Saturday 29 November 2014

Tony Abbott had ‘toxic’ effect on Victorian election, say former premiers

Victorian election 2014

Tony Abbott had ‘toxic’ effect on Victorian election, say former premiers

Federal MPs play down prime minister’s influence on Coalition defeat as former Labor and Liberal premiers unleash vitriol

Victorian Labor party leader Daniel Andrews celebrates his win on
Saturday night. Federal MPs have played down claims that the election
result was a repudiation of Abbott’s unpopular budget policies.
Photograph: Joe Castro/AAP Image

Daniel Hurst, political correspondent

Sunday 30 November 2014 11.26 AEST

Comments
44

Former Labor and Liberal premiers of Victoria have said Tony Abbott
had a “toxic” effect in the state election, but federal ministers have
sought to play down the prime minister’s influence in the Coalition’s
defeat.

The federal opposition leader, Bill Shorten,
seized on Victorian Labor’s victory on Saturday, saying the defeat of
the state’s first one-term government since the 1950s was a repudiation
of Abbott’s unpopular budget policies.

“There is no doubt Victorians used this election to send Tony Abbott a
clear message – no GP tax, no $100,000 degrees and no cuts to schools
and hospitals, and no more lies,” Shorten said.

The
former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett argued Abbott had been a
major factor in the defeat of Denis Napthine’s government.

Kennett described the federal government’s domestic policies as a
“shambles” and said Napthine “never called Tony Abbott to account” for
“putting tax on him after tax on him”.

The former Labor premier Steve Bracks said while he did not want to
overstate the federal factor in Daniel Andrews’ election victory, there
was “no doubt” Abbott’s budget measures had a toxic effect in Victoria.

Bracks said people he spoke to on the campaign trail “actually thought the [Medicare] co-payment was already in” effect.

“Tony Abbott is sort of almost like a martian here in Victoria. No one can relate to him. He is toxic,” he told Sky News.

“Tony Abbott does not resonate in Victoria. The wedge politics he plays don’t work in this state at all.”

Bracks said the Liberals knew Abbott had this effect because the prime minister rarely visited during the campaign.

But the federal trade minister, Andrew Robb, said he did not accept
the Abbott government had a big influence on the result, while
conceding: “We have to always look at if there are lessons”.

“Of course, we will be realistic,” Robb told the ABC’s Insiders program.

“We will have a look at the implications but, clearly, from my
experience and observation, this was a state election overwhelmingly
fought on state issues.”

Keane: another week, another shocker for a troubled government –

Keane: another week, another shocker for a troubled government

Bernard Keane
|

Nov 28, 2014 12:48PM

|

EMAIL

|

PRINT

The government has suffered yet another bad week — and with no relief in sight.

As each Friday rolls around, particularly after
parliamentary sitting weeks, we like to look back at how our politicians
have fared during the week. Throughout the year, it’s been something of
a constant that such week-in-review pieces have yielded a variation on
“another bad week for the government”.

Beneath such words, however, was an expectation that at some
point the government would get its act together, that via a significant
change in tactics or perhaps of personnel, it would at least stop
making the egregious errors that have characterised its performance
throughout the year, even if it couldn’t find a way to start restoring
public trust. After this week, one can only wonder whether even that it
possible. People both inside Canberra and outside are starting to talk
about a one-term government, something that wasn’t happening even in the
depths of the government’s post-budget woes in winter.

It will (rightly) be overshadowed by other events, but this
week was truly, wretchedly awful for the Coalition, the worst yet. It’s
not quite Labor Awful — how can we forget the Simon Crean-instigated
challenge-that-never-was? — but it was the sort of week where the only
rational reaction was to sit there gobsmacked at the ineptitude on
display. Each day seemed to bring some new screw-up. Employment Minister
Eric Abetz saying there were no ABC job losses. The Prime Minister
pretending he wasn’t breaking his promise not to cut the ABC.
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull joining in with a Utegate-style
conspiracy theory about the Rudd government and the ABC doing a secret
deal. The apparently permanently enraged Defence Minister David Johnston
claiming the government’s own warship builder couldn’t build a canoe.
The Prime Minister’s Office briefing that the Medicare co-payment was a
political impediment about to be removed, only for the Treasurer and
Health Minister to insist that in fact they were still committed to it,
and, hey, maybe it would be a good idea to try to implement it via
regulation, just like the government tried with its repeal of FOFA?
Backbenchers criticising the leadership. Speaker Bronwyn Bishop,
infuriated by how much enjoyment Labor was having at the government’s
expense, kicked out what seemed to be most of the Labor Party from
question time yesterday. She even kicked out the mildest of
mild-mannered MPs, Western Australia’s Melissa Parke, simply for quoting
standing orders.

If Victorian Labor manages the heretofore improbable feat of
knocking off a first-term government tomorrow, it will truly have been
the week from hell.

And this was a week in which the government had begun with
hopes of finishing the parliamentary year on a relative high note, at
least by its own standards — calling time on some problematic proposals,
preparing the way for a difficult MYEFO, perhaps even convincing the
crossbench in the Senate to pass a compromised tertiary education
deregulation bill, setting up for a better 2015. Instead, all the
problems that have bedevilled it throughout the year were on vivid
display: inept communication, poor tactics, indiscipline,
laziness — Abbott even repeated his habit of demanding business argue
the case for reform, an abrogation of the role of political leaders. And
the co-payment debacle prompts one to wonder what’s happened to the
fabled iron hand that the PMO and chief of staff Peta Credlin is said to
wield over ministers, if senior figures like Hockey and Dutton are so
obviously contradicting the message from the top.

Maybe they’ve touched bottom, and things can only improve
from here. Who knows, maybe Denis Napthine will hang on in Victoria, or
there’ll be a hung parliament, and next week will produce a win or two
in the Senate for the government. Maybe this is the last week in review
piece that will reflect on how badly the government is travelling.
Maybe. Don’t hold your breath.

Will Tony Abbott have the courage to accept some blame for the Victorian loss? - The AIM Network

Will Tony Abbott have the courage to accept some blame for the Victorian loss?

November 29, 2014
Written by:
Michael Taylor
81 Replies

Federal politicians have always been quick to point out that party
losses at the State level have been, and always will be, because of
State issues. Federal politics and personalities play no part whatsoever
in the election and the subsequent result; it’s fought on State turf.

Yet . . . federal politicians have also been quick to point out that
victories at the State level – for their party – were delivered as a
protest vote against the ruling federal party, should of course, they
themselves be in opposition at the time.

Or they could go completely overboard – such as Tony Abbott did after
Labor’s loss in the Tasmanian State election – and announce that they
single-handedly won the election for their State counterparts.

(Mind you, when the South Australian State election didn’t go the way Abbott had hoped, he went to great pains not to comment on suggestions his involvement in the campaign had a negative impact on the Liberals’ result).

News is now in that the Napthine Government has been kicked out after
only one term. Already members of Abbott’s Government have distanced
themselves from the result. Head on over to Twitter and look at the ‘it
wasn’t us’ tweets.

I live in Victoria and this is the first Victorian State election
I’ve voted in. However, I haven’t been here long enough to have much of
an idea about State issues and what issues the parties have campaigned
on. So I went against my ‘norm’ and registered a protest vote against
the Federal Government, and in particular Tony Abbott.

I wasn’t alone. Speaking to polling-booth volunteers, the message was
the same: people weren’t voting against Napthine – they were voting
against Abbott (or his government/Hockey’s budget). In the word of one
voter, just to “watch him squirm”. Again, head on over to Twitter but
this time look for the ‘it was them’ tweets. They dominate Twitter.

Pre-election it was forecast that Abbott could be the factor that will lose the election for Napthine. It looks to be the way.

But will he squirm? I doubt it.

Either he won’t have the courage or he is so full of hubris that he
is blind to the simple fact that he’s totally on the nose. In 2016 he
will join Napthine as the leader of a ‘one-term’ government.

Nonetheless, I look forward to what he has to say about the Victorian election result.

Is he in hiding?

Like this:

Friday 28 November 2014

...and then Bronwyn Bishop threw me out.

THE EVIL DOLORES UMBRIDGE MAKES THE DARK LORD PROUD
...and then Bronwyn Bishop threw me out.

Criminalising dissent: anti-protest law is an ominous sign of the times

28 November 2014, 4.42pm AEDT

Criminalising dissent: anti-protest law is an ominous sign of the times

Criminals the lot of them: that is what people who stand against
government plans ‘to rebuild Tasmania’s forestry industry’ could become
under the new anti-protest law.
Author provided

The Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Bill – locally known as the “anti-protest” bill, was passed
by Tasmania’s Parliament late on Tuesday night. The law was introduced
as part of the government’s intention to “re-build Tasmania’s forestry
industry”. That is a source of controversy and division in Tasmanian
society.

To achieve its aim, the government has committed itself to a wide legislative agenda. This includes: amending the uniform Defamation Act 2005 to allow large companies to sue protesters; de-funding community and conservation organisations; and tearing up a “peace deal”
between foresters and conservationists, which had been enacted into law
before the 2013 election. Recognising the potential return to
hostilities, the government stated it would “not try and appease” protesters, but would rather “toughen the law to deter them”.

The anti-protest law is its chosen mechanism of deterrence. While
such hard-line policies on political opposition are not new, the
severity and breadth of the law to enforce such a policy arguably is.

The shift from hard-line policy to hard-line law is worrisome in a
constitutional democracy. The spread of state anti-bikie laws in
Australia illustrates why this law is not just of concern for
Tasmanians.

The business of silencing protests

The new law covers all acts on, or acts inhibiting access to, a
business premises (all public and private land, including forestry and
mining lands) which are:

in furtherance of, or for the purposes of promoting
awareness of or support for an opinion, or belief, in respect of a
political, environmental, social, cultural or economic issue.

Any such protest is subject to significant penalties if they
interrupt “business activity”. While originally such sanctions were
mandatory, the government agreed in the upper house to exchange these
for discretionary penalties.

Peter Cundall was found guilty of failing to obey police in 2009, but would risk jail if he protested against a pulp mill today.
AAP/Paul Carter

However, the government agreed to this only on condition that the
subsequent maximum penalties would be significantly increased. This was
to “send a strong message” to protesters and the courts charged with
punishing them. As a consequence, protesters who repeatedly interrupt
business face fines of up to $10,000 and four years in jail.

From its inception, the law has been criticised by domestic and
international lawyers. Three United Nations human rights rapporteurs
considered the Bill to breach international law, one describing it as “shocking”. They considered the legislation, as originally envisioned, to be:

disproportionate and unnecessary [creating a] chilling
effect of silencing dissenters … [who are] key to raising awareness
about human rights, political, [and] social concerns … holding not just
governments, but also corporations accountable.

A wide range of legal professionals have voiced similar criticisms.
While the removal of mandatory penalties alleviated some concerns, the
larger concern about a law designed solely to punish people for
protesting against controversial business activities - especially
publicly supported and funded ones – remains.

Right to protest? What right?

Australia is the only Western democracy to lack an entrenched bill or charter of rights. Nor do we enjoy a strict separation of powers doctrine
to keep governmental power in check. Our civil rights are entirely the
product of our parliamentary process … and entirely vulnerable to it.

The only thing that ensures this process operates in the public
interest is the ability of electors to openly exchange criticism of
governmental action, free of pressure or retribution, so that government
remains representative and responsible. As Justice Brennan of the High
Court of Australia stated:

It would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people
a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public
discussion from which the people derive their political judgements.

Tolerance of divergent ideas and expressions is important in any
democracy, but in Australia, where we have few other protections, it is
vital. That principle extends beyond mere words, but to acts and places
too.

If the government controls where or how people say things it can
greatly inoculate the strength of a political message, if not extinguish
its impact altogether. In a society awash with information, individuals
must adopt varying – indeed, perhaps sensational – approaches and
measures to publicise dissent and disagreement with mainstream policies.
That is not least because their message may not accord with the views
of those who control dominant public forums.

That is not to say all speech should be unfettered; the government
has a duty to regulate actions that undermine the public interest. It
must also protect people’s business from criminal activities. However,
such legal protections must be tailored and balanced against the
constitutional obligation to ensure freedom of political expression.

When government controls the place or time people can voice political views, freedom of expression is seriously diminished.
EPA/Narong Sangnak

Law turns protest into a crime

Unfortunately, the anti-protest law does not seek to engage in such a
balancing process at all. Despite being pitched as “protecting workers'
rights”, the Tasmanian law makes no mention of industrial, political or
other civil rights – it solely focuses on sanctioning protest. Nor does
it provide legislative direction on how such rights and duties should
be balanced.

In fact, workers' rights and business interests are already protected
by a wide range of civil and criminal laws. The anti-protest law seeks
to do something more, specifically to scare people off protesting – that
is, “expressing objection to or dissent”
about matters of public interest – by turning protest into a crime. It
does so without providing any commensurate recognition of the
constitutional importance of political protest, expression or dissent.

Previous protest and assembly laws have tended to be written cautiously, reinforcing rights as much as taking them away (e.g. Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld)).
The Tasmanian law is, simply put, brutal. It does not appear to once
engage with the responsibility of government to foster all forms of
political expression, even the types it doesn’t like; indeed, especially those types.

The anti-protest law indicates a move away from self-imposed
governmental restraint towards a “get things done at all costs”
attitude, even if the costs are disproportionate, unjustified and
antithetical to our constitutional system. This law raises serious
questions about the current attitudes and commitment to representative
and responsible government in this country.

Thursday 27 November 2014

"IT’S TIME" Marriage Equality and Why I Support It (Updated) - The AIM Network

“IT’S TIME” Marriage Equality and Why I Support It (Updated)

November 28, 2014
Written by:
John Lord
2 Replies

On Wednesday November 26 Self-styled libertarian Senator David
Leyonhjelm introduced a Bill into the Australian Parliament to allow
same-sex marriage. In doing so Senator Leyonhjelm told reporters in
Canberra that Prime Minister Tony Abbott was “not enthusiastic” about
the same-sex marriage bill.

His argument was the government’s got plenty of troubles without this one coming along,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.

“He would prefer I didn’t [introduce the bill].”

Senator Leyonhjelm had a recent dinner meeting with Mr Abbott, where
the Prime Minister again “made plain” his opposition to same-sex
marriage.

The Bill will now have to be voted on. The Prime Minister is on the
record as saying that if the matter came up a conscience vote would be a
matter for the party room. At the present moment the LNP is on the nose
with the public. They are on the wrong side of every argument. Given
recent polls say that 70% of voters are in favor of marriage will they
risk yet another debacle?

.
Marriage Equality and Why I Support It

As of June 2014, 17 countries Argentina, Belgium, Brazil,Canada,
England (Wales and Scotland)France,Denmark, Iceland,Luxembourg, Mexico,
Netherlands,New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden
Uruguay and New Zealand allow same-sex couples to marry. In addition 20
US states in the USA support Gay Marriage. Civil Unions or Registered
Partnerships exist in around 25 others.

More recently the state of New South Wales in Australia voted to recognise gay marriages in other countries.

Some of the aforementioned countries have had same-sex marriage
legalised from one to ten years. The fabrics of their societies have not
unraveled; they haven’t been struck by lightning. They have not been
tormented by natural disasters, or the wrath of God. They have not
fallen off the face of the Earth and they have not tumbled into any sort
of moral abyss.

On the contrary, the experience seems to have been a positive one,
social harmony is constructive and the emotional, physical and sexual
health of gay people has improved. Some of these countries even feature
high in the” happiest countries” surveys and the divorce rate for gay
couples is better than that of heterosexuals. I have read the after
legislative experience of many of these nations and there is no evidence
that same-sex marriage will have catastrophic consequences for society.

Traditional Marriage

I recall last year reading a book titled “The History of Sex” and was
surprised to find that the early church debated for around 100 years
what was the most natural position for a women during intercourse.
Therefore, I was not at all surprised to find that when you research the
history of marriage it is littered with ongoing fundamental change. It
is rooted in several different ancient cultures including Roman, Hebrew,
Germanic and the medieval practices of the early church. It took the
Protestant reformation to transform it from church ownership to the
realm of government.

Early marriage had nothing to do with love but was more to do with
inheritance and ownership than anything was and, marriages were arranged
without the consent of the girl involved and more often when they
reached the age shortly after menstruation. In addition, we must keep in
mind that females in early society were treated with pro creation in
mind and not much more.

For a short history of marriage in western society, I recommend you Google “The Sex Atlas” Erwin J. Haeberle, Ph.D., (Ed.D.)

It is important for both those who oppose gay marriage (and any re
structure of the construct of the family) and those who support it to
understand that marriage in western civilisation has constantly been
subject to change, both by the church and by secular authorities. If you
take the time to research the history of marriage, you will find this
to be the case.

State of current marriage

The institution of marriage has changed dramatically over the past
several decades. In 1997, the average age a male married was 24 and by
2003 had increased to 31. For females, it was 21 and 29. This is partly
attributable to a rise in people who chose to cohabit prior to marriage
or as a substitute to marriage. In 1971, around 16% of people chose to
cohabit prior to marriage and this rose to 76% in 2007. Note. You can
find all relevant data on this subject on the ABS webb site.

On the one hand, Australia has an enormous marriage industry but on
the other 50% of marriages break down. Marriage is becoming increasingly
unpopular and some would argue in terminal decline. In Australia, there
are many reasons for this but the decreasing interest and membership of
churches is an important factor.

In the USA the number of married adults has dropped to about 52 percent
in 2008 from 72 percent in 1960 and 39 percent of Americans consider
marriage obsolete

Traditional marriage or marriage in its current state is a failed
institution (some believe it will become extinct) and becoming less and
less popular. Therefore one has to ask exactly what is it that needs
protection. On the other hand, we might ask do we need a new concept of
what marriage and the family should be.

Challenging the Christian Objection

Religion in Australia seems to have influence that outweighs its
relevancy. Once the church led the way in social morality but society
has overtaken it. Only 8% or less of the population attends church on
any given Sunday. In the previous census, 64% of the population
nominated themselves as Christian and a recent survey suggests that it
will be around 40% in the one currently being analysed.( note this may
be disputed because they are two different things) And of the 40%, only
20% practice their faith. The same survey said that a major turn off for
people was the church’s inability to accept gay people. If fact the
churches refusal to recognise homosexuality generally contributes,
further to its demise.

Therefore, Christianity has an influence that is disproportionate to its participation in a secular society.

The Christian faith teaches that all people are equal before God.
However, does the church actually participate in this affirmation? The
short answer is no.

Often you will hear Christians say ‘Oh we don’t dislike homosexuals we just hate the sin’

I have always found this to be infuriatingly condescending.

In a discussion with a Christian friend recently, it was said that there
were no homosexuals because God did not make any. It was also stated
that gay people chose to be that way and not because the were made that
way. This is indicative of the absurdity of the Christian argument. It
is a fact that some men and women for whatever reason choose a gay
lifestyle however the fact is that men and women are born homosexual the
same as heterosexuals are.

. During the last three decades, for example, organisations
representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors,
psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, and educators) have stated
definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual
orientation, that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of
yet unknown pre and post-natal influences, and that it is dangerous and
inappropriate to tell a homosexual that he or she could or should
attempt to change his or her sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice; it is primarily something
that takes place at birth. People do not decide to be gay just as in the
same way as one does not decide to become heterosexual.

Homosexuality can be observed and is common in the animal kingdom. Birds
do it, bees probably do it and fleas may do it, too. Among the many
examples are penguins, who have been known to form lifelong same-sex
bonds, dolphins and bonobos, which are bisexual apes. Various
explanations have been advanced for the evolutionary advantage that such
relationships might confer. For example, female Laysan albatrosses form
same-sex pairs, which are more successful at rearing chicks than single
females. But they may help preserve those of the group to which they
belong.

Animals unlike humans do not have moral free will, so it is difficult to
argue that they choose to be the way they are. So one could argue that
the existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom demonstrates that
it is not a sin against nature.

The crux of the Christian quarrel with homosexuality stems from the
interpretation of Biblical scripture. Alternatively, more precisely
selective interpretation mainly from Christians who see the Bible as
literally true. That the word of God is infallible.

If that were so, we would be practicing the following. DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21

If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

DEUTERONOMY 22:22

If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

MARK 10:1-12

Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

LEVITICUS 18:19

The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during
a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

MARK 12:18-27

If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have
intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her
deceased husband a male heir.

DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12

If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue
her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off
and no pity shall be shown her.

. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is
acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than
one wife) is acceptable, as is a king is having many concubines.
(Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex
with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as
property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other
hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth
control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one’s
parents nude. In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we
condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept

Personally, I have never understood the fundamental clash between
free will and liberalism. Christians will argue on the one hand that God
gave us free will but on the other insist that we interpret the Bible
literally. Surely, the two are incompatible. In any case any discussion
on free will cannot exclude determinism.

The way certain Bible verses are used to condemn homosexuality and
homosexuals is born out of ignorance. Jesus says nothing about same-sex
behavior. The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality. Only six
or seven of the Bible’s one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in
any way — and none of these verses refers to homosexual orientation, as
it is understood today.

Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about
homosexuality do not know where the verses that reference same-sex
behavior can be found. They have not read them, let alone studied them
carefully. They don’t know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew
or Greek. In addition, they haven’t tried to understand the historical
context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the
Bible condemns the practice has led to Christian homophobia. Moreover,
it must be remembered that word homosexuality is a recent addition to
the English language and is not used in the bible.

Now lets look at the most quoted verses used in support of the ante gay argument.

GENESIS 2:21-25

THE CREATION STORY

This creation story is primarily about God, a story written to show
the power of God who created the world and everything in it. It teaches
that ultimately God is the Creator, that God shaped the world.

What does the creation story say about homosexuality? Nothing actually
just like many other things. It does say that it is “natural” that a man
and a woman come together to create a new life. Some people take this
to mean that gay or lesbian couples are “unnatural.” They read this
interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all
kinds of relationships that don’t lead to having children:

• couples who are unable to have children

• couples who are too old to have children

• couples who choose not to have children

• people who are single

Are these relationships (or lack of relationships) “unnatural”? There’s
nothing said here that condemns or approves the love that people of the
same sex have for each other So I believe the creation story says a lot
about God’s power and presence in the universe — but nothing about
homosexuality as we understand it today.

Having said that I should point out that one would be hard pressed to
find many Christians in Australian mainstream churches who take the
creation story literally. Most are more inclined toward evolution.
Although in the USA 80% of people still believe in the creation story.

LEVITICUS 18:22 AND 20:13

THE HOLINESS CODE

Leviticus 18:6 reads.” You shall not lie with a male as one lies with
a female. It is an abomination.” A similar verse occurs two chapters
later, in Leviticus 20:13: “A man who sleeps with another man is an
abomination and should be executed.” On the surface, these words could
leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just
below the surface is the deeper truth — and it has nothing to do with
sex.

Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes
many outdated sexual laws. It also includes prohibitions against round
haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed
fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even
playing with the skin of a pig. So what is a holiness code? It’s a list
of behaviours that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and
time. In this case, the code was written for priests only,

What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In
Hebrew, “abominations” (TO’EBAH) are behaviours that people in a certain
time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an
abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder
forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behaviour by non-Jews
that Jews thought was displeasing to God.

Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain
to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull
the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness
code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality.

It’s important to remember that in every age, people of faith are
responsible for setting moral and ethical standards. Nevertheless,
people of faith must be very careful not to allow prejudices to
determine what those standards should be.

There are other Bible verses readily quoted from the Book of Romans and
of course the story of Sodom both of which can be shown to be
misinterpreted and not necessarily in a homosexual context. I think an
often-overlooked scripture that supports the existence of homosexuality
is Mathew 19 Verse 11 Jesus is talking about marriage and say’s ‘For
there are different reasons why men cannot marry. Some because they were
born that way.’

That to me is very compelling.

Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.

Misinterpreted the Bible has done terrible things. The Bible has been
misused to defend bloody crusades and tragic inquisitions; to support
slavery, apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other
non-Christian people of faith; to support Hitler’s Third Reich and the
Holocaust; to oppose medical science; to condemn interracial marriage;
to execute women as witches; and to support the Ku Klux Klan.
Shakespeare said it this way: “Even the devil can cite Scripture for his
purpose.

Its time we re defined the concept of family and allowed same sex marriage.

It is difficult in 2014 to believe that any sensible government would
not be swimming with the tide of public opinion. Over 70% of Australians
support same sex marriage. If the ALP is looking to resurrect its
popular base then surely they must return to their ideological roots and
support a change to the marriage act at its next national conference.

Gay people like heterosexual people fall in love with each other but
in this country are denied legal recognition within the institution of
marriage. Society say’s that it’s all right for gays to pay taxes, vote
or even die for their country but legal marriage is out of the question.

Yes, gay folk are real people with real hearts and their love for their
partners is just as precious as the love between a man and a woman.
Moreover, they want to get married for exactly the same reasons as
everyone else does. They’re in love. They want to make a commitment to
each other.

This is a matter of gender, equality, natural justice and human rights. I
do not see how allowing same-sex couples to get married hurts anyone
else. Marriage brings so much joy, not to mention for families and
friends. Every mum wants to see her son or daughter get married. It
should not make any difference if her kid is gay.

Research has shown that gay people make loving parents. Sexual
orientation makes no difference to one’s ability to parent. Hence gay
and lesbian couples can be just as good as parents as heterosexual
couples. Kids deserve the stability that comes with marriage. The whole
of society benefits with more love in the world. It is nonsense for
people to say that marriage will be devalued if consent is given to
homosexuals. Heterosexuals have already considerably damaged the
institution. It seems to me that if more people get married the more
relevant marriage will become.

Straight people don’t have to believe in God or go to church to get
married, so why is religion suddenly a big issue when we’re talking
about gays getting married? And most importantly, we’re talking about
civil marriage here, so it’s a civil rights issue. If the church does
not want to marry, gay people then so be it. They need not be compelled
to do so. Gay’s I am sure would be happy at the registry office. I do
concede though that Christian gays would prefer a religious church
ceremony.

Even if Christians believe the homosexual union of marriage is wrong
does it follow that they have the right to impose that view on an
Australian secular society.

The bottom line is that marriage is about love and commitment, a big
commitment. If someone is willing to make that kind of commitment, we
should not be stopping him or her. We should be saying “go for it”, and
“we’ll be there to support you every step of the way”.

“It’s really simple. If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex.”

In other words, why not allow gay marriage?

Recourses

The Bible.

Ending Sexual Apartheid Michael Kirby

The Gay Christian Network

Yahoo answers

Australian Labor Party

Like this:

Wednesday 26 November 2014

Another port in the storm: The real reason for the East West Link

Dr Matthew Mitchell 27 November 2014, 11:00am 13

Business Environment Politics Victoria

Share on facebook 73
Share on twitter 34
Share on linkedin 0
Share on reddit 0
Share on google_plusone_share
Share on email
More Sharing Services

With Victoria going to the polls on Saturday, Jenny Warfe and Dr Matthew Mitchell present compelling evidence the real reason for the East West Link is not road congestion but a superfluous new port project.

Victorian Premier Denis Napthine’s figurehead multi-billion dollar road project, Melbourne’s East West Link, does not make financial sense — at least, not in the way it is being presented to the public.

Even the Victorian Government’s top planners believe a rail tunnel would be a better investment.
So why is Napthine pushing it so hard? It seems the East West Link is
part of a much larger plan — a plan based on unsustainable growth and
dubious business models.

The East West Link is part of the Napthine government’s 2013 Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan. This plan also includes the Port of Hastings development.

The plan proposes (page 17) to

‘… secure Victoria’s position as the leading State for freight and logistics.’

As part of this plan, it is expected (page 29) that the Port of Hastings

‘… once fully developed, will be the largest container port in Australia’.

The Hastings port and the East West Link projects are linked by Premier Napthine in relation to port services in his video update on the Freight Plan launch, when he says:

“The plan encompasses two of the largest investments undertaken
in the state's history: the expansion of the Port of Hastings and the
development of East West Link. And these are vital for the future of our
state.”

The relationship of the Port and the East West road network are shown in the Freight Plan as follows:

The Plan argues that the proposal to develop both the Port and the
East West Link is sustainable. However, strong evidence suggests the
modelling the Plan is based on is not accurate.

For example, The Age on November 11 reported an independent study that suggested the East West Link will cost $17.8 billion:

‘A report by 10 leading transport planners and financial analysts
from three Melbourne universities concludes the East West price tag
will be "comparable" with the Wonthaggi desalination plant.’

But that is just cost for the road — added to that is the cost of the port development. A development that questioned by former Toll Holdings boss Paul Little (and still largest private shareholder) who was last year quoted as saying the Hastings Port option:

"… would not deliver the best outcome for Victoria, would be a
financial disaster for the freight industry... the proposal is deeply
flawed.

"The high cost of building a standard-gauge rail link to Hasting
and the construction of suitable freeway access would be excessive and
difficult, if not impossible, to justify."

A further concern in this regard is that it appears that ports in
general are based on a somewhat vulnerable business model. Two of the
companies involved in operating Australia’s ports ‒ Patrick - Asciano and DP World Australia ‒ almost went broke after the Global Financial Crisis, with headlines such as:

‘Price collapse makes Asciano shares virtually worthless’

And they seem to have struggled to recover since, with reports
that Asciano suffered a bottom-line loss of $244 million in 2008-09,
quadrupling in 2009-10 to $976 million. This ‘successful’ growth
business also received $18 million from taxpayers in 2014, yet still laid off 30% of its workforce.

For its part, DP World made losses of $74 million in 2011, $32 million in 2012 and $68 million in 2013.

And these losses are on top of the fact that the most expensive port
expansion projects are paid for by Victorian taxpayers — such as Channel Deepening, $1 billion; Webb Dock expansion, $1.5 billion and so on. Of course, if there is a major oil spill or contamination by exotic organisms ‒ something that, according to Dr Tim Lowe, costs the planet over $10 billion annually ‒ then costs may escalate substantially. Not to mention the pollution from both trucks and ships, which burn a particularly dirty form of fuel in our bays of coasts, producing pollution equivalent to 350,000 cars.

Finally in regard to sustainability, the Government’s proposal seems
to take no account of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
shipping. Only the U.S., China, Russia, India and Japan emit more carbon dioxide than the world’s shipping fleet.

Taking into account that the Port of Hastings model depends on a
massive growth projection of imports, the “sustainability” claim looks
dodgier and dodgier.

The Port of Melbourne currently handles around 2.5 million containers a year. The Port of Hastings proposal anticipates handling
nine million containers a year, with double the number of truck trips
on Melbourne roads — thus the need for the East West Link.

This projection by the Government’s plan is also not consistent with
expected population growth. The plan anticipates a 360% increase in
container traffic, yet Victoria’s population growth over the same period (to 2060) is only projected to be a 62% increase.

A strange irony is that the East West Link may yet be funded by the sale of the Port of Melbourne.

So what should happen?

Well, without the Port of Hastings proposal, the case for the
East West Link road seems much weaker than it already is. It is really
doubtful that such a port is necessary, or that it will reach the
expected freight targets.

Every state in Australia has similar plans for ports; there is no shortage of ports and port growth plans.

The problem seems to arise from the lack of a national port strategy.
It may make far more sense to develop ports in the north of Australia
and then rail freight containers down from there.

This is the proposal put forward by the Port Philip Conservation Council in which they suggest (PPCC Policy Statement 17):

Loading and unloading larger ships at Hub port Singapore, or
existing deep water ports (Darwin, Fremantle, Brisbane etc.), which are
all much closer to Australia’s present major Asian trading partners.
Running smaller fuel-efficient ships to and from those ports.
Much more interstate rail and also ‘dry ports’ (Brisbane-Melbourne rail link, Parkes Inland Port etc), and
Port operators being required to have a national approach in siting
assets, and in investing in Australia-wide rail and joint port
operations, noting that Tasmania is a special case, but that its scale
will continue to be very small.

But will any of our politicians, state or federal, explore these options?

Will they even consider the issues above? Or will they instead take the advice of the IPA on how to deal with people who raise environmental concerns?

That is:

“Let’s call them fruitcakes. Let’s call them nut—nutters …. let’s absolutely go for them.”

Let us assume that with goodwill something can, and will, be done.
Then if as a nation we are going to pursue never-ending growth ‒ what George Monbiot calls ‘the insatiable god’ ‒ we need to consider the role of state government competition.

Note, such competition is not unique to ports. Water is another area
where states compete with each other. In both cases state competition
complicates already difficult issues.

In the case of ports, however, this has led to our overabundance of
ports, all seeking to expand their traffic. Indeed, this is discussed
specifically in relation to Queensland in a Centre of Policy Development
2013 report called Too Many Ports in a Storm.

So, progress on our problem with ports may require similar thinking
to that applied to our river systems. And perhaps the only way to
eliminate state competition is through major Constitutional reform.

Such reform has been argued for by Professor George Williams in regard to river systems.

Until we overcome the self-centred ambitions of our state
governments, the negative effects can be expected to continue. These are
increasingly impacting us in a variety of ways ranging from global
climate change to our local roads and, finally, to our individual
health.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

LIBERALS IN GOVERNMENT

Politics,Climate Change and Sundry issues

Saturday 29 November 2014