Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: portej05 on August 23, 2010, 03:39:35 am
-
I haven't seen a thread on this yet, so I thought I'd start one (and OHMIGOD, I'm in GenDisc.).
We had our election day last weekend. (Gorgeous blue day, I might add).
After 6 weeks of _REALLY_ crappy campaigning, we're left with a hung parliament and a few doubtful seats (vote is too close to stop counting).
Thoughts?
-
Was wondering when someone would post about this :P
Yeah, the campaigning was really rubbish, most of it was 'don't vote for Labor/Liberals, they've done/they will do this and that which is bad', especially when we got to the point where we were warned that each of them would have a tax that would increase the cost of living :hopping:.
One thing I feel like mentioning (to those who don't know) is that the size of the Senate paper was HUGE!
-
Try the Canberra senate paper - it had 9 names on it :P (much more manageable, methinks!)
-
I'd rather we don't have Abbot or Gillard...
But Saturday's lowpoint was when Wilson Tuckey lost his seat. :D
Now who'll make politics interesting?!
-
Labor had the better policies, but the coalition had the better campaign (mainly shouting about "boat people") but the Greens bested both in policies and campaign and are the closest of any group to having a mandate from the people.
Try voting below the line in NSW; we had 84.
-
With the exception of the NBN, and one or two other things, I liked most of the coalition's policies, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Abbot - just couldn't do it. I'd much rather have an atheist ranga than a bible-bashing madman in charge.
I've been following the aftermath pretty closely - despite the new Greens agreement, I can't see the Independents supporting Labor, other than Wilkie, and so the coalition will have a 1 seat majority, but with Bob Katter (Incidentally, **** you FNQ for electing this idiot) being that one seat and a soon to be Green dominated Senate? No way that's going to be a government that'll be able to get anything done. They might sneak through three years of supply bills, but there'll be nothing major, good or bad. I kind of wish we'd end up back at the polls, but with this whole "3 year commitment" everyone seems to want from the major parties we're looking set for three years of stagnant, ineffective government.
On another possible note, what does everyone think of the likelihood that regardless of who forms government the Libs and Labor will be looking to each other to pass legislation, rather than fighting their way through the independents? They agree on more things thans they disagree on, after all.
-
we're left with a hung parliament
Well...better than an impotent parliament. ;)
hehehe dirtyyyy
-
You guys have elections? I was under the impression that drinking contests decided political campaigns down there. :p
More seriously, though, will any of this have any impact on that ****witted game ratings policy?
-
You guys have elections? I was under the impression that drinking contests decided political campaigns down there. :p
Fosters, Australian for democracy :p
-
The coalition had policies? I thought they just wanted to slash and burn through Labor's policies and to "STOP THE BOATS!!!!!111"
It's terrible that Labor and the Greens have formed a coalition to try to hold power. The Liberals would never do that, except with the Nationals (whom the independents almost uniformly despise)...
An SMH poll (http://www.smh.com.au/polls/federal-election/hung-parliament-and-another-election/20100831-14f7x.html) has 64% for a new election. I'm guessing everyone else is getting over the novelty of having independents (especially Katter) holding the balance of power too.
Fosters is Australian for ****.
-
Stop copying us!
-
Whatever you do, kick the christfags out of government, then you won't have to be the laughing stock of the rest of the world anymore. Imagine: No censorship of games, no censoring of breasts that are too small, and most importantly: No giant, blubbering vaginas like Michael Atkinson or Stephen Conroy anymore. We can all dream, can't we?
-
It is amazing when people complain about the US's civil-liberties issues over the past decade (and rightly so) yet completely ignore the fact that Australia doesn't have true freedom of expression. I find the entire concept of needing to get entertainment products government-approved before you're allowed to sell them to be completely mind-boggling. Whatever you guys do, get that **** changed somehow. :p
-
Looks like we've finally got a Prime Minister.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/07/3005028.htm
-
Let there be fibre to the home over the next however many years!
-
Well at least we've got some government now.
-
It is amazing when people complain about the US's civil-liberties issues over the past decade (and rightly so) yet completely ignore the fact that Australia doesn't have true freedom of expression. I find the entire concept of needing to get entertainment products government-approved before you're allowed to sell them to be completely mind-boggling. Whatever you guys do, get that **** changed somehow. :p
I thought Australian freedom of expression was similar to Canada's freedom of expression. We (Canada) have a slightly more subtle setup than the American version of freedom of expression for all (at least in theory). At least that's what I remember from my old law class in high school.
-
It is amazing when people complain about the US's civil-liberties issues over the past decade (and rightly so) yet completely ignore the fact that Australia doesn't have true freedom of expression. I find the entire concept of needing to get entertainment products government-approved before you're allowed to sell them to be completely mind-boggling. Whatever you guys do, get that **** changed somehow. :p
I thought Australian freedom of expression was similar to Canada's freedom of expression. We (Canada) have a slightly more subtle setup than the American version of freedom of expression for all (at least in theory). At least that's what I remember from my old law class in high school.
Well, you do have quasi-judicial "Human Rights Councils" which people can use to harass their opponents, like the "case" of Ezra Lavant vs. Syed Soharwardy. Ezra Lavant was in charge of the paperbag version of some right wing Canadian newspaper, and he had chosen to print the Muhammed cartoons. Syed Soharwardy managed to actually get taken serious when he filed a report saying that these offended his religious feelings. Not having a right to a lawyer or anything, Ezra Lavant was actually brave enough to fight back against these thugs, and he filmed the hearing here: http://www.youtube.com/user/EzraILevant
Warning: It gets more and more absurd the further into the videos you get. The whole thing about Lori Andreachuk's credentials as a divorce lawyer is just so hilariously absurd. Some pretty shocking stuff to have happening in a democracy, with all its bells and whistles like "fair trial" and "due process".
Other than that, Canada's awesome!
-
It is amazing when people complain about the US's civil-liberties issues over the past decade (and rightly so) yet completely ignore the fact that Australia doesn't have true freedom of expression. I find the entire concept of needing to get entertainment products government-approved before you're allowed to sell them to be completely mind-boggling. Whatever you guys do, get that **** changed somehow. :p
I thought Australian freedom of expression was similar to Canada's freedom of expression. We (Canada) have a slightly more subtle setup than the American version of freedom of expression for all (at least in theory). At least that's what I remember from my old law class in high school.
I don't know the exact details of the varying setups myself, but the very idea of having some sort of government entertainment classifications board that gets to determine what can and cannot be sold legally in the country is fundamentally anathema to me. What, or perhaps who, gives them that sort of authority? In any democratic country that promotes at least some degree of freedom of expression, how can an appointed board flat-out prevent a legitimate entertainment product from being sold anywhere in the country? Like, I frankly don't understand how there isn't mass outrage over that concept.
-
It is amazing when people complain about the US's civil-liberties issues over the past decade (and rightly so) yet completely ignore the fact that Australia doesn't have true freedom of expression.
If I remember correctly from politics and law class, I believe FOE is an implied right in the constitution that's basically recognised by all Judicial bodies in the country.
-
Call us in the States when you get 17+ video games. :P
-
We do get most of them already. They just get rated 15+ instead.
-
The point is that you shouldn't have to worry about them being rated either way regardless. :p
-
what is wrong with rating games (or anything else for that matter)? surely we can all agree that there are plenty of games/movies ill suited for children.
-
Classification is good, however Australia prohibits sale unless it is classified. In America the ESRB is a private association that has no legal power.
-
what is wrong with rating games (or anything else for that matter)? surely we can all agree that there are plenty of games/movies ill suited for children.
There is a difference between an advisory ratings board and one that has the power to effectively legislate their vision of morality by refusing to rate certain things.
-
what is wrong with rating games (or anything else for that matter)? surely we can all agree that there are plenty of games/movies ill suited for children.
There is a difference between an advisory ratings board and one that has the power to effectively legislate their vision of morality by refusing to rate certain things.
This. As SpardaSon said, our MPAA (for movies) and ESRB (for games) are private associations whose decisions carry no legal weight at all; they're simply meant as guidelines for consumers who are concerned about media content. There are adults-only classifications for both movies (NC-17) and games (AO), and while certain stores may choose not to stock titles with those ratings, they can still be handled within the system. (Incidentally, the reason why no game has ever been released as "adults only" is because Wal-Mart refuses to stock titles with that rating, and they happen to be the country's biggest games retailer.) More importantly, you're perfectly free to sell your product on your own without submitting it for a rating...you may not get it in any retail stores, but there's nothing preventing you from doing so, which is how it should be.
At the end of the day, I just don't see how it's in any government's purview to rate and restrict media content, especially when that extends to flat-out prohibiting the sale of certain pieces of entertainment in the country.