Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Adam Bandt'

Tag Archives: Adam Bandt

Rooting the Greens

I am going to confound my critics by for once hoping that Labor wins a particular seat in the upcoming election. My reason is simple and strategic, I think that a Labor MP is infinitely preferable to a Greens MP and I am very glad to see that both Labor and the Liberals are going to put aside their  ideological fealty to neutralise the Loopy Greens:

click for source

click for source

It will give me the greatest pleasure to see the Greens laid low at the next election no matter what else we are delivered in the counting.
Cheers Comrades

Saving the planet one root at a time

Saving the planet one root at a time

Advertisements

What are the Greens trying to hide?

The Greens are a sanctimonious lot, full of the certainty of the zealot on what they think is the only way to see the world and the nature of our future as a society and a species. The fact that they are so secretive about just how they decide upon the shape of their policies is a cause for some merriment here at Chez Hall because I have always been fascinated by the religiously motivated. If there is one thing that can not be denied it is the religiosity of the Greens.

click and select top search result

The only thing that I can think would justify this(aside from paranoia)is a concern that their more extreme members and their loopy ideas will become more well known from their posturing on the conference floor, At present its only the official party line that gets much of an airing in public and I have no doubt that the party’s loonier fringe get a good go at the national conference as they try to drag the party even further to the far left. Not that this will matter too much at the upcoming election because with Labor finally realising that the Greens are their rivals rather than their friends they the Greens won’t do so well in terms of preferences and that will mean less  of them being elected. Really though being open and transparent in how they arrive at their policy positions should have been part of the party design from the get go.

Cheers Comrades

The desperate times of the Australian Greens

Found this plaintiff wail in my in box and thought I’d share it with the Sandpit’s readers:

Does it make you laugh or cry?

Pardon me while I take the time to enjoy the fact that the Greens are now having to learn to live in a political reality where their loopy ideas are actually measured against the feather of political truth rather than the far less stringent standards of coffee shop  idealism.
Cheers Comrades

Ask not for whom the bell tolls Julia, it tolls for thee

Ah another day and another report of Labor disunity in the face of the increasingly incompetent Gillard Government.

click for source

Really who could blame any ALP MP for thinking of their personal political salvation with Labor’s fortunes sinking by the second under Gillard’s rule?
Of course the real problem for Labor is that if they use the same knives that they dispatched Rudd with then there is a very real chance that Gillard would just resign and bring down the government anyway. Such are the woes of minority government where remaining in office relies upon a nutty coalition of self serving independents, a disgraced ex Labor man and lets not forget the verdant  religious zealotry of Adam Bandt as well. I suspect that Only Kevin Rudd is really eager to sip from the poisoned chalice and you know what?  He may even save some of the furniture but we know that the nation will not be well governed again until we do away with this government at a proper election and then Labor can spend the time it needs to find itself while it sojourns in the political  wilderness.

Cheers Comrades

Dear Green Fiends, an introduction to the leadership of the beloved leader, Christine Milne

Dear Green Fiends,

Today, we celebrate the extraordinary electoral confusion caused by Bob Brown, who last week was forced to leave our party room as his extra-terrestial comments were even too much for us.

Under Bob’s leadership, the Greens have grown from a small band of delusional people with one lone representative in the Senate into a party of zealots hell-bent on destroying our economy and reducing our living standards.

We have over 10,000 cultists and 1.7 million misinformed voters misrepresented by ten Feral MPs. These MPs are advocating for and delivering action to build a better future for all of us. All of us in the Greens Party Room, that is.

Bob’s sacking is both a moment for derision and celebration. It is also a gift to the party and an opportunity to stop pussy-footing around and get on with the real job: turning Australia into a socialist state, ready for inclusion into the coming world government.

Now is the time that demonstrates that the Greens Party has a far greater sum of loonies than other parts of the political spectrum.

I am honoured by the trust my Party Room colleagues have shown in me by electing me as the new Leader. I know it’s been said that I come across as a beady-eyed, whiny shrew, but really, would you prefer Sarah Hansen-Young leading the party? Or Lee Rhiannon? I am after all the experienced gardener, which makes me more than qualified to dictate national economic policy.

I am looking forward to working together with Adam Bandt, the new Deputy Leader, at least until he loses his seat at the next election, to ensure that these witches don’t get their green thumbs on my job.

This is an opportunity for all of us to think about how each and every one of us can advance green thinking, green policies and promote the Greens as the only party at the beginning of the 21st century which recognises that protecting the environment is far more important than feeding, clothing and providing a good quality of life for people everywhere.

It’s up to all of us.

There will be those – those who understand that the Greens are a rabble of fringe dwellers – who will use the opportunity of Bob’s forced retirement to try to destroy us. They will claim that the Greens are nothing without Bob. This is our moment – your moment – to demonstrate that the Greens represent hardly anybody in the cross section of Australian society, except those who support the politics of envy.

Joining or supporting the Greens is an ill-considered and misguided choice. We lack pragmatic convictions, instead we are tampering with the very bastions of society. The institution of marriage is on our hit-list. Gay marriage must be recognised and exulted above all other relationships. Freedom of speech is next, as recent court cases have shown. Only views that agree with the Greens will be allowed.

We are also working towards a zero carbon economy. We haven’t worked out how to make wind turbines without coal but the fairies at the bottom of the garden will no doubt take care of that. If it means turning the lights out, so be it. North Korea seems to be doing quite ok having Earth Hour all night, every night.

To that end, I’m asking each one of you today to stand up proudly as a Green and to candle-light up your networks with messages about why you’re a Green, how you became a Green, and how you can prevent others from making the same mistake.

Never before have we had such a critical moment that demonstrates that the Greens Party has a far greater sum of loonies than other parts of the political spectrum.

Yours in bewilderment and confusion,

Christine

Union of sameness versus union of difference

This is an essay by  David Palmer posted to Online Opinion and I reproduce it here under the terms of its creative commons licence , oh yeah and because I think that its well argued 😉

Cue spluttering and  fuming from our learned friend 😉

Cheers Comrades:

If a recent report in the Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, the intensive lobbying of coalition MPs over the Summer months by same-sex marriage advocates has failed to secure their support for a conscience vote on the issue.

According to this report,

…the gay marriage debate in Parliament will be pushed back to later in the year to give advocates for change more time to garner enough support to have legislation for same-sex marriage passed.

Instead of the debate being held immediately – which would have seen the bill defeated – the gay marriage campaign has changed focus to increase pressure on Tony Abbott to change his mind and allow opposition MPs a conscience vote.

There are several things worth saying about this matter.

The first is that August 24 last year Adam Bandt and the homosexual lobby scored a spectacular own goal over the issue of just how well supported same-sex marriage is in the Australian community last year.

At the end of 2010, Parliament approved a motion proposed by Bandt calling on all parliamentarians, “consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same-sex couples including marriage”.

Well what happened on August 24, 2011?

When thirty members of Parliament stood to give an account of their constituents views on same-sex marriage, it was discovered opinion in Coalition and Labor seats was overwhelmingly against legalising same-sex marriage, with only 6 out of 30 MP’s indicating their members were in favour of change. Most of the numbers being reported were very lopsidedly against same-sex marriage. Especially striking was the failure of the progressive left organisation, Get Up!, which likes to describe itself as a movement of almost 600,000 members, to get its members to sign their petition in favour of same-sex marriage. In fact on the morning that MPs were reporting their findings it was found that the Get Up! numbers had been trumped by the Australian Christian Lobby numbers – less than 10% of Get Up members had signed the petition. Next day, Matt Akersten on the gay and lesbian lifestyle website, samesame, wrote “We’re not going to sugarcoat this – yesterday’s MP feedback session in Parliament on the gay marriage issue was a tough setback for marriage equality”.

Given the far reaching nature of a decision to extend in law marriage to same-sex couples, a reasonable question to ask is, “what principled reason has been advanced for such a change in the law of marriage?”

We get arguments like, “it’s time” or “my homosexual daughter (or son) wants to marry her (or his) partner” or “they can do it in Massachusetts or Holland or Spain, why not here?”.

But what’s the principle? What is the rational, logical argument that carries sufficient weight for such a significant change in the law of marriage?

Last year former NSW premier Nick Greiner reportedly said, ”(s)elf-evidently (it is) a matter of natural justice”.

It is no such thing.

It is simply wrong and misleading to depict the case for same-sex marriage as a case for ending discrimination or for equal legal recognition of relationships. The Federal Parliament amended 84 pieces of legislation after the 2010 election to place homosexual rights and entitlements on the same basis as others. The push for same-sex marriage is therefore largely ideological, because there is clearly no intention in any jurisdiction that they be subjected to any substantial discrimination on entitlement.

Peter van Onselen shortly before Adam Bandt’s show and tell argument in Parliament, like Greiner, argued for same-sex marriage as a human right but as is always the case with this assertion never actually demonstrated why it was a human right, choosing instead, typically, to construct a series of pejorative straw men and ‘stacking the deck’ arguments to hopefully convince us that same-sex marriage was the natural consequence of a long evolutionary development in marriage. Of course, having gone down this path he might have considered a further evolutionary development – the Greens’ bill for same-sex marriage still limits marriage to two persons, itself arguably discriminatory to those favouring polygamy or group marriage. How long would we have to wait for that example of discrimination to be addressed?

If a human rights basis is to be developed for same-sex marriage then it is first necessary to determine whether same-sex couples actually qualify for marriage. What is it about marriage that determines who may enter into marriage?

What we can say about marriage is that despite varying cultural expressions, it is seen as the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, of the type that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. This concept of marriage, allowing for variations in customs and ritual, is consistently found across cultures throughout history. Marriage involves a comprehensive union of spouses, with norms of permanence and exclusivity. These combine to create a special link to children, for their sake, that protects their identity and nurture by a mother and father.

It is the link to children that gives marriage its special character.

But why a man and a woman, and not two men or two women?

With one exception a person is complete within themselves as to bodily organs and their functions: heart, lungs, stomach and so on. In other words, to fulfil any of these functions a person does not require a contribution from anyone else. The one biological function for which individual adults are naturally incomplete is sexual reproduction. In sexual intercourse, and no other form of sexual contact, a man’s and a woman’s bodies are joined by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. Their bodies become one, thereby securing future generations at the same time as they are giving unique expression to their love for each other.

Marriage is deeply and uniquely orientated to bearing and nurturing children. Marriage ensures children access to both their mother and father and the security of the love between the parents. It provides for them a role model of human love of the parents relating as man and as woman, and its complementarity also ensures the unilateral love of each parent to the child and the necessary differences between motherly and fatherly love.

The fact that divorce happens, or one spouse dies early, or some couples are infertile and perhaps circumvent that lack to conceive through artificial reproductive technologies, including the use of donor gametes and surrogate mothers, or a couple beyond the years of child bearing marry, does nothing to change the reality of marriage. Same-sex couples simply do not qualify.

At its deepest level, marriage is the union of difference, the combining of a man and a woman to make one flesh, a union that is physical, emotional and as well, mystical.

To the contrary, same-sex marriage would be the union of sameness, with the distinctive and historical orientation towards the bearing and nurture of children dissolved. In its stead is to be offered a view of marriage which places sexual choice and emotional commitment at the centre.

So, let’s be clear on this: extending marriage to same-sex couples would represent a radical revision of the public understanding of marriage as a social institution. To go down this path would be for the law to teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not complementary bodily union or children. Because there is no reason that primarily emotional unions (any more than ordinary friendships in general) should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two, these norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them, to their own detriment, and especially to the detriment of children.

According to the newspaper report I began with, the supporters of same-sex marriage claim through the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, Mr Greenwich, the existence of “an unstoppable momentum for a reform that continues to win hearts and minds in the wider community and the parliament”. Well this remains to be seen. To be sure, their efforts will not go unchallenged. Same-sex marriage in law is by no means inevitable.

Well this is an opinion poll that the Gay Marriage crowd won’t be citing in the name of their cause

Life must be a barrel of laughs if you are a Green Gay activist because it looks to me that the  Gay marriage push has just  crashed into the reality that the people do not actaully support any change to the marriage act as so may proponents of Gay marriage have been insisting . If nothing else the greens parliamentary stunt of a making the members seek the mood of their electorates on the issue seems to have gone really bad for the Greens with nearly two thirds of the members reporting that the people do not support any change to the act:

Click for source

I do note that there is a fair bit more support for civil unions for homosexual  couples according to the Age piece that I cite above so It looks to me that As the Labor party makes a move to give its members a conscience vote the efforts to bring about Gay Marriage in this country will amount to nothing. Is anyone really surprised by this? I for one am not especially when you take into account that a homosexual couple are treated the same way as a heterosexual couple by Centerlink, the tax office and for the purposes of inheritance (a good reform from Labor on that* 😉  )

I must say that I thought that this quote from Graham Perrett is particularly stupid

But Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett, a Catholic, pointing to bullying and suicides, said it was ”time for everybody, every adult in Australia to be given the same opportunity … to wake up with their own loved one”.

Its stupid because there is absolutely no legal  reason that would prevent a gay person doing what Graham Perrett thinks is a problem for homosexual couples who don’t need to be married to sleep together as often as they please.

Cheers Comrades

* I am praising Labor for something here 🙂

%d bloggers like this: