So, what would your policy stance be? (2 Viewers)

[gerhard]

hardly

look at america and their 20 million illegal mexican immigrants

they dont get welfare or minimum wage protections. however for the mexicans, life in the usa is still better than in mexico (if it were not, theyd go back).

everyone is happy; 20 million mexicans have a better life, americans have cheaper goods and services (due to cheap mexican wages).

 

[lengy]

Americans love exploitation also... I mean capitalism.

 

[banco55]

hardly

look at america and their 20 million illegal mexican immigrants

they dont get welfare or minimum wage protections. however for the mexicans, life in the usa is still better than in mexico (if it were not, theyd go back).

everyone is happy; 20 million mexicans have a better life, americans have cheaper goods and services (due to cheap mexican wages).

Actually they do get welfare (though the welfare system in the US is much smaller than in Australia). They run up huge hospital bills for example and if their kids are educated in american schools the american taxpayer pays for that as well. The bottom 10 % of the US labour force shouldn't be happy because the mexicans drive down their wages.

 

[loquasagacious]

^Fucking retard.

Yes Rape can be black and white in the case of stereotypical assailant overpowers woman and has sex with her against her consent, the 'violent rape' however this is actually a minority of rapes.

Black and white is not so black and white when you stir age, alcohol, drugs, etc into the mix. For example:
-Sex with <16y/olds, it shouldnt happen but sometimes it happens accidently, and what if two <16y/olds have sex - who raped who?
-Drunk sex, technically this is rape but what if you are both drunk who rapes who? What if the girl went out with the intent of getting drunk and getting laid? How drunk is too drunk to consent and how can we measure this retrospectively?
-What if girl A is drugged by man X. Man Y doesn't know this however because of the drugging he has what he believes is consensual sex with girl A?
-Can a man be raped by a woman?
-What if a girl withdraws consent during intercourse?
-What if the rapist is the victims husband/bf/etc?

Surely you can see that not all rape is as bad as a group of men overpowering a young girl and gang-raping her????

And don't get me wrong I am not 'soft' on rapists generally speaking I probably dislike rapists MORE than murderers. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate differences in degree, intent and culpability.

 

[withoutaface]

-Sex with <16y/olds, it shouldnt happen but sometimes it happens accidently, and what if two <16y/olds have sex - who raped who?

If two underagers have sex then they're both perpetrators and both victims.

-Drunk sex, technically this is rape but what if you are both drunk who rapes who? What if the girl went out with the intent of getting drunk and getting laid? How drunk is too drunk to consent and how can we measure this retrospectively?

Honestly, drunk sex shouldn't be rape. If someone goes out and wilfully hits the piss, then they can't bitch about the fact that they did something stupid when they wake up the next morning. I wouldn't take advantage of a girl's drunkeness, but it shouldn't be illegal to either.

-What if girl A is drugged by man X. Man Y doesn't know this however because of the drugging he has what he believes is consensual sex with girl A?

Depends on whether the effects of drugs were obvious to Man Y. If not, then Man X is guilty of a lot of things, if not rape.

-Can a man be raped by a woman?

Yes.

-What if a girl withdraws consent during intercourse?

If the man does not stop, then that's clearly rape.

-What if the rapist is the victims husband/bf/etc?

Most definately rape.

And don't get me wrong I am not 'soft' on rapists generally speaking I probably dislike rapists MORE than murderers. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate differences in degree, intent and culpability.

This is why I will label all of these things rape, but refuse to support minimum sentencing for anything.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If two underagers have sex then they're both perpetrators and both victims.

The result of that is they both go to gaol.

If someone goes out and wilfully hits the piss, then they can't bitch about the fact that they did something stupid when they wake up the next morning.

It's complex. One factor would be whether the person who slept with her had any inclination that she was doing something that she wouldn't do without being under the influence. I.e. If Ben has the hots for Jane, but she's always turned him down, then one night she gets very drunk and is willing to do it, I would argue Ben both ought to and most likely does know that it's alcohol that's leading to her granting of consent, not her conscious wishes.

This is why I will label all of these things rape, but refuse to support minimum sentencing for anything.

Yep - Minimum sentencing ftl.

 

[gerhard]

Americans love exploitation also... I mean capitalism.

and how is letting people work in any country in the world more exploitative than forcing them to work in one country where their skills may not be valued highly?

 

[wheredanton]

I haven’t done criminal law for some time.

You need intention for the purpose to be guilty of the offence. The court will infer intent if you are reckless. The grey area is over the finer points of recklessness. What constitutes recklessness?

The feminists want recklessness to extend to the situation where the victim stops consenting but the accused doesn’t know that the victim has stopped consenting. Most people don’t agree with this position because it means you are going to find someone guilty of an offence they didn’t intend to commit – essentially you are convicting the person for the harm caused.

The other view is where the victim stops consenting and the accused doesn’t know but should have known that the person had stopped consenting. In this situation the court will infer intent from recklessness.

 

[wheredanton]

If the man does not stop, then that's clearly rape.

Depends if he knows or should have known she stopped consenting...

 

[loquasagacious]

In terms of the withdrawal of consent, clearly if you kept going till climax it is rape but what about the so-called ten second rape? eg what is the acceptable window to stop having sex in?

The drunk issue is probably the hardest one though afterall while in chads example of ben and jane then ben is most likely a rapist - though perhaps considerably less so if he were also drunk. What if Ben and Jane didn't know each other? Is it rape if Jane wakes up in the morning and realises that in her inebriated state she had sex with a man she would never have had sex with sober? In other words is it rape if an unattractive man goes out, does not drink and has sex with drunk attractive women?

And of course the biggest problem with wafs position is the assumption its based on eg that when girls go out to drink, they're also looking to fuck. In other words Justin is virtually taking the fact that a girl has dressed up and gotten drunk as her consenting to have sex with anyone. This completely ignores the possibility that she was not seeking sex that night and thus did not in anyway consent in advance.

And still we have the problem of extent even if we can say that its ok to pick up a drunk chick how can we possibly say its ok to take home a girl who is falling over drunk/almost passed out/vomitting, where can we draw the line?

What if a girl wakes up in the morning with no memory of the previous night, naked in bed with a man she would not go for sober? Did he rape her, did he have the intent? Was she so drunk she came on to him? Is it still rape even if she did?

I know a girl that happened too, I have to work with the guy. I have an extreme and primal aggressive impulse to harm him - but I don't simply because more rationally I can see a possiblity of doubt - and so can the girl. Still while its enough to stop me hurting him I won't deny that I can't stop myself thinking that he is a rapist.

In short I think that rape is just about the most complex, varied and nuanced crime that we face and so is the worst possible crime to have minimum, recommended, etc sentences for.

 

[BlackDragon]

In terms of the withdrawal of consent, clearly if you kept going till climax it is rape but what about the so-called ten second rape? eg what is the acceptable window to stop having sex in?

I would say immediately. As soon as she says it the other person must stop.
Although she probably wouldn't report 5 second rape it is still wrong.

 

[loquasagacious]

I agree with immediately - the question is how long is immediate?

Oh and a man in WA was convicted of a ten second rape.

 

[BlackDragon]

I agree with immediately - the question is how long is immediate?

Oh and a man in WA was convicted of a ten second rape.

Immediately: "without delay or hesitation; with no time intervening;"
so as soon as he has time to react he should stop. so a second?

10 second rape conviction? i would just steer clear of the freak rather than go through a lengthy court case. or get an avo.

 

[Valeu]

Economy

- Nationalisation of the Commonwealth Bank, QANTAS, Telstra.
- Buy back the farm - nationalise the mineral resources industry.
- Overturn the last 23 years of neo-liberal reforms

Have a mixed economy with strong emphasis on social well-being and community, instead of the Blair-ite rubbish ideas we keep getting from the ALP. Full employment, etc

pump the revenue into public education/health in general, re-introduce govt funded tertiary education.

back to the good old days!!

Also, abandon the ANZUS alliance, form diplomatic links with the new left-wing countries of Latin America to form an anti-imperialsit alliance of some sort.

Troops out of Iraq, as well.

Australia would probably then experience capital flight, followed by a major reccession, etc., but we would have regained our independence and sovereignty.

A lot of detail is missing but that's the general gist.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

It's complex. One factor would be whether the person who slept with her had any inclination that she was doing something that she wouldn't do without being under the influence. I.e. If Ben has the hots for Jane, but she's always turned him down, then one night she gets very drunk and is willing to do it, I would argue Ben both ought to and most likely does know that it's alcohol that's leading to her granting of consent, not her conscious wishes.

But if people can get convicted of crimes they committed drunk but would never do sober, people should take responsibility for their actions in other capacities when drunk. I'd say that Jane would have a fair idea that her standards/inhibitions are significantly lowered when she's had x amount of alcohol, but she drinks anyway. Ben is in morally nasty territory, no doubt, but legally I don't think he should have any problem.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

Australia would probably then experience capital flight, followed by a major reccession, etc., but we would have regained our independence and sovereignty.

Our people would probably starve, but who cares when we're an independent nation!

 

[loquasagacious]

But if people can get convicted of crimes they committed drunk but would never do sober, people should take responsibility for their actions in other capacities when drunk. I'd say that Jane would have a fair idea that her standards/inhibitions are significantly lowered when she's had x amount of alcohol, but she drinks anyway. Ben is in morally nasty territory, no doubt, but legally I don't think he should have any problem.

As said elsewhere I think you are in the very nasty moral territory of saying that when Jane drinks she automatically consents to any and all sexual contact thereafter. What you are essentially saying is that drunk=consenting and there is no way that I would ever agree with you on that (and I hope that no reasonable person would).

As I said before your position is fundamentally weak for several reasons:
-Firstly the implicit assumption that girlswho get drunk want to get laid is a gross generalisation that assumes away any possibility that a girl just wants to have a few drinks with her friends. Or even wants to get plastered, it doesn't matter. The point is that when a girl decides to drink she does not also decide to get laid.
-Even if we were to accept your morally reprehensible position where do we draw the line?? When is a girl too drunk even for your drunk consent? Passed out? And what about when she wakes up with no memory of how she wound up naked in bed with you?

Whilst i'm sure that your position has been formed by your experiences going out clubbing/etc and scoring (or wanting too) with girls how about you look at some perspectives other than 'horny male' (whose morals are incidently scientifically proven to be lower when arroused), put yourself in the position of the girl who went out to hang out with friends and winds up naked in bed with no memory of getting there and next to a guy she finds repulsive. Or maybe put yourself in the position of her brother, father, boyfriend.

 

[Valeu]

Our people would probably starve, but who cares when we're an independent nation!

pretty much!!!

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Economy

- Nationalisation of the Commonwealth Bank, QANTAS, Telstra.
- Buy back the farm - nationalise the mineral resources industry.
- Overturn the last 23 years of neo-liberal reforms

Have a mixed economy with strong emphasis on social well-being and community, instead of the Blair-ite rubbish ideas we keep getting from the ALP. Full employment, etc

pump the revenue into public education/health in general, re-introduce govt funded tertiary education.

back to the good old days!!

Also, abandon the ANZUS alliance, form diplomatic links with the new left-wing countries of Latin America to form an anti-imperialsit alliance of some sort.

Troops out of Iraq, as well.

Australia would probably then experience capital flight, followed by a major reccession, etc., but we would have regained our independence and sovereignty.

A lot of detail is missing but that's the general gist.

Nah,

- Privatise everything, including all utilities, health, transport, education
- End government funding of any industries that can't support themselves

Have a free market economy to the greatest extent possible

Minimise government size, revenue and spending, eg. lower income tax, privatised education and health.

Become an autonomous province of the USA, invade latin american countries and install Pinochet-esque regimes

More troops into Iraq for as long as the Republicans deem necessary

There's no such thing as society, or autonomy or sovereignty, only money & power.

That's the general gist.

 

[sam04u]

I disagree almost completely with what Malfoy has said. His opinion reflects one side and will result in the worsening of Australia. (Basically, he wants to immitate the American Government with Controlled Immigration as the only differemce.)

Indigenous Affairs
* I would remove children being abused and remove that vile piece of DOCS legislation that says indigenous kids can't be removed to non-indigenous families, which results in shortages of suitable carers for these abused kids. I would jail the perpetrators and not let the law be soft on them for cultural reasons.

* I would remove a lot of the no-strings-attached handouts that get given to indigenous people. I like the idea of welfare splitting - where it's tied to things like whether the kids go to school, or putting a percentage towards the school for feeding the children, or whatnot. I'd also provide incentives in order to encourage indigenous people to move to regional towns, centres or cities because in these remote settlements there's not much chance of either working or getting yourself off welfare.

* I would not apologise. It's not constructive. Instead, I'd try and improve conditions because that's practical rather than symbolic.

They receive benefits because it's almost impossible for many people of those communities to assimilate. Mainly because their community hasn't created a niche in society, taking benefits away from Indigenous people who can't work will "DRAMATICALLY" rise the crime rate, which under your criminal laws would mean laws which are unfair to people who are aboriginal people.

1. You need a chance to change.
2. An aboriginal family who all of a sudden loses welfare and can't find jobs because of lack of requirements will likely turn belligerent and too crime.

INEQUALITY!

Crime
* I would be a lot tougher on crime, and I would ensure we had more police. I would also make sure sentences for certain crimes were tougher - rape being foremost among them because I think it's disgusting.

* I would make sure indigenous people were sentenced according to the severity of their crimes if they were involved in child abuse, instead of being allowed to cite 'cultural' defences.

* I would have ensured that policing wasn't politically correct - for example, why weren't those who smashed cars at Maroubra arrested last year, yet a guy who wore an anti-Islam shirt was jailed?

* I would be a lot tougher on the protestors who acted as those at the G20 protest did. There's peaceful protesting (even if I generally disagree with what it stands for, I believe in the freedom of those people to protest) and then there's sheer destructive idiocy. Also, essential services such as schools and hospitals shouldn't be allowed to be neglected just because of protests. That's ridiculous.

You are an imbecile. An Anglo-White Australian man was released on 9months suspended sentence after raping a 14 year old girl in queensland. All hate crime should be treated equalliy. There is SEVERE inequality in the law right now because of cumstains like you who think that ethnic people are more inclined to rape which far from the truth.

Protest is a HUMAN RIGHT. You disagree to HUMAN RIGHTS? God you're a moron. Why don't we just make you the sadaam hussein or the bush of Australia?

Immigration
* I would be much, much tougher on immigration, to be honest. I support mandatory detention for illegal immigrants, but only for say, a three-month period. I would also be very selective in who I allow in. Believe me when I say I used to (until a month ago) live in a very ethnically divided community and there were a lot of racial problems there caused by people who came here expecting a handout but who didn't want to adhere to our laws or whatever else.

* I would abolish multiculturalism and replace it with integration. I don't mind if people hold on to their religion, food, dress or whatever else, but if you don't want to respect our laws, customs, or lifestyle, you shouldn't be here in the first place. Multiculturalism is responsible for making our community divided, and it shouldn't be.

You can't steal people Identity you freaking Rodent. Multiculturalism will exist! Despite what idiots like you say. Respect should be shared among ALL people. That's like saying that all people should be "Rock Music, Beach Going, Alcohol Drinking, Surf Monkeys."

People have a right to their own lifestyle and views. Freedom of thought buddy! As long as they aren't commiting any crimes it's none of your business what their views are. Here is my view; "I think women who bath topless at a public place like the beach are fuggen hoes and they want people looking at there tits."

Can you change that view? Why can't they go to a private or nudist beach? Couldn't they go to a tanning salon? A back-yard? Why do they want brown tits anyway?! (OMG THEY'RE TRYING TO BE Non-WHITE! Kick them out!)

As for welfare. Single Mothers can't find work. Divorce has come from idiots like you with mixed views. Now we have easy divorce, women who get the children and now women can't get welfare? It's thinking like yours that will turn Western Sydney into a ghetto with drugs/guns and cop killing. (Since you want a shit load of pigs that will mean more corrupted police patrolling the neighbourhoods.)

Basically you want this to be like the U.S-Gay? Go to the USA IF you don't like Australia, you vegetable.