mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIn regards to Joyce's situation, and those of other MPs and Senators. Is it a matter of refining our constitution?? Or should the question by what sort of checks is parliament doing before allowing members to sit?? Imagine if these MPs / Senators had "bad" intentions by hiding their citizenship (or that this citizenship was with "enemy" states) .... how long had the Green senators sat for?? Joyce is Deputy PM, imagine if his background was Russian! Would the government been so nonchalant with their background checks?? I personally don't see how he can stay on ... the Constitution is pretty black and white, there is no grey and that is what Joyce is trying to appeal too. With regard to the constitution - it should be amended. A huge proportion of the Australian Population has dual citizenship. Many of those are from friendly countries and they shouldn't be excluded from the political offices of Australia. However, there should be background checks done on all Parliamentarians. So if your citizenship is from an unfriendly country like Russia, Iran, North Korea etc, then they should be stopped for fear of compromising the Australian State with ill intent. The only problem with that is the Constitution would have to be continually amended depending on who are "enemies" are ... so unfortunately I think it has to be all or nothing. Perhaps all elected senators / MPs need to pass a security clearance check ... as surely that would have enough checks and balances, and wouldn't need constitutional change to move the bar. They can add a rule in the Constitution that dual citizens of countries that pose a security issue to The Commonwealth are excluded. In any case, it's all academic because The Australian People will not go for it in a plebiscite either way. I would be surprised if they would ever support a move to reform the present article in its current forum.
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Anyway, due to all the opposition to my forum presence and due to the fact that some forumers feel trolled or consider me to be a nuisance poster, I regret to inform that I shall no longer post on this forum because I don't want to be viewed as a troll or a nuisance. It's not my style to upset people and if people are upset then I shall take a hint basically and leave your internet paradise.
If for some reason I have upset some 442 forumers, then I sincerely apologise. I don't want anyone to feel upset or down in any way shape or form. So cheer up please. I am no troll but if that is how I came across, then I am regretful and feel sorry that some people have such feelings.
I am adamant however, that if we ever met face to face over a beer, I would probably be friends with most of you, if not all of you.
I do however look forward to the A League season and will be attending a number of games, and I do sometimes travel over East but not that often. We are all united through Football. Literally. It connects us all into one family. We are all very fortunate to be involved in such a beautiful game and to share in all the ups and downs.
Political discussions are getting too heated in this day and age and internet forums are very impersonal, and sometimes forum posts can be misconstrued in a number of ways due to the absence of emotion. Then some of us get personal which is something I have always tried to avoid no matter what.
I do however enjoy my politics, as much as Football sometimes, but politics can be depressing at times, so we would probably all be better off without it every now and again. There also seems to be an ever increasing lack of tolerance for alternative viewpoints and that diminishes the public discourse and debate.
I love Football, but I am no expert on the subject these days as compared to several years ago. Some of the technical aspects are very detailed, and I have learned a lot but as I said I am no expert which is why I had little to add sometimes.
Anyhow, I have had my say and the forum owners have allowed me that privilege so I must thank them for this. It's a good forum, and it has some great discussions and the information about Football is second to none. So well done to all of you.
So please please, I hope I didn't upset anyone. Some expletives were thrown my way at times, which isn't very nice, but at the end of the day I do not hold it against anyone, and if anything feel responsible for it which isn't good at all.
And I wish you all the very best.
And bring on the A League. I shall be in the stands cheering on.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Going have to seriously look at the constitution.
Not going to look good for Joyce or the other Lib MP if they are ordered to step down by the High Court (in effect will be fired, rather than taking the dignified step of resignation). Yes the law is a bit dated and silly (esp. considering money will sway a pollie more than national allegiances nowadays), but unfortunately the law stands and pollies must be the leaders in upholding Australian laws.
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Would love for a New England by-election. -PB
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
I hope one day a woman does that for legitimate reasons. Inshaallah.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI hope one day a woman does that for legitimate reasons. Inshaallah. Would hope not. As ridiculous as Hanson is that Niqab getup is even worse.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI hope one day a woman does that for legitimate reasons. Inshaallah. Would hope not. As ridiculous as Hanson is that Niqab getup is even worse. Meh, I wouldn't wear one obviously but if a person wants to for religious reasons I have no issue what so ever.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Love it :laugh:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
One hell of a week for Auspol.
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Fiona Nash now referring herself to the High Court after finding out she's probably a British dual citizen.
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFiona Nash now referring herself to the High Court after finding out she's probably a British dual citizen. So that's the Leader & Deputy of the Nationals party both being dual citizens yet neither will stand down, farcical.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOne hell of a week for Auspol. The fact that I agreed with both Brandis and Bernardi yesterday makes me feel dirty :laugh:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
I see Dutton has the tact of a sledgehammer RE: the Aussie jihadi killed overseas. -PB
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Turns out no Australian is eligible to be elected to parliament. lol http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11906614If you were to take Australian law to the letter, then there would not be a single Australian citizen qualified to serve in that country's Parliament.
Amid the dual citizenship scandal involving a number of Australian MPs, a Sydney barrister has claimed that, a section of the federal constitution could arguably disqualify everyone from parliament... and New Zealand is to blame for that.
In a blog post on the Huffington Post, barrister Robert Angyal pointed out that section 44 of the Australian Constitution states that anyone "under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power" would be disqualified from serving in federal parliament.
"Under recent and little-noticed changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don't need a visa to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That's right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work there," he said.
"That means we're all entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject of New Zealand - not a citizen, with the attached rights and privileges such as voting - but to be a subject of that country, living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And there's no doubt that New Zealand is a foreign power."
According to Angyal, if section 44 were to be taken into account, no Australian would be eligible to be an Australian MP.
He went on to explain that it's not about using those rights and privileges of a foreign power as you only need to be entitled to those rights and privileges.
"New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone," he added.
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTurns out no Australian is eligible to be elected to parliament. lol http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11906614If you were to take Australian law to the letter, then there would not be a single Australian citizen qualified to serve in that country's Parliament.
Amid the dual citizenship scandal involving a number of Australian MPs, a Sydney barrister has claimed that, a section of the federal constitution could arguably disqualify everyone from parliament... and New Zealand is to blame for that.
In a blog post on the Huffington Post, barrister Robert Angyal pointed out that section 44 of the Australian Constitution states that anyone "under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power" would be disqualified from serving in federal parliament.
"Under recent and little-noticed changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don't need a visa to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That's right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work there," he said.
"That means we're all entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject of New Zealand - not a citizen, with the attached rights and privileges such as voting - but to be a subject of that country, living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And there's no doubt that New Zealand is a foreign power."
According to Angyal, if section 44 were to be taken into account, no Australian would be eligible to be an Australian MP.
He went on to explain that it's not about using those rights and privileges of a foreign power as you only need to be entitled to those rights and privileges.
"New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone," he added.
Interesting take ... really think they need to perhaps look at the constitution in this respect. It would be interesting to look through history, I'd imagine a few back in the day would have had "allegiances" to Mother England.
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xTurns out no Australian is eligible to be elected to parliament. lol http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11906614If you were to take Australian law to the letter, then there would not be a single Australian citizen qualified to serve in that country's Parliament.
Amid the dual citizenship scandal involving a number of Australian MPs, a Sydney barrister has claimed that, a section of the federal constitution could arguably disqualify everyone from parliament... and New Zealand is to blame for that.
In a blog post on the Huffington Post, barrister Robert Angyal pointed out that section 44 of the Australian Constitution states that anyone "under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power" would be disqualified from serving in federal parliament.
"Under recent and little-noticed changes to New Zealand law, Australian citizens now don't need a visa to live, study or work in the Land of the Long White Cloud. That's right: Any Australian citizen is entitled to live, study and work there," he said.
"That means we're all entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject of New Zealand - not a citizen, with the attached rights and privileges such as voting - but to be a subject of that country, living there, subject to New Zealand law, working or studying. And there's no doubt that New Zealand is a foreign power."
According to Angyal, if section 44 were to be taken into account, no Australian would be eligible to be an Australian MP.
He went on to explain that it's not about using those rights and privileges of a foreign power as you only need to be entitled to those rights and privileges.
"New Zealand law has made every Australian citizen incapable of being elected to, or serving in, the Australian Parliament. It's not just Barnaby Joyce: It's everyone," he added.
Interesting take ... really think they need to perhaps look at the constitution in this respect. It would be interesting to look through history, I'd imagine a few back in the day would have had "allegiances" to Mother England. After reading that I had a look around and found a rebuttal, basically the high court in Aus has looked at interpretations like that and not likely to rule on a reading of the law as literal as that.
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun YES, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson is guilty of pulling a stunt by wearing a face-covering burqa into Parliament. But the reaction to it from our political elite — huffsters like Attorney-General George Brandis — is what scares me more. Labor and Greens senators shouted “shame” and “you’re a disgrace” as Hanson hovered in and asked Brandis if the Government would ban the burqa, at least in Parliament. As Hanson later noted, not a single security guard had asked to see her face. And as she also noted, the burqa has been banned from public areas not just in European countries like France, Belgium and Italy, but also in Muslim ones like Malaysia. She has a point here, and that’s even without considering the burqa is also a shameful symbol of the subjugation of women, blotting them out of the public space. You’d actually expect Labor and the Greens — normally fast to denounce sexism — to denounce the burqa, too.
Instead we got the same overheated damnation of Hanson that will convince many Australians she is in fact one of the few politicians with the guts to call things by their proper name. But George Brandis is not. Brandis should note well that by the end of his speech attacking Hanson’s stunt he got a standing ovation from the Greens and Labor, but none from his own side. In fact, barely half the Liberal and Nationals Senators even clapped, and here’s why. First, Brandis — and Senators of the Left — savaged Hanson for wearing a burqa, but many voters would know these same MPs would have applauded the “courage” of a Muslim MP wearing that alienating sack. Second, Brandis dangerously elevated the burqa as an important symbol of Islam — a “religious garment”. Labor’s Penny Wong was as bad, praising the wearing of the burqa as a “sincere act of faith”. That’s troubling. Apologists used to claim the burqa was just a backward tribal thing that did not represent nice and sweet Islam at all. But now it apparently does. Third, Brandis, voice cracking with emotion, then got to the heart of his problem with Hanson’s burqa, and this is not just troubling but alarming. “It has been the advice of each Director-General of security … and each Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police with whom I have worked that it is vital for their intelligence and law enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community,” he blustered. “To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do.” Let me translate: do not mock or criticise the burqa or more Muslims will attack us. Sorry, but I don’t want us cowed by such threats. The burqa is an abomination, and no threats should stop me from asserting this feminist truth. Does anyone tell gay activists to stop dressing up as nuns or Christians may blow us up? What Brandis has in fact said is that Muslims are dangerous, and the burqa represents them. I hope Brandis is just exaggerating the extremism of most Muslims. But I certainly know he’s kowtowing to a radical minority who want their women bagged and hidden from view. That is unacceptable. What Hanson says is not so important. But what is said by Hanson’s powerful critics — that’s what really has me worried.
Andrew Bolt: Worrying response to Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt | Herald Sun
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Lol at crocodile tears from Brandis, piss off you c*nt
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAndrew Bolt, Herald Sun YES, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson is guilty of pulling a stunt by wearing a face-covering burqa into Parliament. But the reaction to it from our political elite — huffsters like Attorney-General George Brandis — is what scares me more. Labor and Greens senators shouted “shame” and “you’re a disgrace” as Hanson hovered in and asked Brandis if the Government would ban the burqa, at least in Parliament. As Hanson later noted, not a single security guard had asked to see her face. And as she also noted, the burqa has been banned from public areas not just in European countries like France, Belgium and Italy, but also in Muslim ones like Malaysia. She has a point here, and that’s even without considering the burqa is also a shameful symbol of the subjugation of women, blotting them out of the public space. You’d actually expect Labor and the Greens — normally fast to denounce sexism — to denounce the burqa, too.
Instead we got the same overheated damnation of Hanson that will convince many Australians she is in fact one of the few politicians with the guts to call things by their proper name. But George Brandis is not. Brandis should note well that by the end of his speech attacking Hanson’s stunt he got a standing ovation from the Greens and Labor, but none from his own side. In fact, barely half the Liberal and Nationals Senators even clapped, and here’s why. First, Brandis — and Senators of the Left — savaged Hanson for wearing a burqa, but many voters would know these same MPs would have applauded the “courage” of a Muslim MP wearing that alienating sack. Second, Brandis dangerously elevated the burqa as an important symbol of Islam — a “religious garment”. Labor’s Penny Wong was as bad, praising the wearing of the burqa as a “sincere act of faith”. That’s troubling. Apologists used to claim the burqa was just a backward tribal thing that did not represent nice and sweet Islam at all. But now it apparently does. Third, Brandis, voice cracking with emotion, then got to the heart of his problem with Hanson’s burqa, and this is not just troubling but alarming. “It has been the advice of each Director-General of security … and each Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police with whom I have worked that it is vital for their intelligence and law enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community,” he blustered. “To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do.” Let me translate: do not mock or criticise the burqa or more Muslims will attack us. Sorry, but I don’t want us cowed by such threats. The burqa is an abomination, and no threats should stop me from asserting this feminist truth. Does anyone tell gay activists to stop dressing up as nuns or Christians may blow us up? What Brandis has in fact said is that Muslims are dangerous, and the burqa represents them. I hope Brandis is just exaggerating the extremism of most Muslims. But I certainly know he’s kowtowing to a radical minority who want their women bagged and hidden from view. That is unacceptable. What Hanson says is not so important. But what is said by Hanson’s powerful critics — that’s what really has me worried.
Andrew Bolt: Worrying response to Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt | Herald Sun Bolt is such a moron. In parliament the speaker did mention that Hanson's identity was checked before entering parliament by security. In regards to his conclusion at the end, if Bolt had any ethics or common decency he would understand that the way to engage a community that is being ostracised is not by trying to further ostracise them. It's not rocket science, but that doesn't fit Bolt's narrative. Much better to spin it in a way to create more fear, intolerance and hatred ... who wants to read factual news, when opinion pieces sell so much better (shock jocks have made money off it for years ... they are the equivalent of modern day internet trolls).
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAndrew Bolt, Herald Sun YES, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson is guilty of pulling a stunt by wearing a face-covering burqa into Parliament. But the reaction to it from our political elite — huffsters like Attorney-General George Brandis — is what scares me more. Labor and Greens senators shouted “shame” and “you’re a disgrace” as Hanson hovered in and asked Brandis if the Government would ban the burqa, at least in Parliament. As Hanson later noted, not a single security guard had asked to see her face. And as she also noted, the burqa has been banned from public areas not just in European countries like France, Belgium and Italy, but also in Muslim ones like Malaysia. She has a point here, and that’s even without considering the burqa is also a shameful symbol of the subjugation of women, blotting them out of the public space. You’d actually expect Labor and the Greens — normally fast to denounce sexism — to denounce the burqa, too.
Instead we got the same overheated damnation of Hanson that will convince many Australians she is in fact one of the few politicians with the guts to call things by their proper name. But George Brandis is not. Brandis should note well that by the end of his speech attacking Hanson’s stunt he got a standing ovation from the Greens and Labor, but none from his own side. In fact, barely half the Liberal and Nationals Senators even clapped, and here’s why. First, Brandis — and Senators of the Left — savaged Hanson for wearing a burqa, but many voters would know these same MPs would have applauded the “courage” of a Muslim MP wearing that alienating sack. Second, Brandis dangerously elevated the burqa as an important symbol of Islam — a “religious garment”. Labor’s Penny Wong was as bad, praising the wearing of the burqa as a “sincere act of faith”. That’s troubling. Apologists used to claim the burqa was just a backward tribal thing that did not represent nice and sweet Islam at all. But now it apparently does. Third, Brandis, voice cracking with emotion, then got to the heart of his problem with Hanson’s burqa, and this is not just troubling but alarming. “It has been the advice of each Director-General of security … and each Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police with whom I have worked that it is vital for their intelligence and law enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community,” he blustered. “To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do.” Let me translate: do not mock or criticise the burqa or more Muslims will attack us. Sorry, but I don’t want us cowed by such threats. The burqa is an abomination, and no threats should stop me from asserting this feminist truth. Does anyone tell gay activists to stop dressing up as nuns or Christians may blow us up? What Brandis has in fact said is that Muslims are dangerous, and the burqa represents them. I hope Brandis is just exaggerating the extremism of most Muslims. But I certainly know he’s kowtowing to a radical minority who want their women bagged and hidden from view. That is unacceptable. What Hanson says is not so important. But what is said by Hanson’s powerful critics — that’s what really has me worried.
Andrew Bolt: Worrying response to Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt | Herald Sun Bolt is such a moron. In parliament the speaker did mention that Hanson's identity was checked before entering parliament by security. In regards to his conclusion at the end, if Bolt had any ethics or common decency he would understand that the way to engage a community that is being ostracised is not by trying to further ostracise them. It's not rocket science, but that doesn't fit Bolt's narrative. Much better to spin it in a way to create more fear, intolerance and hatred ... who wants to read factual news, when opinion pieces sell so much better (shock jocks have made money off it for years ... they are the equivalent of modern day internet trolls). but shit like this is real... Sweden defends officials wearing headscarves in IranThe Swedish government has defended its decision to have its officials wear headscarves during a trip to Iran, saying that failing to do so would have broken the law. Trade Minister Ann Linde led a business team last week and faced criticism for wearing a headscarf, or hijab. Sweden says it has the world's first "feminist government". A prominent Iranian women's rights activist and Swedish politicians have criticised the decision. "It is ruinous to what is called a feminist foreign policy" said Liberal party chief Jan Bjorklund, who said Iran oppressed women through legislation. The Swedish government should have requested that female members of the delegation should not have been required to wear a headscarf, he said, and that if the request were not granted any trade agreements should have been signed in Sweden or a third country. But Ms Linde told the Aftonbladet newspaper that she was not willing to break Iranian law. She said that since the only other option would be to send an all-male delegation, she was required to wear a headscarf. Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven was also in Iran and said he raised human rights issues with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Masih Alinejad, an Iranian journalist and activist, posted an image of Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lovin signing a climate bill surrounded by female colleagues earlier this month next to one of several female Swedish government officials wearing headscarves and greeting Mr Rouhani. The image of Ms Lovin was widely seen as mocking a picture of Donald Trump signing an anti-abortion executive order surrounded by male aides and advisers. Women in the Swedish government "should have condemned an equally unfair situation in Iran," Ms Alinejad posted to My Stealthy Freedom, a popular Facebook page she runs that encourages Iranian women to post pictures of themselves without the hijab. "Because if you are feminists and you care about equality then you should challenge inequality everywhere," she told the BBC. "They must stand for their own values." Is Sweden's deputy PM trolling Trump? Iranian women's fight for freedom The Swedish government says that "equality between women and men is a fundamental aim of Swedish foreign policy". In 2015, several media reports noted that former US First Lady Michelle Obama did not wear a headscarf during a visit to Saudi Arabia after the death of King Abdullah, although numerous foreign female leaders and dignitaries had previously done so. Foreign women are not required to wear a headscarf in the country, unlike in Iran. Ms Linde said she would not wear one during an upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I actually don't see an issue with accepting a degree of religious custom when visiting somewhere like Iran. If you don't like it or find it oppressive, protest by not going there. That is what made the Saudi Arabian NT's behaviour during the minutes silence so deplorable.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI actually don't see an issue with accepting a degree of religious custom when visiting somewhere like Iran. If you don't like it or find it oppressive, protest by not going there. That is what made the Saudi Arabian NT's behaviour during the minutes silence so deplorable. Sure, but it shows the hypocrisy of a feminist government. I remember when I was in Australia there was Manus Is protesters at parliment. Instead of being in jail they were on the project. Should be jail. Hanson did the same and it should be jail for her... for disrupting parliment .... and because those clothes should be banned. From banks, public areas, shopping centres and especially government sites. And like you wrote, if people dont like it "protest by not going there (Australia)" This is a public safety issue... like wearing a motorcycle helmet into a bank.
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI actually don't see an issue with accepting a degree of religious custom when visiting somewhere like Iran. If you don't like it or find it oppressive, protest by not going there. That is what made the Saudi Arabian NT's behaviour during the minutes silence so deplorable. Sure, but it shows the hypocrisy of a feminist government. I remember when I was in Australia there was Manus Is protesters at parliment. Instead of being in jail they were on the project. Should be jail. Hanson did the same and it should be jail for her... for disrupting parliment .... and because those clothes should be banned. From banks, public areas, shopping centres and especially government sites. And like you wrote, if people dont like it "protest by not going there (Australia)" This is a public safety issue... like wearing a motorcycle helmet into a bank. I love this argument. Why does one wear a motorcycle helmet?? To protect yourself whilst riding, so it serves no purpose once off the bike. Compared to an item of clothing worn for religious purposes. They are not comparable. Also should be noted banks can ask to see the identity of someone wearing head coverings for religious purposes. Generally they will go to a separate room and have to provide photo id and have their identity checked. So if you wish to go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet and go through the same process I am sure they would oblige (although I would think it is simply easier and quicker to remove your helmet). In regards to the clothing for me it is trying to enforce "fashion" laws upon Australians, which I am strongly against. It is not about security issues, this is a total BS argument (wearing a hat, sunnies, scarf, hoodie etc. I can conceal most of my identity but I don't see them arguing for them to be banned ... or face paint, dress up masks ... shall we ban them all too??) Australia does not need fashion police, and we definitely don't need laws that deal with fashion.
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThis is exactly the sort of thing I said last week. Don't like the guy but as I said the rules are problematic. His story sounds like some absolute horseshit though. Having been through the process I can see how his story may be possible. Strongly dislike the guy, he's an environmental wrecker, but I think disqualifying people on potential technicalities like this is problematic. Besides, he's an LNP senator for Queensland, who knows what sort of nutcase will get in instead. Turns out it was horseshit.
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Robert Craddock, The Courier-Mail Subscriber only WE USED to be a knockabout nation. Now we are a nation of knockers. If a harmless photo of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull nursing his grandchild while holding a beer can create a social media storm you know you are living in a country taking itself far too seriously. Wake up Australia. You need to lighten up. Say what you like about the PM – most do – but during his working hours recently he has been tackling issues as stressful as trying to help save the free world from the threat of nuclear war from North Korea. Nuclear wars are major issues. Quiet beers at the football while nursing your granddaughter is not. Yet on social media yesterday they were causing roughly as much concern as each other with some users outraged that the Prime Minister was “breathing grog’’ all over his granddaughter. Dear oh dear. Just as well social media was not around in the days of Bob Hawke, who famously loved a beer before be became PM. Goodness knows how many innocent children back then suffered from the curse of the beer-breathed ACTU leader. Where are those children now? Did they even survive? Anyone for a senate inquiry? We might as well launch one, for this is what Australia is becoming. Australians luxuriate in our reputation as the land of knockabouts and larrikins, the one which produced outlaws who became legends such as Ned Kelly and laid-back comedy stars like Paul Hogan. But the reality is we are turning into the sort of country we used to take the mickey out of. For more than two centuries Australia has mocked our English forefathers as “whingeing Poms’’ and proudly noted that while they are known for stiff upper lips, we are a less formal go-with-the flow nation. Well we used to be. Social media has changed that. Now everything is a drama. Turnbull had every right to cuddle his granddaughter at the football while having a beer. But politics being politics, our bet is he will read the vicious feedback and won’t do it again if his Sydney Swans reach the AFL grand final. One nuclear threat at a time is enough for any Prime Minister. The laidback Aussie image is changing as we become a nation of knockers and whingers | The Courier-Mail
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Fucking social media is a cesspool full of fuckwits. General populous dumbed down by shit like 60 Minutes and Sunrise. -PB
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Massive beatup to generate outrage from people who love to say "it's political correctness gone mad". Who cares if a couple of people complained.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMassive beatup to generate outrage from people who love to say "it's political correctness gone mad". Who cares if a couple of people complained. I'd love to know the percentage of posters that complained to those that were supportive of it ...
|
|
|