T O P I C R E V I E W
Maharet
Member # 3806
posted 11-06-2001 07:42 AM
This is an article from the Christian Democratic Party. I found out about them because they placed an ad in our state paper protesting against our government's laws that will equalize age of consent for gays&straights and other equal rights stuff for gays.I dunno how it works for posting web addresses, so I guess u can just C&P it, lol, sorry http://www.christiandemocratic.org.au/fed/mr/discrim_hetero1.htm
There's masses and masses of stuff on this site. To most Scarleteen ppl, it would probably be like theonion.com except these guys take themselves seriously...
Happy reading.
Maharet
Member # 3806
posted 11-06-2001 07:54 AM
http://www.christiandemocratic.org.au/fed/mr/anti-sexual_assault.htm More strange stuff, but it's probably more relevant to the boards
lemming
Member # 33
posted 11-06-2001 11:36 AM
They're both relevant.This is scary. I'll post more later, but - wow. ugh.
------------------~lemming, Scarleteen Advocate
want to know the inner lemming? read her diary at http://innerlemming.diaryland.com ."Did you see my friend? He couldn't believe it, 'The girls are holding hands, the girls are holding hands!' Don't be a fool, it's 1995, the girls are just friends." --Belle and Sebastian, "Photo Jenny"
Confused boy
Member # 1964
posted 11-06-2001 01:45 PM
I think that the one on legislation to stop discrimination of straight people is fair. It looked like the law that was already on to protect homosexuals is now to protect heterosexuals as well. I do not believe there are many occasions where it will be enforced but perhaps in the future when some places may have a majority of homosexuals, that will be useful.
------------------ 'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky
PoetgirlNY
Member # 168
posted 11-06-2001 02:01 PM
The second one would make sense, if pornography did cause sexual assault. But it's really just a way to further restrict sexuality.------------------ *Limes Are Sublime*
Maharet
Member # 3806
posted 11-06-2001 08:18 PM
The really scary thing about it all, is that these guys are a registered political party. they're running for election (as a minor party, but still) in Australia's federal election that's on this weekend (Sat 10). I can't vote yet, I don't turn 18 until mid next year, but guess who's going last on my ballot paper, even below One Nation!
ThisGuy
Member # 968
posted 11-06-2001 09:11 PM
Has Fred Nile ever actually made sense?I swear that guy was actually born senile...
Besides, I didn't think they even asked about your sexuality in the Mardi Gras? I thought it was mostly a free-for-all?
------------------Proof that evolution stopped working a long time ago.
Confused boy
Member # 1964
posted 11-07-2001 10:23 AM
Hold on a second its not THAT bad. In order to charge the people making the pornagraphy that causes sexual assault, they would have to prove that using that the product precipitated the assault. The producers would be innocent until proven guilty. Any evidence that showed the man (well more often men) to be unstable anyway would disprove the argument. The legislation is pointless, but of little harmful effect.
------------------ 'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky
John Doe
Member # 3836
posted 11-08-2001 12:13 AM
CB, it looks like it opens the door to civil actions, not criminal actions against the publishers. There is not strong presumption of innocence in civil proceedures. All that is needed is a "preponderence of the evidence", not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" It looks like a back door way to put the publishers out of business. Most porn producers aren't as wealthy as Rupert Murdoch or have the financial clout of a AOL-TW or Disney. This could have a very serious chilling effect. The other side of the coin is what about all those who would go out and sexually offend, but don't because they are able to satisfy themselves through porn.
smittenkitten
Member # 2297
posted 11-09-2001 08:05 AM
I honestly can't decide wether to laugh, cry, be sick, send abusive email, or shaving cream my local CDP candidate in the morning (lucky me I live in canberra).And yes Maharet, I'd put hanson before them as well. Of course, I won't be voting until next election.
I wonder if they're good friends with the governer-general?
Hugs & Scully, Winnie :0)
Beppie
Member # 94
posted 11-09-2001 07:37 PM
I have a friend whom I am fairly sure is heterosexual and marched in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras a couple of years ago. The CDP doesn't have a candidate in my seat, so I didn't have to worry about placing them before or after One Nation, but there were a couple of girls handing out brochures encouraging people to vote for them in the Senate. I really hope they don't get the balance of power, or Bad Things could happen, especially if Howard wins, as I think he probably will .
Maharet
Member # 3806
posted 11-09-2001 08:46 PM
If anyone tries the "Mardi Gras is unequal, heterosexuals can't march" argument, I'd recommend responding something like this: "Political parties march in Mardi Gras, (Greens, Democrats, Labor) and (I think it was this year?) we had a Liberal float of all things! can anyone imagine there being an out gay Liberal??" LOLand, btw, I'm not so much complaining about those specific articles when I say I'll put them last, more the party's general policies of fundamentalist Christianity, calling the Greens the "immoral party" because they have some sort of connection, presumably, with the Eros Foundation. I'm a big Greens gal.
Beppie
Member # 94
posted 11-09-2001 09:02 PM
Just so that any Americans reading this thread don't get confused, our Liberal Party is actually a conservative party- they're just called Liberals because... well, I don't know why actually, but they aren't really liberal minded people for the most part, especially the frontbenchers.The parties with liberal-minded policies are the Democrats, the Greens and Labor (although Labor has moved to the right a bit lately).
Beppie
Member # 94
posted 11-09-2001 09:05 PM
Oh, and Maharet, I gave the Greens my primary vote as well.
alaska
Member # 1896
posted 11-10-2001 02:00 AM
....thankfully though, not many Australians seem to care about that Christian Democratic Party...Am watching the election results at http://election2001.aec.gov.au/ ....and the Christian Democradic Party (coded in the National results as CTA) has less than half a percent of the vote at the moment.
------------------Caro ~Scarleteen Sexpert~
"Through repetition the magic will be forced to rise."Alchemical Precept
Confused boy
Member # 1964
posted 11-10-2001 04:19 PM
It is dangerous to have religion as a political force: Taliban, Church of England (before it went soft), Ireland. I suppose the division between Church and State in the US is a useful one. Doesnt stop clerics talking about politics or politicians talking about morals though!------------------ 'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky
[This message has been edited by Confused boy (edited 11-10-2001).]
alaska
Member # 1896
posted 11-11-2001 01:14 AM
Now that the final results are out, roughly 55.000 Australians voted for that party, about half of one percent, and I think that just goes to show that that sort of politics thankfully isn't wanted in Australia.Reliving, I think.