Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Australian news and politics.

theFOOTBALLlover said:
The UN was started by the west to ensure equality for all. I like the intention of the UN and the Declaration of Human Rights. However, it seems they only wanted it applied when it was convenient for them. That, I will never accept. We are all equal. No one is above anyone else.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. The League of Nations was founded on those principles which is why the USA never joined. The UN was setup so that the Great Powers could avoid war between themselves as this had the natural tendency of destroying the warring nations. The expanded role was gained by the mid-size nations such as Sweden (responsible for the modern WHO) but as Trump has shown this was built on a house of cards.
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
The UN was started by the west to ensure equality for all. I like the intention of the UN and the Declaration of Human Rights. However, it seems they only wanted it applied when it was convenient for them. That, I will never accept. We are all equal. No one is above anyone else.
Click to expand...
Even in 1945 China and the USSR were NOT the "west" mate...
 
Muz said:
Its not 'jews', it's Israel. Fuck those cunts.

And no one is giving Syria, Iran, Somalia and Sudan a free pass. They're all a bunch of cunts too when it comes to murdering people en masse.

Israel however seems to get a free pass. Particularly from America and the UK.
Click to expand...
Don't know about the validity of that... The average citizen on teh street seems to (at least based on peoples behaviour lately) to NOT be able to draw the line between the actions of a few and a whole country...
 
WhatAmIWatching said:
No it wasn't. The League of Nations was founded on those principles which is why the USA never joined. The UN was setup so that the Great Powers could avoid war between themselves as this had the natural tendency of destroying the warring nations. The expanded role was gained by the mid-size nations such as Sweden (responsible for the modern WHO) but as Trump has shown this was built on a house of cards.
Click to expand...
for some more clarity :

The United States
did join the United Nations when it was commenced in 1945. In fact, the United States was a leading architect of the organization, a key signatory, and one of the first nations to ratify the UN Charter.
It is highly likely that this question confuses the United Nations (founded 1945) with the League of Nations (founded 1920), which the United States famously did not join.
Here is the breakdown of the historical facts:

1. The United Nations (Joined Immediately in 1945)
  • Active Participation: The US took a leading role in shaping the UN, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt coining the term and pushing for its creation to avoid the failures of the previous, failed, international organization.
  • Ratification: Following a vote of 89 to 2, the US Senate ratified the UN Charter on July 28, 1945.
  • Commencement: The UN officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the US, China, France, the Soviet Union, and the UK ratified the Charter.
  • Position: The US became a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

2. The League of Nations (Did NOT Join in 1920)
The United States did not join the League of Nations after WWI for several reasons:
  • Isolationism: Strong sentiment in Congress and the public opposed getting involved in European "tangled politics".
  • Constitutional Concerns: Politicians feared the League could infringe on Congress's constitutional right to declare war by requiring members to use military force.
  • Political Deadlock: President Woodrow Wilson refused to compromise with Senate Republicans, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, over the treaty's terms.

Why the US Joined the UN
Learning from the failure to join the League of Nations, the Roosevelt administration took steps to ensure the UN would be accepted:
  • Bipartisan Support: The administration sought bipartisan support early, securing the Republican Party's endorsement of a postwar international organization in 1943.
  • Public Opinion: Roosevelt worked to convince the public that an international organization was necessary to prevent another world war.
  • Pearl Harbor: The shock of WWII shattered the previous isolationist sentiment in American politics.
 
WhatAmIWatching said:
You should be old enough to remember the breakup of Yugoslavia - Serbs & Croats never the best of friends became even worse. And the war of disintegration led to eventually jailing a few (not all) for crimes against humanity and the death toll was lower than what it is now in Gaza. This will always bring out raw emotions. And throughout history, from Emperor Nero saying "The Cimri, I forbid them" through to Ivan the terrible almost erasing Novgorod, and Cortes & Pizarro in the Americas, Hitler in Europe and now Netanyahu in Gaza. The pattern is always the same - a blood thirsty megalomaniac pushing genocide. The real question is how did Netanyahu & Likud convince teh world that anything against them equates to antisemitism.
Click to expand...
Ah the breakup of Yugoslavia, what fun times for the world.....

You mention death toll, Syria has had more deaths this past decade than the entirety of the "Palestinian question" for the past 100 years why NO marches in solidarity or public outcry against a horrible tyrant?

I absolutely acknowledge the "con job" Netanyahu has done in painting Israel as the good guy but you have to ask yourself who pumped millions upon millions of Palestinian flags and Yassar Arafat tablecloth things into the global marketplace and created a movement of protest in western countries, seemingly overnight?
 
zimbos05 said:
Jews are a race?


How dare the Indigenous people have a voice. Good question though. So when do we give them recognition on the constitution and their equal share of leadership and ownership of the land?
Click to expand...
Do indigenous people NOT get recognition and protection under the constitution as Australian citizens?
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Don't know about the validity of that... The average citizen on teh street seems to (at least based on peoples behaviour lately) to NOT be able to draw the line between the actions of a few and a whole country...
Click to expand...

Just curious about whether you'd be happy if Greece was still under Turkish occupation?
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
Just curious about whether you'd be happy if Greece was still under Turkish occupation?
Click to expand...
Is that a REAL question mate?

Seriously?

Cyprus is and has been 1/2 under Turkish occupation, illegally and condoned by the whole world from 1974...

Not even going to mention Constantinople, Smyrna, Ephessos, Alicarnassos, Miletos, Pondus etc etc whats your point?

Does that mean I would condone someone in Melbourne going to a Turkish festival and plugging away at people just because they are Turks? Thats appalling behaviour. I am literally sitting 3 feet away from a Turkish bloke now who is making me a coffee... Yesterday we had burek and kebabs from his brother in laws place around the corner... This is Australia we ALL need to get along..
 
erogenouszone said:
The biggest alliance of convenience ever. They all knew what Stalin was about and China was useful because they hated Japan ( still do ).
Click to expand...
Nah classic US transactionalsim.. They thought keeping the USSR alive and connected to global affairs would mean they get a return on 11 billion worth of lend lease goods they shipped during WW2, just like the Brits paid up well into the 2010s and UNRA was designed to enslave Europe for decades...

Lucky old Gorby settled on paying off 700 million and Bush whiped the rest off... hahahahahah
 
www.theguardian.com

Criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu may be an offence under Australia’s new hate speech laws, Greens claim

Anthony Albanese and Tony Burke say the laws are needed to protect Australians – particularly the Jewish community
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

A group of independent senators, including David Pocock, sought to amend the bill to clarify that the new aggravated sentencing provisions did not apply to instances involving criticism of the policies, actions or institutions of a foreign state, or discussion of matters of international law.

The amendment was unsuccessful.
 
Muz said:
www.theguardian.com

Criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu may be an offence under Australia’s new hate speech laws, Greens claim

Anthony Albanese and Tony Burke say the laws are needed to protect Australians – particularly the Jewish community
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

A group of independent senators, including David Pocock, sought to amend the bill to clarify that the new aggravated sentencing provisions did not apply to instances involving criticism of the policies, actions or institutions of a foreign state, or discussion of matters of international law.

The amendment was unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
Pull the other one it plays jingle bells:

(2) A person commits an offence if:6 (a) the person commits an offence against subsection 80.2A(2),7 80.2B(2), 80.2BA(2), 80.2BB(2), 80.2BC(2), 80.2BD(2) or8 80.2BE(2) (the underlying offence); and9 (b) the conduct is engaged in by the person in the person’s10 capacity as:11 (i) a religious official; or12 (ii) a spiritual leader; or13 (iii) another leader (however described) of a group, who14 provides religious instruction or pastoral care (whether15 religious or secular).16 Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.17 (3) There is no fault element for the physical element of conduct18 described in paragraph (1)(a) or (2)(a) other than the fault elements19 (however described), if any, for the underlying offence.20 (4) To avoid doubt:21 (a) a person does not commit an underlying offence for the22 purposes of paragraph (1)(a) or (2)(a) if the person has a23 defence to the underlying offence; and24 (b) a person may be convicted of an offence against25 subsection (1) or (2) even if the person has not been26 convicted of the underlying offence.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Is that a REAL question mate?

Seriously?

Cyprus is and has been 1/2 under Turkish occupation, illegally and condoned by the whole world from 1974...

Not even going to mention Constantinople, Smyrna, Ephessos, Alicarnassos, Miletos, Pondus etc etc whats your point?

Does that mean I would condone someone in Melbourne going to a Turkish festival and plugging away at people just because they are Turks? Thats appalling behaviour. I am literally sitting 3 feet away from a Turkish bloke now who is making me a coffee... Yesterday we had burek and kebabs from his brother in laws place around the corner... This is Australia we ALL need to get along..
Click to expand...

Just making sure you are against occupation.

I didn't ask if you disliked Turkish people.
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
Just making sure you are against occupation.

I didn't ask if you disliked Turkish people.
Click to expand...
I get fighting against a military force physically occupying your land... both sets of my grandparents were in the resistance against the Italians, Bulgarians, Germans and then the British and Americans. But they attacked military personnel, NOT civilians.

You do realise that despite the call to Free Gaza, the IDF withdrew 20 years ago.. There were NO Isreali soldiers in actual Gaza so Hamas had to invade Isreal, just like Trump going after Maduro ... :) What where they "freeing themselves" from exactly?
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
Do indigenous people NOT get recognition and protection under the constitution as Australian citizens?
Click to expand...
No.

The constitution in 1901 in Section 127 read;

that ‘in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted'.
Click to expand...

This was changed in 1967 to have this removed. However, it did not give them the right to vote, nor did it recognise them as the first people of the land. Therefore, Aboriginal people were removed entirely from the constitution, and their rights were not, and have never been enshrined within it. They are, by wording of the constitution, non-existent. They are not even recognised as Australian.

Now, I know your argument is that, "but we are all Australian regardless of race etc etc". To a hypothetical and sensical extent, true. But what that argument does, is diminish the First Nations people to be less than or not relevant. It also discards the decades of genocide, destruction, theft, and dispossession. A person who migrates to Australia next week has just as much, if not more, say on the land and what to do with it and who it belongs to. They can even have a say on First Nations matters, and no one would bat an eye. Essentially -to this day- First Nations people are being robbed of their status, and their rightful ownership of the land.

We are -if not mistaken- the only country on earth that does not recognise First Nations people. We are also one of the only that does not give First Nations people a voice. Even New Zealand has 7 Maori only seats in Parliament. Canada is currently on a path to a similar process. The Yes vote didn't give them power to change laws or rules. It would have given them power to have a say and voice on matters and issues pertaining to First Nations people only. Want to blow up the Jukkan Gorge for mining and then funnel all the money overseas? No. Want to teach First Nations culture in a school? Great, but you would need to consult with First Nations educators and develop resources that are accurate and relevant.

Giving First Nations people recognition and a voice does not take away any of your rights, nor does it make them have more than you. It simply levels the playing field, gives them some humanity, and makes the rest of us less of a cunt.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
I get fighting against a military force physically occupying your land... both sets of my grandparents were in the resistance against the Italians, Bulgarians, Germans and then the British and Americans. But they attacked military personnel, NOT civilians.

You do realise that despite the call to Free Gaza, the IDF withdrew 20 years ago.. There were NO Isreali soldiers in actual Gaza so Hamas had to invade Isreal, just like Trump going after Maduro ... :) What where they "freeing themselves" from exactly?
Click to expand...

You do realise Israel occupies Palestinian land? Israel has not withdrawn from Palestine. Gaza is part of Palestine.
 
zimbos05 said:
No.

The constitution in 1901 in Section 127 read;



This was changed in 1967 to have this removed. However, it did not give them the right to vote, nor did it recognise them as the first people of the land. Therefore, Aboriginal people were removed entirely from the constitution, and their rights were not, and have never been enshrined within it. They are, by wording of the constitution, non-existent. They are not even recognised as Australian.

Now, I know your argument is that, "but we are all Australian regardless of race etc etc". To a hypothetical and sensical extent, true. But what that argument does, is diminish the First Nations people to be less than or not relevant. It also discards the decades of genocide, destruction, theft, and dispossession. A person who migrates to Australia next week has just as much, if not more, say on the land and what to do with it and who it belongs to. They can even have a say on First Nations matters, and no one would bat an eye. Essentially -to this day- First Nations people are being robbed of their status, and their rightful ownership of the land.

We are -if not mistaken- the only country on earth that does not recognise First Nations people. We are also one of the only that does not give First Nations people a voice. Even New Zealand has 7 Maori only seats in Parliament. Canada is currently on a path to a similar process. The Yes vote didn't give them power to change laws or rules. It would have given them power to have a say and voice on matters and issues pertaining to First Nations people only. Want to blow up the Jukkan Gorge for mining and then funnel all the money overseas? No. Want to teach First Nations culture in a school? Great, but you would need to consult with First Nations educators and develop resources that are accurate and relevant.

Giving First Nations people recognition and a voice does not take away any of your rights, nor does it make them have more than you. It simply levels the playing field, gives them some humanity, and makes the rest of us less of a cunt.
Click to expand...
Fair enough and valid points...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top