IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Australia elections , Australia politics , Gladys Berejiklian , Julie Bishop , Malcolm Turnbull , Peter Dutton , Scott Morrison

Reply
Old 22nd November 2021, 11:43 PM   #721
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Well, here it is:

PM to personally introduce religious discrimination bill, as moderate Liberals remain concerned with details

Quote:
Prime Minister Scott Morrison will personally introduce his watered-down religious discrimination bill into the federal parliament, even though some of his moderate MPs still "question the need" for the legislation.

The bill was promised by the Coalition government in the wake of the same-sex marriage debate in 2017 to provide extra protection for people of faith. It was a pledge that was taken to the last election.

The legislation, which was finally released publicly on Tuesday afternoon, aims to ensure Australians who make "statements of belief" get extra protection from existing state-based discrimination laws.

It states that moderate religious beliefs are not discriminatory so long as they are not made in a malicious way and "that a reasonable person" would not think they "would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group".

The bill also ensures institutions run by religious organisations, like schools, will be able to prioritise or give preference to the employment of people from the same faith.

"For example, it is not discrimination for a religious primary school to require all of its staff and students to practice that religion, if such a requirement is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people of that religion," the bill states.

"It is not discrimination for a religious hospital, aged care facility, accommodation provider or disability service provider to seek to preserve a religious ethos amongst its staff by making faith-based decisions in relation to employment."

Similarly, institutions will get extra protections to ensure they are able to cater to their faith in a particular way.

"For example, a residential aged care facility or hospital does not discriminate … by providing services to meet the needs (including dietary, cultural and religious needs) of a minority religious group, such as a Jewish or Greek Orthodox residential aged care home," the bill explains.

However, institutions must ensure their conduct is in accordance with a "publicly available policy" that clearly explains how religious views will be enforced.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 01:24 AM   #722
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,279
Religious hospital? What the **** is that. By all means lets have churches fund healthcare but beyond naming it they keep faith out.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 02:13 PM   #723
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 11,028
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Have they defined "religion"? It could be anything convenient, couldn't it.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 05:22 PM   #724
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Have they defined "religion"? It could be anything convenient, couldn't it.
Oddly enough, someone has thought to ask that question before.

The main definition that Australian law relies on appears to be from the 1983 case regarding the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology, in which this formed part of the decision:

Quote:
For the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion.
In this case, Scientology was found to qualify as a religion.

But there have been other statements in law regarding what constitutes a religion. One sticking point according to Crikey was that in the 2001 Census, 70,000 Australians listed their religion as "Jedi", which led to another examination of what a religion is. Contrary to Scientology, it was decided by the Bureay of Statistics that the Jedi "faith" didn't qualify. And speaking from personal experience working on the 2016 Census, if someone marks "Jedi" on a census, it is now recorded as "No religion".

There is a full and comprehensive legal definition of religion in the Interim Report from the 2016 Inquiry.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 07:38 PM   #725
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Oddly enough, someone has thought to ask that question before.

The main definition that Australian law relies on appears to be from the 1983 case regarding the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology, in which this formed part of the decision:

In this case, Scientology was found to qualify as a religion.

But there have been other statements in law regarding what constitutes a religion. One sticking point according to Crikey was that in the 2001 Census, 70,000 Australians listed their religion as "Jedi", which led to another examination of what a religion is. Contrary to Scientology, it was decided by the Bureay of Statistics that the Jedi "faith" didn't qualify. And speaking from personal experience working on the 2016 Census, if someone marks "Jedi" on a census, it is now recorded as "No religion".

There is a full and comprehensive legal definition of religion in the Interim Report from the 2016 Inquiry.
Seems like a ripe opportunity for legal pettifoggery and reductio ad absurdum. What if I set myself up as the head of the Church of the Jedi, defined as believing in The Force (a supernatural principle), whose code of conduct consists of wearing a funny hat and reversing subject and object in sentences. By the technical definition, it's a religion.

And what are the "ordinary laws?" If you can't claim a religious exemption from, say, parking in a no parking zone, why should you be able to for serious matters such as vaccination requirements?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 07:41 PM   #726
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Seems like a ripe opportunity for legal pettifoggery and reductio ad absurdum.
The Religious Discrimination Bill is exactly that.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 09:01 PM   #727
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,096
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It's as if section 116 in the constitution doesn't exist.

Of course, the high court is stacked with judges who regard the constitution with utter contempt.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 09:36 PM   #728
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,279
Cheap culture election war ploy for a bs govt
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 12:52 AM   #729
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,248
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Oddly enough, someone has thought to ask that question before.

The main definition that Australian law relies on appears to be from the 1983 case regarding the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology, in which this formed part of the decision:

In this case, Scientology was found to qualify as a religion.

But there have been other statements in law regarding what constitutes a religion. One sticking point according to Crikey was that in the 2001 Census, 70,000 Australians listed their religion as "Jedi", which led to another examination of what a religion is. Contrary to Scientology, it was decided by the Bureay of Statistics that the Jedi "faith" didn't qualify. And speaking from personal experience working on the 2016 Census, if someone marks "Jedi" on a census, it is now recorded as "No religion".

There is a full and comprehensive legal definition of religion in the Interim Report from the 2016 Inquiry.
What a strange world in which a conscience informed by a rational process on the basis of demonstrable facts should be considered by law to be less important than a conscience informed by the alleged wishes of an alleged supernatural being
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 04:14 AM   #730
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,096
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
What a strange world in which a conscience informed by a rational process on the basis of demonstrable facts should be considered by law to be less important than a conscience informed by the alleged wishes of an alleged supernatural being
It's got nothing to do with the "alleged wishes of an alleged supernatural being".

The (laudible sounding) aim is to ensure that everybody gets to practise their belief or non-belief without fear or favour. Of course, such laws never work as intended and often create more problems than they purport to solve. There is a reason why section 116 was included in the constitution.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 03:03 PM   #731
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,248
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's got nothing to do with the "alleged wishes of an alleged supernatural being".

The (laudible sounding) aim is to ensure that everybody gets to practise their belief or non-belief without fear or favour. Of course, such laws never work as intended and often create more problems than they purport to solve. There is a reason why section 116 was included in the constitution.
No, the aim of this particular legislationl is to ensure that people in a religion get to practice their beliefs.

The protections don't extend to speech or actions informed by a non-religious value system.

So what I said was correct. The protections apply to speech or actions informed by a value system based on the wishes of an alleged supernatural being. They do not apply to speech or actions informed by rational consideration of the world as it is.

An Israel Folau would have some protection to say things about gays going to hell just so long as others in the religion would agree that his statement is compatible with the religion.(as he should, at least IMO). But that protection would not extend to me if my company felt that some criticism I made of religion contravened the social media policy.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 03:36 PM   #732
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 11,028
None of that is the real reason this bill is up. The definition of a religion, of supernatural beings, of worship and beliefs, is entirely irrelevant. Any debate on those aspects is pointless, and just a smokescreen from the real purposes of this bill.

It's a sop to the religious backers of the LNP, that's all. Politics, mutual back-scratching, and the desire to continue discriminating in their "business" without penalty or comeback...just like they did before. To refuse employment, or to dismiss, people who don't believe what they believe, or do not adhere to their weird principles of behaviour, who speak up against them (even though they are inevitably the worst offenders anyway). And against any brown or black skinned people, and against any "furriners" and "communists". The freedom to be ratbags in the name of religion.

Don't worry, mates! Scomo will see you all right! And who is this Full-ow bloke anyway?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 04:46 PM   #733
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Okay, the bill has been introduced to the House. Here's the correspondent from the Guardian, Amy Remeikis, speaking about a certain part of the Prime Minister's speech.

The Guardian might be an openly leftie paper, but I think Amy's got it spot on here.

Quote:
Scott Morrison in his speech spoke about the need for people of faith to treat others as they would want to be treated.

Which is a core tenet of many faiths.

Cool.

But then, he moved on to ‘cancel culture’ and social media, and how it was impacting people of faith:

Quote:
Many people from various religious traditions are concerned about the lack of religious protection against the prevalence of cancel culture in Australian life.

It’s true, it’s there, it’s real. Mr Speaker, the citizens of liberal democracies should never be fearful about what they believe, the lives they lead, or the god they follow if, indeed, they choose to follow one or acknowledge one at all. Australians shouldn’t have to worry about looking over their shoulder, fearful of offending an anonymous person on Twitter, cowardly sitting there, abusing and harassing them for their faith, or transgressing against political or social Zeitgeists.

We have to veer away from the artificial, phoney conflicts, boycotts, controversies and cancelling created by anonymous and cowardly bots, bigots and bullies.
This from a government which is attempting to whitewash Australia’s history in the school curriculum to focus on the ‘positives’, while right wing culture warriors whip up frenzies about school materials designed to make learning environments inclusive and safe. Not to mention what LGBTIQ people, particularly those from the trans community, are subjected to every single day – and not just on social media, but in actual media. Then there is what Indigenous people are made to deal with, as well as anyone else who doesn’t fit the right wing anglo mould of a ‘good migrant’. This is a country, led by the same coalition government, which chased a young Muslim woman out of the country for a one sentence social media post. The ‘artificial phoney conflicts, boycotts, controversies and cancelling’ Morrison is speaking about, overwhelmingly have been in response to attacks on marginalised and vulnerable communities. We know about those who have been ‘cancelled’ because they go on to whine about it on television, columns, radio shows and parliament, while those who are the actual victims of those attacks struggle to have their voices heard.
Source
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 06:46 PM   #734
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
This also happened today:

Government nearly loses vote on federal corruption commission motion after MP crosses floor

Quote:
The Coalition has narrowly avoided embarrassment in parliament, managing to stop a crossbench attempt to bring on debate about a national anti-corruption commission.

Independent MP Helen Haines tried to interrupt the usual business to force a debate on her federal integrity commission bill, arguing the Coalition had been dragging its feet for three years and had not introduced its own model.

Tasmanian Liberal MP Bridget Archer broke away from the government and backed Dr Haines' motion, which was supported by Labor and other crossbenchers.

The vote resulted in a vote of 66 MPs for the motion and 64 against — but a COVID-19 technicality meant the motion did not pass.

It needed an absolute majority — or 76 votes — to get through, but with a number of MPs not in parliament because of COVID restrictions, that was a larger task than usual.

After a number of minutes working out whether the government had in fact lost the vote, independent MP Bob Katter said what many MPs were thinking: "Clearly, a lot of us are very confused."
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 06:47 PM   #735
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,248
Introduces bill to protect the right of religious organisations.to cancel LGBT staff and kids and sells it by saying he doesn't like cancel culture.

That is peak ScoMo.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 06:54 PM   #736
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 39,778
Australian Politics - The Morrison Period Part II

This isn't a 'freedom from discrimination' bill, it's a 'freedom to discriminate' bill.
__________________
"We stigmatize and send to the margins
people who trigger in us the feelings we want to avoid"
- Melinda Gates, "The Moment of Lift".
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 06:57 PM   #737
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
It's looks like there's a small problem though...

Quote:
Religious discrimination committee motion hits snag
The government tried to send the religious discrimination bill to the government controlled legal affairs committee, when Labor and the crossbench thought it was going to go to a joint committee (both the house and the senate)

So the government tried to send the bill to a committee it controlled and have it report on February 1.

So the vote happened and it was 25 to 25 – which means the government lost the vote (so no inquiry at this stage)
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 08:04 PM   #738
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,096
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
No, the aim of this particular legislationl is to ensure that people in a religion get to practice their beliefs.
True.

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
The protections don't extend to speech or actions informed by a non-religious value system.
FALSE.

But even if it were true . . .
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So what I said was correct. The protections apply to speech or actions informed by a value system based on the wishes of an alleged supernatural being. They do not apply to speech or actions informed by rational consideration of the world as it is.
This conclusion is a non-sequitur. The legislation doesn't name any particular god and it does not identify any particular religious teaching.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 08:08 PM   #739
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,096
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
This isn't a 'freedom from discrimination' bill, it's a 'freedom to discriminate' bill.
There are some limited circumstances where this is not wholly inappropriate.

For example, it would be ludicrous if a Catholic school were forced to employ an atheist who went around trying to convince the school's students that God doesn't exist.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 08:30 PM   #740
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
There are some limited circumstances where this is not wholly inappropriate.

For example, it would be ludicrous if a Catholic school were forced to employ an atheist who went around trying to convince the school's students that God doesn't exist.
This bill would allow the school to fire the atheist, even if they didn't go around trying to convince the students that God doesn't exist. Even if they fulfilled their duties exemplarily. This bill would allow the school to fire the atheist because they are an atheist and no other reason. Show me any other workplace that is allowed to fire someone simply because of what they do or do not believe.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 08:38 PM   #741
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,279
University of Woolamaloo to become Woolamaloo Christian University.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 08:41 PM   #742
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Woolloomooloo.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 08:52 PM   #743
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,096
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
This bill would allow the school to fire the atheist, even if they didn't go around trying to convince the students that God doesn't exist.
Does it or does it merely allow the school to not employ the atheist in the first place?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 09:00 PM   #744
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Does it or does it merely allow the school to not employ the atheist in the first place?
I haven't read it myself and wouldn't be qualified to interpret its effect in law even if I did, but there are government MPs voicing concerns, yes.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 09:06 PM   #745
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,279
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Woolloomooloo.
It’s Woolamaloo, Bruce.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 10:59 PM   #746
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
It’s Woolamaloo, Bruce.
Actually, Bruce, in the original script it's spelled Wallamaloo. But that's probably because the sketch was written in 1970 by a bunch of Pommie bastards. Crack tube!
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 11:52 PM   #747
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,086
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Woolloomooloo.
Please check this link before posting in the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruces_sketch
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 12:28 AM   #748
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Please check this link before posting in the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruces_sketch
Sources other than Wikipedia disagree. I picked up a copy of the complete scripts a few years ago. Huge goddamn tome it is too. I'll look up the original original when I get home. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 01:10 AM   #749
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,279
But yeah this law will protect rules 1,3,5 and 7.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 04:04 AM   #750
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,248
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This conclusion is a non-sequitur. The legislation doesn't name any particular god and it does not identify any particular religious teaching.
And you think that this mean it protects atheists too???

Maybe you should look up "non-sequitur"
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 25th November 2021 at 04:05 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 04:05 AM   #751
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,279
“No poofters”

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ne...da1d056f82bef2
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 04:56 AM   #752
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,096
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And you think that this mean it protects atheists too???
What part of the bill says that atheists are not protected?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 03:11 PM   #753
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
It was "Woolamaloo".

__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 06:24 PM   #754
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Sorry, here's the link to the full-sized image, which is actually big enough to be legible.

https://imgur.com/a/dDnICFi

Anyway.

Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse

Quote:
The Religious Discrimination Bill is back, this time in its third iteration. The Coalition party room unanimously endorsed the bill on Tuesday, but a number of Liberal MPs voiced concerns about what it could mean for LGBTQ+ students and teachers at faith-based schools and universities.

Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has said no child should be "suspended or expelled from school on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity", and that discrimination against students is "unacceptable".

However, the bill does nothing to protect LGBTQ+ students and teachers. It allows more, not less, discrimination by religious schools.

The PM's long lost 'promise'

In October 2018, the Prime Minister promised to ban religious schools from expelling students on the basis of their sexuality.

This requires removing the exemptions in the federal Sex Discrimination Act which permit religious schools to expel LGBTQ+ students and sack LGBTQ+ teachers. The reason can be as simple as "they're bisexual", or "they're transgender" — as long as this fits within the school's religious beliefs.

More than three years later, these exemptions still remain. Religious schools can, today, expel kids just for being gay. While many might not choose to do this and are supportive of the LGBTQ+ community, there have still been cases of non-supportive religious schools who have sacked teachers for being gay.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 06:46 PM   #755
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 25,279
America’s Christian baker being forced to make a wedding cake for people who should really be stoned to death trope is surely being spoken to here.

It is a great distraction from the government blocking themselves federal corruption accountability, or climate action, covid mismanagement etc. Culture war issues generate a lot of noise and rally the right behind them.

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 25th November 2021 at 06:50 PM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 09:38 PM   #756
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 11,028
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Does it or does it merely allow the school to not employ the atheist in the first place?
That is correct. The bill says that "religious" schools will be allowed to make such a discrimination as a condition of employment.

If a prospective employee does not adhere to the required religious beliefs of that school then that will be an acceptable reason for them not to be employed. That is in addition to any other legal reasons for refusing employment.

It will also be an acceptable reason for current employees to be dismissed, if the school chooses to use that reason. That is in addition to any other legal reasons for dismissal.

I'm seeing major issues with this in practical terms. For example, let's suppose a teacher wants to work at a particular school that has a great reputation as a teaching establishment. It would be a gold star on their resume. However it is a religious school, and the prospective employee is an atheist. So if as part of the employment process they were required to state that they hold beliefs which the school demands, they can say that they do even though they really don't. How would anyone prove otherwise? I suppose it will depend on how convincing they are in the interviews.

This has happened frequently already. Many teachers have confessed after leaving such schools that they pretended all along. And in some religious schools, particularly well-liked and effective teaching staff have been allowed flourish despite expressly stating beliefs contrary to those of the school. It was considered much more practical and beneficial for all concerned to let things slide than make a fuss about them.

So really, this is just a bill for those schools that DO want to build a wall around themselves and their students, with a convenient excuse for getting rid of upstarts. IOW, cults like Scomo's evangelist nutter mates.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 10:07 PM   #757
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Religious and gay Sydney teacher tells Q+A she was fired due to her sexuality

Quote:
Just hours after Prime Minister introduced the religious discrimination bill to Parliament, a teacher has echoed calls for Scott Morrison to also ensure gay school teachers and students are protected, telling Q+A she lost her job because she was homosexual.

The law Mr Morrison introduced on Thursday seeks to protect Australians who make "statements of belief" from existing state-based discrimination laws, but only if those statements do not "threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group".

But audience member Stephanie Lentz told Q+A on Thursday night she had been fired from her English teaching job at a Sydney Christian school earlier this year because she came out.

Ms Lentz identifies as both a member of the LGBT community and a member of the Anglican faith but said the former had, in January, cost her her job.

She did not identify the school directly.

"I worked at a Christian school teaching English from 2017 to 2019 and I loved it," Ms Lentz said.

"I really enjoyed the colleagues and the relationships with students, but in January this year the school fired me.

"And they fired me because I'm gay.

"They fired me because they disagreed with me that you can be Christian and also live true to the biological realities of your sexuality or gender."
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 10:59 PM   #758
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48,309
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
That is correct. The bill says that "religious" schools will be allowed to make such a discrimination as a condition of employment.

If a prospective employee does not adhere to the required religious beliefs of that school then that will be an acceptable reason for them not to be employed. That is in addition to any other legal reasons for refusing employment.

It will also be an acceptable reason for current employees to be dismissed, if the school chooses to use that reason. That is in addition to any other legal reasons for dismissal.

I'm seeing major issues with this in practical terms. For example, let's suppose a teacher wants to work at a particular school that has a great reputation as a teaching establishment. It would be a gold star on their resume. However it is a religious school, and the prospective employee is an atheist. So if as part of the employment process they were required to state that they hold beliefs which the school demands, they can say that they do even though they really don't. How would anyone prove otherwise? I suppose it will depend on how convincing they are in the interviews.

This has happened frequently already. Many teachers have confessed after leaving such schools that they pretended all along. And in some religious schools, particularly well-liked and effective teaching staff have been allowed flourish despite expressly stating beliefs contrary to those of the school. It was considered much more practical and beneficial for all concerned to let things slide than make a fuss about them.

So really, this is just a bill for those schools that DO want to build a wall around themselves and their students, with a convenient excuse for getting rid of upstarts. IOW, cults like Scomo's evangelist nutter mates.
That’s not how it works in practice. Nothing like it at all. Catholic schools, like all others, have trouble attracting the skills they need, and not just in teaching. One of my sons worked for an elite Catholic school in IT. His boss and others knew he wasn’t Catholic, but as long as he fronted for the mass that started every term, all was well. He didn’t have to take communion or profess any religious belief at all.

The other irony is that Catholic schools here take in heaps of non-Catholics, and even those who openly display their Muslim, Hindu etc faiths. They do this, naturally, because of the cash it brings it.

If the Micks allow devoutly non-Catholic students, how can they sack staff with no religious beliefs?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 11:53 PM   #759
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Saying you can do a thing does not mean you must. But it appears the bill gives employers the power to exercise discrimination when and where they care to, thus among other things making sure that heterodox employees have no job security and no case if, for example, they are fired a day before some benefit becomes applicable and leverage to insure that they hide their unseemly practices and views.

At least it gives them the tools to insure that rogue advocates of cancel culture don't sneak in where they don't belong.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 25th November 2021 at 11:55 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 06:17 AM   #760
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 11,028
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
That’s not how it works in practice. Nothing like it at all. Catholic schools, like all others, have trouble attracting the skills they need, and not just in teaching. One of my sons worked for an elite Catholic school in IT. His boss and others knew he wasn’t Catholic, but as long as he fronted for the mass that started every term, all was well. He didn’t have to take communion or profess any religious belief at all.

The other irony is that Catholic schools here take in heaps of non-Catholics, and even those who openly display their Muslim, Hindu etc faiths. They do this, naturally, because of the cash it brings it.

If the Micks allow devoutly non-Catholic students, how can they sack staff with no religious beliefs?
That is actually much the same as what I said. This bill simply provides a legal excuse for removal, should it be needed. An excuse that was previously legislated against.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.