Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Quote

Trying to appease a noisy minority in inner city suburbs with no grasp on the reality beyond the sidewalk is probably the main reason.

more realistic

gettyimages-155113496-612x612.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Parkside said:

is it not the resounding reason there was massive swings in Qld? 

nah. we just hated Shortpantz more than the other states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gruppenfuhrer Dutton knows nussink about Statzpolizei raids in the media? Nice one Shultz 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah nah, state suppression of the media  has nothing to do with Godwin’s law. For a party which is fervent in defence of freedom of speech it looks a bit weird for journos to be getting raided all week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Yeah nah, state suppression of the media  has nothing to do with Godwin’s law. For a party which is fervent in defence of freedom of speech it looks a bit weird for journos to be getting raided all week.

But the boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Yeah nah, state suppression of the media  has nothing to do with Godwin’s law. For a party which is fervent in defence of freedom of speech it looks a bit weird for journos to be getting raided all week.

You'd think with all the carry on that we were in China or something. The police are investigating someone breaking a law. An independent judge reckons they should search a premises. Not sure why that is a problem if they happen to be a journalist. Not to mention in what other country would the police officers let a dude live tweet about it thoughout the search (50 tweets!) ?! We have it pretty good. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really - maybe time to read up on how the McCarthy era started.  Both investigations where proven to be true and hidden by the parties involved.  This is now a witch hunt for the leaker to also intimidate anyone else that may step forward with legitimate concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why the raids now? Is it just that the election is over, so it's payback time, or were they treading softly earlier so as not to get further bad publicity going into an election cycle. Remember, the issue they are chasing up happened 18 months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Parkside said:

Yeah nah, state suppression of the media  has nothing to do with Godwin’s law. For a party which is fervent in defence of freedom of speech it looks a bit weird for journos to be getting raided all week.

Your invoking of Nazi Germany has everything to do with Godwin's law

I'd like to be able to say you're better than that, but, well, you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Economy slowed

That'd be the previous Government's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, symo said:

Really - maybe time to read up on how the McCarthy era started.  Both investigations where proven to be true and hidden by the parties involved.  This is now a witch hunt for the leaker to also intimidate anyone else that may step forward with legitimate concerns.

Isn't this what that Assange guy did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dazaau said:

You'd think with all the carry on that we were in China or something. The police are investigating someone breaking a law. An independent judge reckons they should search a premises. Not sure why that is a problem if they happen to be a journalist. Not to mention in what other country would the police officers let a dude live tweet about it thoughout the search (50 tweets!) ?! We have it pretty good. 

A judge might have agreed there is a legal right - because judges make decisions based on law - but whether or not such a law should exist is another matter.

Authoritarian states typically don't happen overnight, but rather in steps that people ignore as "doesn't affect me changes" until one day it does.

It's curious how much conservatives will try to rationalise acceptance of increased authority, and yet resist change to almost anything else.

As a society, we need a balance of rules to limit the excesses of those who won't play nice, and freedom for those who will.

But legislation and enforcement must be transparent and not used as a means to obfuscate and protect the operations of the enforcers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Your invoking of Nazi Germany has everything to do with Godwin's law

Quoting Godwin's law is so '90s, and even he says that it is not applicable when discussing matters of authoritarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, more said:

Isn't this what that Assange guy did?

exactly.  Throw the whole of the ABC muppets in jail i reckon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

A judge might have agreed there is a legal right - because judges make decisions based on law - but whether or not such a law should exist is another matter.

Authoritarian states typically don't happen overnight, but rather in steps that people ignore as "doesn't affect me changes" until one day it does.

It's curious how much conservatives will try to rationalise acceptance of increased authority, and yet resist change to almost anything else.

As a society, we need a balance of rules to limit the excesses of those who won't play nice, and freedom for those who will.

But legislation and enforcement must be transparent and not used as a means to obfuscate and protect the operations of the enforcers.

I really am not following it - but are you suggesting the laws have changed? What's changing exactly that makes society worse off? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Afghan Files" as they were reported were very clearly revealing troops operational difficulties that could have been exploited to kill Australian soldiers.  It included details of ongoing investigations and characterised the SAS and 2 Commando as out of control murderers in a manner that could and indeed did damage relations between Australia and the Afghani government.  Articles about severed hands written to give the casual reader the impression of some bizarre trophy collection cult when in fact it was being done with intelligence gathering in mind (whether or not it should have happened is another matter) and revealing only one officer's name in the process, who just so happens to have been a sitting Liberal member of parliament.  The report did not seem to imply that there was any indication that thorough investigations were not being conducted or that there was evidence of active subversion of due process.

Was it in Australia's interest to have these details of incomplete investigations splashed across the international stage?  Undoubtedly not.  Was there any benefit to the public or reason to reveal Andrew Hastie's name, particularly since he was apparently one of the first to question the practice, knowing the damage that it could do to his reputation?  You're kidding, right?  Was there any real public interest test (other than mere curiosity) that this would pass?  Not on your life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stikman said:

The "Afghan Files" as they were reported were very clearly revealing troops operational difficulties that could have been exploited to kill Australian soldiers.  It included details of ongoing investigations and characterised the SAS and 2 Commando as out of control murderers in a manner that could and indeed did damage relations between Australia and the Afghani government.  Articles about severed hands written to give the casual reader the impression of some bizarre trophy collection cult when in fact it was being done with intelligence gathering in mind (whether or not it should have happened is another matter) and revealing only one officer's name in the process, who just so happens to have been a sitting Liberal member of parliament.  The report did not seem to imply that there was any indication that thorough investigations were not being conducted or that there was evidence of active subversion of due process.

Was it in Australia's interest to have these details of incomplete investigations splashed across the international stage?  Undoubtedly not.  Was there any benefit to the public or reason to reveal Andrew Hastie's name, particularly since he was apparently one of the first to question the practice, knowing the damage that it could do to his reputation?  You're kidding, right?  Was there any real public interest test (other than mere curiosity) that this would pass?  Not on your life.

 

I agree, it should probably not have been aired. But why did the searches take place 18 months later, 2 weeks AFTER the election? 

And with the other raid (yes 2 in 2 days about totally unrelated matters), I wonder if Newscorp would have been as obliging of the Liberal Government leading up to the election if one of their reporters homes was searched by Fed's 2 weeks before the election rather than 2 weeks after it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that seems to be a question for the AFP (which they may or may choose to answer) but the automatic conclusion that an ongoing investigation could be and was influenced the government or one of its members is an extremely conspiratorial leap to make based on zero evidence.  Doubly so if you consider that the number of people involved and the chances of it being revealed make it make it just plain dumb.

Was this the first time warrants had been applied for or had they been denied previously?  Were the warrants granted months before and only just executed?  Lots of questions before such grave accusations should be even considered.

If members of the AFP chose to do this at this point in time simply to try and curry favour with the government then it would have made much more sense for them to do it prior to the election, which everyone knew beyond any doubt Labor would win, in order to further embarrass the coalition and impress the ALP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

Slowest since gfc

I can just imagine how disappointed you were when the GDP figure was positive 

Keep hoping though, there's still a very slim chance that in six months you might be able to celebrate a recession 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I can just imagine how disappointed you were when the GDP figure was positive 

Keep hoping though, there's still a very slim chance that in six months you might be able to celebrate a recession 

Can you explain the slow down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dazaau said:

I really am not following it - but are you suggesting the laws have changed? What's changing exactly that makes society worse off? 

Unless I'm mistaken sect 70 and 79 of the crimes act were changed last year. The action against Anika Smethust is in response to her exposure of proposals to introduce greatly expanded powers for the ASD to covertly monitor and assemble intelligence records on Australian citizens. The raids were under sect 70 and 79 which relate to criminal disclosure and/or publication of any fact or knowledge, and thus brings into question the previous denial by the ASD that no such plans exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Can you explain the slow down. 

It was the corporate leviathans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

It was the corporate leviathans

I would have thought it was more the lowest prolonged wages growth in memory, paired with highest ever debt to earnings ratios, and softening of house prices, leaving so many consumers "exposed" and worried.

The consumer sector accounts for around half of the GDP, and it was a paltry 0.1% this quarter, so brought down any higher growth figures by the large corporates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theconversation.com/why-the-raids-on-australian-media-present-a-clear-threat-to-democracy-118334?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for June 6 2019 - 1328112421&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for June 6 2019 - 1328112421+CID_0df7ba303eaf561faf7ff28cbfeb4650&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Why the raids on Australian media present a clear threat to democracy

written by a University academic

“Australia has more national security laws than any other nation. It is also the only liberal democracy lacking a Charter of Human Rights that would protect media freedom through, for example, rights to free speech and privacy.”

whistleblowers go to jail, and so do the journalists. Public interest vs national security? Or politician scrutiny? It’s complicated but the laws rushed through by Dutton in 2018 give sources and whistleblowers no protection and undermine the freedom of the press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what that says (rightly) is that there are specific protections and defences for journalists that have been written into legislation though they are yet to be tested.  If anything the raids show that the metadata law changes have been ineffective and certainly not the Big Brother scenario painted at the time, otherwise the raids would have been unnecessary.

 

Quote

One of the most disturbing outcomes is not prosecutions or even the raids themselves, but the chilling of public interest journalism. Sources are less likely to come forward, facing risk to themselves and a high likelihood of identification by government agencies. And journalists are less likely to run stories, knowing the risks posed to their sources and perhaps even to themselves.

Well not being a conspiracy theorist I reckon it's probably a good thing that journalists and their sources will think really hard before revealing confidential and sensitive information that they have obtained through their position of privilege.  A lot of it is probably mundane or embarrassing at worst but a lot of it, such as the Afghan story, can result in the loss of Australian lives.  So yeah, think bloody hard before you go down that path.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stikman said:

So yeah, think bloody hard before you go down that path.

The problem is that at the moment it's been amped up so there is effectively no room for negotiation on that one - no public interest or importance test - it's pretty much an all or nothing situation covering all facts and information, which includes thoughts and opinions of commonwealth employees. Blow the whistle on anything or report on information provided, and you risk time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

A judge might have agreed there is a legal right - because judges make decisions based on law - but whether or not such a law should exist is another matter

The warrant was actually issued by a local court registrar, interestingly (to me, at least) 

FB_IMG_1559801353259.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

The problem is that at the moment it's been amped up so there is effectively no room for negotiation on that one - no public interest or importance test - it's pretty much an all or nothing situation covering all facts and information, which includes thoughts and opinions of commonwealth employees. Blow the whistle on anything or report on information provided, and you risk time.

I'm not familiar with the legislation so this is second hand of course but the academic Parky linked to says otherwise:

Quote

Again, journalists are offered some protection. If prosecuted, a journalist can seek to rely on the “journalism defence” by proving that they dealt with the information as a journalist, and that they reasonably believed the communication to be in the public interest. The meaning of “public interest” is unclear and, in this context, untested. However, it will take into account the public interest in national security and government integrity secrecy concerns as well as openness and accountability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stikman said:

I'm not familiar with the legislation so this is second hand of course but the academic Parky linked to says otherwise:

 

Likewise, I'm not a lawyer, but it was my understanding that the Dec-18 amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act placed conditions and limitations of protection available with regards "intelligence information" and the problem here is that the definition of what is intelligence information is so broad-ranging and vague in the various acts covering this, and the unusual exceptions provided to the ASD in its 2018 act, as to make it a veritable minefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if Waleed says it...  It's rather ironic that he laments " framing public debates as personality contests and culture wars".

Factually wrong in the first sentence, it's definitely debatable that the Afghan story was in the public interest at the very least.  Later he says that story was of how troops "allegedly killed civilians and covered it up" yet there isn't the slightest hint of a cover-up, official or otherwise, having occurred.  In fact they were all investigated through the proper channels and recorded as they should have been.

And in case anyone is concerned that this is about finding the source of these leaks, I'm not sure about the other one but the guy who leaked the Afghanistan reports was arrested and charged back in September so this raid has absolutely nothing to do with discovering who it was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And in case anyone is concerned that this is about finding the source of these leaks, I'm not sure about the other one but the guy who leaked the Afghanistan reports was arrested and charged back in September so this raid has absolutely nothing to do with discovering who it was.

Quote

“There’s another witness who tells a different story to me in The Afghan Files. Maybe, they want him to go on trial?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Stikman said:

Well if Waleed says it...  It's rather ironic that he laments " framing public debates as personality contests and culture wars".

Factually wrong in the first sentence, it's definitely debatable that the Afghan story was in the public interest at the very least.  Later he says that story was of how troops "allegedly killed civilians and covered it up" yet there isn't the slightest hint of a cover-up, official or otherwise, having occurred.  In fact they were all investigated through the proper channels and recorded as they should have been.

And in case anyone is concerned that this is about finding the source of these leaks, I'm not sure about the other one but the guy who leaked the Afghanistan reports was arrested and charged back in September so this raid has absolutely nothing to do with discovering who it was.

You are conflating your opinion with fact. Your opinion is that the public has no interest. if it is debatable, it hasn't been proven to be fact. There will be a legal definition of public interest and the issue appears to me, that this is very grey and hasn't been tested properly in court since the new legislation.

So thinking in abstract terms ( ie not the Afghan story) , is conduct of Australan defence forces of public interest?

Edited by Parkside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stikman said:

at worst but a lot of it, such as the Afghan story, can result in the loss of Australian lives. 

How may Australian lives were lost as a result of the Afghan story?

How many Australian lives have been lost a result of any story about "national security" matters?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tyno said:

How may Australian lives were lost as a result of the Afghan story?

How many Australian lives have been lost a result of any story about "national security" matters?

 

 

Is DUI okay if you don't run into anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Is DUI okay if you don't run into anyone?

So you don't have the answer or you don't like the answer, Jimbo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tyno said:

So you don't have the answer or you don't like the answer, Jimbo?

The answer is, the risk of loss of life was increased

Which is obviously why the AFP are taking it more seriously than you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The answer is, the risk of loss of life was increased

But how do you KNOW that?

Do you trust the guys who want the power to spy on you without you knowing, without any reason at all?

Or do you trust the political spin masters who absolutely, positively have nothing to do with it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parkside said:

Waleed. Isn’t this the guy that said labor will win in a landslide and attain up to 88 seats. Yep.... we should listen to this bloke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parkside said:

You are conflating your opinion with fact. Your opinion is that the public has no interest. if it is debatable, it hasn't been proven to be fact. There will be a legal definition of public interest and the issue appears to me, that this is very grey and hasn't been tested properly in court since the new legislation.

So thinking in abstract terms ( ie not the Afghan story) , is conduct of Australan defence forces of public interest?

 No, you're deliberately or otherwise confusing in the public interest with being of interest to the public.  The public may be interested in what goes on in your bedroom, it doesn't mean that it's in the public interest to know.

Thinking in abstract terms, no there is no benefit to the Australian public in knowing anything that was revealed nor more generally what goes on in a war zone.  Where people under constant threat to their lives sometimes make incorrect judgements that are only discovered add such with the benefit of hindsight and information that wasn't available at the time.  War is ugly.  Non-combatants die simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Maybe one day have a good chat to someone who's been in those situations if they're not so traumatised by the experience that they will talk openly.  I hope like hell that none of us ever find ourselves in that situation because I've seen what it does.

Edited by Stikman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So those children were never really thrown overboard, and there never really were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the unqualified Dr Petel only killed a few people at Bundaberg Hospital. Yeh none of that sh#t was in the public interest. Should have just covered it all up by arresting anyone who opened their mouth or wrote about in the press, like Russia does.

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Waleed. Isn’t this the guy that said labor will win in a landslide and attain up to 88 seats. Yep.... we should listen to this bloke.

Did you read the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Did you read the article?

attack the individual, rather than discuss the issue. Failing that asset intellectual superiority and moral, then snicker about the left. Is much more fun than reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stikman said:

 No, you're deliberately or otherwise confusing in the public interest with being of interest to the public.  The public may be interested in what goes on in your bedroom, it doesn't mean that it's in the public interest to know.

Thinking in abstract terms, no there is no benefit to the Australian public in knowing anything that was revealed nor more generally what goes on in a war zone.  Where people under constant threat to their lives sometimes make incorrect judgements that are only discovered add such with the benefit of hindsight and information that wasn't available at the time.  War is ugly.  Non-combatants die simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Maybe one day have a good chat to someone who's been in those situations if they're not so traumatised by the experience that they will talk openly.  I hope like hell that none of us ever find ourselves in that situation because I've seen what it does.

I'm sorry you think that way - that's essentially the "you can't handle the truth" argument. The public benefit is that it imposes a level of accountability for actions that would otherwise go unchecked. While it may be true that the average citizen does not benefit from knowing the gory details of war, they do benefit from the military knowing they are not beyond review or above the law (as it applies to them) and must be accountable for their actions, both right and wrong.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XCOM.! said:

I'm sorry you think that way - that's essentially the "you can't handle the truth" argument. The public benefit is that it imposes a level of accountability for actions that would otherwise go unchecked. While it may be true that the average citizen does not benefit from knowing the gory details of war, they do benefit from the military knowing they are not beyond review or above the law (as it applies to them) and must be accountable for their actions, both right and wrong.

There are institutions who provide that oversight.

what is the role of the press

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

There are institutions who provide that oversight.

what is the role of the press

Seriously? The modern "press" is certainly flawed (Murdoch's more than most) but they still provide a level of accountability via the threat of exposure, that would be all too easily eliminated by "official" review, where cover-up is more common-place. I remember words of my grandfather - a WWI vet - never join the army son, the bastards can't be trusted. He was obviously jaded by his horrific experiences, but the sentiment of distrust was common with his mates, and reliance on "official" review processes would not have placated their concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofsecrecy/papers/reading/Silver.pdf

not directly applicable to aus.

raises question if found to hold classified info just say I’m a journalist.

insta and fb valid platforms for a journalist.

can anyone use this defence. What is in the public interest and what is harming or risking national interest.

stikman makes valid points 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...