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.
Zoomster “so many crackpot ideas to quash, so many martyrs to create and oh so little time.”
clem
‘Guytaur the US World Cup side would get smashed 10 0 by a men’s conference side. There is no comparison between what they do and what top class men footballers do..’
Spent last Sunday standing next to a number of extremely knowledgeable soccer fans, all men, one of whom is fairly high up in the administration at state level.
They were all blown away by the women’s soccer.
No, they can’t do what men do – they play a different game, which (according to these guys), is in many ways superior and more interesting to watch than the men’s.
Difference is the key. Different skills, styles and approaches. Some people enjoy one approach more than the other.
Anyway, what’s happening re the Pell appeal ..?
Rex
I was just thinking the same.
None of what you say, Zoomster supports in any way the fact that they should be paid the same as men. Would those men fork out $60 to watch them? probably not. And that explains why they will never be paid the same as men?
Nicholas @7.09pm
”Gay teens are more likely to experience mental health struggles and self-harm and more likely to suicide than heterosexual teens. The reason is a culture of rejection and stigmatisation”
Well said.
I hope BB reads your post. That is the precise point. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about the development of sexual identity and preference by young people knows this.
And the reason it is so difficult for them is because there are so many who share BB’s and Folau’s and their ilk’s prejudice and ignorance. And in the worst cases the ignorance and prejudice ( which of course is homophobia …. nothing more, nothing less) actually comes from members of their own families.
mh
I think individual sports are different. So women’s tennis and athletics are much the same for me in watchability as the men’s. But the soccer (and AFL) are vastly different. It doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it but the team comparison is dramatic.
clem
‘He has the right to express his crackpot ideas and you have the right to call him out on it..’
Ah, but there’s the balance of power thing, too. I can call Folau out, but I don’t have the audience, the reach or the money he does, so he will speak and I won’t be heard.
The original idea of freedom of speech was a ‘top up’ thing – I am allowed to criticise the king without him throwing me in prison. The king already had all the freedom of speech he needed, and his power to quash the ordinary person’s was infinitely greater.
Freedom of speech is being turned on its head, to give power back to the ‘kings’ and take it away from the people. That’s an extremely dangerous turn of events – and the Nazis would be applauding.
Psyclaw… what about us atheists..? We have feelings too you know!
BK and Rex.
Do we know the dates? I either missed or forgot them if published.
zoomster @ #352 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:12 pm
Clem’s proposition is still valid.
Ultimately, it’s all about the money.
Soccer and AFLW and anything else only survives in the long term if it produces eyeballs and people prepared to pay for the privilege to watch.
Can see a niche. But, not mainstream in the long run.
1950s – the Communist Party murdered millions in the USSR (actually true). Communism is hate speech. It must be banned. The Left opposes and wins.
2019 – a Footie player quotes the Bible. Hate speech etc. Pillory him. The Left supports.
Zoomster that made no sense at all… ‘a top up thing’? WTF? Basically you are happy for a person to suffer loss so long as they are expressing an idea that you oppose. It would be different of course if someone suffered loss for expressing an idea that you supported. Then you would be calling for everyone to rush to the barricades.
GG
Google it yourself. In the US the women’s team gets more revenue than the men’s team. It’s that team making all the publicity about equal pay at the moment. Maybe because for FIFA it’s a bigger market expansion than Australia
Female supermodels get paid ten times as much as the top male models.
GG gets it!
zoomster @ #358 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:17 pm
He gets to speak his rubbish and every one shrugs and moves on.
You’re jealous because he has an audience.
But, you talk to people who are listening.
So, who has the most impact in the end?
GG/Psyclaw:
First, BB’s an old has been, his musings, like yours, dated, predicated on, I think, on Catholicism.
[‘Now BB is quoting a famous architect, a PhD in architecture, to support his own ill informed views about the development of sexual identity and preference in contemporary Australia. Farrelly has the same level of ignorance as he does about these matters.’]
Second, Psyclaw, in the absence of the knowledge I’m not imbued with, I’m backing you, based on science, not voodoo.
Diogenes @ #364 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:22 pm
And, you know this from personal experience?
Diogenes @ #364 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 6:22 pm
Same with pornstars.
What both of these things say about society is a different matter.
Mavis Davis @ #367 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:23 pm
One too many Clarets for clarity comrade!
No Guytaur the US women’s team have been just the latest in a string of women’s teams to make this argument. AFLW, the Austalian Matilda’s and English women have also made the demand. If there is sufficient income stream, than they should get the same. The problem is, that for the game as a whole women’s football does not attract sufficient revenue to pay the same as men. When the standard improves, there will be more fans, more revenue and more money for higher wages.
Diogenes @ #363 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 6:22 pm
And yet in Australia the highest paid men are earning at least $162,000 more than the highest paid women.
https://www.wgea.gov.au/data/wgea-research/gender-equity-insights-inside-australias-gender-pay-gap
clem
1. You’ve commented on the fact that women’s soccer has improved dramatically. This isn’t accidental, it is the result of more money being put into the game, and women being able to devote more time to training. They’re still a long way behind male professionals who can devote their whole lives to training, and until they’re there, it’s going to be hard to work out what the limitations – and the opportunities commercially – actually are.
2. Women’s soccer – as with many spheres women have been involved in – has been deliberately suppressed. That’s partially because it hasn’t been seen as commercial (which is one of those self determining things – if you don’t have the opportunity to watch something, it is obviously not going to build a commercial following) but also deliberate. At one stage, the women’s comp was disbanded – because it was a threat to the men’s revenue stream. So women’s soccer starts from a position of disadvantage.
3. The rise of women’s sport isn’t the result of a ‘me too’ thing. It is the result of commercial realities. Women’s games are on the rise because the untapped audience is now being tapped.
Whether women soccer players end up being paid the same as men will, in the end, be a commercial decision. (And there are other sports where the men’s and women’s competitions are very different but where a good player of either sex can earn around the same).
Earns more than Miranda Kerr? I don’t think so.
Should Buddy Franklin get paid the same as Lionel Messi? Messi gets paid fifty times as much because he’s worth fifty times as much.
Zoomster, well done, you finally understood what I was saying at the end.
Clem
You keep ignoring fact. The US women team brings more income than the men’s team. Your argument is wrong.
clem
Your model of free speech will end up with those with power being able to say what they like and those without power having to put up with being abused, because they don’t have the power to make their objections heard.
Which is, of course, exactly how the Nazis operated! Goebbels said whatever he wanted, and those who objected had all the freedom of speech a concentration camp can provide.
I would say that Sam Kerr would now be earning much more than the the average male A League player. She is marketable.
clem
No, I understood what you were saying right from the start. You kept mischaracterising my posts.
At no time did I say anything about equal pay.
What are you going on about? You are being heard. I’m reading your opinion. Hyperbole much? Still haven’t rebutted my argument about only being opposed to opinion you disagree with.
zoomster @ #378 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:33 pm
You lose tonight!
Diogenes @ #375 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 6:30 pm
Is he? Or is it just that the sport Messi is involved has a huge global audience in the billions whereas the sport Franklin is involved in is pretty much unknown outside Australia (maximum audience 25 million)?
Well that was what the debate was about
GG
No, because clem referenced the Nazis first (in more than one post) – which is why I used that as my example.
clem
Sorry, you don’t determine what the conversation is about. I responded to aspects of your posts, which is perfectly legitimate. It’s not my fault you couldn’t follow the conversation.
I think the equal pay issue for women’s soccer relates to appearance fees and prize money and salaries – is that the case?
I don’t believe they are demanding that commercial sponsors, who pay varying amounts to various male players based on commercial considerations, need to provide exactly the same amount of money to every person who plays the sport.
The whole “women don’t generate as much money as men” canard, which is changing, at best can be applied to the commercial sponsorship side of things. But it makes sense for appearance fees and prize money to be uniform. It sends a powerful message of equal treatment and it is a very reasonable thing to do.
Sponsorship deals are highly variable from male player to male player, so I don’t see what number can be chosen as a benchmark number that needs to be offered to female players. And it seems unreasonable and impractical to force companies to enter into agreements that may lose them money.
Nobody is entitled to a commercial sponsorship deal.
But if you play professional sport, you are entitled to appearance fees and prize money and salaries and the like – and that is where gender equality can and should be the norm.
zoomster @ #385 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:37 pm
He actually agreed with your conclusion and not the content with your 8:30.
clem
‘ Still haven’t rebutted my argument about only being opposed to opinion you disagree with.’
I’m not exactly sure how I’d go about rebutting an unfounded assertion which exists only in your head.
I do if I start the debate.
Sorry, GG. Posts have been getting crossed, which always makes life confusing. And Godwin’s always makes me nervous, because I fundamentally disagree with the concept.
That you only oppose speech that opposes what you disagree with. Hypocrite thy name is Zoomster.
Nicholas
Yes. As the article explained. The US women’s team demand.
clem
Sorry, no. Every poster here has the right (free speech, remember) to respond to other posts in any way they wish.
What? Even if they are completely irrelevant? I guess we should be more tolerant of the intellectually challenged.
clem
‘That you only oppose speech that opposes what you disagree with. Hypocrite thy name is Zoomster.’
This is a statement you’ve made, without any backing evidence. So I really don’t know if it’s just your opinion, which is yours, or whether you have some facts to back it up.
If it’s your opinion, based on no evidence other than a gut feeling, nothing I can say will change that.
If you have evidence, please provide it.
zoomster @ #394 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:41 pm
You have identified the problem and the solution!
clem
My comments weren’t irrelevant.
Get over your god complex. I have the right to free speech, remember – and I am allowed to use it to respond to posts in any way I wish.
zoomster @ #394 Friday, July 12th, 2019 – 8:41 pm
…and Mr Bowe has the right to ban any poster he deems is negatively affecting his blog