Free Speech

[Aloysius]

I

 

:th

 

Aloy, if marriage equality is already in the Constitution then the fair dinkum decision must have already been made.


If we have a plebiscite now it could only be about whether to remove marriage equality or not.


It would be like having an early election

I  think you might have this a little wrong PZ - with great respect!!!

 

Civil Unions are provided for by law

 

Marriage is deemed by law to be union of male and female. That is the present situation.

 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensla...1o8lg.html

 

Hope this helps.

 

Question - if heterosexual couples are not married - by choice and have a civil union - why should they be treated differently to "gay couples" if we legalise same sex marriage?

[POWERZONE]

Aloy that article refers to a state law.

 

We're talking about the marriage act as stated in the constitution which is entirely different. 

[Aloysius]

Sigh!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_A...Australia)

 

The marriage act is a law that is authorised by an act of (Federal) parliament - it can be tested against the constitution but it is NOT part of the Constitution.

 

This is the law that the Queensland law was tested against in the prior article

 

 

So - you may be talking about another constitution?

[POWERZONE]

Anyone confused is in good company :Cuppa:

 

Pretty sure the high court changed the law since 2004. "Constitution s 51(xxi), extends to same-sex marriage." in around 2013.

 

Or something to that effect.

[Aloysius]

I don't appear to be able to verify your belief

 

The Wikipedia reference has no mention of any changes - a number of attempts have been made - all unsuccessful.

[POWERZONE]

Try this link. It's a long read but a bit more up to date.

 

http://www.australianmarriageequality.or...iscite.pdf

[Aloysius]

Here is a summary of that case:

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publicat...-12-12.pdf

 

"HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Please direct enquiries to Ben Wickham, Senior Executive Deputy Registrar Telephone: (02) 6270 6893 Email: bwickham@hcourt.gov.au Website: www.hcourt.gov.au 12 December 2013 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [2013] HCA 55 Today the High Court decided unanimously that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961. The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament."

 

That says that the present Act does not include Same sex "marriage"

 

It says further that the Parliament can change the Act.

 

What it does not say is that the people of Australia can also have a say instructing Parliament to change.

 

Your quote comes from the pro change lobby.

 

My best pick for fair dinkum is that the people have a say and that the Parliament then act on that decision whichever way it goes.

 

Passing strange that it's the pro change folks who would deny me my say. Clearly they do not belive their own propoganda regarding the national mood for change.

 

If they did they would be arguing for a plebiscite!!!!

[POWERZONE]

What they're saying (in effect) is the Govt can change the marriage act just as easily as they change any other policy.

 

This Govt and the opposition support same sex marriage so the obvious question is, why do we need a plebiscite for this issue?

 

Your answer is so the people can have a say. I'm not opposed to that.

 

But it raises questions about other acts in the past. 

 

For example why couldn't we have had a plebiscite for the Carbon Tax? Or Workchoices?

 

More to the point, why didn't we have one in 2004 for the Howard Govt's changes to the marriage act in the first place?

[Aloysius]

What they're saying (in effect) is the Govt can change the marriage act just as easily as they change any other policy.

 

This Govt and the opposition support same sex marriage so the obvious question is, why do we need a plebiscite for this issue?

 

Your answer is so the people can have a say. I'm not opposed to that.

 

But it raises questions about other acts in the past. 

 

For example why couldn't we have had a plebiscite for the Carbon Tax? Or Workchoices?

 

More to the point, why didn't we have one in 2004 for the Howard Govt's changes to the marriage act in the first place?

 

 

I guess the extent of the changes proposed are so significantly divisive that a full blown vote is the most democratic methodology available.

 

I would doubt that a significant majority of parliamentarians are in favour of change.

This is most apparent in the ALP where there are very strong anti change views that are not as yet being publicised. They are there nonetheless.

 

I also believe that a great number of ethnic groups are very strongly opposed to change and they are just beginning to make their views known.

 

We see this emerging with the "Safe Schools" issue in NSW and the chinese 17,000 signature petition.

 

 

The Uniting Church found this several years ago when the issue of gay priests was an agenda item for their supreme council - the aboriginal groups in that church basically killed the motion stone dead.

 

I guess at the end of the day with a controversial issue the more people that vote the less extreme will be the result.

 

It means that the wording of the referendum would have to be carefully negotiated to limit any extreme potential consequences.

 

The idea that is easy for the government to just legislate change may be true, but that's hardly the point.

 

Change acceptable to the greatest number is the object here for me.

 

Arguments by anti plebiscite people about divisiveness appear somewhat self serving and less than objective.

 

Do the voting public run amuck when we change our government? Apart from some in the Industrial wing of the ALP that is.

[Aloysius]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nat...3fd252d5fe

 


A judge has thrown out a racial hatred­ case brought against three university students from Queensland over Facebook posts, prompting a scathing rebuke of the Human Rights Commission and its president, Gillian Triggs.


<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;">The students from the Queensland University of Technology have been released from the case, in which they were being sued for $250,000 in damages by indigenous QUT staffer Cindy Prior. Federal Circuit Court judge Mich­ael Jarrett ruled late yesterday that they had no case to answer.

<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;">Alex Wood, Jackson Powell and Calum Thwaites told <i>The Weekend Australian </i>they were ­“incredibly relieved” at the ­collapse of Ms Prior’s action under section 18C of the Racial Discrim­ination Act.

<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;">But they said the experience — which had escalated since May 28, 2013, from a seemingly trivial incid­ent at QUT to the Human Rights Commission and then the Federal Circuit Court — had caused them unnecessary stress and worry as they fought to clear their names and deny false accusations of racism, and even a connection to American white suprem­acist group the Ku Klux Klan.

<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;">The students and their lawyers, Tony Morris QC and Michael Henry, issued a plea to politicians to uphold free speech by abolishing section 18C. They said the law was being used as a weapon to limit free speech and as a tool to extract money in a “legal shakedown” of people who preferred to pay confidential settlements ­rather than risk a public fight to prove they were not racist.

<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;">OK,  it seems that there will always be someone who uses apparently reasonable anti racist laws to acheive quite unintended consequences.


<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;">But we will always have those people, it well behooves our representatives and lawmakers to do a better job to minimise the opportunity for some to attempt to misuse the law.


<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', sans-serif;font-size:19px;">The Human right Commission appears to have totally fallen down on it's obligations in this sad affair.

[POWERZONE]

I watched this on the 7:30 report this morning.

 

The Human rights Commission might have terminated the case after 18 days instead of 18 months.


 

But if, as you say, <span style="font-size:14px;">there's always someone using a law to achieve their desired outcome, it'll go to court regardless of how long the Commission takes to process the complaint.
</span>

 

<span style="font-size:14px;">Leigh Sales didn't seem to comprehend or accept this.
</span>

[Aloysius]

Aaaaaah but Leigh Sales has a reputation to uphold - never mind the facts!!!!

 

Add to Leigh Sales:

 

Tony Jones

Virginia Trioli

Sabra Lane

Barrie Cassidy

....

....But on the other hand if the Human Rights Commission had any use at all it would have made it quite clear that the case was untenable under the act and saved a lot of taxpayers money.

...

 

 

Anyone in the Current affairs section of the ABC

[Aloysius]

As far as I can see it, the move in the parliament to reject a plebiscite amounts to the removal of the right of the people to free speech.

 

This is unbridled arrogance and rank elitism.

 

Unless I am mistaken the tail is wagging the dog here and it's crook.

 

The idea was taken to an election and the proponents were successful

 

Hello, WTF?

 

 

Onya Bill, your idea of democracy is the same as the CFMEU's

[Aloysius]

All those leftwing howlybag anti Trump whingers seem to confuse the Person with the right of americans to elect the candidate of their choice - just as the always have.

 

No complaints when Mr Obama is voted in by the people as I recall.

 

Same folks different choice - BUT IT"S THEIR RIGHT!!!

 

Why is the left that resorts to name calling and non acceptance of the voice of their peers?

 

Answer - the left has lost it's way and it's values .

 

We are seeing a world wide swing against the directionless governments that are a collection of elites.

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-10/in...es/8011992

[POWERZONE]

Plenty of complaints when Obama was voted in, mostly from the right wing racists with no vision and no values..

 

Donald Trump supporters thrown out of University of Sydney US election party



Supporters of US President-elect Donald Trump were kicked out of an election party at the University of Sydney after they became rowdy and started chanting "grab them by the pu$$y, that's how we do it".

 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/donald-trump-s...slwgg.html

 

BUT IT'S THEIR RIGHT!!! :dance:

[POWERZONE]

Ah PZ I see your shares have grown in value, inspite of bad Trump.

They won't stay high for long, when people see the consequences of 1950's style protectionism in the US as well as higher inflation, higher interest rates, a massive debt blowout, a drop in the US dollar, a recession in poorer countries that expands worldwide and ultimately a GFC ll...

 

The only thing that can stop the above destruction of everybody's wealth is Trump actually moderating the carefree polices announced during the election campaign. I don't hold my hopes up. His businesses have gone bankrupt 6 times FFS.

 

He used a huge loss to avoid paying tax for 18 years. His monetary contribution to the community was.... zero.

 

The sad thing is the American people voted out of frustration of being held captive by the corporatocracy only to vote in one of the main beneficiaries of that very form of corruption!

 

As promised, I've now sold all my shares apart from a few lithium miners and a small utility stock in SE Queensland. My super will be 50% cash as of tomorrow.

 

[Aloysius]

Hello? you have been there and asked them why they don't accept the vote?????

 

 

No gloating here MY, I don't like Mr Trump as presently presented - but he is also human, successful and thus able to learn.

 

My personal likes are irrelevant to the principles we are discussing here.

 

 

You could take another look at your post and wonder exactly what policies you are speaking about.

 

As for boys verbalising sexual assault - that wouldn't happen here of course because Donald isn't an australian :ras:  :Talking:

 

 

What happened over there???

 

 

The people voted and decided the presidential race - it's their right.

 

Trumps ace was that people felt disenfranchised by entrenched political elites and the just told them who the real boss is - the people.

 

 

How much egg actually had to be scraped off the faces of pollsters, political analysts, and commentators, celebrities, and other elites - it's a slutary reminder that "you can't fool all the people all the time" - I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

[Aloysius]

They won't stay high for long, when people see the consequences of 1950's style protectionism in the US as well as higher inflation, higher interest rates, a massive debt blowout, a drop in the US dollar, a recession in poorer countries that expands worldwide and ultimately a GFC ll...

 

The only thing that can stop the above destruction of everybody's wealth is Trump actually moderating the carefree polices announced during the election campaign. I don't hold my hopes up. His businesses have gone bankrupt 6 times FFS.

 

He used a huge loss to avoid paying tax for 18 years. His monetary contribution to the community was.... zero.

 

The sad thing is the American people voted out of frustration of being held captive by the corporatocracy only to vote in one of the main beneficiaries of that very form of corruption!

 

As promised, I've now sold all my shares apart from a few lithium miners and a small utility stock in SE Queensland. My super will be 50% cash as of tomorrow.

 

 

 

No need to stop at 50% PZ - i'm currently 100%.

 

It's time to forsake growth for security.

 

Time doesn't stand still and neither will the share market.

 

As Robert Plant once wailed: "Your time is gonna come"

[POWERZONE]

Good move

[Aloysius]

THe trick is to be aware of the appropriate time to go back into growth - better late than early!!!