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.
It is always sort of amusing when whitefellas get around to talking seriously with other whitefellas about ‘race’ on behalf of blackfellas.
As one blackfellas said, wtte, when he was a kid in the playground and getting bashed up for being a ‘coon’, no whitefella present had any confusion about ‘race’.
Ice for play lunch will be safe because it will have been tested for purity.
Sometimes, Boerwar, your perspective is incredibly puerile.
Unfortunately the link to the George Williams paper cited no longer works.
Boerwar:
The point in reference to Senator McGrath is that race is already in the Constitution.
Boerwar @ #794 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 4:02 pm
I wonder if we will ever see a subject discussed on PB on which you do not know more than the experts?
About the same chance as with guytaur or Nicholas, I guess. 🙂
Confession
McGrath is the sort of person who has never in his life had any difficulty recognizing the difference between whitefellas and blackfellas.
Does anyone know if there is pill testing at the Big Red Bash?
Maybe check Garrett’s pockets.
Redlands Mowerman @ #595 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 4:24 pm
I think a few people have dropped Puerile Pills today. 😐
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/10638732
These are a couple of really scary, but necessary reads:
Uncle Trump Wants You! (To Join His Troll Army)
The White House meme summit was a circus. But you shouldn’t dismiss it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/trump-twitter.html?em_pos=small&ref=headline&nl_art=2&te=1&nl=opinion-today&emc=edit_ty_20190712?campaign_id=39&instance_id=10857&segment_id=15151&user_id=a91bf1b405424bbaec95cc9b66658064®i_id=70388838emc=edit_ty_20190712
And:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/this-man-helped-build-the-trump-meme-army-and-now-he-wants-t
Mavis Davis @ #789 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 3:35 pm
And some people think he’s in the wrong party.
He ain’t his brother that’s for sure.
‘Nicholas says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 4:59 pm
Lead researcher Fiona Measham, a professor of criminology at Durham University, said by identifying toxic and potentially lethal contaminants, the pill testing service was able to reduce drug use and “therefore reduce drug-related harm”.’
The conceptual problem with this is that it assumes that pill testing is somehow isolated physically, socially and economically from general drug policy when we all know that this is not even nearly true.
Boer
Pill testing saves lives. Let’s save the lives and quibble about the rest later, rather than doing the quibbling and allowing people to die while we sort it out.
‘zoomster says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 6:02 pm
Boer
Pill testing saves lives. Let’s save the lives and quibble about the rest later, rather than doing the quibbling and allowing people to die while we sort it out.’
Who’s ‘quibbling’? Not me. I don’t accept the proposition that you can isolate pill testing policy from a general national drug policy. All the comments above assume that it is axiomatic that pill testing is an isolated behaviour with no consequences. This is, IMO, intellectually dishonest.
One of the questions that posters have consistently refused to address is this. ‘How young is too young in the pill testing context?’
The reason that that answer has been dodged is because there are a slew of policy issues around pill testing that the pill testing proponents don’t want to know about.
Pill testing effectively paves the way for the legalization of all drug use in the context of Raves. Pill testing, as proposed, does not discriminate as to either age or drug types. It encourages youth to think that if the pill has been tested it will do no damage to the user’s brain. They might not die but parts of their brain might just die.
Approving pill testing will inevitably be used to seek legitimacy for other drug use in other contexts.
Morrison is already talking about being interested in ‘practical’ Indigenous issues. This is a re-run of Howard’s ‘practical reconciliation’.
This is whitefella code for:
1. I am not going to let blackfellas set the agenda.
2. I don’t want to even acknowledge that blackfellas can have their own priorities.
3. I don’t want to hand any real power over to blackfellas.
4. The process of trying to destroy Indigenous values and Indigenous culture will continue for as long as I have anything to do with it.
If Wyatt has not woken up now, he will never wake up.
Wyatt should immediately go to Morrison and tell him that if does not return the Voice and the Treaty into Consultation then he, Wyatt, will resign from the ministry.
C@tmomma:
[‘I kind of think that didn’t happen.’]
I can’t take issue with you thereof. It seems to me, however, that the poster, without more, has a very strong interest in indigenous affairs.
Boerwar @ #813 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 6:13 pm
It is quite unbelievable that anyone would seriously propose this kind of “slippery slope” argument. On any issue.
Next, I predict we will hear about “gateway drugs”.
Some people have apparently learned nothing in the last half century or so 🙁
mundo:
[‘He ain’t his brother that’s for sure.’]
I wonder when they get together all’s tickety-boo? As a lad, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel was de rigueur, compelling.
Player One @ #605 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 6:21 pm
Yet they state their pov with such seeming authority.
Suffice to say, the straw man argument about age is absolutely not the point one should be hanging their argument hat on.
The point is, that society should be targeting the users where there is a high concentration of them and high likelihood that drugs are going to be consumed.
Whatever their age!
And, as for the slippery slope argument, how does that equate with the general downward trend of drug consumption over the last decade by our youth, as measured by the annual Australian Drug Survey, but the upward trend of availability?
If the slippery slope argument had legs we would be seeing more drug users, taking advantage of the increased availability. Not less.
So, what we have to do is target those places where lots of drugs are going to be taken. And minimise the harm caused by what will be done anyway.
No matter what age the users are because their age is irrelevant!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/13/new-zealand-begins-first-round-of-gun-buybacks-after-christchurch-attack?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1563004361
‘He ain’t his brother that’s for sure.’
Because Ben Wyatt isn’t Ken Wyatt’s brother. He’s his Nephew.
Boer
I’m happy to look at legitimising the use of drugs in some contexts, as they have in Portugal. Because the evidence is that it saves lives – and actually reduces drug use.
So the slippery slope stuff isn’t really that scary.
We either do evidence based policy or we base policy on feelpinions. We either listen to experts or we get rid of them, because they have no role to play.
In this case, both the evidence and the experts are clear on the way forward. Not only that, the proposed actions have been tested and found to work – by saving lives.
You can’t prevent someone who has already decided to take an illegal drug from taking it. You can give them the opportunity to decide NOT to take it, because they’ve had it tested. If nothing else, the process delays the taking of the drug, which in some cases will be all that’s necessary to stop them taking it, full stop.
So the allegedly rebounding Sydney and Melbourne property market is due to the “scomo effect” according to nine news Sydney
In fact, there is evidence to show that making drugs legal leads to a decrease in their use because it is no longer a rebellious thing to do for young people. And young people are these days very well aware of the harm they cause.
Don Key:
Thanks for qualifying that; it’s instructive.
Call me reactionary, but I can see no justification for a change in the parliamentary system to accommodate any special interest group. That joint is already dysfunctional with 500,000 or so hayseeds supporting the Nationals to return 10 seats to them in the Reps, while 1.4 Million Green voters get just one House of Reps seat. Sure, the Senate balances this out a little, but I can see no virtue in adding a complicating factor such as 3% of the population getting representation other than through the same rat-bag organisation we already have. I am not a Green voter or supporter but I see malapportionment of voting power when I see it.
I am in favour of a Treaty along the lines of that what happened in NZ, but then, the locals in NZ were inclined to thump anyone who tried to take their land away from them…………………….The British were not stupid and recognised an able foe when they met one.
Henry @ #611 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 6:37 pm
Only insofar as Josh Frydenburg has told the banks they can loosen their lending criteria again.
And to add to the debate, I am not into tribal law being part of our legal system in any kind of formal way.
One thing to keep in mind is that very very often it is not the ‘illegal drug’ which is the killer it is the shit adulterating it . The adulteration basically caused BECAUSE the drug is illegal.
Old Mavis is going to be on his best behaviour tonight – well, perhaps(?).
Boerwar says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 6:13 pm
As pill testing is a State issue it’s outside any National framework.
Why should there be an age barrier to it?
It seems you really don’t understand what is being proposed in relation to it.
It not just the testing of the pills.
It also takes the position that all illicit drug taking is dangerous, counsels the prospective users as to those dangers, something they may be unaware of and allows the person to make a more informed choice as whether they want take the risk.
Finally as we all know injecting rooms have completely legitimised heroin usage¿
Don’t do it Mavis!!!
Tricot:
[‘…while 1.4 Million Green voters get just one House of Reps seat.’]
I blame preferential voting for this state of affairs, unknown in most countries. I’m inclined to first past the post.
zoomster
Let’s get to tin tacks here.
1. Would you legalize Ice?
2. Would you set age limits on its use?
Boerwar @ #833 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 6:50 pm
And now, strawmen arguments. How low will we go on this?
Outside left:
[‘Don’t do it Mavis!!!’]
Okay, I’ll try not to be objective.
@Henry
Or just because Tax Time has ended ?
Boer
I’m not qualified to make those decisions. I leave them to the experts.
BiM
It is obvious that we are going round in circles. The basic reason is that you want to argue pill testing from the narrow constraints of Rave parties. I want to draw out the broader policy implications.
1. A national approach would include the states and the Feds so no need for legalisms in the broader policy discussion.
2. If pill testing is basically legalizing drug use you have some threshold questions to address. Would you approve ten year olds using Ice, heroin, ecstacy? If not that age, what age? If not all drugs, which drugs? The broader policy question here demonstrates the basic fallacy of pill testing. You will still need rules.
3. Proponents of pill testing routinely ignore the obvious links to broader drug policy. This leaves the rest of us to guess where they want to take this next. But it is not that hard to guess.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that ice is not a drug of choice at these events and so is not a focus of pill testing.
‘zoomster says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 6:54 pm
Boer
I’m not qualified to make those decisions. I leave them to the experts.’
Who said you were qualified to make those decisions. What I was asking was your opinion.
1. Would you legalize Ice?
2. Would you set age limits on its use?
Because pill testing as currently being proposed ignores both these issues.
Barney in Makassar @ #628 Saturday, July 13th, 2019 – 7:00 pm
Exactly. However, in trying to muddy the waters with his straw man, Boerwar is drawing a very long bow of equivalence between the two.
‘Barney in Makassar says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 7:00 pm
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that ice is not a drug of choice at these events and so is not a focus of pill testing.’
So, a fifteen year old does barrel up with Ice for testing. What do you do?
And I AM qualified in the area of drug taking and its effects on the human body, plus being a mum who has had an intimate front row seat to observe dance party goers of my son’s acquaintance. Yet Boerwar is continuing to ignore my opinion.
Would we call First Australians a ‘special interest group’ in the same way farmers and environmentalists are given that the former has a history of dispossession and oppression in ways the latter do not when it comes to a parliamentary voice?
‘If pill testing is basically legalizing drug use ..’
Which it isn’t, so move on.
3. So what? It’s not what is presently being proposed. Let’s look at what’s on the table, rather than gazing into crystal balls to make predictions about where it all might lead. The slippery slope, thin edge of the wedge argument is a scare tactic, not one based on evidence, expert advice, experience or anything really, other than the creation of bogey men to scare the children.
Boer
‘So, a fifteen year old does barrel up with Ice for testing. What do you do?’
Everyone who rocks up for testing is (a) already breaking the law; (b) intends to take the drug.
In this case, the fifteen year old’s life may be saved because they have the drug tested.
The alternative is that they take the drug anyway.
So, a fifteen year old does barrel up with Ice for testing. What do you do?
As Ice is commonly injected or smoked in an Ice pipe, it would be a highly unlikely event to happen at a dance party. You would have to openly consume the drug. As opposed to a young person popping a pill orally.
You would be more likely to find a 15 year old Ice user in an Indigenous Community, far, far away from a dance party. Or some other lower social demographic area. They generally wouldn’t have enough money for a dance party ticket AND Ice.
But hey, that’s just reality and Boerwar is refusing to deal with that.
Boerwar says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 7:00 pm
Funny that, considering that is what pill testing is about.
As I said earlier, pill testing has never been advocated as a solution, it’s a means of trying to deal with a particular problem, so saying it shouldn’t go ahead because it doesn’t deal with issues it was never designed to deal with is a nonsense.
My basic proposition is pill testing policies cannot be isolated from general drug policies because there will be inevitable policy and practical flow throughs.
Arguing ‘outcomes’ for pill testing in isolation while ignoring these policy and practical flow throughs is poor policy formation.
There is an essential contradiction at the heart of pill testing proposals and the practical and policy flow throughs. Not one proponent of pill testing is prepared to argue for open slather any time, any drug, any age. At the same time none of these proponents will go anywhere near the other side of this contradiction: putting limits on any drug use by anyone at any place at any age.
‘Zoomster says:
Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 7:07 pm
Boer
‘So, a fifteen year old does barrel up with Ice for testing. What do you do?’
Everyone who rocks up for testing is (a) already breaking the law; (b) intends to take the drug.
In this case, the fifteen year old’s life may be saved because they have the drug tested.
The alternative is that they take the drug anyway.’
A ten year old barrels up with Ice. What do you do?