The tribes of Israel

The latest Essential Research poll turns up a mixed bag of views on the Israel Folau controversy. Also featured: prospects for an indigenous recognition referendum and yet more Section 44 eruptions.

The latest of Essential Research’s fortnightly polls, which continue to limit themselves to issue questions in the wake of the great pollster failure, focuses mostly on the Israel Folau controversy. Respondents registered high levels of recognition of the matter, with 22% saying they had been following it closely, 46% that they had “read or seen some news”, and another 17% saying they were at least “aware”.

Probing further, the poll records very strong support for what seem at first blush to be some rather illiberal propositions, including 64% agreement with the notion that people “should not be allowed to argue religious freedom to abuse others”. However, question wording would seem to be very important here, as other questions find an even split on whether Folau “has the right to voice his religious views, regardless of the hurt it could cause others” (34% agree, 36% disagree), and whether there should be “stronger laws to protect people who express their religious views in public” (38% agree, 38% disagree). Furthermore, 58% agreed that “employers should not have the right to dictate what their employees say outside work”, which would seem to encompass the Folau situation.

Respondents were also asked who would benefit and suffer from the federal government’s policies over the next three years, which, typically for a Coalition government, found large companies and corporations expected to do best (54% good, 11% bad). Other results were fairly evenly balanced, the most negative findings relating to the environment (26% good, 33% bad) and, funnily enough, “older Australians” (26% good, 38% bad). The economy came in at 33% good and 29% bad, and “Australia in general” at 36% good and 27% bad. The poll was conducted last Tuesday to Saturday from a sample of 1099.

Also of note:

• A referendum on indigenous recognition may be held before the next election, after Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ken Wyatt’s announcement on Wednesday that he would pursue a consensus option for a proposal to go before voters “during the current parliamentary term”. It is clear the government would not be willing to countenance anything that went further than recognition, contrary to the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s call for a “First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution” – a notion derided as a “third chamber of parliament” by critics, including Scott Morrison.

• A paper in the University of Western Australia Law Review keeps the Section 44 pot astir by suggesting 26 current members of federal parliament may fall foul by maintaining a “right of abode” in the United Kingdom – a status allowing “practically the same rights” as citizenship even where citizenship has been formally renounced. The status has only been available to British citizens since 1983, but is maintained by citizens of Commonwealth countries who held it before that time, which they could do through marriage or descent. This could potentially be interpreted as among “the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power”, as per the disqualifying clause in Section 44. Anyone concerned by this has until the end of the month to challenge an election result within the 40 day period that began with the return of the writs on June 21. Action beyond that point would require referral by the House of Representatives or the Senate, as appropriate.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,966 comments on “The tribes of Israel”

Comments Page 10 of 40
1 9 10 11 40
  1. Too verbose, could you tell us in 1-2 sentences what your trying to say please?

    You are the last person I would take advice from around here, dickhead. Talk about pompous gits… sheesh…

    If you have trouble reading, buy a comic.

  2. Jeez are people still spruiking Folau’s ‘rights’?

    He over-reached and breached a contract that happened to be well paying. He isn’t alone in that history, even recent history – Scott McIntyre anyone?

    Yet the moaning and groaning about his ‘rights’ is just ridiculous. He was an employee. He breached the code of conduct of his employer. He was let go. End of story. Move on and stop wasting the rest of our time with your outpouring of misplaced grief. Yeesh!

  3. guytaur says:
    Friday, July 12, 2019 at 9:58 pm

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-12/household-income-and-wealth-abs-data-shows-rich-are-richer/11302696

    This is the inevitable consequence of applying the Bob Brown guide to Australian politics. The Greens (of Green Valley) have dismembered the plurality for social democracy. It no longer exists. They have green-anted social and economic justice. The result is intensified repression of labour. The polite term for this is an increase in inequality. But what it really means is that labour repression and exploitation have become more pronounced. This is life in Green Valley, wherein we will all perish.

  4. Bushfire Bill says:
    Friday, July 12, 2019 at 10:06 pm
    Too verbose, could you tell us in 1-2 sentences what your trying to say please?

    You are the last person I would take advice from aroubd here, dickhead. Talk about pompous gits… sheesh…
    ____________________
    Love ya you old codger! Good to see you’ve still got a bit of spark left in you whilst waiting in God’s waiting room!

    Magnificent!

  5. BB

    Stop arguing the anti gay case then.
    Accept the lived experience and the expert advice. Not your judgement of what harms LGBTI people but what they tell you.

    You keep dismissing the LGBTI view as “goody two shoes”. Or some other label i n an attempt to discredit the argument being made.

    The fact is I don’t want to live in a theocracy. That means taking religion more out of our secular society. The current place of privilege is diminishing at long last. Despite the Folau ACL Pushback.

  6. Get this everybody…”None of you are going to heaven, yes you over there the gay and you the atheist, you too Mr Fornicator.” Well should I lose my job for saying that? What load of bourgeois crap!

  7. clem attlee @ #456 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 10:11 pm

    Get this everybody…”None of you are going to heaven, yes you over there the gay and you the atheist, you too Mr Fornicator.” Well should I lose my job for saying that? What load of bourgeois crap!

    Whatever you’re holding on to tonight,
    You know it’s yours

  8. Clem

    Rugby Australia the organisation disagrees with you.
    They have listened to the LGBTI community. Submissions made by people like Ian Roberts.

    Listen to Sally Rugg a spokes person. I am not alone with this view.

  9. guytaur says:
    Friday, July 12, 2019 at 10:10 pm
    BB

    Stop arguing the anti gay case then.
    Accept the lived experience and the expert advice. Not your judgement of what harms LGBTI people but what they tell you.

    You keep dismissing the LGBTI view as “goody two shoes”. Or some other label i n an attempt to discredit the argument being made.

    The fact is I don’t want to live in a theocracy. That means taking religion more out of our secular society. The current place of privilege is diminishing at long last. Despite the Folau ACL Pushback.
    ____________________________
    You don’t want to live in a theocracy – down town Tehran can be pretty stifling I guess to live in!

  10. clem

    There’s actually a neat connection there between Folau and your sports comments.

    Your argument on one hand is that the sportsperson who brings in the money gets the benefits.

    The other side of that is, of course, that if a sportsperson is costing the game money, they should suffer the consequences.

    People who objected to Folau’s comments exercised their freedom of speech, as is their right, to put pressure on the financiers of ARU, who obviously decided that Folau was costing them (in good will, if nothing else) more than he was worth. So they exercised their own rights, to employ who they wanted to employ, and got rid of an employee who was an economic loss to them.

    So, really, freedom of speech worked the way you argue freedom of speech should work.

  11. …given the way that sporting associations kick and scream and fight every step of the way to retain obviously dodgy sportspeople no matter how obvious and heinous their ‘crime’, Folau mustn’t have been worth very much to ARU.

  12. Jonathan SwanVerified account@jonathanvswan
    46m46 minutes ago
    Sources familiar with the situation say the president’s Supreme Court adviser Leonard Leo and other Federalist Society stalwarts were shocked and floored by how “weak” the decision was.

    https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-census-citizenship-question-conservative-reaction-5a2d3a27-ed8e-4a75-96ca-c89f68379a82.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twsocialshare&utm_campaign=organic

    #ETTD

  13. zoomster @ #461 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:18 pm

    …given the way that sporting associations kick and scream and fight every step of the way to retain obviously dodgy sportspeople no matter how obvious and heinous their ‘crime’, Folau mustn’t have been worth very much to ARU.

    It’s mostly Old White Men who are whingeing and complaining about Folau. The rest of the population are asking him to walk a mile in their shoes before they ark about much ado about nothing.

  14. Briefly @ 461

    “This is the inevitable consequence of applying the Bob Brown guide to Australian politics.”

    I respecfully suggest that we don’t do what you are accusing the Greens of doing.

    Here is the enemy:

  15. fess

    Indeed. I find it fascinating how little they understand the rights they’re banging on about.

    Some of the greatest thinkers of the age have grappled with these issues, but we’ll just ignore them because it’s inconvenient…

  16. The biggest problem in environmental destruction may well be greed. But the biggest problem in environmental politics is the Greens.

    They are campaign accessories for the Greedy-Brand at all times and in all places.

  17. I find it fascinating how little they understand the rights they’re banging on about.

    The rights they’re banging on about are the same rights Yassmin and her followers argued for. And many others to boot. I have to say as someone who defended McIntyre’s sacking at the time, it’s amusing at least to see the culture warriors whine and moan about Folau.

  18. Fess

    The arguments defending Folau and his “right” not to be sacked are imported from the US.
    They stack up less here than they do there. Just read that GoFundMe statement. Bearing in mind that organisation is based in the US with its First Amendment.

  19. “[Folau] over-reached and breached a contract that happened to be well paying….

    Yet the moaning and groaning about his ‘rights’ is just ridiculous. He was an employee. He breached the code of conduct of his employer. “

    Firstly, his contractual case is what is being decided right now in FWA. If he breached the CoC then he’s lost his job. No-one’s disputing that.

    But his contractual rights are different from his right to express his religious beliefs, provided he accepts the consequences of doing so.

    If he believes in God, Hell, Rugby and sin, and believes that homosexuality is against his God’s instruction then who can say he’s not entitled to believe that, provided he accepts the consequences of doing so?

    It’s so easy to deny him this basic common law right, but wait until someone tries to restrict your beliefs, Fess (or Guytaur, or Psyclaw). You might not be so quick to agree with silencing others, purely for their beliefs.

    We’ve all been guilty of assuming our own prejudices aren’t really prejudices at all, but immutable laws based on reason, science and moral certainty. But this is true only very rarely, if at all.

    My own first inclination was to condemn Folau for his beliefs: chapter and Verse Lefty moral positioning.

    But as I’ve seen the debate move left and right to both extremes, and widen into Culture War territory, I’ve changed my attitude. There’s a chance of real damage being done – being brought on in fact – by intransigence on both sides.

    Guytaur has admitted above that he’s not against just Folau. He’s against religion too (the “theoracy” comment). It seems this “debate” is a proxy for a far wider one.

    Nothing is guaranteed to get the Right’s back up more than that. And don’t forget the Right is in government at present. When someone more important than a blog poster with a chip on his shoulder starts publicising the anti-religion view as part of the Folau argument, you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a nasty backlash.

  20. ‘But his contractual rights are different from his right to express his religious beliefs, provided he accepts the consequences of doing so.

    If he believes in God, Hell, Rugby and sin, and believes that homosexuality is against his God’s instruction then who can say he’s not entitled to believe that, provided he accepts the consequences of doing so?’

    Exactly so.

    As an ex-Christian, from much the same traditions as Folau, I’m a little surprised at how much he’s whinging about being sacked.

    He should be proud. He’s stood up for his faith, and should accept the consequences.

    After all, he’s meant to be trying to score points for the Hereafter, not accumulate temporal wealth.

  21. BB

    We live in a secular society. Imposing the “Religious Freedom” Bill removes freedom from religion.

    This is why Folau will lose. He is free to practise his religion in his church. He is not free to publish on Instagram.

    I at least am trying to establish a higher bar than his employer doesn’t like him or think he is suddenly costing more than he is earning. Reasons which are perfectly reasonable and logical for a business to make.

  22. But his contractual rights are different from his right to express his religious beliefs, provided he accepts the consequences of doing so.

    The man has always been free to express his religious beliefs. Just not when it undermines his contractual obligations.

  23. clem

    It would help if you made it explicit what you’re referring to.

    I was just demonstrating how your own arguments actually end up justifying Folau’s sacking.

    Sorry if that hurts.

  24. This is why Folau will lose. He is free to practise his religion in his church. He is not free to publish on Instagram.

    In the second part of the above statement, you are exactly wrong, both contractually and socially.

    He can do and say what he likes, provided he is prepared to accept the consequences.

    And nothing he has done so far is against the law. At worst what he’s said is against his contract. He can’t be validly imprisoned or fined, or even charged with any crime. That’s why no-one’s tried it.

  25. BB

    No one has said that. We have only talked about the ARU sacking Folau.
    There is no prison unless the “religious freedom” Bill makes it like Indonesia Blasphemy laws. They have a prison sentence

    Edit: to be crystal clear to you I am not suggesting they do.

  26. In brighter news…

    Bad blood between media chiefs and the Morrison government deepened on Friday after Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton rejected demands to drop police action against three high-profile journalists and implied the reporters committed a crime by receiving top-secret documents.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/limited-information-available-to-me-attorney-general-walks-away-from-afp-claims-20190712-p526oa.html

    Trust Dutton to fuck it up.

    He goes out of his way to upset the government’s media allies over a “My balls are bigger than yours” shitfight.

    They have a 1-seat majority and think it’s a rock solid 99 year lease on power. This is what happened with Turnbull’s demise too. Dutton thought the punters would live him, when even his own party puked at the thought of him as PM.

    Morrison can’t afford to sack Dutton, or shut him up (even if he wanted to, which is debatable). This government’s beginning to crack quicker than I had hoped.

  27. BB

    It will happen faster if a lawyer has an S44 prepared against Dutton. Also a couple of others. I don’t think the 40 days are up.

  28. Guytaur, I’m tired of arguing with you. But don’t take that statement as any kind of concession.

    I just know how stubborn and dishonest you can be. You wear out everybody’s patience and good intentions with your lies and deliberate misconstructions. It’s pointless continuing.

  29. BB

    I never mentioned prison and I am the one lying 😆

    I am not going away. I am going to stand up for myself and won’t be bullied by you.

    I’m here I’m Queer get used to it.

  30. clem attlee @ #300 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 6:41 pm

    Players like Ronaldo, Kane amd Messi earn huge wages because they have a huge audience, so advertisers pay huge amount to sponsor their product, the women… not so much. When women’s football generates the same income, then they will get the same money.

    And so on goes the age old sexist argument…. how many times has that old chestnut been used to justify the low pay for women’s work?

    Football is a multi-trllion dollar industry, which would not exist if women were not directly and indirectly supporting it. That female footballers get paid a pittance is not justified because male players attract sponsorship and advertising money. There are many other channels of revenue in that sport, enough to pay female footballers decent wages and prizes. Individual elite male players make enough personally, as it is.

    And then there is my theory: Sport is simply a mechanism for men to transfer resources, including wealth, to other men, denying women access to these resources on a construct of inferiority of the female sports.

  31. Pufftmd, we are not talking about female cleaners here, or migrant textile piece workers. We are talking about multi millionaire athletes, who I might add are not worth ten percent of what they earn. Also,your reference to women being pivotal to the success of male football leagues tenuous at best. How so, apart from being punters in the stands?

  32. Greensborough Growler @ #306 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 6:47 pm

    clem attlee @ #303 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 7:14 pm

    Guytaur the US World Cup side would get smashed 10 0 by a men’s conference side. There is no comparison between what do and what top class men footballers do. It is an inferior product. Plus men have been building their product for over a hundred years. Have to laugh when some twits even suggested that the WAFL should have wage parity with men. Head in hands muttering.

    They don’t charge for entry.

    It’s a drug deal for the Media.

    You don’t pay till you’re addicted.

    The men have been building their game for over a hundred years on the backs of unpaid and low paid women’s labour. In the home, the clubs and the organisations. Men had a hundred years, or hundreds of years, of head-start while the women have been wearing a ball and chain around their ankles.

    Any man who can crow about that sort of advancement of their area of interest needs to get a mirror and have a good hard look at himself, Clem.

Comments Page 10 of 40
1 9 10 11 40

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *