dutchroll

You are surprised by contradictions in political beliefs and ideology? I observe these at work every day. Mostly they involve slagging off at unions and unionism, followed by complaining the company has moved their days off so they're going to get the union onto them (which almost all our pilots are members of). It's quite bizarre to listen to.

My statistics are those reported by the BRA, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Though I have read more severe interpretations mostly originating from the Gatestone Institute - an organisation which calls itself "non-partisan" but has rather strange ties to numerous neo-right organisations and individuals. It strangely seems to only have one main topic of conversation - Muslim immigration and "Islamofascism".

The Swedish case is not quite as simple as that. Sweden changed its definition of rape over a decade ago and even the smallest reported incident involving the vastly widened definition gets counted in official statistics as a rape, whether there was a conviction or not. Sweden has had the highest reported rape statistics for longer than that though. For twenty years now. Well before the influx of Muslim refugees. In the last 6 years, the number of reported sex crimes is virtually unchanged. Question 1: If, as statistics show, Sweden has consistently had the highest level of reported rape in Europe for long before the Muslim refugee influx in the last few years, how is it that you associate the high rape statistics with something that didn't even start to happen until after these statistics became well established? Question 2: If, as statistics show, the number of sex crimes has not changed in the last 6 years, how do you directly attribute such crime to the recent influx of Muslim refugees? Well the only answer I can think of (quite prepared to listen to those who have a better one), is that as a political group you deliberately distort the picture to make it look as if the Muslim refugee influx is the direct cause, even though it's not actually possible to sensibly conclude that based on the timeline of Swedish rape statistics. However Sweden does have a big refugee problem, mainly because Sweden is very generous in its provision of Government social services like healthcare and other benefits and it simply doesn't have the tax base to be able to afford to let in huge numbers of refugees. It is finding that out to its detriment now.

Yeah well I have seen that example on numerous occasions! But unfortunately you have to ditch the sarcasm and explain that they're being lazy and it's not acceptable, in plain language and in private. Or take the risk of a bullying claim, and believe me, the process of investigating such claims is so tedious and drawn out that it's just easier not to do it. Note that it doesn't prevent you addressing poor work performance. It's just that you have to take a few minutes to think about how you're going to do it. Yeah in the old days it was easier to bawl them out and scream at them (been on the receiving end of that myself when I was younger). But the pendulum has swung to protect those who do genuinely get mercilessly bullied and in the process of doing that there is unfortunately collateral damage in restricting the way you're supposed to address people. Like I said, it does get pretty complicated. There is no easy solution to satisfy everyone.

Sarcasm is actually considered a form of bullying by most employers who have a bullying/harassment policy, which is virtually all of the big ones, Government and private. However it's not all sarcasm. It's sarcasm directed in a particular way. Example (cue sarcastic tone): "What do you mean you're trying? I could get a cabbage to work harder than you! If you reckon you have intelligence, you obviously have no clue what the word means! Hahaha!" In a working environment, that's bullying, not the exercise of free speech. Virtually every major employer would consider it that way. The reports in The Australian where I think you've read about this in the last couple of days are misleading (in my opinion). They seem to imply that all sarcasm is now considered bullying. That's not true. It's just that some sarcasm can be considered a form of bullying. And while The Australian loves nothing better than to take a swipe at Universities like they're the only ones instituting these policies, this is a very common trend in employers across the nation. I have first-hand experience with a verbal bullying claim (not as one of the actual parties involved, but assisting the defendant) which has taken 5 months to resolve. It just got resolved in favour of the defendant, who had no case to answer. It was a malicious and vexatious claim on the part of the accuser, as the evidence now shows, and there's likely to be further action in this respect. However other claims have been genuine and a result of really eye-watering appalling abuse by the accused. So it's a complicated topic. It can't easily be dumbed down to "journalist" level.

If you want a comparison, think of this: Audit by the Institute of Public Affairs Audit by the Socialist Alliance Much the same thing in respect of a "balanced viewpoint", but opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Yeah that's probably fair enough in many respects. I don't know that there has been any wholesale attack on free speech in western countries though. A few things have ticked a few people off here & there, but mostly you can still say what you like and if you're not stealing state secrets or inciting a lynch mob, it seems unlikely you're going to be penalised for speaking your mind.

Well I can't argue with that either!

Section 18C refers to vilifying conduct in public on the basis of race, religion, etc. Section 18D provides free speech protections, and specifically exempts the conduct if it was during the course of artistic work, or academic debate, or in the public interest, or was a fair and accurate report in good faith, or was a fair comment on a public matter and the person genuinely held this belief. There are so many "get out of gaol free" cards in 18D. Also it states that while it's unlawful, it's not a criminal offence (necessarily). So I could publicly say "a lot of aborigines in the country spend their welfare money on booze" and the aborigines can be as upset and hurt about it as they like. I have done absolutely nothing wrong under Section 18C. What I can't do is publicly (ie, to a big crowd of people, or a national newspaper audience) say "all Jews are filthy pigs and Hitler should've finished what he started". That would probably be unlawful under 18C if anyone could be bothered complaining, and it would demonstrate that I was an a*sehole of course. Most complaints made under 18C are resolved with negotiation. I personally think there are enough defences and free speech safeguards in 18D to nullify concerns about 18C, though I'd be open to changing the wording a bit. One of my great concerns about the times we live in at the moment, and I've seen it a lot, is that people seem to be increasingly hiding behind the "free speech" thing using it as an excuse to be real b*stards, but at the same time be totally free from any criticism. If you dare criticise them over their views, you get a broadside of "I have a right to say blah blah blah.......!" Yes of course they do, but they can't demand a right to be respected for it! Summary: I'd be open to minor changes to it, but I don't think it needs to be scrapped or have major amendments, and I actually think the protections in 18D are reasonable.

How is free speech being interfered with excessively, Bruce?

In Australia it is the Governor General, as the Queen's representative, who normally grants Royal Assent. However the Governor General can refer the legislation onto the Queen, which is called "Reserved for Sovereign's Assent". Also the GG can return the Bill to parliament with suggested amendments. Both of these cases have happened quite a number of times. I think it's pure speculation by the writer as to whether she would've actually refused to grant Royal Assent and in modern times it would create quite a Constitutional scandal. It's not that unusual for the monarch to take either parliamentary or legal advice over possibly controversial legislation. However the mere rumoured possibility that she might was likely enough to get it reconsidered or redrafted. The only time legislation from the Australian Parliament was ever refused Royal Assent was in 1906 (involving customs tariffs) but I think this was eventually passed when it was returned with amendments. The 1700s case with the Scottish militia was the last time it was refused in the UK, although if you go back further in time to Charles 1 and the English Civil War, refusal to grant Royal Assent was pretty common.

I'm not very keen on either major side of politics, nor many of the minor parties either to be honest. This leaves me somewhat in limbo!

Well your bank account is certainly at risk from Hillsong, that's for sure. Tax-free revenues of $80 million in the 2014-2015 financial year, although over the last few years it was generous enough to send about $1.5 million of that to help victims of overseas disasters. This only left them with a meagre $78.5 million to spend on themselves, which does make you wonder how they get by. Leader Brian Houston and his wife Bobby say they only get paid in the vicinity of $150,000/year although tax returns filed on their company "Leadership Ministries Incorporated", of which they are the only two employees, show earnings of nearly $700,000. Ah it's a wonderful world of righteousness when you have God on your side! Here....listen to American evangelist Jesse Duplantis actually state, on camera, that he was flying home in his private jet "that God so graciously gave us" while he and fellow evangelist Kenneth Copeland justify their extravagance. It'll make you puke.

I've spent a lot of years of my life traveling around Asia meeting and dealing with Muslims especially in Malaysia and Indonesia. Never had a problem or feared for my safety. Not once. Politeness and courtesy has always been returned with a smile. I cannot say the same for some Christian countries I've travelled in. The USA is one of them, and the Philippines is another (one of the worst I've been to, but hey, they're all good Catholics).

Well actually that's what I do in real life - look at what people do. However I've read and even personally heard numerous examples of religious people quite matter-of-factly stating that following the Bible is necessary because it is how you know what is moral and what is not. There are no qualifications or caveats. Just a very simple "you can't know morality until you read it in the Bible" perspective. Those are their thoughts......not mine. Granted, these people are predominantly Biblical literalists and Christian fundamentalists rather than your everyday moderate Christians. The latter take the Bible as a guideline and collection of moral stories which may or may not have actually happened, rather than the more extreme fringes who see it as a precise instruction book written with 100% accuracy. But they're out there, and in fair numbers too (depending on where you live).

One of the things which most deeply concerns me is the "well if you don't follow the Bible, where do you get your morality from?" argument. I get worried that some people can only figure out what is right and what is wrong by reading it in a book.

Funnily only a few hours ago I was in an elevator in Hong Kong with a couple of other aussies and a south african who was there to watch the rugby sevens. We all agreed unanimously that it was nice to see the English team languishing just above Kenya. We colonials can be a very harsh and unforgiving crowd towards our former masters.

It's only in one particular sport that we seem to have adverse issues with the Kiwis. You English lads excel at doing it across the board......

You carry an unconcealed loaded weapon on a plane and you are suddenly #1 target for Mr Terrorist. If he & his mates happen to overpower you (not necessarily hard to do if they approach you from behind in a confined space), then everyone has a problem. So no, I wouldn't think it would be on a plane!

The contribution of the English to quality printed journalism around the world can simply not be understated......

I have to admit it is mighty gentlemanly of you English folk to send cannon fodder for our rugby and cricket teams to practice on. Of course, once every few years we allow them to win something because ultimately even we can't stand the sight of a grown man crying into his tea and cucumber sandwiches for too long.

Yeah I agree. People who choose such decadent lifestyles like homosexuality are beyond filth. Homosexuality has been observed in fruit flies, macaques, dolphins, crabs, worms, all of the primate species, gulls and about one and a half thousand other animal species (according to a study by the Museum Of Natural History in Oslo). I mean, it's bad enough that dolphins can be disgusting perverted poofters, but at least they're not pushing to get married.

Come on, Gnu. I mean, haven't you seen Hunt for Red October? When the submariners sing the State Anthem of the USSR? How can you not hold your hand over your heart beaming with pride, before racing off to Bunnings to buy a hammer and a sickle? You're right though. I had everybody fooled when I got my high level security clearance in the military. Except you, Gnu. If only you were working for ASIO back then, you might've been able to see through my treachery and disloyalty to my country and prevent my evil work. Here you go Gnu, this is just for you. The magnificent Red Army Choir. Be inspired! Hey not personally having a go at you (the "we" losing our perspective was actually literally aimed at we humans in general and those who start the rumours). But the problem with a lot of these "Muslims cheering in western countries" stories is the total lack of verification and in many cases, proof emerges later that they're actually untrue and what people claimed to have seen wasn't what actually happened. The "Muslims cheered in New Jersey after 9/11" for example has been debunked. The story which does the social media rounds of the "Muslim woman at the checkout complaining about the British lapel pin" - debunked. Not one eyewitness. Not a solitary one. Not even a supermarket cashier has come forward and said "oh yeah that was me". The "refugees get more benefits than pensioners" story. Totally debunked. Completely and utterly wrong. You can even look up the benefits on the normal Government websites and see that it's untrue. There was a photo circulated on the web claiming to show Muslims in Dearborn Michigan cheering for ISIS and when other photos taken from a different angle were examined, it actually showed they were demonstrating against it and had placards quite clearly showing that. But it was all too late to stop the myth perpetuating! What I'm against is these people making sh*t up as they go and making assumptions which aren't supported by evidence. This is happening and circulating on the web at an alarming rate. The problem is that it doesn't help focus the arguments in the right area in respect of combatting Islamic extremism and terrorism. Anyway, gotta go pray towards Mecca to keep Gnu happy. Yes, I'm very confused over whether I'm an ISIS sympathiser or a communist at the moment. Cheers. "Jehovah....Jehovah....Jehovah"

So seriously, you dragged that off Pamela Geller's website, and you cite Geller as a source of unbiased, completely neutral and factual information? Geller, author of "The Obama Administration's War on America"? Geller, author of "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance" One (1) percent of America's population is Muslim. I wouldn't exactly call 1% "well on the way to Islamization". About 3% of men are gay. Do you reckon we're all well on the way to "homosexualising" the nation? So what about the teacher, Ivar Mol, who tweeted that Muslim students cheered after hearing of the terror attacks? Well it turns out that he didn't actually witness that himself. One of his friends alleged it. So Gellar's accusation is "someone told me that someone told him that someone cheered in a classroom somewhere sometime after the Brussels terror attack". And no he wasn't threatened with legal action. A spokesman for the Belgian police said they actually wanted to find out what was going on and whether it was true that people had cheered after the bombings, and who those people were. Turns out no-one actually knows! Funny that. Jesus, Phil..........when did we completely lose our perspective?

Be warned! The ATO do that too. My wife had to be very careful when she worked in the USA for a year in a surgical fellowship. The USA and Australia however have a "double taxation agreement". In other words if you're an American working in Australia, or an Australian working in the US, you can't be made to pay tax twice. However this only applies to what you would've been taxed on your earnings in your home country. Which works great for Americans working here with their low tax rates back home. Not so good for our Australian 40 something cents in the dollar tax rates! This means an Australian working in the USA could be made to pay "top-up tax" when they return. So it is entirely dependant on how long you are working in that country (ie, where is your primary place of residence, and that is arbitrarily defined by the tax office) and whether we have a double taxation agreement with them. Moral of story: before you take a temporary job overseas with a plan to return to Australia, consult a good accountant and know what you're in for!