This video is such garbage. Like, the left is not celebrating this attack? Like what?
What a ridiculous position to group together an entire half of the political discourse on the internet and claim that everyone in that half has the same position.
But I guess you wanted me to explicitly say that “some left” are doing that. That’s fine. It is indeed a fringe portion of the left, and also not everybody on the right are hateful nazis.
The linked site is a blog, not sure how that constitutes fact. Pointing out bullshit isn’t being against facts, it’s being against bullshit. And conflating the two shows both bias and bullshit.
This article already seems disingenuous. DSA Salt Lake City Utah’s Statement on Palestine slcdsa.org/…/salt-lake-dsa-statement-in-support-o… does not mention Hamas killing civilians let alone justify it. It vaguely uses the quote they cite to say that Palestine has a right to self defense, and even offense, which it does. I do not believe that this right includes the right to commit war crimes like killing civilians. We vote on statements in DSA, and such a statement certainly would not get my vote, but this statement is not that.
How much time have you got? I guess the biggest factor is that referendums are hard to pass in Australia, especially when the campaign becomes partisan. And this one was VERY partisan. But also Australia has a particular type of racist ignorance when it comes to our First Nations Peoples and our colonial history in general. We’re now currently the only settler colonial nation that has not recognised its First Nations Peoples in their constitution. Settler colonialism is not a competition, but if it was Australia kind of wins the gold. I say that as a white Australian.
I’m Norwegian and even though the Saami have their own government within the nation state of Norway there are still plenty of people in denial of the apartheid that was done against them. For each year the Sami government is delegitemised and it’s done through nationalistic fervour.
Nationalism and intellectual suicide go hand in hand.
There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.
The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on
whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.
It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?
And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.
So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.
Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.
And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.
Racism and lack of bipartisan support were likely huge factors as other commenters said. There was also division between Indigenous people regarding the efficacy of the Voice to Parliament. Some saw it as a great step forward, others saw it as toothless or symbolic, others still believed it would delegitimise their sovereignty over the land. The Opposition latched onto this for their own gains I believe. Together with Fair Australia (conservative lobbying group) they dealed in fear, misinformation and distrust. They absolutely dominated over social media and took control of the narrative very quickly. This became a lot easier for them due to the cost of living crisis. Take a White Australian in the outer suburbs or rural areas, tell them to care about this thing they don’t understand instead of their rising mortgage payments and cost of groceries, when the Opposition is feeding into their latent ignorance and distrust of First Nations people that all Australians have, and you’ve lost them already.
This reads eerily similar, so basically the same parallel that the U.S. and Australia have been struggling with together for the last 20 years (and assuredly before then).
Usually, they can, if there are risk of violence appearing. You're allowed to protest peacefully, but the current situation suggests the protest would be based on anger and maybe provocation.
This is a loophole that the Minister of the Interior has been discovering and exploiting for months: he does something whose legality is highly questionable (like banning a demonstration), and by the time his decision is legally challenged and overturned, he’s got what he wanted and there are no legal consequences for him.
I work at a large company so get a lot of emails. This could conceivably cutdown on the amount of "Nice job!" type emails that don't really have much substance.
Here in Australia, you can literally file your tax now for free in a few clicks using the government website. If you wait a few weeks, everything for most people is prefilled except deductions
Pretty much the same in the UK. Most people don’t have to file their tax at all (it’s automatically deducted from wages for most people), but for those that do, you can do it for free on the government’s website, which is largely a matter of saying how much you earned, and any relevant deductions. The government then calculates what tax you have to pay. If your tax affairs are more complicated than that, you’re earning enough that you’re in the “having an accountant is mandatory” territory anyway.
Yeah, it’s not flawless, but it’s straightforward to use, which really is the thing you need for this kind of service, since it’s intended to be used by normal people rather than experts. The one and only thing that our glorious Conservative overlords have done well in the last 13 years is modernising a lot of official administrative processes like this so they can be done digitally and without a load of needless complexity.
About 1/3rd through the article, they start highlighting some of the progressive conversations that have been being had in Israel, comparing them to the remarks AOC, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, and others have been criticized as “disgraceful” for.
Some important ones IMO:
Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and top adviser to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who told the BBC, “If anyone told me that what the militants did on the weekend was a legitimate response to years and years of occupation. I would say: ‘No, you’re wrong-headed. You’ve lost sight of humanity and reality.’ And if anyone tells me that what Israel is doing in Gaza today is a legitimate response to what happened on the weekend, it’s exactly the same.”
Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard, an expert on the rules of war, observed Wednesday that “Hamas committed abominable war crimes for which there can be no forgiveness. But the laws of war weren’t meant only for situations in which our blood is cool, or when there is no justified anger or understandable desire for revenge.” The lawyer explained:
It’s not easy for Israelis to think about Gazans’ rights in a week when Hamas committed crimes that are still impossible to digest and our whole society is mourning and crying. But Gaza’s catastrophe won’t wait for the end of our seven-day shivah.
Consequently, this needs to be said: Israel has held millions of people under a brutal blockade for more than 15 years with the support of the entire Western world. That is inhumane and inconceivable, and every solution to this bloody conflict ultimately includes respecting the rights of all people, both in Gaza and Sderot, to live with security and human dignity. And that begins with respecting the most basic rules as set down in the international laws of war, which are designed to reduce the harm to civilians.
It’s easy to get stuck in a North American bubble of media, but it’s also important to note what’s being said locally by people who have eyes on the ground and have been watching this stuff grow first hand for 75 years since the occupation of Israel.
It’s very telling that the media began insinuating (or labeling outright) Representatives Omar and Tlaib as being antisemitic for criticizing Israel’s response, but when Sanders says the same thing, and even more, they don’t.
If it’s not antisemitic for a Jewish person to say, it’s not antisemitic for someone else to. No one is immune from criticism that would otherwise be valid, simply because of who is giving it.
It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war. It’s not a war.
so many companies would rather engage in collective punishment rather than just behave – see a similar thing with gamble-boxes in video games, companies are happier blocking countries rather than just publishing the odds/payouts/return-to-player …
It shows they make a lot more money by being unethical than by being ethical. If it were just a little more money they could just do the right thing and raise prices a little. It’s the same reason tech companies won’t let you pay not to be tracked: they make more money from accumulating information about you than you’d ever be able to afford to pay them.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.