RE: Is the Western world Sleepwalking into a Totalitarian Nightmare.
I disagree with the final point you make quite strongly. We don't need to make more people more disengaged with politics. That's exactly how you get the government doing whatever they want. Having compulsory voting and preferential voting is the best part of our system. Just the way the senate uses that, and abuses that thanks to party preferential voting (above the line) hurts it just to make the process of voting simpler. It would be better to limit the number of candidates on the senate ballot somehow.
We do need (more) reforms to how the senate voting is done though, ideally I'd be wanting to get rid of the above the line voting completely, and expanding the allowable 'incomplete ballot fill' to be as incomplete as you want. Number 1 box, 4, 15, or all of them. When you're preferences are exhausted, you're ballot no longer goes towards electing anyone. If enough votes exhaust too early to elect a full selection, that should be a pretty big indicator that the voting public aren't happy with the options provided.
I'd also much rather the damage of the far left than the far right, but as you kind of allude to, either extreme isn't that desirable.
As for erosion of our freedom of speech, come look at what was happening to the people on the other side of the aisle. They weren't just getting screamed at and called names. Bricks through windows that were aimed at the person. Death threats. Assaults. And constantly wondering about their safety. But never mind all that, some of them were calling us names.
Well, sorry, but if that tiny little bit makes you feel bad, maybe it might make you think about what those on the other side have endured publicly in the last few months of a farce, and what they have mostly endured privately all their lives.
If our freedoms have been eroded so much, what can't you do now that you could do last week, month, year, that doesn't impact on the freedoms of other Australians?
The biggest Freedom that Australia is loosing at the moment is the freedom to hold a differing opinion.
I see it as the Far Left taking the freedom as way, but you are right to say that the Far Right can do the same thing, they certainly aren't innocent in it.
The Civility in society has disappeared. The lack of respect for differeing opinions seems to not exist any more. Personally I respect everyones opinions, and I'm fully aware that not everyone will agree with everything I say.
But you are completely correct about the Senate, it doesn't work properly. The Senate is a house of review, it is not designed to hold an opinion or sway policy.
How? You can still hold an opinion, lets say (because it's current), that same sex marriage is wrong. But that doesn't mean our secular government should restrict the freedom of those that think it's right from being able to actually get married.
It hasn't changed the freedom of those that think it's wrong. Just stopped them enforcing their views on others.
Of course you can hold an opinion, but your not allowed to express it.
I should equivocally state, I have nothing against SSM. Have a major problem with the lack of bill that was voted on though.
But I digress.
So now, under the new laws to be passed a catholic priest will not be FORCED to do something that he doesn't want to do for Religious beliefs.
But a devoutly Catholic or Muslim etc Photographer will be FORCED to take photos at a SSM service for fear of prosecution.
So they aren't allowed, by laws to be passed, to express a different opinion. We're not talking about vilifying anyone, or attacking or protesting. Rather a person saying "I'm terribly sorry, but in my religious beliefs I can't be a part of this, I wish you all the best" again I'm not talking about someone turning around saying "Fuck off Queer" or anything like that as that's hate speech and a different issue all together.
So its an Opinion that members of the public are not legally allowed to express.
You've got a couple of things in here.
Firstly, Priest, or other religious leader. They operate as part of a recognised religious organisation, and as such are able to use the already existing religious exemptions laws, that allow them to do things like fire someone from a Catholic school just because of their sexual orientation. It's not considered discrimination or unfair dismissal, because they're a religious organisation, and key to a distinction, a non-profit religious organisation.
Secondly, A member of the public however, operating a business, is not covered by religious freedom to discriminate, and hasn't been previously either. They operate a business, and are required (with some exceptions under things like the liquor licensing act) to provide their service without discrimination based on things in the anti-discrimination act, which includes sexual discrimination, and has done for many years. Basically, you have to treat people equally, even if you don't believe that people are equal (which is a pretty shitty attitude). I'd imagine if the polite "I'm terribly sorry, but my religious beliefs prohibit me supporting this" was the regular reaction we wouldn't have needed the laws that we have, but unfortunately like with many things, a minority of ass hats spoil it for everyone. Since I'd imagine, unless intending to stir up trouble, a SSM couple that are politely told that when trying to find a photographer would look elsewhere. All the cases I've seen of trouble happening for denying service (overseas obviously since we haven't got it yet) have been for places agreeing to provide a service, and then at the last minute denying service. Which regardless of your views is a pretty horrible thing to do, and done with pretty obvious intent to ruin someone else's happiness. You've got to be a pretty sad individual to be that petty.
Now, an interesting test case would be if the church was providing the photographer as part of the service, at which point I'd imagine that it would be much the same as the issue with the priest, and unlikely to have the priest (and the building...) agree to host the wedding, but their photographer not, so unlikely to get to that point unless intentionally by the church just to cause trouble...
Swap out for past things, like when we recognised that indigenous Australians were people, or (probably a better example) when inter-racial marriage became legal, or the anti-segregation movement in the US.
Freedom of speech also doesn't come with the requirement to be given a podium to express it, or the requirement of anyone listening to it.
The biggest and most significant point there. The Arse Hats fuck it up for everyone.
Maybe we just need to scrap all of this and create an Arse Hat Law, banning all assholes and dick moves. That would fix everyones problems.