Sam Newman at it again!

[Baggers]

97,000 people with more sense than Sam Newman

"I don't like the Welcome to Country, it's not necessary"

"We should boo the Welcome to Country"

Two completely different things

Like most things the Voice debate is  a spectrum.
Where we sit on the spectrum is dependent on our own knowledge and experiences.
At each end of the spectrum there are extreme views.
In the middle, folks will be torn.
Had the question been..."Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution" it would have romped in
The 'Voice' aspect has made success more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult.
I suspect the majority of people have already made up their minds, even if they declare otherwise to pollsters.
Vote for what you believe to be right.

Couldn't agree more, Principal LODS. From the get-go of this campaign I couldn't help but think how poorly it was introduced and promoted... from a marketing pov. It opened the door for the Far Right to pounce, and pounce they duly did.

Your suggestion as to how to launch it, ""Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution"" ...would have been far better.

The 'spirit' of the Yes campaign is very relevant and needed, it's just the execution/PR was clumsy.

[Baggers]

Read a terrific article in The Conversation this morning regarding the retirement of R Murdoch. And it has some relevance in this Newman discussion.

Senior Editor, Sunanda Creagh, wrote the article and quoted, within the article, Uni of Melbourne journalism expert Andrew Dodd as saying (re Murdoch), “His news media empire is fundamentally antisocial in the way it operates. I believe it’s caused so much harm to so many people along the way, and that cannot go unacknowledged. From the UK phone hacking scandal and beat ups to climate denial and the demonisation of minorities, News Corp can be counted on to dumb down complexity, make issues binary and turn one side against the other.”

[PaulP]

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.

Sam Newman didn't just politely agree to disagree on the Welcome To Country - he stated very clearly that people should boo or slow clap during the ceremony, which is clearly an attempt to ridicule and diminish - that's hate speech.

If I meet a fundamentalist Christian who declares that Leviticus 20.13 should be taken literally and men who practice anal sex must be put to death, is it okay to defend such a view on religious beliefs ? It's in the Bible, I guess it must be.

There's a very good reason why organisations like the FBI are not issuing warnings against Woke leftists, but rather against those who endorse right wing authoritarian identity politics. It's completely wrong to think it's just left versus right. Words have consequences. Unless the participants in the January 6 riots have perjured themselves, they are on the legal record as saying they were inspired by Trump's words.

[PaulP]

And I should also add that I'm not indigenous, and I don't find the Welcome To Country pointless.

[mateinone]

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.

i don't agree that hate crimes are actually increasing, perhaps if looking at a micro timeline this is true, but certainly not over any extended period. As much as you say Free Speech is misunderstood, i believe it is even more true of "hate speech".

I won't go into great details, but gender identity is an example of an area that is rife with accusations of hate speech, which in fact discourages a much needed (and desired) discourse on the subject. There are many people who understand that gender identity is a real issue, but completely disagree with the way society is handling the subject and the impacts it is having on current society, but by constantly shutting down opinions that differ and being quick to label them as something the are not, it discourages people even engaging in the conversation and society being out of touch and increasingly divisive.

We seen this  phenomenon when Donald Trump was first elected president. The polls had absolutely no idea that this was going to occur, because the right didn't want to engage in conversation because it turned to lectures and condemnation from the left, rather than any meaningful discussion, so people stopped publicly supporting (of course this done a 360 once he was elected).

We seen this with Brittney Higgins. We had a tv presenter come out and basically declare someone guilty who had never been through the legal system and anyone who openly questioned this was a terrible person. The #IBelieveHer movement allows hate speech against an accused, but it doesn't consider it so. We have constant hate speech against males and in particular white middle aged hetero sexual males with claims of toxic masculinity, inherent privilege etc in main stream media, but any attempt to have cohesive discussions on this is met with total derision. This is despite the fact that most men don't have any of this inherent privilege, often their bodies are destroyed by the time they are in their 40s due to years of hard physical work and they have the highest rate of suicide by far in society.... but any attempt to suggest that this "male bashing" is a real problem in society is scoffed at because  "women have had it worse", "ethnic minorities have had it worse" etc etc. Again a meaningful and required discussion cannot be easily had, so people keep their problems inside with no real idea how to deal with them.

Free Speech to so many people has become "Freedom to agree" and this is why people need to be able to hear the likes of idiots like Joe Rogan and Sam Newman and any other idiot with ridiculous opinions (if not of course illegal hate speech), if only to know it is okay to have an unpopular opinion and to voice it...

Free Speech does NOT of course include inciting acts of violence, anything to do with racial superiority etc, there are reasons certain 'free speech' has been made illegal and it should be, but we should not be stopping people from voicing opinions and people need to stop "being offended" and start debating actual views.

[DJC]

I work with a guy who had issues as LP described sub dividing land in Tooradin. Basically was told it couldn't be done because the land was sacred until they paid enough money then it was OK.

The money side of this doesn't bother me if it's been put to good use helping indigenous communities and not ending up in the pockets of crooks like Phil Egan.
I just don't like the welcome to country stuff. It's fake, the land was stolen and we owe them trillions.

There is a process that must be followed when certain land is subdivided into more than three lots.  The process is mandated by legislation and must comply with the regulations.  The processes that must be followed by the proponent, the heritage advisor and the RAP are non-negotiable, as are the fees payable to the RAP for evaluating management plans.

The situation you describe could happen but it would be illegal, could be rectified through the provisions of the Act, and would result in the de-registration of the RAP.

As mentioned previously, the heritage advisor engaged by the proponent to prepare the management plan can charge whatever the market will allow.

Yes, the land was stolen.  That’s what happens when folk colonise land occupied by other folk.  However, I’m not sure where owing trillions comes from.  The Native Title Act and the relatively modest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund are intended to address land issues and dispossession.

[mateinone]

Sam Newman didn't just politely agree to disagree on the Welcome To Country - he stated very clearly that people should boo or slow clap during the ceremony, which is clearly an attempt to ridicule and diminish - that's hate speech.

i absolutely disagree that this is hate speech. i understand that you think it is, but i don't. There are multiple ways to protest and this is exactly that in my opinion. It is a flawed and very childish and distasteful way, but to me it is a means of protest.

I am ecstatic that people can hear Sam's trash and society voted with their actions to ignore his dribble and i believe by calling for such actions he lost support of those who have a general agreement with the sentiment of those who don't like the "Welcome" ceremony.

Let's reverse this, if a group of first nation people decided to boo during the Anthem as a form of protest or "took the knee" on the field, wouldn't we be want society to say "I disagree with their protest, but they have that right?"  What if first nation people slow clapped or booed during a minute silence when our head of state died.. Does that constitute "hate speech"

Newman's idea was idiotic and society made this very clear, but i don't believe these "words" constitute hate speech. i truly believe it is harmful how often we label things hate speech

[PaulP]

i don't agree that hate crimes are actually increasing, perhaps if looking at a micro timeline this is true, but certainly not over any extended period. As much as you say Free Speech is misunderstood, i believe it is even more true of "hate speech".

I won't go into great details, but gender identity is an example of an area that is rife with accusations of hate speech, which in fact discourages a much needed (and desired) discourse on the subject. There are many people who understand that gender identity is a real issue, but completely disagree with the way society is handling the subject and the impacts it is having on current society, but by constantly shutting down opinions that differ and being quick to label them as something the are not, it discourages people even engaging in the conversation and society being out of touch and increasingly divisive.

We seen this  phenomenon when Donald Trump was first elected president. The polls had absolutely no idea that this was going to occur, because the right didn't want to engage in conversation because it turned to lectures and condemnation from the left, rather than any meaningful discussion, so people stopped publicly supporting (of course this done a 360 once he was elected).

We seen this with Brittney Higgins. We had a tv presenter come out and basically declare someone guilty who had never been through the legal system and anyone who openly questioned this was a terrible person. The #IBelieveHer movement allows hate speech against an accused, but it doesn't consider it so. We have constant hate speech against males and in particular white middle aged hetero sexual males with claims of toxic masculinity, inherent privilege etc in main stream media, but any attempt to have cohesive discussions on this is met with total derision. This is despite the fact that most men don't have any of this inherent privilege, often their bodies are destroyed by the time they are in their 40s due to years of hard physical work and they have the highest rate of suicide by far in society.... but any attempt to suggest that this "male bashing" is a real problem in society is scoffed at because  "women have had it worse", "ethnic minorities have had it worse" etc etc. Again a meaningful and required discussion cannot be easily had, so people keep their problems inside with no real idea how to deal with them.

Free Speech to so many people has become "Freedom to agree" and this is why people need to be able to hear the likes of idiots like Joe Rogan and Sam Newman and any other idiot with ridiculous opinions (if not of course illegal hate speech), if only to know it is okay to have an unpopular opinion and to voice it...

Free Speech does NOT of course include inciting acts of violence, anything to do with racial superiority etc, there are reasons certain 'free speech' has been made illegal and it should be, but we should not be stopping people from voicing opinions and people need to stop "being offended" and start debating actual views.

Leaving aside the lack of clarity around terms like "micro timeline" and "extended period", a very simple google search will make it clear that hate crimes are on the increase in recent times. What is also clear is that where the Trumps and Le Pens of this world go, hate crime invariably follows.

I think you paint a very heavily distorted and Photoshopped picture around gender identity and toxic masculinity. I don't see those issues the way you describe them at all. Men with broken bodies etc. Sorry, but there's no doubt that men have problems as do all people, but to somehow suggest that they are hard done by compared to other groups is a big stretch.

The rubric of free speech does not work the way you describe. People like Newman, Trump etc. and their acolytes have no interest in debates. They already know the answer, why do they need to debate. Free speech is used precisely to do what you say it shouldn't do, which is not to debate, but to cause division and trouble, and to push their own dominance hierarchies and identity politics.

[madbluboy]

There is a process that must be followed when certain land is subdivided into more than three lots.  The process is mandated by legislation and must comply with the regulations.  The processes that must be followed by the proponent, the heritage advisor and the RAP are non-negotiable, as are the fees payable to the RAP for evaluating management plans.

The situation you describe could happen but it would be illegal, could be rectified through the provisions of the Act, and would result in the de-registration of the RAP.

As mentioned previously, the heritage advisor engaged by the proponent to prepare the management plan can charge whatever the market will allow.

Yes, the land was stolen.  That’s what happens when folk colonise land occupied by other folk.  However, I’m not sure where owing trillions comes from.  The Native Title Act and the relatively modest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund are intended to address land issues and dispossession.

A few years ago the ABS valued all Australian land at almost 6 trillion dollars.

[DJC]

A few years ago the ABS valued all Australian land at almost 6 trillion dollars.

That's as maybe, but there's no serious suggestion that Indigenous Australians should be given trillions in compensation for their dispossession.