Skip to main content
Topic: Sam Newman at it again! (Read 7417 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #75
I work with a guy who had issues as LP described sub dividing land in Tooradin. Basically was told it couldn't be done because the land was sacred until they paid enough money then it was OK.

The money side of this doesn't bother me if it's been put to good use helping indigenous communities and not ending up in the pockets of crooks like Phil Egan.
I just don't like the welcome to country stuff. It's fake, the land was stolen and we owe them trillions.


There is a process that must be followed when certain land is subdivided into more than three lots.  The process is mandated by legislation and must comply with the regulations.  The processes that must be followed by the proponent, the heritage advisor and the RAP are non-negotiable, as are the fees payable to the RAP for evaluating management plans.

The situation you describe could happen but it would be illegal, could be rectified through the provisions of the Act, and would result in the de-registration of the RAP.

As mentioned previously, the heritage advisor engaged by the proponent to prepare the management plan can charge whatever the market will allow.

Yes, the land was stolen.  That’s what happens when folk colonise land occupied by other folk.  However, I’m not sure where owing trillions comes from.  The Native Title Act and the relatively modest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund are intended to address land issues and dispossession.

“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #76
Sam Newman didn't just politely agree to disagree on the Welcome To Country - he stated very clearly that people should boo or slow clap during the ceremony, which is clearly an attempt to ridicule and diminish - that's hate speech.

i absolutely disagree that this is hate speech. i understand that you think it is, but i don't. There are multiple ways to protest and this is exactly that in my opinion. It is a flawed and very childish and distasteful way, but to me it is a means of protest.

I am ecstatic that people can hear Sam's trash and society voted with their actions to ignore his dribble and i believe by calling for such actions he lost support of those who have a general agreement with the sentiment of those who don't like the "Welcome" ceremony.

Let's reverse this, if a group of first nation people decided to boo during the Anthem as a form of protest or "took the knee" on the field, wouldn't we be want society to say "I disagree with their protest, but they have that right?"  What if first nation people slow clapped or booed during a minute silence when our head of state died.. Does that constitute "hate speech"

Newman's idea was idiotic and society made this very clear, but i don't believe these "words" constitute hate speech. i truly believe it is harmful how often we label things hate speech

Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL


Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #77
i don't agree that hate crimes are actually increasing, perhaps if looking at a micro timeline this is true, but certainly not over any extended period. As much as you say Free Speech is misunderstood, i believe it is even more true of "hate speech".

I won't go into great details, but gender identity is an example of an area that is rife with accusations of hate speech, which in fact discourages a much needed (and desired) discourse on the subject. There are many people who understand that gender identity is a real issue, but completely disagree with the way society is handling the subject and the impacts it is having on current society, but by constantly shutting down opinions that differ and being quick to label them as something the are not, it discourages people even engaging in the conversation and society being out of touch and increasingly divisive.

We seen this  phenomenon when Donald Trump was first elected president. The polls had absolutely no idea that this was going to occur, because the right didn't want to engage in conversation because it turned to lectures and condemnation from the left, rather than any meaningful discussion, so people stopped publicly supporting (of course this done a 360 once he was elected).

We seen this with Brittney Higgins. We had a tv presenter come out and basically declare someone guilty who had never been through the legal system and anyone who openly questioned this was a terrible person. The #IBelieveHer movement allows hate speech against an accused, but it doesn't consider it so. We have constant hate speech against males and in particular white middle aged hetero sexual males with claims of toxic masculinity, inherent privilege etc in main stream media, but any attempt to have cohesive discussions on this is met with total derision. This is despite the fact that most men don't have any of this inherent privilege, often their bodies are destroyed by the time they are in their 40s due to years of hard physical work and they have the highest rate of suicide by far in society.... but any attempt to suggest that this "male bashing" is a real problem in society is scoffed at because  "women have had it worse", "ethnic minorities have had it worse" etc etc. Again a meaningful and required discussion cannot be easily had, so people keep their problems inside with no real idea how to deal with them.

Free Speech to so many people has become "Freedom to agree" and this is why people need to be able to hear the likes of idiots like Joe Rogan and Sam Newman and any other idiot with ridiculous opinions (if not of course illegal hate speech), if only to know it is okay to have an unpopular opinion and to voice it...

Free Speech does NOT of course include inciting acts of violence, anything to do with racial superiority etc, there are reasons certain 'free speech' has been made illegal and it should be, but we should not be stopping people from voicing opinions and people need to stop "being offended" and start debating actual views.

Leaving aside the lack of clarity around terms like "micro timeline" and "extended period", a very simple google search will make it clear that hate crimes are on the increase in recent times. What is also clear is that where the Trumps and Le Pens of this world go, hate crime invariably follows.

I think you paint a very heavily distorted and Photoshopped picture around gender identity and toxic masculinity. I don't see those issues the way you describe them at all. Men with broken bodies etc. Sorry, but there's no doubt that men have problems as do all people, but to somehow suggest that they are hard done by compared to other groups is a big stretch.

The rubric of free speech does not work the way you describe. People like Newman, Trump etc. and their acolytes have no interest in debates. They already know the answer, why do they need to debate. Free speech is used precisely to do what you say it shouldn't do, which is not to debate, but to cause division and trouble, and to push their own dominance hierarchies and identity politics.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #78
There is a process that must be followed when certain land is subdivided into more than three lots.  The process is mandated by legislation and must comply with the regulations.  The processes that must be followed by the proponent, the heritage advisor and the RAP are non-negotiable, as are the fees payable to the RAP for evaluating management plans.

The situation you describe could happen but it would be illegal, could be rectified through the provisions of the Act, and would result in the de-registration of the RAP.

As mentioned previously, the heritage advisor engaged by the proponent to prepare the management plan can charge whatever the market will allow.

Yes, the land was stolen.  That’s what happens when folk colonise land occupied by other folk.  However, I’m not sure where owing trillions comes from.  The Native Title Act and the relatively modest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund are intended to address land issues and dispossession.



A few years ago the ABS valued all Australian land at almost 6 trillion dollars.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #79
A few years ago the ABS valued all Australian land at almost 6 trillion dollars.

That's as maybe, but there's no serious suggestion that Indigenous Australians should be given trillions in compensation for their dispossession.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #80
Leaving aside the lack of clarity around terms like "micro timeline" and "extended period", a very simple google search will make it clear that hate crimes are on the increase in recent times. What is also clear is that where the Trumps and Le Pens of this world go, hate crime invariably follows.

Why do they envoke such reactions? The exact reason is that the far left causes the far right to prosper and the same is true in reverse. They are a direct protest to each other and  neither side believes they are represented enough.

Quote
I think you paint a very heavily distorted and Photoshopped picture around gender identity and toxic masculinity. I don't see those issues the way you describe them at all. Men with broken bodies etc. Sorry, but there's no doubt that men have problems as do all people, but to somehow suggest that they are hard done by compared to other groups is a big stretch.
But where do i say men are hard done by compared to other groups? In fact i argue that whenever the issue of problems for men are raised they are derided because in general they have not had it as hard as other groups.. The problem is that it is whitewashing over the fact their is a problem and denigrating ANY group by and large is an issue. If someone raises the issue of endometriosis, does anyone suggest.. well it is not as big of a problem as brain cancer, so what are you complaining about?
Problems in society don't need to be graded to be real and to require attention, but the way you dismiss it is mirrored through society to be honest.

i am NOT suggesting the Trump or Newman want open honest debates, i am not even stating that what they are saying is credible and unfortunately Trump was in a real position to enforce negative impacts on society. The thing is that whilst they have no interest in debate, there are a lot of people who feel like trump does (not so much newman) and a lot of these may be open to debate and growing together and by allowing the topic to play out in public it allows those debates to happen.

i always find it strange that the left thinks the right is divisive, but regularly fail to understand how divisive and dismissive they are

Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL


Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #81
mateinone, I think we've taken this as far as we can, or should. We're not getting anywhere, let's just leave it that.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #82
Sam Newman didn't just politely agree to disagree on the Welcome To Country - he stated very clearly that people should boo or slow clap during the ceremony, which is clearly an attempt to ridicule and diminish - that's hate speech.

If I meet a fundamentalist Christian who declares that Leviticus 20.13 should be taken literally and men who practice anal sex must be put to death, is it okay to defend such a view on religious beliefs ? It's in the Bible, I guess it must be.

There's a very good reason why organisations like the FBI are not issuing warnings against Woke leftists, but rather against those who endorse right wing authoritarian identity politics. It's completely wrong to think it's just left versus right. Words have consequences. Unless the participants in the January 6 riots have perjured themselves, they are on the legal record as saying they were inspired by Trump's words.

Precisely. He didn't just give us his opinion, he sought to incite ...which is repugnant and divisive.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #83
There is a process that must be followed when certain land is subdivided into more than three lots.  The process is mandated by legislation and must comply with the regulations.  The processes that must be followed by the proponent, the heritage advisor and the RAP are non-negotiable, as are the fees payable to the RAP for evaluating management plans.
There is a world of difference between what happens with corporations, foreign investors and mum and dad owners.

The things you talk about are undoubtedly correct, but that is not how the system is gamed at the domestic / residential level. There is the act you talk about, the environment acts, the anti-discrimination laws, the wildlife regulations. They are all gamed to leverage advantage over anyone who isn't wealthy enough to either ignore or fight it.

The problem the people I know have is that they are just citizens, owner developers, residents, they want to live and participate in the region. But those wanting reparations are indifferent to them, they oppose them for a price, get preferential treatment from tribunals or committees based almost purely on spoken testimony / opinion, which can only be countered with expensive technical surveys, legal procedures and lengthy scientific, academic or engineering investigations. Corporations can just ignore the bullcrap, push ahead and pay the fine, they just treat it as a cost of doing business, but mum and dad operators can't and the activists know it. If you challenge them, you end up with a cabal of indigenous, green and animal rights activists making your life hell, and often it is the same faces in the opposition popping up oddly all over the state. The system is gamed and the average person is powerless to do anything about it because the laws are asymmetrical in implementation.
The Force Awakens!

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #84
There is a world of difference between what happens with corporations, foreign investors and mum and dad owners.

The things you talk about are undoubtedly correct, but that is not how the system is gamed at the domestic / residential level. There is the act you talk about, the environment acts, the anti-discrimination laws, the wildlife regulations. They are all gamed to leverage advantage over anyone who isn't wealthy enough to either ignore or fight it.

The problem the people I know have is that they are just citizens, owner developers, residents, they want to live and participate in the region. But those wanting reparations are indifferent to them, they oppose them for a price, get preferential treatment from tribunals or committees based almost purely on spoken testimony / opinion, which can only be countered with expensive technical surveys, legal procedures and lengthy scientific, academic or engineering investigations. Corporations can just ignore the bullcrap, push ahead and pay the fine, they just treat it as a cost of doing business, but mum and dad operators can't and the activists know it. If you challenge them, you end up with a cabal of indigenous, green and animal rights activists making your life hell, and often it is the same faces in the opposition popping up oddly all over the state. The system is gamed and the average person is powerless to do anything about it because the laws are asymmetrical in implementation.

I’m sorry LP but it’s not world’s best practice for nothing.

If you’re intending to carry out a high impact activity in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, you can’t get a statutory authority unless you have an approved cultural heritage management plan.  There are no exemptions or exceptions and no-one - minister, head of dept, traditional owner - can override that.

You don’t need a management plan if you’re continuing the existing land use, agroforestry for example.  However, if your activity will harm Aboriginal cultural heritage, you will require a cultural heritage permit.  Again, the process and fees are prescribed by regulation.

In my experience, everyone from large corporations and govt departments to folk subdividing the family property got the go ahead with little fuss and not much cost.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball