Home » Posts tagged 'Sarah Hanson Young'
Tag Archives: Sarah Hanson Young
This little clip just has to qualify as comedy gold, watch in awe as these three Greens prove how stupid and naive the party is on this issue and how the patronise the public in their attempt to paint all asylum seekers as noble victims of circumstance. Sorry to say that this is not a parody or something made to mock, its a genuine Green party production..
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.
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.
- The desperate times of the Australian Greens (iainhall.wordpress.com)
- A short rant about the unrealistic and horribly sanctimonious Greens (iainhall.wordpress.com)
- Cameron joins Labor’s anti-Greens chorus (abc.net.au)
- ALP examining all links with Greens: Swan (news.theage.com.au)
- Labor votes to preference-snub Greens (bigpondnews.com)
- If the Greens are so loopy, cut them loose (abc.net.au)
The Greens have always been a bunch of sanctimonious posturers keen to claim the moral high ground but what I find really offensive in their campaign about asylum seekers is their contention that we are responsible for the safety at sea of anyone who hops on a rickety boat from the moment that they board that vessel in Indonesia.
Its not only the Greens deserve our admonishment here but also the Gillard government who were hoping that notice of the loss of these people would stay off the radar and the blood would not be perceived to be dripping from Gillard’s hands. To be entirely frank on this occasion I don’t think that its fair for the Greens or any other minions of the left to lay any blame at the feet of any Australian for the apparent loss of life on this unnamed boat. The people who took to this mode of transport took a gamble and they lost big time. But if the Greens want to blame anyone where is their criticism of Indonesia? Because its more likely that this boat was lost within their rescue zone and on their watch. Can I dare suggest that the Greens are in fact being rather racist to imply that because we are a first world nation that we have a global responsibility to provide search and rescue services to our near neighbour even though they are a maritime nation with thousands of islands and a navy of their own?
Make no mistake the ocean is big and it can be very difficult indeed to find an intact boat when it is in distress the chances of finding survivors form one that has sunk is orders of magnitude more difficult even if you have some idea of where they sunk . For the likes of Sarah Hansen young and Christine Milne to dare criticise the Australian navy (even just by implication) for not finding a boat that has not even sent out a distress call is just down right insulting and utterly reprehensible.
Ah well if there is any good that can come out of this incident its the possibility that more people will see the Greens for the sanctimonious wankers that they so obviously are and as a result their support at the next poll will decline.
Rant over Comrades
Well I certainly agree with the thrust of your argument here which you make most competently, Sadly for anyone with sympathy for the ALP I think that the Gillard government has lost far too much credibility with the voting public for very many of those middle class voters to return to their fold at the next poll. All of the anti Green rhetoric of recent days may help them save a few seats and when you are facing a decisive rout that is probably the best that you could possibly expect. I suspect that the next Labor PM is not yet out of high school or even a member of the party but if the only thing that the party gets out of its coming electoral disaster is a policy of placing the Greens last on every how to vote card the country will be better for it.
Oh and this seems a rather apt cartoon from Larry Pickering with thanks to GD for pointing it out to me
I’m not a psephologist, so I’m quite prepared for this to be blown apart by Mumble or Poll Bludger.
But I’m being driven crazy by the political ignorance displayed by those gnashing their teeth over the recent ratcheting-up of the ALP’s stance against the Greens. In short, the ingénues are saying “why fight with each other when the Libs are the enemy?”.
Such naïveté ignores the reality that each political party considers all others the enemy – even the Libs and Nats vigorously compete against each other for a seat previously held by a retiring Coalition MP (sometimes to their detriment, and sometimes not).
The mistake being made by political newbies and idealists on Twitter is that Labor and the Greens are natural allies against the Coalition. They forget that in the real world, it is each party for themselves with all others being considered the enemy.
Since the last…
View original post 444 more words
Slogans such as ‘marriage equality’ and ‘equal love’ have dominated the gay marriage debate so far. But as the federal parliament inches closer to dealing with the three ‘marriage equality’ bills that are before it, we are finally beginning to see their consequences.
During the recent Senate Hearings into one of the bills, the Green’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was asked what logical reason could be given for not extending ‘marriage equality’ to other configurations of love such as consenting polygamous and polyamorous ones.
“The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people,” he told the Senate.“There may be, in some future time, some other question.
The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step.”
And it is clear by recent events that there are those who are very interested in seeing those next steps.
Last week, leaders of Australia’s polyamorous community expressed disappointment with Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young for rejecting equality for their relationships.
Hanson-Young is yet to respond to the specific question of whether the Greens will drop their support of ‘marriage for all’ and the clear expectation the bi-sexual community in particular has in their policy.
This week The Punch and SBS featured a polygamous relationship in which the participants complained of discrimination from authorities and said if it were legal they would marry.
Of course such talk is dangerous indeed for gay activists, and Rodney Croome, the campaign director for Australian Marriage Equality, felt it necessary to explain why ‘marriage equality’ did not apply to the poly communities, so as not to unhinge his own campaign.
Ironically, many of his arguments mirrored those used against same-sex marriage.
Croome says that same-sex attraction is ‘immutable’ but then tells the poly community their sexual attraction is a choice, which seems strangely at odds with his allies the Greens, who must surely treat all these sexualities equally.
Or do they now suddenly believe that we shouldn’t treat everyone’s love equally?
Certainly such intolerance from gay activists seems less than acceptable to Nikko Antalffy who recently gave a rambling defence of polyamory in a national newspaper, claiming it takes us back to our pre medieval natural desires.
But let’s be honest, they are in reality pagan desires, customs rightly long rejected, and now only contemplated by a parliament that is perhaps less esteemed than any in the country’s history. A parliament forced to consider the intolerable due only to the artificial power of the Greens.
Marriage was institutionalised to protect not only society from the nonsense of things like multiple unions, but specifically children. Unless children were involved, government would have no interest in marriage.
Neither gay nor polyamorous “marriages” could serve the interests of children. Gay marriage by definition denies a child either a mother or a father. Mother love and father love that no amount of gay-activist-dominated studies can tell a parent doesn’t matter to a child.
Croome says another reason for not extending marriage equality to polyamorous people is that it would complicate the family law system.
But in some states gay activism has already erased fathers from birth certificates and led to the nonsense of even a single man being able to get a child through surrogacy.
In Croome’s mind this level of complication to family law, not to mention to the child, is OK.
How insulting it must be to polyamorous people to be told by Croome that their love is less equal and that the ‘group dynamics’ of their relationships means they can’t have ‘marriage equality’.
He argues their relationships are less stable. So too are same-sex relationships, when compared to marriage, but try using this as an argument for man-woman marriage without being demonised.
Again, more breathtaking double standards.
Comments by polyamorous activists such as James Dominguez and his wife Rebecca, show they are deadly serious about rights for their community.
They live with Mr Dominguez’s boyfriend and Mrs Dominguez’s boyfriend and went to the trouble of lodging a submission to the Senate inquiry.
In blog comments last week, Mr Dominguez expects that the Greens will champion any future popular move to legalise poly marriage.
He says no-where in the world where same-sex marriage has been legalised has there been a push for poly marriage.
This is simply untrue. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage, Holland, now allows civil law contracts for polygamists.
In seeking to allay society’s concern of a slippery slope, activists assure us that same-sex marriage is a natural stopping point, but if nature can be brought into this argument, then surely biological marriage is the natural stopping point.
It is time to move past the slogans and consider the consequences for society and children of redefining marriage. Because clearly there is an agenda well beyond the current claim on it.
Re posted under the terms of its Creative Commons licence from Online Opinion
- Gays Against Polyamory (thedailybeast.com)
Just heard on the ABC news that Alan Asher is reigning as Ombudsman because of his corrupt collusion with The Greens Senator Sarah Hansen Young, well so much for those who have been defending this bit of grubby politicking from those paragons of virtue (a hem !!) the Greens.
I can’t help but wonder how their praise singers like our learned friend will try to spin this given he was defending the actions of the South Australian Senator yesterday. watch him try to spin it now
I find it to be rather bizarre that the Greens in particular and the left in general are so intent on having a “media inquiry” which really has a rather Orwellian aspect if you ask me. Of course a Labor party dog with a very bad case of the mange itself is keen to let the Green tail of its government wag it quite vigorously on this issue because it hopes that this will distract the public from its own rather serious woes and ever declining fortunes in the Polls. Senator Sarah Hanson Young has used her regular sproutings in the Fairfax press to argue the virtues of the inquiry that the Greens have been wetting their pants for since they became worthy of greater scrutiny and have been found wanting.
Now just for a bit of fun lets look at her argument line by line and analyse what she is trying to do here
In Britain, the phone-hacking scandal has put Rupert Murdoch’s media empire under unprecedented scrutiny. Questions are being asked about News Corporation’s influence over British democracy — its capacity to make and break prime ministers and to set the policy agenda of the day.
Right Sarah begins by pinning her colours to the mast. Her opening gambit is to remind her readers that the Murdoch media empire must be entirely bad because some individuals at one branch did something that was bad. Like so many conspiracy theorists Sarah thinks that a media organisation exits primarily to serve the political purposes of its owner, rather than as a way to make money.
In Australia, similar questions must also be asked. News Limited controls 70 per cent of our nation’s print media, representing the greatest concentration of media ownership in the democratic world.
Why does a scandal in the UK require questions here about our quite different media Landscape? The citation of that oft quoted “70%” of print media is one thing but then she makes the rather dishonest leap to imply that it means News Ltd owns 70% of all media, which is just not the case. We have a a lot of media diversity and as the print media continues its decline in the face of the rise in the internet and broadcast media.
The question for politicians and the community in this context is whether this huge concentration of media ownership and dwindling diversity is in the public interest. We can all argue about what constitutes media bias and what doesn’t, but with less and less diversity of media coverage and opportunities for journalists to dig deeper into an issue, proper scrutiny of policymakers of all stripes and persuasions is in fact limited.
No the question is first and foremost to truly understand the nature of our political media landscape and I would argue that there is not the sort of concentration of media ownership that Sarah postulates here when you take the contribution of “new media” players into account rather than just focusing on what is said in the papers. Journalists are in fact a dying breed who are becoming less and less important. The politically engaged, like yours truly, don’t want to have their information filtered by the sensibilities of a journalist, we want the words and explanations from the players themselves. The less politically engaged don’t tend to have the print media as their primary news source anyway for them its the Radio and the TV followed by the internet.
The Greens have of course been very public in our desire for a real and robust media inquiry to examine the media landscape and the impact ownership make-up is having on quality journalism and the delivery of information to the broad and diverse Australian community.
The reality is that the Greens have not been doing to well form the media and rather than taking the scrutiny of their policy ideas that found them wanting to heart and doing some soul searching they have leap straight to the “there must be a conspiracy agin us” conclusion because they argue from a dogmatically religious conviction on all of their policies and as such they can’t even conceive of the possibility that they might actaully be wrong about anything.
The terms of reference for our proposed inquiry, which will look at how to make the complaints mechanism easier for the public, as well as issues of media concentration, will be voted on this week in Parliament.
And yet the Gillard government have announced that the question of ownership will not be on the agenda, so clearly what Sarah is doing here is playing to the Green gallery.
The response from some sections of the media (namely News Limited) has been unsurprising. Of course it would prefer that no one was talking about it or questioning whether the shrinkage of media diversity is delivering the news and information our communities deserve and need.
Any sort of inquiry will by its very nature be both intrusive and expensive for the media organisations that are under the spotlight. This line does however highlight the problem with Sarah’s argument, what she really wants is something that focuses entirely upon News Ltd and what she sees as its vices while other entities that are generally more sympathetic to the Greens and their agenda (have a different bias in other words ) are all fine and dandy so they don’t need an inquiry in her terms.
Opponents to such an inquiry resort to arguing that it will kill off freedom of speech in Australia. Give us a break. Rather than some road to Damascus conversion of Murdoch’s empire to freedom and transparency, the argument against such an inquiry is a strategy of the Right designed to keep the public nose and interest out of their business model.
The senator seems confused with this bit, she does the classic bait and switch; mention freedom of speech and then without drawing breath address the matter of media business models and in passing suggest that Murdoch’s empire is both anti freedom and opaque to scrutiny. It really is the stuff of nonsense that displays the senators political underwear clearly enough to suggest that she is going commando here.
No one is suggesting that journalists’ work be vetted or censored, but we need to consider how ownership affects the news we all consume and how the public can raise issues of complaint when they believe they have been misled or misrepresented.
How can Sarah claim that she is not wanting to vet or censor journalist’s work and then talk about ways of addressing claims of their writing being either misleading or a misrepresentation? In typical Greens style she is just being deceptive here what she wants is to stifle any voices that are critical of her party’s policies and activities.
It is totally legitimate for there to be a public debate about the concentration of media ownership. The fact the News Limited press moved swiftly to slap this down, demonstrates precisely why we need this inquiry. Like any corporation, News Limited doesn’t want any scrutiny of its domination of the market – it will always act to protect its commercial interests.
There has been endless debate on this in the left leaning media and it always seems to find that News Ltd is “bad” but then again the more conservative media makes the same sorts of claims about Fairfax and the ABC , that they have a political bias. Frankly I have always thought that media bias is unavoidable and that as long as this is understood by the media consumers then they will be well served by the media in general.
Rather than being about censoring journalists, a debate about media ownership is essential to protecting our democracy. With greater diversity of media ownership, comes the potential for greater diversity of views.
Ultimately the purpose of such an inquiry has to be about changing the views presented to the public, that requires a changing of what journalists write and publish, the ownership issue here is a total furphy (and not covered by the terms of reference anyway) I agree that our democracy is best served by a diversity of opinion but what Sarah is arguing for is a Greens authorised understanding of truth and a delegitimising of any contrary opinion.
The flagship News Limited paper, The Australian, for instance has recently declared war on the Greens and wants to see my party “destroyed at the ballot box“. This isn’t some lunatic conspiracy theory; this is the self-declared agenda of the newspaper.
Here you have the senator playing the martyrdom card, sadly for her its easily trumped by the truth that no paper has to endorse an extremist party like the Greens any more than it was obliged to endorse One Nation or any other fringe group*.
In his essay for The Quarterly Essay, Robert Manne has highlighted the paper’s ideological opposition in other areas, such as climate action and the mining tax and there is speculation News Limited wants to see a change of government. Tony Abbott’s dismissal of the inquiry should be considered in this light.
So the totalitarian senator cites another totalitarian lefty who does not like the Australian having a contrary opinion about their pet causes? Who would have though that? 🙄 Further its not just the Australian which wants a change of government according to the polling a very clear majority of voters do too.
In a media market dominated by one or two players, an agenda such as this can have a disproportionate influence on the politics of the nation. I suspect my blog today will annoy those pushing the News Limited agenda, and I expect to see their wrath for daring to question the status quo, but an inquiry that considers how more voices can be heard can only be good for democracy, allowing the people more participation rather than less.
all quotes from here
Actually rather than being annoyed I am rather disappointed that this piece is so badly written and argued. Sarah Hanson Young is certainly vehement in putting her case but she is far too ideologically blinkered to see the bigger picture of the media landscape in this country. Of course no individual element is perfect or without its own political agenda or tendency. But overall I think that we have a balance of sorts in our media despite the protestation of Hanson Young. Fairfax leans to the left as does the ABC, Murdoch’s press tends to go the other way. Its not ever perfect but frankly its about as good as it gets. You can’t ever enforce some concept of ‘balance” or neutrality upon the media because the content is always created by individuals who have their own beliefs and that will always influence what they write or create. The other factor here that seems to elude Hanson Young is the simple fact that people tend to seek out content that matches what they already believe, thus those with a tendency to the left will praise and support papers like the Age where as those of a more conservative ilk tend towards the Australian. Others tend to be more indifferent to politics so they go for the paper that covers their sport of choice or the celebrity gossip that they crave. In other words the nation does not exist on politics alone as so many like Hanson Young seem to think they do.
*Godwin avoided here 😉
What is it with the Latte sippers and their cult of the “properly qualified expert”? Why on earth do they think that even simple everyday problems that all children and young people may encounter needs a highly technical “expert” solution? Personally I think that when it comes to so many of the issues for which a young person my seek councillor all that they need is a sympathetic ear, from someone who is perceived as neutral, and a little common sense advice. You don’t need a degree to give that kind of support you just need a good heart, a strong ethical centre and a bit of life experience.
However to the likes of Sarah Hansen Young it seems that you just have to have the right Gong:
Australia’s students need the right people looking out for their well-being, to assist their parents or carers and ensure they reach their full potential, clearing the obstacles life throws at them. That’s where a properly-qualified school counsellor or youth worker could help. Someone who has the credentials and expertise to identify what a child is experiencing, and help them through it. There is no requirement under the current program that chaplains have to have any of this specific training.
Of course she does not define just what constitutes a “proper” qualification but my guess is that she wants them to have some sort of social work degree. So on planet Greenie it is all down to having the right formal credentials. But her wrong headedness does not end there because throughout the polemic she keeps suggesting that the schools are obliged to be part of this scheme, which is not the case , and that they can not choose to hire a secular councillor. As I understand it this is just not the case on both counts. Each individual school makes the decision to opt in to this scheme and it also chooses who they want to be be a school chaplain. Frankly I don’t get just why the Greens and other militant atheists are so worried about this sort of thing unless it is because they fear that their own religious dogma may be questioned. You know that things like promiscuity may be denounced or that the idea that drug taking could be de-glamorised or that their own Gaian faith could be challenged by a faith that suggests that humanity is maybe a touch more significant than a soy bean. Or even that they might suggest by example that, shock horror, there is value in being a functioning member of society rather than a rebellion fashion victim.
Look when it gets down to it the religious faith of any young people is very largely shaped by the example of their parents and the way that those parents live their lives and personally it is this that makes the evangelical atheists so Bolshie about the issue of school chaplains. In the first instance many of the loudest voices don’t even have any children so they are largely talking theoretical clap trap and secondly if they do have children then perhaps they are worried because they have not paid enough attention to enunciating, by word and deed a clear and consistent ethical example to their offspring. It seems to me that rather than being all about some principled notion that our secular schools should not have any one on their grounds who may possibly suggest that a religious faith can be a good thing. They are complaining about the possibility that anyone may just notice that they have raised their own children in a moral and ethical vacuum and be willing to supply some unapproved (by Latte sippers) spiritual oxygen to young people.
My children are being raised without any orthodox religious dogma, yet they are learning to be moral and ethical human beings and frankly I am far more concerned about what they are being taught in the formal curriculum than I am about what they might possibly catch from the entirely optional contact that they might have with a school chaplain. And just as Tony Abbott was suggesting when it comes to the budget the first rule for any sort of councillor or advice giver (yes, even those who are “properly qualified”) is that they should do no avoidable harm. Frankly I have seen no examples that they have although there is a lot of evidence that they have in fact done a great deal of good which is why both of the major parties support the scheme.