go around creating unions specifically for different racial groups. That can only end badly IMO.

There certainly are. I went to Griffith Uni on the Gold Coast and there were Chinese, Indian, Sri Lankan groups etc.

I find it rich that people are whinging, they're essentially telling white students that they aren't allowed to form groups in the same way that other ethnic groups can.

What message does that send to these kids?

In the article, I noticed a quote mentioning non-white students reserving computers and study spaces etc. This was a huge problem at Griffith. Particular groups would leave their stuff in the study area or over the computer keyboards and then piss off for lunch for 40mins. They'd absolutely crack it if they came back and someone had touched their stuff. The university would always come up with the 'it's a misunderstanding' when things really blew up over this mis-use of spaces/facilities until we started doing it. I remember getting a strongly worded email about us being 'disappointing hosts' or some BS like that because we left our computers logged in during a tutorial.

.... yet students coming together who are not part of these ethnic group is considered a racist troll?

The reality is, if you don't want your 'right's' infringed with counter-terrorism measures, don't blame the AFP for not stopping them.

No - the reality is that passing laws that continue to eliminate civil liberties is a lazy, and more importantly INEFFECTIVE way of dealing with complex issues.

So many times after an attack occurs it gets found out that basic information sharing didn't occur.

I don't know if any of you have followed the Coronial Inquest on the Lindt Café siege, but there were a lot of stuff-ups in the courts and in information-sharing due to lack of resources.

You can hav as draconian a system as you want, if it doesn't operate correctly at the basic communication level, it won't work.

I would imagine that the student union groups catering to specific ethnicities are there to help with support services regarding language issues, etc. There are unions for groups with a common interest, not just ethnicities.

Now it seems that this is getting taken advantage of with what you mentioned regarding "reserving" areas in a library etc. That should obviously be dealt with. But I think you are over-egging things a bit with making uni campuses sound like ground zero of an oncoming race war!!

I would be disturbed by a "white" student union, and I regard myself as white. Mainly because there is no definition of white, other than "not ethnic". Its not like people are forming an Irish/ English/ scottish student Union, which I am sure exists somewhere.

This clearly seems to be a troll aimed at pointing the finger at the overly-PC culture that can exist on uni campuses.