Long Term Alice: The conversation evolved. It became a conversation …

Comment on Human rights, centre stage by InterestedDarwinObserver.

Long Term Alice: The conversation evolved. It became a conversation between commentators – not just directly about the article itself.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to have occurred.
My comment was in response to another comment. My original comment – Comment 6 – was a succinct three lines / 30 words. Cheers.

InterestedDarwinObserver Also Commented

Human rights, centre stage
Carolyn: The problem with the term “Social Justice” is that nobody really knows exactly what it means. The other problem is, social justice, dependent on the definition, could be quite in conflict with the meaning of justice.
Taking a stab at what it means, the American Oxford dictionary states “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society”.
The question is, what does this mean? Does this mean that the distribution of wealth and privileges ought to be spread equally across the population? That sounds like Socialism or Communism. Neither of which will lead to justice or betterment of the population.
Does it mean bridging the gap between those that have and those that have not? If so, that can either mean bringing everyone up or taking every one down. How do you bring everyone up?
There are disparities between the haves and have nots due to personal responsibility and good decision making.
How does society enforce those positive traits on the “have nots”? Or, how would it be fair or Just, to take from those that have shown personal responsibility and good decision making in order to give those that do not do those things?
Of course, Australia does this to a great extent already, through a comprehensive progressive tax system. This is a massive redistribution of wealth as evidenced by the fact that the top 10% of income earners pay over 50% of the annual personal income tax collection.
Social Justice does not seem compatible with freedom. How can a person be free to create a better life for themselves and their family if the view of Social Justice suggests that having something, be it money, a nice house, the best food and the best health and education options, that someone else does not, is fundamentally wrong and represents a lack of social justice?
Freedom and justice are what is needed, not the undefined, “Social Justice”.
In regards to “Privileged Knowledge” – perhaps we should all dumb down our conversation to promote “Social Justice” in our literary abilities.
And yes, I agree, they are only words. Sticks and Stones may break my bones …
Of course, the words in below comments seemed to have triggered you to want to type “obscene words” and demeaning the writers. Just words indeed.
I see no one here diminishing the achievements of the recipients. Congrats to all.

Human rights, centre stage
John Bell – I agree regarding Justice. Something is either Just or it is not.
Ben Shapiro speaks of this quite concisely.

But anyhow, let this not detract from these awards.

Recent Comments by InterestedDarwinObserver

Drags inferno: Major Events, Car Festivals to spend $1.2m
Given that NT Major Events Company is owned by the NT Government, the $944,000 is essentially just a cost to the tax payer.
Instead of “building knowledge base and capacity” perhaps just invest the money into relevant infrastructure at the venue. That way something tangible will actually be achieved.

Anti-fracking Greens: Are jobs for the dole schemes legal?
John Argent: You require a history lesson.
The Protectionist Party came to power with the assistance of the Labor Party. The union movement was against jobs going to immigrants. Labor pushed for the restriction of non white immigration. And so the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was born.
But this is all totally beyond the point. To draw parallels between the parties of today and yesteryear is irrelevant.

Anti-fracking Greens: Are jobs for the dole schemes legal?
Rosalie: Read the policies on the website. Best described as wishful thinking and thought bubbles.
I liked this line:
“To allow persons or organisations other than the RSPCA the right to fully investigate and prosecute charges relating to animal welfare in appropriate courts and tribunals.”
That would entail giving radical vegan activist the right to enter a farm and conduct an investigation. Bringing all the damage and cost and interruption to the Aussie farmer along with it. Instead of the group being a professional organization (like the RSCPA) it could instead be undertaken by extremist activist. The ones who shut down streets, spill red paint on people and deliver a dead piglet to Maccas.
Another cracker:
“Government to ensure the equitable distribution of paid work among those who wish to engage in the workforce.”
What does that even mean?!

Anti-fracking Greens: Are jobs for the dole schemes legal?
Medical marijuana – the cure for everything – including unemployment!
A few notes: the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) has a legislated responsibility to adequately train and supervise workers. As such there is no legality issue in working for the dole unless a PCBU is breaking the law. There are of course already mechanisms in law to deal with this.
Also, your proposal of paying solar construction workers $18 to $20 is below minimum wage. This is taking advantage of refugees and putting Australian workers at a disadvantage.
And yes, new start has increased – at a faster rate than inflation – since the 1990s.
Has it increased at the same rate as the average workers wage? No.
That’s because Newstart is not what has driven productivity, economic growth or certainly the export surge at such a strong rate.
So factually, Newstart recipients are, inflation adjusted, better off than in 1990s.
It is just when compared to a person in the workforce – which has had above inflation wage growth (up until recent years), that a widening in living standards between welfare recipients and workers emerge.

Road toll drops by half
In a period of less than 3 weeks, the statement made in regards to the road toll has proven to be cherry picking in the extreme.
The death toll for the first four months on NT Roads is now 11 versus 18 during the same period of 2018. 2018 is an outlier. In 2011 the same four month period was four deaths. Again, an outlier.
The fact is, the current first four months of the year in 2019 of 11 deaths is actually marginally higher than the average of 10.7 road toll deaths for this period between the years of 2011 and 2019.
Claiming successful policing outcomes in reducing the road toll is disingenuous towards what is such an important and devastating community issue.

Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor