Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Australia bans hot Bruce-on-Bruce, Sheila-on-Sheila action   (theguardian.com) divider line 99
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3952 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2013 at 2:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-11 10:42:38 PM  
Well that sucks. Er, stinks. Whatever, it's not good
 
2013-12-11 10:50:55 PM  
Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.
 
2013-12-11 11:01:29 PM  
Crikey
 
2013-12-11 11:03:11 PM  
 
2013-12-11 11:04:10 PM  
It sucks, but it may very well be that the court was right.  Dunno enough about the law over there.
 
2013-12-11 11:07:11 PM  
Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)
 
2013-12-11 11:11:34 PM  

optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)


Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.
 
2013-12-11 11:11:45 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.


It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.
 
2013-12-11 11:15:40 PM  

ArkAngel: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.


Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Instead of routinely removing children without due cause?
Did any of those parents stop drinking, get a better job and have their cases heard in court and back custody of their children? Or was just a policy to kidnap their children for 're-education' based on race and nothing else?
 
2013-12-11 11:22:01 PM  

optikeye: ArkAngel: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.

Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Instead of routinely removing children without due cause?
Did any of those parents stop drinking, get a better job and have their cases heard in court and back custody of their children? Or was just a policy to kidnap their children for 're-education' based on race and nothing else?


I'm not defending the practices done by the governments in years past, but the problems have existed for quite some time in both places.
 
2013-12-11 11:29:44 PM  

ArkAngel: optikeye: ArkAngel: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.

Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Instead of routinely removing children without due cause?
Did any of those parents stop drinking, get a better job and have their cases heard in court and back custody of their children? Or was just a policy to kidnap their children for 're-education' based on race and nothing else?

I'm not defending the practices done by the governments in years past, but the problems have existed for quite some time in both places.


You might want to read about the motivations. It wasn't to remove children from poverty, or alcoholic homes...it was about protecting white racial purity and nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
 
2013-12-12 12:13:12 AM  

optikeye: You might want to read about the motivations. It wasn't to remove children from poverty, or alcoholic homes...it was about protecting white racial purity and nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations


Orrr, YOU could read about the stolen generation. Perhaps I could suggest starting with your own link, which says - in the second paragraph no less - that "documentary evidence, such as newspaper articles and reports to parliamentary committees, suggest a range of rationales. Motivations evident include child protection, beliefs that given their catastrophic population decline after white contact that Aboriginal people would "die out",[7] and a fear of miscegenation by full-blooded Aboriginal people".

There were a lot of rationales behind the stolen generation - and not all of them were rooted in white superiority. Quite a number of them relied on anthropological-esque notions of protecting a declining population by attempting to integrate it with the majority population. The fact that some well intentioned individuals doesn't mitigate the fact that it was a horrible thing to do, but it was and is a complex and controversial topic.

I can tell by your tone that you've read a few things about the problems aboriginals face (or perhaps not), but I would be willing to bet you've never actually been to Australia or talked to an actual aboriginal person.
 
2013-12-12 12:30:09 AM  
The whole thing was a stunt, the constitution of Australia clearly states that marriage (and divorce) was a federal rather than a state matter.  The ACT ALP introduced gay marriage knowing that it would be struck down by the High court.

optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)


First off, don't get your info from fringe communist websites. The Federal Government wasn't defending Stolen generations, it saying that what it was doing at the time was not unlawful, as the civil suit alleges.
 
2013-12-12 12:34:11 AM  
next thing you know, they'll be censoring the internet.
 
2013-12-12 12:37:14 AM  

Elegy: I would be willing to bet you've never actually been to Australia or talked to an actual aboriginal person.


I talked to an actual black person once, in the south too. Now I'm qualified to be all smug and condescending to people about slavery.
 
2013-12-12 12:41:21 AM  

andrewmoriarty: The Federal Government wasn't defending Stolen generations, it saying that what it was doing at the time was not unlawful, as the civil suit alleges.


i865.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-12 12:55:50 AM  

Elegy: There were a lot of rationales behind the stolen generation - and not all of them were rooted in white superiority. Quite a number of them relied on anthropological-esque notions of protecting a declining population by attempting to integrate it with the majority population. The fact that some well intentioned individuals doesn't mitigate the fact that it was a horrible thing to do, but it was and is a complex and controversial topic.


It was definitively it was was about race, even the theories about a declining population was rooted in paternalistic white supremacy. Also, the whole bit about child protection is total nonsense and little more then after the fact rationalizations.

A report by the attorney general, concluded that it was "an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out Indigenous families, communities and cultures, vital to the precious and inalienable heritage of Australia."

You can read a more detailed report here, with witness testimony here.
 
2013-12-12 02:29:37 AM  
Better headline I wish I'd submitted:

Rules 1, 3, 5, and 7 upheld by the Supreme Court of Woolamaloo.
 
2013-12-12 02:32:10 AM  
Who'd have thought a bunch of sunstroked, kangaroo punching, Fosters chugging English criminals would be so uptight?
 
2013-12-12 02:36:08 AM  
Unfair dinkum.
 
2013-12-12 02:37:40 AM  

log_jammin: I talked to an actual black person once


That must have been thrilling for you. Do you tell stories about your black friend now?

andrewmoriarty: It was definitively it was was about race


Nobody ever said it wasn't.

andrewmoriarty: even the theories about a declining population was rooted in paternalistic white supremacy.


Or perhaps they were rooted in.... a rapidly declining aboriginal population?

andrewmoriarty: Also, the
whole bit about child protection is total nonsense and little more then after the fact rationalizations


Don't kid yourself. Most of the children taken from the stolen generation were half aboriginal and half white, and many of them actually lived in horrendous living conditions surrounded by alcoholism, extreme poverty, sexual abuse, and violence. Not to mention being ostracized from their "communities" for being born mixed raced.

Even today aboriginal children are 4.3 times more likely to be sexually abused as a child, and that number is considered to be vastly underreported.

In fact, according to the report linked above, as of June 2001 there were 4,073 aboriginal children that had been removed from their families because of abuse (sexual or otherwise) or neglect. To quote:

Statistics from the Western Australian criminal justice system reveal that in 2000, the rate of reports to police of sexual assault of Indigenous girls was approximately double that of non-Indigenous girls (Ferrante and Fernandez 2002, reported in Gordon, Hallahan and Henry 2002). Yet it is estimated that less than 30 per cent of sexual assaults on children are actually reported to police and that this reporting rate is lower in Indigenous communities than non-Indigenous communities. Further, it was noted in the Robertson Report (2000) that 88 per cent of all rapes in Indigenous communities go unreported. Thus, it would appear that the documented extent of assault in Indigenous communities is just the tip of the iceberg.

So you tell me - is the policy of removing aboriginal children from their families today driven exclusively by racism?

andrewmoriarty: A report by the attorney general, concluded that it was "an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out Indigenous families, communities and cultures, vital to the precious and inalienable heritage of Australia."

You can read a more detailed report here, with witness testimony here.


Yeah, thanks, but I've read all of this, I know all about the stolen generation. And the grog laws. And the massacres. And the Tasmanian genocide. And the switch in the official stance from one of integration to one of self-determination. Etc. I've seen the videos, the interviews, and I've read the primary sources.

Look, I'm not saying the stolen generation wasn't a terrible thing to do - it was. I'm not saying that many of the people who supported and implemented the policies weren't racist - they were. I'm not saying that there isn't still quite a lot of racism in Australia against aboriginies - there is.

But saying the "stolen generation was exclusively about white supremacy" is retarded. Nothing so complex is ever about one single thing, and saying this ignores the enormously complex social issues that underlie aboriginal relations.

Just as an example, focusing solely on the stolen generation ignores Australia's wider historical predilection for stealing people's babies for the babies' own good. Estimates as to the size of the stolen generation range from lows of 20,00-100,000 children taken from 1910-1970; during the period 1930-1970 around 250,000-450,000 white babies were forcibly taken from their mothers, usually for the crime of being unwed, unfit, or poor. Of course, acknowledging that there was a wider governmental policy of stealing everybody's - whether white or black - doesn't allow you to tie up the stolen generation into a neat little package that says "racism," does it?

It's nice to treat racism as the big bad bogey man - the sole reason bad things happen. It reduces the big scary world to something simple that you can understand. It makes you look pretty stupid to anyone that is actually knowledgeable about the subject, but hey, whatever works for you.
 
2013-12-12 02:38:54 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.


The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.
 
2013-12-12 02:41:47 AM  

optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)


That's around the same time Irish priests stopped taking infants from potentially "bad" mothers and sending them off for adoption, so par for the course.

Australia never fails to astonish me: they seem like they should be the most progressive of English-speaking nations, but then they do shiat like this which makes the USA look good.

/We closed down the Indian Schools (where they taught skills like clarinet and water polo) decades ago
//obscure?
 
2013-12-12 02:46:46 AM  

andrewmoriarty: First off, don't get your info from fringe communist websites.


It's funny that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism.
 
2013-12-12 02:47:34 AM  

Natsumi: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.

The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.


Didn't know we had any African Farkers. Welcome! (however belated that might be)
 
2013-12-12 02:48:01 AM  

Elegy: That must have been thrilling for you.


Oh I'm sure it wasn't near as thrilling as talking to an actual aboriginal person was for you.

Elegy: Do you tell stories about your black friend now?


like I said, I now get to be all smug and condescending to people about my knowledge of slavery due to having talked to an actual black person. Much like you get to do when discussing the lost generation due to you having spoke to an actual aboriginal person.
 
2013-12-12 02:49:34 AM  

andrewmoriarty: The whole thing was a stunt, the constitution of Australia clearly states that marriage (and divorce) was a federal rather than a state matter. The ACT ALP introduced gay marriage knowing that it would be struck down by the High court.


Question: why in the hell hasn't it been addressed at the federal level then?
 
2013-12-12 02:53:20 AM  

fusillade762: Natsumi: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.

The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.

Didn't know we had any African Farkers. Welcome! (however belated that might be)


LOL... very belated. I am mostly a lurker. But thanks. There are actually a few of us. Another one from Namibia.. and a couple of people from South Africa as far as i could gather.
 
2013-12-12 02:57:59 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

That's around the same time Irish priests stopped taking infants from potentially "bad" mothers and sending them off for adoption, so par for the course.

Australia never fails to astonish me: they seem like they should be the most progressive of English-speaking nations, but then they do shiat like this which makes the USA look good.

/We closed down the Indian Schools (where they taught skills like clarinet and water polo) decades ago
//obscure?


To be fair, the only difference here is that marriage is a federal matter, whereas it was a state matter in the US. Remember DOMA only got struck down this year.

Anyway, this is a pity, but not unexpected. The conservatives here have, as in the US, been making opposition to gay marriage a party policy, while the Labor party made it a personal issue (ie each member chooses to support it individually), so moves to legalize it went nowhere. It wasn't until just before the last election that the PM even decided to support gay marriage (and then lost for other reasons anyway), so the issue will be a while in the wilderness until conservatives are booted out again.
 
2013-12-12 03:06:43 AM  
Lived in Australia for a year, loved it.

But I wouldn't call the populace 'enlightened'. Was surprised to hear of the 'legalization', not so much this.

/not gay, but okay with the gay. (Sous chef at works grabs my ass and I like it ;-))
//coupled with India this week... Not hyped.
///Go UK I guess.
 
2013-12-12 03:15:22 AM  

Elegy: It's nice to treat racism as the big bad bogey man - the sole reason bad things happen. It reduces the big scary world to something simple that you can understand.


I actually agree with this premise, but will qualify with my thought that what happened in Australia was more about "race," in and of itself, than slavery in America. That should tell you something about relativity.

Well, that, and the question of "why" things got so bad in the first place as it pertains to Aboriginal societal health. I'm sure "think of the native children" wasn't always the motto.
 
2013-12-12 03:15:53 AM  

Natsumi: fusillade762: Natsumi: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.

The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.

Didn't know we had any African Farkers. Welcome! (however belated that might be)

LOL... very belated. I am mostly a lurker. But thanks. There are actually a few of us. Another one from Namibia.. and a couple of people from South Africa as far as i could gather.


OI! Shouldn't you be working instead of farking?
 
2013-12-12 03:19:20 AM  
The only reason the conservatives are in power is because of Islamic Fear in Australia.

I can't say that I blame them and shutting down the 'boat' policy of immigration is good and that open immigration policy really bothers some Australians that want assimilation of cultures instead of fractures in enclaves of cultures. I'm gay and if I lived in AUS I probably would have voted for the conservative guy over the open immigration person.

Unfortunately the same conservatives don't like gays either.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4136/australian-islamic-cleric-i nc ites-violence
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/violent-musl im -riots-hit-australia-behead-all-those-who-insult-the-prophet.html


This is why the conservatives won in AUS. Not the gays. That's a side effect of removing liberal policies allowing 'outsiders' that don't assimilate into the culture.

/yeah...do a deeper google if you don't the sources for those links. Its the same story all the way down.
 
2013-12-12 03:22:51 AM  
"Is your name not Bruce?"

"No, it's Michael."

"Well, doesn't matter, law says we can't marry anyway."
 
2013-12-12 03:24:53 AM  

Smoking GNU: Natsumi: fusillade762: Natsumi: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.

The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.

Didn't know we had any African Farkers. Welcome! (however belated that might be)

LOL... very belated. I am mostly a lurker. But thanks. There are actually a few of us. Another one from Namibia.. and a couple of people from South Africa as far as i could gather.

OI! Shouldn't you be working instead of farking?


Shut up you in the peanut corner.
 
2013-12-12 03:29:39 AM  

optikeye: The only reason the conservatives are in power is because of Islamic Fear in Australia.

I can't say that I blame them and shutting down the 'boat' policy of immigration is good and that open immigration policy really bothers some Australians that want assimilation of cultures instead of fractures in enclaves of cultures. I'm gay and if I lived in AUS I probably would have voted for the conservative guy over the open immigration person.

Unfortunately the same conservatives don't like gays either.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4136/australian-islamic-cleric-i nc ites-violence
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/violent-musl im -riots-hit-australia-behead-all-those-who-insult-the-prophet.html


This is why the conservatives won in AUS. Not the gays. That's a side effect of removing liberal policies allowing 'outsiders' that don't assimilate into the culture.

/yeah...do a deeper google if you don't the sources for those links. Its the same story all the way down.


Geeze...I gotta read more of what first comes up on a google serach. Because some will look at the source and say "oh fark" ...

So here's the wiki of the second thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Sydney_anti-Islam_film_protests

Basically that really scared A LOT of people to vote for more super conservatives that would tie down immigration..and gay rights as a side effect.
 
2013-12-12 03:38:42 AM  

Natsumi: Smoking GNU: Natsumi: fusillade762: Natsumi: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.

The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.

Didn't know we had any African Farkers. Welcome! (however belated that might be)

LOL... very belated. I am mostly a lurker. But thanks. There are actually a few of us. Another one from Namibia.. and a couple of people from South Africa as far as i could gather.

OI! Shouldn't you be working instead of farking?

Shut up you in the peanut corner.


We ran out of peanuts, so shaddup yourself and GBTW!
 
2013-12-12 03:55:32 AM  

Smoking GNU: Natsumi: Smoking GNU: Natsumi: fusillade762: Natsumi: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.

The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.

Didn't know we had any African Farkers. Welcome! (however belated that might be)

LOL... very belated. I am mostly a lurker. But thanks. There are actually a few of us. Another one from Namibia.. and a couple of people from South Africa as far as i could gather.

OI! Shouldn't you be working instead of farking?

Shut up you in the peanut corner.

We ran out of peanuts, so shaddup yourself and GBTW!


Oh, and BTW, we moved the freezer this morning on request, and what we found was A) one Gecko as big as my hand (daaawwww) and B) One scorpion as big as my hand (GAH!)
 
2013-12-12 04:13:27 AM  

optikeye: ArkAngel: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.

Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Instead of routinely removing children without due cause?
Did any of those parents stop drinking, get a better job and have their cases heard in court and back custody of their children? Or was just a policy to kidnap their children for 're-education' based on race and nothing else?



Originally it was a eugenics program. I'm sure there was the idea of a social welfare behind it, but indefensible. The aboriginal people weren't allowed to vote, or considered people until 1969, they were considered "flora and fauna"
 
2013-12-12 04:14:38 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.


New Zealand?

Yeah we know.... we're awful
 
2013-12-12 04:19:48 AM  
Australia is China White.
 
2013-12-12 04:32:00 AM  
Wasn't that rule number one?
 
2013-12-12 04:54:44 AM  

Elegy: Don't kid yourself. Most of the children taken from the stolen generation were half aboriginal and half white, and many of them actually lived in horrendous living conditions surrounded by alcoholism, extreme poverty, sexual abuse, and violence.


Which is a relatively recent phenomena, it's really gotten worse in the last 25 years. The uptick in violence, sexual abuse and alcoholism is associated with the decline of economy in remote Australia. Jobs traditionally taken up by Indigenous Australians in remote areas, such as being a Drover, have basically become non-existent.

Elegy: Or perhaps they were rooted in.... a rapidly declining aboriginal population?


Despite what wikipedia might tell you, there is no evidence of a decline in the indigenous populations, we have no evidence of the population of Aboriginals at all. As you should apparently know, indigenous populations  were purposely excluded from the census, it wasn't until the 1960's that we even knew many Aboriginals there were.

Do you have a source?


Elegy: Yeah, thanks, but I've read all of this, I know all about the stolen generation. And the grog laws. And the massacres. And the Tasmanian genocide. And the switch in the official stance from one of integration to one of self-determination. Etc. I've seen the videos, the interviews, and I've read the primary sources.


I would like some sources then. You've claimed that Child protection was one of the motivating factors of the stolen generation, it should relatively easy too find sources for it.
 
2013-12-12 05:05:51 AM  
But they also have strict gun control laws, so I'm sure both ends of the political spectrum don't know what to think of Australia right now.
 
2013-12-12 05:18:00 AM  

optikeye: The only reason the conservatives are in power is because of Islamic Fear in Australia.

I can't say that I blame them and shutting down the 'boat' policy of immigration is good and that open immigration policy really bothers some Australians that want assimilation of cultures instead of fractures in enclaves of cultures. I'm gay and if I lived in AUS I probably would have voted for the conservative guy over the open immigration person.

Unfortunately the same conservatives don't like gays either.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4136/australian-islamic-cleric-i nc ites-violence
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/violent-musl im -riots-hit-australia-behead-all-those-who-insult-the-prophet.html


This is why the conservatives won in AUS. Not the gays. That's a side effect of removing liberal policies allowing 'outsiders' that don't assimilate into the culture.

/yeah...do a deeper google if you don't the sources for those links. Its the same story all the way down.


You didn't actually bother to look up Labour's immigration policies, did you? The 2 parties tried to out-fascist each other. KRudd vowed that nobody who arrives on a boat would ever be settled in Australia, sent instead to papua new guinea.

The conservatives won because of the infighting in the labour party (first KRudd was PM, then he got ousted due to internal politics so we had Gillard, then when labour realised she couldn't win the election they ousted her and replaced her with Rudd again) and because despite their solid (not amazing) handling of the economic downturn, they weren't able to sell their achievements. So when all the news coming from Canberra is about internal political bullshiat and not about actual policy...

There was also the carbon tax/trading scheme - I'm not entirely sure how big a role this played as most Australians are in favour of doing something about climate change but many seem unwilling to pay for it... I get the feeling this wasn't what swayed many voters.
 
2013-12-12 05:55:58 AM  
Elect conservative leaders, have conservative law. Digiredon't
 
2013-12-12 05:58:41 AM  

Natsumi: Shut up you in the peanut corner.


Is that anything like the peanut gallery?
 
2013-12-12 06:04:40 AM  

fusillade762: Natsumi: Shut up you in the peanut corner.

Is that anything like the peanut gallery?


Yes. Exactly like that...
 
2013-12-12 07:05:25 AM  
Well, cross that off the potential vacation destinations.
 
2013-12-12 07:15:05 AM  
As John Oliver put it, Australians are the most comfortably racist people in the world.
 
2013-12-12 07:20:28 AM  

optikeye: andrewmoriarty: The Federal Government wasn't defending Stolen generations, it saying that what it was doing at the time was not unlawful, as the civil suit alleges.


I would like to meet the person who made that GIF, just to kick him in the nuts. That's one of the greatest dance numbers of all time, and someone turned into something designed to induce seizures. If I weren't on a mobile, I'd link to the original. Google "Nicholas Brothers - I've Got a Gal in Kalamazoo." Also mind-blowing, "Jumping Jive - Cab Calloway and the Nicholas Brothers."
 
2013-12-12 07:20:59 AM  

maddermaxx: Dwight_Yeast: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

That's around the same time Irish priests stopped taking infants from potentially "bad" mothers and sending them off for adoption, so par for the course.

Australia never fails to astonish me: they seem like they should be the most progressive of English-speaking nations, but then they do shiat like this which makes the USA look good.

/We closed down the Indian Schools (where they taught skills like clarinet and water polo) decades ago
//obscure?

To be fair, the only difference here is that marriage is a federal matter, whereas it was a state matter in the US. Remember DOMA only got struck down this year.

Anyway, this is a pity, but not unexpected. The conservatives here have, as in the US, been making opposition to gay marriage a party policy, while the Labor party made it a personal issue (ie each member chooses to support it individually), so moves to legalize it went nowhere. It wasn't until just before the last election that the PM even decided to support gay marriage (and then lost for other reasons anyway), so the issue will be a while in the wilderness until conservatives are booted out again.



It seems that to allow the ACT law to stand would've required either an absurdpretence that the law was something everyone knows it isn't, or a decision to let the states override the feds on marriage, so the Court unanimously did what it had to do.

But what the Court didn't really have to do, and did anyway, was take the wind out of the Consitutional excuses for opposing federal legalisation of gay marriage. They've thrown the door open to action on the national level, and the pressure for a conscience vote is only going to grow.
 
2013-12-12 07:28:26 AM  
i1.ytimg.com

/no mention if Bruce is a poofter?
 
2013-12-12 07:28:39 AM  
Can we ship all of our Tea Party people over there?

Asides from their strick gun laws it seems like a good place for them.
 
2013-12-12 07:37:56 AM  

Evilnissan: Can we ship all of our Tea Party people over there?

Asides from their strick gun laws it seems like a good place for them.


It really isn't. Even conservative Australians seem bewildered by TPers. Wait, they DON'T want everyone to have Medicare?!? What, it isn't Medicare, it's private insurance? How is that Communism again? They're complaining about WHAT tax rate?
 
2013-12-12 07:42:09 AM  

Elegy: log_jammin: I talked to an actual black person once

That must have been thrilling for you. Do you tell stories about your black friend now?

andrewmoriarty: It was definitively it was was about race

Nobody ever said it wasn't.

andrewmoriarty: even the theories about a declining population was rooted in paternalistic white supremacy.

Or perhaps they were rooted in.... a rapidly declining aboriginal population?

andrewmoriarty: Also, the
whole bit about child protection is total nonsense and little more then after the fact rationalizations

Don't kid yourself. Most of the children taken from the stolen generation were half aboriginal and half white, and many of them actually lived in horrendous living conditions surrounded by alcoholism, extreme poverty, sexual abuse, and violence. Not to mention being ostracized from their "communities" for being born mixed raced.

Even today aboriginal children are 4.3 times more likely to be sexually abused as a child, and that number is considered to be vastly underreported.

In fact, according to the report linked above, as of June 2001 there were 4,073 aboriginal children that had been removed from their families because of abuse (sexual or otherwise) or neglect. To quote:


Waste of argument. They just want to hate white people. It is so easy to hate white people. Everyone is innocent (sexual abuse is either some cultural thing you don't understand or it is caused by the stress of the white man bringing them down) EXCEPT EVIL WHITE PEOPLE! If you don't feel good about yourself, simply talk about how evil white Christians are. Being Christian and believing themselves imperfect already they are an easy target.

So, no it is all white Christians fault. Nobody has to change a damn thing but Christians. Sometimes I think arguing with Stalin or Lenin would be more rational.
 
2013-12-12 07:44:08 AM  
One woman was euphoric at the high court ruling, walking around the forecourt declaring: "God bless Australia, hallelujah ... God is love; God is love."

*head asplode*

How can anyone be so wrong on every level?
 
2013-12-12 07:49:35 AM  

ninotchka: They just want to hate white people. It is so easy to hate white people.

So, no it is all white Christians fault. Nobody has to change a damn thing but Christians.


Won't someone think of the poor oppressed white Christians!

*rolls eyes*
 
2013-12-12 07:55:58 AM  
i.imgur.com
What Bruce on Bruce action might look like.
 
2013-12-12 07:58:05 AM  
First India, now Australia. Is there something in the waters of the Indian Ocean?
 
2013-12-12 08:02:03 AM  

Nadie_AZ: First India, now Australia. Is there something in the waters of the Indian Ocean?


Leftover Kryptonian air from the World Shaper?
 
2013-12-12 08:10:58 AM  
At least their bakers will be safe from persecution.
 
2013-12-12 08:11:49 AM  
Came in for the Bruce comments
 
2013-12-12 08:17:45 AM  

Im_Gumby: [i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

/no mention if Bruce is a poofter?


No matter. bruce can't marry.
 
2013-12-12 08:32:38 AM  
At first I thought that woman was holding a goldfish in a bag.
 
2013-12-12 08:42:51 AM  
I submitted this with a Brucer headline.
 
2013-12-12 08:43:55 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: [i.imgur.com image 450x253]
What Bruce on Bruce action might look like.



Good Bruce. Bad Bruce. What does it matter? Neither one has a gun.
 
2013-12-12 08:56:18 AM  
resources1.news.com.au
 
2013-12-12 08:57:46 AM  
Australians like to pretend they're tough, but they're so wimpy they can't play adult-oriented video games or handle a little man-on-man action.
 
2013-12-12 08:58:17 AM  

fusillade762: Natsumi: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.

It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.

The constitution might be the most progressive one in the whole of Africa...but in practice / real life LGBT people in South Africa are treated just as badly.. especially in the townships where lesbians are often raped to "cure" them. And i mean everyone nevermind your skin color. In a sense it almost seems like black and white working together and ganging up on rainbow coloured.

I live next door in Namibia.. Our "father of the nation" has banned it. Saying its unatural blah blah. But there seem to be a move in the ruling party to change that. And that make me kinda happy. Everyone has the right to love and happiness.

Didn't know we had any African Farkers. Welcome! (however belated that might be)


Welcome to Farkdotcom. This is Farkdotcom. WELCOME. Welcome... to FARKDOTCOM!

You can do anything at Farkdotcom. Anything at all. The only limit is yourself.
 
2013-12-12 08:59:32 AM  
Poor conservatives.  Can't seem to catch a constitutional break.  Even when they win court cases...they lose.
 
2013-12-12 09:07:43 AM  
Australia just realizes an important truth--if there aren't enough heterosexual couples producing babies, the dingoes will begin to starve and then go after cattle.  And the AUS economy cannot handle a cattle crash.  Study it out.
 
2013-12-12 09:08:43 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Australians like to pretend they're tough, but they're so wimpy they can't play adult-oriented video games or handle a little man-on-man action.


Most of the civilized world is a lot more 'cool' with the gratuitous display of boobies than we are.  The only 'adult-oriented' stuff they frown on is gratuitous displays of violence.  And I happen to agree with them.  My kid sees a boob?  I'm not going to worry.  My kid sees a maniac laughing while slaughtering a group of kids?  I'm gonna cover his/her eyes.
 
2013-12-12 09:09:28 AM  
Will be interesting to see if God puts out the massive brush fire he started as retribution for allowing all that gay stuff in the first place.
 
2013-12-12 09:12:12 AM  

optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)


Yeah, no one here in the US would EVER do that.
 
2013-12-12 09:37:52 AM  

Relatively Obscure: It sucks, but it may very well be that the court was right.  Dunno enough about the law over there.


The court was right.  The had two conflicting laws.  What Australia needs to do is repeal/amend the original marriage law.  Hopefully they do it soon.
 
2013-12-12 09:45:44 AM  

Natsumi: Everyone has the right to love and happiness.


I agree.  So why would they want to get married?

/Happily divorced
 
2013-12-12 10:11:22 AM  
Is it because there is no such thing as hot Bruce-on-Bruce action?  Hot Sheila-on-Sheila action is indeed a very real and very hot thing.
 
2013-12-12 10:29:44 AM  

log_jammin: Elegy: I would be willing to bet you've never actually been to Australia or talked to an actual aboriginal person.

I talked to an actual black person once, in the south too. Now I'm qualified to be all smug and condescending to people about slavery.


greatreader.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-12 10:46:39 AM  

Lost Thought 00: As John Oliver put it, Australians are the most comfortably racist people in the world.


I was going to contend this, but then I remembered the conversation I had with an american girl a few months back.   We were talking about racism in general when I pullled out the magical N word.   She immediately flinched.  That word doesn't have the same immediate "fark you" effect here that it does in the US, and I was using it purely for academic reasons at the time.  Nonetheless, the fact that I was even capable of using that word in any context that didn't involve "I can't stand hearing that word" was completely beyond the pale for her.  It actually made me feel comfortably racist.  Odd for a half-caste like myself, but there you go.
 
2013-12-12 12:35:48 PM  
"I come from the land down under"

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2013-12-12 12:36:20 PM  
Why is this surprising? Find online-edition Australian newspaper coverage of any sex scandal. Go read the comments. It's like you got in a time machine and went back to 1950.
 
2013-12-12 01:20:19 PM  

log_jammin: Elegy: That must have been thrilling for you.

Oh I'm sure it wasn't near as thrilling as talking to an actual aboriginal person was for you.

Elegy: Do you tell stories about your black friend now?

like I said, I now get to be all smug and condescending to people about my knowledge of slavery due to having talked to an actual black person. Much like you get to do when discussing the lost generation due to you having spoke to an actual aboriginal person.


Or when taking your quotes hilariously out of context to completely ignore your obvious joking.

Lost Thought 00: As John Oliver put it, Australians are the most comfortably racist people in the world.


Or as Greg Proops put it: "It's like Arkansas with a beach."
 
2013-12-12 01:26:01 PM  

A Cave Geek: Poor conservatives.  Can't seem to catch a constitutional break.  Even when they win court cases...they lose.


www.craveonline.com

Approves

/but vice versa
 
2013-12-12 02:09:10 PM  
To be fair, Race mixing might actually be communism...
 
2013-12-12 02:53:17 PM  
Fark you Fark! Here I clicked in the thread for some examples of hot Sheila-on-Sheila pics, hopefully represented by Yvonne Strahovski and Anna Torv, with Cate Blanchett as the naughty schoolmarm, but NO! I get a bunch of posts about the social issues surrounding around the Aborigines.

/Buzz.kill.
 
2013-12-12 04:50:47 PM  

A Cave Geek: Tyrone Slothrop: Australians like to pretend they're tough, but they're so wimpy they can't play adult-oriented video games or handle a little man-on-man action.

Most of the civilized world is a lot more 'cool' with the gratuitous display of boobies than we are.  The only 'adult-oriented' stuff they frown on is gratuitous displays of violence.  And I happen to agree with them.  My kid sees a boob?  I'm not going to worry.  My kid sees a maniac laughing while slaughtering a group of kids?  I'm gonna cover his/her eyes.


 A parent choosing to shield his own child from certain entertainment is not the same as government banning it for every child regardless of the parent's judgment. Besides, you are missing the point: Australian bans some games even for adults.


And it is NOT all about violence. Australia may be cooler about the occasional boob than the US is, but they are more prone to censorship of pornier stuff. They also freak out about drug use. Games have been banned just for their sexual content, and others have been banned for drug-related content.

The good news is that they have taken some baby steps toward treating their citizens like actual adults, and completely banning a game is now rare (although much clutching of pearls continues with regard to the children). Still, it's yet another reason that  Australia could really use a "First Amendment."
 
2013-12-12 04:55:01 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: A Cave Geek: Tyrone Slothrop: Australians like to pretend they're tough, but they're so wimpy they can't play adult-oriented video games or handle a little man-on-man action.

Most of the civilized world is a lot more 'cool' with the gratuitous display of boobies than we are.  The only 'adult-oriented' stuff they frown on is gratuitous displays of violence.  And I happen to agree with them.  My kid sees a boob?  I'm not going to worry.  My kid sees a maniac laughing while slaughtering a group of kids?  I'm gonna cover his/her eyes.

 A parent choosing to shield his own child from certain entertainment is not the same as government banning it for every child regardless of the parent's judgment. Besides, you are missing the point: Australian bans some games even for adults.


And it is NOT all about violence. Australia may be cooler about the occasional boob than the US is, but they are more prone to censorship of pornier stuff. They also freak out about drug use. Games have been banned just for their sexual content, and others have been banned for drug-related content.

The good news is that they have taken some baby steps toward treating their citizens like actual adults, and completely banning a game is now rare (although much clutching of pearls continues with regard to the children). Still, it's yet another reason that  Australia could really use a "First Amendment."


That said, I am still more concerned about the level of violence on US television and in movies than I am about the level of nudity.
 
2013-12-12 05:10:53 PM  
I thought Europeans were supposed to be so progressive about these things?
 
2013-12-12 05:43:34 PM  

Skunkwolf: I thought Europeans were supposed to be so progressive about these things?


Well you know it was the birthplace of Hitler.
 
2013-12-12 06:11:41 PM  
What can you say about a country that puts houses in the middle of their streets and even considers sleeping on beds while they are burning?

/not to mention considering walking 500 more miles after just completing a similar trek.
 
2013-12-12 06:23:43 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Skunkwolf: I thought Europeans were supposed to be so progressive about these things?

Well you know it was the birthplace of Hitler.


You guys are really prussian your luck.
 
2013-12-12 06:43:32 PM  
www.transfilms.net
 
2013-12-12 06:59:22 PM  

badaboom: [www.transfilms.net image 400x396]


"That's not a bigoted asshole. This is a bigoted asshole..."

Heckuva job, Australia. Heckuva job.
 
2013-12-12 07:48:01 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: andrewmoriarty: The whole thing was a stunt, the constitution of Australia clearly states that marriage (and divorce) was a federal rather than a state matter. The ACT ALP introduced gay marriage knowing that it would be struck down by the High court.

Question: why in the hell hasn't it been addressed at the federal level then?


Well it will probably end up as a private members bill in the next parliament. Both Party's view it as a personal issue.

However ALP isn't that united on it --> with their numbers with the Greens they could have introduced it in the last few years, but didn't. Its almost as if they didn't want to do anything about it, and use it as a wedge issue. Its a shame. It needs to be taken care of. In this day and age its stupid that we are still arguing about it.

Pro Gay marriage in-case I'm unclear, however doing a stunt like that and making the high court (and by extension the rest of us) look like bigots was shameful.

gordoLDN: optikeye: The only reason the conservatives are in power is because of Islamic Fear in Australia.

I can't say that I blame them and shutting down the 'boat' policy of immigration is good and that open immigration policy really bothers some Australians that want assimilation of cultures instead of fractures in enclaves of cultures. I'm gay and if I lived in AUS I probably would have voted for the conservative guy over the open immigration person.

Unfortunately the same conservatives don't like gays either.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4136/australian-islamic-cleric-i nc ites-violence
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/violent-musl im -riots-hit-australia-behead-all-those-who-insult-the-prophet.html


This is why the conservatives won in AUS. Not the gays. That's a side effect of removing liberal policies allowing 'outsiders' that don't assimilate into the culture.

/yeah...do a deeper google if you don't the sources for those links. Its the same story all the way down.

You didn't actually bother to look up Labour's immigration policies, did you? The 2 parties tried to out-fascist each other. KRudd vowed that nobody who arrives on a boat would ever be settled in Australia, sent instead to papua new guinea.

The conservatives won because of the infighting in the labour party (first KRudd was PM, then he got ousted due to internal politics so we had Gillard, then when labour realised she couldn't win the election they ousted her and replaced her with Rudd again) and because despite their solid (not amazing) handling of the economic downturn, they weren't able to sell their achievements. So when all the news coming from Canberra is about internal political bullshiat and not about actual policy...

There was also the carbon tax/trading scheme - I'm not entirely sure how big a role this played as most Australians are in favour of doing something about climate change but many seem unwilling to pay for it... I get the feeling this wasn't what ...



One main problem was the Labor deal with the Greens. A lot of us voted for a honest to goodness labor government (we'll give Julia a try) and instead we had (or so it seemed) the Greens running roughshod over them. Case in point: Carbon tax and all its flaws.

We also crave stability and for politics not to be front page news. The 2010 election was so close, thus problem of a one seat majority in the house of reps. You cant blame the Liberal opposition for pushing as hard as they did --> The problem is that it puts parliment in your face, and given the already (well permanently) fractured internal lines within the labor party didn't create a nice stable environment.

So a lot of us, including this little black duck, voted for the Liberal party.

Also if you want to take the microcosm that is Sydney on the islamic issue, well fair enough. I might just as well judge the whole of the US and your political and racial attidues on say, the South and the south only.

.
..
...

Remote Aboriginal communities are a problem, that I personally at am a loss (have no idea) to fix. I spend time working remote, I've been through communities, I've seen petrol trays used for sniffing left on a street path, I've seen the problems in places like Alice.

We had a federal intervention in some places due to sexual abuse, so in a lot of communities no porn and no grog. There are large signs on the in track to some remote communities.  I cannot begrudge the amount of money we spend on them like some people do. Its heartbreaking and infuriating at the same time.

...and if any dopey **** says "why don't they just get a better job?" I'll scream...
 
2013-12-12 07:52:38 PM  
ustralian.com
 
2013-12-12 08:32:41 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: tinfoil-hat maggie: Skunkwolf: I thought Europeans were supposed to be so progressive about these things?

Well you know it was the birthplace of Hitler.

You guys are really prussian your luck.


Nice, I thought about balkan but I didn't want to start a war.
 
2013-12-13 08:07:17 AM  

Boomstickz: Dwight_Yeast: andrewmoriarty: The whole thing was a stunt, the constitution of Australia clearly states that marriage (and divorce) was a federal rather than a state matter. The ACT ALP introduced gay marriage knowing that it would be struck down by the High court.

Question: why in the hell hasn't it been addressed at the federal level then?

Well it will probably end up as a private members bill in the next parliament. Both Party's view it as a personal issue.

However ALP isn't that united on it --> with their numbers with the Greens they could have introduced it in the last few years, but didn't. Its almost as if they didn't want to do anything about it, and use it as a wedge issue. Its a shame. It needs to be taken care of. In this day and age its stupid that we are still arguing about it.

Pro Gay marriage in-case I'm unclear, however doing a stunt like that and making the high court (and by extension the rest of us) look like bigots was shameful.


You've confused a few issues there. The High Court decision was about constitutional validity, not whether it's good for gay people to have marriage rights. Bigotry isn't an issue as far as that goes. It was not an argument about anything other than dry constituional detail.

In terms of the politics, you've missed an important detail. The conservatives (known, in Australia, as the Liberal Party which always seems to confuse Americans who don't understand the actual meaning of the word 'liberal') went to the 2010 election with a specific policy to oppose gay marriage. They did not take any such policy to the 2013 election - they stated it would be a matter for their caucus and the likelihood is that there will be a conscience vote on the issue. There would have been no point in the previous government putting up gay marriage legislation because those Liberals who support gay marriage rights would still have been bound to oppose the legislation based on the 2010 election platform. Labor also views this issue as a conscience matter. Any vote in Parliament will be very close.
 
2013-12-13 09:17:13 AM  
Did anyone else read this as -

Several dozen couples sodemised their relationships under a recently introduced ACT "marriage equality" law...
 
Displayed 99 of 99 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report