Tristan

You've managed to turn a discussion on Australian values onto a discussiuon about the internal politics of the ALP.

That mate says it all about your priorities.

yes the Greens, the Australian Democrats and the ALp are all of the Left. the ALP being least left these days.

I don't think they would consider sharing power with the Greens, or anyone else.

The major parties like the status quo. They even vote for each other to achieve that. They don't really care which major party is in Government as long as one of them is.

Putting ON last helped destroy ON. Putting the Dems last has them on the road to political oblivion. What's the bet the Greens will be next?

CHAINSMOKER said...

"Therein lies the problem I think. It is an Australian cultural value that politicians can't be trusted with Australian values and therefore can't be trusted to legislate social rights based on those values"

Seldom have truer words been spoken !

ANY 'Bill of Rights' would be formulated and debated from specific interest viewpoints. For example, I would like the 'right' to publically criticize and condemn 'homosexual behavior'.. well I already HAVE that right, but gay lobby groups would want the right

"NOT TO BE CRITICIZED" on the grounds of 'social alienation' etc...

I want the right to say "Mohammed, founder of Islam was a ruthless, cruel lustful man who used his religion for his own megalomaniacal purposes."

Actually, I have that right, as long as it is in the context of 'robust debate and in good faith'...but .. Muslim groups would lobby for a 'Bill of Rights' which include the right 'NOT TO BE REMINDED OF THESE TRUTHS'on the grounds of 'social alienation'

So, ANY 'bill of rights' which includes such things as 'No-one can speak in such a way as to 'marginalize' or socially alienate' any group in society on the grounds of their 'sexuality, religon, values is in fact one of the worst forms of Fascism/Nazi'sm/Communism/State control I can imagine.

The only 'right' I agree to in this vein is 'Not to be alienated on the grounds of RACE'

and that includes the 'Anglo/Celtic/Scottish/Irish "races".

it includes ALL races.

Culture is a different matter. There is a prevailing culture, and those coming from outside (Savior68 ?) or of non Anglo heritage, have to make a decision. "Feel alienated" or.."Embrace the Culture" and simply call themselves "Australians"

This is one of the few debates where the best way to constructively engage in it is to walk away.

Now is not the time to discuss our vales.

If the nation insists on trying to define our values - and I reject anything we might come up with in this climate sight unseen - look at what we do not to what we think we stand for.

We fail to develop an approach to indigenous affairs lifts thier health status above that of a third wirld country - we incarcerate people until they are mad - we send or troops away under the guise of a lie - we vilify a minority in order to bolster nascent patriotism - we create straw man debates on values in order to keep the level of national anxiety and paranoia at a level where we are easier to manipulate - we smack down dissenting voices like Keelty when he strays from the coorporate line - these are all war time strategies to control a population - sept we aint at war - accept in the head of a few -

Dont weary me with debates on " a fair go" or are we a classless society or not - Chips Rafferty is dead along with the Chesty Bond lifesaver. Get used to the new australian.

If we can have a "welfare industry" we can also have a terrorist industry - and the beneficiaries are not a few jihadists with fertiliser in the cuffs of their trousers - they are the security consultants, the politicians and the arms sellers.

re: free speech - I think David goes too far in his criticism of Islam - but I defend his right to say it. I think, also, that anti-vilification laws can go too far: beyond the point of deterring baseless hate, and instead deterring any criticism of religion: even if it is based on the scripture of that religion itself. With a regime of free speech, there is always the risk that someone will find offense, or that criticism will be baseless or arbitrary. Putting restrictions on freedom of speech, however, sets a dangerous precedent - and who know where it will end?

re: the idea of Australian egalitarianism - I think that the old Australian culture is waning, and that the social liberal settlement which used to be our country's hallmark never did really solve the question of class conflict and division in this country anyway. That said, however, this country did develop a culture: based on the ideal of mateship - that was and is still worth celebrating. That's not to say it ought not - like anything else - be open to criticism. The narrative of Australian mateship is, for instance, historically a predominantly male narrative. But Australia is not just a 'blank slate' with no culture of its own. Migration has changed his narrative - overwhelmingly for the better - but that does not mean the old culture should just 'wither away and die'. Because, for many Australians, a sense of indentity stemming from this narrative is still important - this terrain is worth contesting for the Left, as well as for the Conservatives that are trying to claim the field as their own. We need, though, as I think I argue in the article, to go beyond the myth of 'classlessness': to celebrate traditions of working class solidarity - and make these narratives the nation's own. Extending the egalitarian principle beyond the traditional social liberal settlement: to embrace social democratic and democratic socialist principles - is part of this struggle.

You had to include Sir Joh didn't you?

Australia needs another Joh. A Joh for each state government and another in Canberra to get this nation back on track for when all the pollies and others set up to pull everything apart, destroying everything in their path, Sir Joh, love him or hate him, was a politician who actually built.

While southern states made racial jokes about Queensland being owned by the Japanese for attracting their business, it is the southerner's who accuse him of being racist and pro-white.

No matter which party has been in government in Queensland, only Sir Joh governed for ALL of Queensland and not just Sth East Queensland. He allowed regional towns and cities to become self sufficient instead of having to tow coal(etc) up from just above the border.

Hospitals, schools, roads, electrification, train lines, etc came to Queensland and without him, the state has become a pile of dust.

As for the protestor's. These people were those who protest as a profession, shipped up to Queensland for a bit of political tug of war. The locals didn't want the showerless lot causing strife so the man in charge stopped them. Imagine that, a pollie who actually did what the people wanted and did what he said he would do. He even refused to take any pension when his career left. Hmm, I wonder if Bob Green Brown and Oakover will do that?

Overall, Australia became a less free nation once the PC Brigade got their hands on the short n curlies of our spineless pollies. Ban this and ban that...don't let them think that, send em for prison for even thinking it.

John Howard is a dictator and ruining Australia but the mindless drug induced left will only make us worse off.