Revoking Privileges from those Voicing Opinions Contrary to Yours

[andye]

It does speak volumes for own world-view that revocation of CL is seen as a draconian punishment

 

[Happy Dude]

The whole point is... we don't need to!!

We can discuss immigration in general. We don't need to hone in on the specifics of race or religion. We can discuss marriage in general. We don't need to discuss whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual. We can discuss foreign investment all we like, but we shouldn't be focussing on the fear-mongering peddled for a political cause.

We might feel better having France build our submarines rather than a country we consider a 'threat'. But there's no guarantee that the latter country doesn't have a spy (or spies) firmly planted in the French company to begin with. So what's the difference?

You may find it stifling to be a white, middle-aged heterosexual male, but that means you just don't get it. If you look at issues objectively, rather than with prejudice (which is what this whole thing is about), then you can't ever find yourself 'stifled'.

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.

So these debates that we've all been having for decades about "the issues", can only be accomplished if all elephants in rooms are ignored and references to the stakeholders and specifics of any kind are excluded? That's just not sensible.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens though, if you can call it a debate. As soon as someone says, for example, "the Chinese buy too much of our land", the racist chants commence. But somehow, in the interests of keeping it general, I doubt we're going see much discussion about how little land other countries are buying though. No-one likes beating around the bush.

I'm a scientist. I'm trained to look at things subjectively, objectively and most of all, critically, despite your suggestion to the contrary. (But hey, you don't know me so what were you saying about not playing the person?) Anyway, I write Impact Assessments for a living. It's not possible to do that properly without looking at the potential for harm or risk that a particular proposal may bring. A robust debate is no different. If you want to shut down those wanting to discuss the downsides, provided it's done within the bounds of lawful speech, then, as I said, we're not able to have a civil and mature debate.

I was specifically referring to the fear-mongering spouted when objectivity and critical analysis is brought into the debate. It is presented as finger-pointing and name-calling by those on hobby horses. Because of who/what I am, I'm the first to be stifled.

Also, I have worked on the submarine project and your secret squirrel theories might be interesting to a few blokes I know. I'll report back on their level of naivety next time I see them.

 

[serfty]

[Moderator hat]

Several more posts have been pruned.

Please keep to the topic of possible revocation on CL membership due to aparticular statement.​

[/Moderator hat]

 

[Quickstatus]

If QF management pulls CL membership because of comments. it announces to the world that certain views, even certain political views are unwelcome. Sure its a private company, but doing this pushes it into the centre of public political debate. The unintended consequence is that the airline will need to increasingly genuflect towards the radical side of that debate.

 

[Moody]

If QF management pulls CL membership because of comments. it announces to the world that certain views, even certain political views are unwelcome. Sure its a private company, but doing this pushes it into the centre of public political debate. The unintended consequence is that the airline will need to increasingly genuflect towards the radical side of that debate.

It has announced that those who use hate speech for political gains will not be given the preferential treatment than otherwise might be the case.

If you truly believe that this is genuflecting to the "radical side of the debate" then I am lost for words.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ok... whoever predicted that banning sandals in the Qantas club would lead to a slippery slope... you win the prize

 

[CaptJCool]

Ok... whoever predicted that banning sandals in the Qantas club would lead to a slippery slope... you win the prize

So the banning of thongs is very unAustralian too especially for the zgold Coast Lounge

 

[Renato1]

Sorry


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!

Of course not all thugs are Sudanese. I lived next door to a Sudanese family for a couple of years and got along superbly well with them, especially with their kids.

But there is no disputing the statistics, which Police finally released some two years or so ago. Depending on the category of crime, the number of Sudanese people in jail were from 45 times to 128 times greater than the general population average. This was after years of Police trying to cover-up the problem, notoriously in the late 2000s, when the then Police Commissioner put out statistics showing that Africans were under-represented in the crime figures - by including the much larger numbers of white South Africans and Jews in the "African" total as the basis of the statistics.

The Courts have effectively made it impossible for the Police to go from "soft Policing" to "hard Policing" in Victoria, as I suspect happens in other States. End result, in my opinion, feel-good virtue signalling for some that they are not "Racists", but at the same time severely damaging the brand of the law-abiding majority of Sudanese who try do the right thing in their new country.
Regards,
Renato

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Of course not all thugs are Sudanese. I lived next door to a Sudanese family for a couple of years and got along superbly well with them, especially with their kids.

But their is no disputing the statistics, which Police finally released some two years or so ago. Depending on the category of crime, the number of Sudanese people in jail were from 45 times to 128 times greater than the general population average. This was after years of Police trying to cover-up the problem, notoriously in the late 2000s, when the then Police Commissioner put out statistics showing that Africans were under-represented in the crime figures - by including the much larger numbers of white South Africans and Jews in the "African" total as the basis of the statistics.

The Courts have effectively made it impossible for the Police to go from "soft Policing" to "hard Policing" in Victoria, as I suspect happens in other States. End result, in my opinion, feel-good virtue signalling for some that they are not "Racists", but at the same time severely damaging the brand of the law-abiding majority of Sudanese who try do the right thing in their new country.
Regards,
Renato

The actions of the police and courts is too late.

The debate should not be about 'African crime' but the underlying reasons.

If we support, as a country, increasing our population through various means including immigration, we need the support services and infrastructure in place. We need community, health services, schools, education and meaningful employment for that increase in population. At the moment we seem to 'welcome' people, stick them in housing commission accommodation (perhaps in the middle of no where), don't give them a job or community, and then wonder why we have problems.

 

[love_the_life]

Of course not all thugs are Sudanese. I lived next door to a Sudanese family for a couple of years and got along superbly well with them, especially with their kids.

But their is no disputing the statistics, which Police finally released some two years or so ago. Depending on the category of crime, the number of Sudanese people in jail were from 45 times to 128 times greater than the general population average. This was after years of Police trying to cover-up the problem, notoriously in the late 2000s, when the then Police Commissioner put out statistics showing that Africans were under-represented in the crime figures - by including the much larger numbers of white South Africans and Jews in the "African" total as the basis of the statistics.

The Courts have effectively made it impossible for the Police to go from "soft Policing" to "hard Policing" in Victoria, as I suspect happens in other States. End result, in my opinion, feel-good virtue signalling for some that they are not "Racists", but at the same time severely damaging the brand of the law-abiding majority of Sudanese who try do the right thing in their new country.
Regards,
Renato

Certainly off topic but in response.
Fact check: Do Sudanese people account for only 1 per cent of crimes committed in Victoria?

 

[drron]

Indeed who decides what is hate speech.Chelsea Clinton has been accused of complicity in the Christchurch massacre because she criticised a muslim Congresswoman for her anti-semitic speech.

 

[CaptJCool]

It does speak volumes for own world-view that revocation of CL is seen as a draconian punishment

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/ed...k-from-concierge-parents-20190322-p516q0.html

Qantas. The concierge parent

Politeness is our priority

 

[serfty]

Certainly off topic but in response.
Fact check: Do Sudanese people account for only 1 per cent of crimes committed in Victoria?

Of course, while the premis the article is 'checking' is true, there is also this in that article:

Sudanese-born people are over represented in all categories, but particularly in the categories of aggravated robberies and burglaries.

Statistics from that article and this show that People of South Sudanese or Sudanese origination were uniquely represented in 1.07% of total offenses while making up 0.16% of the population.

These figure can be used to show they are 6.8 times more likely to be an offender than the rest of the Victorian population.

 

[Alyopsis]

Interesting where this thread has gone.

My original post was about the appropriateness of possible corporate activism, in this case by Qantas, on matters that are unrelated to its business.

It was never about race, or immigration, or who is committing what offences where.

 

[Moody]

Of course, while the premis the article is 'checking' is true, there is also this in that article:
Statistics from that article and this show that People of South Sudanese or Sudanese origination were uniquely represented in 1.07% of total offenses while making up 0.16% of the population.

These figure can be used to show they are 106 times more likely to be an offender than the rest of the Victorian population.

106 times, Serfty?

 

[Quickstatus]

It has announced that those who use hate speech for political gains will not be given the preferential treatment than otherwise might be the case.

If you truly believe that this is genuflecting to the "radical side of the debate" then I am lost for words.

On the surface it seems sensible but who decides what constitutes “hate speech”

 

[Quickstatus]

The actions of the police and courts is too late.

The debate should not be about 'African crime' but the underlying reasons.

If we support, as a country, increasing our population through various means including immigration, we need the support services and infrastructure in place. We need community, health services, schools, education and meaningful employment for that increase in population. At the moment we seem to 'welcome' people, stick them in housing commission accommodation (perhaps in the middle of no where), don't give them a job or community, and then wonder why we have problems.

Many (maybe even the majority) are now saying less immigration, less increase in population until infrastructure can catch up.

Especially in the cities.
It is a fact than when government does not listen to the people by shutting down debate, crazies like the NZ terrorist sometimes emerge and do bad stuff. Identity politics types like tangible groups. Anyone who does not agree with the left wing is immediately put into the same group as the NZ terrorist. What is QF to do?. If they don’t genuflect towards the radical left, they are put into this radical right group.

 

[Quickstatus]

Ok... whoever predicted that banning sandals in the Qantas club would lead to a slippery slope... you win the prize

Yes and the slippery slope is now visible.
When QF is susceptible to business damage they have shown themselves to bend and even comply. Sandals is one. The company’s public stand on SSM while benefited the company is another and opened a Pandora’s box. Now they have to act on a lot of other issues.

 

[Blinky]

I cringe when I see the term “free speech”. As someone said earlier in this thread, there is no such thing. Try going into a police station and say “I’m about to go outside and kill someone” or to a school and say “I’m a paedophile and will start to groom one of your students”. Government rightly draws lines that restrict speech like this, as well as racial and religious vilification. I think very few would deny government this power, but many will argue where the line should be.

With the CL, their lounge, their rules. If someone has a history of swearing non-stop, I’m certain their invitation would be revoked. Anning has a history of vile hate speech (not only about Christchurch, but also the “final solution” speech). He should be thrown out, and I hope Qantas does so.

 

[CaptJCool]

The Betoota Chaser announced today That Mr Alan Joyce made a very brief public statement


“We will decide who comes to this Club and the circumstances in which they come”