Sam Newman at it again!

[mateinone]

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.

Why do they envoke such reactions? The exact reason is that the far left causes the far right to prosper and the same is true in reverse. They are a direct protest to each other and  neither side believes they are represented enough.

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.

But where do i say men are hard done by compared to other groups? In fact i argue that whenever the issue of problems for men are raised they are derided because in general they have not had it as hard as other groups.. The problem is that it is whitewashing over the fact their is a problem and denigrating ANY group by and large is an issue. If someone raises the issue of endometriosis, does anyone suggest.. well it is not as big of a problem as brain cancer, so what are you complaining about?
Problems in society don't need to be graded to be real and to require attention, but the way you dismiss it is mirrored through society to be honest.

i am NOT suggesting the Trump or Newman want open honest debates, i am not even stating that what they are saying is credible and unfortunately Trump was in a real position to enforce negative impacts on society. The thing is that whilst they have no interest in debate, there are a lot of people who feel like trump does (not so much newman) and a lot of these may be open to debate and growing together and by allowing the topic to play out in public it allows those debates to happen.

i always find it strange that the left thinks the right is divisive, but regularly fail to understand how divisive and dismissive they are

[PaulP]

mateinone, I think we've taken this as far as we can, or should. We're not getting anywhere, let's just leave it that.

[Baggers]

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.

Precisely. He didn't just give us his opinion, he sought to incite ...which is repugnant and divisive.

[LP]

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.

There is a world of difference between what happens with corporations, foreign investors and mum and dad owners.

The things you talk about are undoubtedly correct, but that is not how the system is gamed at the domestic / residential level. There is the act you talk about, the environment acts, the anti-discrimination laws, the wildlife regulations. They are all gamed to leverage advantage over anyone who isn't wealthy enough to either ignore or fight it.

The problem the people I know have is that they are just citizens, owner developers, residents, they want to live and participate in the region. But those wanting reparations are indifferent to them, they oppose them for a price, get preferential treatment from tribunals or committees based almost purely on spoken testimony / opinion, which can only be countered with expensive technical surveys, legal procedures and lengthy scientific, academic or engineering investigations. Corporations can just ignore the bullcrap, push ahead and pay the fine, they just treat it as a cost of doing business, but mum and dad operators can't and the activists know it. If you challenge them, you end up with a cabal of indigenous, green and animal rights activists making your life hell, and often it is the same faces in the opposition popping up oddly all over the state. The system is gamed and the average person is powerless to do anything about it because the laws are asymmetrical in implementation.

[DJC]

There is a world of difference between what happens with corporations, foreign investors and mum and dad owners.

The things you talk about are undoubtedly correct, but that is not how the system is gamed at the domestic / residential level. There is the act you talk about, the environment acts, the anti-discrimination laws, the wildlife regulations. They are all gamed to leverage advantage over anyone who isn't wealthy enough to either ignore or fight it.

The problem the people I know have is that they are just citizens, owner developers, residents, they want to live and participate in the region. But those wanting reparations are indifferent to them, they oppose them for a price, get preferential treatment from tribunals or committees based almost purely on spoken testimony / opinion, which can only be countered with expensive technical surveys, legal procedures and lengthy scientific, academic or engineering investigations. Corporations can just ignore the bullcrap, push ahead and pay the fine, they just treat it as a cost of doing business, but mum and dad operators can't and the activists know it. If you challenge them, you end up with a cabal of indigenous, green and animal rights activists making your life hell, and often it is the same faces in the opposition popping up oddly all over the state. The system is gamed and the average person is powerless to do anything about it because the laws are asymmetrical in implementation.

I’m sorry LP but it’s not world’s best practice for nothing.

If you’re intending to carry out a high impact activity in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, you can’t get a statutory authority unless you have an approved cultural heritage management plan.  There are no exemptions or exceptions and no-one - minister, head of dept, traditional owner - can override that.

You don’t need a management plan if you’re continuing the existing land use, agroforestry for example.  However, if your activity will harm Aboriginal cultural heritage, you will require a cultural heritage permit.  Again, the process and fees are prescribed by regulation.

In my experience, everyone from large corporations and govt departments to folk subdividing the family property got the go ahead with little fuss and not much cost.