The Australian Greens party

[Smurf1976]

How do you identify the group which is not representative unless you say who they are? In saying that, there are few alternatives to describing them other than them being white men.

I thought everyone was to be treated as an equal.

The issue is the notion that white men and "others" are not equal.

It's obvious that a farmer, plumber or someone who served in the military will have different life experiences through their occupation to a lawyer or dentist. That is obvious.

I don't however follow the argument that someone who is black is fundamentally different to someone who is white unless by virtue of their life experiences, in which case it is the life experience not race which is the difference.

In other words, I do not see "black" versus "white" as a legitimate basis for discrimination in 99.9% of circumstances. The other 0.1% = actors playing the role of a real person, medical research looking at a specific section of the population, etc.

 

[wayneL]

The C grade sophistry from Red here is like watching Neighbors, irritatingly amateurish and bloody unbearable.

I'm off to the pub for a XXXX or 17 with people who livein the real world.

A diverse group down at the local, with whom I've been trying to score intersectional oppression points for being the only tatoo-less, yet sesquipedalian bogun in the whole suburb.

They seem to believe I have scar privilege however.

 

[rederob]

Discrimination itself isn't a problem. It's discrimination on the basis of race which is the issue here since with few exceptions there is no rational reason for doing so.

Racism and discrimination are conceptually very different. The point you made was the opposite.

 

[moXJO]

For the umteenth time, they belong a group which which clearly is not representative of the broader community and I believe that to be a fact. Jordan's vision is for a Parliament which is.
Before Jordan spoke, Penney Wong spoke. In accepting their respective prizes for outstanding political leadership both spoke out strongly against racism and hate speech. Neither could be described as able bodied white men, yet it is this group which leads the principal parties - despite their being better alternatives imho.
To construe white in a pejorative manner, as distinct from a matter of fact, would require that Jordan somewhere said they were inferior/superior and included prejudicial comments. He made no such remarks. Instead, his theme was of the need for people in Parliament to be representative of the broader community. In that context it is reasonable to identify what needs to change for Jordan's vision to be realised.
Issues of who is ultimately elected and their responsibility to their constituents are quite separate from the value of diversity on the floors of the respective Houses. That diversity brings new perspectives into debate and policy formulation.
Jordan is 24 years old, spoke without notes, and was passionate about what democracy can achieve with the values he enunciated as fundamental to leadership.

Is what his speech was if he didn't include his hook line.

Did you think that particular line needed to be added to the speech to convey that message?

 

[rederob]

The issue is the notion that white men and "others" are not equal.

Where is that an issue?
Jordan never makes such a point.

I don't however follow the argument that someone who is black is fundamentally different to someone who is white unless by virtue of their life experiences, in which case it is the life experience not race which is the difference.

There is no such argument that I am aware. From where do you derive that idea?

 

[explod]

Instigated by the Greens again. We are leading from behind:-

The PM has announced a Royal Commission into the violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of disabled people. This has been a long time coming, but finally there is some justice. Share this news with friends and family now.

Hi James
Together, we did it! There will be a Royal Commission into the violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect of disabled people.

Thank you to everyone who shared your stories, raised your voices, rang the PM, rang state and territory Premiers, wrote letters, wrote emails, talked to family and friends and kept fighting through years of abuse, neglect and violence so that future generations can live free of such things. I am overjoyed with what we have achieved together.

SHARE THIS AMAZING NEWS

Our Greens movement has been working with disability rights advocates to make this day a reality since the very beginning. We established and led the 2014 Senate investigation which revealed the widespread and systematic abuse experienced by disabled Australians everyday. We immediately called for a Royal Commission and continued to push for urgent action, despite the fact that the major parties didn't seem to care.

Because of our movement and the incredible advocates we have worked alongside, disabled Australians will now have an opportunity for justice that once seemed impossible.

This is not the end of the fight. In the months ahead we will need to make sure that the commission we get is the commission we need - not the one major party politicians want to give us.

But just for a moment let us take a breath. We won, we are powerful and when we come together change really is possible.

Thank you now, more than ever, for your support.

Yours in hope,

Senator Jordon Steele-John
Greens spokesperson for disability services

 

[Smurf1976]

For the record I agree with much of what he said. Our parliament comes nowhere close to representing the people but that is not a function of gender or race but rather, of life experience.

Where is that an issue?
Jordan never makes such a point.

How else does one interpret a specific group defined by race and gender being mentioned in the context of "it's over".

The comment sounds like an attack on "able bodied white men" as though this group is somehow a problem that needs to be dealt with.

There is no such argument that I am aware. From where do you derive that idea?

From the fact that he chose to focus on race, gender and the lack of any physical disability to define the group and in doing so referenced approximately 40% of the population.

That's an incredibly broad statement. Might as well cite one example of a Greens supporter doing something silly and say "Greens supporters" as though it applies to the whole lot. Etc.

To the actual issue, a Google search finds that so far as the background of our politicians are concerned:

25% - Executives, managers, directors etc.

14% - Political consultants, advisers, lobbyists

13% - Barristers, lawyers etc

10% - Party and union administrators

6% - Party and union officials

6% - Previously a state politician

4% - Public servants

4% - Other administrators and consultants

4% - Farmers etc

4% - Researchers, electorate officers etc

2% - Teachers of various sorts

2% - Medical profession

1% - Local government officials

5% - Other

Now of that lot the vast majority fit into the category of "elites" in that their occupation is either very highly paid, carries a high social status and/or is part of the political arena. This in no way could be considered as being even slightly representative of the average Australian who isn't a company director, union official, lobbyist, lawyer, state politician and so on.

Now, if he wanted to make a point then "The era of directors, lawyers, union bosses and career politicians controlling the parliament is over" would be hitting the nail a lot more firmly on the head I'd think.

Race isn't the issue so there was no need to mention it.

 

[explod]

And further to our policies:-

"
Only the Greens have a comprehensive plan to take real action on climate change!



Amy Gregorovich - Greens for La Trobe
37 mins ·
Greens:
‍ 170,000+ jobs
$84 billion better off for the economy
100% renewables by 2030"

 

[moXJO]

Talking about steele:

A Greens senator was tonight forced to make an embarrassing public apology after telling The West Australian columnist Gemma Tognini to “shut the f… up” and calling her a “right wing nut job” for her article saying students skipping school to protest for action on climate change were being used as political pawns. Senator Jordon Steele-John, who Tognini said she had never spoke to, lashed out at the writer on Twitter today. The article, Kids are being used as pawns in climate wars, said politicians were “weaponising kids for political leverage” and used today’s School Strike 4 Climate as an example. In response, Senator Steele-John tweeted that Tognini should “Support us (the kids) or STFU (shut the f... up)”. “Oh look, another #RWNJ who thinks young people have no agency.
The Greens have been long-standing supporters of gender equality and female empowerment. The first principle on the party’s website says “women have the right to equal respect.”

Senator Steele-John’s tweet has since been removed, but Tognini said she was so shocked by its message she took a screen shot. “He threatened me essentially,” she said. “The level of abuse was out of control.” Tognini said Senator Steele-John was “unfit to be in Parliament”.. “It’s not OK. That kind of language from a senator to a constituent, male or female, is unacceptable,” she told The West Australian. Tognini argued as a columnist it was her job to encourage respectful debate - a mission evident in her articles. “But I’ve never received a response like that before,” she said.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/the...dent-climate-action-strike-ng-b881136511z.amp

Not sure I'd say the abuse was "out of control" unless there was more to it.

 

[rederob]

How else does one interpret a specific group defined by race and gender being mentioned in the context of "it's over".

First, that has no relevance to my reply to your point: Your point was "The issue is the notion that white men and "others" are not equal."
Second, how else do you describe the predominant group of people elected to Parliament? This is a matter of FACT, not interpretation. What is it that you want to interpret?

The comment sounds like an attack on "able bodied white men" as though this group is somehow a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Yes, I see you and other make the very same claim without a scintilla of evidence to back the idea. Again, are they not able boded white men? And was it the case or otherwise that Jordan clearly spelt out what how the Parliament could be better representative of the broader community?

From the fact that he chose to focus on race, gender and the lack of any physical disability to define the group and in doing so referenced approximately 40% of the population.

He chose no such thing. This group exists as a matter of fact in our Parliament.
However, that did not explain what I questioned which was how you got this idea, "I don't however follow the argument that someone who is black is fundamentally different to someone who is white unless by virtue of their life experiences..." There is no such argument that I am aware except for you creating it here.

 

[rederob]

"The era of directors, lawyers, union bosses and career politicians controlling the parliament is over" would be hitting the nail a lot more firmly on the head I'd think.

In other words it is ok to specifically identify the composition of Parliament which, clearly from an occupational perspective, is not representative. But that omits the lack of representation based on gender, ethnicity and ability. Which means you and those others posting like you fail to grasp the context of Jordan's speech and, for that matter, the reasons why the prizes were awarded to him and to Penny Wong.

 

[moXJO]

In other words it is ok to specifically identify the composition of Parliament which, clearly from an occupational perspective, is not representative. But that omits the lack of representation based on gender, ethnicity and ability. Which means you and those others posting like you fail to grasp the context of Jordan's speech and, for that matter, the reasons why the prizes were awarded to him and to Penny Wong.

Did you think that particular line needed to be added to the speech?

 

[Smurf1976]

In other words it is ok to specifically identify the composition of Parliament which, clearly from an occupational perspective, is not representative. But that omits the lack of representation based on gender, ethnicity and ability. Which means you and those others posting like you fail to grasp the context of Jordan's speech and, for that matter, the reasons why the prizes were awarded to him and to Penny Wong.

I grasp absolutely that I consider the primary point which defines what an MP brings to parliament is their life experience for which occupation is a reasonable though imperfect proxy and he has cited race, gender and being able bodied as the points which define the group.

Now suppose that I advertise a job seeking an "experienced receptionist".

Suppose that I instead advertised the same job seeking a "white female".

Which one do you think is going to get me some applicants to work as a receptionist and which one is going to land me in serious trouble?

Occupation, either past or present, is a widely accepted measure of someone's experience in that occupation and more generally in life. It is not unreasonable to consider that a barrister will bring a different perspective to an architect or a small business owner since they each will have significantly different experiences.

In contrast measuring someone's abilities based on race or gender will promptly see you labeled as racist or sexist and quite likely in trouble. Other than on the basis of actual racism, it's hard to argue that someone's skin colour or genetics affect their ability to do something especially when that task is one of a purely intellectual nature as is the case with parliament such that appearance, strength, height etc are not relevant considerations.

For the record I doubt that he is actually racist. Far more likely the comment was either intentional to stir controversy (as in this thread) or badly expressed in error.

 

[rederob]

I grasp absolutely that I consider the primary point which defines what an MP brings to parliament is their life experience for which occupation is a reasonable though imperfect proxy and he has cited race, gender and being able bodied as the points which define the group.

I find that statement a poor reflection of the context.
Jordan understands that the prevalent group in Parliament are able bodied white men - an undeniable fact - and notes that this group does not reflect the diversity of the broader community. Jordan is clearly of the view that diversity needs also to be reflected through those other factors you mentioned.
It's a bit of a stretch suggesting occupation is a reasonable proxy for life experience as it does not reflect the wage disparity between men and women doing the same job, nor the discrimination that people of colour experience when interviewed for a job by a panel of white people, nor the difficulty that people with disabilities have in merely attending interview.
Additionally home life experiences are very different from occupational experiences.

In contrast measuring someone's abilities based on race or gender will promptly see you labeled as racist or sexist and quite likely in trouble. Other than on the basis of actual racism, it's hard to argue that someone's skin colour or genetics affect their ability to do something especially when that task is one of a purely intellectual nature as is the case with parliament such that appearance, strength, height etc are not relevant considerations.

You again confuse racism with discrimination. We have different Acts to deal with people who break these respective laws.
You additionally suggest the ability to be a decision maker (as in an MP) is merely an intellectual endeavour when Jordan has outlined the need for diversity to condition how leaders get there.

For the record I doubt that he is actually racist. Far more likely the comment was either intentional to stir controversy (as in this thread) or badly expressed in error.

More likely it is due to ignorance on the part of people who are not good with the meaning of words, do not appreciate context, and are unable to respond to questions which otherwise show they are creating arguments which never existed.

 

[SirRumpole]

Now of that lot the vast majority fit into the category of "elites" in that their occupation is either very highly paid, carries a high social status and/or is part of the political arena. This in no way could be considered as being even slightly representative of the average Australian who isn't a company director, union official, lobbyist, lawyer, state politician and so on.

Now, if he wanted to make a point then "The era of directors, lawyers, union bosses and career politicians controlling the parliament is over" would be hitting the nail a lot more firmly on the head I'd think.

Race isn't the issue so there was no need to mention it.

I guess it's a question of what sort of life experience makes a good politician.

(Some) lawyers live in ivory castles dealing with corporate issues or tax law, but others have contact with a wide range of clients (Julian Burnside ?) so I guess you could say they have an indirect experience of life on the ground.

A lot of company directors are straight out of uni with MBA's and picked on paper qualifications not expertise.

You couldn't get a bigger contrast in PM's between Hawke and Keating, one a Rhodes scholar, the other left school at 18 and came up through the school of hard knocks.

Both excellent PM's, but for different reasons perhaps.

We have to drill down through the surface veneer that politicians present to get to the real people who will be governing us.

 

[moXJO]

More likely it is due to ignorance on the part of people who are not good with the meaning of words, do not appreciate context, and are unable to respond to questions which otherwise show they are creating arguments which never existed.

Australia is in desperate need of a parliament “as diverse and as vibrant and as energetic as the community it is sent to represent”.

“We must end a situation in which we are governed by people who bear no life experience to us,” he said. “The era of the dominant, white, able-bodied man is over.”

Group A of people need to be phased out in favor of group B based on skin color

Because of ability to identify with loosely termed "life experiences" and to fill parliament based on "diversity"
This also assumes all white men life experience is exactly the same. Its using a group identity instead of basing each person on their own merits.
Therefore racist.

“The era of the dominant, white, able-bodied man is over.”
Is not just description of the majority. It's stating the removal of one specific group not based on their ability but on their color and supposed inability to identify with their communities.

If following this logic then a Asian, Black, or wheelchair bound green have
even less ability to govern given that you actually do not represent the majority and can't identify with their life experiences.
Its not based on individual merit. Its based on group identity via color.

 

[SirRumpole]

Its not based on individual merit. Its based on group identity via color.

Identity politics.

 

[moXJO]

Identity politics.

Its definitely playing identity politics.
And in what a lot believe Rob is actually correct in saying its not racism.
Because whites are seen as the group in power then steeles speech is classed as raising the oppressed.
Sorry whitey.
I wonder if it backdates as racism once whites are a minority?


Anyway under the UN which doesn’t actually define racism, but does define racial discrimination:

"The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

So diversity for diversities sake everywhere, no I am not a fan. Each person being assessed on their individual merit/ability regardless of color, yes.

 

[rederob]

Group A of people need to be phased out in favor of group B based on skin color.

What a fanciful claim.
You seem to live in a world filled with your own delusions as this idea is wholly owned by you and those who simply failed to understand what Jordan spoke about.
You have not yet grasped the concept of diversity and how it needs to be better reflected amongst those being elected into office. This is through a democratic process and has zero to do with phasing out anyone.

This also assumes all white men life experience is exactly the same.

You would have to be blessed with ignorance to assume that.

It's stating the removal of one specific group not based on their ability but on their color and supposed inability to identify with their communities.

In fact because you cannot work out the context of Jordan's speech, it is saying nothing of the sort.
Stop creating false narratives based on what you want to believe and deal with the very simple idea that those presently in Parliament do not come close to being representative of the broader community. Smurf named the predominant group in Parliament based on occupation, by simple transposition of words.
To suggest identifying the group is pejorative is a step that is very creative and requires a lot more than contained in the single sentence. The reality here is that one has to step out of rational thought into the brave world of delusion to create the ideas you have.

 

[moXJO]

https://truecrimenewsweekly.com/exc...john-accused-of-persistent-sexual-harassment/


Interesting thing about diversity.
Before anyone slags off an obscure site, this mob broke the Barnaby baby and sugarbaby scandal weeks before anyone else.