-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
In The News
- Thread starter eliza
- Start date
I totally agree!
I feel it's not just embarrassing but also like we have a basic government. I'm slightly disappointed that we will most likely follow lead after America made its announcement, but pleased it puts pressure for our country to follow lead anyway.
hooleydooley
Well-Known Member
Tony has more 'important' things to deal with at the moment (don't forget he said that) 
jessy_girl
Well-Known Member
Yes I agree, it really speaks volumes about our government and leaders on a bigger scale and just reflects so badly here in 2015. I guess it's a means to an end that we will essentially "copy" the US, it shouldn't be that way but if it gets us there faster then maybe it's ok. Bigotry is still very much alive even in middle class surburbia, but I think enough is enough.
Tony has more 'important' things to deal with at the moment (don't forget he said that)
Haha, yeah Tones always will. Well I'm sure he is busy being PM and all, but pretty sure he'd prioritise his fire fighting or surf life saving over this issue. It would actually be pretty funny if he was the leader who changed the laws since he is without a doubt the most conservative PM we've ever had.
Columbo
Never again
June 26, 2015
by Lauren Gillin
Image via Flickr user diacimages.
This article originally appeared on VICE Australia.
Last month the Australian government, with the support of the opposition, passed theBorder Force Protection Act through both houses of Parliament. It will come into effect on July 1.
If the act defines you as an "entrusted person," you might be facing jail for up to two years if you reveal anything about what happens in Australia's immigration detention centers to anybody else.
An "entrusted person" is anyone working directly or indirectly for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, so that's doctors, nurses, psychologists, teachers, counsellors, security staff, maintenance workers, or anyone who has signed a government contract.
This puts medical professionals and those who work with children on Nauru or Manus Island in bizarre circumstances. Outside of detention centers, they're legally obligated to report child abuse. As of July 1, they can't do the same with abuse witnessed on the inside.
Refugee advocates and human rights lawyers say the legislation is a veiled attempt to silence whistleblowers from revealing human rights violations inside Australia's detention centers. And the mounting evidence of such violations makes this legislation all the more disturbing.
In October last year, Australia's Immigration Department ordered ten workers from Save The Children to leave Nauru's detention center after they alleged sexual abuse against women and children.
The ensuing independent Moss Review looked at both the allegations of sexual abuse, as well as claims from then Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, that Save the Children's workers coached seekers to make false claims. It found evidence of the rape and sexual assault of minors and women as well as guards trading marijuana for sexual favors. There was no evidence of collusion between asylum seekers and advocates to make false claims. The findings of the review are subject to a senate enquiry which is due to report on July 31.
Similarly, February's Australian Human Rights Commission's (AHRC) report on children in detention found there were 233 recorded assaults involving children with 33 incidents of sexual assault between January 2013 and March 2014.
The AHRC report largely drew from interviews and testimony from staff who worked at detention centers. If the Border Force Act were in place when the AHRC was investigating, those who spoke out would've risked potential imprisonment.
Greg Barnes is a barrister and national president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance. He told VICE that the legislation prevents someone's ethical and moral duty to report abuse.
"It's ironic at the same time we have a royal commission into institutionalized sexual abuse we have a government supported by the Labor party, which is deliberately setting about to prevent disclosure of serious criminal abuse," he said.
Mr. Barnes says the law is aimed at anyone having anything to do with asylum seekers in any setting.
"If someone disclosed information that the Australian Navy or customs pushed a boat back out into dangerous waters—and people drowned because of it—they could go to jail."
He says he has "no doubt" there would be legal challenges to the legislation as "most judges and the courts generally would be horrified by legislation that allows for the cover up of physical and mental abuse."
Professor David Isaacs is a pediatrician who worked on Nauru in December last year and subsequently spoke about his experiences to the media.
Related: Watch our documentary on Za'atari refugee camps
The Professor remains defiant in the face of new laws, but worries others may be easily silenced with the threat of incarceration.
"It is easy for me because my kids have grown up, so it doesn't phase me," he said.
Other detention center workers with young families, he explained, have a lot more to lose, particularly given the "vindictiveness" and "viciousness" shown by the government in pursuing Freya Newman. In 2014, Newman revealed a daughter of Australia's Prime Minister had received a secret scholarship to fashion college, the Whitehouse Institute, with the aid of its chairman, a Liberal Party donor.
"That means people are scared to report child abuse even though we have a mandatory obligation to report child abuse anywhere in Australia."
Professor Isaacs says the Immigration Department is already "pretty secretive and pretty nasty" to people who've disclosed conditions to the media. He says nobody will employ him to work in a detention center again because he spoke out.
"They silence people who do it, and they do this in many ways. If we speak out on social media for instance, you may never get employed again. That is not necessarily stated outright but effectively that's what happens," he said.
When asked about the conditions he witnessed, Professor Isaacs talked of women and children too scared to go to the bathroom after dark, canvas tents with no running water, and the indefinite imprisonment of entire families in Nauru's hot, humid and inhospitable terrain in the middle of the island, well away from its 10,000 inhabitants.
"It is deliberate policy to harm people mentally and physically as an act of deterrence. It's quite extraordinary that nobody else in the world tries to make a place worse than the place asylum seekers are fleeing from."
Speaking with VICE, Greens senator and immigration spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young said, "the more we discover of what's been going on inside Nauru, the worse it gets.
"Nauru is a seedy, toxic, and dangerous place. No women and children should be forced to stay there."
VICE contacted the office of the Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton, and the Opposition Spokesperson for Immigration, Richard Marles. Neither were able to provide comment before publication.
Follow Lauren on Twitter.
Connoisseur
Well-Known Member
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Ashley-Pennsylvania-nephew-spotted-news.html
She does a very convincing Aussie accent.
She does a very convincing Aussie accent.
Wasn't sure where to discuss this. It's in the news though. The border force act. There was a q&a on abc about it- really recommend for it to be watched.
I'm quite disgusted by it. The fact in the first time in history we have been placed on the human rights watch list is pretty disgraceful.
I'm quite disgusted by it. The fact in the first time in history we have been placed on the human rights watch list is pretty disgraceful.
Columbo
Never again
Is that the one where doctors can't report abuse in detention centres?
Yes.
Doctors, nurses, teachers humanitarians.
It's a basic right. People in a position that can speak for the vulnerable. But our government says let's punish them for doing the right thing. Such lack of compassion honestly
Columbo
Never again
Well I agree with you that it is very disgraceful. How the fuck do those shitheadwankers look themselves in the mirror knowing that they are complicit in such disgraceful acts of bastardry? Don't they have a heart? Do they not care?
It really pisses me off too. Kindness and compassion are free. Yet a price is paid for giving this in a form of being the one to speak up for ones suffering.
I truly believe we do have the resources to house asylum seekers and not detain them in inhumane conditions. I will always stand by this.
jessy_girl
Well-Known Member
I agree 100%... this whole situation is heartbreaking and I can't believe that this is happening around us. We really are going backwards as a nation, socially at least.
With this, marriage, number of women in parliament... We are on a roll for sure
Ashley Madison, the notorious website for arranging affairs, has been hacked. Group responsible threatening to EXPOSE users.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...vate-information/story-fnjwnj25-1227449440938
Divorce lawyers most likely circling.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...vate-information/story-fnjwnj25-1227449440938
Divorce lawyers most likely circling.
D
Deleted member 39902
Guest
One of the last questions this psychology professor posed to his class may have been the most profound of the semester, digging deep into the moral framework of our culture.
“The tragedy of the commons is basically a dilemma between doing what’s good for you as an individual versus doing what’s best for the group” the prof said. “Now it stands to reason that people behave selfishly. But if too many people behave selfishly, the group will suffer...and then everyone in the group individually will suffer.”
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/2892553...his-professor-s-tricky-extra-credit-question/
“The tragedy of the commons is basically a dilemma between doing what’s good for you as an individual versus doing what’s best for the group” the prof said. “Now it stands to reason that people behave selfishly. But if too many people behave selfishly, the group will suffer...and then everyone in the group individually will suffer.”
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/2892553...his-professor-s-tricky-extra-credit-question/
Inigo Montoya
The New Dread Pirate Roberts.
WOW!
Kepler 452b: NASA discovers planet orbiting 'cousin' of sun in closest match to Earth yet
Astronomers hunting for another Earth have found what may be the closest match yet, a potentially rocky planet circling its star at the same distance as the Earth orbits the sun, NASA says.
Not only is this planet squarely in the "Goldilocks zone" — where life could exist because it is neither too hot nor too cold, and so could support liquid water — its star looks like an older cousin of our sun, the US space agency said.
That means the planet, which is 1,400 light years away, could offer a glimpse into the Earth's apocalyptic future, scientists said.
Known as Kepler 452b, the planet was detected by the US space agency's Kepler Space Telescope, which has been hunting for other worlds like ours since 2009.
"Kepler 452b is orbiting a close cousin of our sun but one that is 1.5 billion years older," NASA said in a statement.
Its star is 4 per cent more massive than the sun and 10 per cent brighter.
If the planet is rocky, and scientists believe that it has a better than even chance of being just that, then it could be in the midst of a fearful scenario, as the heat from its dying star evaporates Kepler 452b's lakes and oceans.
"If Kepler 452b is indeed a rocky planet, its location vis-a-vis its star could mean that it is just entering a runaway greenhouse phase of its climate history," said Doug Caldwell, a Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute scientist working on the Kepler mission.
"The increasing energy from its aging sun might be heating the surface and evaporating any oceans.
"The water vapour would be lost from the planet forever.
"Kepler 452b could be experiencing now what the Earth will undergo more than a billion years from now, as the sun ages and grows brighter."
Kepler mission discovers more than 4,000 possible planets
The Kepler mission launched in 2009 to search for exoplanets, which are planets outside our solar system, particularly those about the size of Earth or smaller.
"Today, and thousands of discoveries later, astronomers are on the cusp of finding something people have dreamed about for thousands of years — another Earth," NASA said in a statement.
On Thursday, NASA released the latest catalogue of exoplanet candidates, adding more than 500 new possible planets to the 4,175 already found by the space-based telescope.
Today, and thousands of discoveries later, astronomers are on the cusp of finding something people have dreamed about for thousands of years — another Earth.
NASA statement
"This catalog contains our first analysis of all Kepler data, as well as an automated assessment of these results," SETI Institute scientist Jeffrey Coughlin said.
"You and I probably won't be travelling to any of those planets without some unexpected breakthrough, but our children's children's children may.
"Kepler is the first stop. We're finding out if planets like Earth are common, and the answer so far seems to be yes."
The new catalogue includes 12 candidates that are less than twice the diameter of Earth and which are orbiting in the habitable zones of their stars.
Of those 12 new candidates, Kepler 452b "is the first to be confirmed as a planet", NASA said.
Kepler identifies possible planets by watching for dips in the brightness of stars, which could be caused by a planet passing between the star and the telescope.
Other scientific tools are needed to judge whether the planet is gassy or rocky.
The Kepler mission has cost NASA about $800 million, and the US space agency said in 2013 that two of its orientation wheels had lost function, leaving the space telescope beyond repair.
But scientists have years to pore over the data it has returned in order to narrow the search for Earth-like worlds.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-planet-kepler-orbiting-cousin-of-sun/6644420
Again WOW! Imagine if this planet did have a intelligent life on it at one point.... according to this article it seems possible, considering this planet is the right distance from it's sun. This has to be one of the greatest scientific finds of our life time. What a great time to be alive.
Kepler 452b: NASA discovers planet orbiting 'cousin' of sun in closest match to Earth yet
Astronomers hunting for another Earth have found what may be the closest match yet, a potentially rocky planet circling its star at the same distance as the Earth orbits the sun, NASA says.
Not only is this planet squarely in the "Goldilocks zone" — where life could exist because it is neither too hot nor too cold, and so could support liquid water — its star looks like an older cousin of our sun, the US space agency said.
That means the planet, which is 1,400 light years away, could offer a glimpse into the Earth's apocalyptic future, scientists said.
Known as Kepler 452b, the planet was detected by the US space agency's Kepler Space Telescope, which has been hunting for other worlds like ours since 2009.
"Kepler 452b is orbiting a close cousin of our sun but one that is 1.5 billion years older," NASA said in a statement.
Its star is 4 per cent more massive than the sun and 10 per cent brighter.
If the planet is rocky, and scientists believe that it has a better than even chance of being just that, then it could be in the midst of a fearful scenario, as the heat from its dying star evaporates Kepler 452b's lakes and oceans.
"If Kepler 452b is indeed a rocky planet, its location vis-a-vis its star could mean that it is just entering a runaway greenhouse phase of its climate history," said Doug Caldwell, a Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute scientist working on the Kepler mission.
"The increasing energy from its aging sun might be heating the surface and evaporating any oceans.
"The water vapour would be lost from the planet forever.
"Kepler 452b could be experiencing now what the Earth will undergo more than a billion years from now, as the sun ages and grows brighter."
Kepler mission discovers more than 4,000 possible planets
The Kepler mission launched in 2009 to search for exoplanets, which are planets outside our solar system, particularly those about the size of Earth or smaller.
"Today, and thousands of discoveries later, astronomers are on the cusp of finding something people have dreamed about for thousands of years — another Earth," NASA said in a statement.
On Thursday, NASA released the latest catalogue of exoplanet candidates, adding more than 500 new possible planets to the 4,175 already found by the space-based telescope.
Today, and thousands of discoveries later, astronomers are on the cusp of finding something people have dreamed about for thousands of years — another Earth.
NASA statement
"This catalog contains our first analysis of all Kepler data, as well as an automated assessment of these results," SETI Institute scientist Jeffrey Coughlin said.
"You and I probably won't be travelling to any of those planets without some unexpected breakthrough, but our children's children's children may.
"Kepler is the first stop. We're finding out if planets like Earth are common, and the answer so far seems to be yes."
The new catalogue includes 12 candidates that are less than twice the diameter of Earth and which are orbiting in the habitable zones of their stars.
Of those 12 new candidates, Kepler 452b "is the first to be confirmed as a planet", NASA said.
Kepler identifies possible planets by watching for dips in the brightness of stars, which could be caused by a planet passing between the star and the telescope.
Other scientific tools are needed to judge whether the planet is gassy or rocky.
The Kepler mission has cost NASA about $800 million, and the US space agency said in 2013 that two of its orientation wheels had lost function, leaving the space telescope beyond repair.
But scientists have years to pore over the data it has returned in order to narrow the search for Earth-like worlds.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-planet-kepler-orbiting-cousin-of-sun/6644420
Again WOW! Imagine if this planet did have a intelligent life on it at one point.... according to this article it seems possible, considering this planet is the right distance from it's sun. This has to be one of the greatest scientific finds of our life time. What a great time to be alive.
Last edited:
Columbo
Never again
LATEST IN TECHNOLOGY
science
space
Take a walk on the surface of ‘Earth’s cousin’ — Kepler 452b
- USA: NASA discover new Earth-like planet!
Kepler 452b. All we have is a brief dimming of its parent star — a kind of eclipse.
From that we can infer the planets position and size. It is these factors which reveal the likelihood of the planet’s composition.
So any pictures painted of this alien world must still rely on speculation. And lots of it.
What astrophysicists do have are carefully calculated — and constantly updating — models of what to expect under differing circumstances.
The data collected by the Kepler Space Telescope tells us 452b is about 60 per cent bigger than Earth and is in a 385 day orbit around a yellow star some 20 per cent bigger than our own.
This is why 452b is believed to be a rocky world — made up of a similar mix of silicon, carbon and iron. But we don’t even know that for sure.
Source: NASA/Kepler Source: Supplied
“The most important thing is the detection of a planet of that size at that distance,”says Professor Malcolm Walter, an astrobiologist at the University of New South Wales. “To me that is just a remarkable piece of technology we’ve been aiming at for many years. Now we’ve done it.”
What the models tell us (with a reasonable degree of probability) is that Kepler 452b is likely to have a dense atmosphere (because of its size) and is likely to have liquid water.
“We always predicted that there would be planets like this,” Professor Walter says. “But prediction is not the same as a discovery. And now we have a discovery!”
EXOPLANETS: Inside the search for Earth 2.0
So what is it like on the surface of Earth’s distant cousin?
“It’s a fascinating thing to think about, and I think it gives us an opportunity to take a pause and reflect on our own environment that we find ourselves in,” Professor Jon Jenkins of NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope project told a recent media conference.
But he’s in no hurry to get there.
“We’ve been lucky and fortunate to live in a habitable zone for the last several billion years, and we’d like that to continue on.”
Source: NASA/Kepler Source: Supplied
Are we there yet?
Getting there would be a problem. A big one.
It takes 1200 years for light to travel the vast gulf of space between our worlds.
Science believes it’s virtually impossible for us to travel anywhere near that fast anyway. The amount of energy needed to do so are … astronomical.
The best speed we can achieve at the moment is about 84,000km/h: That’s how fast the New Horizons probe which encountered Pluto earlier this month is travelling.
It took New Horizons nine years to get that far.
SOLAR SYSTEM 2.0: Are we the odd-ones out? Where are all the Jupiters?
So, if we round that figure up to a neat 100,000km/h — it would take about 10,000 years to travel just one light-year.
To cross 1400 light years will therefore take some 14 million years.
Yes: There are conjectural ways to bump that speed up to a potential 10 per cent of the speed of light. But such technology remains firmly in the realms of wishful thinking for now.
And only once we arrive will we find out whether the trip was worth it.
Source: ThinkStock Source: Supplied
Chances are Kepler 452b is another Venus, or perhaps even a small Neptune. Or, because we’ve not yet found any other planets orbiting its star, a meteorite-blasted barren rock.
While the search for planets has so far thrown up some 42 worlds in “goldilocks” orbits, neither to hot nor too cold for liquid water, it’s only found one star with a Jupiter-sized planet in a Jupiter-like orbit, capable of influencing (and protecting) the development of an inner solar system like our own.
Nevertheless, there remains a chance Kepler 452b is another pale blue dot, glowing with hope amid the enormity of space.
And, perhaps, pulsing with life.
“My mind goes to life immediately,” Professor Walter says. “It looks like we have a real candidate for a planet that could sustain life — even though we have no actual evidence as yet.”
Source: ThinkStock Source: ThinkStock
A small step for one person …
The instant you unstrap yourself from your shuttle’s chair, you’d know you were not on Earth.
You’d have gained weight. A lot of it.
Not enough to make life impossible. But enough to make adjusting to life on a new planet something of a struggle.
“It might be quite challenging at first,” says Professor Jenkins.
Kepler 452 has a diameter 60 per cent bigger than that of Earth’s. It’s mass is estimated to be about five times greater.
This all adds up to roughly double the gravity.
Anyone who has hefted a heavy backpack will have some idea of what this will feel like. Soldiers and hikers do this all the time.
It just takes a bit of getting used to — and exercise.
Our bodies would also likely adjust reasonably quickly, just as if you attended daily workouts at the gym.
Our bones would become denser. Our muscles thicker.
We’d be a lot hungrier given the constant extra energy expenditure: But it would also be a lot harder to accidentally put on a few layers of unwanted fat.
Within a few Kepler years, we’d hardly remember the difference.
Alien planet ... Artist impression of the surface of Kepler 452b. In the scenario depicted here, the planet is just entering a runaway greenhouse phase of its climate history. The increasing energy from its ageing sun could be evaporating any oceans, leaving behind large lakes ringed with mineral deposits. Source: SETI Institute/Danielle Futselaar Source: Supplied
Alien dawn
“It would feel a lot like home, from the standpoint of the sunshine that you would experience,” Professor Jenkins told media last week.
Apart from finding it harder to get out of bed, you’d barely even notice Kepler 452b’s sun was bigger in the heavens.
You’d have to look fairly carefully at it to see that: And that would burn out your retinas.
Just like on Earth.
You’d feel warm under the yellow sun. The sky has a good chance of being blue.
If there’s molecular oxygen in the atmosphere — which is produced by photosynthesis (read ‘life’).
“What we would really like to know is the composition of the atmosphere,” Professor Walter says. “Maybe it is possible to get some information on that spectroscopically — but given the enormous distances involved, that may be beyond the power of our instrumentation.”
Source: ThinkStock Source: ThinkStock
Are We Alone in the Universe?49:12
MORE VIDEOS
Horizon joins the planet hunters who have discovered a series of distant 'hot Jupiters' as well as new worlds similar to our own that may have habitats capable of supporting unfamiliar forms of life.
featured video
@JamieSeidel
Prime contenders ... Source: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/phl.upr.edu Source: Supplied
STORY BY
- Jamie Seidel
- News Corp Australia Network
http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...usin-kepler-452b/story-fnjwlcze-1227462632213
Inigo Montoya
The New Dread Pirate Roberts.
A Blow-by-Blow Account of the Wong vs Bernardi Gay Marriage Debate
We're preparing to live-blog the debate Labor MP Penny Wong and Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi on the topic of gay marriage. The Press Club has not actually announced which side the two politicians will be taking, so I'm really hoping it gets assigned on a coin toss, like a high school debate.
The two are approaching this topic from fascinating perspectives. Penny Wong is a practicing Unitarian, and is in a committed relationship with another woman, with whom she is raising two children. Cory Bernardi was forced to resign as Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in 2012 when he suggested same sex marriages would lead to polygamy and bestiality. So they both have a unique insight into this debate, which will prove to be the most fascinating meeting of the minds since Gore Vidal debated the Iran-Contra affair with a small plate of cottage cheese.
12:32pm: "Welcome to the National Press Club," says moderator Steve Lewis. Wong and Bernardi both have their game faces on. Hopefully Bernardi has read our piece on the strongest arguments against gay marriage. If he goes in with those, he'll be unbeatable.
12:33pm: "Cory Bernardi has been a senator since 2006," says Lewis during the introductions. Bernardi bows his head humbly and smiles. This may be the nicest thing anyone's ever said about him.
12:34pm: Penny Wong is up first. She cites the US Supreme Court's judgment in favour of gay marriage, and quotes Justice Kennedy's ruling. Wong mentions that interracial marriage was once illegal, and quotes Desmond Tutu, who said that the fight for LGBTI rights was akin to the fight against racism. Although Tutu, who fought against apartheid and racism all his life, is clearly biased here.
12:39pm: Wong points out that using the "children deserve a mother and a father" argument is largely irrelevant in this debate, given same sex couples already have adoption rights. No doubt Cory will heed this point and not bring up children needing a mother and a father at all.
12:40pm: Wong quotes David Cameron saying that marriage equality makes society stronger. Quoting a left wing ideologue like this could backfire. (Cameron is essentially basically Otto Rühle next to Bernardi.)
12:43pm: Bernardi takes the podium and discusses rights versus desire. He says they've been confused in recent times, with people mistaking their personal desires for inalienable human rights. "Homosexual marriage is an example of this," he says, claiming that marriage was never invented, it just is. That's some zen shit right there.
12:44pm: Bernardi's tactic is pretty cunning. He's cleverly repurposing all the arguments that Wong listed as ridiculous and nonsensical. He adds that the phrase "marriage equality" is textbook sloganeering. Bernardi, who has in the past called the burqa a "shroud of oppression" and a "flag of fundamentalism" really hates sloganeering.
12:45pm: Bernardi appears to be criticising the gay marriage lobby for turning down people who wanted their platform to include polygamy. His problem seems to be that the lobby is not engaging in the slippery slope he predicted would happen.
12:46pm: Bernardi is discussing the hardships that opponents of gay marriage have to endure: "We're called bigots and homophobes." Verbal abuse is something no gay person could ever possibly relate to.
12:47pm: "Denying rights of children to have a mum and a dad being pursued relentlessly." Bernardi speaks out against gay adoption, which, as Wong pointed out in her opening remarks, is already legal. Hopefully someone on Bernardi's staff will discreetly hold up a sign with the debate topic before he does it again.
12:48pm: Bernardi dismisses Wong's citation of the results in Ireland and the USA. In the USA, the decision was made by "unelected and politically compromised" Supreme Court judges.
12:49pm: Bernardi is on fire (but not flaming). Will businesses or teachers be forced to advocate gay marriage, will people who speak out against it be silenced? Bernardi says the real issue is eroding the rights of people who do not support gay marriage. To translate, you should never be discriminated against because of your actions or words, but by who you are.
12:51pm: "I believe in no redefinition of marriage on basis of equality." Bernardi's right. If some people get equality, then everyone will want it! He then wraps up his opening remarks. Lots of interesting stuff in there, although very little to do with the topic at hand.
12:52pm: Time for the questions. The first reporter asks Bernardi if he still believes in that slippery slope that will lead to polygamy and bestiality. Bernardi points to the UK as proof it's already happened: "The Greens party is considering lobbying for multi-member relationships to be included in marriage campaign." This is actually true: the Greens Party in the UK did say this. Clearly the only way to prevent this from happening is to legislate against another unrelated thing that may possibly lead to it.
12:54pm: Wong promises to stand with Bernardi against bestiality should the issue ever come up. She then corrects a previous assertion: "We don't shout you down. We don't denigrate your relationships. We don't suggest your children are compromised. Who are the people hurling insults in this debate?"
12:58pm: "Great to see two South Australians," says a reporter from the Adelaide Advertiser, playing to the home crowd. "People could take that both ways," says Wong. Bernardi doesn't take the bait. Not even a "That's what she said", for god's sake.
1:02pm: Bernardi: "Penny wouldn't want us legislating for multiple partners. Everyone has their own line in the sand." He says we need to look at lived experience, and points to what's happened in other countries. "Freedoms are being curtailed on basis of same sex marriage." He goes on to cite lots of airtight examples of this. Just kidding.
1:03pm: Reporter to Bernardi: "Why is there so much focus on children when [gay and lesbian couples] can already have children? Wouldn't be better for them to get married for more stability?" Bernardi talks about the rights of children trumping the rights of adults, admits that sometimes same-sex couples do a better job than heterosexual couples, but confirms that same sex couples cannot naturally produce children. None of this really relates to the question.
1:04pm: Wong, who does address the question, again reminds Bernardi that it's already legal for same-sex couples to have children.
1:05pm: A reporter challenges Bernardi's claim that marriage was never invented. Bernardi responds by saying that when the Liberal Party was founded in 1945, marriage was naturally considered between a man and a woman, and this was codified in 2000. The biggest surprise here is his admission that the Liberal Party was founded. For a moment I thought he was going to suggest that, like marriage, it Always Was.
1:08pm: Bernardi discussing the history of marriage. It was "sometimes about procreation, sometimes about money, sometimes about companionship". It was "never defined". So marriage can be about anything! Except when gays want it, then it's about children and the looming threat of polygamy. I think that's what he's getting at.
1:09pm: Bernardi is once again asked about how the issue of children being raised by same-sex couples impacts the topic of gay marriage given that this part of it is already legal. "Just because something appears popular," says Bernardi, "it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do for the country." Based on Bernardi's vote count at the 2013 election, it's hard to argue with this.
1:11pm: Bernardi is asked to address the question he's now avoided several times, which is why he keeps talking about children being raised by same-sex couples. He talks about a man and a woman raising children again. He seems unable to comprehend the question. It's like watching a turtle on its back.
1:16pm: For some reason, there's a "why can't we all just get along?" question. Bernardi and Wong are asked why, in a pluralistic society, both opinions can't be held. Wong says that's what she's advocating: there can be both religious and civil marriages, but because of the religious views of some, Bernardi wants the secular state to forbid it. Bernardi's turn: "They do co-exist!" He says same-sex couples have all the rights that straight couples have. But then adds: "There's no reason to redefine marriage to mean something that it's never meant." But he said earlier that marriage was never defined. Maybe his point is semantics: you can't redefine something that's never been defined.
1:18pm: A reporter asks that if a free vote held, would Bernardi split away from the Liberals and form the Bernardi Party? "It would be a small party," he says. Bernardi says he agrees with Liberal principles. Wong points out that Liberals stand for freedoms, so wouldn't that mean a free vote? Bernardi turns the tables and mentions the Emissions Trading Scheme. Not sure what he's getting at exactly, but it has the cadence of a sick burn, so two points to Bernardi. I think.
We're preparing to live-blog the debate Labor MP Penny Wong and Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi on the topic of gay marriage. The Press Club has not actually announced which side the two politicians will be taking, so I'm really hoping it gets assigned on a coin toss, like a high school debate.
The two are approaching this topic from fascinating perspectives. Penny Wong is a practicing Unitarian, and is in a committed relationship with another woman, with whom she is raising two children. Cory Bernardi was forced to resign as Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in 2012 when he suggested same sex marriages would lead to polygamy and bestiality. So they both have a unique insight into this debate, which will prove to be the most fascinating meeting of the minds since Gore Vidal debated the Iran-Contra affair with a small plate of cottage cheese.
12:32pm: "Welcome to the National Press Club," says moderator Steve Lewis. Wong and Bernardi both have their game faces on. Hopefully Bernardi has read our piece on the strongest arguments against gay marriage. If he goes in with those, he'll be unbeatable.
12:33pm: "Cory Bernardi has been a senator since 2006," says Lewis during the introductions. Bernardi bows his head humbly and smiles. This may be the nicest thing anyone's ever said about him.
12:34pm: Penny Wong is up first. She cites the US Supreme Court's judgment in favour of gay marriage, and quotes Justice Kennedy's ruling. Wong mentions that interracial marriage was once illegal, and quotes Desmond Tutu, who said that the fight for LGBTI rights was akin to the fight against racism. Although Tutu, who fought against apartheid and racism all his life, is clearly biased here.
12:39pm: Wong points out that using the "children deserve a mother and a father" argument is largely irrelevant in this debate, given same sex couples already have adoption rights. No doubt Cory will heed this point and not bring up children needing a mother and a father at all.
12:40pm: Wong quotes David Cameron saying that marriage equality makes society stronger. Quoting a left wing ideologue like this could backfire. (Cameron is essentially basically Otto Rühle next to Bernardi.)
12:43pm: Bernardi takes the podium and discusses rights versus desire. He says they've been confused in recent times, with people mistaking their personal desires for inalienable human rights. "Homosexual marriage is an example of this," he says, claiming that marriage was never invented, it just is. That's some zen shit right there.
12:44pm: Bernardi's tactic is pretty cunning. He's cleverly repurposing all the arguments that Wong listed as ridiculous and nonsensical. He adds that the phrase "marriage equality" is textbook sloganeering. Bernardi, who has in the past called the burqa a "shroud of oppression" and a "flag of fundamentalism" really hates sloganeering.
12:45pm: Bernardi appears to be criticising the gay marriage lobby for turning down people who wanted their platform to include polygamy. His problem seems to be that the lobby is not engaging in the slippery slope he predicted would happen.
12:46pm: Bernardi is discussing the hardships that opponents of gay marriage have to endure: "We're called bigots and homophobes." Verbal abuse is something no gay person could ever possibly relate to.
12:47pm: "Denying rights of children to have a mum and a dad being pursued relentlessly." Bernardi speaks out against gay adoption, which, as Wong pointed out in her opening remarks, is already legal. Hopefully someone on Bernardi's staff will discreetly hold up a sign with the debate topic before he does it again.
12:48pm: Bernardi dismisses Wong's citation of the results in Ireland and the USA. In the USA, the decision was made by "unelected and politically compromised" Supreme Court judges.
12:49pm: Bernardi is on fire (but not flaming). Will businesses or teachers be forced to advocate gay marriage, will people who speak out against it be silenced? Bernardi says the real issue is eroding the rights of people who do not support gay marriage. To translate, you should never be discriminated against because of your actions or words, but by who you are.
12:51pm: "I believe in no redefinition of marriage on basis of equality." Bernardi's right. If some people get equality, then everyone will want it! He then wraps up his opening remarks. Lots of interesting stuff in there, although very little to do with the topic at hand.
12:52pm: Time for the questions. The first reporter asks Bernardi if he still believes in that slippery slope that will lead to polygamy and bestiality. Bernardi points to the UK as proof it's already happened: "The Greens party is considering lobbying for multi-member relationships to be included in marriage campaign." This is actually true: the Greens Party in the UK did say this. Clearly the only way to prevent this from happening is to legislate against another unrelated thing that may possibly lead to it.
12:54pm: Wong promises to stand with Bernardi against bestiality should the issue ever come up. She then corrects a previous assertion: "We don't shout you down. We don't denigrate your relationships. We don't suggest your children are compromised. Who are the people hurling insults in this debate?"
12:58pm: "Great to see two South Australians," says a reporter from the Adelaide Advertiser, playing to the home crowd. "People could take that both ways," says Wong. Bernardi doesn't take the bait. Not even a "That's what she said", for god's sake.
1:02pm: Bernardi: "Penny wouldn't want us legislating for multiple partners. Everyone has their own line in the sand." He says we need to look at lived experience, and points to what's happened in other countries. "Freedoms are being curtailed on basis of same sex marriage." He goes on to cite lots of airtight examples of this. Just kidding.
1:03pm: Reporter to Bernardi: "Why is there so much focus on children when [gay and lesbian couples] can already have children? Wouldn't be better for them to get married for more stability?" Bernardi talks about the rights of children trumping the rights of adults, admits that sometimes same-sex couples do a better job than heterosexual couples, but confirms that same sex couples cannot naturally produce children. None of this really relates to the question.
1:04pm: Wong, who does address the question, again reminds Bernardi that it's already legal for same-sex couples to have children.
1:05pm: A reporter challenges Bernardi's claim that marriage was never invented. Bernardi responds by saying that when the Liberal Party was founded in 1945, marriage was naturally considered between a man and a woman, and this was codified in 2000. The biggest surprise here is his admission that the Liberal Party was founded. For a moment I thought he was going to suggest that, like marriage, it Always Was.
1:08pm: Bernardi discussing the history of marriage. It was "sometimes about procreation, sometimes about money, sometimes about companionship". It was "never defined". So marriage can be about anything! Except when gays want it, then it's about children and the looming threat of polygamy. I think that's what he's getting at.
1:09pm: Bernardi is once again asked about how the issue of children being raised by same-sex couples impacts the topic of gay marriage given that this part of it is already legal. "Just because something appears popular," says Bernardi, "it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do for the country." Based on Bernardi's vote count at the 2013 election, it's hard to argue with this.
1:11pm: Bernardi is asked to address the question he's now avoided several times, which is why he keeps talking about children being raised by same-sex couples. He talks about a man and a woman raising children again. He seems unable to comprehend the question. It's like watching a turtle on its back.
1:16pm: For some reason, there's a "why can't we all just get along?" question. Bernardi and Wong are asked why, in a pluralistic society, both opinions can't be held. Wong says that's what she's advocating: there can be both religious and civil marriages, but because of the religious views of some, Bernardi wants the secular state to forbid it. Bernardi's turn: "They do co-exist!" He says same-sex couples have all the rights that straight couples have. But then adds: "There's no reason to redefine marriage to mean something that it's never meant." But he said earlier that marriage was never defined. Maybe his point is semantics: you can't redefine something that's never been defined.
1:18pm: A reporter asks that if a free vote held, would Bernardi split away from the Liberals and form the Bernardi Party? "It would be a small party," he says. Bernardi says he agrees with Liberal principles. Wong points out that Liberals stand for freedoms, so wouldn't that mean a free vote? Bernardi turns the tables and mentions the Emissions Trading Scheme. Not sure what he's getting at exactly, but it has the cadence of a sick burn, so two points to Bernardi. I think.
Inigo Montoya
The New Dread Pirate Roberts.
1:19pm: There's a spirited back-and-forth between Wong and Bernardi on the definition of liberalism. Or maybe it's Liberalism. Bernardi says it's "freedom of individual." Wong responds: "People are free unless principles of party are transgressed?" Bernardi hits back: "You're trying to parlay Labor dogmatic principles with Liberals. People are free to disagree if that's the case."
1:22pm: Perhaps realising that he's not winning over anyone, Bernardi switches to the Adam Goodes controversy: "I don't believe that the booing is racially motivated." Okay, that didn't work. Back to gay marriage.
1:25pm: Bernardi is asked that if the majority of people say they want same-sex marriage legalised, would he vote for it? Bernardi: "If the majority of states and people said 'that's what we want', who am I to argue with that quite frankly?" Given 72 percent of Australians have said they want it legalised, Bernardi clearly just announced he'd vote for it. This is going to be the headline tomorrow, right?
1:27pm: Wong kicks off the summarising arguments, criticising Bernardi for the "same old tired arguments that we always hear". She tries to rally us to look at the big picture: "Let's lift the gaze." This won't work on Bernardi. He clearly dislikes the gaze.
1:28pm: Bernardi takes the podium again. "Marriage equality is catchy slogan, but it has no meaning in reality." He says marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a woman, and he believes it should remain that way.
And with that, the debate done and dusted.
Unfortunately, I could not be at the Press Club to feel the tension in the room, and had to watch the simulcast on ABC24. It was sad to see the typical ABC bias prevalent as ever: Penny Wong came across as the significantly stronger performer, and Bernardi ended up looking like a complete tool. Poor form, Auntie.
http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/wrapping-up-the-wong-vs-bernardi-gay-marriage-debate
This play by play is frigging hilarious, well done to the author of the article.
1:22pm: Perhaps realising that he's not winning over anyone, Bernardi switches to the Adam Goodes controversy: "I don't believe that the booing is racially motivated." Okay, that didn't work. Back to gay marriage.
1:25pm: Bernardi is asked that if the majority of people say they want same-sex marriage legalised, would he vote for it? Bernardi: "If the majority of states and people said 'that's what we want', who am I to argue with that quite frankly?" Given 72 percent of Australians have said they want it legalised, Bernardi clearly just announced he'd vote for it. This is going to be the headline tomorrow, right?
1:27pm: Wong kicks off the summarising arguments, criticising Bernardi for the "same old tired arguments that we always hear". She tries to rally us to look at the big picture: "Let's lift the gaze." This won't work on Bernardi. He clearly dislikes the gaze.
1:28pm: Bernardi takes the podium again. "Marriage equality is catchy slogan, but it has no meaning in reality." He says marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a woman, and he believes it should remain that way.
And with that, the debate done and dusted.
Unfortunately, I could not be at the Press Club to feel the tension in the room, and had to watch the simulcast on ABC24. It was sad to see the typical ABC bias prevalent as ever: Penny Wong came across as the significantly stronger performer, and Bernardi ended up looking like a complete tool. Poor form, Auntie.
http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/wrapping-up-the-wong-vs-bernardi-gay-marriage-debate
This play by play is frigging hilarious, well done to the author of the article.