Aussie Politics

Dear lord.


Federal Liberal MP Danna Vale says she is supporting a Coalition-backed amendment to a bill on the abortion drug RU486 because she is concerned Australia will become dominated by Muslims.


Dana Vale has outrun her time. One stuff up after another, after another. She should be an embarrassment to the Government.

 

Clearly she wasn't thinking when she made that comment.

I also think it's highly disgusting that Tony Abbott should have veto power over this drug. It's abundantly clear that ministers are applying this vote to the general topic of abortion when it shouldn't be.

 

Dan, what do you mean "should be". She very clearly is, if the fact the government has been distancing itself from her remarks from literally the second they were made.

Well, she would say she was thinking but I doubt anyone else would grant her that concession.

Abbott's in a hard place; his ethics make him view abortion as murder so he has a conflict between what he thinks is right and wrong, and what we think is right and wrong. He really shouldn't have made it personal publicly; he takes a big fall if he does.

I'm surprised the AWB scandal hasn't made it here; especially with the US wheat lobbyists wanting us in trouble to support their sub-par business practise. And say what you will about the government; Kim Beazley's been handling this in a most ham-fisted manner. Most corrupt thing ever? The evidence has damned them - no, wait, he retracts, will damn them if they eventually show it! The government's responsible; except he couldn't tell Kerry O'Brien how.

Poor Kim.

E_S

 

Cliff notes version of my views on this:

- Beazley's a twit. I honestly hoped he'd do better, but alas, I was wrong. I'm hoping Gillard replaces him unless someone else throws their hat into the ring.
- The Libs are already saying "she's not with us, she just followed us through the door" re: Vale, as well they should; her remarks were stupid (to put it mildly) and insensitive beyond even what your average university socialist thinks a Liberal's standard response is.
- Abbott's own personal ethics shouldn't be making a stand on this particular issue, as he was elected to represent the opinions of the public. As Sil said, to allow his own ethics into the decision makes it about abortion rather than departmental rights, which is the wrong direction to take it.

 

Right, so we're all agreed on everything.

When do we start solving world hunger?

 

Abbott has a fair point; he's acting because of what his beliefs tell him are good for all mankind. I don't have a problem with a public leader being religious (I was a Democrat at one point, you know! And they have, well rather had, the highest percentage of Church-goers out of any party); but I think what we're all more-or-less trying to say is that when Abbott's views clash with the public at large, he ought defer to their will?

As for Julia Gillard; she has a tendency towards getting too emotionally attached to her viewpoints in question time (I listen to ABC News Radio all the time, and they broadcast Parliament. Plus, it's for some reason a channel the BMW iDrive gets... ) - however, she does have a flair for witty putdowns and retorts.

Hawk; I think the Labor Party is utterly unfit to govern at the moment. I don't just mean that as a Young Liberal with an expired membership (note to self...), I mean that as a political analyst too. They don't know if they're a social justice party, a workers party, a moderate party, a social democratic party, or a democratic socialist party. They need to get an ideology, get on board, shelve the unions and the caucus and go nuts.

E_S

 

Ender, I don't mind pollies being religious, but when one man has a controlling influence over a drug that could help thousands of women - that I have a problem with. He has no pharmaceutical background (AFAIK) and is in no position to allow or disallow the use of the drug. It should be in the hands of the TGA who deal with this day in, day out.

 

Agreed, 100%.

ES

 

Well it seems we are agreed on basically everything here.

Ender, at the time of posting the only distancing I had seen was from DeAnne Kelly. Granted the government is disowning her faster than you can say "Pauline Hanson" now.

Gillard does seem to have good leadership skills, I think she'd do a better job than Beazley. If we are talking about parliamentary insults, though, I really wish for the days of Keating. "The brain-damaged leader of the opposition" etc.

As for Labor being unfit to govern - I agree that they aren't in the best of states at present, and they certainly aren't my ideal proposal for government. However, I'd rather see my local football team in government than the current lot of dishonest, morally repugnant twirps.

 

Exactly. All decisions on medical product use in the country should be handled by the one agency, not spread about as whims decide. The decisions on allowance or blocking of any substance with a pharmacological effect should be made solely on the basis of benefit versus harm to the human body, not moralistic stances or positions.

But why should we start making decisions based on logic?

 

Boggie; as a Liberal I'm not sure I agree with those assertions, not politically but factually.

What precisely makes them immoral, other than an ideological difference between you and them?

E_S

 

Well the ban on RU486 was lifted in a good move by parliament. I must point out Peter Costello's contribution - not only did he vote against his party's nearest and dearest, but he put his personal experience out there for all to see. I admire that.

(It's not often I get to say that about a Liberal).

 

You have to remember that Costello and a number of others aren't actually socially conservative; despite the media hype about the Libs all being right wing arseheads.

E_S

 

True, but often issues like this get blind-sided by a party mentality.

In other news, I despair (yes, despair!) at the latest action of the OFLC to ban a video game that promotes graffiti. The average age of gamers is 24 and are still being treated like children.

http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=748&filename=748.pdf

 

Luckily I don't work there.

The Party, too, FWIW, is grossly misrepresented in the media in Australia. Listen to question time (ABC News Radio will have links online) to hear the differences between what they say and what the media reports.

E_S

 

Wait - can you step back and look at that question again? How am I supposed to answer that? All morality is built on ideology! I can no more answer that question than had you asked me: "What exactly is wrong with their ideology, other than it isn't yours?"

The closest I can come is to argue that from a humanitarian point of view (mine) they have probably been the worst government in the last 50 years.





And next time you call me Boggie I'll attack you with the full power of my bleeding-heart hippie leftist ideals.

 

The OFLC is suffering from a severe lack of understanding of what it is they're classifying, as well as treating it differently to every other piece of media. Sil's right in that they're still classifying games with kids in mind when increasing numbers of games are being marketed towards adults. IMO two things need to happen to the video game classification system: it needs to be in line with other media (G, PG, M, MA15+ and R18+) and the prohibition of sale to minors should be enforced rather than vaguely threatened. With those in mind I believe it could get an R18+ rating, much like many films which include "promotion of matters of crime", and be sold to its target audience.

Personally, though, I think it's a stupid idea for a game.

 

I agree with everything you said. There needs to be a R18+ category set up for games (why there isn't one now is anyone's guess) and maybe an X rating set up for Leisure Suite Larry games.

The OFLC is still stuck in the time warp of games consoles only being used by 14 year old impressionable minds.

 

Pfft, LSL is the American Pie of video game franchises. I don't remember it ever being more than what you could see on SBS (that's Soccer, Boobs and Subtitles to the international folk ) at night.

 

Costello's the latest politician to put the proverbial foot in their mouth re: Muslim citizens. Is the left-wing media beating this up more than it is, or is Costello really as anti-multicultural as his comments would suggest and simply stirring the pot unnecessarily?

 

Left-Wing media? Surely green left weekly can't have that much influence.

 

I was more referring to newspapers such as The Age and SMH - whilst not nearly as biased as, say, the Herald Sun, they're not the most unbiased media.

 

Before you jump on me in response, read my comments through the "Offensive Pictures that enraged the Muslim World" thread.

Then, let me say: I wholeheartedly concur with the Treasurer's remarks.

What he said was dead on. He said Muslims wanting to live under shari'a (Islamic Laws), shouldn't basically be accepted here.

What is wrong with that?

He's not saying that Muslims have to go, he's advocating stripping the offenders of their citizenship - and as I work for the Department that issues citizenship, I know that the oath they take is one to Australia and her laws.

Shari'a is a brutal method of governance when executed, and I remember when I was overseas hearing that some clerics were arguing for it in Lakemba etc.

I also recall Beazley saying he agreed with it, and this coupled with the remarks of Mr Howard earlier, indicates to me that the Government and Opposition agree that radical Islamist thought shouldn't be tolerated here.

You won't find a more sympathetic person to the relationship between Islam and the West; but this isn't about that. This is about a small segment of the Australian muslim community trying to build a khalifa (caliphate) where it does not belong and we should be in agreement with Messers Howard and Costello.

E_S

 

Sorry to ignore you, Ender, but Nathan, you can't seriously be saying that the SMH and The Age are left-wing? You are talking about the two newspapers that advocated voting for Howard at the last election, right?

 

Um, Boogie, you're suggesting the Sydney Marxist Herald is NOT blindingly pro-Labor?

E_S