Sam Newman has doubled down on his comments against the Welcome to Country in a fiery interview, taking aim at AFL legend Adam Goodes and branding the common ceremonies a “hoax”.
The AFL personality stirred up controversy on this week after making comments on his podcast, You Cannot Be Serious, encouraging Aussies to boo or “slow hand clap” during the Welcome to Country, particularly at the upcoming AFL Grand Final at the MCG.
Appearing on 3AW radio on Thursday, Newman was asked by host Tony Jones whether his suggestion was “inciting violence”.
“What an extraordinary question,” Newman said.
“The public have had a gutful of people telling us how to live our lives, particularly footballing organisations. We like to go to the football and watch the game without being told to vote for the gay marriage proposal … without being told to vote for the Voice. Why do they get involved? It is an absolute hoax, it’s a rort, the Welcome to Country. Why do we have to be welcomed to the country we live in? Why is that? It is just a mark of division. The people who welcome you to country get a nice stipend out of it. Why do they charge? It’s just a rort.”
Sam Newman has doubled down on his comments against the Welcome to Country in a fiery interview, taking aim at AFL legend Adam Goodes and branding the common ceremonies a “hoax”.
The AFL personality stirred up controversy on this week after making comments on his podcast, You Cannot Be Serious, encouraging Aussies to boo or “slow hand clap” during the Welcome to Country, particularly at the upcoming AFL Grand Final at the MCG.
Appearing on 3AW radio on Thursday, Newman was asked by host Tony Jones whether his suggestion was “inciting violence”.
“What an extraordinary question,” Newman said.
“The public have had a gutful of people telling us how to live our lives, particularly footballing organisations. We like to go to the football and watch the game without being told to vote for the gay marriage proposal … without being told to vote for the Voice. Why do they get involved? It is an absolute hoax, it’s a rort, the Welcome to Country. Why do we have to be welcomed to the country we live in? Why is that? It is just a mark of division. The people who welcome you to country get a nice stipend out of it. Why do they charge? It’s just a rort.”
At least he has the balls to voice his opinion which these days it’s seems anyone that has an opinion against the main stream it doesn’t take long for you to be branded, pigeon holed called a racist, homophobic etc.
Freedom of speech is slowly being eroded in this country and imo there needs to be a balance and while not everyone may agree with Newmans opinion he has as much right as anyone to voice it.
“The public have had a gutful of people telling us how to live our lives, particularly footballing organisations. We like to go to the football and watch the game without being told to vote for the gay marriage proposal … without being told to vote for the Voice. Why do they get involved? It is an absolute hoax, it’s a rort, the Welcome to Country. Why do we have to be welcomed to the country we live in? Why is that? It is just a mark of division. The people who welcome you to country get a nice stipend out of it. Why do they charge? It’s just a rort.”
The problem here is that a lot of people are going to side with Newman, even if it's just a tiny bit true that is too much truth to be comfortable for some.
I go back to the flag rorting, local council's were being systematically badgered into flying an Indigenous flag then being sent an invoice for permission to fly an indigenous flag. It was never about signalling and all about income, and that cheapens and dirties the motives, something that should be a good thing is forever sullied.
Even sadder, a few fairly senior indigenous leaders have seemingly become persona-non-grata in their own culture because they called out the unconscionable behaviour on both sides of the debate. Reason it seems is not reasonable in cancel culture.
People are free to feel whatever they want about such ceremonies.
To actively advocate the booing is taking it to the extreme...and a recipe for some ugly scenes on a day that should be a celebration for all of us.
People are free to feel whatever they want about such ceremonies.
To actively advocate the booing is taking it to the extreme...and a recipe for some ugly scenes on a day that should be a celebration for all of us.
The media focus on the boo comment only makes things worse, that's Newman the media personality at work generating focus on the rest of the commentary using a throw away line.
The media should be debating the real issues on both sides of the argument, but instead they go for the cheap thrill.
Overall, Newman's comments, Thorpe's comments and the media focus, just strengthen the resolve of extremists on either side and the vast majority of us suffer.
btw., Is the wider message misplaced, that sport should remain at arms length to politics and religion? I suggest if this question is asked in isolation free of tinsel it would get resounding support, maybe it would have been a better referendum question!
My problem with the indigenous voice:
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia
Who's voice is it?
You ask 5 people for an opinion on a subject and consensus is able to be reached but there will be opposing thoughts. Add additional numbers, and you will get wide and varied opinions. Given the number of indidgenous voices out there, how can one voice to parliament truly become representative of anything?
Will there be an indigenous vote as well?
Regarding welcome to country, this is something we are all being programmed to do. It means nothing to me, and causes me very little harm, so I don't see the point of worrying about whether or not its done. I did raise my eyebrows, when returning from the USA on jetstar just to hear a welcome to country from the pilot as it was the first time I came across it in that context.
Don't have an issue with it personally, just like I don't really care for the national anthem at a football game between Carlton and Melbourne. Seems a bit out of place, but whatever.
You know, when it all comes down to it, the pre match could be the spice girls singing, so long as I heard the lily of laguna shortly prior or after, then it really doesnt matter to me at all.
People are free to feel whatever they want about such ceremonies.
To actively advocate the booing is taking it to the extreme...and a recipe for some ugly scenes on a day that should be a celebration for all of us.
Spot on, Principal LODS.
Newman states, "The public have had a gutful of people telling us how to live our lives..." Then sets about telling us how we should live, think, act and respond according to his peculiar set of values... with apologies to the word 'values.' Breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy. We should all see things as he does!
He, and a good number of his Far Right buddies should spend a year living inside dark skin to really get an understanding what this is actually all about. If you're devoid of compassion and empathy... learn the hard way.
Who would have thought that inclusiveness could be so difficult and inconvenient. Seems that Newman and those of his ilk really do live in a terribly fearful and angry world.
An old mate's son, Colin Hunter, is doing the welcomes at the G and doing them very well indeed.
The respect that he is paid during and after his short ceremony suggests that the vast majority either agree with the welcome or are not opposed to it.
You have to wonder why an irrelevant flog like Newman has his racist agenda aired on mainstream media.
I wouldn't boo but I'm certainly not paying attention, I was welcomed to Australia in 1988.
I wouldn't boo but I'm certainly not paying attention, I was welcomed to Australia in 1988.
Agree. Totally ignored by those around me on Friday night. Just kept talking and laughing amongst themselves. Lost all relevance, if there ever was any.
You have to wonder why an irrelevant flog like Newman has his racist agenda aired on mainstream media.
@DJC All sides of the debate make money from it!
An old mate's son, Colin Hunter, is doing the welcomes at the G and doing them very well indeed.
The respect that he is paid during and after his short ceremony suggests that the vast majority either agree with the welcome or are not opposed to it.
I just want to know why they demand money? Why not do it for free?
Sam Newman is nothing but a grumpy old man who is still looking for headlines.
He made a living on the Footy Show by going out on the street and making fools of unfortunates who didn't know any better, and he is still poking a stick at those he feels are beneath him.
I know it is said he is a top bloke, but his public persona is one of an irrelevant flog who doesn't deserve the oxygen that he keeps getting from his old mates in the media. He should look up the word respect and see if he can find a scintilla of it in his rantings.
What also comes with freedom of speech is the responsibility of free speech. You can't have one without the other.
I just want to know why they demand money? Why not do it for free?
Does anyone involved in the pre-game activities do it for free?
Why shouldn’t Colin be recompensed for his time and effort?
We’re well past the time when Indigenous Australians were expected to provide services for free or, at worst, for rations.
@DJC All sides of the debate make money from it!
My Koori mates, who are feeling battered by this latest assault on their status as the first Australians, would love to know how they can tap into their share.
The only folk who make money out of issues like this are the media outlets that cater to angry old white men.
My Koori mates, who are feeling battered by this latest assault on their status as the first Australians, would love to know how they can tap into their share.
The only folk who make money out of issues like this are the media outlets that cater to angry old white men.
There is as much influence and money in this debate for both sides as there is in associate marketing, it's not restricted to a race or religion!
Someone somewhere on both sides pockets some cash.
Does anyone involved in the pre-game activities do it for free?
Why shouldn’t Colin be recompensed for his time and effort?
We’re well past the time when Indigenous Australians were expected to provide services for free or, at worst, for rations.
Mate the small primary school my wife works at enquired about getting a ceremony done at an assembly as part of their First Nation people cultural studies, they got quoted $750 to $1000 which they couldn't afford.
Mate the small primary school my wife works at enquired about getting a ceremony done at an assembly as part of their First Nation people cultural studies, they got quoted $750 to $1000 which they couldn't afford.
It's even worse on the bureaucracy side of things, in some areas you get land site survey fees as part of planning permits but built into this is you guessed it, a tick off from local indigenous communities before you can even dig a hole, more $ for that in the fee than the surveyors.
Another case, a family farm has been growing trees for lumber for nearly 100 years. They want to clear some of the trees to restore pastures, now they have to get a permit to clear trees their own family planted and we're initially denied on indigenous heritage grounds. But hold a ceremony to clear the land for use it'll be OK, $11,000 is the fee they paid, the ceremony involved burning fallen timber and removing what was described as a handful of dirt. The ashes of fallen timber from their own trees, it's like a joke story you hear in a Scottish pub about how locals con tourists!
If shizen like this is really going on, then it's obligatory for it to be exposed by both sides of the debate, otherwise one side is going to risk being labelled disingenuous!
You have to wonder why an irrelevant flog like Newman has his racist agenda aired on mainstream media.
The trouble with our world is that irrelevant flogs get clicks and clicks get coins. If we are talking about it, it's working.
https://www.michaelchristianmenswear.com/product-page/smartassam-no-hat
Sam doesnt seem to have a problem with making a dollar out of the referendum himself...you do have to laugh sadly, there are no morals, ethics etc when it comes to making a dollar these days out of any issue or situation with some people.
There are no morals, ethics etc when it comes to making a dollar these days out of any issue or situation with some people.
Both sides claim the high moral ground, neither has it, having swung so far left and right that they meet back in the middle! ;)
On this issue many have been left feeling that change is needed, but not the change that is being offered.
Both sides claim the high moral ground, neither has it, having swung so far left and right that they meet back in the middle! ;)
On this issue many have been left feeling that change is needed, but not the change that is being offered.
I would have legislated it through Parliament...tested how it works for a couple of years in that format, sorted out any problems and then done the Referendum to make the Constitutional changes if appropriate.
My wife worked in Indigenous employment for over 10 years. She had plenty of contact with First Nations people, and has been involved in many Welcome To Country / Acknowledgment of Country ceremonies. It's not a cynical, money making, empty gesture to many Indigenous people.
First Nations people are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are the poorest group in Australia, get routinely slagged off for having no entrepreneurial drive, for demanding handouts rather than working for a living, then when they expect a fee for something like this, they are criticised yet again.
Poor form.
I would have legislated it through Parliament...tested how it works for a couple of years in that format, sorted out any problems and then done the Referendum to make the Constitutional changes if appropriate.
Can I ask
@ElwoodBlues1, what do you think "it" is?
Many are left wondering what "it" is, the pro-Voice is loud if not louder than the naysayers, that's almost come across as badgering the voters. It feels like an accusation, if you vote no you are racist.
But many still do not know what "it" looks like other than an idea, and that vagueness has played into the naysayers hands!
Maybe legislation is what Albanese wants, and that could explain why he has been so vague.
My wife worked in Indigenous employment for over 10 years. She had plenty of contact with First Nations people, and has been involved in many Welcome To Country / Acknowledgment of Country ceremonies. It's not a cynical, money making, empty gesture to many Indigenous people.
First Nations people are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are the poorest group in Australia, get routinely slagged off for having no entrepreneurial drive, for demanding handouts rather than working for a living, then when they expect a fee for something like this, they are criticised yet again.
Poor form.
Yet
@PaulP , the fundamental assertion remains valid even if Newman has hijacked the message in the context of the vote, that is the question should politics and religion be kept out of sport?
Many go to the footy to escape the barrage of the day to day, not be subjected to more of it!
Let's flip this on it's head, I'm not sure who here are religious or not, but would they be happy for the Sunday sermon to become a paid political statement? I suspect not!
Yet @PaulP , the fundamental assertion remains valid even if Newman has hijacked the message in the context of the vote, that is the question should politics and religion be kept out of sport?
Many go to the footy to escape the barrage of the day to day, not be subjected to more of it!
Let's flip this on it's head, I'm not sure who here are religious or not, but would they be happy for the Sunday sermon to become a paid political statement? I suspect not!
You've pivoted away from the question of financial compensation to another set of questions.
You've pivoted away from the question of financial compensation to another set of questions.
We've been discussing both issues not one or the other, it's not really tenable to have a separate thread for each and as uncomfortable as that may be many can't separate them. Many see politicise and monetise as method and motive.
I think it's a fair assertion the concept of "Welcome to Country" has been both politicised and monetised, and the frequency of the event has caused it to be greatly devalued in the eyes of some.
As much as it has influenced modern Australia and VFL/AFL and continues to do so, we don't have a Catafalque ceremony every pre-game, that would be clearly too much, I don't think that perspective is radical or excessive and I'd assert it's the rarity and exclusivity of the occasion that gives it special meaning, and I doubt the RSL charge to conduct it.
We've been discussing both issues not one or the other, it's not really tenable to have a separate thread for each and as uncomfortable as that may be many can't separate them. Many see politicise and monetise as method and motive.
I think it's a fair assertion the concept of "Welcome to Country" has been both politicised and monetised, and the frequency of the event has caused it to be greatly devalued in the eyes of some.
As much as it has influenced modern Australia and VFL/AFL and continues to do so, we don't have a Catafalque ceremony every pre-game, that would be clearly too much, I don't think that perspective is radical or excessive and I'd assert it's the rarity and exclusivity of the occasion that gives it special meaning, and I doubt the RSL charge to conduct it.
The AFL, like any organisation, needs to prioritise what gets attention and what doesn't, how much attention is given etc. There are a few reasons why First Nations people get attention : one is their obvious contribution to the game, and the other is equally obvious power asymmetries that have historically and still to this day adversely affect many of our First Nations brothers and sisters. It does not, has not, and will not stop at simply "being seen" to do the right thing. That may well be the starting point, but there are additional layers and a flow on effect that can make a difference. The worst you can say is that such ceremonies don't make a difference, but they certainly don't hinder the cause, and they must be allowed to take root and see if they can be an agent for positive change.
Your comparison to a prayer or sermon earlier is not valid. Welcome to Ceremony requires us to acknowledge past injustices, be a little decent and respectful, and give a damn for someone outside our own tribe. Evidently a tough ask for many.
I've never heard anyone complain about the endless and thoroughly boring speeches, thanking of sponsors (in itself a heavily political act) etc. that accompany some games like the Grand Final, yet any hint of a Welcome To Country or similar, and all hell breaks loose.
Can I ask @ElwoodBlues1, what do you think "it" is?
Many are left wondering what "it" is, the pro-Voice is loud if not louder than the naysayers, that's almost come across as badgering the voters. It feels like an accusation, if you vote no you are racist.
But many still do not know what "it" looks like other than an idea, and that vagueness has played into the naysayers hands!
Maybe legislation is what Albanese wants, and that could explain why he has been so vague.
LP.."It" would be recommendations from a panel of first nations representatives on policies that affect first nations folk.
The mechanics of how it works, how the panel is selected, what powers they have I don't know. The Government would still have over riding authority but I can see the Voice panel getting frustrated if recommendations are constantly over ruled so all the processes to make it operate and satisfy what ever terms of reference it has need to be sorted and tested and that's why I would have trialled it first by legislation and not the referendum.
LP.."It" would be recommendations from a panel of first nations representatives on policies that affect first nations folk.
The mechanics of how it works, how the panel is selected, what powers they have I don't know. The Government would still have over riding authority but I can see the Voice panel getting frustrated if recommendations are constantly over ruled so all the processes to make it operate and satisfy what ever terms of reference it has need to be sorted and tested and that's why I would have trialled it first by legislation and not the referendum.
Does the referendum question and the proposed wording still not put all the power for the composition on the Parliament.
https://voice.gov.au/resources/fact-sheet-referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
If approved at the referendum, the following words would be added to the Constitution:
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
I've never heard anyone complain about the endless and thoroughly boring speeches, thanking of sponsors (in itself a heavily political act) etc. that accompany some games like the Grand Final, yet any hint of a Welcome To Country or similar, and all hell breaks loose.
When you take your argument to such an extreme you diminish the cause and that seems to be the very issue causing some people angst or trepidation.
I've mentioned this before on many issues not just this, extremism on any side of the debate divides never unifies. I would think the main way forward on this issue is to unify, and I'm not sure how subjecting football fans to what now seems to be a politicised event helps that resolve.
Have the debate all you like in the appropriate forum, don't lecture fans on their day off in a captive space. It would be as divisive as taking this debate into the pre-game thread.
Participants can ignore the way the wind blows on this issue, or they can keep screaming into it for all their worth, but that won't stop it and it may even make it worse! I note our notable AFL apparatchik Waleed Aly seems to have arrived at the very same conclusion, my surprise is how the "academics" ever thought this behaviour could end any other way.
You can't be told how to vote, that is entrenched in democracy, you can only be asked for support!
When you take your argument to such an extreme you diminish the cause and that seems to be the very issue causing some people angst or trepidation.
I've mentioned this before on many issues not just this, extremism on any side of the debate divides never unifies. I would think the main way forward on this issue is to unify, and I'm not sure how subjecting football fans to what now seems to be a politicised event helps that resolve.
Have the debate all you like in the appropriate forum, don't lecture fans on their day off in a captive space. It would be as divisive as taking this debate into the pre-game thread.
Participants can ignore the way the wind blows on this issue, or they can keep screaming into it for all their worth, but that won't stop it and it may even make it worse! I note our notable AFL apparatchik Waleed Aly seems to have arrived at the very same conclusion, my surprise is how the "academics" ever thought this behaviour could end any other way.
You can't be told how to vote, that is entrenched in democracy, you can only be asked for support!
So you think that a Welcome To Country Ceremony at a football match is :
a. en extremist position, and
b. a lecture about how to vote, think etc.
Right.
So you think that a Welcome To Country Ceremony at a football match is :
a. en extremist position.
No, but your assertion that the AFL games are full of endless boring speeches thanking sponsors is, those speeches basically happen once a season after the Grand Final, once a season as does the Catafalque ceremony, the Welcome to Country can probably be once a season too! ;)
I can see you are emotionally connected to this issue, so you want to paint a picture conflating several issues into a single debate, that is the very divisive nature of this debate that I'm referring to. This isn't the US Senate, our issues do not come with riders.
Here we can openly discuss more than one issue in parallel, without the need to build dependency.
I don't feel I need to wear a cilice to make amends for things that happened generations ago, I don't have to punish myself or those around me as we are generations removed, more generations than can even be connected genetically. I have no gnashing or grinding of teeth, I can respect listen to and see people without needing to offer some compensation or be compensated.
As for the politics and the dollars, I would think it's a privilege to be offered to address the AFL crowds, such a forum is not available to most, it's not a paid public service.
No, but your assertion that the AFL games are full of endless boring speeches thanking sponsors is, those speeches basically happen once a season after the Grand Final, once a season as does the Catafalque ceremony, the Welcome to Country can probably be once a season too! ;)
I can see you are emotionally connected to this issue, so you want to paint a picture conflating several issues into a single debate, that is the very divisive nature of this debate that I'm referring to. This isn't the US Senate, our issues do not come with riders.
Here we can openly discuss more than one issue in parallel, without the need to build dependency.
I don't feel I need to wear a cilice to make amends for things that happened generations ago, I don't have to punish myself or those around me as we are generations removed, more generations than can even be connected genetically. I have no gnashing or grinding of teeth, I can respect listen to and see people without needing to offer some compensation or be compensated.
As for the politics and the dollars, I would think it's a privilege to be offered to address the AFL crowds, such a forum is not available to most, it's not a paid public service.
And why exactly is sitting through a few minutes of a Welcome To Country any kind of punishment ?
How do you think oppressed groups in the past (women, African Americans, First Nations people) have made any kind of progress ? Do you think they just waited politely and patiently for the ruling classes to wake up ? Or do you think that any improvements are the result of decades of action by said groups, some of it bloody, some of it ugly, much of it painful and fruitless. The ruling classes don't make changes until they are made to. This has nothing to do with emotion, and everything to do with historical fact.
And where exactly is the "appropriate forum" for these types of discussions ? The footnotes of the Hansard ? The graveyard shift of some community radio station with 3 listeners ?
Does the referendum question and the proposed wording still not put all the power for the composition on the Parliament.
https://voice.gov.au/resources/fact-sheet-referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
It does and it's been made clear in the media etc to that effect as well but will the voice panel operate under those conditions because it appears toothless at the minute and could be accused of being a token setup with little value going forward and why there doesn't seem to be uniform agreement amongst all first nations people including politicians.
And where exactly is the "appropriate forum" for these types of discussions ? The footnotes of the Hansard ? The graveyard shift of some community radio station with 3 listeners ?
In the newspapers, on social media, yes in talkback radio and on current affairs television, like ever other major issue!
Extremes. I don't see victims of the numerous other crimes being offered a fee to relate their stories and thank the crowds for their support at AFL games. Carlton Respects is one game a year, is that somehow less of an issue, why not every pre-game? The Jane McGrath Foundation gets one cricket match a year, is breast cancer less important than a Welcome to Country. Why, are women too numerous and therefore fail minority status?
If you want to take this debate to extremes
@PaulP , I doubt you be able to restrict the frame of reference to fat white fellas!
People are free to feel whatever they want about such ceremonies.
To actively advocate the booing is taking it to the extreme...and a recipe for some ugly scenes on a day that should be a celebration for all of us.
agree!! Personally i do not actually like the welcome before games and find it ridiculous, but the booing is an atrocious idea.
I do believe though that Sam is well within his rights to express his opinion and in fact it is important for people to fight for his right to that and they should argue against his opinions and not demonize his for his opinions.
The wokeness is completely ruining society and we are already in danger of losing free speech and giving way to "freedom to express the same thoughts as our own".
Don't like what Sam is advocating, but i like he is prepared to speak his mind, knowing he will be vilified.
Society should always fight for right for people to be able to express an opinion we disagree with.
In the newspapers, on social media, yes in talkback radio and on current affairs television, like ever other major issue!
Extremes. I don't see victims of the numerous other crimes being offered a fee to relate their stories and thank the crowds for their support at AFL games. Carlton Respects is one game a year, is that somehow less of an issue, why not every pre-game? The Jane McGrath Foundation gets one cricket match a year, is breast cancer less important than a Welcome to Country. Why, are women too numerous and therefore fail minority status?
If you want to take this debate to extremes @PaulP , I doubt you be able to restrict the frame of reference to fat white fellas!
Doing a comparison between this or that charity or this or that issue is not relevant. The relevant issues are simply whether the Voice / Welcome To Country ceremony etc. are worthy of sustained, critical discussion, and worthy of a seat on the National stage ? That is all.
And if you think you are actually going to have good / productive discussions on social media or talkback radio, well, I'm flummoxed that you could think that. Have you seen how major issues have been discussed in the past on these mediums ? Surely you can't be serious ?
........................
Don't like what Sam is advocating, but i like he is prepared to speak his mind, knowing he will be vilified..............
Sam Newman. So brave, so tough, so courageous. A real martyr for free speech. Please.
And if you think you are actually going to have good / productive discussions on social media or talkback radio, well, I'm flummoxed that you could think that. Have you seen how major issues have been discussed in the past on these mediums ? Surely you can't be serious ?
@PaulP are you somehow suggesting the bars in The MCG or Marvel, and the surrounding pubs and cafes are better venues?
I suspect, those pubs and bars are more likely to elicit a response closer to Newman's provocative preference! ;)
If you are worried about the quality of news coverage, then I'd suggest The MCG crowd is the exact wrong place to take that debate.
The problem with Newman's comments are that in a crowd of around 90,000 people tonight (and the crowd tomorrow night) you only need a few people to start booing during the 'Welcome', and then for others to take them to task and the whole thing could turn into a something really ugly.
Do we want to see a week leading up to the grand final where the headlines are all about the booing rather than the football.
Do we want to see a week leading up to the grand final where the headlines are all about the booing rather than the football.
By we, do you mean us in total, or do you mean the media?
There is little altruism in profit$
By we, do you mean us in total, or do you mean the media?
There is little altruism in profit$
I mean the football public in general, but 'me' in particular. ;)
Whether folks like the 'welcome' or not, silence is still the appropriate response.
Of course, the media would dine out on an ugly spectacle.
@PaulP are you somehow suggesting the bars in The MCG or Marvel, and the surrounding pubs and cafes are better venues?
I suspect, those pubs and bars are more likely to elicit a response closer to Newman's provocative preference! ;)
If you are worried about the quality of news coverage, then I'd suggest The MCG crowd is the exact wrong place to take that debate.
The ceremony is conducted when people are seated. There are clear rules in place for unruly / offensive / inappropriate behaviour at games, so it is in fact an ideal place to do it if the you want the crowds to behave. What happens in the MCG bar, in people's home etc. is another matter, and once again, not relevant.
I wrote a heap out and deleted it.
Sam Newman is a fkwit and IMO if you’re thinking of booing the WTC, you’re a racist.
Not sure why it seems so hard for people to sit through, as someone said - the sponsor bullcrap we have to listen to is always done respectfully 🤷🏻♀️ so we’re more respectful of corporate advertising than WTC. It’s just absurd. And embarrassing.
PS. Around me on level 4 Q32 on Friday night everyone stood up and quietly listened to the WTC. No one ignored it or talked thru it. Off their own bat they stood. All ages and colours, men and women. Had a row of young guys in front of me that stood even before I did. So it does resonate and is respected by many.
Why do we need to be welcomed to our own country constantly?
Why do we need to be welcomed to our own country constantly?
The Welcome To Country is a sign of respect. If you want to argue about the definition of "Our Own Country", that's up to you.
First Nations people were semi nomadic, and their level of movement varied according to weather, food sources and the like. As they lived predominantly outside, the land, the country, was effectively their home. If one tribe or mob moved from one place to another, they invariably needed to cross through the lands of another mob, and in much the same way as people knocking on our door at home, you welcome them into your home (or not), depending on a variety of circumstances. Inviting people into your home is essentially a welcome, and every time they visit, you welcome them again. So it is with First Nations people. So every time you visit the MCG, you are visiting Wurundjeri country. You can argue about whether the Welcome should be dealt with symbolically or literally, but that's a separate issue.
It's even worse on the bureaucracy side of things, in some areas you get land site survey fees as part of planning permits but built into this is you guessed it, a tick off from local indigenous communities before you can even dig a hole, more $ for that in the fee than the surveyors.
Another case, a family farm has been growing trees for lumber for nearly 100 years. They want to clear some of the trees to restore pastures, now they have to get a permit to clear trees their own family planted and we're initially denied on indigenous heritage grounds. But hold a ceremony to clear the land for use it'll be OK, $11,000 is the fee they paid, the ceremony involved burning fallen timber and removing what was described as a handful of dirt. The ashes of fallen timber from their own trees, it's like a joke story you hear in a Scottish pub about how locals con tourists!
If shizen like this is really going on, then it's obligatory for it to be exposed by both sides of the debate, otherwise one side is going to risk being labelled disingenuous!
Wrong LP. I administered Victoria's Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 from its commencement in 2007 until I retired at the end of 2012. That's not how it works.
High impact activities in areas of cultural heritage sensitivity (defined by demonstrated correlation of landforms and the presence of Aboriginal cultural heritage - occupations sites, stone artefacts, burials, rock art, etc) may require the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan. If so, the plan must be completed and approved before a statutory authority, such as a planning permit, can be granted. Cultural heritage management plans must be prepared by qualified heritage advisors, 99% of whom are non-Indigenous archaeologists. Representatives of the relevant Aboriginal group(s) may be employed to assist with the preparation of the plan but the lion's share of cost of the plan goes to the archaeologist.
Where a traditional owner body has been appointed as the Registered Aboriginal Party or RAP (that's about 75% of the State), the RAP may elect to evaluate the plan. Fees for evaluating plans are set by regulation and there is an appeal process if the RAP declines to approve the plan. In my time, only around 50% of the State had RAPs and evaluation of management plans was done by my department. Part of my role was signing off on whether cultural heritage management plans could be approved in accordance with criteria specified by regulation. Many plans could not be approved on first submission. In other words, inadequate work by some heritage advisors resulted in project delays and additional costs.
The objectives of the management plan process are to avoid harming Aboriginal cultural heritage where possible. If that's not possible, harm should be minimised or mitigated. Once the plan is approved, the development can proceed in accordance with the requirements of the plan.
One of the developers I had to deal with over a plan that could not be approved was Fraser Brown. He saw the nub of the problem immediately and, after berating his heritage advisor for wasting his time, instructed her to re-write the plan exactly as DJC (and the regulations) required.
The legislation that underpins this process is acknowledged as world's best practice.
The Welcome To Country is a sign of respect. If you want to argue about the definition of "Our Own Country", that's up to you.
First Nations people were semi nomadic, and their level of movement varied according to weather, food sources and the like. As they lived predominantly outside, the land, the country, was effectively their home. If one tribe or mob moved from one place to another, they invariably needed to cross through the lands of another mob, and in much the same way as people knocking on our door at home, you welcome them into your home (or not), depending on a variety of circumstances. Inviting people into your home is essentially a welcome, and every time they visit, you welcome them again. So it is with First Nations people. So every time you visit the MCG, you are visiting Wurundjeri country. You can argue about whether the Welcome should be dealt with symbolically or literally, but that's a separate issue.
Not entirely true Paul.
Indigenous Australian society is/was based on clans claiming descent from a common ancestor as the land owning group. Several clans made up a language group (sometimes called a tribe or nation) with the same language, kinship rules, creation stories, etc. Members of the language group would move around their clan estates in a cycle that enabled exploitation of seasonally abundant resources as well as meeting neighbours for trade, ceremony and to obtain wives (men rarely left their clans to join their wife's clan).
On occasion, entire language groups would travel across other language grpups' estates for ceremonies and trade. For example, the Faithfull massacre occurred when Faithfull's men panicked at the sight of hundreds of Kulin and opened fire. Faithfull's men were swiftly overpowered and most were killed. The Kulin were travelling from around Melbourne to north of Albury for a ceremony with the local Wiradjuri people.
The Kulin would have been welcomed to the different estates or country through which they travelled. In that context, and as you say Paul, "country" is not Australia but the clan estates of the local people. So when Colin Hunter says "Wominjeka yearmann koondee biik Wurundjeri balluk", he's not welcoming folk to the country as if they've just arrived but he's making everyone welcome to the lands of his ancestors. That's particularly appropriate for the MCG as it was a highly significant gathering place for the Kulin people. In other words, he's being courteous to those who know live on his ancestors' country as well as those who are visiting.
Thanks for the clarification David.
It does and it's been made clear in the media etc to that effect as well but will the voice panel operate under those conditions because it appears toothless at the minute and could be accused of being a token setup with little value going forward and why there doesn't seem to be uniform agreement amongst all first nations people including politicians.
Can you name one group in any society that has uniform agreement about any issue? Why should Indigenous Australians be any different?
Anyway, as it stands 80% of Indigenous Australians are in favour of the Voice.
There is as much influence and money in this debate for both sides as there is in associate marketing, it's not restricted to a race or religion!
Someone somewhere on both sides pockets some cash.
Please explain how one can make money out of this debate. I'd like a share :)
Eddie Betts says,“I’ve taken my time over the past 12 months, to speak to Elders, community members and people I trust to get more information about the Voice. I’ve listened to a range of opinions and worked hard to understand exactly what the Voice is and how it impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
I know the Voice is not an immediate solution to the many barriers we as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face, but I feel like it’s the opening of a pathway to make sure we’re included and respected in decision-making on issues that affect us.”
Sam Newman. So brave, so tough, so courageous. A real martyr for free speech. Please.
i find a lot (almost all in fact) of what Sam Newman says distasteful. But i want to live in a country where we debate opinions and even allow those who disagree with us to say their piece. Too many in society decry alternate opinions and people even lose their jobs if they publicly disagree... Sam Newman is a tosser, but i stick by it, he has every right to state his opinion, unless he crosses lines that are illegal.
Also i know people like to misquote, which is one of the reasons i gave up on forums.. but will point out i never said Newman was Tough, Courageous or Brave, nor did i say he was a "martyr for free speech"... i claimed it is important he has the right to disagree even on divisive issues that swaths of society have arbitrarily already declared off limits.
And i would HATE if anyone booed, but i hate all booing.
i find a lot (almost all in fact) of what Sam Newman says distasteful. But i want to live in a country where we debate opinions and even allow those who disagree with us to say their piece. Too many in society decry alternate opinions and people even lose their jobs if they publicly disagree... Sam Newman is a tosser, but i stick by it, he has every right to state his opinion, unless he crosses lines that are illegal.
Also i know people like to misquote, which is one of the reasons i gave up on forums.. but will point out i never said Newman was Tough, Courageous or Brave, nor did i say he was a "martyr for free speech"... i claimed it is important he has the right to disagree even on divisive issues that swaths of society have arbitrarily already declared off limits.
And i would HATE if anyone booed, but i hate all booing.
Firstly I apologise for misquoting you.
Newman, and others of his ilk, wouldn't know a debate if it bit him on the ar$e. He has no interest in debating, he has no interest in understanding anything in any depth, he has no interest in anything other than just gobbing off to anything he doesn't like. He is the first one to shoot down anyone who disagrees with him, with all manner of insults and dismissive cr@p.
Free speech is not equally distributed among the population - they are blatant power asymmetries that give people like him leverage that others don't have. Newman speaks from a position of privilege and status that affords him protection from any real punishment. Imagine if Lidia Thorpe came out and said we should all burn Australian flags and slow clap during the National Anthem ? There's a reason why hate speech is used predominately by protected groups like the one to which Newman belongs.
Guess what? No-one booed 🙂
I hate all booing too and I respect freedum, sorry Freedom Of speech, but if some fool that has had more airtime than all of us x100 combined for no other reason than he is a stale pale old
middle class male that has always had that freedom, above others, to voice what he thinks with no retribution ever, then I do not respect nor value that opinion.
And it’s not just him voicing an opinion. It is him also telling people to boo the WTC. So he’s advocating not only to disapprove Of it but to actively voice that.
Embarrassing stupid fool.
i find a lot (almost all in fact) of what Sam Newman says distasteful. But i want to live in a country where we debate opinions and even allow those who disagree with us to say their piece. Too many in society decry alternate opinions and people even lose their jobs if they publicly disagree... Sam Newman is a tosser, but i stick by it, he has every right to state his opinion, unless he crosses lines that are illegal.
Also i know people like to misquote, which is one of the reasons i gave up on forums.. but will point out i never said Newman was Tough, Courageous or Brave, nor did i say he was a "martyr for free speech"... i claimed it is important he has the right to disagree even on divisive issues that swaths of society have arbitrarily already declared off limits.
And i would HATE if anyone booed, but i hate all booing.
There’s a big difference between stating an opinion and advocating an action that would be offensive to many Australians.
Newman has been irrelevant since the twilight of his playing career but some folk will be emboldened by his call to disrespect the welcome to country and, by extension, First Nations peoples.
Freedom of speech brings with it responsibilities and media outlets that provide a platform for the likes of Newman have a responsibility not to promote disharmony.
Guess what? No-one booed 🙂
In fact, a huge cheer at the end of it.
Hm is Sam Newman, irrelevant 🤔
In fact, a huge cheer at the end of it.
Hm is Sam Newman, irrelevant 🤔
But for Newman, and others of his ilk, that’s just down to sheeple and intimidation.
He will never concede that he’s wrong or that he misread public opinion.
Representatives of the relevant Aboriginal group(s) may be employed to assist with the preparation of the plan but the lion's share of cost of the plan goes to the archaeologist.
There is another major development site within 50km of Melb CBD that at this very moment cannot even clear / lift abandoned pine trees to begin soil testing without the presence of an indigenous council member to certify whatever gets disturbed or exposed is not of cultural significance, they haven't even made it to site survey yet as the members of the indigenous council refuse to attend the site, and the owners have been warned off disturbing the site without indigenous oversight, which is basically holding the new owner to ransom.
This is not the only case like this I've learned of in recent years, and it's got little to do with heritage and everything to do with politics.
The associated council and state government know this is going on and have done nothing.
Firstly I apologise for misquoting you.
Newman, and others of his ilk, wouldn't know a debate if it bit him on the ar$e. He has no interest in debating, he has no interest in understanding anything in any depth, he has no interest in anything other than just gobbing off to anything he doesn't like. He is the first one to shoot down anyone who disagrees with him, with all manner of insults and dismissive cr@p.
Free speech is not equally distributed among the population - they are blatant power asymmetries that give people like him leverage that others don't have. Newman speaks from a position of privilege and status that affords him protection from any real punishment. Imagine if Lidia Thorpe came out and said we should all burn Australian flags and slow clap during the National Anthem ? There's a reason why hate speech is used predominately by protected groups like the one to which Newman belongs.
As i said, i am not going to protect Newman as a quality individual, but i am 100% supportive of his rights to make foolish and ignorant comments. i am and always have been against booing of players or anything really and i feel like the call to boo a ceremony is extremely distasteful, but .... People had the right to be stupid and (to a degree) ignorant.
Joe Rogan is a perfect example, i detest him, but i still want him to be able to have his podcasts, on the condition the talk doesn't cross into illegal areas.
We faced the same issues during the same sex marriage referendum, anyone who was against it was bigoted or homophobic... There was at least one publicised account of a girl (in Canberra i think) who was fired for posting on her own facebook that it was "okay to vote no" and that because of her religious beliefs she would in fact be voting no.. She didn't harass or belittle any group, but was fired and her boss posted that she would not allow anyone with such hateful opinions to work there (or something to that effect). That is the society we are heading towards and it is a major problem. That Sam Newman can be such a wanker, is just an example that we still have the right to voice non conformist opinions, even if (again) he is actually largely irrelevant and almost never has anything to say worth hearing.
In the case of the Welcome ceremony, i personally don't like it... Does this make me racist or is it only the people that boo it racist?? We have to stop pigeon holing people and listen to what they are saying, then disagree with their arguments.
Another example was Daisy Pearce vocally supporting not having a minute of silence after the queen died at AFLW games.. I thought the decision was atrocious (and should have seen government funding potentially pulled) and Daisy was completely wrong... but whilst Daisy has to have the right to be (imo) wrong, the competition had (and has) obligations it should have met.
There is another major development site within 50km of Melb CBD that at this very moment cannot even clear / lift abandoned pine trees to begin soil testing without the presence of an indigenous council member to certify whatever gets disturbed or exposed is not of cultural significance, they haven't even made it to site survey yet as the members of the indigenous council refuse to attend the site, and the owners have been warned off disturbing the site without indigenous oversight, which is basically holding the new owner to ransom.
This is not the only case like this I've learned of in recent years, and it's got little to do with heritage and everything to do with politics.
The associated council and state government know this is going on and have done nothing.
You’re either making stuff up or exaggerating the situation LP.
That’s not how the legislation works.
Furthermore, any decision made by the govt agency or a Registered Aboriginal Party is subject to judicial review.
Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works.
For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners. All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.
Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan. That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc. It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.
The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements. As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.
There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues.
The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen. Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?
As i said, i am not going to protect Newman as a quality individual, but i am 100% supportive of his rights to make foolish and ignorant comments. i am and always have been against booing of players or anything really and i feel like the call to boo a ceremony is extremely distasteful, but .... People had the right to be stupid and (to a degree) ignorant.
Joe Rogan is a perfect example, i detest him, but i still want him to be able to have his podcasts, on the condition the talk doesn't cross into illegal areas.
We faced the same issues during the same sex marriage referendum, anyone who was against it was bigoted or homophobic... There was at least one publicised account of a girl (in Canberra i think) who was fired for posting on her own facebook that it was "okay to vote no" and that because of her religious beliefs she would in fact be voting no.. She didn't harass or belittle any group, but was fired and her boss posted that she would not allow anyone with such hateful opinions to work there (or something to that effect). That is the society we are heading towards and it is a major problem. That Sam Newman can be such a wanker, is just an example that we still have the right to voice non conformist opinions, even if (again) he is actually largely irrelevant and almost never has anything to say worth hearing.
In the case of the Welcome ceremony, i personally don't like it... Does this make me racist or is it only the people that boo it racist?? We have to stop pigeon holing people and listen to what they are saying, then disagree with their arguments.
Another example was Daisy Pearce vocally supporting not having a minute of silence after the queen died at AFLW games.. I thought the decision was atrocious (and should have seen government funding potentially pulled) and Daisy was completely wrong... but whilst Daisy has to have the right to be (imo) wrong, the competition had (and has) obligations it should have met.
I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.
I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.
labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.
The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote.
Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous. That's not hate speech. It's truth.
Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.
Sam Newman is nothing but a grumpy old man who is still looking for headlines.
He made a living on the Footy Show by going out on the street and making fools of unfortunates who didn't know any better, and he is still poking a stick at those he feels are beneath him.
I know it is said he is a top bloke, but his public persona is one of an irrelevant flog who doesn't deserve the oxygen that he keeps getting from his old mates in the media. He should look up the word respect and see if he can find a scintilla of it in his rantings.
What also comes with freedom of speech is the responsibility of free speech. You can't have one without the other.
What an absolute ripper post, Tonyo! Love it.
labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.
The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote.
Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous. That's not hate speech. It's truth.
Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.
I don't interpret what Pauly is saying about the influence and power of words as declaring anyone who differs as necessarily engaging in 'hate speech,' but rather that freedom of speech is not as a license to say anything ...without consideration as to how it will effect others.
And I don't personally view the Welcome To Country as pointless to non-indigenous folks. I choose to see the gesture from the viewpoint of indigenous folks, and how important it is to them, and ultimately to all of us ...and I respect that. It's a uniting gesture from my humble view. And I'm a big fan of inclusiveness and unity.
Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works.
For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners. All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.
Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan. That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc. It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.
The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements. As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.
There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues.
The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen. Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?
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.
Guess what? No-one booed 🙂
97,000 people with more sense than Sam Newman
"I don't like the Welcome to Country, it's not necessary"
"We should boo the Welcome to Country"
Two completely different things
Like most things the Voice debate is a spectrum.
Where we sit on the spectrum is dependent on our own knowledge and experiences.
At each end of the spectrum there are extreme views.
In the middle, folks will be torn.
Had the question been..."Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution" it would have romped in
The 'Voice' aspect has made success more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult.
I suspect the majority of people have already made up their minds, even if they declare otherwise to pollsters.
Vote for what you believe to be right.
97,000 people with more sense than Sam Newman
"I don't like the Welcome to Country, it's not necessary"
"We should boo the Welcome to Country"
Two completely different things
Like most things the Voice debate is a spectrum.
Where we sit on the spectrum is dependent on our own knowledge and experiences.
At each end of the spectrum there are extreme views.
In the middle, folks will be torn.
Had the question been..."Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution" it would have romped in
The 'Voice' aspect has made success more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult.
I suspect the majority of people have already made up their minds, even if they declare otherwise to pollsters.
Vote for what you believe to be right.
Couldn't agree more, Principal LODS. From the get-go of this campaign I couldn't help but think how poorly it was introduced and promoted... from a marketing pov. It opened the door for the Far Right to pounce, and pounce they duly did.
Your suggestion as to how to launch it, ""Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution"" ...would have been far better.
The 'spirit' of the Yes campaign is very relevant and needed, it's just the execution/PR was clumsy.
Read a terrific article in The Conversation this morning regarding the retirement of R Murdoch. And it has some relevance in this Newman discussion.
Senior Editor, Sunanda Creagh, wrote the article and quoted, within the article, Uni of Melbourne journalism expert Andrew Dodd as saying (re Murdoch), “His news media empire is fundamentally antisocial in the way it operates. I believe it’s caused so much harm to so many people along the way, and that cannot go unacknowledged. From the UK phone hacking scandal and beat ups to climate denial and the demonisation of minorities, News Corp can be counted on to dumb down complexity, make issues binary and turn one side against the other.”
labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.
The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote.
Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous. That's not hate speech. It's truth.
Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.
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.
And I should also add that I'm not indigenous, and I don't find the Welcome To Country pointless.
I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.