Contradictions and Political Footballs

Contradictions & Political Footballs
(Additions to follow as time allows)

Issue # 1- That we need 50% of Parliament's numbers made up of women MPs

Premise - Because women have unique understanding of issues affecting women and that 50% represents true fairness, true reflection of society & is just plain fair.

Contradiction - Does the 50% rule apply to all jobs, or just the very high profile, high paying jobs like members of parliament? Teaching jobs must be split 50:50 between men & women? Police? Child care? Does number fairness ever overcome merit?

Contradiction 2 - Are women distinct from men but able to do everything a man can but men are distinct but cannot deliver anything/everything a woman can?

If all that's true then a male same sex couple cannot deliver in child rearing what a mother/father family can or a mother/mother unit can. Which is it?

Possible Solution 1 - Let both merit & quotas exist by pre-selecting both a male & female candidates and let the electors decide it, but each party would need to find one of each and electoral rules would need change to allow it all to happen. Downside is, you cannot stop people voting for a person who has lesser merit but the voter's preferred gender so unlikely to achieve 50/50. Fact is, we cannot engineer 50/50 without merit being affected or if merit is not affected then the parties are currently running THE WORST people for the job and the least likely to see electoral wins. Don't think they'd do that.

Possible Solution 2 - Legislate that ALL workplaces must be 50/50 men/women gender balance.
Welders, architects, accountants, shearers, plumbers whatever, all 50/50.
Downside, that won't work at all.

Possible Solution 3 - Join a branch of a political party, be part of the process & recruit the best possible candidates you can despite what gender they may be. Let the electorate decide if your party's best candidate is good enough. Yes, electors have an overwhelming part to play and given both male or female candidates no one thinks whats going to deliver 50/50 split nor "I better vote for that person because their gender is..."
People vote a way due to issues, ideological beliefs, or they're swinging voters. Gender really not a big player.
Point is, this isn't a genuine issue, it is a political football. Its pulled out and played like some unfair sort of trump card by which ever party has the higher number of women in Parliament in a shallow insulting effort to gain points and hopefully votes from women, who are in fact, not that stupid or shallow. Yet it'll pop up again and again.


Issue #2 - That Same Sex Marriage (SSM) Should Be Put To A Plebiscite, Parliament Should Not Decide.

Premise - That its an important issue and therefore should be put to the Australian people so they can decide.

Contradiction - Plebiscites are for very important issues affecting the country. If SSM is passed, it won't affect the whole country. If SSM is not passed it won't affect the whole country. This is a very important issue to a very small group of people, thought to be less than 1% of the population. It is not plebiscite territory but many MPs are probably scared of it and worry about the backlash if they vote one way or the other. A plebiscite puts it away from electoral harm next election.

Contradiction #2 - Apparently we shouldn't have a plebiscite because it will turn the issue divisive and hateful breeding intolerance & bigotry. Its more likely that its bordering on that already if it isn't already and THAT is why so many MPs want a plebiscite rather than be exposed to electoral risk over it. It is already hate filled with debates last a few minutes before the words intolerant, hate, and bigotry pop up.

Contradiction #3 - Apparently it must go ahead because its a basic human right. SERIOUS CONTRADICTION possible right here. If it is a human right, then it should sail through effortlessly but if it is, it raises another issue for later on. If a SSM couple want to be married in a particular church or cathedral but an ordained minister of a chosen faith, if its a HUMAN RIGHT then the minister, the church cannot refuse to on grounds of faith. If they do, the church is denying someone their basic HUMAN RIGHTS. So if a particular church decides follow the Bible properly, exercising their human right to follow a religion they will be trampling on someone elses? More thought needed on this. Some churches allow gay priests and female priests but it is anti Biblical and so too is SSM.

Contradiction #4 - well we could go on, but perhaps we won't but expect additions not edits ;-)

Possible Solution - There is none, it will be passed into legislation one way or the other, it is inevitable because the proponents are almost as passionate about the battle as they are about SSM. Society being where it is, its highly likely to be passed today, whereas 30 years ago, no chance in hell. It will be passed, it will cost a lot of money and someone will probably get Australian of the Year out of it.