• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Media gone too far? (2 Viewers)

K

katie_tully

Guest
Asquithian said:
many of the views you spout would lead to economic standstil...many of the ideas your spout are not even close to the liberal party or the labor party.
No shit sherlock, maybe that's because Pauline Hanson is an independant and people who share her views or agree with her don't necessarily agree or like the reforms suggested to Liberal or Labor?

As for this funding scheme that you poor, hard done by, forgotten city folk seem to be chipped on the shoulder over, I'll get back on that. Got an assesment task I'll finish, THEN .. Yes.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
I don't agree with everything the woman says, no. There are probably things she can word better, and she may be extreme in some things. She isn't however racist. People take her out of context, and it's easy to take what she says and make her a modern day Hitler.
 

mervvyn

Marshm'ello
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
537
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow... yes, that rainbow.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
jim_green said:
You guys (Asquithian, Ziff, mervvyn etc.) must be extremely compassionate.. not to mention patient to continue arguing here with someone whose p.o.v is clearly somewhere over political rainbow, and her lemming. Keep it up guys
katie_tully said:
Here's an idea ... We let you tools have control over the country so that in 10 years we've come to an economical stand still.
I don't really see myself as compassionate, patient or a tool. But I'm bored of my studies, and trying to show people like Katie a different and more logical (or bleeding heart if you want to call it that) way of looking at things. I'd rather it was someone who at least tries to appear like they care about someone other than themselves to be in power, rather than the me-me-me people.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the shocking disparity in living conditions and services between indigenous and non-indigenous is fair or equal, because if you can't answer that, then a lot of the stuff I'm reading and of Ms Hanson's views becomes baseless ideology and can be ignored as such.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Hanson argues both for a cut in Asian immigration to Australia
Correction: Hanson simply stated she'd prefer to see skilled migrants coming into Australia, because non English speaking, non skilled migrants in large numbers would put a strain on the Australian welfare system. Migrants who are skilled however would be benefiting the Australian ecomomy.

September 1996, Hanson warned that Australia is in danger of being
swamped by Asians.
I see how some may see this as racist, and she could have used a better word than "swamped", but she was however refering to the number of migrants from Asia compared to any other country. She also if I remember correctly, (correct me if I'm wrong) linked this back to the need for "skilled" migrants instead of just letting anybody and everybody into the country.

Furthermore, she blames preferential policies of the government which provide "opportunities, land, moneys and facilities" to aborigines for encouraging separatism, and therefore calls for the end of such special treatment.
200 years later most Australians have to work to buy their own shitty white picket fence in Sydneys inner suburbs for some ridiculous amount of money. Even farms in the drought cost a shitload more than they are worth. Why are tax payers paying for land that Aboriginies can only access, when what happened 200 years ago does not directly affect them now? It is encouraging seperatism because non aboriginal Australians are paying fof their own property and houses, as well as indirectly paying for the given land out of their tax money. I can tell you first hand what happens with land given to some Aboriginies. Once they get it, they aren't interested in it and it then goes to ruin. The farm next door is a perfect example, because every summer we are racing around with the rural fire brigade trying to put out a years worth of grass and foliage that has caught alight. I'm not saying all, but I'm saying when you see it first hand it's a little discouraging and is somewhat off putting towards these "deserving" citizens.

Indigenous Racial Tension
Aborigines have traditionally suffered discrimination in Australia.
Everybody faces discrimination, due to sex, religion, sexual preferences, hair colour, qualifications, age etc.
In 1992 the Supreme Court upheld a claim submitted by Eddie Mabo, an aborigine, which recognized native land rights for the first time.3 This ruling directly contradicts Australia's traditional land doctrine which holds that land ownership did not begin until the Europeans arrived. In December 1993, the
government passed the Native Title Act which recognized native land
rights.4 The land claims which have resulted from this act have angered
the farmers, ranchers and mining companies who control a large
percentage of Australian land and worry that they will either lose control
of their land or be forced to pay rent to the aborigines to use it. These
citizens have become a basis of support for Hanson.
Maybe going to the extreme there, however if it is a direct contradiction of an already standing policy one of them should be changed. Aboriginals fundamentally were nomadic. It isn't like they portioned off land and farmed it for personal use. It isn't like the majority of Aboriginies today exist like they did before white settlement, and given the chance I doubt many of them would. So why do they need specific land titles... Many of them dont live on this land, refering back to my previous point.

William Hayden, a former Foreign Minister, said in 1983 that Australia is
"an anomaly as a European country in this part of the world . . . It is
inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country over
the next century or two."6 As Australia gradually becomes more
Eurasian, the nation must struggle to balance its traditional ties to Britain
with its new interest in East Asia. Many Australians find it difficult to
adjust to this new Australian identity.
This is when we question an immigrants motives as to why they chose Australia. 1. Immigrants from war torn countries should have every right to seek solice in Australia. However, I disagree that just because their country is in war, that it is a perfect excuse to seek refugee status. Unless they have directly been affected (ie their house got blown to the shit or their family has been murdered) they should apply for Australian residency like other immigrants, ie
2. Immigrants who come to Australia for a better life. This is probably where the Asian thing comes into play, because Asia is over crowded. Australia however has plenty of space. The problem with this is, most of the Asians and other immigrants are moving to places like Sydney which are running out of room to accomodate them. This is where Hanson believes if we are going to let an increasing amount of Asians into the country, that it is beneficial that they be skilled. It's no use letting oodles of them in because we can, because we cannot sustain such a large population increase if nothing is getting injected into the economy.

There is a regional consensus that Pauline Hanson's remarks damage Australia's ties to Asia.
That's where she is taken out of context and branded racist. Of course Malaysian and Indonesian politicians are going to take offence, theyre Asian for christs sake. Pauline didn't stamp her foot and say fuck off we dont want any Asians, she simply said to sustain a population increase, we need MORE SKILLED migrants into the country.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
mervvyn said:
I don't really see myself as compassionate, patient or a tool. But I'm bored of my studies, and trying to show people like Katie a different and more logical (or bleeding heart if you want to call it that) way of looking at things. I'd rather it was someone who at least tries to appear like they care about someone other than themselves to be in power, rather than the me-me-me people.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for an answer as to how the shocking disparity in living conditions and services between indigenous and non-indigenous is fair or equal, because if you can't answer that, then a lot of the stuff I'm reading and of Ms Hanson's views becomes baseless ideology and can be ignored as such.
The shocking disparity? ha. ha. Don't try and tell me that there is no aid avaiable to indigenous Australians, move to a location with a high population of indigenous people like Dubbo and you'll realise that there is more help available for indigenous Australians living in poverty than non indigenous.
The help is there, stop acting like fucking victims and accept it.

Oh. And somebody please tell me what use ATSIC has been?
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
RE: Fuel subsidy.

Do you city people eat cereal, meat and wear wool/cotton?

I thought as much..
Do you have to drive more than 30 minutes to the local shop for milk, or other necessities?
Do you run a fuel powered generator to pump water to your house because it hasnt rained in a year and a half?
Can you catch public transport to and from work, school. Do you drive 15 km to the bus stop?
Does it take you 2 weeks to harvest a crop that looks like shit because it hasnt rained in a year?

The reason for the subsidy is because we travel larger distances to get to things city people can walk to. The reason for the subsidy is that, when we're harvesting the weat and barley that goes into your weat bix, the harvestors need fuel.

Wanna know how much we get subsidised? I suck at maths, but for 2000 litres of diesel it costs $788
Also, this subsidy thing only applies if you are a primary producer, not just living in a rural area
 

mervvyn

Marshm'ello
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
537
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow... yes, that rainbow.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Could you please indicate where you are getting all those quotes from? We wouldn't want you to have all the fun now...

katie_tully said:
Correction: Hanson simply stated she'd prefer to see skilled migrants coming into Australia, because non English speaking, non skilled migrants in large numbers would put a strain on the Australian welfare system. Migrants who are skilled however would be benefiting the Australian ecomomy.
Assumption being that Asian (a generalisation in and of itself) instantly means unskilled and non-English speaking. Almost all of Australia's immigrants are in fact skilled - there aren't that many places for unskilled or non-English, and most of those are humanitarian/family places, which are a fraction of the total of around 100,000 migrants per year. "Just anybody and everybody" aren't being let into the country now, nor were they when she made her speech.

200 years later most Australians have to work to buy their own shitty white picket fence in Sydneys inner suburbs for some ridiculous amount of money. Even farms in the drought cost a shitload more than they are worth. Why are tax payers paying for land that Aboriginies can only access, when what happened 200 years ago does not directly affect them now? It is encouraging seperatism because non aboriginal Australians are paying fof their own property and houses, as well as indirectly paying for the given land out of their tax money.
The problem is that what happened 200 years ago, and to this day, still does affect indigenous people today. The dispossession of their land, being put on reserves, having their families split up, being paid a pittance for hard work, being discriminated against - these things didn't end officially until all that long ago (1970s for most) and they still have an impact - do you really think that our indigenous communities have such poor living conditions and opportunities because Aboriginals are a lesser type of person? Because they are all lazy, stupid and inherently criminal? Why are they overrepresented in our criminal justice system?
The cause lies in the lasting after effects of 200+ years of marginalisation by immigrants - poverty has become entrenched, should we just turn a blind eye to that because the cause happens to be more than a few years ago?

The shocking disparity i'm referring to is things like unemployment, representation in prisons, domestic violence, truancy, high school retention, university attendance, infant mortality, teenage pregnancy and so on. There is a disparity, and one that hardly contributes to a fair and equal society.

Everybody faces discrimination, due to sex, religion, sexual preferences, hair colour, qualifications, age etc.
Nice big generalisation there, but hardly true. I wouldn't even say that indigenous people are discriminated against in most cases, but they generally start from a background with more disadvantages and so there is a real skills difference between them and other job applicants.

I gave up after there, it's more of the same about skilled/unskilled and Asians, you seem to assume that Asian=unskilled...
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Check the link Asqui posted, that's where I got the quotes from.
 

paper cup

pamplemousse
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
2,590
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
katie_tully said:
I see how some may see this as racist, and she could have used a better word than "swamped", but she was however refering to the number of migrants from Asia compared to any other country.
untrue, more migrants from UK USA NZ etc.
 

Ziff

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
2,366
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
katie_tully said:
RE: Fuel subsidy.

Do you city people eat cereal, meat and wear wool/cotton?

I thought as much..
Do you have to drive more than 30 minutes to the local shop for milk, or other necessities?
Do you run a fuel powered generator to pump water to your house because it hasnt rained in a year and a half?
Can you catch public transport to and from work, school. Do you drive 15 km to the bus stop?
Does it take you 2 weeks to harvest a crop that looks like shit because it hasnt rained in a year?

The reason for the subsidy is because we travel larger distances to get to things city people can walk to. The reason for the subsidy is that, when we're harvesting the weat and barley that goes into your weat bix, the harvestors need fuel.

Wanna know how much we get subsidised? I suck at maths, but for 2000 litres of diesel it costs $788
Also, this subsidy thing only applies if you are a primary producer, not just living in a rural area
So your argument is that because of special circumstances, in your case distance, you need special subsidies in order to create a balance or equality? (Though you do try and qualify your arguments with "oh but we create ...")

Does this not then, follow through - using the same argument, to the Aboriginal cause? Aboriginals have the special circumstance of having been down trodden since 1788. It was only in 1967 that they were considered as citizens of Australia! Now, considering this extremely long term disadvantage they face, the massive social problems that still plague them as a result of this, does it not stand that this qualifies as a special circumstance and IF an Aboriginal does somehow manage to work their way out of these problems and tries to become a productive member of society that they should not be given the necessary assistance so that they may study, learn and potentially CREATE?
 

Ziff

Active Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
2,366
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/20/1095651256166.html

Good Op-Ed piece on what's happening to highly qualified and skilled workers from overseas in this nation. The prejudices and discrimination that they suffer from Australian employers due to their background, their accents, their lack of understanding of Australian-English and associated slang (NOT A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HOWEVER!)

It does relate to Hanson's policies, ideas and shows her absolute and clear lack of knowledge or questioning of why certain perceptions of "low skilled workers" might have come about, why it's come about or at least the causes of it.
 

mervvyn

Marshm'ello
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
537
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow... yes, that rainbow.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Ziff said:
So your argument is that because of special circumstances, in your case distance, you need special subsidies in order to create a balance or equality? (Though you do try and qualify your arguments with "oh but we create ...")

Does this not then, follow through - using the same argument, to the Aboriginal cause? Aboriginals have the special circumstance of having been down trodden since 1788. It was only in 1967 that they were considered as citizens of Australia! Now, considering this extremely long term disadvantage they face, the massive social problems that still plague them as a result of this, does it not stand that this qualifies as a special circumstance and IF an Aboriginal does somehow manage to work their way out of these problems and tries to become a productive member of society that they should not be given the necessary assistance so that they may study, learn and potentially CREATE?
Exactly. :uhhuh:
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
mervvyn said:
Assumption being that Asian (a generalisation in and of itself) instantly means unskilled and non-English speaking. Almost all of Australia's immigrants are in fact skilled - there aren't that many places for unskilled or non-English, and most of those are humanitarian/family places, which are a fraction of the total of around 100,000 migrants per year. "Just anybody and everybody" aren't being let into the country now, nor were they when she made her speech.
Nobosy has assumed that being Asian means unskilled and non-English speaking. There are however many that arent and don't, which is the entire basis of the argument. With a high population increase, there needs to be a higher ratio of skilled immigrants to sustain the economy. There are only so manu humanitarian/family places in Australia. The cities cannot continue to accomodate for the large numbers of immigrants, yet the country towns are dying because nobody is coming out here. It's not because it's a bad place to live, it's because of a stigma attached that country people are inbred, stupid and that there's nothing to do here. Apparently sniffing carbon monoxide all day is more appealing.

The problem is that what happened 200 years ago, and to this day, still does affect indigenous people today. The dispossession of their land, being put on reserves, having their families split up, being paid a pittance for hard work, being discriminated against - these things didn't end officially until all that long ago (1970s for most) and they still have an impact - do you really think that our indigenous communities have such poor living conditions and opportunities because Aboriginals are a lesser type of person? Because they are all lazy, stupid and inherently criminal? Why are they overrepresented in our criminal justice system?
Aboriginies were nomadic, they didn't "own" the land in the first place. They arent getting their land dispossessed from them anymore.
The fact is they HAVE MORE opportunities now than many non indigenous people, so WHY are they not taking these incentives? Why ARE they overrepresentated? I think you'll find most of them aren't full blooded Aboriginals, but it's easy to take the tag of discriminated victim because of what happened to them years ago.
I have no compassion for aboriginies in goal, just like I have none for whites, asians or other ethnic backgrounds. Aboriginies represent 19% of the incarserated population, so does that mean it's our faul?
Growing up in the same location as them, I've had just as much education and work oppurtunities as they have, so why arent I committing crimes? I dont take too nicely to being called a white fucking bitch as I walk down the street, for two reasons. 1. I'm Italian/German, not British European. and 2. I might be a white fucking bitch, doesn't mean Macquarie street in Dubbo needs to know about it.

The cause lies in the lasting after effects of 200+ years of marginalisation by immigrants - poverty has become entrenched, should we just turn a blind eye to that because the cause happens to be more than a few years ago?
The entire country is regarded as 3rd world in first world living conditions. This meaning the majority of people in the country are below the poverty line. Why are some getting more assistance than others? That's where separitism comes into place. If we have to make up for past mistakes, why is there still a line drawn between what whites can access and what aboriginies can access? shouldnt it be the same? yes. but infact there is more assistance for aboriginies than whites.

The shocking disparity i'm referring to is things like unemployment, representation in prisons, domestic violence, truancy, high school retention, university attendance, infant mortality, teenage pregnancy and so on. There is a disparity, and one that hardly contributes to a fair and equal society.
All of the above which also affect non indigenous Australians also. So why the separitism? Because we're descendants of the people who founded this nation, we're not as deserving of such assistance? Like I've said, the help is there. It is open, there IS HELP. Nobody is forcing them to do drugs, committ crime, have kids or not find work.


Nice big generalisation there, but hardly true. I wouldn't even say that indigenous people are discriminated against in most cases, but they generally start from a background with more disadvantages and so there is a real skills difference between them and other job applicants.
That must be why Aboriginies and Non Aboriginies can access government centres like Centrelink, Joblink Plus, SureWay, but non aboriginies can't access indigenous employment agencies...
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Ziff said:
So your argument is that because of special circumstances, in your case distance, you need special subsidies in order to create a balance or equality? (Though you do try and qualify your arguments with "oh but we create ...")

Does this not then, follow through - using the same argument, to the Aboriginal cause? Aboriginals have the special circumstance of having been down trodden since 1788. It was only in 1967 that they were considered as citizens of Australia! Now, considering this extremely long term disadvantage they face, the massive social problems that still plague them as a result of this, does it not stand that this qualifies as a special circumstance and IF an Aboriginal does somehow manage to work their way out of these problems and tries to become a productive member of society that they should not be given the necessary assistance so that they may study, learn and potentially CREATE?
The fact is they do get assistance that many non indigenous people with the same problems cannot access.

I think if you go through the list of things city people can access that Rural residents cant access you'll find it isn't exactly balanced out.

How is only becoming an Australian citizen in 1967 affect somebody born in the 1980s? I know some upstanding Aboriginal citizens who were around long before 1967 who have managed to put past injustices behind them and accept that todays society isnt directly responsible. If they can overcome it while living before, through and after it, long before government assistance, why cant the younger generations of Aboriginies rise above? The assistance IS there.
Are we talking full blooded Aboriginies, or people who's great great great grandfather was Aboriginie, but they still get assistance.
 

thorrnydevil

Ancient Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
1,521
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Asquithian said:
she is hardly a fashion aficionado...imo her fashion leaves alot to be desired...





And you just had these pictures lying around, hey?
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Asquithian said:
'Aborigine'...

current discourse supports referring to these people as aboriginal
Got a grammar lesson on the Merlin post and was told it's ABORIGINIE unless you're talking about the "Aboriginal boy".
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
katie_tully said:
1. Nobosy has assumed that being Asian means unskilled and non-English speaking. There are however many that arent and don't, which is the entire basis of the argument. With a high population increase, there needs to be a higher ratio of skilled immigrants to sustain the economy.



2. Aboriginies were nomadic, they didn't "own" the land in the first place. They arent getting their land dispossessed from them anymore.
1. Katie, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/20/1095651256166.html (sign up if necessary).

2. Read up on the concept of Terra Nullius (particularly how it was validated and how it was overturned). Just remember that you are using the term 'ownership' in a western sense (funnily enough, other systems of ownership do exist). Visit http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/hot_topic/hottopic/2000/2/1.html if you would like a summary.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top