Australia General Discussion 3.0

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Old thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=219137.0

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Lulz. He is certainly pumping 'em out.

The real question is "Will it wotk at the ballot box?"

I'm surprised no one tried running as a UAP candidate in NSW State election today.
The amount of bloody ads Palmer is pushing. The candidate wouldn't have to advertise. That would have been an interesting little experiment.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/articles/debating-immigration-cant-be-dismissed-as-hate-speech/

On the Left, there has also been a concerted attempt led by the Greens and GetUp! to shift the blame by asserting — with no real evidence — that the terrorist attack was inspired by the so-called “hate speech” spoken on immigration-related subjects by Coalition politicians.

The argument is that root cause of the terrorist attack is the “hatred” that has allegedly been “normalised” by the “inflammatory language on race” of Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, and Tony Abbott — despite none of these politicians being mentioned in the terrorist’s online manifesto.

All reasonable people oppose speech that genuinely incites racial hatred, and support laws that make incitement, to racially-motivated and all other forms of violence, illegal.

But it is a monstrous absurdity to blame the cesspit of internet white supremacist fanaticism on the legitimate statements that mainstream politicians have made about immigration — and claim they have “blood on their hands”.

Such politicking not only needlessly divides us and undermines the spirit of national unity in the face of terrorism, it also trivialises the real motivations of those who believe killing innocent people is politically justified, and offers no sound guide to how the authorities should respond to such evil thoughts, words, and deeds. The attempt being made to silence debate about immigration by linking it to Christchurch is also likely to prove counter-productive.

Making immigration a taboo subject beyond the bounds of respectable public discussion would not just feed far right paranoia about political conspiracies to deny people a say, it would also create a political void the Senator Annings and their ilk will gleefully fill.

[PSOL]

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/articles/debating-immigration-cant-be-dismissed-as-hate-speech/

On the Left, there has also been a concerted attempt led by the Greens and GetUp! to shift the blame by asserting — with no real evidence — that the terrorist attack was inspired by the so-called “hate speech” spoken on immigration-related subjects by Coalition politicians.

The argument is that root cause of the terrorist attack is the “hatred” that has allegedly been “normalised” by the “inflammatory language on race” of Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, and Tony Abbott — despite none of these politicians being mentioned in the terrorist’s online manifesto.

All reasonable people oppose speech that genuinely incites racial hatred, and support laws that make incitement, to racially-motivated and all other forms of violence, illegal.

But it is a monstrous absurdity to blame the cesspit of internet white supremacist fanaticism on the legitimate statements that mainstream politicians have made about immigration — and claim they have “blood on their hands”.

Such politicking not only needlessly divides us and undermines the spirit of national unity in the face of terrorism, it also trivialises the real motivations of those who believe killing innocent people is politically justified, and offers no sound guide to how the authorities should respond to such evil thoughts, words, and deeds. The attempt being made to silence debate about immigration by linking it to Christchurch is also likely to prove counter-productive.

Making immigration a taboo subject beyond the bounds of respectable public discussion would not just feed far right paranoia about political conspiracies to deny people a say, it would also create a political void the Senator Annings and their ilk will gleefully fill.

The notion of politicians fanning the flames of division is right though. Look at how Australian media and institutions give disproportionate care and attention to the likes of One Nation conmen like Anning Fraser, who whistled in forceful removal of Immigrants at the same time as feigning notice for the massacre at Christchurch.

[GoTfan]

https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/articles/debating-immigration-cant-be-dismissed-as-hate-speech/

On the Left, there has also been a concerted attempt led by the Greens and GetUp! to shift the blame by asserting — with no real evidence — that the terrorist attack was inspired by the so-called “hate speech” spoken on immigration-related subjects by Coalition politicians.

The argument is that root cause of the terrorist attack is the “hatred” that has allegedly been “normalised” by the “inflammatory language on race” of Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, and Tony Abbott — despite none of these politicians being mentioned in the terrorist’s online manifesto.

All reasonable people oppose speech that genuinely incites racial hatred, and support laws that make incitement, to racially-motivated and all other forms of violence, illegal.

But it is a monstrous absurdity to blame the cesspit of internet white supremacist fanaticism on the legitimate statements that mainstream politicians have made about immigration — and claim they have “blood on their hands”.

Such politicking not only needlessly divides us and undermines the spirit of national unity in the face of terrorism, it also trivialises the real motivations of those who believe killing innocent people is politically justified, and offers no sound guide to how the authorities should respond to such evil thoughts, words, and deeds. The attempt being made to silence debate about immigration by linking it to Christchurch is also likely to prove counter-productive.

Making immigration a taboo subject beyond the bounds of respectable public discussion would not just feed far right paranoia about political conspiracies to deny people a say, it would also create a political void the Senator Annings and their ilk will gleefully fill.

The notion of politicians fanning the flames of division is right though. Look at how Australian media and institutions give disproportionate care and attention to the likes of One Nation conmen like Anning Fraser, who whistled in forceful removal of Immigrants at the same time as feigning notice for the massacre at Christchurch.

At least someone gets it.

You wanna talk about a real taboo, I have a 6 page essay on the blind eye the world turns to youth suicide.

[Meclazine for Israel]

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-23/mark-latham-wins-nsw-upper-house-seat/10923460

Mark Latham back from the wilderness after 14 years.

Odd political transformation.

[GoTfan]

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-23/mark-latham-wins-nsw-upper-house-seat/10923460

Mark Latham back from the wilderness after 14 years.

Odd political transformation.

Latham's effectively been airbrushed out of existence in the Labor Party, thank God.

[GoTfan]

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/03/26/morrison-one-nation-gun-money/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PM%20Update%2020190326

And thus, One Nation is consigned to history (hopefully).

[Meclazine for Israel]

One Nation isn't going anywhere in a hurry, up or down.

The real interest will be in right wing style Fraser Annings suddenly appearing in the Senate after the next election.

Hard to gauge what effect the egg attack will have.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The big issue with One Nation (well, one big issue anyway) is can two gigantic egos fit under the same umbrella without clashing? Like, it's pretty clear that Latham is more loyal to Brand Latham than whatever party he happens to be in at the current moment; and Hanson has always been somebody who wants to be the literal embodiment of her party, Gerry Wilders style.

[GoTfan]

The big issue with One Nation (well, one big issue anyway) is can two gigantic egos fit under the same umbrella without clashing? Like, it's pretty clear that Latham is more loyal to Brand Latham than whatever party he happens to be in at the current moment; and Hanson has always been somebody who wants to be the literal embodiment of her party, Gerry Wilders style.

Literally no one cares what happens to Mark Latham except Mark Latham. There's a reason why everyone in the Labor Party hates him.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The big issue with One Nation (well, one big issue anyway) is can two gigantic egos fit under the same umbrella without clashing? Like, it's pretty clear that Latham is more loyal to Brand Latham than whatever party he happens to be in at the current moment; and Hanson has always been somebody who wants to be the literal embodiment of her party, Gerry Wilders style.

Literally no one cares what happens to Mark Latham except Mark Latham. There's a reason why everyone in the Labor Party hates him.

Thing is are the people who voted for him attracted by him or brand One Nation?

[GoTfan]

The big issue with One Nation (well, one big issue anyway) is can two gigantic egos fit under the same umbrella without clashing? Like, it's pretty clear that Latham is more loyal to Brand Latham than whatever party he happens to be in at the current moment; and Hanson has always been somebody who wants to be the literal embodiment of her party, Gerry Wilders style.

Literally no one cares what happens to Mark Latham except Mark Latham. There's a reason why everyone in the Labor Party hates him.

Thing is are the people who voted for him attracted by him or brand One Nation?

The brand more than anything, I'd say. Latham's a third-rate shock jock at best.

[GoTfan]

So One Nation is now in full on crisis mode.

[Lechasseur]

So One Nation is now in full on crisis mode.

What happened?

[GoTfan]

So One Nation is now in full on crisis mode.

What happened?

Well basically a sting from an Al Jazeera journalist posing as a gun rights advocate who was in loop with the NRA got Steve Dickson (Senate candidate) and James Ashby (ON Chief of Staff) on the record asking for 10-20 million dollars in donations from the NRA so they can win seats in order to weaken gun laws in Australia.

Most Australians like having the strict gun laws we have now.

More than that, Ashby had also met with the NRA's PR team on how to spin gun massacres to their advantage, while at the same time claiming that Muslims were reponsible for everything wrong in the world and that the Greens were the single biggest threat to democracy.

Pauline Hanson herself expressed the view that the Port Arthur Massacre that triggered Howard's gun reforms was a conspiracy/hoax.

They've now opted to dig their heels in, which has resulted in condemnations from everyone. And I mean everyone from the Coalition to the Shooters and Fishers (who actually described the whole thing as borderline treason). The Liberals have now preferenced them last, which has sparked yet another battlefield with the conservatives and Nationals, who seem to view the Greens as some sort of Satanic party.

In response to this, One Nation immediately apologised and sacked Dickson and Ashby immediately.

I am of course kidding. They've stuck their heels in completely and are now accusing Al Jazeera of attempting to influence the upcoming federal election, and have referred the whole episode to the AFP and ASIO. In other words, they're entering Alex Jones territory. They themselves pretty obviously conspired to have a foreign organisation interfere with the election, but it's okay when they do it . . . for some reason.

One of the more amusing defences I've heard is about the left-wing pressure group GetUp! recieving foreign donations. Though this misses the key point that GetUp! is not a political party.

[Meclazine for Israel]

For Pauline, all news is good news.

Her followers are very loyal.

[GoTfan]

The Senate has formally denounced Fraser Anning. Only one to vote against it was Bernardi. Apparently he couldn't vote to condemn Anning because the motion made mention of hate speech, and Bernardi would never engage in hate speech at all.

[Meclazine for Israel]

What effect has the budget had on Liberals chances in the Federal Election.

[PSOL]

5 Australian children held in Chinese custody for being Uigher, Dfat and the Green Party responds.

[brucejoel99]

Scott Morrison calls federal election for May 18th

[Lechasseur]

Scott Morrison calls federal election for May 18th

Yeah I just saw that on BBC News. Why was an election called so early? Didn't Parliament's term last until November or something? It seems to me if you're in a situation where it looks like you'll lose the smartest thing is delay holding an election as long as possible.

[IceAgeComing]

Its because the Australian constitution is a little strange that forces them to go this early.

The House of Representatives can go until November yes; its term is three years following the first meeting of Parliament.  However the Senate is different; the rules there state that in an ordinary election Senators elected take their seat on the 1st July following the election, while for Double Dissolution elections (which is what the previous election was) the terms of each Senator are considered to be backdated to the 1st July before the election date, and then they shall serve either a three year or six year (depending on how the Senate elects to split which Senators get a three year and which get a full six year) term from that 1st July date.  This meant that since it takes at least a month and realistically six weeks to count the Senate votes there would constitutionally need to be a Half-Senate election on either the 18th May, or the 25th May at a push in order for them to count the votes and formally elect Senators before the 1st July deadline in the constitution.

Now theoretically you could get Senate-only elections then and House-only elections in November but after a few experience of Senate-only elections in the 1950s resulting in them basically being used as a second-order election to protest at government policies government tend to want to avoid them, which meant that realistically from the start of this term after the 2016 Double Dissolution election you had a roughly eight month period (from last July to the end of May) where the government realistically had to call an election to avoid a House-only election a year before a Senate-only election (which would have forced another General Election most likely) or a Senate-only election a matter of months before a House-only election (which would mean that the last few months of the term the government would have to deal with an incredibly hostile Senate).  That is why they're going in May; to avoid losing a load of Senators on a gamble that things turn around in less than five months.

[brucejoel99]

Its because the Australian constitution is a little strange that forces them to go this early.

The House of Representatives can go until November yes; its term is three years following the first meeting of Parliament.  However the Senate is different; the rules there state that in an ordinary election Senators elected take their seat on the 1st July following the election, while for Double Dissolution elections (which is what the previous election was) the terms of each Senator are considered to be backdated to the 1st July before the election date, and then they shall serve either a three year or six year (depending on how the Senate elects to split which Senators get a three year and which get a full six year) term from that 1st July date.  This meant that since it takes at least a month and realistically six weeks to count the Senate votes there would constitutionally need to be a Half-Senate election on either the 18th May, or the 25th May at a push in order for them to count the votes and formally elect Senators before the 1st July deadline in the constitution.

Now theoretically you could get Senate-only elections then and House-only elections in November but after a few experience of Senate-only elections in the 1950s resulting in them basically being used as a second-order election to protest at government policies government tend to want to avoid them, which meant that realistically from the start of this term after the 2016 Double Dissolution election you had a roughly eight month period (from last July to the end of May) where the government realistically had to call an election to avoid a House-only election a year before a Senate-only election (which would have forced another General Election most likely) or a Senate-only election a matter of months before a House-only election (which would mean that the last few months of the term the government would have to deal with an incredibly hostile Senate).  That is why they're going in May; to avoid losing a load of Senators on a gamble that things turn around in less than five months.

Yeah, this. The House election could've been as late as November 2, 2019, but a half-Senate election has to have been held by May 18, 2019, & it would've been astonishing had the government chosen to separately hold the two elections 6 months apart. So, to keep the House & half-Senate elections on the same day, the election had to have been held (as it evidently will be) by May 18, 2019, so as to allow for counting & the return of writs for the Senate elections before the newly elected senators take office on July 1, 2019.

[IceAgeComing]

The government were looking at the 25th May as a possible date which would have squeezed the Senate timetable to five weeks: but an extra week doesn't usually get you much.