Revoking Privileges from those Voicing Opinions Contrary to Yours

[Pushka]

Que? The announcement by Qantas that they were reviewing the senator's CL access is 100% about his vile comments following the Christchurch murders. Where have you been?? I am completely stunned by your ignorance of this fact.

Maybe you should read the whole thread before accusing me of falsehoods.

 

[Moody]

They can post what they wish as long as it isn’t defamatory. I can likewise post what I wish about that post. So a perfect example of free speech in action. What are you suggesting?
Or don’t I get the same freedoms to do so if I disagree? Which is exactly the point I made pages ago. It seems that Freedom of Speech is a one way street these days.

Also, Morrison is not his mate which is what was inferred.

Post what you like here, Pushka. But when it is nonsensical then don't be surprised when you are taken to task about it. Freedom of speech is not a one way street - there are plenty of lunatic far-right commentators you can brainwash yourself with - but it is not an infinitely wide street. There are legal limits to what you can say, and within those limits there are moral fringes that vary depending on your viewpoint. If you want to defend the abhorrent senator then that's your choice. I don't.

 

[Pushka]

Post what you like here, Pushka. But when it is nonsensical then don't be surprised when you are taken to task about it. Freedom of speech is not a one way street - there are plenty of lunatic far-right commentators you can brainwash yourself with - but it is not an infinitely wide street. There are legal limits to what you can say, and within those limits there are moral fringes that vary depending on your viewpoint. If you want to defend the abhorrent senator then that's your choice. I don't.

And I refer to the mass-murderer as "ScoMo's Scumbag" because like the NZ PM I don't believe he deserves a name any more than a coughroach does, but he is Australian and the buck stops with the CiC. It seems that the Oz PM is cognisant of this fact, as his rhetoric has certainly taken on a new tone. Perhaps because the NZ PM is shaming him into it, but it is welcome nonetheless.

Just read the thread. Until you read the thread it’s useless me commenting further.

Let’s not get facts in the way of your good rant with regards to what you think, but actually have no idea, of my opinion of what has been said by the senator.

 

[oz_mark]

Which also gives people the right to be disgusted doesn't it?

Which should also give Alan Joyce the right to muse about whether people should be allowed in a private club?

 

[Pushka]

Which should also give Alan Joyce the right to muse about whether people should be allowed in a private club?

I would have thought it a board decision actually. And one that should not be taken lightly but with due thought about unintended consequences and being consistent less they open themselves to claims of discrimination.

 

[CaptJCool]

Well Mr Alan Joyce thought deeply on same gender marriage but he didn’t ban all the Labor and Liberals who voted against it including former PM Gillard.

So if Mr Joyce and the Chairman do expel the Senator “Spender”, perhaps there’s a few others lined up to be turfed out as well. As much as we all hate the Mankad or that underarm grubber inflicted upon NZ, bad things in life are inevitable. Political violence


PS Of course who knew Grafton was famous for “sub-tropical bananas”. What does go bananas mean? go bananas Definition. Meaning of go bananas. OnlineSlangDictionary.com

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I would have thought it a board decision actually. And one that should not be taken lightly but with due thought about unintended consequences and being consistent less they open themselves to claims of discrimination.

The roles of the board and CEO will be clearly defined. I cannot see any discrimination issues in this case, but QF will have a legal team to advise them.

 

[Quickstatus]

Agree. But this doesn't mean we should continually re-hash devisive issues that have already been the subject of extensive debate and an appropriate outcome determined. If we are presented with a new issue, let's debate it freely. But if we as a society have decided that some things are harmful or anti-social the time to reopen that debate may have passed.

What extensive debate?. There has never been an extensive debate on the many of the divisive issues in society - including on the issue of immigration. Usually one side controls the debate - by shutting it down.
The problem with "we as a society" is who gets to determine who the "we" is. And who gets to determine whether "some things are harmful or antisocial". On whose law does that decision get made?.

See, if people can't talk about a subject because another group says they can't because it offends, then that is not free speech. The only way to get at the truth about anything is to speak freely - sometimes risking offence - and we then get closer to the truth than the current muzzling of any speech which deemed by a group to be offensive. Why should there be free or freedom of speech? - to get at the truth. Shutting down speech is often done to avoid truth.

Free or freedom of speech is also about being able to condemn and be condemned, and the risk being offensive. What better way to see into the minds of various individual than for them to vocalise what they think. To condemn is also to offend. However, when the consequences of that speech is retribution, retaliation in ways other than speech (such as attacking their business, livelihood etc) then you shut down the freedom of speech.

Backstory. Malcolm Fraser allowed the Lebanese to emigrate during their civil war under concessionary rules which were much more relaxed than the usual "economic viability, personal quality and ability to integrate". The Lebanese Maronites tended to be educated, professional, and have shown to have integrated into Australian Culture. However the Lebanese Muslims tended to be from lower S-E circumstances, many were illiterate, have lower education, skills and have shown many times to have intergenerational problems integration into Australian Culture. Malcolm Fraser after several years replaced the concessional entry rules with the usual immigration rules.
The problem was not the religion but their qualities as migrants. Dutton has been lambasted about this because he dared to talk about some people who just so happened to be Muslims but it had nothing to do with religion.

 

[Quickstatus]

And one of the consequences of an inability to speak freely is that some crazies will express themselves in murderous ways.

Now, who knows what was in the mind the NZ terrorist. He must be in a really dark place to be able to do such acts.

One thing we can all do is to recognise there may be many dimensions of to the NZ massacre. To shut down one or more of those dimension and put the event into one dimension really is head in the sand stuff.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What extensive debate?. There has never been an extensive debate on the many of the divisive issues ion society - including on the issue of immigration. Usually one side controls the debate - but shutting it down.
The problem with "we as a society" is who gets to determine who the "we" is. And who gets to determine whether "some things are harmful or antisocial". On whose law does that decision get made?.

See, if people cant talk about a subject because another group says they can't because it offends, then that is not free speech. The only way to get at the truth about anything is to speak freely - sometimes risking offence. But we then get closer to the truth than the current muzzling of any speech which deemed by a group to be offensive. Why should there be free or freedom of speech? - to get at the truth. Shutting down speech is often done to avoid truth.

Free or freedom of speech is also about being able to condemn and be condemn and the risk being offensive. What better way to see into the minds of various individual than for them to vocalise what they think. To condemn is also to offend. However, when the consequences of that speech is retribution, retaliation in ways other than speech (such as attacking their business, livelihood etc) then you shut down the freedom of speech.

The debate about immigration has been going on for decades... since the ending of the so called ‘white Australia’ policy. The issues haven’t really changed. It’s one group after the other that get subjected to the same prejudice. Starting with Asian immigration, now Sudanese. The debate shouldn’t be about the race (or religion) but about how to provide the services and infrastructure to prevent the issues (and prejudice) that are faced by those we welcome.

Society makes laws through parliament. That means the majority rule. The harms identified are very real. Just one example of many... youth suicide in the LGBT community is a major issue. We shouldn’t have people contributing to that harm under the banner of ‘free speech’.

Debate the issues, not the person, and no one should feel stifled or that their free speech is curtailed.

 

[Quickstatus]

The debate about immigration has been going on for decades... since the ending of the so called ‘white Australia’ policy. The issues haven’t really changed. It’s one group after the other that get subjected to the same prejudice. Starting with Asian immigration, now Sudanese. The debate shouldn’t be about the race (or religion) but about how to provide the services and infrastructure to prevent the issues (and prejudice) that are faced by those we welcome.

Society makes laws through parliament. That means the majority rule. The harms identified are very real. Just one example of many... youth suicide in the LGBT community is a major issue. We shouldn’t have people contributing to that harm under the banner of ‘free speech’.

Debate the issues, not the person, and no one should feel stifled or that their free speech is curtailed.

The debate has been one sided and controlled. Usually those who want lower immigration numbers are shouted down.
Yes debate the issues and not the person. So we should not labelled the person we are debating with as "

ScoMo's Scumbag

or

 

[straitman]

Several irrelevant/OT posts have been deleted.

What’s so had about sticking to the rules folks?

Also if you need definitions then try the dictionary.

 

[Ric]

The problem was not the religion but their qualities as migrants.

This!! And may I add "race" too.

 

[drron]

There has been basically no debate on the level of Immigration.If you argue for lower immigration you are shouted down as a racist when all you are trying to do is debate numbers.
Sure there are arguments for having higher immigration such as it being good for the economy.Though that is not necessarily desirable as some are just starting to realise.Our GDP is rising due to more of us but our GDP per capita has been straight lining and now going down.
On the other hand there is the need for more infrastructure,electricity,water supply which isn't keeping up and really should have been done before increasing immigration.
My opposition to higher immigration has always been that it puts much more pressure on our natural resources including our wilderness areas.Decreasing natural forest areas plus more people equals an increased CO2 output. Can't really see how the Greens keep arguing for more people if climate change is going to wipe us out in 12 years.

 

[pauly7]

Several irrelevant/OT posts have been deleted.

What’s so had about sticking to the rules folks?

Also if you need definitions then try the dictionary.

Check your own posts for grammar too Mr Straitman!

 

[Moody]

There has been basically no debate on the level of Immigration.If you argue for lower immigration you are shouted down as a racist when all you are trying to do is debate numbers.
Sure there are arguments for having higher immigration such as it being good for the economy.Though that is not necessarily desirable as some are just starting to realise.Our GDP is rising due to more of us but our GDP per capita has been straight lining and now going down.
On the other hand there is the need for more infrastructure,electricity,water supply which isn't keeping up and really should have been done before increasing immigration.
My opposition to higher immigration has always been that it puts much more pressure on our natural resources including our wilderness areas.Decreasing natural forest areas plus more people equals an increased CO2 output. Can't really see how the Greens keep arguing for more people if climate change is going to wipe us out in 12 years.

Let's look at Indonesia, drron. Birth rate = 2.3 compared to 1.8 in Oz. Chronic deforestation and worse environmental settings than Australia (hard to believe, but true). The more Indonesians we can attract to Oz, the better the planet will be. Nést-ce pa?

 

[straitman]

Check your own posts for grammar too Mr Straitman!

You are the only one to passs the test pauly7.

 

[drron]

Let's look at Indonesia, drron. Birth rate = 2.3 compared to 1.8 in Oz. Chronic deforestation and worse environmental settings than Australia (hard to believe, but true). The more Indonesians we can attract to Oz, the better the planet will be. Nést-ce pa?

Absolutely not.those that come to Australia will increase their carbon footprint and even 1 million coming to Australia would make no difference to the ongoing environmental destruction in Indonesia.
Unless of course you think they should be limited to the CO2 emissions they were responsible for in Indonesia.

 

[love_the_life]

You are the only one to passs the test pauly7.

Oh no, we are just too polite to point it out to you.

 

[paxman]

Sorry

The good thing about this discussion that you have started and being had here - is that it is being had here, in this thread.

If one were in Sweden, one would probably avoid replying - if one's opinion was contrary to the mainstream - for fear of dooming all future prospects of promotion, or even for fear of demotion.

In the USA, one would similarly avoid replying for fear of being fired by one's employer.

Because of the Fair Work Commission, and Federal Court for people on higher salaries, we have much greater freedom of speech here in Australia than in the USA, where their famous First Amendment only protects free speech from interference by Government - not by employers.

Senator Anning's very dopey and illogical comments about the Muslims killed in New Zealand, weren't racist - they were critical of a religion, not of a race.

In sharp contrast, Senator Anning alone has been standing up for the Chinese, Vietnamese and Indians who - gauging by the frequency of nightly news reports here - have predominantly been the victims of attacks and home invasions by Sudanese gangs in Melbourne, which no one in the media seems to make note of, for some strange reason. I recollect the ABC's webpage when reporting on his last visit to Melbourne, stating he was with a right wing group, and even it had a picture of him surrounded by happy Asian supporters.

Regards,
Renato

Sorry Renato,

Not all thugs are Africa. Recently one of my staff's boys was set up on by a group of thugs at the beach. They stomped on his arm (so badly it is now held together with pins), stole his wallet and phone (so now they have his address etc and apparently everyone knows who they are but nobody is talking ) and the only people who came to his assistance, a group of Sudanese kids. Bad people come in all colours!