Australian Politics Forum - HREOC submission

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: HREOC submission
Reply #15 - Mar 16^th, 2009 at 6:42pm

If someone has a religion where their religion says they aren't allowed to wear shoes, and must have really long uncovered hair, and was refused a job in a factory because of this, would this make OH&S laws discriminatory?

Because you can't work in a factory with bare feet, or work around machinery with long hair, both are safety issues.

What if there was a religion that said paying taxes and excise went against your faith? Would that mean the people in that religion were exempt from paying taxes? Would that make the ATO in breach of these laws? Would they be discriminating?

These laws aren't going to help this country.

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged

easel Gold Member Offline Posts: 3120	Re: HREOC submission Reply #16 - Mar 16^th, 2009 at 6:56pm It's slightly double edged. If you don't want to pay taxes, then you shouldn't benefit from what those taxes provide. However, everyone pays tax. GST, excise etc, you pay it even if you wish not to.
Back to top	I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO. IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39506 Gender:	Re: HREOC submission Reply #17 - Mar 16^th, 2009 at 8:31pm f/d - sorry, I have posted it before, but can't remember the details. easel - I guess that is where one thinks religion and state should be seperated. Which I certainly do.
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47346
At my desk.

Re: HREOC submission
Reply #18 - Mar 16^th, 2009 at 9:56pm

Quote:

If someone has a religion where their religion says they aren't allowed to wear shoes, and must have really long uncovered hair, and was refused a job in a factory because of this, would this make OH&S laws discriminatory?

No, of course not. Despite the impression you can sometimes get, there is a fair bit of common sense in it.

Basically, it comes down to what is a good reason. You can't refuse someone a burger flipping job at maccas because they are black. But if you are casting for a movie role for a white person, you can discriminate all you want. There are some genuine grey areas in this, but you are nowhere near them.

Quote:

What if there was a religion that said paying taxes and excise went against your faith?

Plenty of hippys and angry old men have tried that one. That's why they brought in the GST.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

easel Gold Member Offline Posts: 3120	Re: HREOC submission Reply #19 - Mar 17^th, 2009 at 2:42am It already would seem we have those reasons. Don't we have EEO in this country? That would prevent you discriminating against a teal coloured female lesbian for the burger flipping job wouldn't it? Why do we need these laws?
Back to top	I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47346 At my desk.	Re: HREOC submission Reply #20 - Mar 17^th, 2009 at 10:14pm only the female ones
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Calanen

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2241

Re: HREOC submission
Reply #21 - Mar 18^th, 2009 at 4:37am

mantra wrote on Mar 15^th, 2009 at 1:25pm:

Calanen wrote on Feb 25^th, 2009 at 7:30am:

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

These 'Religious Freedom' laws are designed to make Islam immune from all criticism. So unlike other political philosophies that can be criticised, it cannot be..very very dangerous. A bit like when a one party state puts in place rules stating that the Communist party or the Nazi party can never be criticised.

It's only a template. Where does HREOC actually say that we won't have the freedom to criticise Islam? We still have the right to criticise other religions - so why would Islam be singled out for special favour?

Perhaps the Muslim society made a submission, but then so do many organisations and religions. It doesn't mean that it's going to be approved.

It won't single out Islam, but Islam is the only religion that matters. It will be a general law saying 'no defamation of religion.' But Islam is the only religion that seeks political power through extreme violence, is a code of law and a form of government. It must be able to be criticised like any other form of political ideology.

So in effect, what is happening is that like a fascist state - Islam is seeking to prevent any criticism of a political party that seeks to conquer the government and rule as a single party dictatorship. Quite clever, aren't they? And people like you will help them achieve their goal.

Back to top

Quote:

ISLAM is a vicious [un-reformable] political tyranny, which has always murdered its critics, and it continues that practice even today.

Yadda

IP Logged

easel

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 3120

Re: HREOC submission
Reply #22 - Mar 18^th, 2009 at 11:18am

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 10:14pm:

only the female ones

Then that isn't EEO, is it?

Militant feminism has a place in the sense it can help balance out those who wish to oppress women, but it (EEO) shouldn't be applicable to only certain people or certain groups, because, if it does, it is hardly EEO is it?

Like 'Animal Farm' where it was scrawled 'all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others' (perhaps not an exact quote). That was a simple microcosm of why equality doesn't work if it is only a name and not put in to practice.

However some would take advantage of such a system, using freedom against itself to limit individual rights.

Back to top

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.

IP Logged