Shortforbob

I still call Australia home

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

If you don't like Australia day you can always fuck off back to that shithole you came from in that sardine tin you floated over here in.

A bottle shop owner I know reckons he sold 2 pallet loads more of Flagons every pension check Thursday, Aboriginal day would be the day they get their welfare payments.

I reckon we should give them the choice of Land Rights or Welfare payments if they want land rights then they miss out on centrelink payments.

Australia day was never a problem until the dickhead Green politicians like David Shoebridge got involved and tried to change it.

 

I wonder who smelly Meli will support on this one, the hardworking Iranian refugee or the Boongs.

 

 

The facts are that there have been “Day of Mourning” protests on the 26th of January since the 1930’s. This had nothing to do with the Greens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

By an overwhelming majority of the best people, yes.

Problem for them is, they only comprise maybe 2% of the Australian population.

FKT

I don’t give a shit or have any real thought to holidays in the UK, it’s just an excuse for a long weekend, suits me. Might as well enjoy it. 

If you don’t want to participate? Fine! Just don’t piss and moan and spoil someone else’s  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

It is a racist slur to call someone a Bogan, anyone who is not a bogan who calls someone a bogan is a racist.

Just no. Bogan is like "trailer trash". It is race agnostic. It's a classist insult you idiot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mad said:

I don’t give a shit or have any real thought to holidays in the UK, it’s just an excuse for a long weekend, suits me. Might as well enjoy it. 

If you don’t want to participate? Fine! Just don’t piss and moan and spoil someone else’s  

 

Pretty much. I get invited to the neighbours' party/sorry day every year. There's a number of things we may disagree on politically, a number of others we're as one on, but hey, music, food, nice day, what's to bitch about.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

By an overwhelming majority of the best people, yes.

Problem for them is, they only comprise maybe 2% of the Australian population.

FKT

They used to comprise more..    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew a bushy/eco warrior in Darwin 30 years ago who wore a catskin hat. He said they were OK to eat but tricky to catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Happy said:

I knew a bushy/eco warrior in Darwin 30 years ago who wore a catskin hat. He said they were OK to eat but tricky to catch.

We used to have the tanned skin of a large feral cat in a case on the wall of one of our ships. IIRC it was the last one shot on Macca.

All of those cats were descended from friendly harmless little moggies that got loose. Some of us learned from history. Others, not so much.

I'm bored with this now. Reading arguments from blow-ins about how they find Australia Day offensive is more entertaining. Almost as entertaining as migrants bitching about how culturally insensitive Australia is for not building religion-segregated toilet & shower blocks. Oh the angst.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Mikey

 

Quote

Pintubi cat hunters to take skills across Australia

An elite team of cat hunters from the Great Sandy Desert is in demand across Australia and may be deployed to other areas urgent requiring predator control, according to an ecologist who supports their work.

The Pintubi people of the remote West Australian Aboriginal community of ­Kiwirrkurra hunt feral cats for food, a practice that is now recognised as helping protect some of Australia’s rarest native animals.

The Pintubi hunters have asked the Barnett government to help them make cat hunting a week-long event every month, over an even wider area of their traditional lands. They have applied for $50,000 for a four-month trial that would cover the monitoring of native species and employ someone to co-ordinate and document cat hunts. The Central Desert Native Title Service is already supporting the push with a $100 bounty per cat, considered a gesture to ­reimburse groups for the petrol used over the course of a day in the desert.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/pintubi-cat-hunters-to-take-skills-across-australia/news-story/e80f111d790ac0f47c2134bb6a63b40d

 

Quote

Feral 'catterole' back on the menu and puts Alice Springs author back in the spotlight

Writer and illustrator Kaye Kessing has appeared on a national news program, speaking of her desire to see feral cats on the national menu.

Appearing in a story on SBS news program The Feed, Ms Kessing spoke of how a dish she created using feral cat launched her into the international spotlight.

"To make a point about the problem that feral cats are causing right across Australia I cooked a 'catterole' in [a] bush foods competition," she said.

"Aboriginal mob out bush have eaten cat for a long time, if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me."

Ms Kessing went on to describe the backlash she received, including death threats, when the story gained international media attention.

"I had a large amount of hate mail from all around the world, it went viral," she said.

"But I must say I added up all the comments that came in via the news articles but the majority of feedback was positive."

Feral cats present a serious threat to biodiversity in Australia.

Ms Kessing said putting feral cat on the national menu would be one way of helping preserve Australia's vulnerable native animals.

"People just have to get over their emotion," she said.

"They have to realise the critical danger that these animals are causing."

Describing the taste of feral cat as a bit like rabbit, the writer and illustrator said one thing that may sway public opinion about eating feral animals was taste.

"Any wild caught food, it's got a completely different taste, these animals are roaming free and they're eating a wide range of plants and food," she said.

"It tastes a hell of a lot better ... it's much richer."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-24/alice-springs-author-spoke-on-tv-about-eating-cats/6643358

 

We had a researcher suggest we should export wild dog meat.

Quote

Researcher flags possibility of selling wild dog meat to Asia in new export industry

A researcher who is no stranger to controversy has pondered whether exporting wild dog meat to South-East Asia is a sustainable way to manage the pest.

Dr Benjamin Allen most recently worked on a plan to release dingoes into a Great Barrier Reef island to kill feral goats.

His latest research started with a throwaway comment.

"I met someone who works a fair bit in Asia. I mentioned that I work with dingoes, and they said 'Oh, I've always wondered if tinned dingo meat would go well there'," he said.

Dr Allen did not give the issue much thought until he was preparing to present a paper at a conference focusing on conservation through the sustainable use of wildlife.

"Around the world, the sustainable use of wildlife is used as a model for conservation," he said.

"We have sustainable use here in Australia already. We have kangaroo and possum harvesting industries. Ecotourism is also sustainable use."

The paper Dr Allen wrote for the conference is titled Creating dingo meat products for Southeast Asia: potential market opportunities and cultural dilemmas.

That last point — cultural dilemmas — has already been tested, given the more than 6,000 signatures on a petition calling for his session at the conference to be cancelled.

Thousands of dogs killed every year

Dr Allen said the control of wild dogs on Australian pastoral land had become a major concern to local, state and federal governments.

"We've got no idea how many wild dogs are in Australia, but there's something in the order of 10,000-15,000 scalps a year handed in to local governments for bounty payment," he said.

"The dog is often hung on a tree or hung on a fence, or left to rot on the ground."

Dr Allen was in November awarded the inaugural Dave Choquenot Science Prize for developing and implementing strategies for dealing with wild dogs and feral cats in Australia.

"But having said that, when I drive along the road in western Queensland and I see a bunch of wild dogs hanging off a fence, I think 'What a waste'."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-11/wild-dogs-on-the-menu/7721200

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Same thing here. Midwesterners and Easterners move to our area, and think nothing of letting their animals outside in the yard. Two days later the "Missing" signs show up taped to the mailbox.

Missing = Eaten, usually around here. Between the coyotes, foxes, bobcats, rattlesnakes, and lions, only larger animals are safe in the yard. My 50-some pound coonhound is probably the smallest animal who can be safe from anything smaller than the lions who live over the ridge. And even then, the coyote families can trick and kill even the biggest of big dogs.

I think that the hawks are the worst though. It's only happened a few times in our area, but when they see a tiny dog in a yard, they're so fast that they can scoop down in your yard, high noon, then grab the dog and fly away, all in under less than 5 seconds. They seem to have quite an appetite for those mini Yorkshire Terriers.

Or maybe the worst is when a big dog happens to find itself in the Open Space at dusk. They end up hunted and terrified by the coyotes. At least the lions kill a neighbor's chocolate lab fast. But the coyotes hunt in families, they take their time in killing those dogs, and the sound of the coyotes yapping and the cries of agony from the dog last a while, sometimes a minute or two sometimes ten minutes. And the sound just seems to carry forever on the night air, it's nearly impossible to rescue a dog in that position after nightfall. And those cries of pain from the dogs, at first you hear the dog barking and snarling, but eventually it sounds like a baby crying. The coyotes don't bite the neck of their victims like the lions, they just start feeding on the poor animal while it's still alive, gnawing into the dogs guts until the dog finally dies from exhaustion and blood loss. Fucking coyotes, even wolves don't hunt like that.

I remember a few years ago when Austin's calf was attacked by coyotes, if memory serves, he wrote that they just went right for the belly.

You might call them "dogs" in Australia, but dogs who hunt like that are "coyotes" here, and I never miss an opportunity to throw a rock at the red-eyed bastards when they show up at my yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

For Mikey

 

 

 

We had a researcher suggest we should export wild dog meat.

 

Meh. That's pure bush league compared to what we do here.

Us Yanks form nonprofit societies called, for instance, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and then once they are immune from taxes and public review, they then kill as many pet dogs as they can ...

https://www.petakillsanimals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Almost as entertaining as migrants bitching about how culturally insensitive Australia is for not building religion-segregated toilet & shower blocks. Oh the angst...

Missed that one. Who's doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pipe Dream said:

Thanks, I hadn't seen that... though that's not exactly what FKT said was happening. They are requesting that they consider religious beliefs when creating amenities, not requesting "religion-segregated toilet & shower blocks". Which is something a bit further into crazy entitlement territory. Missed the mention of their migrant status as well (unless FKT's into the whole "everyone not aboriginal is a migrant" thing, which I doubt).

Personally, I think they can suck it up and deal with it. It's a unisex amenity. That's how they work - both genders can use them, both genders can get into them. If you absolutely, positively must have a gender-specific amenity block - find one before you need the shower. You know, like the Exclusive Brethren have been doing for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Thanks, I hadn't seen that... though that's not exactly what FKT said was happening. They are requesting that they consider religious beliefs when creating amenities, not requesting "religion-segregated toilet & shower blocks". Which is something a bit further into crazy entitlement territory. Missed the mention of their migrant status as well (unless FKT's into the whole "everyone not aboriginal is a migrant" thing, which I doubt).

Personally, I think they can suck it up and deal with it. It's a unisex amenity. That's how they work - both genders can use them, both genders can get into them. If you absolutely, positively must have a gender-specific amenity block - find one before you need the shower. You know, like the Exclusive Brethren have been doing for decades.

True, I was shit-stirring a bit, but only a bit.

If a group wants sex segregated facilities, I've no real problem with that. As long as they also pay to build them if nobody else thinks they're necessary. I remember when they first introduced unisex toilets at Sydney Uni and that was over 40 years ago. Never a fuss, there were still single sex toilets about the campus. If a religion is so special that it can't get by with what the rest of the country doesn't have a problem with, I'd suggest that it's their problem not mine. And, as you say, think about it beforehand and plan accordingly.

GF of mine used to be a nanny for one of the very wealthy Jewish families in Melbourne. They kept kosher but not super-strict. The grandmother used to bring her own cup & plate (and perhaps other stuff, possibly tea) when she visited rather than insist that a special set of flatware was kept for her.

There was an article in the SMH on a women-only swimming pool, apparently (IIRC) even boys over the age of 5 aren't permitted. I don't have any real problem with that. In fact to extend the idea perhaps having facilities for people between the ages of 14 and 25 segregated from everyone else would be an excellent idea. Let them indulge in their mating rituals, noise and music a long way from everyone wanting a quiet day out. Somewhere north of Broome would be good, or perhaps Moreton Bay though it's already over quota with bogans sans sense.

Unfortunately that'd leave the beach cricket fuckwits to still run riot.

Time to go check on the boat - it's 30C out there today, even walking as far as 100m downslope to my little beach seems a lot of work.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem..isn't Australia day kind of our equivalent of Empire Day? We jolly well don't celebrate that with a PH and fireworks anymore Bwana Mad!

More properly we white folks could call 26 Jan "Colonization day" and the Natives could call it Invasion Day:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

Thanks, I hadn't seen that... though that's not exactly what FKT said was happening. They are requesting that they consider religious beliefs when creating amenities, not requesting "religion-segregated toilet & shower blocks". Which is something a bit further into crazy entitlement territory. Missed the mention of their migrant status as well (unless FKT's into the whole "everyone not aboriginal is a migrant" thing, which I doubt).

Personally, I think they can suck it up and deal with it. It's a unisex amenity. That's how they work - both genders can use them, both genders can get into them. If you absolutely, positively must have a gender-specific amenity block - find one before you need the shower. You know, like the Exclusive Brethren have been doing for decades.

Our local pool bans kiddies over 5 from opposite sex change rooms....so six year old boys have to change alone in the mens when at the pool with Mum..and vice versa.  Personally I do prefer separate change facilitise at the pool..or the beach..too many perves at the pool..even at my age some sleeze will swim up and ask that old line.."do you come here often? "  Those councils are just being cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

Our local pool bans kiddies over 5 from opposite sex change rooms....so six year old boys have to change alone in the mens when at the pool with Mum..and vice versa.

I'm struggling to see the problem here. I could get changed into / out of wet clothes as a six year old without needing my mother's assistance. All of my boys could too. Didn't have to hold their hand going to the loo either. So I really don't see the problem. If it's a gender-specific toilet/changeroom - school age seems a reasonable point for them to abide by the rules.

 

Just now, Shortforbob said:

Personally I do prefer separate change facilitise at the pool..or the beach..too many perves at the pool..even at my age some sleeze will swim up and ask that old line.."do you come here often? "  Those councils are just being cheap.

Your preference to the side, so what if the council is being cheap? They have a limited budget and what they spend on that change room can't be spent on parks maintenance, libraries, local events, etc. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that, provided the vast majority of people are just fine with the changeroom as is, that they save money where they can. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

Same thing here. Midwesterners and Easterners move to our area, and think nothing of letting their animals outside in the yard. Two days later the "Missing" signs show up taped to the mailbox.

Missing = Eaten, usually around here. Between the coyotes, foxes, bobcats, rattlesnakes, and lions, only larger animals are safe in the yard. My 50-some pound coonhound is probably the smallest animal who can be safe from anything smaller than the lions who live over the ridge. And even then, the coyote families can trick and kill even the biggest of big dogs.

I think that the hawks are the worst though. It's only happened a few times in our area, but when they see a tiny dog in a yard, they're so fast that they can scoop down in your yard, high noon, then grab the dog and fly away, all in under less than 5 seconds. They seem to have quite an appetite for those mini Yorkshire Terriers.

Or maybe the worst is when a big dog happens to find itself in the Open Space at dusk. They end up hunted and terrified by the coyotes. At least the lions kill a neighbor's chocolate lab fast. But the coyotes hunt in families, they take their time in killing those dogs, and the sound of the coyotes yapping and the cries of agony from the dog last a while, sometimes a minute or two sometimes ten minutes. And the sound just seems to carry forever on the night air, it's nearly impossible to rescue a dog in that position after nightfall. And those cries of pain from the dogs, at first you hear the dog barking and snarling, but eventually it sounds like a baby crying. The coyotes don't bite the neck of their victims like the lions, they just start feeding on the poor animal while it's still alive, gnawing into the dogs guts until the dog finally dies from exhaustion and blood loss. Fucking coyotes, even wolves don't hunt like that.

I remember a few years ago when Austin's calf was attacked by coyotes, if memory serves, he wrote that they just went right for the belly.

You might call them "dogs" in Australia, but dogs who hunt like that are "coyotes" here, and I never miss an opportunity to throw a rock at the red-eyed bastards when they show up at my yard.

So your outrage about dead pets is selective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

I'm struggling to see the problem here. I could get changed into / out of wet clothes as a six year old without needing my mother's assistance. All of my boys could too. Didn't have to hold their hand going to the loo either. So I really don't see the problem. If it's a gender-specific toilet/changeroom - school age seems a reasonable point for them to abide by the rules.

 

Your preference to the side, so what if the council is being cheap? They have a limited budget and what they spend on that change room can't be spent on parks maintenance, libraries, local events, etc. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that, provided the vast majority of people are just fine with the changeroom as is, that they save money where they can. 

 

pedophiles are known to hang out around places with lots of  kiddies around semi nekkid or otherwise. While I don't join in the general hysteria about it, no way would  have I let my 6 year old son change alone in a mens change room..or allow either of them into a public toilet/ change change room mixed or not..but that's just me maybe.

did you miss this bit?

The unisex public toilets at Coolum beach have also come under fire after a four-year-old girl was indecently assaulted at the toilet blocks at Tickle Park two weeks ago.

 

re the link, more muslim bashing..ultra orthodox jewish boys and girls are not allowed to to even go to the beach for fear they see flesh :rolleyes:

are most people happy with mixed change rooms...where there appear not even to be stalls or doors ? I'm no prude buy I certainly wouldn't use them.

Personally, we always change ON the beach :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So your outrage about dead pets is selective?

I don't follow your logic, perhaps you can explain?

I think that people shouldn't necessarily take pleasure in killing wild animals like coyotes, feral cats, foxes, deer, etc., but sometimes it needs to be done for various reasons.

On the other hand, pets are part of our lives. That pet cat or pet dog or canary or whatever, is sometimes the very thin thread that holds some people to this side of terra-firma. For some elderly people, that little cat or dog is literally their reason to keep living. Killing someone's pet should be an absolute last resort for an untenable situation, not a go-to blanket solution designed to fit a selective worldview, where one bit of ecological damage (i.e. from a cat) is intolerable, but much more extensive ecological damage from a smokestack, or an agricultural chemical or groundwater pollution, is ignorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I don't follow your logic, perhaps you can explain?

I think that people shouldn't necessarily take pleasure in killing wild animals like coyotes, feral cats, foxes, deer, etc., but sometimes it needs to be done for various reasons.

On the other hand, pets are part of our lives. That pet cat or pet dog or canary or whatever, is sometimes the very thin thread that holds some people to this side of terra-firma. For some elderly people, that little cat or dog is literally their reason to keep living. Killing someone's pet should be an absolute last resort for an untenable situation, not a go-to blanket solution designed to fit a selective worldview, where one bit of ecological damage (i.e. from a cat) is intolerable, but much more extensive ecological damage from a smokestack, or an agricultural chemical or groundwater pollution, is ignorable.

If a cat is such an important part of and individuals life, why do people let them stray?

You are approaching it from the wrong side. Proactive pet lovers who keep control of their pets would make reactive pest controllers irrelevant.

Your comments about minor ecological damage vs major ecological damage are disingenuous. All ecological damage is bad. But are you going to forgo cold beer to save the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

pedophiles are known to hang out around places with lots of  kiddies around semi nekkid or otherwise. While I don't join in the general hysteria about it, no way would  have I let my 6 year old son change alone in a mens change room..or allow either of them into a public toilet/ change change room mixed or not..but that's just me maybe.

 did you miss this bit?

The unisex public toilets at Coolum beach have also come under fire after a four-year-old girl was indecently assaulted at the toilet blocks at Tickle Park two weeks ago.

No, I didn't miss that, it's just not relevant to the issue. The Muslims are complaining about the unisex amenities because their religion prohibits men from seeing women without their headgear and all over clothing. They are not, nor have even suggested, that their women or children are going to be assaulted by perverts if they don't give them gender-specific amenities. 

More to the point, however, the girl assaulted was four years old (i.e. still young enough per my comment to have parents with her in gender-specific amenities) and, according to reports, had "wandered off". Having gender specific toilets isn't going to fix that problem nor the issue with paedophiles waiting for kids to be left on their own. After all, a seven year old girl was taken last month from the North Lakes Kmart and molested. Like the four year old - the issue there was an unsupervised child and a predator in a public place. Kmart being a unisex store and all. 

I'm all for helping prevent child & sexual abuse (guaranteed "trigger" subject for me). Unisex toilets aren't part of the problem nor is removing them part of the solution. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

If a cat is such an important part of and individuals life, why do people let them stray?

You are approaching it from the wrong side. Proactive pet lovers who keep control of their pets would make reactive pest controllers irrelevant.

Your comments about minor ecological damage vs major ecological damage are disingenuous. All ecological damage is bad. But are you going to forgo cold beer to save the world?

Cats sometimes get out of the house regardless the owner's best intentions. And some cat and dog owners reluctantly let their pets into the yard for a bit because they see that it makes the animal happy to get fresh air and sit in the grass a bit. Yeah, some pet owners don't give a rat's ass what trouble their pet gets into, but you seem to assume that all pet owners are like that.

And the measure of the ecological damage are absolutely NOT "disingenuous." I've no idea why you would even write such nonsense. That's like suggesting that a 10 million gallon crude oil spill in pristine Alaskan waters is about the same "badness" as a 5,000 gallon underground gas spill in an industrial section of New Jersey. It's just silly to me to get so worked up over a few pet cats that someone can feel the need to shoot them, but that same person doesn't seem all that concerned about massive ecological damage from introduced crops, millions of head of cattle, and industrial pollutants.

We absolutely have to apply some measure to ecological damage, because it's the only way to rationally approach a systematic solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be quite happy to let a 6-year-old use a public changing room unsupervised...…….provided he had a knife and a lot of training.

"Now Johnnie, what do we do when a strange man asks you to come and see a puppy in his van?"

Johnnie whips out a serious blade and yells "Fuckoff or I'll rip open your fucking femoral artery before I stab you in the balls!"

"Good son, I'll see you at the pool."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the Australia Day issue.

And on cue comes the Australian Lamb 2019 Summer ad - not one of their best in my opinion

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

If a cat is such an important part of and individuals life, why do people let them stray?

So the snakes have something to snack on..... I think this has already been posted, but whatever.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/snake-catchers-warning-for-cat-owners/10729030

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

re the link, more muslim bashing..ultra orthodox jewish boys and girls are not allowed to to even go to the beach for fear they see flesh :rolleyes:

So there's the perfect solution for any other religion that has a problem - build your own segregated facilities.

If the ultra-orthodox Jews can deal with their religious constraints without asking for public changes, what's the problem with others doing the same thing? IOW if your religion means that you have a problem with using publicly provided facilities, that's your problem, not societies'.

Not Muslim bashing at all, it's special privilege bashing. Not the same thing at all.

FKT

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

Cats sometimes get out of the house regardless the owner's best intentions. And some cat and dog owners reluctantly let their pets into the yard for a bit because they see that it makes the animal happy to get fresh air and sit in the grass a bit. Yeah, some pet owners don't give a rat's ass what trouble their pet gets into, but you seem to assume that all pet owners are like that.

And the measure of the ecological damage are absolutely NOT "disingenuous." I've no idea why you would even write such nonsense. That's like suggesting that a 10 million gallon crude oil spill in pristine Alaskan waters is about the same "badness" as a 5,000 gallon underground gas spill in an industrial section of New Jersey. It's just silly to me to get so worked up over a few pet cats that someone can feel the need to shoot them, but that same person doesn't seem all that concerned about massive ecological damage from introduced crops, millions of head of cattle, and industrial pollutants.

We absolutely have to apply some measure to ecological damage, because it's the only way to rationally approach a systematic solution.

You seem to assume  that the limit of an individuals care for the environment starts and stops at cats.

Next, you'll be arguing that its a waste of time picking up rubbish from our local creek because the body of water it flows into suffers from the outfall of the sewerage plant.

 

 

 

We have a cat. We've had it for about 6 years. Its been outside for a total of 15 minutes. It was on a lead.

It doesn't like the lead so it doesn't go outside.

Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

You seem to assume  that the limit of an individuals care for the environment starts and stops at cats.

Next, you'll be arguing that its a waste of time picking up rubbish from our local creek because the body of water it flows into suffers from the outfall of the sewerage plant.

 

 

 

We have a cat. We've had it for about 6 years. Its been outside for a total of 15 minutes. It was on a lead.

It doesn't like the lead so it doesn't go outside.

Simple.

People - that is, responsible cat owners - can and do build 'cat aviaries' attached to their house if they want to allow their cat some outdoor exposure. You can actually buy the things or pay someone to build one if you're incompetent with tools.

If you live in a high-rise, at least in Australian capital cities, not such a problem as the built environment has already trashed native habitat. Even cats are rarely stupid enough to tackle a possum. At least, not more than once. The things still should be desexed, collared, belled and microchipped though.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

People - that is, responsible cat owners - can and do build 'cat aviaries' attached to their house if they want to allow their cat some outdoor exposure. You can actually buy the things or pay someone to build one if you're incompetent with tools.

If you live in a high-rise, at least in Australian capital cities, not such a problem as the built environment has already trashed native habitat. Even cats are rarely stupid enough to tackle a possum. At least, not more than once. The things still should be desexed, collared, belled and microchipped though.

FKT

Its still cruel to let a cat die a slow and limpy death after tangling with a car. Not to mention infections caused by injuries from fighting with other cats or dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Its still cruel to let a cat die a slow and limpy death after tangling with a car. Not to mention infections caused by injuries from fighting with other cats or dogs.

and cat aids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Ahem..isn't Australia day kind of our equivalent of Empire Day? We jolly well don't celebrate that with a PH and fireworks anymore Bwana Mad!

More properly we white folks could call 26 Jan "Colonization day" and the Natives could call it Invasion Day:rolleyes:

Correct, its not celebrated here as a public holiday at all.  Not sure why you dragged that one up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

pedophiles are known to hang out around places with lots of  kiddies around semi nekkid or otherwise. While I don't join in the general hysteria about it, no way would  have I let my 6 year old son change alone in a mens change room..or allow either of them into a public toilet/ change change room mixed or not..but that's just me maybe.

did you miss this bit?

The unisex public toilets at Coolum beach have also come under fire after a four-year-old girl was indecently assaulted at the toilet blocks at Tickle Park two weeks ago.

 

re the link, more muslim bashing..ultra orthodox jewish boys and girls are not allowed to to even go to the beach for fear they see flesh :rolleyes:

are most people happy with mixed change rooms...where there appear not even to be stalls or doors ? I'm no prude buy I certainly wouldn't use them.

Personally, we always change ON the beach :D

Agreed with the bit in bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A young boy has been attacked by a group of dingoes on Australia's popular tourist spot of Fraser Island.

One of the wild dogs bit the six-year old at a beach after he'd been swimming with his parents.

He was airlifted to a nearby hospital and is in a stable condition.

Australia's dingoes are protected in some national parks but there have been rare instances where they have attacked people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-46942282

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

You seem to assume  that the limit of an individuals care for the environment starts and stops at cats.

Next, you'll be arguing that its a waste of time picking up rubbish from our local creek because the body of water it flows into suffers from the outfall of the sewerage plant.

We have a cat. We've had it for about 6 years. Its been outside for a total of 15 minutes. It was on a lead.

It doesn't like the lead so it doesn't go outside.

Simple.

Lemme get this straight ... you put your cat "on a lead."

Suddenly, this entire shitfight makes sense, in a twisted, and deeply disturbing way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

pedophiles are known to hang out around places with lots of  kiddies around semi nekkid or otherwise. While I don't join in the general hysteria about it, no way would  have I let my 6 year old son change alone in a mens change room..or allow either of them into a public toilet/ change change room mixed or not..but that's just me maybe.

did you miss this bit?

The unisex public toilets at Coolum beach have also come under fire after a four-year-old girl was indecently assaulted at the toilet blocks at Tickle Park two weeks ago.

 

re the link, more muslim bashing..ultra orthodox jewish boys and girls are not allowed to to even go to the beach for fear they see flesh :rolleyes:

are most people happy with mixed change rooms...where there appear not even to be stalls or doors ? I'm no prude buy I certainly wouldn't use them.

Personally, we always change ON the beach :D

A girl got touched in ‘Tickle park’?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

A girl got touched in ‘Tickle park’?

 

Did you really try to make a joke about a four year old being sexually assualted?

Your perpetual need to trawl and one-up others is seriously effecting your judgement. Mate you need to take a time out and seriously reflect on your actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dreadom said:

Did you really try to make a joke about a four year old being sexually assualted?

Your perpetual need to trawl and one-up others is seriously effecting your judgement. Mate you need to take a time out and seriously reflect on your actions. 

Oh it’s my fault now that she got assualted is it? Save you faux outrage for Facebook mate. If the conversation is too offensive for you here, the door is just over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Oh it’s my fault now that she got assualted is it? Save you faux outrage for Facebook mate. If the conversation is too offensive for you here, the door is just over there.

Wow! Way to go. You had three options then:

a. Ignore my comment. 

b. Acknowledge that making light of a paedophile molesting a 4year old because it happened in a park with an amusing name, was in poor taste. 

Or

c. Double down on the vitriol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

How would you feel if it was your kid?

 

I would feel like a bad parent for letting my child get into that situation. Or for voting for a government that builds unisex toilets for political reasons and feels that local communities don’t have the right to know that convicted pedophiles are living in their neighborhood. But the real crime here is not the offence, it is someone with a different (more considered) political view making a joke. If I offended you then good. Grow a pair you handbag clutching leftwad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dreadom said:

Wow! Way to go. You had three options then:

a. Ignore my comment. 

b. Acknowledge that making light of a paedophile molesting a 4year old because it happened in a park with an amusing name, was in poor taste. 

Or

c. Double down on the vitriol. 

You can have 3 options as well mate.

a. Take it to face book. Make sure you use a coloured background to get the maximum ‘Likes’.  

B. Double down on your Faux outrage. Maybe even blame me for the attack.

c. Ignore it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

I would feel like a bad parent for letting my child get into that situation. Or for voting for a government that builds unisex toilets for political reasons and feels that local communities don’t have the right to know that convicted pedophiles are living in their neighborhood. But the real crime here is not the offence, it is someone with a different (more considered) political view making a joke. If I offended you then good. Grow a pair you handbag clutching leftwad. 

Bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

Bullshit.

Good considered reply. You have excelled yourself. So you leave your child unattended and they get attacked by a Pedo. Who is to blame? The Pedo? The Parents? The Labor Government that is soft on Pedos? Non of the above. It is the fault of a person who makes a joke about the parks name. 

Are you being wilfully stupid of is it just a Labor voter thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Good considered reply. You have excelled yourself. So you leave your child unattended and they get attacked by a Pedo. Who is to blame? The Pedo? The Parents? The Labor Government that is soft on Pedos? Non of the above. It is the fault of a person who makes a joke about the parks name. 

Are you being wilfully stupid of is it just a Labor voter thing?

There are times your offensiveness is funny, sometimes even appreciated.  This is not one of those times.

You've already doubled down, want to keep going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

A girl got touched in ‘Tickle park’?

 

Yeah..unfortunate name for a park where a tot gets sexually assaulted.. Tempting to make a joke about the name of the park..in any other circumstances..<_<

sometimes one can simply regret they hit "send" before engaging brain..and admit it.

I wonder the council that named it. Days of willful innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

Yeah..unfortunate name for a park where a tot gets sexually assaulted.. Tempting to make a joke about the name of the park..in any other circumstances..<_<

sometimes one can simply regret they hit "send" before engaging brain..and admit it.

Lb regret something?  That's not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Lb regret something?  That's not possible.

Yes it is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Yeah..unfortunate name for a park where a tot gets sexually assaulted.. Tempting to make a joke about the name of the park..in any other circumstances..<_<

sometimes one can simply regret they hit "send" before engaging brain..and admit it.

I wonder the council that named it. Days of willful innocence.

It was named after one of the Tickle family that have contributed so much to the SE Queensland community. Only a fuckwit lefty would suggest anyone change it. Maybe having a sexual offenders register might be a better step towards stopping this. I don’t think the pedo picked that toilet block because of the name you stupid women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Yes it is :)

True there was a girl called sue I regret not banging in 1979. But I have moved on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

There are times your offensiveness is funny, sometimes even appreciated.  This is not one of those times.

You've already doubled down, want to keep going?

No But it isn’t stopping you. Now Clutch that handbag tight young lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

It was named after one of the Tickle family that have contributed so much to the SE Queensland community. Only a fuckwit lefty would suggest anyone change it. Maybe having a sexual offenders register might be a better step towards stopping this. I don’t think the pedo picked that toilet block because of the name you stupid women.

Thank you for the information. I looked for the history but couldnt find it.

I got this

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/404?item=%2fexperience-sunshine-coast%2fbeaches-and-parks%2fbeaches-and-parks-directory%2ftickle-park-145&amp;user=extranet\Anonymous&amp;site=sccCorporate

 

I did'nt say anything about your other claims.

Back up LB, you posted a stupid remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Thank you for the information. I looked for the history but couldnt find it.

I got this

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/404?item=%2fexperience-sunshine-coast%2fbeaches-and-parks%2fbeaches-and-parks-directory%2ftickle-park-145&amp;user=extranet\Anonymous&amp;site=sccCorporate

 

I did'nt say anything about your other claims.

Back up LB, you posted a stupid remark.

Great link Meli.

We're so sorry – the page you’re looking for is no longer available. It may have been moved or Archived.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Ffs! It actually is called Tickle park!

I'm speechless.

 

Lucky you can still type. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Stupid idea. Both on concept and in the idea it has any chance whatsoever of being agreed to by referendum.

Twelve extra seats in the Senate, disproportionately allocated to those voters of the right race?? And what happens when white people ask for the same? Or Middle Eastern? It doesn't take a fucking genius to realise that brain fart is going to sink like a lead balloon in a shit storm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

Great link Meli.

We're so sorry – the page you’re looking for is no longer available. It may have been moved or Archived.

 

 

perzactly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Stupid idea. Both on concept and in the idea it has any chance whatsoever of being agreed to by referendum.

Twelve extra seats in the Senate, disproportionately allocated to those voters of the right race?? And what happens when white people ask for the same? Or Middle Eastern? It doesn't take a fucking genius to realise that brain fart is going to sink like a lead balloon in a shit storm. 

Well the labor party have a 50% female rule in cabinet. In the past you only had to be a cunt to be a minister in an ALP government. Now half of them have to have one as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Stupid idea. Both on concept and in the idea it has any chance whatsoever of being agreed to by referendum.

Twelve extra seats in the Senate, disproportionately allocated to those voters of the right race?? And what happens when white people ask for the same? Or Middle Eastern? It doesn't take a fucking genius to realise that brain fart is going to sink like a lead balloon in a shit storm. 

Actually I think it has some merit.

You get to pick whether you identify as ATSI or not for a Senate vote, so no double-dipping on votes. Either you vote in your State senate or the ATSI senate group. You pick. Nobody can force you either way. Gets away from the entire argument of genetic ancestry versus cultural identification to decide what you are issue.

It is disproportionate, yes, but so is Tasmania's Senate vote. That dates back to the federation of the colonies and isn't going to change.

The absolute number of seats could be argued over but personally I think the same as a State isn't a bad starting point.

As for the argument WRT others wanting the same, never going to fly. They weren't here *first* which is the whole point of it. Fuck them, they're all blow-ins anyway, especially all those who came here post WW2.

I agree it probably has no chance of passing a referendum vote but nor has anything else that's been suggested. I need to think about this one a bit longer but it's not something I'd reject out of hand.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Not for me.

Though there's nothing preventing aboriginals or others running or even forming their own party.

 

I expect that'd be the majority opinion too.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the potential flaws I see with the idea is - who nominates the people to stand for election? That opens up a big can of worms.

If it was some form of Party structure similar to the current clown array of ALP/Lib/Nats I'd vote against the whole thing instantly.

Maybe say 10K voters in the last election nominate/support your candidacy and you go on the ballot paper?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is something I reject out of hand because the disproportionate power given can be phenomenally one-sided. If they get to pick which senate seats they vote for, they have more power than any other vote. Especially if a phenomenally large number of indigenous decide to vote "normally". They have, in the proposal stated, twelve seats. They only make up 3% of the population. Even if every single one of them chooses to vote for the indigenous seats - that's still more disproportionate than Tasmania without the voters having the disadvantage of living in a freezing cold, high unemployment state filled with their second cousins. Realistically, you'd get less than half of them choosing to vote for their seats because, frankly, why bother? You're going to get twelve seats dedicated to your people's issues and only your people's issues. Something no other demographic in Australia gets.

Now, if you want to carve them out a state or give some seats to the already existing indigenous reserves, that I don't have an issue with. Live in the reserve/state - get to vote for the seats representing that reserve/state. Live elsewhere, vote for the seats that represent that. And no, I don't have any sympathy for the "we were here first" thing. It doesn't give the vote of English descendants any more power than it does folks that just received their citizenship nor should it.

Enshrining racial segregation into the Parliamentary structure is just a bad idea. Even more so when you give them over 13% of Senate votes. Didn't take long for Abbott to realise that and he's more loathe to admit he's wrong than Mikey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Ffs! It actually is called Tickle park!

I'm speechless.

 

Tickle Park David Low Way, Coolum Beach

Named after Edward Tickle who planted trees and plants along the foreshore at Coolum. Date named: 1 January 1956

There you go. No point in asking at the Library. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It is something I reject out of hand because the disproportionate power given can be phenomenally one-sided. If they get to pick which senate seats they vote for, they have more power than any other vote. Especially if a phenomenally large number of indigenous decide to vote "normally". They have, in the proposal stated, twelve seats. They only make up 3% of the population. Even if every single one of them chooses to vote for the indigenous seats - that's still more disproportionate than Tasmania without the voters having the disadvantage of living in a freezing cold, high unemployment state filled with their second cousins. Realistically, you'd get less than half of them choosing to vote for their seats because, frankly, why bother? You're going to get twelve seats dedicated to your people's issues and only your people's issues. Something no other demographic in Australia gets.

Now, if you want to carve them out a state or give some seats to the already existing indigenous reserves, that I don't have an issue with. Live in the reserve/state - get to vote for the seats representing that reserve/state. Live elsewhere, vote for the seats that represent that. And no, I don't have any sympathy for the "we were here first" thing. It doesn't give the vote of English descendants any more power than it does folks that just received their citizenship nor should it.

Enshrining racial segregation into the Parliamentary structure is just a bad idea. Even more so when you give them over 13% of Senate votes. Didn't take long for Abbott to realise that and he's more loathe to admit he's wrong than Mikey. 

Wow you an Abbo hater. Who would have guessed you were such a cunt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It is something I reject out of hand because the disproportionate power given can be phenomenally one-sided. If they get to pick which senate seats they vote for, they have more power than any other vote. Especially if a phenomenally large number of indigenous decide to vote "normally". They have, in the proposal stated, twelve seats. They only make up 3% of the population. Even if every single one of them chooses to vote for the indigenous seats - that's still more disproportionate than Tasmania without the voters having the disadvantage of living in a freezing cold, high unemployment state filled with their second cousins. Realistically, you'd get less than half of them choosing to vote for their seats because, frankly, why bother? You're going to get twelve seats dedicated to your people's issues and only your people's issues. Something no other demographic in Australia gets.

Now, if you want to carve them out a state or give some seats to the already existing indigenous reserves, that I don't have an issue with. Live in the reserve/state - get to vote for the seats representing that reserve/state. Live elsewhere, vote for the seats that represent that. And no, I don't have any sympathy for the "we were here first" thing. It doesn't give the vote of English descendants any more power than it does folks that just received their citizenship nor should it.

Enshrining racial segregation into the Parliamentary structure is just a bad idea. Even more so when you give them over 13% of Senate votes. Didn't take long for Abbott to realise that and he's more loathe to admit he's wrong than Mikey. 

I don't actually disagree with any of that.

So basically the entire 'reconciliation' caper and any possible meaningful Constitutional change is dead as a doornail. There is no proposal I've ever seen put forward that won't disadvantage others.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

It is something I reject out of hand because the disproportionate power given can be phenomenally one-sided. If they get to pick which senate seats they vote for, they have more power than any other vote.

I should in fairness point out that *I* already have that power.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LB 15 said:
Tickle Park David Low Way, Coolum Beach

Named after Edward Tickle who planted trees and plants along the foreshore at Coolum. Date named: 1 January 1956

There you go. No point in asking at the Library. 

Yeah. I looked it up

You get a half hearted apology. .........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I should in fairness point out that *I* already have that power.

Only by claiming to change your place of residence which every person can do, if they have the money for multiple residences. In the hypothetical world where indigenous get their special senate seats, they'd be able to do that and more because they have a seat only they can choose regardless of money. 

It was bad when the law forbade indigenous people from voting for Senate seats, it is just as bad giving them Senate seats only they can vote for. Both morally and, in this suggestion, in practice. 3% of the population getting 13+% of the power is worse even than the Tasmanian situation that has been the hallmark of "well, that's a bit fucked" in our Senate. I just don't see how taking something even Tassies acknowledge is a bit unbalanced and putting in something worse is a smart move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Yeah. I looked it up

You get a half hearted apology. .........

 

And in that case I half halfheartedly accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Only by claiming to change your place of residence which every person can do, if they have the money for multiple residences. In the hypothetical world where indigenous get their special senate seats, they'd be able to do that and more because they have a seat only they can choose regardless of money. 

It was bad when the law forbade indigenous people from voting for Senate seats, it is just as bad giving them Senate seats only they can vote for. Both morally and, in this suggestion, in practice. 3% of the population getting 13+% of the power is worse even than the Tasmanian situation that has been the hallmark of "well, that's a bit fucked" in our Senate. I just don't see how taking something even Tassies acknowledge is a bit unbalanced and putting in something worse is a smart move.

As I said, I can see the downsides.

You'd have to point out the law forbidding Aborigines from voting for Senate seats because AFAIK there never was such a law at the Commonwealth/Federal level. I think you're revealing your lack of knowledge of Australian history again. Hint - the 1967 Referendum didn't give them the vote, it removed the States' ability to forbid them the vote. Menzies in fact had already got legislation passed in 1962 to give Aboriginals a vote in Commonwealth elections regardless of State laws.

WRT Tasmania's voting power, that's a function of the original articles of Federation so it's a bit late to bitch now unless you want to basically scrap the country as-is and start all over again. Good luck with *that* idea - the smaller population States still wouldn't cop domination by NSW & Victoria.

Is there anything other than, maybe, some tokenistic language with no legal force, that you'd be prepared to consider for the Aboriginal descendants?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I think you're revealing your lack of knowledge of Australian history again. 

 

That's a bit harsh mate. He fucks one little goat...

Image result for maxine mckew waving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

You'd have to point out the law forbidding Aborigines from voting for Senate seats because AFAIK there never was such a law at the Commonwealth/Federal level. I think you're revealing your lack of knowledge of Australian history again. Hint - the 1967 Referendum didn't give them the vote, it removed the States' ability to forbid them the vote. Menzies in fact had already got legislation passed in 1962 to give Aboriginals a vote in Commonwealth elections regardless of State laws.

Don't know if it's passed you by, but state governments have senate seats too. ;) Queensland and WA had denied aboriginals the right to vote which meant being able to vote for their senate seats. However, to satisfy your pedantry, I'll amend my statement to "It was bad when the law forbade indigenous people from voting for STATE Senate seats, it is just as bad giving them FEDERAL Senate seats only they can vote for". Better?

 

2 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

WRT Tasmania's voting power, that's a function of the original articles of Federation so it's a bit late to bitch now unless you want to basically scrap the country as-is and start all over again. Good luck with *that* idea - the smaller population States still wouldn't cop domination by NSW & Victoria.

Not bitching about it. Simply pointing out that it's acknowledged as a bit fucked up and what is being proposed is, even at full indignenous takeup, even more fucked up than that. Electoral vote to Senate vote wise.

 

2 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Is there anything other than, maybe, some tokenistic language with no legal force, that you'd be prepared to consider for the Aboriginal descendants?

Sure. I already mentioned it earlier - give the reserves some senate representation. Far less than twelve seats, but even at the bare minimum of one seat, that gives the indigenous balance of power negotiating leverage. Like the other senate seats, there is a geographical requirement to people that want to vote for/in the given electorate. Seems a reasonable way to give them what they want without enshrining racism into the parliamentary structure through referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Sure. I already mentioned it earlier - give the reserves some senate representation. Far less than twelve seats, but even at the bare minimum of one seat, that gives the indigenous balance of power negotiating leverage. Like the other senate seats, there is a geographical requirement to people that want to vote for/in the given electorate. Seems a reasonable way to give them what they want without enshrining racism into the parliamentary structure through referendum.

Hmmm. Interesting but how small a piece of land would qualify and would it have to be on Native Title? Reason I ask is Aboriginal land ranges from vast chunks in the NT, SA and WA to almost nothing in Victoria AFAIK.

Two seats the same as the ACT might be appropriate depending on voter numbers - which if it's restricted to voters resident in the Aboriginal territories, will be minute. I'd foresee a huge number of people 'sharing' an address......

I also strongly dislike the idea of further entrenching racism into our constitution. It's already there and we should be removing those clauses not reinforcing them.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites