-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
But you're free to chortle at Micallef's jokes if you find him funny.
Thanks muchly - I will chortle!
Mostly I smile wryly as, like the series Utopia, it is often a little closer to the bone on the dire state of our political leadership than I thought I'd ever (want to) understand.
And good luck with your comic pursuits, which based on your Fern persona involve .... watching Peter Dutton boil live frogs or something. Each to their own.
-
I find Utopia funny and remarkably realistic (which helps).
I'd also find Dutton boiling frogs funnier than Hannah Gadsby. No doubt you Guardian supporters think otherwise. But in my society you'd be free to do so.
-
@antipodean I did watch a bit of that Netflix special Gadsby everyone was raving about. Didn't get it.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean I did watch a bit of that Netflix special Gadsby everyone was raving about. Didn't get it.
There's hope for you yet young padawan.
-
-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
"comedian"
Late 90s and early 00s Micallef was great.
There isn't much difference between that clip and what he does today on Mad As Hell.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@MajorRage said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
I think every Australian should watch this and then make up their minds from there.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the whole thing.
Having got that out of the way. Being in your pyjamas, pregnant, having an appointment etc. aren't valid reasons to not be arrested for a crime. The police have a search warrant we can assume is safely constructed and duly authorised by a magistrate (admittedly not a high bar). And someone looks to have found out that Facebook isn't a lawless zone where you get o to say whatever you want without consequence.
There is the law and there is THE LAW.
You are correct, of course, but wouldn't it have been better to just scare the lady a bit and then let off with a warning?
Not if the consequences are as the authorities deem. One only has to look at the damage wrought on blameless individuals in Victoria as a result of others, so why would you encourage other people to freely mix when you've specifically told them not to? She's inciting people to commit a crime and wishy washy nonsense like "don't get violent and practise social distancing" isn't an excuse.
The only issue I have is the clear double standard with the BLM protest. Did they arrest the organiser of that?
Each to their own. You are legally and factually correct, in everything you say of course, but the whole thing looks a bit Orwellian to me.
7 months into various lockdowns, people are getting pretty pissed off.
-
@gt12 said in Aussie Politics:
I love this site, because it makes me read and research shit I would never interact with. My reading of this is that these rights are not as protected as we may think.
According to the Human Rights Law Center (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/580025f66b8f5b2dabbe4291/t/5d4a8829c6696600018e5ac2/1565165620922/Your-advocacy-guide-Protest-Rights.pdf) which states that its aim is to "This guide aims to help people in Victoria to protect their rights under Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities to gather together and peacefully protest.": There are a whole range of laws that can affect protests and protesters including laws limiting what protesters can say (such as offensive language or racial vilification laws) or affecting how protest can be conducted (such as trespass, property damage or obstruction of traffic laws). *As explained above, the Victorian Government can lawfully limit protest rights if it has a good reason for limiting the right and if it limits the right in a reasonable way.*
This is explained a bit by the *Review of the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958*, which [states that](https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/archive/sarc/Unlawful_Assemblies_Act/Report/UAP_Ch2.htm): 2.4 Despite the generally acknowledged importance of the concept, a "right" of assembly is not recognised in Australian law.[5] The common law recognises the right of assembly only as a "residual freedom". This means that a person is free to take part in an activity to the extent that there are no restrictions on it.[6]
So, do we have lawyer who is prepared to go check the common law on this?
WARNING: I didn't read the links in your post but, so far as I am aware (having studied law at an Australian university):
- The state parliaments are essentially sovereign and can make whatever laws they like subject to (a) their own constitutions and (b) any express / implied powers conferred on the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth Constitution (generally quite limited).
- A state like Victoria does have a Bill / Charter of Human Rights, but my understanding is that this is not a constitutional document, rather a piece of legislation that can be repealed / amended / suspended by the parliament in accordance with its other legislative and constitutitonal powers.
- Statutory laws generally prevail over the common law, so it would be open to legislate away that right (unless of course it is prohibited from doing so under the constitution). However, a lawful declaration of a state of emergency, to my understanding, has the effect of lawfully suspending certain rights (this is likely to be written into the constitution either expressly or by implication).
I'm not sure of the exact ins and outs of what laws say what (been a while since I studies constitutional law), but the above is basically the framework under which the States pass laws etc. One thing I will say is that if there was any question about the legality / constitutionality of the states' actions, there would almost certainly be challenges brought before the stat supreme courts and / or high court.
-
@junior said in Aussie Politics:
@gt12 said in Aussie Politics:
I love this site, because it makes me read and research shit I would never interact with. My reading of this is that these rights are not as protected as we may think.
According to the Human Rights Law Center (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/580025f66b8f5b2dabbe4291/t/5d4a8829c6696600018e5ac2/1565165620922/Your-advocacy-guide-Protest-Rights.pdf) which states that its aim is to "This guide aims to help people in Victoria to protect their rights under Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities to gather together and peacefully protest.": There are a whole range of laws that can affect protests and protesters including laws limiting what protesters can say (such as offensive language or racial vilification laws) or affecting how protest can be conducted (such as trespass, property damage or obstruction of traffic laws). *As explained above, the Victorian Government can lawfully limit protest rights if it has a good reason for limiting the right and if it limits the right in a reasonable way.*
This is explained a bit by the *Review of the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958*, which [states that](https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/archive/sarc/Unlawful_Assemblies_Act/Report/UAP_Ch2.htm): 2.4 Despite the generally acknowledged importance of the concept, a "right" of assembly is not recognised in Australian law.[5] The common law recognises the right of assembly only as a "residual freedom". This means that a person is free to take part in an activity to the extent that there are no restrictions on it.[6]
So, do we have lawyer who is prepared to go check the common law on this?
WARNING: I didn't read the links in your post but, so far as I am aware (having studied law at an Australian university):
- The state parliaments are essentially sovereign and can make whatever laws they like subject to (a) their own constitutions and (b) any express / implied powers conferred on the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth Constitution (generally quite limited).
- A state like Victoria does have a Bill / Charter of Human Rights, but my understanding is that this is not a constitutional document, rather a piece of legislation that can be repealed / amended / suspended by the parliament in accordance with its other legislative and constitutitonal powers.
- Statutory laws generally prevail over the common law, so it would be open to legislate away that right (unless of course it is prohibited from doing so under the constitution). However, a lawful declaration of a state of emergency, to my understanding, has the effect of lawfully suspending certain rights (this is likely to be written into the constitution either expressly or by implication).
I'm not sure of the exact ins and outs of what laws say what (been a while since I studies constitutional law), but the above is basically the framework under which the States pass laws etc. One thing I will say is that if there was any question about the legality / constitutionality of the states' actions, there would almost certainly be challenges brought before the stat supreme courts and / or high court.
You are right on 2 @junior
It’s an Act of Parliament that the Bracks Labor Government introduced. It’s not enshrined in the constitution (like many if not all other democratic nations). The Act is heavily modelled in other charters.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
Also enjoyed Abbott's contribution this week putting his old Health Minister hat on for the first 20 minutes of this video. He really is a
different cat.complete fuckwitFixed.
Great opposition leader in a time of pissweak Labor unity. Had no idea what to do when he finally got on the horse.
"Maybe we just let old people die and lift the lockdown" is in direct opposition to what economists are actually saying.
Oh unless you're Adam "Creighfish" Creighton of The Australian, whose tenure as economics editor for the country's flagship broadsheet (tho I think its not broad any more) is interesting, given his questionable grasp of statistics.
I'm not quite sure I understand the sustained animus for Abbott particularly on a personal level. Bit of a dag? Sure. A bit old fashioned? Absolutely. But I dare say many of those on who were involved in the misogyny stitch up and who actually know Abbott are rightly cringing this week as the British media has gone after him with their comments at face value stripped from the context and theatre of their time. Unless you just love kicking Tories, it's hard to bag Abbott in one breath and Morrison in the other when stylistically they are polar opposites.
It was entertaining to see Labor MPs almost as a reflex bagging Tony on Twitter for being a turncoat when this first came out (Abbott willing to serve the Crown - seems completely out of character) before they figured out Paul Keating still sits on the China Development Bank... stopped that attack line real quick.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
Unless you just love kicking Tories, it's hard to bag Abbott in one breath and Morrison in the other when stylistically they are polar opposites.
They have outstanding flaws that are equally worthy of criticism. Just because I omitted the Happy Clapper doesn't mean I'm thrilled with him.
Neither of them brought/are bringing the success or sustainability they promised as "good economic managers" because they really have no idea how and no desire to learn in a lobby-constrained house. Both will oppose any project that doesn't align with their personal beliefs, or whatever is inconvenient for the right of the LNP.
The difference is Abbott will fight on principles, even when they're shown to be utterly, inescapably wrong or antediluvian. Morrsion will flip-flop if it means he might be threatened for the top job. In that way, Morrision and Turnbull share a lot of political DNA.
What they've got in common is division politics in order to keep their lobby mates happy. Unfortunately for the people of Australia, the ALP don't have much different in terms of looking after lobby mates and entrenched industries that aren't going to keep the nation above the waterline.
Low risk politics with no desire for meaningful change is where Australia will sit until we're forced to move by the economics of other nations.
-
@MajorRage said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@MajorRage said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
I think every Australian should watch this and then make up their minds from there.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the whole thing.
Having got that out of the way. Being in your pyjamas, pregnant, having an appointment etc. aren't valid reasons to not be arrested for a crime. The police have a search warrant we can assume is safely constructed and duly authorised by a magistrate (admittedly not a high bar). And someone looks to have found out that Facebook isn't a lawless zone where you get o to say whatever you want without consequence.
There is the law and there is THE LAW.
You are correct, of course, but wouldn't it have been better to just scare the lady a bit and then let off with a warning?
Not if the consequences are as the authorities deem. One only has to look at the damage wrought on blameless individuals in Victoria as a result of others, so why would you encourage other people to freely mix when you've specifically told them not to? She's inciting people to commit a crime and wishy washy nonsense like "don't get violent and practise social distancing" isn't an excuse.
The only issue I have is the clear double standard with the BLM protest. Did they arrest the organiser of that?
Each to their own. You are legally and factually correct, in everything you say of course, but the whole thing looks a bit Orwellian to me.
7 months into various lockdowns, people are getting pretty pissed off.
It's Orwellian to me too. But unless they all decide to ignore the law, then their only alternative is to suck it up and vote this imbecile and his lackeys out at the next available opportunity. And demonstrate it in every poll leading up to the one that counts. Let them know they're facing electoral oblivion and why.
They're Victorians, so they won't. Most of them actually love a despot.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@MajorRage said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@MajorRage said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
I think every Australian should watch this and then make up their minds from there.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the whole thing.
Having got that out of the way. Being in your pyjamas, pregnant, having an appointment etc. aren't valid reasons to not be arrested for a crime. The police have a search warrant we can assume is safely constructed and duly authorised by a magistrate (admittedly not a high bar). And someone looks to have found out that Facebook isn't a lawless zone where you get o to say whatever you want without consequence.
There is the law and there is THE LAW.
You are correct, of course, but wouldn't it have been better to just scare the lady a bit and then let off with a warning?
Not if the consequences are as the authorities deem. One only has to look at the damage wrought on blameless individuals in Victoria as a result of others, so why would you encourage other people to freely mix when you've specifically told them not to? She's inciting people to commit a crime and wishy washy nonsense like "don't get violent and practise social distancing" isn't an excuse.
The only issue I have is the clear double standard with the BLM protest. Did they arrest the organiser of that?
Each to their own. You are legally and factually correct, in everything you say of course, but the whole thing looks a bit Orwellian to me.
7 months into various lockdowns, people are getting pretty pissed off.
It's Orwellian to me too. But unless they all decide to ignore the law, then their only alternative is to suck it up and vote this imbecile and his lackeys out at the next available opportunity. And demonstrate it in every poll leading up to the one that counts. Let them know they're facing electoral oblivion and why.
They're Victorians, so they won't. Most of them actually love a despot.
Mathew Guy's Gaggle Of Imploding Clowns (undermined by their own administration) was lucky to finish second. When most Victorians think this vapid turd is actually the Liberal opposition leader, you've got optics problems:
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
It's Orwellian to me too. But unless they all decide to ignore the law, then their only alternative is to suck it up and vote this imbecile and his lackeys out at the next available opportunity. And demonstrate it in every poll leading up to the one that counts. Let them know they're facing electoral oblivion and why.
One or two catastrophic polls (like those for Morrison after the bushfires) would be enough to move the needle.
Generally Newspoll doesn't stuff around with state polling except for the run up and aftermath of elections in the largest states... but if they started monthly polling of Victoria I'd be interested to see the fall out. An example of the free and open press or just Murdoch having a whack at the left again?
-
@NTA said in Aussie Politics:
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
Maybe one of the Aus based Ferners can comment, but from afar it does seem like the worm of public opinion is slowly turning around in regards to state border closures and the Victorian lockdown.
From what I see there is a lot of fatigue around lockdowns in general BUT a lot of Victorian public opinion is positive toward the lockdown, given the stats are moving in response.
yeah, i've heard three times today in different meetings people happy with between a few more weeks and a month of lockdown's if that's what was needed to more closely align us with the rest of the country
sorting it as much as possible before it gets warm is definitely the aim for a lot
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Aussie Politics:
yeah, i've heard three times today in different meetings people happy with between a few more weeks and a month of lockdown's if that's what was needed to more closely align us with the rest of the country
sorting it as much as possible before it gets warm is definitely the aim for a lot
The issue will be in a couple of weeks, when the weather gets warmer and outdoor activities start making people wistful.
If restrictions are eased and things aren't radically improving, we could see some snap back.
-
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
Watch with sound down if you prefer but the images of police militarisation are very similar to the USA.
Can't help but think there's a better way to police all this.
It's a tricky one. Those cops in all the gear are probably specialised crowd controllers. You have to equip them to do the job and a big part of that is giving them the gear to do their job safely.
Serious question - what is a better way to police things? Would you be happy for police to stand off to the side and let people flout lock down laws? Where do you allow the police to draw the line?
-
Avi Yemini. Professional scumbag.
"Violently"? Bullshit - I got hit harder playing rugby on Saturday. Bet he hit his wife harder than that before she finally managed to get away from him:
He's not a "journalist" either. He's a fucking agitator who has climbed aboard the RWNJ bus as a way of grifting from idiots who will donate to his bullshit causes. If he and his mate holding the camera were legit, they should have had the necessary accreditation on display and stood by observing or interviewing.
If anyone deserves being violently arrested it is that twat, but that looked like a very efficient and safe apprehension from the police on a nice, soft surface, with as much due care as they could for a law breaker.
While I'd like to see the whole video, cynical me would say that he started being a right fluffybunny to those cops before he got put down, and then whatever he puts out later will be edited to shithouse.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Aussie Politics:
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
Watch with sound down if you prefer but the images of police militarisation are very similar to the USA.
Can't help but think there's a better way to police all this.
It's a tricky one. Those cops in all the gear are probably specialised crowd controllers. You have to equip them to do the job and a big part of that is giving them the gear to do their job safely.
Serious question - what is a better way to police things? Would you be happy for police to stand off to the side and let people flout lock down laws? Where do you allow the police to draw the line?
You've got me there mate. I don't know enough about the situation on the ground, or the dangers posed. My reaction was to the optics, however deep or shallow that notion is.
My beef is not with the police on the front line following orders but their authoritarian bosses.But as a starting point for your question: how about they police them the same as they did for the blm protests? Less people and no history of violence in this instance.
Aussie Politics