jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (55 posts)

Australian Prime Minister's Amazing Speech

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago
    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Holy cow that was amazing. Tony Abbot looked like we wanted to hide under the table.

  2. innersmiff profile image70
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    ZZZzzzz.

    Let's talk about how Australia is now a police state instead.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Some people happen to consider women's rights important.

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The police state affects everybody's rights, not just the rights that are politically fashionable at any given time. This is the beauty of libertarianism: each individual has rights as an individual, not as a label.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You really don't get this do you? If Australia is a police state (I don't believe it is) it is so through the choice of it's population, not necessarily a decision I agree with but one they are certainly entitled to make. Simple as that. That's the beauty of democracy, the people get to chose what they want in their country.

          1. innersmiff profile image70
            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Those that didn't vote for the police state didn't get what they want did they? The libertarian view is that imposing your own particularities on others is immoral: no person can vote away another's rights to life, liberty, property or privacy. This was the idea of the US constitution: a specifically government-limiting safeguard against police-states. But now people think it's okay to ignore all that if it gets you what you want.

            But this is assuming that the police state was voted for. Very few police states were brought about solely through democracy. There is an awful lot of acting on behalf of the populace. For example, Bush and Obama's executive orders, and also the EU's unelected committee that dictates 80% of policy in Britain. Despite your irrational trust in democracy, you cannot support that, surely.

            1. SweetiePie profile image84
              SweetiePieposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Are you upset she did Gillard did not stick up for Julian Assange.  Seriously, Assange is not quite the hero some make him out to be.  He has several admirers who came up to him and asked if he would read his book, and he said he would not bother.  He has blatantly stole other men's girlfriends, and seems to get involved in a lot of weird sexual misconduct cases in Sweden.  I know some herald Assange as a brave journalist, but he has always come across as someone who is out for himself.  I would enjoy Gillard dressing him down on that, but she has better things to do.  Three cheers for Julia Gillard.

              1. innersmiff profile image70
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I haven't said anything about Julian Assange. There is subtly to my opinion about him but I'll save that for another time maybe.

                My point is that some parliamentary debate about sexism is so irrelevant when this woman is enacting a police state upon her country.

                1. SweetiePie profile image84
                  SweetiePieposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I was just curious if you were upset about her not sticking up for Assange, because I was reading a blog where several Australians compared Australia to the police state because she did not plead his case.  Honestly, I was just curious.

                  1. innersmiff profile image70
                    innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Not upset, no. Julian Assange is most probably a government-sponsored agent intended to be as disruptive as possible, and as a result of that make a bad image out of the hacktivist/whistle-blower movement. This predicates special measures to make government more secret, and introduce draconian internet legislation.

                    However, it is important to defend Assange because we have to protect the rights of journalists. Really, he only uncovered the tip of the iceberg.

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The Australian constitution is a little different a I understand it but as I say, their country, their choice, not your choice. Of the two choices the labor government I guess is the bigger government of the two and they were elected twice in a row so I guess yes that is what people voted for now by all means you can dislike their choice but you don't have the right to tell them what they can and can't chose for their own country.

              There is no such thing as executive orders in Australia or even an executive branch of government and Australia is the topic. Now just because you dislike the choices of the Australian people has NOTHING to do with the debate some people are trying to have about female equality in society (which you may notice is what the thread is actually about). If you don't think it's an important issue so be it, don't comment, many people myself included do.

              1. innersmiff profile image70
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                "A threat to justice somewhere is a threat to justice everywhere", I may be paraphrasing, probably getting it completely wrong, but the spirit behind it is true.

                The Australian people, by voting for a police state, are not only giving up their own rights, but enforcing it upon those who didn't vote for it. Individual rights, are absolute everywhere in the world, and for each individual. This is wrong, whether it is Australia, the US or Tanzania, whether they have a democracy or not. Democracy is not a get out of jail free card to wave at libertarians to excuse tyranny.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Of course the exact opposite is completely true, if we ceded to the demands of those who don't want a "police state" (again assuming Australia has such a thing which I do not believe) then that would be superseding the rights of those (the majority) who do want that system to choose how their government is run. Thus libertarianism is in this case the greater constriction of the freedom of the people because it restricts the freedom of the majority to choose how they want their country to be governed.

                  1. innersmiff profile image70
                    innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It is not really being honest to say that libertarianism is the philosophy of 'freedom'. The only freedom we like is the non-aggressive type. So yes, I agree, we do favour the curtailment of the freedom to spy on, steal from and kill people. We do not believe dictatorship nor democracy should have the power to do this.

                    How is an idea judged? Is it judged on its intellectual merits, or how many people agree with it? According to you, an idea is best when it is agreed upon by the majority. The possibility of the minority being right is nil. A fool can see through this fallacy.

                    You say that we have the right to disagree, and then go on to say that I have 'no right to tell them that they can't'. As a pacifist I am obliged by my conscience to speak out in attempt to prevent all aggressive violence within this world, so I will NOT be peer-pressured into debating this ineffectual, intellectually bankrupt subject instead of doing so.

                2. Hovalis profile image88
                  Hovalisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  How about you start another thread and put together a convincing argument as to why this is so. Please take into account how the Federation of Australia actually works in governance including the different branches. State vs Federal vs local and what powers of veto are held by each.You'll have to go beyond the repeated statement of "it's a police state because I say so" though to make it convincing.

                  As an Australian I say you're wrong. And you're selfishly derailing a topic which affects 51% of the population here.

                  Now onto the topic at hand. Go Julia! This has been long overdue. While I don't necessarily like all of the Labor Party's politics, and this term of government has been stifled due to the minority government, I have been shocked by the conduct of Tony Abbott and the Liberal (read conservative) party. They have a lot of media power and have been using it to their advantage. Most of the attacks on Julia Gillard have been couched in very sexist terms. Terms that would never, ever have been used against a male Prime Minister. Abbott has been fanning those flames. He needed to be put down more than a peg or two. Not that it did more than bounce off his massive ego plating.

                  This lecture made earlier this year by Anne Summers from Newcastle Uni gives some of the "highlights" of what has passed for political debate here in the last couple of years.

                  http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her- … k-r-rated/

                  1. Marisa Wright profile image95
                    Marisa Wrightposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    +1

                  2. innersmiff profile image70
                    innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Josak and I are having a debate about political philosophy, not whether Australia is a police state, but I shall oblige.

                3. Marisa Wright profile image95
                  Marisa Wrightposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm an Australian and I'm not understanding your point at all.  By what measure do you say we live in a police state?   Can you be more specific, please?

    2. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Let's talk about one thing at a time.  And let's learn how to have a conversation where you engage in other people's ideas rather than just talking over them with your own. Unless that is too "uppity" of us.

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The answer to this thread is: it's irrelevant. What does Gillard know about women's rights when she doesn't respect individual rights in general? That's the point. Excuse me for raining on anybody's moralising parade.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          What does Innersmiff know about women's rights, have you experienced life as a woman??

          1. innersmiff profile image70
            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Would you not accept cancer treatment from a doctor if he himself had not had cancer?

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You hate police states but have no problem with a man telling women they can't discuss sexism and are wrong to even think it is an issue.  You want to dictate not only the answer, but the question.  If you can't see the problem here, that only proves the point.

              You are doing the thing you criticize. Setting the entire agenda, valid discussion space, a validity of opinions from a position of self-anointed superiority.

              You aren't telling us we have cancer.  You are telling us that we don't, despite they tumors we can see on out bodies with our own eyes.

              You are telling woman they don't suffer from sexism or that suffering is trivial despite the fact i earn $20,000 less than a male with identical skills--and I experience it for myself every damn day. Despite the fact I work with female victims of domestic violence and have experienced the same in my own family.

              It's outrageous how hypocritical you are being on multiple levels. You are saying your theory is more important than my experience of my own life because, what...?  Seriously?  How do you get to do that?

              Make an 'Oz is a police state' thread to discuss that and let other people have other discussions without you. Seriously.

              1. innersmiff profile image70
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Go ahead and discuss sexism! I'm simply pointing out that the subject is irrelevant when EVERYBODY's rights are affected by the police state! This includes sexism too, and all the problems with inequality in the West (seriously, where did I say that there wasn't sexism?) I don't believe I'm being off-topic here at all - you're being distracted by popular talking points that only scratch 10% of the issue whilst your rights as an individual are being taken away by the second.

                Gillard hates sexism? Great, whoop-de-doo, fandabby dosey, what a WONDERFUL person she must be! But no, she's a tyrant of the worst order, and I'm not going to ignore that simply because she stood up for herself as a woman. Margaret Thatcher suffered from sexism too but I'm not going to start excusing her for all the tyranny she did either. Jeez.

                1. jandee profile image47
                  jandeeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You really do have problem ! Don't you ?!
                  How dare you say the subject of sexism is irrelevant. The only accurate statement you have made is to state that Margaret Thatcher caused tyranny.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You don't get it at all. Maybe when sexism is the least of your problems you will.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Margaret Thatcher was the puppet of men. The biggest conformist of them all.

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You are neither a doctor nor a woman. Furthermore, I might accept treatment from a male oncologist but I'd never let him preach to me about women's experiences, just as you'd never accept treatment for cancer from me.

  3. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    When did this format change?

  4. jandee profile image47
    jandeeposted 5 years ago

    Julia  is one good Taffy !   Hope you Blokes listen !

    Nostar .............
    jandee

    1. theraggededge profile image96
      theraggededgeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      She is from Barry, not Cardiff, therefore is not a 'taffy'. We are ashamed, yet strangely relieved that she left Wales and foisted herself upon poor Australians big_smile By the way, you do realise she was supporting the (ex) Speaker and his disgusting tweets to a homosexual regarding the appearance of female anatomy?

      Nos dda.

      1. jandee profile image47
        jandeeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry I thought she was from Cardiff even so maybe it was a bit off !

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I don't agree with all of Gillard's policies but credit should go where it is deserved.

    Her speech on this issue rocked.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      +1

  6. eternals3ptember profile image61
    eternals3ptemberposted 5 years ago

    I feel late, but I'm confused. I've never heard my Australian friends describe Australia as a police state.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And I learned from someone on here that my country Canada is a dictatorship smile Amazing what you learn about your own country from those who have never been there isn't it?

      1. innersmiff profile image70
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        People imagine a police state to be a place where stormtroopers line the street and conduct regular armed searches of property for no reason at all, with cameras in every house blah blah

        In real life, police states are much more subtle and don't readily reveal themselves to the section of their population that serve their purpose. By deduction from the actual definition of 'Police state', most countries in the West qualify, including the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. Surprising only to those who agree with the tyranny.

        1. innersmiff profile image70
          innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          That is unfair. Most are too concerned with day-to-day life to concern themselves with wider issues. I implore people to keep an open-mind and be vigilant.

  7. eternals3ptember profile image61
    eternals3ptemberposted 5 years ago

    Well if you change the definition...

 
working