General Politics IV - Without a Home Elsewhere

what further tightening is there to do? Other than basically shut down gun clubs entirely because their members are pretty much the only civilians allowed to have them...

Obviously that other mass shooting in 1996(?) which led to gun restrictions did nothing to prevent this.
The father had six legally obtained long arm guns purchased under a gun license with "hunting" as its justification, that hadn't been subject to review in years, despite living in an urban area. There's been concerns raised in recent years about laxness of enforcement and those hunting licenses being used as a loophole for gun licence applications.

Hunting licenses became a shortcut to being automatically assumed to be fit and proper for a gun licence and building a cache of weapons, but obviously that's not necessarily the case if the hunting licenses are trivial to get.

And a lot of the actual level of permissiveness about gun licences is the vagueness of the "fit and proper" assessments done. It is all written to be quite discretionary at the moment. Recently, authorities have started getting more sceptical of people with sovereign citizen type tendencies after a couple of acts of murderous violence by that crowd, and some such ppl deep in sovcit circles have found their licences revoked and weapons seized. I've also heard anecdotally that cops in rural areas known as hotspots for such activity have started denying more licence applications with generic "deemed unnecessary" type responses.

Unsurprisingly there's similarly now widespread sentiment that a guy whose son was investigated for links to terrorism plots and Islamic State contacts six years ago, probably should've had his own gun licence and ownership scrutinised at some point.

There's this children's story in the US that "Australia banned guns" but that never happened. The 1996 reforms removed about a quarter of civilian firearms from circulation, ie the semi automatic and automatic weapons, and it created national consistency in licensing and registration laws where previously some states like Tasmania had little such regulation.

Those reforms are why as a legal purchaser of guns with a hunting license, this guy only had access to bolt action rifles and shotguns, and they had to regularly reload or switch guns, which allowed Ahmed al Ahmed to tackle and disarm the son. Grim as it is, the death toll would have been far higher if he'd had access to the kinda weapons used at Port Arthur or things like the AR-15s routinely used in American massacres.
 
Last edited:
I don't really care about gun control all that much like I did when I was a liberal as a teen, but this is rather poor logic. A quick image search brings up plenty of graphs showing a decline in gun deaths in Australia after the 96 law.
Here's hoping they do better the third time out...
The father had six legally obtained long arm guns purchased under a gun license with "hunting" as its justification, that hadn't been subject to review in years, despite living in an urban area. There's been concerns raised in recent years about laxness of enforcement and those hunting licenses being used as a loophole for gun licence applications.

Hunting licenses became a shortcut to being automatically assumed to be fit and proper for a gun licence and building a cache of weapons, but obviously that's not necessarily the case if the hunting licenses are trivial to get.

And a lot of the actual level of permissiveness about gun licences is the vagueness of the "fit and proper" assessments done. It is all written to be quite discretionary at the moment. Recently, authorities have started getting more sceptical of people with sovereign citizen type tendencies after a couple of acts of murderous violence by that crowd, and some such ppl deep in sovcit circles have found their licences revoked and weapons seized. I've also heard anecdotally that cops in rural areas known as hotspots for such activity have started denying more licence applications with generic "deemed unnecessary" type responses.

Unsurprisingly there's similarly now widespread sentiment that a guy whose son was investigated for links to terrorism plots and Islamic State contacts six years ago, probably should've had his own gun licence and ownership scrutinised at some point.

The 1996 reforms removed about a quarter of civilian firearms form circulation, ie the semi automatic and automatic weapons, and created national consistency in licensing and registration laws. Which is why this guy legally only had bolt action rifles. Grim as it is, the death toll would have been far higher if he'd had access to the kinda weapons used at Port Arthur or routinely used in American massacres.
So after reading this: contrary to what the PM is actually saying, what is needed is for the laws already in existence to be much more picky.
 
They're talking about limits on number of weapons, finally creating a national register, periodic review of gun licences, changing hunting licenses, and removing weapons with larger ammunition capacity from the allowable firearms under different licences.

Those all would be new laws requiring each state and territory to agree and legislate in unison. So far they have all agreed in principle on most of that, if the two major parties broadly agree it'll pass in each state easily enough.
 
Last edited:
The Democratic National Committee has completed a report on their failings during the 2024 presidential election...and they will not be releasing it.

Since the midterms are now less than a year away, any change in direction will be seen as jinxing their chances of winning back Congress.

I seem to remember this exact kind of talk during the refusal to primary Joe Biden, the reason being that doing so would make the Democrats look "too divided" in the face of Trump. Which made little sense to me. Because Biden dropped out anyway and left us with a candidate (Harris) who never received a single primary vote.
 
The Democratic National Committee has completed a report on their failings during the 2024 presidential election...and they will not be releasing it.

Since the midterms are now less than a year away, any change in direction will be seen as jinxing their chances of winning back Congress.

I seem to remember this exact kind of talk during the refusal to primary Joe Biden, the reason being that doing so would make the Democrats look "too divided" in the face of Trump. Which made little sense to me. Because Biden dropped out anyway and left us with a candidate (Harris) who never received a single primary vote.
The saying goes "Democrats have a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"
 
I can only guess that whatever findings there were would probably upset the direction that some of its core constituents wish to take the party. As, much like the GOP has seen a wedge driven into it with the rise of Donald Trump, so too has a similar wedge divided traditional liberals and what Nate Silver calls 'Social Justice Leftism'. <<<(stolen from Voidwalkin in the Gaza topic)
But that's only my guess...

Perhaps Trump unpopularity will inevitably lead to Democratic victories next year to which no course-correction is really necessary, but with that comes the risk--as this author says--of the damage report simply being leaked anyway (perhaps by a disgruntled employee) and a lot of people's suspicions being confirmed. Is such a risk worth it...?
 
Last edited:
I have difficulty in seeing how a very large organisation such as the democratic party can implement
the changes recommended by the report without its members knowing what the report says.

I am cynical enough to suspect that the report is either rubbish in which case they should say they
are not implementing it or that it recommends actions that party insiders don't like and that they
therefore simply want to suppress the report.
 
:lol: They are afraid it might be divisive.
 
… the committee determined that releasing it would spark a media frenzy and retrospective finger-pointing that could divide the party …
It was written by committee but still managed to be controversial? I thought the whole point of group writing was to spread the responsibility over a wide area to prevent anyone from being held accountable.
 
Many rank and file Dems are not particularly happy either.
One even saying the reasons to not release it are indeed the reasons to release it...
Which makes me think the authors did not like the results they found, personally.

A far more cynical take is that DNC leadership feels Kamala Harris was judged too harshly in too short a time period and they are very interested in having her run again. Logically she will be the one person to benefit most from the lack of open discussion about why she lost. If such is the case, I can only assume 2028 will be lining up to be a very depressing year [morale-wise anyway]...
 
The whole "free speech absolutism" thing from the 2010's was basically a set up by The Right to justify censoring non-right-wing thought in the name of "balance". They only care about their own freedom to enslave everyone else.
 
Fentanyl deaths saw an incredibly dramatic and sudden decline in the US and Canada starting in 2023, and scientists have been trying to understand why. They think they have their answer; China significantly tightened up laws on advertising and manufacturing of precursor chemicals, part of a cooperative agreement regarding drug policy made with the Biden administration earlier in the year, which caused a sudden shortage of the drug in North America: https://www.psypost.org/sudden-drop...aths-linked-to-biden-era-global-supply-shock/

Trump, of course, is attempting to ruin this, since he likes seeing Americans die.
 

How Australian festival imploded after axing Palestinian author​

One of Australia's biggest cultural festivals has been left in disarray after a decision to disinvite a prominent Australian-Palestinian writer, triggering a massive backlash and mass exodus from fellow authors.

The board of the Adelaide Festival last week said Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, a vocal critic of Israel, had been removed from its Writers' Week lineup due to "sensitivities" after the shooting of 15 people – by gunmen allegedly inspired by the Islamic State militant group – at a Jewish festival at Bondi Beach in December.

Though the Adelaide Festival's board said they "do not suggest in any way" that Abdel-Fattah had "any connection with the tragedy at Bondi", they made the decision that it would not be "culturally sensitive" to include her "given her past statements".

She called the decision to exclude her a "blatant and shameless act of anti-Palestinian racism and censorship" and the attempt to link her with the Bondi attack "despicable".

In the following days, dozens of other writers scheduled to appear withdrew from the festival. By Tuesday the list had jumped to 180, including former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, British author Zadie Smith, US-Russian journalist Masha Gessen, beloved Australian writer Helen Garner and British-Australian novelist Kathy Lette. Many publicly criticised the decision as an attack on free speech.

Four members of the eight-member board, including the chair, have now resigned without detailing their reasons. And on Tuesday the director of the Writers' Week - who had invited Abdel-Fattah - stood down too.

Louise Adler, the Jewish daughter of Holocaust survivors, said "I cannot be party to silencing writers" and that Abdel-Fattah's exclusion "weakens freedom of speech and is the harbinger of a less free nation."

"Artists have always been a problem for the state and interest groups but the confrontations have intensified as a consequence of the war on Gaza," she wrote in the Guardian Australia.

"Writers and writing matters, even when they are presenting ideas that discomfort and challenge us."

The saga has threatened to spawn legal action and potentially halt the entire festival, which also features music, dance, theatre and other cultural events and is scheduled to begin at the end of February.

Why has Randa Abdel-Fattah been criticised?​

Abdel-Fattah, a novelist, lawyer and academic, had been invited to the festival to discuss her latest novel Discipline – which she describes as "a cautionary tale about the cost of silence and cowardice".

She has previously been criticised for statements arguing that Zionists had "no claim or right to cultural safety" and a 2024 post on X in which she said "the goal is decolonisation and the end of this murderous Zionist colony", a reference to Israel.

Controversies around her also include an image posted to her social media in the hours after the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel, depicting a person parachuting with a Palestinian flag. Hamas fighters used paragliders to cross the high-tech security fence into Israel at the start of the attack, landing in civilian areas where many residents were killed.

About 1,200 people were killed in the attack. It triggered a massive Israeli military offensive on Gaza, which has killed more than 71,419 people since then, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Abdel-Fattah confirmed to Australian broadcaster ABC that she had posted the image, but said she had done so before the true extent of the attacks was known.

"At that point, I had no idea about the death toll, I had no idea about what was happening on the ground... Of course, I do not support the killing of civilians," she told the ABC.

The academic has been the target of public campaigns before. Opposition politicians and some prominent Jewish Australians called for research funding awarded to Abdel-Fattah to be cancelled in 2024. After a letter from Education Minister Jason Clare, the funding was suspended while Abdel-Fattah was investigated over allegations she had bent the grant's rules, though she was ultimately cleared last month.

Norman Schueler, of the Jewish Community Council for South Australia, last week said his organisation had sent a letter to the Adelaide Festival board lobbying for Abdel-Fattah's removal.

"It was a very wise move and it will improve the cohesiveness of the festival by not having her there," he told the Adelaide Advertiser after her removal. Upon news of the growing walkout, he added: "I think for everyone who has dropped out that it's rather pathetic because that means they agree with what Dr Fattah is on about... Namely, that Israel should not exist."

South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskus - whose government is a key backer of the festival - said that he "wholeheartedly" supported Abdel-Fattah's exclusion and had "absolutely made clear to the board that I did not think it was wise" to invite her.

However, Malinauskus denied having played any role in the board's decision, telling the ABC on Monday that, though he shared his opinion, he had not threatened to withdraw funding or sack anyone. He also denied that his position was influenced by Jewish lobby groups.

After her appearance was cancelled, Abdel-Fattah said Australian arts and cultural institutions had displayed "utter contempt and inhumanity towards Palestinians".

"The only Palestinians they will tolerate are silent and invisible ones."

It isn't the first time Abdel-Fattah has been at the centre of the derailment of a writers' festival.

Two days before it was due to begin in August last year, Bendigo Writers Festival issued a code of conduct requiring speakers to "avoid language or topics that could be considered inflammatory, divisive, or disrespectful".

A subsequent walkout - led by Abdel-Fattah and others over concerns it could prevent free discussion of the Israel-Gaza war - led to the cancellation of around a third of the programme.

Allegations of hypocrisy​

However Abdel-Fattah has been accused of double standards, by sections of the media and Malinauskus, who claim that she had successfully demanded the exclusion of New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman from the Adelaide festival two years ago.

A letter sent by her and nine other academics to the board followed his publication of a column in which he compared players in the Middle East to members of the animal kingdom, including caterpillars, wasps and spiders.

"Call it what you like, after the correspondence from Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, they removed a pro-Jewish Israeli speaker. Fast forward two years and I think it's reasonable for the board to apply the same principle," Malinauskus said.

Abdel-Fattah rejected the allegations of hypocrisy, saying in a statement to the BBC that Friedman's article had "compared various Arab and Muslim nations and groups to insects and vermin requiring eradication at a time when talk of 'human animals' was being used to justify wholesale slaughter in Gaza".

"In contrast, I was cancelled because my presence and identity as a Palestinian was deemed 'culturally insensitive' and linked to the Bondi atrocity," her statement continued.

She also denied that Friedman had been removed at her behest. In a letter dated February 2024 and quoted by Australian media, the board wrote that cancelling a writer was an "extremely serious request" and that while Friedman had been scheduled to attend he would no longer take part due to "last-minute scheduling issues".

"If he was in fact quietly cancelled, it only underscores the racism of cancelling me in such a brazen and publicly humiliating manner," Abdel-Fattah said.

What have other writers said?​

Adler says at last 180 writers have now said they will no longer take part in the festival, devastating its programme. Many said that while they did not necessarily agree with Abdel-Fattah, they defended her right to free speech.

Australian journalist Peter Greste, who was jailed in Egypt a decade ago in what human rights groups called a sham case, said her exclusion meant "we are undermining our capacity to hold those difficult conversations" and "doing the work" of extremists for them.

"It suggests that participation in public cultural life is no longer based on what a writer might contribute but on whether their past words might be uncomfortable in a suddenly volatile climate," he wrote in an opinion piece for the Guardian Australia.

Australian-British novelist Kathy Lette in an Instagram post argued that audiences should be trusted to "make up their minds about all speakers – me included". "As authoritarianism rears its hideous head around the world, we need to defend these havens of free speech."

However, former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr, who has strongly criticised Israel's assault on Gaza, said he supported Abdel-Fattah's exclusion. He told the Guardian Australia he believed some of her previous statements had been counterproductive to the Palestinian cause and that given the circumstances after the Bondi attack the decision was not unreasonable.

"The Adelaide writers' festival has supported hearing Palestinian voices, its record on this is unimpeachable," Carr said.

He was one of the only festival speakers to publicly back the board.

Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis posted a video on X in which he tore us his "precious" and "coveted" invitation to speak, claiming the festival had been "destroyed" by the "Zionist lobby".

Award-winning First Nations poet Evelyn Araluen said she was "so disappointed to witness yet another absurd and irrational capitulation to the demands of a genocidal foreign state from the Australian arts sector".

"Erasing Palestinians from public life in Australia won't prevent antisemitism. Removing Palestinians from writers festivals won't prevent antisemitism. I refuse to participate in this spectacle of censorship," she added.

ABC journalist and presenter Sarah Ferguson, who had been due to host conversations with Tina Brown and Jacinda Ardern – both now cancelled – said the festival had "created a place where debate flourished… including on our most difficult subjects" and that it "should be defended in our cultural life".

What happens next?​

Abdel-Fattah's lawyer, Michael Bradley, has sent a letter to the board demanding to know which of her past statements were used to justify last week's decision.

"The moral indefensibility of the Adelaide Festival board's actions has been amply evidenced by the reaction it's provoked. It also trampled on Randa's human rights, and the board will have to answer for that," Bradley told the BBC on Monday, adding that Abdel-Fattah had yet to decide whether to take any legal action.

Julian Hobbe, the festival's executive director, said that after the "significant community response" to the board's decision, it was "navigating a complex and unprecedented moment and will share further updates as soon as we are able".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm4jkwz2z8o
 
Lol Writers Week has been fully cancelled now and they've apologised to her, they messed this up big time. I don't think it's even just the uninvite, it's also directly linking her to the massacre, which is offensive to everyone.

The Premier pressured them to do this when he could have just said he disagrees with her but respects the independence of the festival. Instead now he's destroyed one of SA's biggest landmark events, part of the reason the nickname of the place is The Festival State.
 
Last edited:
I was literally just reading that article. Why does no one even bother considering the ramifications of these actions? Even if her banning was done in 'good faith' (and not for obviously racist reasons), how could they possibly defend explicitly linking an Australian author with Islamic State terrorism??
 
Back
Top Bottom