I wrote a little while ago that the Brumby Government had started to stink up the place quite a bit, and so it was not much of a surprise that they got booted out.
I also wrote that I didn't exactly have high hopes for Baillieu.
Well, he's only been in power for a few months, but things are already looking very dicey with this Victorian Government.
Exhibit B (this was Exhibit A): Rachel Ball, director of policy and campaigns at the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, recently wrote in "Baillieu promised a fairer Victoria, but it looks like the opposite" that the State Government has stated it will scrap measures in Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act that are designed to actively promote equality, including stripping powers from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, and also "expand the ''permanent exceptions'' that give religious groups and entities - including those that provide public services using public money - a free licence to discriminate against de facto couples, gays, lesbians and single mums, among others."
Why do they even need to go there? Aren't there more pressing concerns than allowing men in dresses to discriminate against single mothers on the basis of "a book of stories inscribed by an itinerant Middle Eastern shepherd many millennia ago" (with thanks to The Onion for that quote*).
I think the philosophy of this commenter ("Embe") had a simple eloquence: "I say, take away all tax payer funding from these organisations and then they can discriminate to their intolerant hearts content. If they take our secular money they should follow our secular inclusive rules."
Hear, hear, Mr Embe.
And boo, hiss, Mr Baillieu. My kickboot is getting itchy. I think it wants to connect with your behind region...
* Perhaps I'm being facetious, since the Bible "deals with all kinds of germane topics, from what meats one should not eat due to mankind's lack of refrigeration technology to the pre-Iron Age accounts of territorial disputes affecting a certain area of the Fertile Crescent."
I also wrote that I didn't exactly have high hopes for Baillieu.
Well, he's only been in power for a few months, but things are already looking very dicey with this Victorian Government.
Exhibit B (this was Exhibit A): Rachel Ball, director of policy and campaigns at the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, recently wrote in "Baillieu promised a fairer Victoria, but it looks like the opposite" that the State Government has stated it will scrap measures in Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act that are designed to actively promote equality, including stripping powers from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, and also "expand the ''permanent exceptions'' that give religious groups and entities - including those that provide public services using public money - a free licence to discriminate against de facto couples, gays, lesbians and single mums, among others."
Why do they even need to go there? Aren't there more pressing concerns than allowing men in dresses to discriminate against single mothers on the basis of "a book of stories inscribed by an itinerant Middle Eastern shepherd many millennia ago" (with thanks to The Onion for that quote*).
I think the philosophy of this commenter ("Embe") had a simple eloquence: "I say, take away all tax payer funding from these organisations and then they can discriminate to their intolerant hearts content. If they take our secular money they should follow our secular inclusive rules."
Hear, hear, Mr Embe.
And boo, hiss, Mr Baillieu. My kickboot is getting itchy. I think it wants to connect with your behind region...
* Perhaps I'm being facetious, since the Bible "deals with all kinds of germane topics, from what meats one should not eat due to mankind's lack of refrigeration technology to the pre-Iron Age accounts of territorial disputes affecting a certain area of the Fertile Crescent."
And speaking of taxpayers' money pouring into the pockets of religious nutjobs, check out this article about a High Court challenge against the $437 million the Commonwealth has allocated to "Scripture Union" (and others), without any supporting legislation and possibly in breach of the Constitution, to put a chaplain in all the nation's schools (i.e., including public schools): http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/religiously-defending-the-right-to-remain-secular-20110212-1ar7i.html
ReplyDeleteHearing dates are May 10, 11 and 12 2011, apparently (see also http://www.highcourtchallenge.com)
C'mon, High Court. Put on a cape and be my hero.