|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: SSM by postal vote
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
lilBuddha, I'm impressed. You actually chose to waste your own time 'analysing' an obviously flip, throwaway comment.
With the emphasis on the 'anal' of course.
Anyway, things to do...
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What is wrong with me? I’m angry and I’m tired.
Clearly that you're too arrogant to apologise when you've made a mistake. There's a good reason you're normally on my ignore list, but this thread's subject intrigues me and has quoted you so often I got curious.
[ 18. November 2017, 21:45: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Ian - very troubling stuff. The call to arms aspect of it reminds me of the back and forth texting (before FB was the ubiquitous phenomenon it is now) that led to the Cronulla riots.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Indeed, it does seem exactly the wrong complaint to make in context.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Indeed, it does seem exactly the wrong complaint to make in context.
You think jumping to a conclusion, for whatever reason, is the same as racism, etc? Because however he tried to walk it back, that is what his claim entails.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Indeed, it does seem exactly the wrong complaint to make in context.
You think jumping to a conclusion, for whatever reason, is the same as racism, etc? Because however he tried to walk it back, that is what his claim entails.
It doesn't matter what I think of the merits of the claim, the point is that the time to complain so vigorously about a "ridiculous claim about bigotry" is NOT shortly after you've made a ridiculous claim about bigotry yourself.
The very best position you can attain on that subject at the moment is somewhere around a draw, not a moral victory. Personally I don't really want to invest my time in deciding who made the more ridiculous claim about bigotry.
[ 19. November 2017, 04:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
There is a reason "mad Katter" has entered the Oz lexicon.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
orfeo,
It isn’t bigotry by definition and isn’t in normal use. You work in the law, words have meaning.
Pedantry aside, I’m done hijacking this thread.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Starting to think the ACL might be so out of touch they are not actually in our epoch anymore.
Lyle Shelton has been obsessed with arguing the slippery slope for years. Given his tortured logic it is probably completely appropriate for the ACL to host a conference this past weekend in which the immortal phrase "anonymous masturbator" was uttered.
That is likely paywalled for most of you, here is an excerpt:
quote:
... lucky attendees got to hear the theories of German sociologist Gabriele Kuby, who denies the existence of homosexuality.
“There is no innate same sex attraction. It is not supported by scientific evidence. There is no innate gender identity. It is not supported by scientific evidence. Most children with gender dysphoria grow out of it. It is not supported by scientific evidence that all these children need some kind of hormonal measures of sex change, which I think is simply a severe abuse of children.”
She told the audience that allowing gay people to marry was a mistake.
“The next step is that they will be given the right to procreate”, leading to the “artificial production” of children using “sperm from an anonymous masturbator”, she said. Christians were now called to battle, she said.
[ 20. November 2017, 07:27: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Uttering the sentence "it is not supported by scientific evidence" provides great comfort, I'm sure, who those who wish to believe there is no scientific evidence.
And yet, there is still scientific evidence.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
German sociologist Gabriele Kuby
She's sure as hell no biologist... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
And in good news, the bill to allow same-sex marriage has now passed one house of the Australian parliament. Suggested amendments to allow discrimination by anti-gay florists and bakers (supposedly in the name of "protecting religious freedom") were all rejected. It goes to the other house of parliament next week, with strong hopes that it will pass there - again without amendment. If so, it then becomes law - at last!
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The law actually WAS amended, so it's rather bemusing to see all the news reports that it wasn't.
But they were very technical amendments, designed to ensure there were no other laws that would not work correctly with the Marriage Act. Not the amendments that conservatives were looking for.
Clearly the actual amendments, which were supported by all the people supporting the Bill as a whole, were of no interest to the media because there was no fight about it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
I had the news turned down low, but I heard an M.P propose to his partner ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) Not often you hear really moving stuff on the news or broadcasts from Parliament where years of injustice are finally righted.
YaY ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Should be passing soon...
If only MPs would stop waffling and congratulating themselves in their speeches.
edit: though there were some odd ones. From those against.
[ 07. December 2017, 05:44: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
And we've, finally, joined the rest of the civilised world. It has passed.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Beat me to it - looks as if Dutton and Katter were the only 2 voting No at the end.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
In the end there were 4 MPs who voted no.
Most of the MPs who had spent the day trying to move silly amendments abstained from the vote in the end, including those arch-bastards Dutton and Abbott. Some justified their abstention by saying that although they opposed SSM and wanted more discrimination rather than less, the electorate (including their own constituencies) had clearly voted yes in the unnecessary and expensive "survey" that they had forced upon us in order to delay the inevitable.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Good to know that the bastards don't always win.
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
Yes, this is welcome, surprising, good news.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
It's a pity the PM is taking all the credit for it. He would have done better if Parliament had voted for it instead of wasting money on the plebecite.
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Well, colour me surprised. I thought the post vote was going to be a complete waste of time, and simply an excuse to kick SSM into the long grass.
I was wrong, and I'm glad I was wrong. Well done, you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
My Aussie husband and I will be landing in Sydney on Jan. 2nd. Will our marriage (we got married in the US) be legally recognized in Australia by then? I know the timeline for same sex couples in Australia to marry but I cannot find information about when same sex couples married abroad will be legally the same as opposite sex married couples in Australia.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I'm sorry, stonespring, I don't know. Hopefully the answers to these questions will be clarified in the coming weeks.
One of the MPs who voted no was David Littleproud. This story filed last year indicates he hasn't budged an inch from his homophobic position. Sucks to be him - farmer Dave can marry any bloke that'll have him now.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Hang on a minute - I just watched the brief video that Tukai linked to. It looks like marriages will be immediately recognised.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My Aussie husband and I will be landing in Sydney on Jan. 2nd. Will our marriage (we got married in the US) be legally recognized in Australia by then?
Yep.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Marriage equality in Australia starts in 40 minutes.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Sorry to see Russell Broadbent was one of the four no votes in the Reps. He has been a tireless advocate for the humane treatment of Asylum Seekers since the Tampa tragedy. I haven't fact checked myself there, but I'm pretty sure I have the right bloke.
I have been glowering and grinding my teeth at the Pollies celebrating and trying to take credit for marriage equality. On the one hand, many of the people on the Liberal side supported Howard's amendment to the Marriage Act, and on the Labor side, many were members of the Gillard Govt, and decided that being in Govt was more important than enacting marriage equality. A pox on both their houses.
Also, fuck them all while they lock up people who come to Australia seeking asylum out of the country. They don't have the right to celebrate anything.
Congratulations go instead to everyone else in the country who did so much to ensure that this happened, and made sure we jumped through all the hoops put in our way by the politicians over the last 20 years. I say 20 years because that's my estimate of how long Australia has been ready for this reform, and how long these bastard politicians have made us wait.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I say 20 years because that's my estimate of how long Australia has been ready for this reform, and how long these bastard politicians have made us wait.
Well it's a lousy estimate that flies in the face of when SSM became legal anywhere. But don't let facts get in your way.
5 minutes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
How long ago did Howard change the Marriage Act?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Well, what an incredible surprise. Grandstanding galoots.
Are they related to the Sydney Jensens?
Brilliant move by the lawyer though. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How long ago did Howard change the Marriage Act?
Also a lot less than 20 years. Google is your friend.
And the Parliament changed it. "Howard" did not. Right now I'm pretty annoyed at how few people actually understand the process by which legislation would be made, so it'd be great if you recognised that both major parties voted together to ensure that same-sex couples couldn't get married.
[ 08. December 2017, 22:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To the surprise of almost no one, the couple who 'threatened' to divorce each other if same-sex couples were given the same legal right to marry as they enjoyed turn out not to have meant it after all, despite a generous offer of pro bono legal assistance.
They were complete idiots because they had no insight into what the law actually said (already) about recognition of relationships.
Even if they went through the rigmarole of separating for a year, getting divorced, then got back together, they would still be a couple in the eyes of the government once they got back together whether they like or not. De facto couples are treated almost exactly the same as married couples.
And it's not just a question of whatever petulant little stance they want to take, the government has its own interest in knowing who is in a relationship because it affects a whole lot of financial interactions, including welfare payments and taxation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How long ago did Howard change the Marriage Act?
Also a lot less than 20 years. Google is your friend.
And the Parliament changed it. "Howard" did not. Right now I'm pretty annoyed at how few people actually understand the process by which legislation would be made, so it'd be great if you recognised that both major parties voted together to ensure that same-sex couples couldn't get married.
It was done in 2004, thirteen years ago. According to
this article it was done to stymie an application to the Family Court to recognise a same sex marriage in Canada. I reckon the action in the Family Court precipitated the amendment, but it is a good indication that there had been agitation for same sex marriage for some years prior. Howard's action was a finger-in-the-dyke job and I reckon my estimate of 20 years was not too far off.
I'm happy to accept your assertion that Labor backed the 2004 legislation. I will add that to my list of grievances against them on the issue.
I don't resile from my characterisation of the amendment as Howard's. Of course the Parliament passed the thing. The Governor-General assented to it too. I am getting more and more upset that the role of the Governor-General in the making of laws is ignored. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I am getting more and more upset that the role of the Governor-General in the making of laws is ignored.
Listen, mate, I'm a legislative drafter. What's your excuse?
Furthermore, I had the privilege of seeing the Governor-General's signature on the marriage legislation yesterday.
If I'm annoyed with you, it's because you simultaneously declare your knowledge of how this has all gone down while betraying your severe ignorance. Yes, I know when the Marriage Act was amended. Yes, I know it was in reaction to things happening in Canada.
No, it still does not make the SLIGHTEST sense to suggest that people were agitating 20 years ago for a reform that wasn't legally necessary until 13 years ago and which would have been unprecedented anywhere in the world until 16 years ago. You've answered it yourself, you just can't see it. The amendment to exclude SSM occurred at the time it first looked like a possibility that SSM would happen.
But thanks for all your vague thought bubbles and then handing in your homework assignment.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
If it's not a breach of any duty of silence, can you say if Turnbull was in attendance at the ExCo?
[ 09. December 2017, 07:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
So, Big O, are you saying that people wouldn't have advocated for same sex marriage 20 years ago because it wasn't legally necessary to advocate for it then? If it wasn't legally necessary, why weren't same sex couples marrying back in 1997?
I'm sorry if my ignorance offends you. It must be difficult living in a world in which so many inferior people just go about expressing themselves.
Please forgive me for annoying you.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Poll numbers from 1997 supporting your contention would go a long way.
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Yeah maybe. But I reckon not many people who would have said in 1997 that they opposed same sex marriage would have voted against the party that introduced it for that reason. As it happens, Howard would never have done it.
But I am a very ignorant person. Please be gentle.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If it's not a breach of any duty of silence, can you say if Turnbull was in attendance at the ExCo?
It was on TV. Which is the only reason I know the answer is yes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm sorry if my ignorance offends you. It must be difficult living in a world in which so many inferior people just go about expressing themselves.
Please forgive me for annoying you.
It is indeed one of the great banes of my life.
It’d be easier to forgive you if you stopped doing it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
If it wasn't legally necessary, why weren't same sex couples marrying back in 1997?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've answered it yourself, you just can't see it. The amendment to exclude SSM occurred at the time it first looked like a possibility that SSM would happen.
I write these things, why? It's not like they're read.
Because, it had not occurred to anyone back in 1997 (i.e. your randomly chosen date that isn't based on any evidence beyond your fondness for round numbers) that the Marriage Act did not specify the gender of the couple and that the assumption everyone made about marriage was not actually part of the text.
Because nobody, but nobody, every actually reads the fucking law.
[ 09. December 2017, 21:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Do you think Peter Hanks read the law before he advised that couple to make that application to the Family Court? There's someone who knows the law. I remember him as a clever and modest bloke.
Orfeo, how do you think lawyers who want to do good in the world go about their business? Do they just think about how many billable units can fit on the head of a pin and only do the work when the client comes through the door? Or do they see the possibilities and ache for the client with the right set of facts to walk through the door?
I'm not talking about those Parliamentary do-gooders like Bookshelf Brandis, who teared up on TV the other day. I'm talking about activist lawyers who seek to bring about social change in the cut and thrust of private practice. Drafting has its place, certainly in the commercial world, but the real practice of law is in having and managing clients, in fearlessly pursuing their interests within your ethical limits, in manipulating the grey areas better than your colleagues so that your client gets the best possible outcome.
But I know that people all have different skill sets and some are just more comfortable doing clerical work.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Do you think Peter Hanks read the law before he advised that couple to make that application to the Family Court? There's someone who knows the law. I remember him as a clever and modest bloke.
Orfeo, how do you think lawyers who want to do good in the world go about their business? Do they just think about how many billable units can fit on the head of a pin and only do the work when the client comes through the door? Or do they see the possibilities and ache for the client with the right set of facts to walk through the door?
I'm not talking about those Parliamentary do-gooders like Bookshelf Brandis, who teared up on TV the other day. I'm talking about activist lawyers who seek to bring about social change in the cut and thrust of private practice. Drafting has its place, certainly in the commercial world, but the real practice of law is in having and managing clients, in fearlessly pursuing their interests within your ethical limits, in manipulating the grey areas better than your colleagues so that your client gets the best possible outcome.
But I know that people all have different skill sets and some are just more comfortable doing clerical work.
Do you think Peter Hanks did that in 1997?
No.
Does Peter Hanks give any support for your notion that everyone was ready for this reform in 1997?
No.
My entire source of irritation is your declaration that everyone was ready for this 20 years ago without one skerrick of evidence for this assertion. You are now busily pulling up evidence of what happened around 2003/4, when the law was changed, and yet somehow you are utterly oblivious to the fact that this doesn't provide the slightest bit of proof for YOUR claim.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If it's not a breach of any duty of silence, can you say if Turnbull was in attendance at the ExCo?
It was on TV. Which is the only reason I know the answer is yes.
Thanks - we rarely watch the TV news as either we're not at home at the time it's on, or if we are, we're busy preparing dinner.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Ah yes. I thought you had very little idea about the process of social change.
Incidentally, do you know a bloke called Darren Olney? It literally took me this long to remember his surname after you mentioned that you were a clerk in the Parliament.
The last time I saw him he had just accepted a position doing legislative drafting in Canberra. That was back in the '90's, so it will totally freak me out if you do know him. I met him when he was President of Students for Christ at Monash waaaaaay back in 1985 or 1986.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Ah yes. I thought you had very little idea about the process of social change.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
