Episode 207 – More Free Speech and Ethical Conundrums

Somehow we combine The Lord’s Prayer, Iran, New Zealand, Assange, Chelsea, Setka, Sinatra, Falou, De Belin, Mr Anderson, Gas Royalties and Workplace Fingerprinting into another compelling episode.

1:49 Led not into temptation: The Pope approves a change to the Lord’s Prayer

Now Pope Francis has risked the wrath of traditionalists by approving a change to the wording of the Lord’s Prayer. Instead of saying “lead us not into temptation”, it will say “do not let us fall into temptation”.

The new wording was approved by the general assembly of the Episcopal Conference of Italy last month. It will appear in the third edition of the Messale Romano, the liturgical book that contains the guiding texts for mass in the Roman Catholic church.

The pope said in 2017 he believed the wording should be altered.

“It is not a good translation because it speaks of a God who induces temptation,” he told Italian TV. “I am the one who falls. It’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen.

“A father doesn’t do that; a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation – that’s his department.”

Our podcast prayer

4:22 Has Iran attacked a Japanese oil tanker?

War with Iran over possibly bullshit bombing claims.
Sounds like Iraq all over again. Sounds like babies in Kuwait hospital or weapons of mass destruction or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident also known as the USS Maddox incident was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It involved either one or two separate confrontations between North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated, regarding the first incident on August 2:

at 1500G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier’s gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards (9,150 m). At about 1505G, Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist [North Vietnamese] boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression”. The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

10:00 New Zealand man who shared Christchurch massacre video sentenced to 21 months in jail

A New Zealand man has been sentenced to 21 months in prison for sharing a video of the Christchurch massacre.

Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said that when questioned about the video, Arps had described it as “awesome” and had shown no empathy toward the victims.

Justice O’Driscoll said the 44-year-old had strong and unrepentant views about the Muslim community and had, in effect, committed a hate crime.

“Your offending glorifies and encourages the mass murder carried out under the pretext of religious and racial hatred,” he said.

The court heard that Arps — who had compared himself to Nazi war criminal Rudolf Hess — had sent the video to 30 associates.

Justice O’Driscoll said Arps had also asked somebody to insert crosshairs and include a kill count in order to create an internet meme, although there was no evidence he had shared the meme.

Under legislation aimed at preventing the distribution of objectionable material, Arps faced up to 14 years imprisonment on each count.

16:07 Speaking of Assange – Smear 20: “He’s got blood on his hands.”

From Caitlin Johnstone:

No he doesn’t. There’s no evidence anywhere that WikiLeaks helped cause anyone’s death anywhere in the world. This smear has been enjoying renewed popularity since it became public knowledge that he’s being prosecuted for the Manning leaks, the argument being that the leaks got US troops killed.

This argument is stupid. In 2013 the Pentagon, who had every incentive to dig up evidence that WikiLeaks had gotten people killed, ruled that no such instances have been discovered.

From The Guardian

The US counter-intelligence official who led the Pentagon’s review into the fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures of state secrets told the Bradley Manning sentencing hearing on Wednesday that no instances were ever found of any individual killed by enemy forces as a result of having been named in the releases.

Brigadier general Robert Carr, a senior counter-intelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Defense Department, told a court at Fort Meade, Maryland, that they had uncovered no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals that followed the publication of the disclosures on the internet. “I don’t have a specific example,” he said.

It has been one of the main criticisms of the WikiLeaks publications that they put lives at risk, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan. The admission by the Pentagon’s chief investigator into the fallout from WikiLeaks that no such casualties were identified marks a significant undermining of such arguments.

Basically,

The US government claims people were endangered (of course they would) but independent sources often say there is no concrete evidence.

Would a Bill of Rights solve the problem of the AFP raids?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Julian and Chelsea wouldn’t think so.

So, a Bill of Rights didn’t help them but maybe it would help this guy. (Be careful what you wish for)

22:55 John Setka refuses to resign

Disturbing new details have emerged about the behaviour of construction union boss John Setka, prompting Victorian premier Daniel Andrews to demand he apologise over comments he made about anti-violence campaigner Rosie Batty.

Mr Setka said last month he would plead guilty to charges of harassing a woman. He told a meeting of his union’s national executive this week that the work of Ms Batty had led to men having few rights.

The Age and Sydney Morning Herald can also reveal that a former deputy president of the Fair Work Commission gave a statement to police alleging that Mr Setka repeatedly intimidated and terrified a woman over several months.

Police analysis of Mr Setka’s phone activity reveals on a single evening last October, he called the woman 25 times and sent her 45 text messages, calling her a “weak f—en piece of shit” and a “treacherous Aussie f—en c—” and a “f—en dog”.

Hmmm, how times have changed.

Remember …

The siege of Sinatra

Frank Sinatra was in the wrong country at the wrong time. He arrived in Australia for concerts in July 1974, just three years after Germaine Greer had published The Female Eunuch and only 18 months after Melbourne singer Helen Reddy had a worldwide hit with I Am Woman, virtually the theme song for the then rapidly expanding women’s liberation movement.

It was hardly the right moment for Sinatra to get up on stage at Melbourne’s Festival Hall and referring to Australia’s journalists, he said: “They keep chasing after us. We have to run all day long. They’re parasites who take everything and give nothing. And as for the broads who work for the press, they’re the hookers of the press. I might offer them a buck and a half I’m not sure.”

A furious Australian press howled for blood. Sinatra refused to apologise and sparked an extraordinary chain of events that resulted in the cancellation of Sinatra’s second Melbourne concert, a black ban of his private jet by airport refuellers and a three-day siege at Sydney’s Boulevard Hotel.

Only after the intervention of Bob Hawke, then leader of the ACTU, did Sinatra agree to sign a placatory statement to the effect that he regretted any inconvenience caused to patrons.

Back to Setka

Where are the free speech absolutists? They defend Falou but not Setka or Jack de Belin?

Still on free speech.
Rape someone and get sacked.
Say you like raping or would like to rape, can’t sack for that?

The difference? One is illegal. So, is every illegal act a cause for sacking? Where do you draw the line? Is a minor assault or drug possession ok? If absolutist are honest they would say it is when the act is such that employing the felon reflects badly on the employer.

If absolutists require an illegal act to trigger sanctions then why aren’t they defending Jack de Belin.

Remember, we have courts that provide punishment for illegal activity. Employer retribution just because it is illegal is really a form of double jeopardy.

32:16  In February the NRL unveiled the hard-line stance to clean up the code which immediately sidelines any player charged with an offence carrying a maximum prison term of 11 years or more.

Rugby league star Jack de Belin’s career is in tatters after losing a legal bid to overturn his playing ban for rape charges.

The Dragons lock says he is “very disappointed” his landmark Federal Court challenge to the code’s controversial no-fault stand down policy failed on Friday.

The NRL and ARLC argued the rule reflects the expectations of fans and sponsors which ensures the game’s commercial survival, adding its impact on de Belin is justified.

39:31 The Fist as head of PR for Catholic Head Office

47:52 Gas giants sound warnings on Queensland royalty hike

Major gas producers have sounded warnings over Queensland’s decision to raise royalties on liquefied natural gas, saying the shock move puts in doubt future investment in the state and threatens the competitiveness of the industry.

ConocoPhillips, a part-owner of the $25 billion Australia Pacific LNG project in Queensland, said it was disappointed by the Palaszczuk government’s “surprise” 25 per cent increase in gas royalty rates in Tuesday’s state budget.

“Disruption to that, as we saw yesterday, puts at risk future investment and the competitiveness of the gas industry in Queensland.”

… well they would say that wouldn’t they?

And what will Adani say when their royalty holiday expires?

From Episode 196

An Oxford University expert says Australia would be $90 billion better off if it adopted European-style resource tax policies and argues the Turnbull government has given up on collecting a meaningful amount of revenue from some of its most valuable resources.

In one of a suite of new submissions to a Senate inquiry, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies academic Juan Carlos Boué warned unless Australia “radically overhauled its fiscal regime” it would have the second lowest share of government revenue from oil and gas in the world.

Australia is on track to eclipse Qatar as the largest exporter of gas by 2020, but is expected to only earn $600 million in 2018 – the same amount of revenue the government earns in beer tax every year – compared to Qatar’s $26.6 billion.

Calling the result “a silver medal finish that no Australian should desire,” Mr Carlos Boué, a former industry consultant, found Australia had an effective tax ratio of 21 per cent on gas resources, falling below the 35 per cent or more taken by the North Sea nations of Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Germany.

Meanwhile

Resource royalties will be frozen for a decade and Galilee Basin mine approvals fast-tracked in a major pitch by LNP Leader Deb Frecklington to Queensland’s coal country.

54:08 Mr Anderson

He had a good story for The Fist.

And we have a new patron, Will.

1:02:57 Jeremy was fired for refusing to fingerprint at work. His case led to an ‘extraordinary’ unfair dismissal ruling

When Queensland sawmill worker Jeremy Lee refused to give his fingerprints to his employer as part of a new work sign-in, he wasn’t just thinking about his privacy.

It was a matter of ownership.

“It’s my biometric data. It’s not appropriate for them to have it,” he tells RN’s The Law Report.

For not agreeing to the new system, Mr Lee was sacked.

What followed was a legal battle that delivered the first unfair dismissal decision of its kind in Australia.

Mr Lee represented himself before the full bench of the Fair Work Commission — and won.

“It’s extraordinary,” says Josh Bornstein, national head of employment law with Maurice Blackburn lawyers.

“It’s off the charts for a self-represented litigant dealing with very sophisticated legal issues to have such an outstanding result. That is a very unusual achievement.

“There’s not too many Jeremy Lees, in my experience.”

He says Mr Lee’s case reflects the complicated intersection of privacy and technology — an area in which the law is struggling to keep up pace.

 


One comment on “Episode 207 – More Free Speech and Ethical Conundrums
  1. The Beneficiary says:

    https://youtu.be/bAejeZtDqME

    A clip from the ACL. They’re screeching about Christians losing their jobs and religious freedom again.
    This has to be to most cringe worthy clip I’ve seen in a while.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Politician Filter

Sort Federal politicians according to these attributes
show blocks helper

Regular per episode donations

One off donations

Top