White Australia without snow?

Welcome to the Greypath National Seniors Website Forums Senate White Australia without snow?

This topic contains 8 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  williamthebold 3 months ago. This post has been viewed 184 times

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #84188

    williamthebold
    Participant

    I refer to:
    https://www.dw.com/en/senators-white-australia-speech-sparks-uproar/a-45088420
    and offer the following comment.

    We live in a democracy.
    Whilst there can be many differing views, it is the majority view we follow.
    A consensus if you like.
    Sometimes our personal view coincides with the majority view, and sometimes it doesn’t.
    But allowing the majority view to ‘rule’ us doesn’t make alternate views go away.
    It doesn’t make alternate views any less valid either.
    Look at parliament.
    Do the ‘opposition’ parties stop having alternate views?
    Do they simply ‘shut up’ and gaze at the ceiling?
    Not likely!
    We hear those alternate views constantly.
    Any person can favour a view which is not the same as the ‘ruling’ view.
    And express it publicly.
    You have probably done so many times.
    The difference is that you cannot act on that view.
    You must follow the majority view instead.
    We follow the majority view because of the massive benefit to be had by doing so.
    Majority rule is the lifeblood of a democratic society such as ours.
    But people are most certainly entitled to express any legitimate view, whether it agrees with the majority view or not.

    I cannot see why there is such a fuss over the ‘white australia’ policy comment, reportedly made by a new senate member.
    He expressed a valid view, recommending a change to immigration policy.
    He is entitled to do so.
    He gave reasons.
    He suggested a public vote would be needed to decide the merits of his idea.
    He was not trying to create unrest, just to express a view.
    He didn’t organise a public rally, a march down the main street, or call for militant action by the public.
    He merely expressed an idea.
    People really must learn to understand the difference.
    Because someone says something different, does something different, wears something different, doesn’t mean we should jump up and down and start shouting.
    Do that at the footy, when ‘the eagles’ do their trick, and win in the last seconds of the game.
    (they seem to be making a habit of doing that)

    For the record, the white australia policy was right for its time.
    It was a short termed policy.
    It was changed, for what were considered the right reasons.
    Personally, I think it is better for the long term if we widen the gene pool here.
    Introduce a small number of people from many disparate races/societies.
    But we shouldn’t be a ‘dumping ground’ for all and sundry.
    Some animal species will ‘kidnap’ members of a different group to improve their gene pool.
    I don’t think we need to do that.
    Instead, we need to offer residency to people who can adapt and blend in to our society socially, and can contribute to its peaceful progress.
    Should we find that people from a particular place don’t adapt well to our way of life, or feel comfortable with the many liberties we enjoy, then we should think twice before allowing them entry.
    There is nothing wrong with assessing the worth of those we accept in to our society.
    We don’t want to create problems for ourselves.
    Think back.
    Not so long ago someone said, ‘we will decide who comes to this country, and the manner in which they come’.
    That is still a valid and logical approach to take.
    (that person also said ‘the boat sunk in indonesian waters’, which is grammatically horrifying, as well as a sad bit of news)
    Anyway, I do wish people would stop over-reacting.
    There is no need to be so het up about someone legitimately expressing a different point of view.
    Let them express it lawfully, but watch to make sure they don’t act on it unlawfully.
    When people do lawfully express such a view, listen and evaluate, because there might well be something to be learned.
    I wonder why Malcolm didn’t stop to think?
    He should have shown more tolerance?
    I must give THAT some thought.

    #84189
    abirdo
    abirdo
    Participant

    I agree about keeping our freedom of speech (whilst we can). This latest speech reminded me of Pauline’s maiden speech. Both are expressing the thoughts of many Australians which is why they were elected in the first place. No good jumping up and down and screaming ‘RACIST’ when people daily hear and see the results of our being a ‘dumping ground’ as William comments. Much more caution is needed by government. Allow any other race to enter Australia SO LONG as they will adapt and accept the values of existing residents.

    #84192

    Salina
    Participant

    There is a troubling trend in the media now, to refer to some people as far right or far left….though mostly far right.   The writer/reporter  is expressing an opinion of the person, instead of reporting the words and allowing we lesser beings to make up our own minds.

    We see columns full of tweets from various well known, and even not so well known, confirming the writers opinion.   Lazy journalism, and in fact, dishonest.

    This is why, when a speech like the one in the news at the moment, is not in fact, being intelligently analysed, but simply, because of one or two words out of the entire speech, the journos, the reporters, the commentators, and now even our politicians, jump on the outrage/politically correct  bandwagon, and assume it will win them some brownie points.

    We live in a great country, but there are so many issues that should have focus on them much more so than this continual outrage  every time someone utters something that our ‘intelligentsia’ disapprove of.

    The people living under railway bridges couldn’t give two hoots what the man says, but would I’m sure be eternally grateful if

     

    #84193

    Salina
    Participant

    There is a troubling trend in the media now, to refer to some people as far right or far left….though mostly far right.   The writer/reporter  is expressing an opinion of the person, instead of reporting the words and allowing we lesser beings to make up our own minds.

    We see columns full of tweets from various well known, and even not so well known, confirming the writers opinion.   Lazy journalism, and in fact, dishonest.

    This is why, when a speech like the one in the news at the moment, is not in fact, being intelligently analysed, but simply, because of one or two words out of the entire speech, the journos, the reporters, the commentators, and now even our politicians, jump on the outrage/politically correct  bandwagon, and assume it will win them some brownie points.

    We live in a great country, but there are so many issues that should have focus on them much more so than this continual outrage  every time someone utters something that our ‘intelligentsia’ disapprove of.

    The people living under railway bridges couldn’t give two hoots what the man says, but would, I’m sure be eternally grateful if, through his policies and ideas, make life just a little more comfortable.

    Or the pensioners dying in our winters because the green fairies at the bottom of the garden are the base cause of our energy bills escalating, and the ridiculous wars about coal etc.

    Sad.

     

    #84194

    williamthebold
    Participant

    A comment on a comment:
    In the short term, we should not just tear down our energy infrastructure because it is not ‘green’ enough.
    Doing so is leaving too many in ‘unhealthy’ situations, due to lack of affordable electricity.
    We know the present energy generating systems are doing harm to the atmosphere and hence lessening our ability to live in a long term healthy way.
    But rather than destruction, we should actively and assiduously work at REPLACING older infrastructure with modern ‘greener’ alternatives.
    Greener should eventually mean cheaper too.
    So in the longer term, energy prices should fall not rise!

    #84195
    Jen
    Jen
    Participant

    For those who are interested here is the full text of Fraser Anning’s speech.

    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech

    After reading all of it, I know he is ‘not my cup of tea’.

    Regarding the reaction, I gather he is not quite a few other’s cup of tea either.

    He has the right to free speech and has made his, others have the same right and have reacted accordingly. Can’t see a problem with that.

    ———————————————————

    The thing that aggravates me about Fraser Anning BUT more particularly the vagaries of our senate election procedures is that someone who only got 19 votes can end up in federal parliament on a $200,000 salary after the citizenship debacle and defecting from the party that got him there. Weird IMO.

    See https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-20499-QLD.htm

    So much for democracy … should rally the family round and have a go myself LOL.

    #84199

    williamthebold
    Participant

    Jen, thank you for the link. I had not read the full speech before. It was eye-opening.
    He is clearly lacking vision in some things, made obvious by some rather unrealistic statements.
    The way he uses words makes me wonder if he wrote them himself.
    I also wonder if he understands fully what he said in his speech.
    In other words, did he understand what he had written?
    In any case, bizarre as some of it is, he is still entitled to say it.
    We don’t have to agree with it. We don’t have to vote for him if we are in his electorate.
    But at this time he is a duly elected member, and needs to be treated with any courtesy due to him.
    As well as the bizarre statements, about gun ownership for example, he does make occasional valid argument.
    Time will tell how well he is able to stay the course, and stay within his own self-set parameters.
    And Jen, if you are so inclined, you are more than entitled to put yourself forward for election.
    And if you change your name to Jan, we can have the slogan:
    Vote for Jan – She’s our man

    #84200
    Jen
    Jen
    Participant

    But at this time he is a duly elected member, ...

    My point William is the farcical system that allows him in with only 19 votes when other senate candidates in the state got far more.

    2016 Senate Election ~ Queensland, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation
    HANSON, Pauline     20,927       Elected
    ROBERTS, Malcolm         77       Elected (disqualified)
    ANNING, Fraser               19        Replaced Malcolm Roberts
    SMITH, Judy                     47        Pauline Hanson’s sister

    Senator Hanson herself got more than 20,000 first-preference votes. She won her spot fair-and-square. Her party got 250,000 votes for its ticket as a whole, which helped One Nation score another Queensland Senate spot. Roberts got in thanks to above-the-line voting on Senate ballot papers, preference distributions and a system where all states get an equal number of senators, regardless of their population. Roberts, turned out to be a British citizen and thus lost his post.

    The convention is that if a Senator dies, resigns or otherwise leaves their post during their term, their state replaces them with another member of their own party. It’s usually whoever was next on the ticket at the previous election. Hence Fraser Anning got in with only 19 votes.

    Can’t see how this system is truly a democratic representation, particularly when he got in on the popularity of One Nation and then ditched them, something else the system allows.

    #84201

    williamthebold
    Participant

    Jen, I do understand your concern.
    However, that is the system in place at this time.
    Perhaps it needs changing?
    But my original point was that under the present system he is a properly elected representative.
    The convention to fill the ‘vacancy’ with a person from the same party seems fair to me. It keeps faith with the peoples choice for that seat.
    Think of the whitlam debacle when that wasn’t done in the senate at that time.
    So at least now the people are getting a person who should adhere to, and vote for, the principles outlined by that party for whom they voted.
    I suppose the fairest way might be a fresh election for that seat.
    I suppose those who put the system in place didn’t think that necessary.
    Whatever reason they had, that is the system we have now.
    One of the many ‘wrinkles’ in such a system?
    He might have ditched his original party, but many do.
    Something we have to live with.
    Those are the rules.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15