Customize

Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

Discussion in 'Senator Xenophon And Scientology' started by Sponge, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. Sponge Member

    Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    UPDATE:

    Senate Vote 18 March 2010

    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/daily/2010/140310.pdf

    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/journals/jnlp_117.pdf (pg.10)

    Former Scientologists keen to spill beans on church to Rudd, Abbott | Herald Sun
    • Radio interview - Posted by Sponge on OCMB:
    Senator Nick Xenophon, whose motion was defeated in the Senate, speaks to 3AW Drive. 3AW 963 NewsTalk 18th March 2010
    Blog: Your views on Scientology
    • Television interview - Posted by Happy Days on ESMB:
    Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd takes questions from the public (Sunrise program, March 19, 2010)
    Question about Janette Lang and Scientology inquiry at offset 6:56 - 9:29
    Sunrise Videos Channel 7 ? Yahoo!7 TV - Yahoo!7 TV



    _____________________

    On 11 March 2010, the Australian Senate voted not to hold an inquiry into the appropriateness of applying a public benefit test along the lines of the UK version to religious and charitable organisations.

    Hansard PDF: Hansard Senate Vote 110310.pdf

    Transcript text: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/318-...logy/transcript-senate-march-11-2010-a-62947/



    [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq9tzvY93oI&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- xenophon calls for inquiry into scientology[/nomedia]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOK0t-8B7OQ"]YouTube- Xenophon's Scientology inquiry blocked - ABC News[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-S-ga5A680"]YouTube- Scientology - senator xenophon - abc radio 110310[/ame]

    ABC News - Rudd, Abbott 'running scared on Scientology'

    The Australian - Xenophon's Scientology inquiry defeated in Senate

    Sydney Morning Herald - Nick Xenophon's appeal for Scientology inquiry collapses

    The Age - Xenophon vow on Scientology probe

    NineMSN - Scientology inquiry blocked in Senate

    TVNZ World News - Aust govt "walking away" from Scientology abuse claims

    Sydney Morning Herald 13 March - Govt urged to back Scientology inquiry


    Opinion:


    'Call for inquiry voted down ' by Jacob Saulwick - The Sydney Morning Herald - RichardDawkins.net

    Crikey - Senate Inquiries: Sport yes - Abuse no

    Brisbane Times - Senate in alignment with the planet Ron

    Religion News Blog - Scientology inquiry defeated in Senate; New call for inquiry to be introduced

    OzSoapbox - Xenophon’s Scientology Senate inquiry fails, what now?

    theangle.org - Xenophon's Scientology Motion Stymied by Major Parties

    Gutter Trash - The Creepy Pod People at Scientology

    StreetCorner.com.au - Rudd leaves Scientology alone


    Destined to fail:

    Herald Sun - Xenophon's Scientology inquiry destined to fail in Senate

    Sky News - Scientology inquiry destined to fail



    --------------

    Previous post:

    Scientology inquiry destined to fail - The West Australian

    Article content from above link changed shortly after it was published.....

  2. Belladonna Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Scientology inquiry destined to fail NineMSN

    Xenophon's Scientology inquiry destined to fail in Senate | Herald Sun

    I don't get this. They seem to state an opinion. No byline (of course, it's AAP, but they do news, not opinion, and if they say the inquiry will fail, they should provide dox. I don't see one quote.)


    Who? What? When? Where? Why?


    Edit - some questions answered when AAP updated their story
  3. chrisanon Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO................

    How reliable is this reporting?

    If they vote it down, make them pay.
  4. Belladonna Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    I'm really surprised at AAP. This is a pretty irresponsible report. The only person they have dox on is the one who supports the measure. That last statement would never hold up if it was posted directly on WWP.

    Edit - AAP updated their story


    Moar poons to Labor.

    Why would we wait around to see if they vote it down? Full speed ahead.
  5. Anonymous Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    I think their intention there is just to report that the effort does not have enough votes to pass. Based on the two parties stance on the issue. It didn't last nov. either but at least we got a lot of coverage from the idea.

    I think they need like 12 more votes (to get half of 36 senators) to pass. But would have to check wikipedia.
  6. theLastAnon Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Let's be clear...they are saying a proposal Xenophon made today, specifically to look at the tax-exempt status, is destined to fail. This is or is not the same original proposal coming from Xenophon for an overall Senate inquiry into Scientology?

    I don't recall his call for an inquiry being limited to or focused on just the tax-exempt status. My impression was that it was a top to bottom investigation of the church and its behavior. This report confuses me.

    To compensate I'm making another drink.
  7. BLiP Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Petty politics at the expense of human suffering - the main parties can't afford to have the "fringe" parties proceed with an issue that they haven't come up with themselves. Fuckers.
  8. Belladonna Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Okay, but why do we have to find out the details from WWP? The article should have these supporting details too if it's going to go out on the wires right before the vote.

    Moar poons!
  9. Sponge Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    You sorta read my mind.

    What's the deal with the West Australian?
    They've reported a total of 2 scientology related articles. There's this article which I think has been put on the AAP newsfeed by them, and one from yesterday regarding the Prof. Pat McGorry backing. None before that.
    The WA rarely reports any of the usual scientology related articles which regularly tend go between the other main papers such as The Age, SMH, Herald&Sun, Brisbane Times etc and yet the WA jumps in with this conclusion (which doesn't really fit the guts of the article).

    Ignoring the headline, the logical way I read it, was that Labor and the coalition indicated that they would vote against that particular plan (re: how charitable status is defined) and not that they would vote against the whole idea of an inquiry.

    Edit:
    I gotcha. I was typing my reply as you posted yours.
  10. subgenius Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    The prediction of failure is a failure.
  11. Sponge Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Hang on. The article has changed in the last few minutes. See OP. I'm going to post a copy of the updated one underneath the one I copypasted (thankfully in full) before.
  12. Belladonna Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    ABC
    Rudd, Abbott 'running scared on Scientology'

    By online political correspondent Emma Rodgers

    links inside
    Rudd, Abbott 'running scared on Scientology' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    With
    VIDEO: Scientology under the spotlight (ABC News Breakfast)


    New paragraph added to this story:
  13. Anonymous Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    There was a news report before the summer too saying that Xenophon's request for an inquiry has failed. The vote is still on the 18th, isn't it?
  14. Anonymous Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    fail is fail
  15. theLastAnon Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry


    Wasn't sure I was right and it's clear now I was wrong...or something.

    FUCK.

    EDIT: ABC article uses actual journalism to present the details but the outcome is not yet determined, right?
  16. Belladonna Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    As far as I know, yes. Lots of wrangling and vote-getting can happen.

    Can anyone get some Oz ESMBers on the horn?
  17. Anonymous Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    I think Xenophon should force it into division so that each individual senator has to actually go into the senate chamber and vote in support of forced abortions and beatings. Then they can face the voters.
  18. Anonymous Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Ring the bells.
  19. Sponge Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Yeah, I get it now, the AAP/WA article is fucken naff.
  20. Lorelei Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Truman agrees.

    dewey_defeats_truman1.jpg

    Deweytruman12.jpg

    SO I HERD U LIEK TO MAEK PREDIKSHUNZ ABOOT POLITIX
  21. theLastAnon Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    There needs to be an outpouring of public support with Australians putting pressure on their elected officials for this probe to happen at this point, I fear. Xenophon would not have "moved for a broader inquiry into the tax-free status of religions" if he thought the vote on the 18th(?) had any hope of success.

    This is very fucking disappointing. How can the public get motivated to call for the inquiry? Maybe Xenophon needs to call on the people of Australia to support him in his quest for an inquiry? He could make a direct appeal for support to the people...maybe a live press conference with exes? EDIT: Any type of live event/press conference would have to present NEW exes to have real impact. As if to say, Fuck You Rudd, what about now?

    Fuck, fuck, fuck.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    There was a vote in the Senate this morning. The vote was "No" to Nick's call for an inquiry.

    Nick can and will call on the Senate again (as many times as are necessary) to hold an inquiry.

    What needs to happen is that the public needs to express their views and let Rudd and Abbott know in no uncertain terms that we demand an inquiry and action as a consequence of an inquiry.
  23. grumpus Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry

    Wow, talk about a straw man. Xenophon has not called for a crack down on "silly, bizarre, dangerous views," he specifically stated he is aiming at CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

    Also, when it comes to tax-exempt status on a national level, that IS the job of national government to investigate.

    I am not amused.
  24. Belladonna Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    So this
    is what we thought wasn't coming until the 18th?

    Moar info, please.
  25. subgenius Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    not a worry
    stay on track
    stop=fail
    continue=win
    more fun ahead
  26. Belladonna Member

    re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    The mods keep changing the thread title. I want to know what they know, and I want to know what the Aussies know.
  27. TinyDancer Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    I spoke with Nick Xenophon's senior policy adviser just now. The "No" vote is confirmed. Nick will continue to put the inquiry to the vote in the senate as long as is needed for it to go through.

    He's a persistent bastard.
  28. theLastAnon Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry?

    My admitted interpretation is yes. Hopefully I'm doing it wrong, but Xenophon would not have introduced this call for an examination of all religious groups, etc., if he thought he had a chance for the vote later. Prove me wrong. The ABC pieces seems clear to me:

    But I would gladly be proven wrong. Please.


    EDIT: TD, that is not proving me wrong. Fuck.
  29. Belladonna Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry?

    Edit - in light of Tiny Dancer's info, the below report is misleading


    Sky News
    no byline at all

    Scientology inquiry destined to fail
    Sky News: Scientology inquiry destined to fail
  30. Lorelei Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    'Poon the addresses listed in another thread, harder. Local folks need to work the phones.

    Also, add Joe Ludwig and Eric Abetz to that list.

    Tax-free status for law-abiding religions and charities should be a separate issue from tax exempt status of a "religion" which has human rights violations and (I am betting) does not follow the necessary guidelines for tax-exempt entities. (Aussies?)

    Confusing the issue is unnecessary. Focus on those who obey the rules and contribute to your communities, and then focus in a separate inquiry, i.e., Xenophon's, on Scientology's tax exempt status.

    What requirements should a group getting money and special privileges from the gov't follow? Should it be okay to just claim your group is a religious group? Can just anyone claim that their household or business is really a religion to get tax breaks? Do you allow "religions" to meddle in or try to influence politics? Should a religion prove that it provides charitable outreach in order to earn a tax break?

    You need to decide how you are going to spend taxpayer money responsibly, and to hold even 'religions" to a set of legal standards. If a particular group is doing more harm than good, and not contributing to the community in any positive way, and has been repeatedly legally challenged (and found guilty of fraud, and convicted for breaking into US gov't offices to steal and destroy unfavourable-to-Sci records, etc.), you need to use critical thinking and investigate to see if the same illegal acts and human rights abuses Sci. has been found guilty of in other countries are going on in YOUR country, and to do it before more people get hurt.

    You have the chance to show constituents that you actually care about their well-being and safety, and that of their neighbors, and that you care about how their tax money is used.

    As for Abetz:

    If you are going to draft and push laws through, you should be accountable for your decisions. If the law, as it stands, is allowing a group to abuse your citizenry in a variety of ways, and to skirt the law, then that law is not serving the best interests of your constituents or your communities.

    You are also foolishly confusing religious beliefs with the practices of a group claiming to be a religion. This is like saying it is OK for some Catholic priests to molest children, and some Catholic bishops to conceal the crime by shuttling those priests from parish to parish, because you do not wish to interfere with Catholic beliefs. Ask any Catholic if they feel like their belief system is being "attacked" if you investigate and prevent Catholic clergy from doing illegal or abusive things.

    Likewise, no Scientologist should feel that their belief system or right to refuse medical intervention for themselves (not other people) or to hold silly / bizarre / dangerous views is being "attacked" if you investigate the hundreds of claims of human rights abuses from the people who would know best: ex-Scientologists (whose stories are consistent not only with each other, but other ex-Scientologists and independent Scientologists outside of Australia).

    No one is preventing Scientologists from believing what they like. By insisting the group obey the same laws as every other religious group and by ensuring that they are not committing human rights abuses, you are not in any way addressing what adherents can or can not believe.

    In fact, there are Independent Scientologists and Free Zone members who belong to splinter groups, and who do NOT practice human rights abuses (such as imprisonment, torture, disconnection from loved ones, interfering with members taking necessary prescribed medications and often substituting dangerous quack remedies instead, putting children to work full time in adult job positions, fraud, human trafficking, etc.) or get undeserved tax exemptions, and they are still believing in Scientology.


    Additionally:

    Anyone who whines about someone's beliefs not being respected is failing to grasp that beliefs are ungovernable, they are personal and private, and can not be governed even if you wanted to try. You can believe the sky is orange or that night is day, or in whatever God or gods or beings you choose, and that honestly hurts no one but you. You also have the right to indulge in practices that your beliefs encourage you to indulge in, as long as other people are not harmed by your practices. You are NOT allowed to do bad things, illegal things, harmful things, fraudulent things, hurtful things, and then CLAIM that illegal actions or amoral and anti-social behavior is OK because you hold certain beliefs.

    Religion of any kind--or claiming that your group is a religion--does not make anyone above the law. When terrorists claim that their religious beliefs make it OK to attack innocent people, we utterly reject that idea. When fringe "religions" claim that their religious beliefs make it OK to torture, imprison, impoverish, isolate, defraud, or otherwise impose on the rights of others, they are likewise WRONG and must be held accountable.

    Just my thoughts on the issues. I think they are being outrageously short-sighted and lazy. (Just goes to show that, even though most Aussies are awesome, their politicians contain a number of obstructive, pig-headed, partisan, game-playing, NON-awesome poli-tards just like here in the States, where we have them on both sides of the aisle, along with the occasional good 'un.).
  31. Sponge Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry?

    I want an oompa loompa nowwwwww!

    Yes Veruca, indeed we do.

    ifshub.jpg
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    And in Australia, you can also harm people without consequence, but not look at small breasts. What a country.
  33. theLastAnon Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    More poons to Rudd and the rest won't work now. Our poons were not enough nor should we have ever thought they would be in retrospect.

    Our focus now must be on how to get the public to vocally support the inquiry and to put pressure on their elected officials to do so. Poons now are not an effective strategy or use of your time, imo.

    EDIT: OUR poons now are not an effective strategy or use of your time...getting the public to flood them with poonage is what we must make happen.

    EDIT 2: I see at least one OZ lurking...post plox. What the fuck is going on down there?
  34. Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    Sydanon is yet to send in our petition sheets, this just means we have to get OVER 9000 signatures and shove them in Rudd and Abbots faces and say "these are your voters if you want them to vote yes, you better vote yes"
  35. SticksStones Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Thank God. I literally cried when I saw the title of this thread.

    Game on.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    It's just a delay. Abbott was somewhat on the fence earlier and can be turned, and more Senators can be turned as well.

    I am in an Abbott area and it is very much in support of the Inquiry.

    My project is now to get those Abbott and Rudd calls & letters going. I'm sure Rudd will do whatever his party says to do.
  37. Anonymous Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    The parties really should quietly do an actual scientific opinion poll on this - they might be surprised how strong support is for this in the public.

    Also I think they are too worried about "Fair Game" being applied to them.
  38. theLastAnon Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    THIS.

    AND THIS.

    Thanks both of you for posting. New stage of the game begins now, rally the public. Xenophon needs an army of psychs, moms and dads, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, teachers, doctors, and bus drivers behind him calling for the inquiry.
  39. SticksStones Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    Thanks for that.
    We ARE turning it:)
    (That's a promise, OSA.)
  40. Belladonna Member

    Re: Senate votes NO to inquiry.

    From what I understand, quite a few senators, and Rudd, are quite attached to their faiths and don't want to rock the boat regarding religion. Family First Senator Fielding said on that TV show that he thinks Rudd believes in creationism, as does Fielding himself. I had worried that religious people would be concerned about offending their own, or weakening things for their own faiths. (Fielding can't have liked going up against Dawkins on that show)

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins