![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have been remiss in following through on my stated intentions. Well, the actual elections are in a little less than a week and it is a busy week for me. I will cover as many as I can. Time to finish looking at the Family First policies I missed last time.
Industry Business Enterprise and the Workplace
They seem in favour of the current situation with Workplace Relations. I am not the most educated person on this matter but I am inclined to give this the thumbs down.
Internet Pornography and Children
"Family First will work to achieve Government commitment to establish a
Mandatory Filtering Scheme at the ISP Server Level in this country." I really do not like this idea. What precisely do they mean, anyway? Blocking all pornographic content from the internet? As they say, it is a [guardian's] responsibility to keep a child from being exposed to material deemed unacceptable in the home and if they cannot configure a filter they can hire someone to do it for them.
What concerns me is it is not made clear exactly how this is intended to work. Do they mean for there to be an option so parents can have their connection filtered if they wish? Or do they want Australia's entire connection to the internet filtered so that no one will be able to use it to access pornography?
As much as I do not desire children to be exposed to pornography, this seems as absurd as leaving cigarettes legal but banning shops from selling them to keep them from those under 18.
And as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
soltice says, it will not even work. There are too many ways around it for those who wish it.
Plus, it makes me uncomfortable for the government to have a nationwide tool in place for filtering content it does not wish its citizens to be exposed to. I do not think any content should be banned unless it were made with the (nonconsensual) suffering of others. And speaking of which, here is something else from their policy statement they use to support it:
From what I have heard the pornography industry itself is rather very exploitative and does need cleaning up. Forgive me, please, that I am not eloquent on this subject. It is something I know little of and am more inclined to take the lead of others on.
The rest of their points I have no knowledge of, except that I would not trust any industry to regulate itself.
Indigenous Australians
Family First has little to say and my knowledge in this area is too deficient. I do not even know if "rebuilding the role of family in indigenous communities" even makes sense, or how much resemblance the family relationships of Indigenous Australians have traditionally borne to ones Family First favours. I certainly do not know if there is a conflict there.
The rest is vaguely positive and means nothing so far as I can tell.
Older Australians, Aged Care and Carers
I have no firm opinions. It looks good on the surface; political statements often do.
Population
They wish to "address declining population growth". I do not understand why this is seen as so great a problem. Do people think the world infinite? If so they are fools; it is hardly wise to fill the planet to capacity.
Poker Machines
They do not like them. No solution suggested.
Security
Family First thinks there is a war on terror which can be won and have committed themselves to doing so. Perhaps it can, but I suspect that if so, Family First is on the wrong side to accomplish such a victory.
Size of Government
This is the conservative line, no? Small government. I am not sure what they mean by this, "Family First believes that parents have primary responsibility for the care and eduction of their children and no Government ought to normally usurp this authority[,]" but I wonder if it is an indication of support for homeschooling over public schools.
I likewise am unsure what I think of their statement that decisions should be made as close to the level of society they would effect - would this be better or worse - but I do find myself agreeing that government should be as large as necessary to best execute its function, whatever size that is. But who would disagree?
Small Business
Family First likes small businesses because they are often family businesses and wishes to help them.
Private and Public Ownership
Neither socialists nor seeking to privatise all things, but leaning to the latter.
Tax Deductibility of Education Expenses
They want to give families a tax deduction of up to $3,000 per year to use to cover educational expenses.
The Family
Ah, here we are at what I would think the core of what they are about, given their constant focus on the family in the rest of their policy.
The last, well, that just goes to show Family First is not truly for families. They only want to help a particular kind of family and will do their best to stamp out all others. There are no good reasons for people to take such a stance and no reasons I know of at all but ignorance, mean-spiritedness or being deceived.
Their proposed changes to Family Law include the idea that a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up healthily, which reasoning leads to such arrant nonsense as I have recently been confronted with.
I will not reject the rest of what they say out of hand and some of it seems interesting (though admittedly perhaps only through my own ignorance), but based on what I have quoted I cannot in good conscience support them and would feel obligated to dissuade others from doing so.
Treaties
I cautiously say nothing here strikes me as objectionable.
War in Iraq
First an irrelevant statement about being committed to winning the so-called war on terror. Family First's official position is that it was "somewhat premature" to invade Iraq but are committed to finishing it now.
I have a lot of trouble not adopting a 'you break it you bought it' attitude but at least I see clearly enough to say Family First is either confused or deliberately confusing on this matter. Their repeated association of the situation with some supposed war on terrorism is, well, inaccurate. There was to my knowledge no association of Iraq with those symbolic terrorists who have come to represent all terrorism these days, at least none dating back to before the invasion.
To associate the two so closely, I really do not like that.
Industry Business Enterprise and the Workplace
They seem in favour of the current situation with Workplace Relations. I am not the most educated person on this matter but I am inclined to give this the thumbs down.
Internet Pornography and Children
"Family First will work to achieve Government commitment to establish a
Mandatory Filtering Scheme at the ISP Server Level in this country." I really do not like this idea. What precisely do they mean, anyway? Blocking all pornographic content from the internet? As they say, it is a [guardian's] responsibility to keep a child from being exposed to material deemed unacceptable in the home and if they cannot configure a filter they can hire someone to do it for them.
What concerns me is it is not made clear exactly how this is intended to work. Do they mean for there to be an option so parents can have their connection filtered if they wish? Or do they want Australia's entire connection to the internet filtered so that no one will be able to use it to access pornography?
As much as I do not desire children to be exposed to pornography, this seems as absurd as leaving cigarettes legal but banning shops from selling them to keep them from those under 18.
And as
soltice says, it will not even work. There are too many ways around it for those who wish it.Plus, it makes me uncomfortable for the government to have a nationwide tool in place for filtering content it does not wish its citizens to be exposed to. I do not think any content should be banned unless it were made with the (nonconsensual) suffering of others. And speaking of which, here is something else from their policy statement they use to support it:
- Some pornographic material is not even suitable to be classified as R or X classification.
SEXAlso under criminal activity:
Depictions of practices such as bestiality.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or
abhorrent;
(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.
Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.And that is the total of the detail it goes into. So far as I know, bondage and other activities related to BDSM fall or commonly fall into the category of "fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent". The material "not even suitable to be classified as R or X classification" is hardly some great threat people who wish to view it need protection from and it seems silly to me to deny people from viewing representations of common (I did not say majority) fantasies and activities. Why in the world should such material be not available, so long it is clearly marked for those who wish to view it and those who do not.
From what I have heard the pornography industry itself is rather very exploitative and does need cleaning up. Forgive me, please, that I am not eloquent on this subject. It is something I know little of and am more inclined to take the lead of others on.
The rest of their points I have no knowledge of, except that I would not trust any industry to regulate itself.
Indigenous Australians
Family First has little to say and my knowledge in this area is too deficient. I do not even know if "rebuilding the role of family in indigenous communities" even makes sense, or how much resemblance the family relationships of Indigenous Australians have traditionally borne to ones Family First favours. I certainly do not know if there is a conflict there.
The rest is vaguely positive and means nothing so far as I can tell.
Older Australians, Aged Care and Carers
I have no firm opinions. It looks good on the surface; political statements often do.
Population
They wish to "address declining population growth". I do not understand why this is seen as so great a problem. Do people think the world infinite? If so they are fools; it is hardly wise to fill the planet to capacity.
Poker Machines
They do not like them. No solution suggested.
Security
Family First thinks there is a war on terror which can be won and have committed themselves to doing so. Perhaps it can, but I suspect that if so, Family First is on the wrong side to accomplish such a victory.
Size of Government
This is the conservative line, no? Small government. I am not sure what they mean by this, "Family First believes that parents have primary responsibility for the care and eduction of their children and no Government ought to normally usurp this authority[,]" but I wonder if it is an indication of support for homeschooling over public schools.
I likewise am unsure what I think of their statement that decisions should be made as close to the level of society they would effect - would this be better or worse - but I do find myself agreeing that government should be as large as necessary to best execute its function, whatever size that is. But who would disagree?
Small Business
Family First likes small businesses because they are often family businesses and wishes to help them.
Private and Public Ownership
Neither socialists nor seeking to privatise all things, but leaning to the latter.
Tax Deductibility of Education Expenses
They want to give families a tax deduction of up to $3,000 per year to use to cover educational expenses.
The Party acknowledges the diversity of beliefs, traditions and values within
Australian homes and will defend parents’ rights to choose schooling that
supports their family’s values.
The Family
Ah, here we are at what I would think the core of what they are about, given their constant focus on the family in the rest of their policy.
"What is a Family?Heterosexual is not written by accident when it is written so many times. Family First is not truly a party to represent families until it represents all families.
“Family” for Family First means the relationships that bind grandparents, parents and their children, mums and dads and siblings and form the basis of a living community. A broader experience of extended family relationships enriches family life. Family grows out of heterosexual relationships between men and women. Family life flourishes when couples strive for stable commitment to sexual fidelity to each other. Family is about striving for a shared life journey together founded on a lived experience of relationship. There can be no doubt that flourishing family life creates the best environment for children."
"Family First will also seek to ensure that all proposed legislation is considered in the light of its impact on the family."Given their stated definition of the family, how will that go, hm?
This will be achieved by developing national benchmarks to audit the state of the Australian Family by establishing:All families will be evaluated against party standards?
- A Family Impact Statement to ensure that all legislation is considered in the light of the family
- A Family Well Being Index to provide a framework by which the well being of the family would be measured
We are committed to supporting strategies that will contribute to positive family environments and outcomes for all families.Those are just the last two points. The second to last I have no firm thing to say except it does not sit right with me. Perhaps it I am picking up an implication that the mere act of being married is better for children than the exact same environment without a legal marriage. Possibly it is, considering I am given to understand it carries legal benefits.
To this end Family First will pursue a range of strategies to reduce the incidence of and negative outcomes of family and relationship breakdown by:
- Explaining the extra benefits marriage bring to family life and increasing opportunities to help people, especially young Australians to select marriage as the best environment in which to raise a family
- Affirming and defending the institution of marriage as being a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life
The last, well, that just goes to show Family First is not truly for families. They only want to help a particular kind of family and will do their best to stamp out all others. There are no good reasons for people to take such a stance and no reasons I know of at all but ignorance, mean-spiritedness or being deceived.
Their proposed changes to Family Law include the idea that a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up healthily, which reasoning leads to such arrant nonsense as I have recently been confronted with.
I will not reject the rest of what they say out of hand and some of it seems interesting (though admittedly perhaps only through my own ignorance), but based on what I have quoted I cannot in good conscience support them and would feel obligated to dissuade others from doing so.
Treaties
I cautiously say nothing here strikes me as objectionable.
War in Iraq
First an irrelevant statement about being committed to winning the so-called war on terror. Family First's official position is that it was "somewhat premature" to invade Iraq but are committed to finishing it now.
I have a lot of trouble not adopting a 'you break it you bought it' attitude but at least I see clearly enough to say Family First is either confused or deliberately confusing on this matter. Their repeated association of the situation with some supposed war on terrorism is, well, inaccurate. There was to my knowledge no association of Iraq with those symbolic terrorists who have come to represent all terrorism these days, at least none dating back to before the invasion.
To associate the two so closely, I really do not like that.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 15:40 (UTC)From:Which can also mean that if a parent is abusive or harmful to their children, the authorities will be stripped of their power to stop it. What trash.
And where's their stance on adoption? Does that exist in their rosy world?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 15:58 (UTC)From:They support adoption, including as an alternative to abortion, in preference to such things as foster care, but only if you are a straight heteronormative* couple. It is part of their belief that as many people as possible should be in families built around male-female married couples.
*the heteronormative part is my surmise, but they do want to deny non-straight people marriage and only place children in the care of marriages so the rest I am sure of.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 16:44 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 16:55 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 18:55 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 02:34 (UTC)From:I think the war in iraq is less "you break it you bought it" than going into somebody's home and wrecking something trying to help, and the more you try to fix it the more damage you to their home and when they want you to leave, you insist on staying and fixing what you did, even tho it is making things worse. :\
I never trust groups that have family in their names >:\
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 08:29 (UTC)From:That's a bit sad, it is what American wedge politics does to us, I think. That said nobody should trust Family First I think, because they apparently preference the conservative Coalition over Labor even when the conservatives have a lot of un-family friendly economic policies, the IR reforms to say the least, just because the conservatives are homophobic and have more space for fundamentalists like them in their policy. Which means that their name is really hypocritical because they put their ideology rather than families first.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 08:32 (UTC)From: