|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
Fair enough, the dude advocated for violence.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
The Queen played a role in superseding Australian democracy and hid it for 50 years, so a flipped bird to the Queen, and may god bless the day she retires.
Quote:
The “palace letters” show the Australian Constitution’s susceptibility to self-interested behaviour by individual vice-regal representatives. They also reveal the vulnerability of Australian governments to secret destabilisation by proxy by the Crown.
They reveal a governor-general, fearing his own dismissal, succumbing to moral hazard, and the British monarch’s private secretary encouraging him in the idea that a double dissolution was legitimate in the event a government could not get its budget bills passed.
The letters confirm the worst fears of those who viewed Governor-General Sir John Kerr’s sacking of the Whitlam government as a constitutional coup. They reveal Kerr shortened by at most a mere three months the resolution of the crisis created by the conservative Malcolm Fraser-led opposition’s refusal to pass the government’s budget bills, compared to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s own timetable shared with Kerr.
https://theconversation.com/palace-letters-reveal-the-palaces-fingerprints-on-the-dismissal-of-the-whitlam-government-142476
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
|
Q&A is supposed to be THE pinnacle of televised political and social debate in Australia.
Stan Grant is the bloody know all on everything and a koods type of social justice warrior, meaning he can't be told anything that doesn't fit his belief, is never wrong and just doesn't know when to stfu.
I didn't see that particular show but thanks for pointing it out, you've given me even more reason to loathe Stan Grant and I'll be seeing how I can make a complaint against him and the ABC.
I haven't checked out Sky News for a while and might see what their take on this is.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27719622 - 04/03/22 03:41 PM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: The Queen played a role in superseding Australian democracy and hid it for 50 years, so a flipped bird to the Queen, and may god bless the day she retires.
I think you'll find the Palace Letters prove that;
1. Kerr was advised to NOT sack Whitlam yet did so anyway WITHOUT informing her(via Martin Charteris) he was doing so and 2. The only thing she is guilty of is not discussing this crisis with Whitlam but seeing as The Governor General is supposed to be her voice in Australia it makes sense, otherwise she'd be accused of meddling in our politics!
She did not order Whitlam's sacking.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
|
This is Sky News' take on the Q & A show and they lay out the problem very well. For the first time ever I agree with James Morrow !
The comment section is also encouraging and worth reading.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly] 1
#27719663 - 04/03/22 04:18 PM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Fair enough, the dude advocated for violence.
Here is his question:
Quote:
As someone who comes from the Russian community here in Australia, I've been pretty outraged by the narrative created by our media depicting the Ukraine as the "good guy", and Russia as the "bad guy". Believe it or not, there are a lot of Russians here and around the world that support what Putin is doing in the Ukraine, myself included. Since 2014, the Ukrainian Government, together with Nazi groups like the Azov battalion, have besieged the Russian populations in the Donbas, killing an estimated 13,000 people according to the United Nations. So my question is where was your outpouring of grief and concern for those thousands of mostly Russians?
Given that 8 years of peace talks didn't stop the violence, what do YOU think Russia should have done?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: Q&A is supposed to be THE pinnacle of televised political and social debate in Australia.
Stan Grant is the bloody know all on everything and a koods type of social justice warrior, meaning he can't be told anything that doesn't fit his belief, is never wrong and just doesn't know when to stfu.
I didn't see that particular show but thanks for pointing it out, you've given me even more reason to loathe Stan Grant and I'll be seeing how I can make a complaint against him and the ABC.
I haven't checked out Sky News for a while and might see what their take on this is.
I get that social justice stuff gets way out of hand way too often and some people need to keep their shit in their pants imo, but! yes but.
Ukraine is a serious issue, a legitimate and real one we have all been observing, and it's a horror.
It's quite something to say,
Quote:
Believe it or not, there are a lot of Russians here and around the world that support what Putin is doing in the Ukraine, myself included.
However he came to that conclusion, that is where he arrived, and that is what he stated. It is something to enunciate support for the evident attrocities that are still happening.
But I do see a caveat that shines upon our media the mediocrity of their sycophantic stenography to the swamp.
America is just as bad, war crimes out the wazoo, hospitals bombed, innocent civilians killed in the thousands, first responders targeted, false flag operations, wars for oil, military industrial profiteering etc.
You cannot call out the attrocities present in Ukraine at the hands of Putin without calling out the attrocities present and historically at the hands of Biden, Obama, Trump, Bush etc.
War crimes are war crimes, and I find it ironic they make statements like there being no moral equivalence for Putins actions, and then on the other foot defending American drone strikes.
Quote:
Malcolm Fraser's criticism of drone operations 'ridiculous', says ex-Army drone pioneer
Malcom Fraser says Australians involved in US drone operations could be charged with crimes against humanity.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Phil Swinsburg says Mr Fraser's claims that Australian personnel serving at the Pine Gap surveillance base could find themselves charged with crimes against humanity are "far-fetched" and "ridiculous".
Mr Fraser, the Liberal PM between 1975 and 1983, had warned that Australians working at the US-run Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap – the intelligence-gathering base which reportedly now plays a key role in locating drone targets - did not have the same legal protection as their US counterparts.
"The purposes for which drones are used are going to be outlawed at some point by international agreement, and the Americans might believe that Americans involved in those programs are given legal cover under the War Powers Resolution passed after 9/11," he said.
"[It] gives totally unlimited power, no geographic limits, no time limits, using any means available or that might become available to an American president to do so.
"But that resolution gives no legal cover to Australians operating out of Pine Gap who are complicit in finding, identifying, locating the so-called target."
But Mr Swinsburg says that is not the case.
"To distil this down to an [Australian] corporal in Pine Gap being put on war crimes [charges] because of an intercept that he or she processed, and [which] is now somehow the executive authority for weapon release, is a little far-fetched, and shows the lack of regard Fraser holds [for] the general public in trying to create a situation when nothing exists," he said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/ex-army-drone-expert-phil-swinsburg-hits-out-at-malcolm-fraser/5433762
I also came across an interesting interview with Malcolm Fraser along the way.
Quote:
"When he was Prime minister Gough Whitlam made it clear that he had some reservations about US bases in Australia but they were if you'd like exacerbated or exaggerated by Jim Cairns who took to thinking about US president Nixon as being a murderer." - Malcolm Fraser
That seems to be about the only time in the Whitlam period when the United States sent a serious professional diplomat Marshall Green to their ambassador in Australia. It's often occurred to some of us who possibly have paranoid tendencies to suggest that the Americans were really worried about their bases being removed by a labour government and it could have had something to do with the demise of Gough Whitlam.
"Arthur Tang and Lance Barnard saved those bases for America there's no doubt about that and America knew that was going to happen. I've seen some things written about it in recent times which I suspect is a good deal of nonsense." - Malcolm Fraser
Let me take this one bit further, the United States does have a record of either being involved in or directly removing governments or governors that they didn't particularly like, maybe we could talk about Allende in Chile, we can talk about Mosaddegh in Iran, we can talk about many countries in central America with what happened there. We can also talk about in Japan where three Japanese prime ministers recently have wished to remove or modify the bases the Americans have in Okinawa and Katsuyama.
It seems to me the Americans had a very strong influence about that. Is there some element here that you would worry if Australia by some miracle decided to start to take your advice and begin to remove the bases from Australia?
"I think that conspiracy theories can go far too far, over Mosaddegh it was certainly BP in America, and Allende yes, but umm, you know, is the CIA going to rendition Malcolm Fraser? I don't think so. America expresses its view very strongly."- Malcolm Fraser
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: This is Sky News' take on the Q & A show and they lay out the problem very well. For the first time ever I agree with James Morrow !
The comment section is also encouraging and worth reading.
Did anyone miss these points in the video?
Quote:
Audience member sasha gillis lakaki asked a provocative question about the media's coverage of ukraine while also talking about discredited pro-russian claims of killings in Ukraine.
Sasha's claims of Ukrainians slaughtering thousands of Russians lack evidence.
We live in a world of rules and the sovereignty of a nation can not be breached.
Even if a person is reprehensible and wrong should they be ostracized entirely from the conversation?
Isn't motivation one of the most critical aspects of covering conflicts such as invasions.
Stan Grant and Jason did a brilliant job of dismantalling this mans argument live on tv.
Sasha had been discredeted but Stan felt uncomfortable
Your job as a journalist isn't to support a neutrality bias, it's to go out there and gather the data and provide a relevant interpretation within full context of the information at hand. You don't have one person tell you it's raining, and the other that it's sunny then leave it at that, because it's journalistic malpractice.
It is important to elucidate the motivations behind an invasion like this which also includes falsifying discredited claims that lack evidence.
You don't just hear both sides and leave it at that. Oil and military funding were powerful American motivations.
Quote:
We need to tell the story of reality.. not the bubble wrapped conversation.
In a way though it is true Sasha didn't directly call for violence or threaten anyone, his comments were merely abhorrent, distasteful and insensitive to the issue at hand.
James went straight to the ad hominem on Stan, and a prevetted question doesn't mean a prevetted statement.
We can have a discussion about the narrative that each side has on the issue but it's like James said himself, "Obviously Putin is the agressor and there's no question about what's happening in Ukraine, it's attrocious."
Once both narratives have been provided it's okay to reject the false one because to not do that is to uphold a neutrality bias and hold equal platform to both narratives.
What is there to discuss of this statement?
Quote:
"Obviously Putin is the agressor and there's no question about what's happening in Ukraine, it's attrocious."
Why it happened 20 minutes later that he was asked to leave?
The feeling of loss in war is strong, and it's human to want to reduce your stress, and such a confrontation I believe would obviously be stressful. The topic is a fresh and seeping wound. The bravest of us can still be upset.
Free speech is shutting down free speech, removing someone from the stand after a tense confrontation is deescalation.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (04/03/22 06:00 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27719843 - 04/03/22 05:55 PM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Given that 8 years of peace talks didn't stop the violence, what do YOU think Russia should have done?
Are you going to answer this question?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Given that 8 years of peace talks didn't stop the violence, what do YOU think Russia should have done?
Are you going to answer this question?
I don't think Putin should have made false accusations that the Ukranian government was dominated by neo-nazis to justify an invasian, just as I don't believe Bush should have made false accusations of weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Quote:
While Ukraine has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and Right Sector, analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence of far-right groups within Ukraine; there is no widespread support for the ideology in the government, military, or electorate. The Poroshenko administration enforced the law condemning the Soviet Union and the Nazis in 2015. Ukrainian president Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, stated that his grandfather served in the Soviet army fighting against the Nazis; three of his family members died in the Holocaust
After the Soviet Union fell Donbas faced severe economic decline with increased unemployment and more organised crime.
Civil unrest became apparent during the term of Yanukovych when the Maidan Revolution took place and he was removed from office after ordering the murder of dozens of protestors.
I don't think it was helpful for Putin to fan the flames of the seperatist movement in Donbar with atrocity propaganda such as children being crucified in the town square.
Quote:
Media portrayals of the Ukrainian crisis, including 2014 unrest and the 2014 Ukrainian revolution following the Euromaidan movement, differed widely between Ukrainian, Western and Russian media. The Russian, the Ukrainian, and the Western media were all, to various degrees, accused of propagandizing, and of waging an information war during their coverage of the events. Russian channels were repeatedly criticized for the use of misleading images, false narratives, misrepresentation, suppression, and fabricated news stories, such as a child's crucifixion and the death of a 10-year-old in shelling. The BBC reported that Russian state television "appears to employ techniques of psychological conditioning designed to excite extreme emotions of aggression and hatred in the viewer", which, according to The Guardian, is part of a coordinated "informational-psychological war operation".
A regular theme in the Russian media was that the Ukrainian army, which has many Russian-speaking members, was committing "genocide" against Russian-speakers and that they strongly desired Russia to "protect" them against Kyve. This presentation contradicted a poll showing that less than 20% of eastern residents wanted Russia's protection. They supported Russia's denials of involvement in the Crimean crisis, until Vladimir Putin boasted about the key role of Russian soldiers, and continue denying its involvement in the war in the Donbas region of Ukraine, despite evidence that Russia regularly shelled across the border.
https://epd.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN-AgainstPropaganda_CCL_MF_FinalView_withoutLogo.pdf
I think it's clear that in 2014 Russia took advantage of the internal political crisis of Kyve to launch a coordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine. Russia provided volunteers and materials while employing disinformation and conventional military support for the seperatist movements fighting against Ukraine.
Quote:
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2014/04/14/evidence-of-russian-support-for-destabilization-of-ukraine/
To put it blunty, it was also apparent that Putin had began using special operational forces (peace keepers) to invade another country and violate its territorial integrity.
Quote:
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2917&context=parameters
The Minsk agreement sought to deescalate rising tensions but Putin included controlling stipulations that would remove Ukraines autonomy if they accepted.
Quote:
The 2015 Minsk agreements called for Ukraine to reintegrate the separatist regions by giving them broad autonomy enshrined in its constitution. The Kremlin hoped that by doing so it would create a permanent pro-Russian lever of influence within Ukraine’s government that would act as a veto on the country joining the European Union or NATO.
Ukraine refused to fulfill that part of the Minsk deal while Russian troops remained on the separatists’ territory, seeing the separatist governments as puppets of the Kremlin.
After Russia recognized the "republics," the puppet governments appealed for help from Russia, creating a false pretext for the Kremlin to invade. Putin accused Ukraine of failing to implement the Minsk agreements to justify Russia recognizing the separatist "republics" as independent.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803
Putin tried to claim the conflict was entirely an internal civil war in Ukraine, he even refused to acknowledge Russian troops were in separatist areas, which he later recanted and admitted to.
Quote:
https://khpg.org/en/1476316494
And overall the effect of Russian sponsorship for the creation of two republics within a sovereign country is difficult to undermind as an influence on the rise of the seperatist movement.
Quote:
Abstract: This essay argues that historical and identity factors, economic fears and alienation from the new government in Kyiv were only part of the reason for the rise of the separatist movement in the Donbas, Ukraine, in the spring of 2014. They set a baseline, but one not high enough to account for the creation of two mini-‘Republics’ and a prolonged war, without considering the effect of Russian sponsorship and the role of local elites, mainly from the literal and metaphorical ‘Family’ of former President Viktor Yanukovych.
Quote:
This essay argues that identity factors are an insufficient explanation. ‘Preexisting popular allegiances’ were not that different in the Donbas (see the two sections on identity below). Local political factors were hugely important, but ‘state incapacitation’, and even more so state collapse, is an exaggeration. Parts of the state did not operate. The new authorities in Kyiv were incompetent or distracted. But the story also involves the defection of key parts of the state and the penetration of others. And, as resource mobilisation theory would predict (Smith & Wilson 1997), more was needed in terms of resources and elite leadership for the separatist movement to develop. And also to point it in the direction it took—the initial mood in the Donbas was febrile and even contradictory, and compatible with several possible outcomes.
Other commentators see outside factors as key (Mitrokhin 2015a, 2015b): namely Russia, which played the key role in stitching together a coalition of local forces. Local actors would not have acted as they did without Russian support. Arel and Driscoll have cited the work of Regan (2000) that two thirds of seemingly intrastate civil wars in fact involve ‘intervention’ (more serious than mere influence) by third party foreign powers—and are still civil wars.2 But there is a world of difference between joining in a civil conflict or civil war and either starting it or enabling its escalation. On its own, the Donbas rebellion was actually a triple failure. Without sufficient Russian support, the first attempt at revolt was smouldering away in March and early April 2014, with several nasty ‘flare-ups’, but was deemed insufficiently incendiary to warrant the attempt by Igor Girkin’s special forces to fan the flames from the middle of April. The attempts at revolt in Kharkiv and Odesa at the same time were less successful, and there was no broad rebellion in ‘Novorossiia’, a variable Russian term, but most often meaning the whole of eastern and southern Ukraine. And finally, the rebels were being pushed back by Ukrainian forces in the summer and were saved from further reverse by the massive Russian escalation in August 2014.
Historical and identity factors have been extensively cited as key explanations of the separatist movement in the Donbas. However, neither the creation of the DNR and LNR nor the war would have happened without resources. These came from Russia and from the Yanukovych ‘Family’ and some allied oligarchs. The changes undergone by the local state apparatus also made it much easier for the Russians to intervene; but there was no total state collapse—more a combination of state weakness, neglect by Kyiv, defections and disloyalty, the hollowing out of the system by Yanukovych ‘Family’ elites both still in the Donbas and in Russia, and decisions that backfired, like disbanding the Berkut and dismissing so many from the local police. The local state was weak, but far from collapsed; it was also permissive and enabling.
Local opinion was malleable to an extent, allowing the leadership of the DNR and LNR to increase their initial support. But their leaders were never an autonomous force, and were repeatedly changed at Russian instigation. The war that began in 2014 was not a civil war with foreign intervention, but a process catalysed and escalated by local elites and by Russia, with local foot-soldiers. The last word could be given to President Lukashenka of Belarus, who declared in October 2014, ‘let’s be honest, the days of the DNR and LNR would have been numbered long ago without Russia’
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668136.2016.1176994
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27720153 - 04/03/22 10:08 PM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Pretty much everything you said above is just CIA talking points that have been debunked previously, but I don't recognize your username, and assume you missed it.
Too much for one post, but I'll start by pointing out that the coup in Ukraine was backed by the US and we put in our own puppet Government.
Don't believe it? Here's the recording of Victoria Nuland saying who we would put in charge (why does the US prefer coups to democratic elections???):
OH SHIT! It's been censored by YouTube, along with the video of John McCain pumping people up to overthrow their elected President, who was a little too Russia friendly for the US's liking.
Ok, I found another user that has it:
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
Quote:
Pretty much everything you said above is just CIA talking points that have been debunked previously
I mean you haven't provided a reference for the claim in your first line so I don't think it's in context.
Yeah man, the US does a lot of foreign intervention and regime change too, I am frankly aware of that.
The tendrils of their campaigns to meddle in foreign affairs seem endless, even in just the Balkans.
Quote:
This was the case in the 2004–5 Orange Revolution, where foreign NGOs changed little about Ukraine’s corruption and authoritarianism, but achieved the crucial goal of nudging Ukraine’s foreign policy westward. As the liberal Center for American Progress put it that year:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities — democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. — but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine.
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
Quote:
According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000. Another study found that the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States has led or supported wars to determine the governance of a number of countries. Stated U.S. aims in these conflicts have included fighting the War on Terror, as in the Afghan War, or removing dictatorial and hostile regimes, as in the Iraq War.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636412.2020.1693620?journalCode=fsst20
Quote:
The United States helped topple an allied state’s government. While that sounds like an anachronism better suited to the Cold War era, it is in fact a summary of events that transpired in Kosovo two months ago. In brief, Kosovo’s coalition government did not survive the no-confidence motion in parliament in late March, and the now-acting prime minister, Albin Kurti, has placed the blame squarely on the administration of President Donald Trump and its special envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations, Richard Grenell. Kurti charges that Grenell was pushing for a quick deal between Serbia and Kosovo, which would include controversial land swaps between the two. When Kurti came out against the deal, the United States supported his opponents to remove him from office. This allegation has since been supported by regional leaders, analysts, and even some US legislators.
All of this was possible because the United States — for better or for worse — still occupies an indispensable role in the Western Balkans. This is a direct consequence of the US-led interventions in the 1990s which have cemented its status as a regional security guarantor and an arbiter. The long shadow of humanitarian interventionism turned problematic when it became apparent that Trump’s desire to broker a peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo is motivated by this year’s US elections, and the terms of the deal upend longstanding US policy.
US involvement in the Western Balkans peaked two decades ago. However, it is abundantly clear how the effects of interventions and the unfinished business of 1990s still place the United States in a prime position to influence and even control regional politics. The Trump administration has become fully aware of this and is unfortunately using it to help improve the president’s meagre deal-making record at the expense of regional stability.
https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/americas-destabilising-involvement-in-serbia-kosovo-talks
Quote:
However, many observers in Europe and the United States have been concerned that political stability in the Western Balkans, sometimes referred to as Europe’s “inner courtyard,” remains tenuous. Several of these countries have experienced governmental and political crises, sometimes involving third-party interference, stagnating economies, high unemployment, and an exodus of people from the region. These crises have raised cautions that the continuation of or sudden increase in these factors could provide a vacuum in which outside political meddling, transnational crime, radicalization, or terrorism could flourish
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44955/9
Quote:
Outside of fiscal policy, American influence was evident in executive positions. In September 2002, it was announced that the Military Court in Belgrade was to press charges against Momčilo Perišić, who was the vice president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the time, for espionage in the favour of the CIA. The trial never took place, although upon his release from The Hague on February 28, 2013, it was announced by Perišić's lawyer Novak Lukić that his client was "ready to be judged" on the same 2002 accusations of espionage. As of 2015 no further investigation has taken place.
https://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2002&mm=09&dd=30&nav_category=16&nav_id=71591
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
psilocybinmansions
Stranger

Registered: 06/13/21
Posts: 233
Last seen: 6 days, 1 hour
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27735022 - 04/14/22 08:43 PM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Seriously it's not a Left/Right thing, I'm centrist, but Albanese is like a supermarket manager or something. LOL we don't need that in power.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
Is Albanese any different to Morrison economically?
Like I hear Albanese is for expanding medicare after it has been cut, and maybe helping with childcare costs. Apart from that, does anyone know what he stands for?
He seems a hollow character imo.
Are the costs of a university education going to be discussed?
Will there be a corruption watchdog at last?
For me, the idea of holding politicians accountable for their actions and financial decisions is no.1.
I want donations and actions to be completely transparent, no dark money, no potential quid pro quo arrangements that cant be seen clearly.
I want transparency and accountability from my government and I will vote greens because I believe there align with this view and agenda more so than the others.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27735414 - 04/15/22 04:59 AM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think the biggest policy for Labor is aged care, the 25% wage increase for healthcare workers, most likely as it's the biggest vote grabber.
Increased subsidies for childcare, again a vote grabber.
And pushing the renewable energy target and emissions reduction target higher.
Even though I'll be voting Labor I concede they have a weak agenda and I'm fed up with both sides but more so the LNP. Also Shorten got thrashed last time with over ambitious policies and it shows, Labor's policies are thin on the ground.
I'm hoping that penciling in the Greens second will help them into minority government and start pushing Labor towards things like a Federal ICAC, getting rid of student debt and doing more on affordable housing.
I think minority governments get the best results and more action.

Also, if Clive Palmer and Craig Kelly could somehow both get hit by a bus simultaneously that'd be awesome.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
I don't believe in equity for student loans, more so equality as in a 10k grant for each student seeing as there are discrepencies in the cost of different courses that are sometimes related to the success of completing semesters, from 20k to 200k, so I have some ambiguity on the issue. I know one person that has failed 8 semester courses and continued to attend.
Anything on accountability or transparency for politicians and their donations in your concerns?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27735433 - 04/15/22 05:22 AM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That's a fair point on 'career university students' my main reasoning with that idea is linked to young people buying a house and I feel it's one way to help with that.
Accountability transparency etc? Of course. Look at the bun fight over the distribution of flood recovery funds, that's taking pork barrelling to a new level.
Political donations is interesting especially when it comes to someone like Clive Palmer, like how do you fix that one??
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
We could push to pass a statue outlawing certain practices that allow undue influence from donors and their lobbyists.
etc,
Quote:
STOP POLITICAL BRIBERY
Make it illegal for politicians to take money from lobbyists.
Ban lobbyist bundling.
Close the revolving door.
Prevent politicians from fundraising during working hours.
END SECRET MONEY
Immediately disclose political money online.
Stop donors from hiding behind secret-money groups.
FIX OUR BROKEN ELECTIONS
End gerrymandering.
Let all voters participate in open primaries.
Let voters rank their top candidates, avoid “spoilers.”
Automatic voter registration.
Vote at home or at the polls.
Reasonable term limits.
Change how elections are funded.
ENFORCE THE RULES
Crack down on super PACs.
Eliminate lobbyist loopholes.
Strengthen anti-corruption enforcement.
https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27735471 - 04/15/22 06:26 AM (2 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Without clicking the link is that a U.S. site?
I don't think a few of those points apply here. I mean look at the rise if pre poll voting, it's huge, I doubt we would even need 'vote at home'?
But getting back to Clive Palmer, how do you stop a billionaire funding his own bullshit with his own money?
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
|
They were some US suggestions, but which ones don't apply?
There are similar Australian ones for sure.
I don't think you stop the ads, instead you prevent him from having undue influence on the direction of certain legislation, to stop him being able to tip the scale in regard to bills that relate to say regulations on mining companies. The point is I think, he shouldn't have political influence outside of advertisements.
The underlined in the 'Financing Political Parties' section would likely act to reduce the effect of his money.
Holding him accountable for his statements instead of providing an uninterupted platform with softball questions could go a long way too, but that's what legacy media does because they don't want to upset him and lose access. The media part is a tough one because it's difficult to move the overton window that has been engrained by Murdoch.
Campaign finance reform in the direction of publically funded campaigns I think would also help in regard to advertising, I'm not saying that would stop those kind and the amount of ads Palmer is running, but if the funds were public, I think there'd be more thought put in to the ads.
Quote:
Restoring Integrity to Politics
Federal Independent Commission against Corruption
An Australian Progressives’ Federal ICAC will: Include terms of reference and powers to take legal action against politicians, senior public servants, and those engaging in corrupt conduct while in receipt of government funding; and Include powers for cancelling post-political career entitlements, with the exception of superannuation, and Have funding guaranteed and protected from cuts due to party-political intervention; and Include establishment clauses for retrospective powers to investigate suspicious conduct in all current and former officials and representatives from 2008 onward.
Financing Political Parties
Real-time donations declarations Ending corporate donations Requiring individual donors to disclose membership to advocacy, lobbyist, peak bodies, union and other civic organisations when donating significant sums to a political party. Banning ‘cash-for-access’ events To compensate for these restrictions; expand public funding of political campaigns. Journalist and Whistleblower protections
Strengthening legal protections for all whistleblowers in both public and private spheres against being publicly named or retaliated against; and
Secure channels for anonymously reporting corrupt or illegal conduct; and
Legislative protections for journalists undertaking public interest journalism; and
Preserving the Public Interest defence against defamation retaliation by individuals accused of improper conduct.
Provide clearly defined internal disclosure processes within the institutions of Parliament and government, and guidance for the private sector.
Federal Parliamentarian Code of Conduct
Establish a binding and enforceable Federal Parliamentarian Code of Conduct, modeled after the current Australian Public Service Framework.
To coincide with this we will establish an associated charter of Parliamentarian Values.
State/Territory Corruption Commissions
Enact legislation to provide wider and more consistent powers across Australia's anti-corruption bodies.
Preventing Corrupt Conduct
Our corruption prevention policies include:
A standing advisory committee of public servants, not parliamentarians, for review of proposed anti-corruption bills and evaluation of the outcomes of ICAC investigations.
Enabling anti-corruption commissions to review former Ministers’ decisions where a perceived conflict of interest can be seen with post-office appointments.
Investing in analytics/reporting disclosure technology and powers to identify potential sources of corruption.
Protection of anti-corruption commissions’ funding arrangements to prevent politically motivated funding cuts.
Seeking public agreement with other parties to have appointments exempted from political interference and funding independence.
Truth in Political Advertising
Elections are hard fought with campaign platforms and rival parties’ counter-claims trying to persuade voters to see the worst in each side. Lies and character assassinations in political advertising have the effect of destroying trust in the political class. Media and independent fact checkers face a constant backlog of countering misinformation designed solely for the 24 hour news cycle aimed at creating an emotional reaction without any basis in fact.
The Australian Progressives are investigating ways to enforce truth in political advertising that speeds up the ability of fact checkers to stop misinformation being left unchallenged and proactively prevent lies in campaigns without hampering freedom of speech.
https://www.progressives.org.au/integrity
Quote:
Some topics remain to be addressed in Australia in relation to domestic and foreign bribery. These include:
- implementation of the Foreign Bribery Report on Australia's foreign bribery laws;
- ongoing material resourcing for the AFP to investigate, and the CDPP to prosecute, serious financial crime, including foreign bribery;
- enacting the proposed reforms to Section 70 of the Criminal Code, including the introduction of the corporate offence of failing to prevent foreign bribery;
- abolishing the facilitation payment defence in Section 70.4 of the Criminal Code;
- introducing a Commonwealth DPA scheme for serious Commonwealth financial offences;
- giving effect to changes to the Commonwealth Prosecution Policy to reflect the amended foreign bribery offences and the model DPA scheme to promote self-reporting of potential criminal conduct;
- reforming the laws on corporate criminal responsibility and other matters highlighted in the ALRC Report;
- and from a domestic perspective, the establishment of a robust, independent anti-corruption commission to cover the entirety of the Commonwealth government, its direct and indirect agencies and any entity or person who uses or spends Commonwealth money (provided in any manner, grant, donation or funding arrangement).
Whether these reforms achieve the desired effect of changing corporate and individual conduct remains to be seen. All the reforms in the world will have little impact in the boardroom if they are not followed through with robust, public enforcement. That still remains the biggest challenge in Australia tackling domestic and foreign bribery and corruption.
https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-anti-bribery-and-anti-corruption-review/australia
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (04/15/22 07:47 AM)
|
|