The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Owning your own mind > Comments

Owning your own mind : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 25/9/2019

Furthermore, Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects not only the expression of favourable information or ideas but also unpopular ideas.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Hey David,

"Informed people suggest it means that any employee who is critical of their employer's position on a politically relevant social issue can be sacked."

I see the bigger picture now.
People need jobs to survive, so you have employers take up social issues;
- Which have nothing to do with product or service.
Then you have employers indoctrinating and dictating the public on what they can and can't say under the new religion 'political correctness'.

And effectively you gain critical mass by forcing all employees to fall into line under political correctness.

This is totalitarianism.

You have the employers dictating the social agenda to the employees;
- And when society decrees that although capitalism allows us to think we can choose whatever we want, but society constrains this 'choice' by ensuring some of us must be employees, because we can't all be bosses;

- Then it means your exploiting the fact that employees are employees and using their hiring and firing to dictate a social / global agenda.


I have to make a point again about this 'thing' I've clued onto;

The idea of 'National Democracy' as opposed to 'International Democracy'.
This is whats ruining all western countries with political correctness.

'She'll be right mate', 'takin the piss' and our previous 'friendly cultural racism'
- Are or were completely at odds with globalism agendas and political correctness
Which means that western nations are in the grip of mental illness.

FYI racism is related to tribalism which is related to culture.
So without racism, there is no tribalism;
And without tribalism, there is no culture.

It's a global plan that destroys all cultures to replace it with a generic one.

* Our culture is being torn down and rebuilt with a new generic globalist culture, and this is occurring in all western nations.

*There is no real 'national' democracy in a 2 party system where one of the parties is an 'immigrant platform'.

Therefore, this is NOT 'national' democracy;

- It IS 'international democracy' being IMPOSED on nation states.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 25 September 2019 3:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Disagree! Even a brainwashed from birth, fundamental fanatics, understands if they sign a contract to keep their erroneous homophobic comment to themselves and fellow traveller congregation of likeminded homophobic bigots!?
Have no comeback when they breach that contractual obligation! No one requires them to believe or think differently if they so choose!

But, no fundamental religious fanatic owns their own mind when they as ever just parrot what they been inculcated with from their earliest years and understanding!

Moreover, even then this referenced homophobic bigot misquoted a poorly understood Christian bible!?

As for public servants blowing the whistle, in the public interest!

They should be protected from adversarial autocratic authoritarian ministers, who label stuff confidential simply to avoid embarrassment and naught else!

Finally, we need to be protected from hasbeen political enthusiasts who seek to divide for rank political outcomes and never ever, true social justice!? Just public notice and notoriety!

Folau was not serving social justice with his quite blatant breach of contract, just seeking as is the patently disingenuous Author, to subvert it!?

Bring on the Federal ICAC and make sure it has teeth!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 25 September 2019 4:30:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B.
Why should he HAVE to sign a contract that effectively limits his right to free speech on an issue that has nothing to do with football?

Why is it that in order to play football he has to sign that contract which have stipulations that have nothing to do with football?

He's not directly bringing football into disrepute;

It was footballs choice to take up a position on social issues, not the individuals.
There was no line before they set one.

People talk about equality, even you.
Why should he be disallowed to play football for something that's not illegal?
Maybe the reason is because some wish to make his speech illegal.
If so why don't you people just say that?

Why don't you instead make the argument on merit that his opinion should be illegal?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 25 September 2019 5:31:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard

I've posted a link under this which will make you laugh in the end.
It's a nifty little Jewish, very liberal and upper end NY Democrat periodical.
But the reason I've passed this on is, here is evidence the once politically correct and equality assured at your expense types they are, are now complaining of the backlash from their feminist equality ideals et al, gone mad.

What will make you laugh, is one of their own was caught up in a sexual accusation which left them to eat their own vomit.
I'd appreciate you telling me what you thought, after reading it.

Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 25 September 2019 7:27:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is nuance here that's being missed.

The public servant in question worked in the Immigration Dept and was tweeting criticisms of the Pacific Solution. So not just any old public servant.

Had she worked say, in Centrelink, its unlikely she'd have raised an eye-brow. But criticising policy concerning your own department indicates that there was a question as to whether she could fulfil her duties correctly and whether she would not be a security risk for departmental decisions.

She can have and express opinions about all types of stuff, but not specifically about stuff she is employed to administer.

Example. A Coca-Cola employee says their product is bad for your health and should be avoided. Employee is a janitor. Result - ho hum..back to work. Employee is in the Marketing Dept. - very different story and one wonders if he can truly promote the company's product.

Sack one, ignore t'other.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 26 September 2019 10:53:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Diver Dan,

I thought it was a good article.

The bigger picture is the danger inherent in anyone taking their particular beliefs a step to far; runaway, and unchecked.
This goes for all 'belief systems', whether they be religions; a climate change or feminist agenda;
- Or a conspiracy theory...

An even greater danger might be when these 'belief systems' get pushed down from a university environment to influence business or government and become policy.

What if the facts don't even matter?
What if the agenda to influence the business and government policy is more important than the facts themselves?

The way to get to the truth on any issue is to separate the arguments that do hold merit from those that dont.
Policies need to be foolproofed, that is face the scrutiny of every possible argument that holds merit.
It needs to be done this way because there's a lot at stake.
At best 'bad policy' has the potential for people to be treated unfairly;
And at worst the policy is open to exploitation by those who would deliberately do so for their own or others benefit;
- And all the consequences that can result from that;

Many groups (social or otherwise) follow a kind of gang mentality;
They'll defend their own even when they're in the wrong;
Or ruthlessly turn on their own, if they stray from the rules and beliefs of the gang.
Feminist groups seem to have this mentality.

At a university level, I assume some good ideas can go unfunded and sit on a back shelf gathering dust for years;
- It seems less likely, but in the same way bad ideas could be fully-funded and fast-tracked straight into policy;
This may not necessarily relate to whether its a good idea or not;
As much as some person or group has an interest (financial or otherwise) in seeing their policy become a rule of law.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 26 September 2019 7:12:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy