(09-22-2023, 07:58 AM)DJC date Wrote:Representatives of the relevant Aboriginal group(s) may be employed to assist with the preparation of the plan but the lion's share of cost of the plan goes to the archaeologist.

(09-22-2023, 10:33 AM)PaulP link Wrote:Firstly I apologise for misquoting you.

Newman, and others of his ilk, wouldn't know a debate if it bit him on the ar$e. He has no interest in debating, he has no interest in understanding anything in any depth, he has no interest in anything other than just gobbing off to anything he doesn't like. He is the first one to shoot down anyone who disagrees with him, with all manner of insults and dismissive cr@p.

Free speech is not equally distributed among the population - they are blatant power asymmetries that give people like him leverage that others don't have. Newman speaks from a position of privilege and status that affords him protection from any real punishment. Imagine if Lidia Thorpe came out and said we should all burn Australian flags and slow clap during the National Anthem ? There's a reason why hate speech is used predominately by protected groups like the one to which Newman belongs.

(09-22-2023, 12:59 PM)LP link Wrote:There is another major development site within 50km of Melb CBD that at this very moment cannot even clear / lift abandoned pine trees to begin soil testing without the presence of an indigenous council member to certify whatever gets disturbed or exposed is not of cultural significance, they haven't even made it to site survey yet as the members of the indigenous council refuse to attend the site, and the owners have been warned off disturbing the site without indigenous oversight, which is basically holding the new owner to ransom.

This is not the only case like this I've learned of in recent years, and it's got little to do with heritage and everything to do with politics.

The associated council and state government know this is going on and have done nothing.

(09-22-2023, 01:09 PM)mateinone link Wrote:As i said, i am not going to protect Newman as a quality individual, but i am 100% supportive of his rights to make foolish and ignorant comments. i am and always have been against booing of players or anything really and i feel like the call to boo a ceremony is extremely distasteful, but .... People had the right to be stupid and (to a degree) ignorant.

Joe Rogan is a perfect example, i detest him, but i still want him to be able to have his podcasts, on the condition the talk doesn't cross into illegal areas.

We faced the same issues during the same sex marriage referendum, anyone who was against it was bigoted or homophobic... There was at least one publicised account of a girl (in Canberra i think) who was fired for posting on her own facebook that it was "okay to vote no" and that because of her religious beliefs she would in fact be voting no.. She didn't harass or belittle any group, but was fired and her boss posted that she would not allow anyone with such hateful opinions to work there (or something to that effect). That is the society we are heading towards and it is a major problem. That Sam Newman can be such a wanker, is just an example that we still have the right to voice non conformist opinions, even if (again) he is actually largely irrelevant and almost never has anything to say worth hearing.

In the case of the Welcome ceremony, i personally don't like it... Does this make me racist or is it only the people that boo it racist?? We have to stop pigeon holing people and listen to what they are saying, then disagree with their arguments.

Another example was Daisy Pearce vocally supporting not having a minute of silence after the queen died at AFLW games.. I thought the decision was atrocious (and should have seen government funding potentially pulled) and Daisy was completely wrong... but whilst Daisy has to have the right to be (imo) wrong, the competition had (and has) obligations it should have met.

(09-22-2023, 09:05 PM)PaulP link Wrote:I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.

(09-21-2023, 11:07 AM)tonyo link Wrote:Sam Newman is nothing but a grumpy old man who is still looking for headlines.

He made a living on the Footy Show by going out on the street and making fools of unfortunates who didn't know any better, and he is still poking a stick at those he feels are beneath him.

I know it is said he is a top bloke, but his public persona is one of an irrelevant flog who doesn't deserve the oxygen that he keeps getting from his old mates in the media.  He should look up the word respect and see if he can find a scintilla of it in his rantings.

What also comes with freedom of speech is the responsibility of free speech.  You can't have one without the other.

(09-22-2023, 10:44 PM)Thryleon link Wrote:labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.

The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote. 

Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous.  That's not hate speech.  It's truth.

Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.

(09-22-2023, 01:55 PM)DJC link Wrote:Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works. 

For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners.  All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.

Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan.  That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc.  It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.

The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements.  As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.

There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues. 

The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen.  Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?

(09-22-2023, 10:35 AM)DJC link Wrote:Guess what? No-one booed ?