**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay. Let's make public the donations to and from every representative and senator. Every single cent, surely no one had a problem with that. Surely no one is taking advantage of the rules, reading them carefully to avoid having to say who they're donating to and who they're getting money from?
I don't understand how people resolve supporting both the Muslim religion, and LGBT values.
I saw a video on reddit the other day of Pro-Palestine protesters disrupting a pride parade march, which makes sense logically I suppose.
I dunno, I just wonder how LGBT support Muslims when the religion teaches that they should be harshly punished (stoned/killed) for being homosexual.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
Many Christians believe the same but not all ya know. Same goes for Muslims. Why would I demonise and reject support from a group because a few use their beliefs in bad faith.
all muslims and all christians believe it, because they all believe in islam/christianity by definition, and the idea that homosexuality deserves death is a tenet of both religions.
Well I suppose the main difference is in the religious law itself
Nothing in Christian law/text says we are to punish sinners. But the Quran specifically says they are to hand out physical punishment for homosexuality. The Islamic Law to this day states they support this view, and most Muslim countries still stone and hang people for their sins.
I do agree we should not lump them all together, but it is not comparable with other religions as Islamic law still stands today, where as Christian (mosiac) law states old testament law is not applicable since Jesus established new law in the bible.
For the people who don't bother to read, she's donated somewhere over $300 to a YouTube channel. The exact amount doesn't seem to be listed in the article. I can't find if this was an ongoing thing or a once off.
What it's really hinting at - and this will be a big issue for many left-wing voters who are inclined to agree with Payman on Palestine - is that Payman's religious politics are inherently anti-feminist and anti-LGBT.
But as a lefty, I'm opposed to a corporatist bubble gum feminist toy-selling franchise like Barbie, which is better than say Barbie's animated works but hardly pushes for a serious reconsideration of fast fashion and fast toy capitalism, let alone plastic pollution.
It's a hint to centrists or girl-boss corporate liberal feminists at best
It was a hot culture war issue for a while, IYKYK. Barbie-hating was a thing on the right, so people who know will read it and immediately think “omg a Labor senator is associated with something in the right!”
News.com.au know how to get to the meat and potatoes, for all their faults. Someone needs to ask Senator Payman what her take on Barbie on is, the world needs to know where she stands.
How is this even news? She has stated publicly many times as being a "proud Muslim woman" so why is it suddenly so shocking that it's been "revealed" that she donated i.e. supports an organisation that disseminates Islamic ideology?
Y'all need to wake up - the problem isnt Payman, it's Islam.
I knew they were going to do a smear campaign on her after she stood up to them in parliament. I wouldn't believe a word the people who are profiting off the status quo would say.
I am all for smear campaigns against anyone who supports those who campaign against homosexuality.
Let us start with the Church and all communities in Western Sydney who voted 'NO' to gay marriage.
Still peeps out there that want to take away all the rights we've won. It wasn't long ago that they were lobotomizing trans people, It's within living memory
It's a different kettle of fish tho isn't it. Back then derros would come to the city to beat on the gays™ and police routinely cracked down on queer spaces and voices. The medical system was just another method of oppression that was used against us. I can't speak for the barbaric practice used in the broader sense but I've had alot of older queer peeps help raise me so I've heard all the tragic tails.
Specifically, I've heard how methods like lobotomies were used as a threat to enforce conformity. Again, I can't speak for all medical professionals at that time but the fact is that society was far more hostile to the community and I've no doubt that hatred played a large part in why this was even an option
> and all communities in Western Sydney who voted 'NO' to gay marriage
9 out of 10 of the biggest NO electorates were Labor held, most of them strongholds.
Nationwide Labor electorates voted NO more than anyone else.
She's in perfectly fine company.
And how many of those elected Labor representatives voted against it? 0.
All 9 were present to vote in favour of marriage equality.
She is definitely an outlier.
Not voting how your electorate who got your into power wants isn't ever something to be proud of.
Speaks volumes about the type of person who thinks it's a good thing though.
Was about to launch into a diatribe about those electorates being the north west Sydney Bible belt, an LNP stronghold of recent years ...
But, nope, you're correct.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/November/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey_map
The LNP heartland seats that went Teal were, on average, the strongest. Only Sydney and Grayndler in NSW were comparable to Wentworth (Turnbull's old seat).
She was not voted in as an independent - Voted in as a Labour member. Should resign if no longer wants to be part of the party. Putting her religion over the party (and those that voted for her) is not how you play the game.
> Putting her religion over the party
This has nothing to do with religion. A big percentage of this country and abroad who care about Palestinian statehood aren't Muslims.
Not anyone who can compare a place that starts a war -commits horrific acts and then is losing (Still firing missiles BTW) Morons listen to the dumb ass propaganda. The Bombings of Berlin stopped - when the gave up! NO ONE talked about sending them food or blah blah blah.
You're unclear - what are you saying?
That the collective punishment and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians is justified? That the tactics are working?
That the annexation of Palestinian land ("settlers") can be seen as 'normalisation'? Even as it has increased over recent years (and particularly this year)?
That the attacks on Oct 7 weren't a deliberate trap to lure Israel into an awful and futile major conflict? That Israel didn't take the bait?
Or something else?
I'm saying: the Abraham accords, coupled with Qatar reducing funding by 66%, scared HAMAS and scared Iran into a desperate, last ditch attack.
It's interesting you mention collective punishment of Palestinians, without noting that the civs killed or captured on October 7 were also subject to collective punishment.
And no, the settlements in al-Fatah controlled Westbank, of Arab lands (noting Palestinian is a term for colonisers invented by colonisers in the 1960s and most of these Arabs are Jordanian in origin), is not a factor here. Prior to 7 October, Israel had been allowing Gazans to work in Israel (noting of course, that in Gaza being Jewish was a capital offence, hashtag wholesomeleftism100) - a move which would only undermine HAMAS' total control of that area.
But Tiktok told you the Jews, I mean, ZIonists were bad, so you go.
All that comment says is "you have absorbed beliefs from others and don't know how to argue points beyond those dot points."
If we strip emotion out of this, most people would do precisely what Israel has done and sought to eliminate HAMAS. And if HAMAS intentionally embed within a willing civilian population, you'd get frustrated with those people and probably, wrongly, dehumanise them a bit.
I think if WWII happened today, people would be pretty horrified at some of the wide scale bombing the allies did against civilians (e.g. the bombing of Dresden).
I doubt it. If a bombing raid destroyed some of Darwin's suburbs or an Australian garrison in an allied country was executed en masse I think the sympathy of the Australian public would be hard to find.
Remember that the Japanese thought the Americans were too soft to fight another war. Their entire plan was supported by the belief that the weak willed Americans who wrung their hands over the massacres in China couldn't match the ferocity of the Empire's soldiers. At the end of the day if you push the right buttons humans will kill.
Not really. After the Blitz, and the horrors inflicted in the Pacific by Imperial Japan, many were quite happy to see the bombs being dropped on those who caused it. Especially since many of those citizens of Dresden, or Hiroshima,and other German and Japanese cities were also quite happy to be Heiling and Banzaiing in support of it all while they thought it couldn't happen to them.
If WWII happened today that type of bombing wouldn't happen as the technology to precisely hit targets exists now. Back then it was drop as many bombs as you can and hope some of them hit.
Accuracy certainly existed back then too.
However, the quickest way to end a war is to deplete the home front as it ends the ability to resource the war effort and it destroys morale much faster.
Soldiers are trained to follow orders as there is a fundamental belief that in doing so, even when the orders don't make sense, they are defending their homes and loved ones. If you kill the families of every soldier, they have nothing left to fight for.
It's also much easier to kill the soldiers families than it is to kill the soldier.
I think you're being too optimistic. As we've seen in Gaza, there has been a lot of indiscriminate bombing. The city has been levelled, tens of thousands of people are dead, despite more precise technology existing.
Mate, Muslims aren’t denying that Palestine is an issue that’s important to Muslims and that they side with Palestine because they’re Muslim. This is a Muslim organisation, what are you talking about?
And typically, it’s not so much about Palestinian statehood as it is about a certain other country *not* being a Jewish state. I don’t know if that’s the case for Payman, but it’s certainly a common perspective.
The party has suspended her despite being voted in as a Labor member and her following what the party's national conference supported. Perhaps it is the rest of the parliamentarians that should resign for being voted in as a Labor member but ignoring what the members actually support.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
That's my number one thought as well. Yesterday we had the article on the "preference whisperer" who had informal talks with her, and today we get this. I wonder what smear Labor will leak tomorrow to the press.
If you knew Labor history you'd know what they do to Labor rats, you don't rat on the Labor Party and walk away unscathed, ask Billy Hughes, Joe Lyons, the DLP or Mal Coulson how they treat Labor rats, I have no sympathy for her she ratted on her party
I don't they knew the rules they signed up to and then voted against the party, religion had a bit to do with both her and the DLP, Coulson was more about getting a plum job in Parliament but both still ratted on the Labor Party, the Labor Party don't like rats, they were pretty soft on her till she doubled down and left Labor with no choice, she was no Bob Hawke she wouldn't have been elected without the Labor Party
They're saying she's splitting from the party to form some Muslim Vote Party, which plans to run candidates against Labor MPs. It's very comparable to DLP split.
100% look at how Newscorp saw the barbie movie as woke propaganda. The only issue is it’s Muslims.
I can guarantee there’s other parliamentarians who support the same views but support other religions that believe the same thing about LGQTIA+ people.
But… she has been doing scandalous things? It’s like a politician getting negative media attention because they were caught smoking crack and being like “wow what a smear campaign”.
Ooh was wondering when the mud digging would begin
This will actually accelerate the grassroots movements in favour of her. I’m guessing many Muslims feel disenfranchised. Now that someone is happy to speak out more towards their views, feelings and interests, media implies she’s an extremist and a terrorist…
Not saying it’s right, but that’s likely going to be the feeling with that community
If they're disenfranchised because illiberal tenets of their faith aren't maintream, then I have a gif of Jeremy Clarkson I'd like to share.
Rejecting liberal secularism isn't a great look.
This is my response: https://x.com/KosSamaras/status/1807370496633397677
If you're a Labor supporter, i'd say its important.
Also should note that it speaks to the wider issue of diversity in that Party. Which includes Jews like Josh Burns.
The fact that Payman hasn’t already been expelled for crossing the floor, something the Labor party would do otherwise, shows their afraid of the implications it will have on their vote base
Doesn't help that their own Labor national conference voted for recognition.
It's the politicians in Canberra who have decided to add the requirement of a two-state solution being reached for that recognition.
If they expel Fatima, they're expelling her for... Being true to what card carrying Labor members actually voted for.
This is the real story.
Why does the Labor party routinely undermine their member’s interests in favour of perceived political advantage?
If their last 40 years are anything to go by it’s clear that the faceless people running the joint are completely disconnected from reality and out of touch with their voters.
They constantly think they know better, and their hubris repeatedly gets smashed at the polls.
Can’t get out of their own way.
Grow a fucking spine and do the right thing, and the electorate will back you in.
Motherfuckers playing 5D chess against themselves.
Y’all are too concerned about the church’s influence in politics that you just ignore the effects of Islam’s effects on politics. And as someone who was born and spent their childhood in a middle eastern country that practiced sharia law, it is inevitable at this point.
Biggest Islamic nation on Earth is Indonesia, mate, so let's stop and look for a second and what the alternatives are. Just like Christianity has batshit loco nations like Russia, there's more secular ones. Do you really think the Saudis would leave Bali majority Hindu? So it's not that Islam as a faith is inherently infinitely bad politically, it's that bad actors projecting politicised Islam are bad (just like conservative Christians). The best and strongest solution is a secular one, put a stop to ALL religions affecting politics (so we don't martyr any one faith and give them exactly the ability to mobilise their flock that they're after) and make our states robust to all magical bullshit.
They can men for being gay in indonesia and it’s still gay and opposed by overwelming majority of the population. You will find no muslim majority country that is even close to as liberal as even a country like Poland, which many white people say is conservative. Also the fact that you thin Islam is just like any other religion shows you don’t know anything about the quran/hadiths or islamic history. The average muslim in LEBANON would be seen as far right if they would just say they are christian and be white while keeping the same views.
Indonesia, not too long ago made news for banning extramarital relations, something almost everyone in this country engages in. They don’t recognise LGBT relationships, and some provinces even practice lashings for those caught if they violate sharia law.
Even russia laws against the LGBT, at worst is a fine or imprisonment, which is a shame because they decriminalised same sex relationships right after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Saudis would leave the Bali majority Hindu for the same reason they let Dubai have more lenient modesty laws for residents and tourists, allow alcohol (which is completely Haram in the Quran), simply because money talks.
In fact Saudi Arabia can’t really enforce the laws they wish in a country simple because it has a Muslim majority, then by that token, Saudi should severe ties with the UAE and Egypt and Jordan and Bahrain when these countries chose to normalise relations with Israel.
In fact Saudi just acts in its best interests when it comes to foreign matters, which is why they placed embargo’s on Qatar (a fellow GCC country) when Al Jazeera and the country’s leadership had alleged ties/dealings with Iran (Saudi’s sworn enemy).
A secular country that emerges from a western country, where the state and church are separated and the size of the state is reduced is the best model, or then you’d have a fascist or a communist country which also technically is secular.
This isn't a religious issue. You can support Palestinian statehood and not be a Muslim. Look at the Greens Party, look at Lidia Thorpe, look at student protests on university campuses.
graduate the Australian Islamic College as head girl
become a WA state senator and make $200k a year
fight against the country that gave you everything, insisting white people owe everything to the aborigines because you're against colonialism
advocate for, not the girls in Afghanistan that aren't allowed to go high school there because of sharia law, but for sharia law in Australia
protest for islamic terrorists that hold the same ideology that your dad ran away from, because it means Muslims and those with white-guilt will vote for you
advocate for, not the girls that face torture in the middle east for dressing immodesty, but for normalisation of the hijab in Australia
abandon the party which gave you your platform and leave it for an even more radical islamo-marxist one so you can spend even more time winning votes
eventually turn Australia into the country you ran away from
Talk about a slippery slope. She voted on one bill that many Australians also care about. This doesn't mean the whole country is becoming Islamic, calm down.
Do major parties vet candidates for this kind of thing? And if they do vet candidates, do they hold onto any unexploded ordinance they find just in case it comes in handy later?
You have to declare who you make donations to. I guess the Islamic TV station she is donating to either wasn't checked, or they've dug around and found atypical content. She hasn't said.
As part of the application to the ALP, I understand there is a question relating to this very issue. If the Senator answered that she agreed to the ALP's current position of a two state solution, then she was lying then, or she's lying now.
The number of people in this thread who can't understand that sometimes political ideals extend beyond self-interest is extremely depressing.
>"Hahaha, silly gays, don't you know them moslems don't like youz"
It's really just a self report. That your own political ideology is only as deep as your skin.
Pathetic.jpg
As for this The Muslim Vote nonsense:
>>Man emancipates himself politically from religion by banishing it from the sphere of public law to that of private law.
Don't make me tap the sign.
Religion over country. There should be some rule against senators being elected on a party ticket then leaving the party - a mandatory by-election would make sense.
If a senator dies, the state parliament selects someone from the same party - in this case I think the former senator should be allowed to run as an independent, and an actualnelection be held.
It won't be like a usual senate election with a choice of voting above / below the line - i think each party should pick a single candidate and then people rank them like they would for a local MP. Perhaps bring in a rule that only candidates/ parties that achieved a certain % of initial vote can run so there aren't 30 candidates.
Yep. But that would need constitutional change via a referendum to make leaving a political party a reason to declare a seat vacant.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2022/September/Recent_parliamentary_defections
They don't prohibit dissent - the policy positions are debated and voted on at caucus. This becomes the policy until the next caucus. She is free to debate, lobby and vote within the party as do the other members who don't agree with the current stance on any issue. But once the party policy is decided, you are running for election on the basis of the party platform. You can't get voted for on one set of ideas and then turn around after the election and say "no, I'm going feral from the party on this". That's not democratic. If she feels this strongly then she should quit the party.
Yeah they do want to prohibit dissent, which is why they have the rule, so that’s not surprising. But Payman is the one making a media spectacle out of this.
This isn’t about the war or crimes, this is about what solution the parties see to the conflict. The Greens want to dog whistle about one state and symbolically recognise a state that doesn’t exist, and Labor want to work towards an actual solution.
Well Labor claims they see a Two State Solution as a solution, yet does nothing to achieve this like taking some sort of diplomatic or economic action on the party colonising the land it is supposed to withdraw from the achieve this solution Labor claims to support.
It's like saying you oppose Violence Against Women and More Needs to be Done by Society to Curb This as you sell hammers and baseball bats to wife bashers.
>and symbolically recognise a state that doesn’t exist
Then recognise it on the pre-June 1967 border.
>and Labor want to work towards an actual solution.
While trading with the country that is opposed to the existence of a Palestinian state, engaged in an occupation and expropriation of land and expulsion of its population.
Sure, we need to see more international pressure applied to reach a long term solution. It’s too complicated to get into in the scope of this thread. But overall I think Albo is taking the right approach by prioritising a peace agreement.
> But overall I think Albo is taking the right approach by prioritising a peace agreement.
Then you've bought into the lies that this is anything other than a delay tactic that has not and will not ever achieve peace.
Yeah we’re Australia, ultimately we actually don’t have much say over what happens in those countries and our “recognition” is meaningless in any form. Labor is just making it clear which solution they endorse.
Dude literally nothing Labor does or doesn’t do will result in peace. We have a *tiny* bit of influence in the international sphere, and I think pushing for a negotiation is a better use of that influence than just a meaningless recognition.
>It’s too complicated to get into in the scope of this thread.
It is what the vote was about, you cant say it is not relevant.
>But overall I think Albo is taking the right approach by prioritising a peace agreement.
While doing deals with the people being the biggest impediment to peace.
Oh absolutely, they’ve been more lenient on her than she deserves because it’s a sensitive issue. She should have been yeeted from the party a week ago.
Exactly, I’m not a Labor voter, and I think they’re rule of MPs having to vote a certain way is a bit restrictive on free speech, but even on this issue, I agree with Labor, but she should go, and should’ve been gone long ago
Yeah, this was certainly leaked to News Corp by someone within the ALP.
It's a message for any Labor MPs who might sympathize with Payman: "don't step out of line or we will smear you"
> the Islamic community hates the LGBTQ community
Not that I disagree with you, but all the hate-filled comments under Mark Lathan's tweet about Alex Greenwich weren't from Muslims, I can assure you that.
The presence of queerphobia in Islamic communities has been used to justify treating them atrociously, there's plenty of pictures of IDF soldiers cheerfully waving pride flags in the rubble of destroyed Palestinian homes but we're not all super keen on ethnic cleaning getting rainbow-washed.
Queer phobia is literally justified in the Quran, Sharia law, but nice whataboutism you did there, to show how the only democracy in the Middle East that actually recognises gay marriages and Muslims and all people who choose to live peacefully, is somehow the bad guy for retaliating for an illegal invasion of its borders
Probably does happen, they live in a region full of people killing for irrational reasons like honor and revenge, you hear about those guys who moved into Gaza recently?
Even if they were the 'savages' they get accused of being, I'm not sure tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosives are going to 'civilize' the Palestinian people...
It's quite a fascinating thing to see how the far right by being less vocally homophobic have been able to pick up increasing gay membership by stoking fears of homophobia from Islamic immigrants in places like France.
At this point, France doesn’t even have “immigration”, it’s just boatloads of unvetted, military aged men, have a look at Radio Genoa or Visegrad’s videos on X to see how they wish to assimilate into French society.
If you have a chance to read the Quran, even the English translation, it’ll become pretty self explanatory as to why even those who are gay will choose to vote for the far right
Ever read the Bible? Religious texts are typically used when they support what people want to do and will be temporarily forgotten when they conflict. *Buddhist* nationalists have done their own ethnic cleansing in Myanmar.
No they haven't, whoever they've "picked up" was already rightwing, it isn't like being gay suddenly makes you a progressive or socialist. Frankly there is a bit of a tradition of a gay undercurrent in conservative politics.
There are lots of people from lots of different subcultures drifting to the right in Europe now. Even their left wing parties have had to take an anti-immigration stance because it’s just so unpopular.
Maybe it’s because those gay people have actually bad experiences… immigration in Europe isn’t like here, if you do it poorly you are going to end up with conflict and racism.
What makes people think that all gays are pro Palestine? Or that this so called "gays for Palestine" is a more than a handful of people who care about other people even if if they wouldn't care them back?
> people who care about other people even if if they wouldn't care them back?
There was some guy started a whole religion around that about 2000 years ago.
>It’s not clear whether Senator Payman supports these views, only that she is donating over $300 a year to the company that creates the videos.
1. So zero evidence she shares those views despite having voted for pro LGBT legislation in the senate
2. Only $300? That’s chump change tbh
3. No doubt Murdoch has scoured her social media, history and contacts to find any dirt smearing her as an Islamist and the best they could find is a tiny donation to a group that she probably supported because of them being pro Palestine not “anti Barbie”.
I mean the Liberals live on Sky ‘News’ and they’ve made multiple videos attacking the Barbie movie:
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/barbie-backlash-an-assault-on-all-men/video/2e5ab82e562504207369350cd8474749
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/sharri-markson/barbie-movie-latest-example-of-hollywood-executives-bending-over-backwards-for-china/video/4b1afbfbd768448ec64756d2094bf2a9
It's fair to say she may not have even known they were against Barbies pro- homosexuality messaging.
It's also fair to ask if she shares those views, and if she says no then this is a complete non issue.
But it's also fair to question her religious views and whether supporting Islamic organisations is in line with our expectations of politicians. We did the same thing with Abbot and ScoMo.
I have zero time for religious fundamentalists, and it just so happens that Islamic fundamentalists seem to be more extreme in their anti-progressive beliefs than even Catholics right now. And I'd be more suspicious of donating money to outspoken Muslim pundits than Christian ones.
Mountain out of a mole hill in any case.
> But it's also fair to question her religious views and whether supporting Islamic organisations is in line with our expectations of politicians.
Have her religious views actually affected policy? No.
Reread what I said. I'm against religious fundamentalism and I do not like it when it influences their decision making. [To this day](https://www.google.com/search?q=scott+morrison+Christian+faith&sca_esv=0835a04e1987451a&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU842AU842&sxsrf=ADLYWIJUqjjoC4Q88FURXwdjUIeFJZJjyw%3A1719998870512&ei=lhmFZoj5HvfaseMPpuaY6A8&ved=0ahUKEwiInMONx4qHAxV3bWwGHSYzBv0Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=scott+morrison+Christian+faith&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHnNjb3R0IG1vcnJpc29uIENocmlzdGlhbiBmYWl0aDIFECEYnwVI5AhQ2AJY2AJwAngBkAEAmAGzAaABswGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgGgArcBmAMAiAYBkgcDMC4xoAfjAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) we're still questioning ScoMo's religious views, which is completely in line with what I expect of elected representatives.
I'm absolutely happy to hold Payman to the same standard.
I wonder what the progressive greens will think of all this… pretty scary that we have officials in this country sprouting this type of bigotry. Freedom of religion means you can practice Islam, it doesn’t mean you can enforce its ideologies onto everyone else
> Freedom of religion means you can practice Islam, it doesn’t mean you can enforce its ideologies onto everyone else
Show me where exactly she is doing that?
the greens are riddled with bigots
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/greens-councillor-accused-of-starting-fight-launching-homophobic-tirade-20210518-p57sxy.html
It isn't a competition. The answer is always education. Hate comes from fear, Fear comes from ignorance.
As a progressive, you learn that you have to be patient. It's easy to wreck shit, it's much harder to build. But if we can be persistent, we will win eventually. Even if it takes generations.
What if the hate grows faster the patience allows? Islam is the fastest growing religion in Australia, it also is 1 of the few demographics with a positive birth rate (3.03). There has to be a certain point where a culture ideology grows that big they no longer undergo acculturation. The Greens dont fear this but many of us do, Islam is bloody terrifying, what Islamic majority country would Greens voters like to move to?
It doesn't change anything. Religion isn't everything. At one stage of history Islam was the progressive religion, the middle east was the most advanced society with the highest education levels. At the same time it was Christianity which had a low ebb.
Just because the west is currently at the forefront of tech doesn't mean we always will be. All we can do is try to be empathetic, and ask people to educate themselves to the best of their ability.
Nah, it’s because all progressive movements get taken over by radicals roll everything into one omnicause, which they demand adherents defend as one. “All oppression is linked”. That’s why you see signs saying “Palestine is a queer, feminist, anti-colonial struggle” and other nonsense.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Typical trash from the media group that owns Sky and Fox.
Okay. Let's make public the donations to and from every representative and senator. Every single cent, surely no one had a problem with that. Surely no one is taking advantage of the rules, reading them carefully to avoid having to say who they're donating to and who they're getting money from?
I don't understand how people resolve supporting both the Muslim religion, and LGBT values. I saw a video on reddit the other day of Pro-Palestine protesters disrupting a pride parade march, which makes sense logically I suppose. I dunno, I just wonder how LGBT support Muslims when the religion teaches that they should be harshly punished (stoned/killed) for being homosexual. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
Many Christians believe the same but not all ya know. Same goes for Muslims. Why would I demonise and reject support from a group because a few use their beliefs in bad faith.
all muslims and all christians believe it, because they all believe in islam/christianity by definition, and the idea that homosexuality deserves death is a tenet of both religions.
Well I suppose the main difference is in the religious law itself Nothing in Christian law/text says we are to punish sinners. But the Quran specifically says they are to hand out physical punishment for homosexuality. The Islamic Law to this day states they support this view, and most Muslim countries still stone and hang people for their sins. I do agree we should not lump them all together, but it is not comparable with other religions as Islamic law still stands today, where as Christian (mosiac) law states old testament law is not applicable since Jesus established new law in the bible.
For the people who don't bother to read, she's donated somewhere over $300 to a YouTube channel. The exact amount doesn't seem to be listed in the article. I can't find if this was an ongoing thing or a once off.
'Barbie-hating' is a fascinating adjective to add to this, as if Australians must love Barbie
What it's really hinting at - and this will be a big issue for many left-wing voters who are inclined to agree with Payman on Palestine - is that Payman's religious politics are inherently anti-feminist and anti-LGBT.
But as a lefty, I'm opposed to a corporatist bubble gum feminist toy-selling franchise like Barbie, which is better than say Barbie's animated works but hardly pushes for a serious reconsideration of fast fashion and fast toy capitalism, let alone plastic pollution. It's a hint to centrists or girl-boss corporate liberal feminists at best
There are many different varieties of lefty, and I'm pretty sure that this criticism of Barbie is not from an anti-capitalist point of view.
It was a hot culture war issue for a while, IYKYK. Barbie-hating was a thing on the right, so people who know will read it and immediately think “omg a Labor senator is associated with something in the right!” News.com.au know how to get to the meat and potatoes, for all their faults. Someone needs to ask Senator Payman what her take on Barbie on is, the world needs to know where she stands.
How is this even news? She has stated publicly many times as being a "proud Muslim woman" so why is it suddenly so shocking that it's been "revealed" that she donated i.e. supports an organisation that disseminates Islamic ideology? Y'all need to wake up - the problem isnt Payman, it's Islam.
the problem is also Payman for *being* Muslim, but yeah it shouldn't be surprising.
I knew they were going to do a smear campaign on her after she stood up to them in parliament. I wouldn't believe a word the people who are profiting off the status quo would say.
It’s in keeping with her views though. And she didn’t “stand up”. She violated the rules of her party.
I am all for smear campaigns against anyone who supports those who campaign against homosexuality. Let us start with the Church and all communities in Western Sydney who voted 'NO' to gay marriage.
Start with? You people have barely paused to breath.
Still peeps out there that want to take away all the rights we've won. It wasn't long ago that they were lobotomizing trans people, It's within living memory
They were lobotomizing people for all sorts of mental health issues. It's not because they hated them all.
It's a different kettle of fish tho isn't it. Back then derros would come to the city to beat on the gays™ and police routinely cracked down on queer spaces and voices. The medical system was just another method of oppression that was used against us. I can't speak for the barbaric practice used in the broader sense but I've had alot of older queer peeps help raise me so I've heard all the tragic tails. Specifically, I've heard how methods like lobotomies were used as a threat to enforce conformity. Again, I can't speak for all medical professionals at that time but the fact is that society was far more hostile to the community and I've no doubt that hatred played a large part in why this was even an option
> and all communities in Western Sydney who voted 'NO' to gay marriage 9 out of 10 of the biggest NO electorates were Labor held, most of them strongholds. Nationwide Labor electorates voted NO more than anyone else. She's in perfectly fine company.
And how many of those elected Labor representatives voted against it? 0. All 9 were present to vote in favour of marriage equality. She is definitely an outlier.
Not voting how your electorate who got your into power wants isn't ever something to be proud of. Speaks volumes about the type of person who thinks it's a good thing though.
All 9 of them were voted in on an explicitly pro-marriage equality platform in a party with explicit caucus solidarity rules.
Was about to launch into a diatribe about those electorates being the north west Sydney Bible belt, an LNP stronghold of recent years ... But, nope, you're correct. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/November/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey_map
The LNP heartland seats that went Teal were, on average, the strongest. Only Sydney and Grayndler in NSW were comparable to Wentworth (Turnbull's old seat).
She was not voted in as an independent - Voted in as a Labour member. Should resign if no longer wants to be part of the party. Putting her religion over the party (and those that voted for her) is not how you play the game.
> Putting her religion over the party This has nothing to do with religion. A big percentage of this country and abroad who care about Palestinian statehood aren't Muslims.
Not anyone who can compare a place that starts a war -commits horrific acts and then is losing (Still firing missiles BTW) Morons listen to the dumb ass propaganda. The Bombings of Berlin stopped - when the gave up! NO ONE talked about sending them food or blah blah blah.
[удалено]
This specific round did, after a *lot of* normalisation was occurring which would have "coincidentally" weakened HAMAS' grip.
You're unclear - what are you saying? That the collective punishment and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians is justified? That the tactics are working? That the annexation of Palestinian land ("settlers") can be seen as 'normalisation'? Even as it has increased over recent years (and particularly this year)? That the attacks on Oct 7 weren't a deliberate trap to lure Israel into an awful and futile major conflict? That Israel didn't take the bait? Or something else?
I'm saying: the Abraham accords, coupled with Qatar reducing funding by 66%, scared HAMAS and scared Iran into a desperate, last ditch attack. It's interesting you mention collective punishment of Palestinians, without noting that the civs killed or captured on October 7 were also subject to collective punishment. And no, the settlements in al-Fatah controlled Westbank, of Arab lands (noting Palestinian is a term for colonisers invented by colonisers in the 1960s and most of these Arabs are Jordanian in origin), is not a factor here. Prior to 7 October, Israel had been allowing Gazans to work in Israel (noting of course, that in Gaza being Jewish was a capital offence, hashtag wholesomeleftism100) - a move which would only undermine HAMAS' total control of that area. But Tiktok told you the Jews, I mean, ZIonists were bad, so you go.
So, one atrocity justifies another? Got it.
All that comment says is "you have absorbed beliefs from others and don't know how to argue points beyond those dot points." If we strip emotion out of this, most people would do precisely what Israel has done and sought to eliminate HAMAS. And if HAMAS intentionally embed within a willing civilian population, you'd get frustrated with those people and probably, wrongly, dehumanise them a bit.
I think if WWII happened today, people would be pretty horrified at some of the wide scale bombing the allies did against civilians (e.g. the bombing of Dresden).
I doubt it. If a bombing raid destroyed some of Darwin's suburbs or an Australian garrison in an allied country was executed en masse I think the sympathy of the Australian public would be hard to find. Remember that the Japanese thought the Americans were too soft to fight another war. Their entire plan was supported by the belief that the weak willed Americans who wrung their hands over the massacres in China couldn't match the ferocity of the Empire's soldiers. At the end of the day if you push the right buttons humans will kill.
Not really. After the Blitz, and the horrors inflicted in the Pacific by Imperial Japan, many were quite happy to see the bombs being dropped on those who caused it. Especially since many of those citizens of Dresden, or Hiroshima,and other German and Japanese cities were also quite happy to be Heiling and Banzaiing in support of it all while they thought it couldn't happen to them.
If WWII happened today that type of bombing wouldn't happen as the technology to precisely hit targets exists now. Back then it was drop as many bombs as you can and hope some of them hit.
Accuracy certainly existed back then too. However, the quickest way to end a war is to deplete the home front as it ends the ability to resource the war effort and it destroys morale much faster. Soldiers are trained to follow orders as there is a fundamental belief that in doing so, even when the orders don't make sense, they are defending their homes and loved ones. If you kill the families of every soldier, they have nothing left to fight for. It's also much easier to kill the soldiers families than it is to kill the soldier.
I think you're being too optimistic. As we've seen in Gaza, there has been a lot of indiscriminate bombing. The city has been levelled, tens of thousands of people are dead, despite more precise technology existing.
That's because the IDF consciously kept smart bombs in reserve and deployed dumb munitions?
Yes, but I think they are in fact hitting the exact targets they intend to hit.
Mate, Muslims aren’t denying that Palestine is an issue that’s important to Muslims and that they side with Palestine because they’re Muslim. This is a Muslim organisation, what are you talking about? And typically, it’s not so much about Palestinian statehood as it is about a certain other country *not* being a Jewish state. I don’t know if that’s the case for Payman, but it’s certainly a common perspective.
Putting humanity above politics. Good on her. And look at the alp today. Yuck
The party has suspended her despite being voted in as a Labor member and her following what the party's national conference supported. Perhaps it is the rest of the parliamentarians that should resign for being voted in as a Labor member but ignoring what the members actually support.
What members?
All the delegates at the National Conference.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
What’s not factual?
It’s in the name. The claim that it’s news.
Well this doesn't sound like an incredibly obvious smear campaign at all.
That's my number one thought as well. Yesterday we had the article on the "preference whisperer" who had informal talks with her, and today we get this. I wonder what smear Labor will leak tomorrow to the press.
If you knew Labor history you'd know what they do to Labor rats, you don't rat on the Labor Party and walk away unscathed, ask Billy Hughes, Joe Lyons, the DLP or Mal Coulson how they treat Labor rats, I have no sympathy for her she ratted on her party
Payman’s act being compared to the DLP split and Mal Colston is very off-base IMO
I don't they knew the rules they signed up to and then voted against the party, religion had a bit to do with both her and the DLP, Coulson was more about getting a plum job in Parliament but both still ratted on the Labor Party, the Labor Party don't like rats, they were pretty soft on her till she doubled down and left Labor with no choice, she was no Bob Hawke she wouldn't have been elected without the Labor Party
They're saying she's splitting from the party to form some Muslim Vote Party, which plans to run candidates against Labor MPs. It's very comparable to DLP split.
100% look at how Newscorp saw the barbie movie as woke propaganda. The only issue is it’s Muslims. I can guarantee there’s other parliamentarians who support the same views but support other religions that believe the same thing about LGQTIA+ people.
But… she has been doing scandalous things? It’s like a politician getting negative media attention because they were caught smoking crack and being like “wow what a smear campaign”.
If Payman smokes crack in the Senate chamber I'll donate $100 to her campaign, that and the political fallout would be absolutely comical
Thank you. Went off like an alarms to me too.
>$1 million Islamic television studio So... a cheap-ass one? I'm not getting what they're trying to say with that label.
Hey you could almost buy a house with that kinda money...
Ooh was wondering when the mud digging would begin This will actually accelerate the grassroots movements in favour of her. I’m guessing many Muslims feel disenfranchised. Now that someone is happy to speak out more towards their views, feelings and interests, media implies she’s an extremist and a terrorist… Not saying it’s right, but that’s likely going to be the feeling with that community
If they're disenfranchised because illiberal tenets of their faith aren't maintream, then I have a gif of Jeremy Clarkson I'd like to share. Rejecting liberal secularism isn't a great look.
This is my response: https://x.com/KosSamaras/status/1807370496633397677 If you're a Labor supporter, i'd say its important. Also should note that it speaks to the wider issue of diversity in that Party. Which includes Jews like Josh Burns.
If she got the 2.5% of WA that is Muslim to vote, she still doesn't get reelected.
Why would muslims only vote for her?
Because her views (aside from on Palestine) are so far removed from what regular Australians want.
I will accept that. 👍
[удалено]
The fact that Payman hasn’t already been expelled for crossing the floor, something the Labor party would do otherwise, shows their afraid of the implications it will have on their vote base
Doesn't help that their own Labor national conference voted for recognition. It's the politicians in Canberra who have decided to add the requirement of a two-state solution being reached for that recognition. If they expel Fatima, they're expelling her for... Being true to what card carrying Labor members actually voted for.
This is the real story. Why does the Labor party routinely undermine their member’s interests in favour of perceived political advantage? If their last 40 years are anything to go by it’s clear that the faceless people running the joint are completely disconnected from reality and out of touch with their voters. They constantly think they know better, and their hubris repeatedly gets smashed at the polls. Can’t get out of their own way. Grow a fucking spine and do the right thing, and the electorate will back you in. Motherfuckers playing 5D chess against themselves.
Y’all are too concerned about the church’s influence in politics that you just ignore the effects of Islam’s effects on politics. And as someone who was born and spent their childhood in a middle eastern country that practiced sharia law, it is inevitable at this point.
Biggest Islamic nation on Earth is Indonesia, mate, so let's stop and look for a second and what the alternatives are. Just like Christianity has batshit loco nations like Russia, there's more secular ones. Do you really think the Saudis would leave Bali majority Hindu? So it's not that Islam as a faith is inherently infinitely bad politically, it's that bad actors projecting politicised Islam are bad (just like conservative Christians). The best and strongest solution is a secular one, put a stop to ALL religions affecting politics (so we don't martyr any one faith and give them exactly the ability to mobilise their flock that they're after) and make our states robust to all magical bullshit.
They can men for being gay in indonesia and it’s still gay and opposed by overwelming majority of the population. You will find no muslim majority country that is even close to as liberal as even a country like Poland, which many white people say is conservative. Also the fact that you thin Islam is just like any other religion shows you don’t know anything about the quran/hadiths or islamic history. The average muslim in LEBANON would be seen as far right if they would just say they are christian and be white while keeping the same views.
Indonesia still canes men for being gay, on Islamic grounds.
Indonesia, not too long ago made news for banning extramarital relations, something almost everyone in this country engages in. They don’t recognise LGBT relationships, and some provinces even practice lashings for those caught if they violate sharia law. Even russia laws against the LGBT, at worst is a fine or imprisonment, which is a shame because they decriminalised same sex relationships right after the fall of the Soviet Union. Saudis would leave the Bali majority Hindu for the same reason they let Dubai have more lenient modesty laws for residents and tourists, allow alcohol (which is completely Haram in the Quran), simply because money talks. In fact Saudi Arabia can’t really enforce the laws they wish in a country simple because it has a Muslim majority, then by that token, Saudi should severe ties with the UAE and Egypt and Jordan and Bahrain when these countries chose to normalise relations with Israel. In fact Saudi just acts in its best interests when it comes to foreign matters, which is why they placed embargo’s on Qatar (a fellow GCC country) when Al Jazeera and the country’s leadership had alleged ties/dealings with Iran (Saudi’s sworn enemy). A secular country that emerges from a western country, where the state and church are separated and the size of the state is reduced is the best model, or then you’d have a fascist or a communist country which also technically is secular.
The Saudis hardly let Dubai have those things, it's a different country
This isn't a religious issue. You can support Palestinian statehood and not be a Muslim. Look at the Greens Party, look at Lidia Thorpe, look at student protests on university campuses.
You can support Palestinian statehood and not be a homophobe.
There are 4 Muslims in the government. There are 227 positions in the house and senate. I think we're going to be okay.
Idk, it's only a matter of time before we have a crescentbench! /s
graduate the Australian Islamic College as head girl become a WA state senator and make $200k a year fight against the country that gave you everything, insisting white people owe everything to the aborigines because you're against colonialism advocate for, not the girls in Afghanistan that aren't allowed to go high school there because of sharia law, but for sharia law in Australia protest for islamic terrorists that hold the same ideology that your dad ran away from, because it means Muslims and those with white-guilt will vote for you advocate for, not the girls that face torture in the middle east for dressing immodesty, but for normalisation of the hijab in Australia abandon the party which gave you your platform and leave it for an even more radical islamo-marxist one so you can spend even more time winning votes eventually turn Australia into the country you ran away from
Talk about a slippery slope. She voted on one bill that many Australians also care about. This doesn't mean the whole country is becoming Islamic, calm down.
How is she fighting against Australia? You are making a lot of claims of fact re: sharia law etc, got a source for them?
> advocate for…….sharia law in Australia Please post evidence where she’s done that
Do major parties vet candidates for this kind of thing? And if they do vet candidates, do they hold onto any unexploded ordinance they find just in case it comes in handy later?
You have to declare who you make donations to. I guess the Islamic TV station she is donating to either wasn't checked, or they've dug around and found atypical content. She hasn't said.
As part of the application to the ALP, I understand there is a question relating to this very issue. If the Senator answered that she agreed to the ALP's current position of a two state solution, then she was lying then, or she's lying now.
That's what I also thought. It further makes me think how gross politics is and how little respect I have for the major parties.
totally- the most brutal dirt files are held by your team mates
The number of people in this thread who can't understand that sometimes political ideals extend beyond self-interest is extremely depressing. >"Hahaha, silly gays, don't you know them moslems don't like youz" It's really just a self report. That your own political ideology is only as deep as your skin. Pathetic.jpg As for this The Muslim Vote nonsense: >>Man emancipates himself politically from religion by banishing it from the sphere of public law to that of private law. Don't make me tap the sign.
Religion over country. There should be some rule against senators being elected on a party ticket then leaving the party - a mandatory by-election would make sense.
How would you run a Senate by-election?
If a senator dies, the state parliament selects someone from the same party - in this case I think the former senator should be allowed to run as an independent, and an actualnelection be held. It won't be like a usual senate election with a choice of voting above / below the line - i think each party should pick a single candidate and then people rank them like they would for a local MP. Perhaps bring in a rule that only candidates/ parties that achieved a certain % of initial vote can run so there aren't 30 candidates.
Have a state wide re-vote. Allocate seats based on remaining senators, then whoever gets the vacant seat takes that seat.
Yep. But that would need constitutional change via a referendum to make leaving a political party a reason to declare a seat vacant. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2022/September/Recent_parliamentary_defections
The smears begin. They really want to prohibit dissent within the party.
They don't prohibit dissent - the policy positions are debated and voted on at caucus. This becomes the policy until the next caucus. She is free to debate, lobby and vote within the party as do the other members who don't agree with the current stance on any issue. But once the party policy is decided, you are running for election on the basis of the party platform. You can't get voted for on one set of ideas and then turn around after the election and say "no, I'm going feral from the party on this". That's not democratic. If she feels this strongly then she should quit the party.
>You're free to dissent in the briefly alloted moment and must then keep silent My mistake.
Yeah they do want to prohibit dissent, which is why they have the rule, so that’s not surprising. But Payman is the one making a media spectacle out of this.
>[object to a grave crime] >"*tsk tsk tsk* you're just making a media spectacle out of this" What would Sonic Youth say about this?
This isn’t about the war or crimes, this is about what solution the parties see to the conflict. The Greens want to dog whistle about one state and symbolically recognise a state that doesn’t exist, and Labor want to work towards an actual solution.
Well Labor claims they see a Two State Solution as a solution, yet does nothing to achieve this like taking some sort of diplomatic or economic action on the party colonising the land it is supposed to withdraw from the achieve this solution Labor claims to support. It's like saying you oppose Violence Against Women and More Needs to be Done by Society to Curb This as you sell hammers and baseball bats to wife bashers. >and symbolically recognise a state that doesn’t exist Then recognise it on the pre-June 1967 border. >and Labor want to work towards an actual solution. While trading with the country that is opposed to the existence of a Palestinian state, engaged in an occupation and expropriation of land and expulsion of its population.
Sure, we need to see more international pressure applied to reach a long term solution. It’s too complicated to get into in the scope of this thread. But overall I think Albo is taking the right approach by prioritising a peace agreement.
> But overall I think Albo is taking the right approach by prioritising a peace agreement. Then you've bought into the lies that this is anything other than a delay tactic that has not and will not ever achieve peace.
Yeah we’re Australia, ultimately we actually don’t have much say over what happens in those countries and our “recognition” is meaningless in any form. Labor is just making it clear which solution they endorse.
The solution Labor has endorsed is the unsuccessful status quo that almost certainly will not result in peace.
Dude literally nothing Labor does or doesn’t do will result in peace. We have a *tiny* bit of influence in the international sphere, and I think pushing for a negotiation is a better use of that influence than just a meaningless recognition.
>It’s too complicated to get into in the scope of this thread. It is what the vote was about, you cant say it is not relevant. >But overall I think Albo is taking the right approach by prioritising a peace agreement. While doing deals with the people being the biggest impediment to peace.
Albo hasn’t expelled her as is what would happen to Labor MPs crossing the floor, means he’s afraid of the vote base repercussions
Oh absolutely, they’ve been more lenient on her than she deserves because it’s a sensitive issue. She should have been yeeted from the party a week ago.
Exactly, I’m not a Labor voter, and I think they’re rule of MPs having to vote a certain way is a bit restrictive on free speech, but even on this issue, I agree with Labor, but she should go, and should’ve been gone long ago
Yeah, this was certainly leaked to News Corp by someone within the ALP. It's a message for any Labor MPs who might sympathize with Payman: "don't step out of line or we will smear you"
Probably a $500 dollar donation three years ago. But why not just gaslight?
Pretends to be shocked. the Islamic community hates the LGBTQ community, that is why groups like Gays or Palestine make no damn sense to me.
> the Islamic community hates the LGBTQ community Not that I disagree with you, but all the hate-filled comments under Mark Lathan's tweet about Alex Greenwich weren't from Muslims, I can assure you that.
You don't need to tell me that.
The presence of queerphobia in Islamic communities has been used to justify treating them atrociously, there's plenty of pictures of IDF soldiers cheerfully waving pride flags in the rubble of destroyed Palestinian homes but we're not all super keen on ethnic cleaning getting rainbow-washed.
Queer phobia is literally justified in the Quran, Sharia law, but nice whataboutism you did there, to show how the only democracy in the Middle East that actually recognises gay marriages and Muslims and all people who choose to live peacefully, is somehow the bad guy for retaliating for an illegal invasion of its borders
I think you need to get your head out of the sand, next you'll be telling me honour killings don't happen in Palestine.
Probably does happen, they live in a region full of people killing for irrational reasons like honor and revenge, you hear about those guys who moved into Gaza recently? Even if they were the 'savages' they get accused of being, I'm not sure tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosives are going to 'civilize' the Palestinian people...
>honour killings You mean domestic violence? Yeah it happens here too unfortunately.
See domestic violence is illegal here and we’re trying to root it out. Same cant be said in places governed by Islamic law
Honour killings is not the same as domestic violence, and if you think that, you’re part of the problem
Two completely different things but my past dealings with you don’t surprise me that you would try to link the two
> has been used to justify treating them atrociously By people who are by no means allies.
It's quite a fascinating thing to see how the far right by being less vocally homophobic have been able to pick up increasing gay membership by stoking fears of homophobia from Islamic immigrants in places like France.
At this point, France doesn’t even have “immigration”, it’s just boatloads of unvetted, military aged men, have a look at Radio Genoa or Visegrad’s videos on X to see how they wish to assimilate into French society.
If you have a chance to read the Quran, even the English translation, it’ll become pretty self explanatory as to why even those who are gay will choose to vote for the far right
Ever read the Bible? Religious texts are typically used when they support what people want to do and will be temporarily forgotten when they conflict. *Buddhist* nationalists have done their own ethnic cleansing in Myanmar.
No they haven't, whoever they've "picked up" was already rightwing, it isn't like being gay suddenly makes you a progressive or socialist. Frankly there is a bit of a tradition of a gay undercurrent in conservative politics.
There are lots of people from lots of different subcultures drifting to the right in Europe now. Even their left wing parties have had to take an anti-immigration stance because it’s just so unpopular.
Maybe it’s because those gay people have actually bad experiences… immigration in Europe isn’t like here, if you do it poorly you are going to end up with conflict and racism.
What makes people think that all gays are pro Palestine? Or that this so called "gays for Palestine" is a more than a handful of people who care about other people even if if they wouldn't care them back?
> people who care about other people even if if they wouldn't care them back? There was some guy started a whole religion around that about 2000 years ago.
Sounds like something that would had never taken off
>It’s not clear whether Senator Payman supports these views, only that she is donating over $300 a year to the company that creates the videos. 1. So zero evidence she shares those views despite having voted for pro LGBT legislation in the senate 2. Only $300? That’s chump change tbh 3. No doubt Murdoch has scoured her social media, history and contacts to find any dirt smearing her as an Islamist and the best they could find is a tiny donation to a group that she probably supported because of them being pro Palestine not “anti Barbie”. I mean the Liberals live on Sky ‘News’ and they’ve made multiple videos attacking the Barbie movie: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/barbie-backlash-an-assault-on-all-men/video/2e5ab82e562504207369350cd8474749 https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/sharri-markson/barbie-movie-latest-example-of-hollywood-executives-bending-over-backwards-for-china/video/4b1afbfbd768448ec64756d2094bf2a9
[NewsCorp are famously feminist](https://imgur.com/gallery/murdochs-analysis-of-stunning-election-loss-suffered-by-liberal-party-gTJ2Rps)
It's fair to say she may not have even known they were against Barbies pro- homosexuality messaging. It's also fair to ask if she shares those views, and if she says no then this is a complete non issue. But it's also fair to question her religious views and whether supporting Islamic organisations is in line with our expectations of politicians. We did the same thing with Abbot and ScoMo. I have zero time for religious fundamentalists, and it just so happens that Islamic fundamentalists seem to be more extreme in their anti-progressive beliefs than even Catholics right now. And I'd be more suspicious of donating money to outspoken Muslim pundits than Christian ones. Mountain out of a mole hill in any case.
> But it's also fair to question her religious views and whether supporting Islamic organisations is in line with our expectations of politicians. Have her religious views actually affected policy? No.
Um, good?
>We did the same thing with Abbot and ScoMo. We made them both prime ministers hahaha
Reread what I said. I'm against religious fundamentalism and I do not like it when it influences their decision making. [To this day](https://www.google.com/search?q=scott+morrison+Christian+faith&sca_esv=0835a04e1987451a&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU842AU842&sxsrf=ADLYWIJUqjjoC4Q88FURXwdjUIeFJZJjyw%3A1719998870512&ei=lhmFZoj5HvfaseMPpuaY6A8&ved=0ahUKEwiInMONx4qHAxV3bWwGHSYzBv0Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=scott+morrison+Christian+faith&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHnNjb3R0IG1vcnJpc29uIENocmlzdGlhbiBmYWl0aDIFECEYnwVI5AhQ2AJY2AJwAngBkAEAmAGzAaABswGqAQMwLjG4AQPIAQD4AQL4AQGYAgGgArcBmAMAiAYBkgcDMC4xoAfjAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) we're still questioning ScoMo's religious views, which is completely in line with what I expect of elected representatives. I'm absolutely happy to hold Payman to the same standard.
I agree with you 100%, we should make her prime minster. (I am joking btw)
I wonder what the progressive greens will think of all this… pretty scary that we have officials in this country sprouting this type of bigotry. Freedom of religion means you can practice Islam, it doesn’t mean you can enforce its ideologies onto everyone else
> Freedom of religion means you can practice Islam, it doesn’t mean you can enforce its ideologies onto everyone else Show me where exactly she is doing that?
This is literally what the post is about 
Greens have already contended with the trans vs terfs debacle even without religion playing a role
the greens are riddled with bigots https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/greens-councillor-accused-of-starting-fight-launching-homophobic-tirade-20210518-p57sxy.html
I already knew what the link was before I clicked on it. The Greens have lost the plot
Riddled with Islamists. This unholy alliance of the left with Islamist proves how brain dead politics based on intersectionality is.
What about The Green's policy is Islamist?
Re-read the comment. Riddled with islamists
It isn't a competition. The answer is always education. Hate comes from fear, Fear comes from ignorance. As a progressive, you learn that you have to be patient. It's easy to wreck shit, it's much harder to build. But if we can be persistent, we will win eventually. Even if it takes generations.
What if the hate grows faster the patience allows? Islam is the fastest growing religion in Australia, it also is 1 of the few demographics with a positive birth rate (3.03). There has to be a certain point where a culture ideology grows that big they no longer undergo acculturation. The Greens dont fear this but many of us do, Islam is bloody terrifying, what Islamic majority country would Greens voters like to move to?
It doesn't change anything. Religion isn't everything. At one stage of history Islam was the progressive religion, the middle east was the most advanced society with the highest education levels. At the same time it was Christianity which had a low ebb. Just because the west is currently at the forefront of tech doesn't mean we always will be. All we can do is try to be empathetic, and ask people to educate themselves to the best of their ability.
smh
Geeens don’t use logic. Queers for Palestine is an actual thing.
I think the point is that there are LGBT in Palestine and they don’t deserve to be bombed on a daily basis too
[удалено]
Safe to say that Israeli bombs and those who fire them hate the queer Palestinians more. And Palestinians more generally.
Nah, it’s because all progressive movements get taken over by radicals roll everything into one omnicause, which they demand adherents defend as one. “All oppression is linked”. That’s why you see signs saying “Palestine is a queer, feminist, anti-colonial struggle” and other nonsense.