- Station Owners/Pastoralists in WA can apply for a side arm, or pistol as a tool (and largely a safety device) of their every day work. A large and even medium calibre pistol can be a life saver with rogue animals at close quarters. Seems logical and sensible so far. It is.
It is until that pastoralist decides he or she would like to compete at a pistol club. Only have to go minimum 6 times a year, but the upside is, they pick up skills of handling, maintaining and firing the firearm in a good social environment. Meeting more people and mixing with others is always a good thing for people who live in remote locations especially when safety and adhering to the law is the priority.
Where it gets nonsensical is the pastoralist cannot take and use his/her sidearm off the station, it cannot be used at the range. They have to actually apply for another firearm, identical perhaps to compete. If their station firearm is damaged, even then they cannot use the range approved side arm on the station, its only at approved pistol club ranges & events. - Co-Ownership. If you have a husband & wife situation or parents & offspring, they cannot share a gun safe. Both people have to co-own all firearms in the safe or have separate safes. If you have a visitor from a northern station owner stay with you and you're both competing the next day it gets funny again. The pastoralist is required to keep their gun secure at all times, but strangely they technically can't put their firearm in your safe. Even a non gun owning wife cannot have the keys to her husband's gun safe. There has been a problem already where police checked a gun safe, the husband was away and the well meaning wife got the safe keys and unlocked for the police officers to check its mounting nuts, washers & bolts. She had no gun licence, the guns were seized.
- Appearance Clause - In some cases, there are firearms that are prohibited with good reason. Others get you wondering. Cat D which are primarily self loading centrefire rifles & pump action shot guns that hold more than 5 rounds are completely prohibited. Go to Firearms Regulations 1974, look up Scehedule 3 & find the listing for Category D firearms.
"A self loading centrefire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates such a firearm in design, function or appearance"So based solely on appearance, firearms have been knocked back, that is declared as being military like in appearance and have been seized or denied permission to own.
Step further, some farmers can get a Ruger 10/22 which is a .22 calibre semi automatic rifle. In factory trim with normal every day wooden stock fitted, no worries at all. Now once you own it and you decide to make it safer and easier to handle you replace the stock with a lawfully bought after market stock you need to be careful. Some of the after market ones have a pistol grip. You have just rendered your rifle a "prohibited firearm", you're now breaking the law and getting caught with it you'll be in big trouble, have your firearms seized and probably not be able to own a firearm again. Strangely, if there's a section that connects the bottom of the pistol grip to the end of the stock, its no longer a pistol grip, its a "thumbhole" stock and quite legal. If it has a shroud over the barrel or magazine its prohibited even if the shroud is for mounting accessories like a scope or a torch. It gets worse, there is no objective standard for the police to go by, so its their discretion. If they think its scary & army looking, its getting seized, you're probably getting charged and you'll have to go and have your day in court to maintain your unblemished firearms licence. - Semi Automatic Centrefire. Legal in Queensland with an Ag Permit for the purposes of destroying vermin/ferals. In fact there's a couple of firms that operate in Qld that control pigs etc from a helicopter using semi autos. All good. Some WA Pastoralists sought these contractors to control vermin numbers, Ag Dept approved then the paperwork got to the WA Police who then declared if the contractors crossed the WA Border their firearms would be seized and they would be charged. All Cat D firearms are banned in WA unless its for military or police use. One of the better centrefire rifles is the Mini 14 Ruger Ranch Rifle. A good sturdy .223 semi auto rifle. Great for good follow up shots at ferals. Its banned. Its basically the big brother of the Ruger 10/22. Duplicates it in function & appearance. In Queensland a primary producer just has to apply for a Ag Permit and its 100% legal.
- Lever Action Shotgun - Currently 100% legal in WA. They were first produced by Winchester 129 years ago. They can legally be imported as long as they have a maximum magazine capacity or 5 rounds. Ironically though, they're still Cat A in WA so you can go by one and extend the magazine legally to 7 rounds which is currently only banned from importation not ownership. Many 7+ round lever actions were here prior to the "Adler". Its a very bizarre political football that's being booted all over the place and after 12+months, common sense is having little success at creeping into the debate which appears completely closed off to the public. The actual threat of 7 rounds over 5 has never actually been set out in the sunlight for proper inspection and testing. Most of the fight to keep 7 rounds comes from shooters who are up for the fight to maintain the status quo on a firearm most won't buy. They're looking to combat their rights that are under threat from a ban with no defendable cause. Serious strange set up.
Funny thing about the Adler, or any lever action shotgun, never ever been used in a mass shooting and no records of one being used in a gun crime to date. If a criminal were to cut it down into a sawn off shotgun, because of the tube magazine it becomes a single shot. Probably why its only used by hunters who "brush hunt" or hunt on foot. - Not so much another oddity but a statement that people should read, learn, know & remember regarding lawful guns that end up in criminals hands.
"Senator McKenzie said a senate inquiry report found that only four hundredths of one per cent of all registered guns in Australia were stolen and only five per cent of those were used to commit a crime.
Further, recreational shooting contributes $1 billion to the national economy not including the many social and environmental benefits."
Thursday, 20 October 2016
WA's Firearms Regulation Oddities
Yes these are pretty odd, worse still is they're no secret, they're widely known and complaints about them have been loud and lingering now for many years with no corrections. Some have turned into political footballs, well one has, but common sense and facts evade many of the federal MPs over it. Yes its a state based regulation not Federal, but the Sovereign Over Reach by the federal Liberal Government made it a federal football.
Tuesday, 18 October 2016
The Adler _ What the Judge Roy Bean?
Judge Roy Bean was an eccentric US saloon keeper & law man who died in 1903. His name was used for decades in the phrase "What the Judge Roy Bean?" as an exclamation instead of using the words "What the hell?"
In his lifetime many new things came along, new railroads, automobiles and all manner of innovations.
Why in the year he died Harley Davidson began with Cadillac the year before
Its never been involved in a mass shooting. NEVER. No cited recordings of a lever action being used in gun crime. They're not the most reliable gun, lots of moving parts, they didn't take long before they were superseded by pump action shot guns and semi automatics. They have been around for ages, but not been very popular at all in recent times. You cannot easily fire them in the prone position because the gun has to be raised to cycle the lever to eject the spent round and cycle in the next round. Or you have to roll onto one side & lever it. Or lift up if you're leaning on a roof of a ute spotlighting. They, like lever action rifles, come into their own as a "Scrub Gun" or "Brush Gun" where a hunter is on foot and is at close quarters with a pig or dog and several shots are needed.
In his lifetime many new things came along, new railroads, automobiles and all manner of innovations.
Why in the year he died Harley Davidson began with Cadillac the year before
Also in 1903...
Edward Binney and Harold Smith co-invent crayons.
Edward Binney and Harold Smith co-invent crayons.
Bottle-making machinery invented by Michael J. Owens.
The Wright brothers invent the first gas motored and manned airplane.
Mary Anderson invents windshield wipers.
William Coolidge invents ductile tungsten used in lightbulbs
But the lever action rifle was pretty old by the time Judge Bean left this world. In fact the first ever lever action is thought to be Colt's 1st & 2nd Model Ring Lever rifles. Both were cap & ball rifles produced by Patent Arms Mfg. Co. in New Jersey between 1837 and 1841.
But the lever action rifle was pretty old by the time Judge Bean left this world. In fact the first ever lever action is thought to be Colt's 1st & 2nd Model Ring Lever rifles. Both were cap & ball rifles produced by Patent Arms Mfg. Co. in New Jersey between 1837 and 1841.
The first truly successful lever action 12 Gauge shotgun was the Winchester Model 1887 which had been around 16 years when Judge Bean died. So the earliest 12 gauge lever action shot gun is celebrating its 129th birthday this year. Lever Action Rifles are celebrating their 179th birthday this year.
IT IS THEREFORE NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY.
Its not rapid fire, all firearms fire only as rapid as the operator can fire and even then there are limitations. Some firearms cannot fire as fast as others, some operators cannot fire fast as others and some can't hit a barn door with their first shot let alone the less accurate follow up shots. You can access the Youtube video where 2 experienced shooters fired 10 rounds. One used an old style double barrel shot gun, the other a 5 shot Adler lever action. They claimed the double barrel won, maybe but for sure, there was pretty well nothing in it. Trouble is, you don't have a desk top with the 10 rounds sitting there when you're hunting pigs in the brush, on foot.
Aside from that lever action rifles (and shotguns), pump action rifles (and shotguns) and bolt action rifles are "repeaters". If the Adler is "Rapid Fire" then so is every firearm except single shot firearms and double barrel shotguns. Fact is the only "Rapid Fire" type firearm are sub-machine guns & full machine guns.
Aside from that lever action rifles (and shotguns), pump action rifles (and shotguns) and bolt action rifles are "repeaters". If the Adler is "Rapid Fire" then so is every firearm except single shot firearms and double barrel shotguns. Fact is the only "Rapid Fire" type firearm are sub-machine guns & full machine guns.
IT THEREFORE CAN'T BE CLASSIFIED AS RAPID FIRE.
Its never been involved in a mass shooting. NEVER. No cited recordings of a lever action being used in gun crime. They're not the most reliable gun, lots of moving parts, they didn't take long before they were superseded by pump action shot guns and semi automatics. They have been around for ages, but not been very popular at all in recent times. You cannot easily fire them in the prone position because the gun has to be raised to cycle the lever to eject the spent round and cycle in the next round. Or you have to roll onto one side & lever it. Or lift up if you're leaning on a roof of a ute spotlighting. They, like lever action rifles, come into their own as a "Scrub Gun" or "Brush Gun" where a hunter is on foot and is at close quarters with a pig or dog and several shots are needed.
IT IS THEREFORE UNABLE TO BE CALLED THE "WORLD'S MOST LETHAL SHOTGUN" AS ONE PRESS OUTLET FOOL PUT IT.
How did the Adler get so popular? Simple...simple and sad really.
Nioa is a very large importer of firearms and only sells wholesale. It helped designed the firearm for the Australian market because its very difficult for shooters in some states to get the pump action (invented in 1897) and semi auto shotgun (invented in 1898). There were 7+1 lever action shotguns already available & in circulation in Australia but they've earned their reputation as being less than reliable and prone to breaking parts that are hard to get. They had become almost a curio or oddity. Some of the brands that can have up to 10 round magazines are Winchester, Chiappa, Norinco, Emerald, IAC & others, although most are either 5 shot or 8 shot. So they're here, been here a long time & available under Cat A quite legally. Lever action shotguns weren't hugely popular, that is until the Adler showed up. To promote it Nioa did a Youtube video where they torture tested 2 slightly different Adler shotguns (different barrel lengths), both 7+1 firearms. How do you torture test them? By firing 5000 shots through both of them as quickly as possible. If they were going to fail, this would show where it would and how badly it would be.
They didn't fail.
They didn't fail.
The video then quickly went viral amongst shooters who quickly realised they could go pig hunting on foot without dogs and knives which is very dangerous. Its on foot in the bush (where a ute can't go) that this firearm, like any lever action, comes into its own as a hunting firearm. Except now there was a reliable 12 gauge to choose from. Some claim they're not that great and there other new brands in Australia now, like Pardus & others but the hype built fast. Adler orders started flooding in. All long before they'd hit full production past the first 2 they torture tested.
Then politics entered, the anti-gun lobby cranked up and Tony Abbott installed an Importation Ban, due to still unknown fears about the firearm and supposedly because a shot gun was used in the Lindt Café siege. However, the Lindt Café siege had a gunman with no firearms licence and the firearm was an illegally modified pump action illegally bought on the black market not a lever action.
So now lawful gun owners can legally own & licence a 12 gauge 7+1 lever action shotgun (still can) they just cannot get a new one because although they're legal, they cannot be imported.
Yes its a bizarre situation where a licenced firearm owner can legally purchase a 5 shot Adler, then go straight around to the gun smith, get it converted to a 7 shot and not be breaking the law. Still under Cat A.
Tony Abbott's import ban was to stay in place until the states all agreed to re-classify it from the category that John Howard's firearms review put the 7 Shot Lever Action Shotgun in back in 1996.
And the advantage of the firearm is not a lot. In fact the huge groundswell of desire for a 7+1 may be mainly due to the threat of it being taken away. For me, if I were pig shooting a lever action rifle or shotgun is fine but then I'm not interested in hunting pigs. If I had a use for one & had a fondness for old western style firearms then maybe. Otherwise no, most of the ban hype actually increased desire and orders.
The ban, which had a sunset clause before Tony Abbott was dumped as PM, actually helped sell more Adlers than Nioa could have ever done with a normal advertising campaign. In fact when the political flares went up, Nioa removed their YouTube Videos straight away but sale orders continued to increase. Not so smart Mr Abbott/Turnbull.
They've been in the community since the late 1800s and never been used in a mass shooting, no not one. They are not the firearm of choice by criminals or terrorists. Short firearms are, but more on that in a minute. The Sydney police worker callously gun down outside a Sydney police station by a radicalised Muslim teenager, he used an illegal Glock semi automatic pistol. That kid also did not have a firearms licence, it came from the black market and its now said to have never been legally sold in Australia but rather it was sold in the USA and smuggled into Australia.
So what is the preferred firearm of the criminals? Hand guns or sawn off shotguns so they can be concealed when carrying. Thing is if you convert an Adler into a sawn off shot gun, it will be a single shot lever action because it has a tube magazine, once shortened, it doesn't work. You can cut the stock off, but it actually makes cycling the lever action more difficult. Criminals & terrorists won't choose a lever action. Its a hunting action these days, has been for well over 60 years.
Malcolm Turnbull, you are at some stage going to have address the cause of the issue and clamp down on the black market gun trade rather than ban guns that aren't new, nor related to crime?
Its been an embarrassing SOVEREIGN OVER REACH by the government and highlights their absence of knowledge on the subject & their reliance on emotional hype devoid of facts, figures or common sense.
And just what part have the media played in this glorious Python-esque cock up of gargantuan proportions? Well they were the first fooled, and they're still running with it.
Port Arthur gets mentioned and its worth remembering that gunman was a deranged psychopath who had trouble discerning reality from fantasy according to his prison mental health worker (a professor no less). He also had no car licence, no gun licence and bought all the illegal guns from the black market. Of his 3 firearms, none were lever action. He used a AR-15 & a L1A1. He did have a shotgun, didn't use it & it wasn't a lever action.
So now lawful gun owners can legally own & licence a 12 gauge 7+1 lever action shotgun (still can) they just cannot get a new one because although they're legal, they cannot be imported.
Yes its a bizarre situation where a licenced firearm owner can legally purchase a 5 shot Adler, then go straight around to the gun smith, get it converted to a 7 shot and not be breaking the law. Still under Cat A.
Tony Abbott's import ban was to stay in place until the states all agreed to re-classify it from the category that John Howard's firearms review put the 7 Shot Lever Action Shotgun in back in 1996.
And the advantage of the firearm is not a lot. In fact the huge groundswell of desire for a 7+1 may be mainly due to the threat of it being taken away. For me, if I were pig shooting a lever action rifle or shotgun is fine but then I'm not interested in hunting pigs. If I had a use for one & had a fondness for old western style firearms then maybe. Otherwise no, most of the ban hype actually increased desire and orders.
The ban, which had a sunset clause before Tony Abbott was dumped as PM, actually helped sell more Adlers than Nioa could have ever done with a normal advertising campaign. In fact when the political flares went up, Nioa removed their YouTube Videos straight away but sale orders continued to increase. Not so smart Mr Abbott/Turnbull.
They've been in the community since the late 1800s and never been used in a mass shooting, no not one. They are not the firearm of choice by criminals or terrorists. Short firearms are, but more on that in a minute. The Sydney police worker callously gun down outside a Sydney police station by a radicalised Muslim teenager, he used an illegal Glock semi automatic pistol. That kid also did not have a firearms licence, it came from the black market and its now said to have never been legally sold in Australia but rather it was sold in the USA and smuggled into Australia.
So what is the preferred firearm of the criminals? Hand guns or sawn off shotguns so they can be concealed when carrying. Thing is if you convert an Adler into a sawn off shot gun, it will be a single shot lever action because it has a tube magazine, once shortened, it doesn't work. You can cut the stock off, but it actually makes cycling the lever action more difficult. Criminals & terrorists won't choose a lever action. Its a hunting action these days, has been for well over 60 years.
Malcolm Turnbull, you are at some stage going to have address the cause of the issue and clamp down on the black market gun trade rather than ban guns that aren't new, nor related to crime?
Its been an embarrassing SOVEREIGN OVER REACH by the government and highlights their absence of knowledge on the subject & their reliance on emotional hype devoid of facts, figures or common sense.
And just what part have the media played in this glorious Python-esque cock up of gargantuan proportions? Well they were the first fooled, and they're still running with it.
Port Arthur gets mentioned and its worth remembering that gunman was a deranged psychopath who had trouble discerning reality from fantasy according to his prison mental health worker (a professor no less). He also had no car licence, no gun licence and bought all the illegal guns from the black market. Of his 3 firearms, none were lever action. He used a AR-15 & a L1A1. He did have a shotgun, didn't use it & it wasn't a lever action.
You'd think John Howard would have poured $500 million into address the illegal gun trade, smugglers and serious mental health. Sadly no. There are more votes in fear campaigns, facts are not needed. Mr Howard was also protecting us all from Weapons of Mass Destruction when he sent our country to war in Iraq & turns out there were none there. Perhaps it would have been easier if Saddam's troops and hench men all used Lever Action Shotguns, but no they all used military automatic weapons.
One other point, the reason John Howard's 1996 review put lever actions shotguns in Cat A was pretty simple. You manually cycle a round into a chamber, you pull the trigger and it fire one shot & one shot only. Then you manually cycle the spent round out & manually cycle the next fresh round into the chamber. Its not automatic, its not semi automatic, its not rapid fire. The only firearms that are rapid fire are fully automatic firearms, which most people know as machine guns. Long as you hold the trigger in it keeps firing at a rapid rate. That's what rapid fire is, a full automatic firearm. They are 100% completely banned in Australia for civilian ownership.
Wake up, stop and think seriously for one minute.
One other point, the reason John Howard's 1996 review put lever actions shotguns in Cat A was pretty simple. You manually cycle a round into a chamber, you pull the trigger and it fire one shot & one shot only. Then you manually cycle the spent round out & manually cycle the next fresh round into the chamber. Its not automatic, its not semi automatic, its not rapid fire. The only firearms that are rapid fire are fully automatic firearms, which most people know as machine guns. Long as you hold the trigger in it keeps firing at a rapid rate. That's what rapid fire is, a full automatic firearm. They are 100% completely banned in Australia for civilian ownership.
Wake up, stop and think seriously for one minute.
Sunday, 9 October 2016
How To Arrive At A Good Policy Position
Its seems normal enough but it seems too hard too often. We'll pick one area of policy that's had difficulty recently, due to sadly predictable reasons, all avoidable.
The Use of GMO Grains.
This saw a court case in Kojonup, set 2 neighbours against one another, said to have split the town in half and generally polarised the community, the grain growing community. The net result was a large amount of time, effort and money was spent by allowing the whole thing to go down the adversarial path, two sides slugging it out until one wins & one loses.
It recently also saw a representative from the Pastoralists & Graziers Association crow on ABC Radio about how they successfully fought for their member and how "Steve Marsh picked on the wrong person".
Adversarial slug out solidified.
The PGA and all others in representative groups, including political, not just agri-political could have taken the middle road but didn't. It could have been the opportunity the PGA needed to show real leadership in the field and go mediator, arbiter for both sides to arrive at a settlement without legal action. By settlement I mean not a pay out, but a position the PGA could have fought for, on behalf of both farmers, even though one wasn't a PGA member.
The thing is, both parties should have the right to grow either organic certified crops, traditional crops or GMO crops without penalty or threat of penalty via contamination. One thing is for sure, the contamination thresholds were clearly too low. If there is scientifically proven threat to health by say a contamination level of 1% then show us the science. If the grain is processed it may be that all health threats are already eliminated, if indeed they existed in an unprocessed state.
Legal action may have been needed if their was malicious intent, but by media reporting it seems both parties were not malicious in planting their own crops. The fault here lay mainly with the certification bodies and if they won't change, then a multi-peril crop insurance may need to cover this eventuality in the future.
In any case, it wasn't about ensuring a middle ground sensible approach that could avoid a community split, it was about 2 sides and the whiff of a legal triumph in the wind the PGA noticed and sought to capitalise upon. A trump rather than seek a solution via legislation in the state parliament.
And yes, there is fault to be found there with the WA Parliament too. This should have been nipped in the bud to allow leeway for 2 neighbouring properties to grow what they prefer without penalty but with some sort of safety net.
Its now developing into a pro GM & anti GM battlefield with the lines drawn and common sense is the first casualty. If we were to set policy, we'd need to look at this without bias and see how both parties can be able to plant which ever crop they choose, without great penalty. Clearly the GM threshold is too low for some certified organic crops and it leaves growers exposed to great loss if they exceed very low levels.
Is there a health risk? Answer I've found so far is there'd be no risk at 40% and if that were the cut off threshold, most growers would seek new certified clean grain once it got to 25% levels perhaps lower. The thing is, both the Organic Grower needs his/her crop protected to some point, and the GM neighbour needs legal protection to some point too.
This outcome pushed 2 sides against one another, split a community and derailed the chances of sensible policy amongst the PGA, the parliament and the community. Now we have 2 opposite sides, instead of 2 groups in the one industry. Divided neighbours who may never come together ever again. How that can be portrayed as any sort of good outcome I'll never know.
Policy setting in this instance was adversarial and not middle ground with the grain industry as a whole in mind. It was a prime chance to set 2 different parts of the grains industry as 2 parts of the same community. Instead one side went on the attack, the other went into siege mode & we saw a long protracted slug fest where no one except perhaps the legal community gaining any productivity out of it.
It should never have been a time to choose organic or choose GMO, it should have been a time to protect 2 parts of the same grain industry forever more.
This is a classic example where 2 pre-suppositional sides of bias went head long into battle with some people not directly involved keenly seeking out "facts" to back the position they'd already chosen,
Its very hard to avoid being pre-suppositional, but its a trait of good statesmen of times past...well if not good statesmen then at least good legislators. We were seen to be lacking in that department in WA with the PGA now copping (fairly or unfairly) some flak over getting involved to turn a big visual public relations boost.
The Organic/GMO stand off continues but it serves as a poignant reminder that debate without rigour is policy death. The destination is not your side winning, but the industry as a whole having a fair outcome.
If we don't return to traditional community supportive outcomes we will continue down the path of becoming American like where legal action is the first and last option and the wealthiest litigant will prevail whether they're right or not.
Policy has to be clear, well thought out, be in the nation interest or the interest that serves the best for the most in society or those involved. It must also have good science involved and yes sharp rigour from devil's advocates lest you end up with emperor's new clothes syndrome.
Once its arrived at, it needs to be widely known and as best as is possible, be widely understood. Agreement is not always widely found, but if its formed properly even I can go with policy I'm not in full agreement with because sometimes fairness is not found within pre-suppositional bias or ideology.
Ever seen bad policy?
Ever wondered why?
Ever wondered if there is a better way? There is...or there used to be.
The Use of GMO Grains.
This saw a court case in Kojonup, set 2 neighbours against one another, said to have split the town in half and generally polarised the community, the grain growing community. The net result was a large amount of time, effort and money was spent by allowing the whole thing to go down the adversarial path, two sides slugging it out until one wins & one loses.
It recently also saw a representative from the Pastoralists & Graziers Association crow on ABC Radio about how they successfully fought for their member and how "Steve Marsh picked on the wrong person".
Adversarial slug out solidified.
The PGA and all others in representative groups, including political, not just agri-political could have taken the middle road but didn't. It could have been the opportunity the PGA needed to show real leadership in the field and go mediator, arbiter for both sides to arrive at a settlement without legal action. By settlement I mean not a pay out, but a position the PGA could have fought for, on behalf of both farmers, even though one wasn't a PGA member.
The thing is, both parties should have the right to grow either organic certified crops, traditional crops or GMO crops without penalty or threat of penalty via contamination. One thing is for sure, the contamination thresholds were clearly too low. If there is scientifically proven threat to health by say a contamination level of 1% then show us the science. If the grain is processed it may be that all health threats are already eliminated, if indeed they existed in an unprocessed state.
Legal action may have been needed if their was malicious intent, but by media reporting it seems both parties were not malicious in planting their own crops. The fault here lay mainly with the certification bodies and if they won't change, then a multi-peril crop insurance may need to cover this eventuality in the future.
In any case, it wasn't about ensuring a middle ground sensible approach that could avoid a community split, it was about 2 sides and the whiff of a legal triumph in the wind the PGA noticed and sought to capitalise upon. A trump rather than seek a solution via legislation in the state parliament.
And yes, there is fault to be found there with the WA Parliament too. This should have been nipped in the bud to allow leeway for 2 neighbouring properties to grow what they prefer without penalty but with some sort of safety net.
Its now developing into a pro GM & anti GM battlefield with the lines drawn and common sense is the first casualty. If we were to set policy, we'd need to look at this without bias and see how both parties can be able to plant which ever crop they choose, without great penalty. Clearly the GM threshold is too low for some certified organic crops and it leaves growers exposed to great loss if they exceed very low levels.
Is there a health risk? Answer I've found so far is there'd be no risk at 40% and if that were the cut off threshold, most growers would seek new certified clean grain once it got to 25% levels perhaps lower. The thing is, both the Organic Grower needs his/her crop protected to some point, and the GM neighbour needs legal protection to some point too.
This outcome pushed 2 sides against one another, split a community and derailed the chances of sensible policy amongst the PGA, the parliament and the community. Now we have 2 opposite sides, instead of 2 groups in the one industry. Divided neighbours who may never come together ever again. How that can be portrayed as any sort of good outcome I'll never know.
Policy setting in this instance was adversarial and not middle ground with the grain industry as a whole in mind. It was a prime chance to set 2 different parts of the grains industry as 2 parts of the same community. Instead one side went on the attack, the other went into siege mode & we saw a long protracted slug fest where no one except perhaps the legal community gaining any productivity out of it.
It should never have been a time to choose organic or choose GMO, it should have been a time to protect 2 parts of the same grain industry forever more.
This is a classic example where 2 pre-suppositional sides of bias went head long into battle with some people not directly involved keenly seeking out "facts" to back the position they'd already chosen,
Its very hard to avoid being pre-suppositional, but its a trait of good statesmen of times past...well if not good statesmen then at least good legislators. We were seen to be lacking in that department in WA with the PGA now copping (fairly or unfairly) some flak over getting involved to turn a big visual public relations boost.
The Organic/GMO stand off continues but it serves as a poignant reminder that debate without rigour is policy death. The destination is not your side winning, but the industry as a whole having a fair outcome.
If we don't return to traditional community supportive outcomes we will continue down the path of becoming American like where legal action is the first and last option and the wealthiest litigant will prevail whether they're right or not.
Policy has to be clear, well thought out, be in the nation interest or the interest that serves the best for the most in society or those involved. It must also have good science involved and yes sharp rigour from devil's advocates lest you end up with emperor's new clothes syndrome.
Once its arrived at, it needs to be widely known and as best as is possible, be widely understood. Agreement is not always widely found, but if its formed properly even I can go with policy I'm not in full agreement with because sometimes fairness is not found within pre-suppositional bias or ideology.
Ever seen bad policy?
Ever wondered why?
Ever wondered if there is a better way? There is...or there used to be.
Friday, 16 September 2016
Contradictions and Political Footballs
Contradictions & Political Footballs
(Additions to follow as time allows)
(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.
Friday, 26 August 2016
Same Sex Marriage Plebecite Discussion
Same Sex Marriage has become very topical and pretty hotly debated but aside from the usual up front "Are you for or against?" line designed to knock people off the fence and choose a side, what about the side issues. Yes the side issues that exist for those of any leaning.
General answer is, its as Senator Richard DiNatale said, currently its a denial of a fundamental human right. To put it more accurately, from the Greens website "The Greens believe that freedom of sexuality and gender identity are fundamental human rights"
Well they probably, quite genuinely & honestly do believe that, but strangely from a Biblical point of view, they're quite right. You DO get to choose. You may be denied human rights but Scripture is clear, we choose to follow God's Word or break it. So actually, the only denial a person faces is via the law of the land. At present if you identify as Same Sex Attraction oriented, you're good to go, no long wagon train to a concentration camp. Your persecution really exists as not being able to be legally married as Men & Women have since laws became laws in Australia. In fact if you look closely DiNatale gives the impression you are denied a human right by not having the freedom to identify sexuality & gender. No such denial exists. You are denied the legal process of a legal marriage though.
For most of us, what people do, chose to do is their own business. But the REAL issue is can a same sex couple marry? Currently no but is it a human rights violation? No one has tested that but currently the answer is no. In Richard Di Natale's (and the Greens) case its a recognised fundamental human right...well if so how so, please present the standard by which you make the claim.
If we look to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, go to Article 16 it states...
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
No mention or inference nor clear cut clarity on Same Sex Marriage. You can argue "Men and women" means mixed gender marriage or it means both genders have the right to marry any gender but it doesn't say anything like that. In 1948 I'd suggest it was not the latter that was intended. Irrespective there is no clear case that denying SSM is a fundamental human rights issue. If you think it is, you should change the standard before making the claim.
If the Greens truly maintain that view then things will go awry when SSM is actually passed as law in Australia. How, why?
Its then possible for a same sex couple to approach a priest and ask the priest to perform the ceremony, to be married by him in his church. Now according to Di Natale's current claim that being unable to be Same Sex Married is indeed a denied "fundamental human right", the priest can be reported for refusing to marry same sex couples because he is effectively committing a human rights violation against the intending couple. Even if the priest/pastor is following their own Scriptures.
Yep I know, the argument will begin, but here's the thing human rights apply to humans, governments & groups. You cannot have a government denying human rights (by denying SSM) without a priest denying it if he denies to marry a couple when SSM becomes law.
A priest can deny human rights, but a whole country cannot?
Silliness. Dizzy yet?
Whether you support or oppose SSM, you cannot legitimately agree that DiNatale's "fundamental human right" is a legitimate argument when it fails intellectually flat. Say its unfair, or its get with the times or whatever else, but its not a Human Rights Violation.
Slavery, torture, murder, forced marriages, marriages of under age people, rape, genocide, child soldiers and any number of other Human Rights Violations occur every day in immense numbers in a lot of countries. Its estimated that 40,000 female sex slaves are sold & smuggled into Japan every year. Sorry, although not our country, that's a bigger travesty than SSM on the Human Rights Abuses list. Religious, cultural and racial persecution. Real human rights violations. Greens utter silence compared to their loud voice on SSM. There is some validity for saying the Greens will always push for preservation of human rights, more so when Christianity gets placed second or gets placed outside. I've heard the argument that they're more accommodating of eastern religion than Christianity or Judaism and it does kinda look that way from time to time.
But aside from that, at least the priest isn't intellectually corrupt. He can claim that SSM or Same Sex relations are immoral. How? Well he has a Moral Law, handed to him from a transcendant moral law giver. He actually has, through proper in context exegesis of Christian Scriptures, the ability to cite a moral law given by a transcendent creator God with which to judge an action as being moral or immoral. He cannot judge or condemn the person though.
Oh but if you don't believe there is a God, morals are just evolutionary traits, designed to make the gathered group work together better and more safely thrive. Mighty good for the group, but not binding until a legal system comes along and even then not morally binding.
If it were the case that there is no God at all, Morals are useful, engender co-operative interaction but really aren't binding. Morals are just a preferred but non binding code of practise, a code of conduct.
In fact if we notice some cultures have some things being ok, whilst others its not. Cannibalism is and was quite ok with some cultures, it wasn't just morally ok, it was a spiritual imperative for self improvement. European culture has a different view, even without the European being in the pot cooking we observe to opposite cultures. We soon see that whilst some will call them cultural differences, or regional points of distinction, fact is they're different and for the atheist, they are all invented by humans over time. They are relative and they're only binding by whatever legal system is in place.
Meaning (if you're an honest atheist) in countries of the Middle East where SSM is not allowed under law, its cultural and/or regional, decided by the majority as a part of law. Some its a result of religion, but if you don't believe in God its not moral or immoral. Its the law and its based on cultural differences. In any case its relative, not universal as a Human Right is supposed to be. Keep it, break it, change it but its not a fundamental human right.
Headline of the future maybe...
"PASTOR IMPRISONED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS"
because perhaps he stuck with his religion & refused to marry a Same Sex couple.
If we stick with the DiNatale line, a Priest/Pastor refusing to marry a SSM is breaching Human Rights. Strangely if a Priest/Pastor who is forced to marry SSM against their will, that has its own human rights violations problem. See Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."Come on Richard, support or oppose SSM. Support a Plebiscite or Act of Parliament, we really don't care, but apply rigor to your argument, keep it uncorrupted and cogent.
Now here's the thing, its bad enough that the SSM issue is an issue at all. Its somehow, in the mind of the Greens, leap frogged all other Human Rights Violations in priority even though SSM will affect less than 2% of the Australian population. How did an issue affecting so few, come to impact so many at potential a huge cost to the public purse?
The Courier Mail reported the Greens propose to decriminalise Ice & party drugs in general.
I think I could be forgiven for thinking the Greens have little credibility in areas of great harm and their moral compass has dead batteries.
Legal Ice is good, Illegal SSM a breach & violation of human rights. Yep, I got it.
Richard needs to get his act together or go harder so he is taken for the loud fool he is and therefore more readily dismissed by clear thinking Australian.
Now before you yell Intolerant Bigot at me, I haven't even said I support/oppose SSM.
But if you yell that you should first be reasonable about the dangerous absurdity of DiNatale's basis of claims and be well hoarse in the throat before you "GUESS" where I stand and make a condemning judgement. Maybe you need the wise council of a good pastor.
If that Pastor uses proper in context exegesis to explain his moral compass and you reject it, he might yet tell you not to follow Richard's themes because they're twisted and not actually human rights abuses as Richard claims. Remember just because you like something doesn't make it moral or ok.
Just because you don't like something or you're being denied something, you should not use emotional leverage like citing Human Rights to bolster your otherwise bland and lacking argument.
Richard, stop the tricky dicky. Prosecute your position with proper reason please.
General answer is, its as Senator Richard DiNatale said, currently its a denial of a fundamental human right. To put it more accurately, from the Greens website "The Greens believe that freedom of sexuality and gender identity are fundamental human rights"
Well they probably, quite genuinely & honestly do believe that, but strangely from a Biblical point of view, they're quite right. You DO get to choose. You may be denied human rights but Scripture is clear, we choose to follow God's Word or break it. So actually, the only denial a person faces is via the law of the land. At present if you identify as Same Sex Attraction oriented, you're good to go, no long wagon train to a concentration camp. Your persecution really exists as not being able to be legally married as Men & Women have since laws became laws in Australia. In fact if you look closely DiNatale gives the impression you are denied a human right by not having the freedom to identify sexuality & gender. No such denial exists. You are denied the legal process of a legal marriage though.
For most of us, what people do, chose to do is their own business. But the REAL issue is can a same sex couple marry? Currently no but is it a human rights violation? No one has tested that but currently the answer is no. In Richard Di Natale's (and the Greens) case its a recognised fundamental human right...well if so how so, please present the standard by which you make the claim.
If we look to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, go to Article 16 it states...
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
No mention or inference nor clear cut clarity on Same Sex Marriage. You can argue "Men and women" means mixed gender marriage or it means both genders have the right to marry any gender but it doesn't say anything like that. In 1948 I'd suggest it was not the latter that was intended. Irrespective there is no clear case that denying SSM is a fundamental human rights issue. If you think it is, you should change the standard before making the claim.
If the Greens truly maintain that view then things will go awry when SSM is actually passed as law in Australia. How, why?
Its then possible for a same sex couple to approach a priest and ask the priest to perform the ceremony, to be married by him in his church. Now according to Di Natale's current claim that being unable to be Same Sex Married is indeed a denied "fundamental human right", the priest can be reported for refusing to marry same sex couples because he is effectively committing a human rights violation against the intending couple. Even if the priest/pastor is following their own Scriptures.
Yep I know, the argument will begin, but here's the thing human rights apply to humans, governments & groups. You cannot have a government denying human rights (by denying SSM) without a priest denying it if he denies to marry a couple when SSM becomes law.
A priest can deny human rights, but a whole country cannot?
Silliness. Dizzy yet?
Whether you support or oppose SSM, you cannot legitimately agree that DiNatale's "fundamental human right" is a legitimate argument when it fails intellectually flat. Say its unfair, or its get with the times or whatever else, but its not a Human Rights Violation.
Slavery, torture, murder, forced marriages, marriages of under age people, rape, genocide, child soldiers and any number of other Human Rights Violations occur every day in immense numbers in a lot of countries. Its estimated that 40,000 female sex slaves are sold & smuggled into Japan every year. Sorry, although not our country, that's a bigger travesty than SSM on the Human Rights Abuses list. Religious, cultural and racial persecution. Real human rights violations. Greens utter silence compared to their loud voice on SSM. There is some validity for saying the Greens will always push for preservation of human rights, more so when Christianity gets placed second or gets placed outside. I've heard the argument that they're more accommodating of eastern religion than Christianity or Judaism and it does kinda look that way from time to time.
But aside from that, at least the priest isn't intellectually corrupt. He can claim that SSM or Same Sex relations are immoral. How? Well he has a Moral Law, handed to him from a transcendant moral law giver. He actually has, through proper in context exegesis of Christian Scriptures, the ability to cite a moral law given by a transcendent creator God with which to judge an action as being moral or immoral. He cannot judge or condemn the person though.
Oh but if you don't believe there is a God, morals are just evolutionary traits, designed to make the gathered group work together better and more safely thrive. Mighty good for the group, but not binding until a legal system comes along and even then not morally binding.
If it were the case that there is no God at all, Morals are useful, engender co-operative interaction but really aren't binding. Morals are just a preferred but non binding code of practise, a code of conduct.
In fact if we notice some cultures have some things being ok, whilst others its not. Cannibalism is and was quite ok with some cultures, it wasn't just morally ok, it was a spiritual imperative for self improvement. European culture has a different view, even without the European being in the pot cooking we observe to opposite cultures. We soon see that whilst some will call them cultural differences, or regional points of distinction, fact is they're different and for the atheist, they are all invented by humans over time. They are relative and they're only binding by whatever legal system is in place.
Meaning (if you're an honest atheist) in countries of the Middle East where SSM is not allowed under law, its cultural and/or regional, decided by the majority as a part of law. Some its a result of religion, but if you don't believe in God its not moral or immoral. Its the law and its based on cultural differences. In any case its relative, not universal as a Human Right is supposed to be. Keep it, break it, change it but its not a fundamental human right.
Headline of the future maybe...
"PASTOR IMPRISONED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS"
because perhaps he stuck with his religion & refused to marry a Same Sex couple.
If we stick with the DiNatale line, a Priest/Pastor refusing to marry a SSM is breaching Human Rights. Strangely if a Priest/Pastor who is forced to marry SSM against their will, that has its own human rights violations problem. See Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."Come on Richard, support or oppose SSM. Support a Plebiscite or Act of Parliament, we really don't care, but apply rigor to your argument, keep it uncorrupted and cogent.
Now here's the thing, its bad enough that the SSM issue is an issue at all. Its somehow, in the mind of the Greens, leap frogged all other Human Rights Violations in priority even though SSM will affect less than 2% of the Australian population. How did an issue affecting so few, come to impact so many at potential a huge cost to the public purse?
The Courier Mail reported the Greens propose to decriminalise Ice & party drugs in general.
I think I could be forgiven for thinking the Greens have little credibility in areas of great harm and their moral compass has dead batteries.
Legal Ice is good, Illegal SSM a breach & violation of human rights. Yep, I got it.
Richard needs to get his act together or go harder so he is taken for the loud fool he is and therefore more readily dismissed by clear thinking Australian.
Now before you yell Intolerant Bigot at me, I haven't even said I support/oppose SSM.
But if you yell that you should first be reasonable about the dangerous absurdity of DiNatale's basis of claims and be well hoarse in the throat before you "GUESS" where I stand and make a condemning judgement. Maybe you need the wise council of a good pastor.
If that Pastor uses proper in context exegesis to explain his moral compass and you reject it, he might yet tell you not to follow Richard's themes because they're twisted and not actually human rights abuses as Richard claims. Remember just because you like something doesn't make it moral or ok.
Just because you don't like something or you're being denied something, you should not use emotional leverage like citing Human Rights to bolster your otherwise bland and lacking argument.
Richard, stop the tricky dicky. Prosecute your position with proper reason please.
Sunday, 14 August 2016
Bigotry, how hard is it to define?
Bigotry - based on ignorance, its drives a dogma on, despite data or facts...well that's my view at least. First person to yell bigot somehow isn't a bigot somehow. Its a debate closer. Any discussion on feminism that goes places with full sunlight to search out more facts can from some people urge the yelling of "Sexist pig". Other debates "Capitalist dog", "Agrarian Socialist", "Lazy Bludger scum" "Scab". The derogatory name tag of unfair bias, immoral hypocrite etc is meant as a convenient shut down button to discourse and free thinking by the plain dim witted. Its using bias to shut the differing opinion.
Radical vegans will call hunters "Murderers" and dairy workers "rapists"
Its a bizarre Year 3 logic tanty tactic that's slowly taking over & taps into people's fear of being branded "offensive"...the bigot is the offensive bigot therefore they are to be railed, ridiculed and prevented from exploring anything on the subject.
Now this came up in a twitter feed of a well known, very well regarded Journo. I don't always agree with him, but he challenges people's thinking, challenges mine. He's been accused of being a Liberal Stooge & a Labor Stooge. How that works I don't know but it works in his favour as far as journalistic credentials. Badge of honour whether he know, cares or not.
So even though we disagree from time to time, I hold him in some high regard.
Now on his feed the topic of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) came up. This journo's only comments were about where we'd be in years to come looking at the plebiscite. He made no comment about Christians, but another person in the feed did. The journo did well not to get drawn in.
But I did.
In short, genuine Christians would not shave beards & would avoid shell fish if they were true genuine Christians. The premise is "times have changed" and you should never cherry pick some things to be ok for change. Its all or nothing. If you prefer to be clean shaven or decide its ok to chow down on prawns, crays or yabbies you must also be ok with SSM. Its about being consistent
Extended, if shaving is ok then so too is eating shell fish or having a same sex relationship because all Leviticus must either be maintained or dismissed.
Here's where it runs aground badly.
The shaving, shell fish thing, that's Levitical/Mosaic Law. It was still in effect when Christ was born, lived and even as He died, but when He became the New Covenant it was already gone. It stayed on in practice, but as far as God & Christ were concerned, it passed away before Christ did. So its not in effect today so no one has to feel the need to avoid shell fish or never shave.
Christ was clear, what comes out of the mouth is what defiles a man, not what he eats.
Secondly, Levitical & Mosaic Law ONLY applied to the Hebrews, not Gentiles then nor Christians at anytime. Using it now as some sort of twisted leverage device to allow Same Sex Relations within God's Word is wrong. 100% Scripturally wrong. 100% False Exegesis.
When the Temple was destroyed, around 78AD, it was definitely 100% gone for Jews as well.
Then up comes the clobber clause, which says in Luke 7:1-10 that the centurion came to Christ to get his "slave" healed, which Christ did. The claim is that in the Greek, in which the New Testament was written, the word slave should be replaced with the word "lover" because in the Greek it uses the word "pais" which translates to lover.
The contention is, the sick servant on the edge of death was the centurion's same sex lover. True or not we don't know, but this is held up as Christ being quite ok with Same Sex Relationships.
Thing is, it doesn't.
What it says is Christ will be there for anyone wanting to be saved. None of us are worthy, all of us are sinners. That no matter who you are, you cannot get into Heaven without Christ. The Bible is clear that forgiveness is there for anyone who genuinely asks for it, even murderers, thieves and adulterers.
So yes, Christ being Christ he healed the "slave" without even seeing him.
So why mention this slave being healed at all? He saved a centurion's servant but what's the big deal, what's the big point, why is it so relevant?
Christ referred to the centurion as having the greatest faith in Israel. It has to be more than that.
Its possible the slave and the centurion were lovers & this is showing even people on the widest extremes of sinning have a chance of salvation & redemption. After all the Scriptures describe homosexuality as an "abomination" before God. He Hates it.
If the centurion had the greatest faith in Israel, its most likely he was no longer in a homosexual relationship with the slave. He called Christ "Rabbi", he was clearly a follower of Christ so its not hard to think God was showing that any sinner, even those guilty of "abomination" before God could, if they asked, be saved. Christ didn't do things for the sake of doing things. There was meaning and instruction involved.
Levitical & Mosaic Laws were gone, but God's Law was not. If it was an abomination before God in the beginning, it still is today as it was when Christ walked the earth.
The thing that some people don't get, can't answer and don't like being pointed out to them is this...
If God has changed His mind and is now perfectly ok with homosexuality well he's going to have to apologise to everyone from Sodom & Gomorrah. At no point did He say someone is devoid of hope or salvation. Those that aren't saved are those who don't ask for it. Its become this "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach that spells it out most eloquently. If there was a same sex turn around by God or Christ, it has huge implications and would not have stayed as something that's inferred , it would be clearly spelt out. It is not because that's not how it is.
Here's another very clear comparison. Christ saved a prostitute from being stoned to death, he didn't do that to say young school leavers today, short of a few dollars, are now ok to enter into the sex trade.
Now if you're pushing a doctrine that's based on ignorance you can call it bigotry. The doctrine of twisting Scripture you don't believe in nor understand to somehow call Christians "bigots" is sadly full blown bigotry itself.
If I could I'd challenge this Scripture twisters to the simplest of tests, a simple question.
How many wise men visited Jesus in the manger?
Now I bet London to a brick, that despite all the nativity plays at school, despite all the nativity scenes on Christmas cards and in shop windows most would get it wrong...
Maybe not always. Some will get it right after cohorts get it thoroughly wrong and are embarrassed.
But regardless if they're relying on Shell fish & beard arguments to somehow undermine Christians as hypocrites they're going to come unstuck...or they'll continue along falsely believing that which isn't so and deceiving others who are not sure.
I think ALL humans are hypocritical. Moral high ground has few if any full time residents and generally those who think they possess it the most, probably possess it the least.
If you're game, go to the comment section below & say how many wise men you think visited Jesus in the manger. Just a number will do or if you're a more private person PM/Email me a number. No prize or penalty.
And you won't get called Bigot ;-)
Radical vegans will call hunters "Murderers" and dairy workers "rapists"
Its a bizarre Year 3 logic tanty tactic that's slowly taking over & taps into people's fear of being branded "offensive"...the bigot is the offensive bigot therefore they are to be railed, ridiculed and prevented from exploring anything on the subject.
Now this came up in a twitter feed of a well known, very well regarded Journo. I don't always agree with him, but he challenges people's thinking, challenges mine. He's been accused of being a Liberal Stooge & a Labor Stooge. How that works I don't know but it works in his favour as far as journalistic credentials. Badge of honour whether he know, cares or not.
So even though we disagree from time to time, I hold him in some high regard.
Now on his feed the topic of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) came up. This journo's only comments were about where we'd be in years to come looking at the plebiscite. He made no comment about Christians, but another person in the feed did. The journo did well not to get drawn in.
But I did.
In short, genuine Christians would not shave beards & would avoid shell fish if they were true genuine Christians. The premise is "times have changed" and you should never cherry pick some things to be ok for change. Its all or nothing. If you prefer to be clean shaven or decide its ok to chow down on prawns, crays or yabbies you must also be ok with SSM. Its about being consistent
Extended, if shaving is ok then so too is eating shell fish or having a same sex relationship because all Leviticus must either be maintained or dismissed.
Here's where it runs aground badly.
The shaving, shell fish thing, that's Levitical/Mosaic Law. It was still in effect when Christ was born, lived and even as He died, but when He became the New Covenant it was already gone. It stayed on in practice, but as far as God & Christ were concerned, it passed away before Christ did. So its not in effect today so no one has to feel the need to avoid shell fish or never shave.
Christ was clear, what comes out of the mouth is what defiles a man, not what he eats.
Secondly, Levitical & Mosaic Law ONLY applied to the Hebrews, not Gentiles then nor Christians at anytime. Using it now as some sort of twisted leverage device to allow Same Sex Relations within God's Word is wrong. 100% Scripturally wrong. 100% False Exegesis.
When the Temple was destroyed, around 78AD, it was definitely 100% gone for Jews as well.
Then up comes the clobber clause, which says in Luke 7:1-10 that the centurion came to Christ to get his "slave" healed, which Christ did. The claim is that in the Greek, in which the New Testament was written, the word slave should be replaced with the word "lover" because in the Greek it uses the word "pais" which translates to lover.
The contention is, the sick servant on the edge of death was the centurion's same sex lover. True or not we don't know, but this is held up as Christ being quite ok with Same Sex Relationships.
Thing is, it doesn't.
What it says is Christ will be there for anyone wanting to be saved. None of us are worthy, all of us are sinners. That no matter who you are, you cannot get into Heaven without Christ. The Bible is clear that forgiveness is there for anyone who genuinely asks for it, even murderers, thieves and adulterers.
So yes, Christ being Christ he healed the "slave" without even seeing him.
So why mention this slave being healed at all? He saved a centurion's servant but what's the big deal, what's the big point, why is it so relevant?
Christ referred to the centurion as having the greatest faith in Israel. It has to be more than that.
Its possible the slave and the centurion were lovers & this is showing even people on the widest extremes of sinning have a chance of salvation & redemption. After all the Scriptures describe homosexuality as an "abomination" before God. He Hates it.
If the centurion had the greatest faith in Israel, its most likely he was no longer in a homosexual relationship with the slave. He called Christ "Rabbi", he was clearly a follower of Christ so its not hard to think God was showing that any sinner, even those guilty of "abomination" before God could, if they asked, be saved. Christ didn't do things for the sake of doing things. There was meaning and instruction involved.
Levitical & Mosaic Laws were gone, but God's Law was not. If it was an abomination before God in the beginning, it still is today as it was when Christ walked the earth.
The thing that some people don't get, can't answer and don't like being pointed out to them is this...
If God has changed His mind and is now perfectly ok with homosexuality well he's going to have to apologise to everyone from Sodom & Gomorrah. At no point did He say someone is devoid of hope or salvation. Those that aren't saved are those who don't ask for it. Its become this "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach that spells it out most eloquently. If there was a same sex turn around by God or Christ, it has huge implications and would not have stayed as something that's inferred , it would be clearly spelt out. It is not because that's not how it is.
Here's another very clear comparison. Christ saved a prostitute from being stoned to death, he didn't do that to say young school leavers today, short of a few dollars, are now ok to enter into the sex trade.
Now if you're pushing a doctrine that's based on ignorance you can call it bigotry. The doctrine of twisting Scripture you don't believe in nor understand to somehow call Christians "bigots" is sadly full blown bigotry itself.
If I could I'd challenge this Scripture twisters to the simplest of tests, a simple question.
How many wise men visited Jesus in the manger?
Now I bet London to a brick, that despite all the nativity plays at school, despite all the nativity scenes on Christmas cards and in shop windows most would get it wrong...
Maybe not always. Some will get it right after cohorts get it thoroughly wrong and are embarrassed.
But regardless if they're relying on Shell fish & beard arguments to somehow undermine Christians as hypocrites they're going to come unstuck...or they'll continue along falsely believing that which isn't so and deceiving others who are not sure.
I think ALL humans are hypocritical. Moral high ground has few if any full time residents and generally those who think they possess it the most, probably possess it the least.
If you're game, go to the comment section below & say how many wise men you think visited Jesus in the manger. Just a number will do or if you're a more private person PM/Email me a number. No prize or penalty.
And you won't get called Bigot ;-)
Saturday, 23 July 2016
Women Quotas For Parliament.
At first it seems like a good idea & perhaps it has some merit if some good women with merit are being blocked because of a boys club. The worry is that this will turn into an engineered outcome and the possibility that might create outcomes that are unfair with any critics being labelled sexist bigots or the like.
If that happens, then it can be a detrimental outcome, an outcome of unfairness protected by a system that was supposed to stop such rorts. First off though lets look at what we know and prod at what we don't.
We know the numbers of women in Parliament are vastly outnumbered by the numbers of men. This has been deemed to be unfair. Without question any person who's qualified and of good merit who's been kicked outside due to a purple circle manipulating things to their chosen outcome is unfair and repugnant.
Is 50/50 representation on the front bench a thing we should try to attain, or recognise when it does happen?
Here's the thing. Some women in the corporate board sphere have reported that being the first woman through the door is brilliant. It affords you a slightly more equal position and many men unsure of gender politics over compensate in trying to be equal. Some have even acknowledged that being the first through the door sometimes (in earlier days) was easier than being the second through the door, that the first women through have protected their position by helping to install a glass ceiling themselves. True or not I don't know...but its some women's claim and one prominent director admitted she'd been guilty of it.
Any system to rectify glass ceilings must encompass all of those wishing to create favour. Factions must come into it (good luck). It must prevent token women coming in, token men coming in.
And before we get to a set of policies and procedures to curtail the various purple circles, what do the numbers say already? How many women have sought pre-selection in each party? What percentage of pre-selection applicants are women? If you have 85% men & 15% women then how is a 50/50 front bench fair and equitable and equality based?
How too does what ever checks & balances introduced ensure no token women are introduced to reach the required numbers? There are some under performers in Parliament now, some are men, some are women. How do we install a performance evaluation criteria across every MP, an independent scoring system to see what their ratings are? And should we...short answer yes, sooner the better.
Its all well and good to call for equality, but for who?
Why is there a gender quota being pushed for Federal Parliament, yet no one is pushing for 50/50 gender representation in sewerage industry workers? Or panel beaters and roo shooters. Is there a quota required for the nursing profession? Its generally female but shouldn't we be pushing and legislating for 50/50 male/female numbers?
What about teaching, is there more men or more women? Both serve well if they're good teachers that is. For many school kids a male role model is absent at home and one running the class room is a positive thing for several of the years of a child's schooling. Quotas anyone?
I've seen female shearers. Do we apply legislation to ensure half of all shearers are women? Rubbish collectors?
What about chefs? Can anyone sit in a restaurant and say definitively "that meal was definitely prepared by a man & that one definitely by a woman" ?
No they can't. And in pushing for equality some of the structures that get built are walls not bridges.
And why do we only focus on quotas on the high paid ministerial positions?
The thing is, in Parliament we lack measures of proper performance. If such a regular rating was applied and the final score presented prior to polling day we'd have a much better chance of having merit based MPs irrespective of their gender. Which I suspect is how it should be anyway. Isn't it? People judged on their abilities not their gender, faction, religion, family ties?
A progressive party could put 2 people on the ballot paper if they were allowed to, but they have to put one first ahead of the other. Toss a coin? Yeah, merit removed again and people encouraged to vote whichever way they want but some suggestion that voting based on gender?
It concerns me all this talk of gender bias and gender equality. True gender equality is when people get the job based on merit, experience and all other performance related criteria. True gender equality is when we're happy or unhappy with your rep because they're really good/bad & gender doesn't come into it.
Again, how many men & women applied for pre-selection for each party for each seat?
Some seats have no women apply for pre-selection at all. How is that factored in without skewing data & applied outcomes via regulation?
Julie Bishop is a good party member to the detriment of her electorate some argue but she's a woman, she's in arguably one of the safest, if not the safest Liberal seats in the country. She's deputy party leader. Did she overcome the purple circle, is she part of the purple circle, did she get there despite the purple circle. Do we apply gender fairness & let her in only every 2nd election and have a man represent Cowan in the terms in between? No that's madness...gender equal madness.
Quotas are a quick fix idea with perhaps a lot of thought behind them, but certainly very little wisdom.
Just looking at the gender split on the floor of parliament is not enough & regulating a 50/50 split wouldn't happen in real life, so why apply it only to very high paid Canberra MP positions?
If that happens, then it can be a detrimental outcome, an outcome of unfairness protected by a system that was supposed to stop such rorts. First off though lets look at what we know and prod at what we don't.
We know the numbers of women in Parliament are vastly outnumbered by the numbers of men. This has been deemed to be unfair. Without question any person who's qualified and of good merit who's been kicked outside due to a purple circle manipulating things to their chosen outcome is unfair and repugnant.
Is 50/50 representation on the front bench a thing we should try to attain, or recognise when it does happen?
Here's the thing. Some women in the corporate board sphere have reported that being the first woman through the door is brilliant. It affords you a slightly more equal position and many men unsure of gender politics over compensate in trying to be equal. Some have even acknowledged that being the first through the door sometimes (in earlier days) was easier than being the second through the door, that the first women through have protected their position by helping to install a glass ceiling themselves. True or not I don't know...but its some women's claim and one prominent director admitted she'd been guilty of it.
Any system to rectify glass ceilings must encompass all of those wishing to create favour. Factions must come into it (good luck). It must prevent token women coming in, token men coming in.
And before we get to a set of policies and procedures to curtail the various purple circles, what do the numbers say already? How many women have sought pre-selection in each party? What percentage of pre-selection applicants are women? If you have 85% men & 15% women then how is a 50/50 front bench fair and equitable and equality based?
How too does what ever checks & balances introduced ensure no token women are introduced to reach the required numbers? There are some under performers in Parliament now, some are men, some are women. How do we install a performance evaluation criteria across every MP, an independent scoring system to see what their ratings are? And should we...short answer yes, sooner the better.
Its all well and good to call for equality, but for who?
Why is there a gender quota being pushed for Federal Parliament, yet no one is pushing for 50/50 gender representation in sewerage industry workers? Or panel beaters and roo shooters. Is there a quota required for the nursing profession? Its generally female but shouldn't we be pushing and legislating for 50/50 male/female numbers?
What about teaching, is there more men or more women? Both serve well if they're good teachers that is. For many school kids a male role model is absent at home and one running the class room is a positive thing for several of the years of a child's schooling. Quotas anyone?
I've seen female shearers. Do we apply legislation to ensure half of all shearers are women? Rubbish collectors?
What about chefs? Can anyone sit in a restaurant and say definitively "that meal was definitely prepared by a man & that one definitely by a woman" ?
No they can't. And in pushing for equality some of the structures that get built are walls not bridges.
And why do we only focus on quotas on the high paid ministerial positions?
The thing is, in Parliament we lack measures of proper performance. If such a regular rating was applied and the final score presented prior to polling day we'd have a much better chance of having merit based MPs irrespective of their gender. Which I suspect is how it should be anyway. Isn't it? People judged on their abilities not their gender, faction, religion, family ties?
A progressive party could put 2 people on the ballot paper if they were allowed to, but they have to put one first ahead of the other. Toss a coin? Yeah, merit removed again and people encouraged to vote whichever way they want but some suggestion that voting based on gender?
It concerns me all this talk of gender bias and gender equality. True gender equality is when people get the job based on merit, experience and all other performance related criteria. True gender equality is when we're happy or unhappy with your rep because they're really good/bad & gender doesn't come into it.
Again, how many men & women applied for pre-selection for each party for each seat?
Some seats have no women apply for pre-selection at all. How is that factored in without skewing data & applied outcomes via regulation?
Julie Bishop is a good party member to the detriment of her electorate some argue but she's a woman, she's in arguably one of the safest, if not the safest Liberal seats in the country. She's deputy party leader. Did she overcome the purple circle, is she part of the purple circle, did she get there despite the purple circle. Do we apply gender fairness & let her in only every 2nd election and have a man represent Cowan in the terms in between? No that's madness...gender equal madness.
Quotas are a quick fix idea with perhaps a lot of thought behind them, but certainly very little wisdom.
Just looking at the gender split on the floor of parliament is not enough & regulating a 50/50 split wouldn't happen in real life, so why apply it only to very high paid Canberra MP positions?
Remove ceilings and impediments and demand merit based, but 50/50 quotas can, when misused, actually favour ones gender over another at the cost of merit. It also makes gender a criteria...that's the bloody very thing we should be trying to stamp out.
What do you think? I'm gunna get some hate mail aren't I?
What do you think? I'm gunna get some hate mail aren't I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)