![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More Politics
Since the election is coming up so quickly now (no faster than ever before, and as we approach summer, slower, in fact, in truth [though not significantly]), I will concentrate first on those parties running candidates in the electorate where I will be voting, in reverse order of my current opinion of them. Afterward, I mean to finish with any parties I may have missed.
Therefore, our next target: Christian Democratic Party.
Their policies page. I covered them only briefly once before. This time I will focus on their federal policies. It is just the one long page, so no need for frequent linking this time.
ADDICTION & DRUGS
CDP (as they call themselves) claims to be zero tolerance and reject any harm minimisation policies. They intend to push "say no" education about the dangers of drug use in schools and across various media. Much like we have now, I suppose. Abandoning moves to decriminalise any currently illegal drugs. They want to close Sydney's medically supervised injection centre and all needle exchange programs.
They want to restrict the hours hotels can distribute alcohol. They want supermarket chains not to sell alcohol. They want the government to research possible benefits of increasing the drinking age to 21.
Their policy on smoking is to leave things as they are.
Since I happen to support the legalisation and regulation of nearly all drugs, you will doubtless be unsurprised to find I disagree with CDP's policies. Although I do agree that drug addiction is a serious problem, I think the solution is to ensure any drugs enter the country or are made and distributed under monitored circumstances so that people do not die from contaminated samples, know what is in the things they are taking and what the dosage is, are made aware of the risks. So that we hopefully keep prices low enough that people do not find it necessary to resort to criminal activity to afford a hit, so that without a black market there is no need to fill our prisons with dealers and smugglers. So that those who wish to get help do not need to fear being arrested, so that those who continue to use have access to safe needles free of contamination and ways to dispose of them without littering our parks and footpaths.
It does not seem right to me that cigarettes, a drug known to kill people who continue to use it, is legal while others are not. What is the standard here that is being applied consistently?
I do not propose an end to anti-drug education and advertising, although as CDP says, it should describe accurately the risks and dangers involved.
I say all this as someone who does not and has never smoked, drinks only very rarely and has almost no interest in any other drugs. The preceding statement is not so much to portray me as having an unbiased nature, but to indicate my inexperience and possible naiveté in this matter.
CHILD ABUSE
They encourage reporting of abuse (of course!) and a national registry. They want people who work in children's services to receive more training in how to recognise signs and consequences of abuse.
The CDP "acknowledges that much child abuse occurs in family types not structured on traditional marriage. CDP therefore supports programs that highlight the social utility of marriage between a man and a woman, for life, and to the exclusion of all others"
Did they just say that? Yes, yes they did. They just said that reducing child abuse is a justification for preventing lesbian and gay male couples from marrying. They believe it is fine for parents and teachers to use physical punishment to enforce obedience in children but same gender couples are too dangerous to be allowed.
I am choosing my words as carefully as I can because of the radiant fury I feel at this absurd, bigoted, sneakily deceptive policy wording. I do not wish to say something I may later regret. I do not wish to, in my fury, say something that is not true.
They do not say how much abuses, whether the rates are comparable, greater or lesser. They do not say what kind(s) of families they are speaking of. They do not really say anything except that child abuse occurs in family types they do not approve of and therefore the kind they like must be promoted to the exclusion of all else.
We already know child abuse occurs in legal man-woman marriages too, though, so without any further information what they said simply does not follow. They use the word 'much' to imply great numbers and gloss over the fact that these problems are found in their proposed solution too to hide their non-sequitor. Further, by sliding these things together they further the association in people's minds of homosexuality with child abuse.
How dare they? How. Bloody. Dare. They. How dare they smear the good names of other citizens, associate innocent people by such sneaky, deceptive words with such vile acts? How dare they with insinuation say the things they can no longer get away with saying openly about good people who have done neither them nor any child harm? How dare they through manipulation attempt to keep people treated as second-class citizens? How dare they call themselves a Christian party?
Call for murder or call for love and the benefit of all humanity but be open and not deceptive, not sneakily misleading and insinuating at any step.
There. I may have allowed myself to be carried away toward the end there. And once again I am ignorant on Aboriginal matters and cannot evaluate their policy in that regard.
CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
They are, unsurprisingly, in support of a citizenship test focusing on competence in English, knowledge of Australia's heritage and support for traditional Australian values.
The word traditional stands out to me. I do not know if it is always or often attached to 'values' in such contexts but I think not. It strikes me as an attempt to hold the nation in stasis or perhaps even regress it to some point they call desirable.
There was a comment on an Australian political blog which I wished to quote but now cannot find. The basic message was this: what binds us together are largely common to humans across the world. There are some differences, often fueled by such vehicles as religion, but society still functions because we hold to the rule of law, and so long as people abide by the law it will continue to do so. Nonsense talk of requiring everyone to hold to the same values is just that - nonsense.
IMMIGRATION
Phrased positively they first emphasise the right of a nation to determine who enters its borders. They support the continuation of mandatory detention for anyone who does not enter in an approve manner until any claim for refugee status has been evaluated.
They say Australia should remain a world leader at being a haven for refugees, although I was under the impression that being locked in a facility in the desert for two years while claims are being processed was rather harsh treatment. Regardless, they especially draw attention to the plight of those being persecuted for their Christianity. It does happen.
ISLAM
They have specific policies on Islam? I suppose I ought not be surprised. After all, Target probably has policies on K-Mart.
They say a lot of scary things about Islam that would be equally true were I to replace references to Islam and Sharia with Christianity and Christian laws. They claim "that Islam then poses a considerable challenge to the maintenance of Australia as a free society with a Christian heritage."
Any shift in the population will do that, although I am of the opinion that this political party is a threat to keeping Australia free of just the same kind as any Islamic group aimed at gaining control of society.
Their proposed solution? Ban followers of Islam from immigrating for 10 years. Place those already in the country under close scrutiny to ensure they repudiate terrorism and oppressive religious laws. I look forward to CDP's condemnation of abortion clinic bombings and the aims of the Dominionism movement. Otherwise we had better not let any Christians into the country.
DEFENCE
They make some noise about the requirements for war to be just, the need for peaceful resolution and some scary words about China, North Korea and Muslims.
They think continuing as we are in Iraq is just fine.
They wish to promote recruitment in schools and universities (the former via the cadet program, already a popular choice among my peers).
They wish to make Australia more independently defensible and also to encourage closer alliances with democratic nations against the enemies of democracy.
I really do not like most of that, although I do approve of democracy and think it ought to be spread. Well, I do approve of being able to defend ourselves and being on good terms with other nations too.
ECONOMIC POLICY
This is interesting: "CDP supports a broader definition of the Gross National Product to include the value-added contribution of volunteerism and corporate philanthropy as well as unpaid household work"
I am afraid I do not know what to make of most of what they say here. Economics has never been my strong suit. I do know the following statement is absurd: "CDP opposes the full deregulation of retail trading hours and believes there should be no trading on Sundays, to allow time for worship and recreation."
Do they really want to not allow people to work or shop on Sundays? What about the non-Christians? As much as worship and recreation are important to people, it does not seem right to force everyone to follow the schedule of the 68% of the population who claim Christianity.
EDUCATION
Again noise about parents having primacy. They want a home-maker allowance for those who wish to stay home to raise their children through the early years of life. They want parenting centres in major shopping centres and online to provide support, free parenting classes and a national phone help-line.
Although those sound like good ideas, I am suspicious of what would be taught.
Like Family First, they support the right of parents to choose a school which will help inculcate the beliefs they favour in their children.
They say they want to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal Australians.
They make pleasant sounding noises about promoting holistic education and raising literacy and numeracy standards. They want to void disadvantaging boys or girls in education.
They want to fund chaplains for all schools because this "is required to help schools in their pastoral roles towards students and families, to serve as liaison between home, school and community and to help in the application of Australian core values in schools."
I did not have anything positive to say about chaplains in schools last time the idea came up and less now that I suspect these chaplains will be exclusively Christian.
These two paragraphs are particularly awful for occurring together:
And hear, they wish to stifle youth who are already victimised and treat them as if they are somehow defective, wrong when they are not. The Christian Democratic Party wishes to damage Australia's youth, though I doubt they realise it.
It is not only the bisexual, lesbian and gay youth they wish to stifle who will be harmed. They would damage further generations of Australians by teaching them there is something wrong with not being of heterosexual orientation, teaching them to see other human beings as being lesser, defective, abusers, unfamiliar and in their unfamiliarity something to be feared and lashed out at. All of Australia's youth deserve better than to be so twisted.
They wish to encourage more male teachers.
ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
They stress that although the environment is important, it exists for the benefit of humanity and humans have primacy.
My perspective, because I can: The environment just is and so are we.
On the matter of climate change, they stress uncertainty by prefacing those scientists who are convinced it is occurring and driven by human action with the word 'some'. Their following description is heavily phrased as a matter of opinion. The way CDP describes the counterpoint is, well, for a stretch I did not realise they were still describing the views of opposing scientists because it was phrased as plain fact.
They acknowledge the prevailing view of the scientific debate being over, with virtually all scientists in agreement, although they place those terms inside scare quotes. The CDP is either stupid or deceptive and asks when there was ever debate in the popular media.
They want media treatment to be more balanced (represent the balance of scientific views? people who ask for this seldom would like what they get), economic alternatives to fossil fuels, sustainable forestry practices and programs to deal with salt damage to agricultural land. Otherwise they wish to do nothing.
HEALTH
Intriguingly, their opening statement acknowledges that God can withdraw human rights. This is a reason I would hope not to be a Christian of such kind even if I were convinced of their God.
They wish public access to 'essential' (see? I can do scare quotes too) services but otherwise seem to wish people to fend for themselves.
Reiteration of zero tolerance for drug use.
Mandatory drug testing of professional sportspeople (all of them?) as role models. Also random testing of parliamentarians at State and federal levels.
Full smoking bans "in hotels, clubs, restaurants and bars and vehicles to protect patrons, employees and children." Seems reasonable, except for the vehicles. Someone might be in their on their own with no one to harm through second-hand smoke.
Promotion of abstinence and marriage fidelity, because why not throw away some money?
Only men are gay and they are to blame for AIDS. Children must be warned and gay male youth traumatised about the horrors of their invalid life. I think anyone who has read this far will know my opinion on that by now, but the short version is the Christian Democratic Party sickens me with its inhumane policies.
They want no Medicare rebate available for abortions and that "[m]edical staff, students and institutions who have a religious or conscientious objection to abortion must never be forced to participate in them or penalized for refusing to participate in abortion or training to perform abortions."
They wish to ban the manufacture and importation of RU486, which is already shamefully difficult to gain access to even a year after it was finally allowed. Because women need as many obstacles in the way to prevent them from making their own choices (said with heavy sarcasm, noted because this is politics, which seems to make many tone deaf).
They want euthanasia to remain illegal. I say it ought be up to the individual if they want to live or die.
"Disabled citizens should be encouraged to participate and contribute to society at their level of capacity."
How bloody patronising is that? Everyone ought to be encouraged to participate in and contribute to society at their level of capacity. To use this phrasing in mentioning the disabled sounds to me, yes, very patronising, as if the intention is to give people only token representation and not really listen to them but pat them on the head because, poor dears, they can't really contribute or be expected to have any say.
Once again in their proposals the mention their favouring of both immigrants from English speaking countries and of Christian organisations.
HOUSING
Again, economic issues I admit to not understanding.
PRO-LIFE ISSUES
Oh, this ought to be good.
CDP seeks to ban abortion. Women can go stick themselves with a coathanger or jump down flights of stairs instead.
CDP wants to end safe sex education and replace it with abstinence education. Since that doesn't work, they are just going to get generations of Australians with higher incidences of STIs and no knowledge of what to do or how to avoid them.
They oppose euthanasia but, somehow, not refusing care when death is inevitable.
I shall reiterate, you may be 'pro-life', Christian Democratic Party, but it is the patient's decision to make, not anyone else's.
At least they are consistent, for they oppose the use of IVF treatments on the grounds it results in the death of many embryos. They want reproductive treatments available only to married couples, which means only married heterosexual couples.
They oppose cloning, chimeras and any study involving embryonic stem cells.
Naturally, I disagree.
MEDIA INTERNET AND CENSORSHIP
The Christian Democratic party is in favour of censorship. They wish to abolish the X-rated category and ban pornography.
They are more explicit than Family First and wish for a mandatory nationwide filter to block pornographic material. Also allowing for a family friendly internet service providing no material rated higher than MA15+
They want increased police resources to detect people who sexually abuse children. Hard to argue with that, unless the situation were such that police were doing nearly the best job that could be done and increased resources would be of little use. Which I doubt, I just like answering questions.
They want the G rating to be somehow more reliable.
They want no depiction of actual sex in R rated material (for those in the U.S., R means restricted to people 18 years of age and older), and videogames to continue to be suitable for 15 year olds at most, or banned.
They want balanced reporting on all issues (and whenever someone says balanced reporting I always wonder if they are using that word to mean the same thing I do).
Some unspecified program to have greater powers of enforcement of unspecified issues in the media, except that it has something to do with 'standards'. I find this ominous and troubling.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM & CHRISTIAN HERITAGE
They wish Christian prayers to continue at the beginning of parliamentary sessions, daily.
They say the Church must be allowed to preach unhindered.
They support the right of Christian schools to teach Creationism, because the Christian Democratic Party thinks Christians should grow up to be laughingstocks of the educated world.
They allow that parents have the right to opt out of their children receiving religious education in State schools.
They generously allow that 32% of Australia will be allowed to continue not being Christian, although in cases where there is conflict Christianity shall behaviour.
It is CDP's position that neither Sharia nor Aboriginal Tribal Law shall be recognised legally.
RURAL ISSUES
People who live in rural areas should have access to services. Definitely. I agree.
*sigh* Mostly things I am in no position to evaluate.
TAXATION POLICY
They wish to reduce and simplify taxation overall. No intelligent opinion on my part.
WATER
Nothing stands out as objectionable, although I am especially uncertain on some of the rural issues.
WORK & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Apparently sound statements on unions, though I am wary.
And that is it. The rest details their positions for the 2004 campaign.
In summary, this is the party which means to establish Christian primacy in Australia by
Therefore, our next target: Christian Democratic Party.
Their policies page. I covered them only briefly once before. This time I will focus on their federal policies. It is just the one long page, so no need for frequent linking this time.
ADDICTION & DRUGS
CDP (as they call themselves) claims to be zero tolerance and reject any harm minimisation policies. They intend to push "say no" education about the dangers of drug use in schools and across various media. Much like we have now, I suppose. Abandoning moves to decriminalise any currently illegal drugs. They want to close Sydney's medically supervised injection centre and all needle exchange programs.
They want to restrict the hours hotels can distribute alcohol. They want supermarket chains not to sell alcohol. They want the government to research possible benefits of increasing the drinking age to 21.
Their policy on smoking is to leave things as they are.
Since I happen to support the legalisation and regulation of nearly all drugs, you will doubtless be unsurprised to find I disagree with CDP's policies. Although I do agree that drug addiction is a serious problem, I think the solution is to ensure any drugs enter the country or are made and distributed under monitored circumstances so that people do not die from contaminated samples, know what is in the things they are taking and what the dosage is, are made aware of the risks. So that we hopefully keep prices low enough that people do not find it necessary to resort to criminal activity to afford a hit, so that without a black market there is no need to fill our prisons with dealers and smugglers. So that those who wish to get help do not need to fear being arrested, so that those who continue to use have access to safe needles free of contamination and ways to dispose of them without littering our parks and footpaths.
It does not seem right to me that cigarettes, a drug known to kill people who continue to use it, is legal while others are not. What is the standard here that is being applied consistently?
I do not propose an end to anti-drug education and advertising, although as CDP says, it should describe accurately the risks and dangers involved.
I say all this as someone who does not and has never smoked, drinks only very rarely and has almost no interest in any other drugs. The preceding statement is not so much to portray me as having an unbiased nature, but to indicate my inexperience and possible naiveté in this matter.
CHILD ABUSE
They encourage reporting of abuse (of course!) and a national registry. They want people who work in children's services to receive more training in how to recognise signs and consequences of abuse.
The CDP "acknowledges that much child abuse occurs in family types not structured on traditional marriage. CDP therefore supports programs that highlight the social utility of marriage between a man and a woman, for life, and to the exclusion of all others"
Did they just say that? Yes, yes they did. They just said that reducing child abuse is a justification for preventing lesbian and gay male couples from marrying. They believe it is fine for parents and teachers to use physical punishment to enforce obedience in children but same gender couples are too dangerous to be allowed.
I am choosing my words as carefully as I can because of the radiant fury I feel at this absurd, bigoted, sneakily deceptive policy wording. I do not wish to say something I may later regret. I do not wish to, in my fury, say something that is not true.
They do not say how much abuses, whether the rates are comparable, greater or lesser. They do not say what kind(s) of families they are speaking of. They do not really say anything except that child abuse occurs in family types they do not approve of and therefore the kind they like must be promoted to the exclusion of all else.
We already know child abuse occurs in legal man-woman marriages too, though, so without any further information what they said simply does not follow. They use the word 'much' to imply great numbers and gloss over the fact that these problems are found in their proposed solution too to hide their non-sequitor. Further, by sliding these things together they further the association in people's minds of homosexuality with child abuse.
How dare they? How. Bloody. Dare. They. How dare they smear the good names of other citizens, associate innocent people by such sneaky, deceptive words with such vile acts? How dare they with insinuation say the things they can no longer get away with saying openly about good people who have done neither them nor any child harm? How dare they through manipulation attempt to keep people treated as second-class citizens? How dare they call themselves a Christian party?
Call for murder or call for love and the benefit of all humanity but be open and not deceptive, not sneakily misleading and insinuating at any step.
There. I may have allowed myself to be carried away toward the end there. And once again I am ignorant on Aboriginal matters and cannot evaluate their policy in that regard.
CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
They are, unsurprisingly, in support of a citizenship test focusing on competence in English, knowledge of Australia's heritage and support for traditional Australian values.
The word traditional stands out to me. I do not know if it is always or often attached to 'values' in such contexts but I think not. It strikes me as an attempt to hold the nation in stasis or perhaps even regress it to some point they call desirable.
There was a comment on an Australian political blog which I wished to quote but now cannot find. The basic message was this: what binds us together are largely common to humans across the world. There are some differences, often fueled by such vehicles as religion, but society still functions because we hold to the rule of law, and so long as people abide by the law it will continue to do so. Nonsense talk of requiring everyone to hold to the same values is just that - nonsense.
IMMIGRATION
Phrased positively they first emphasise the right of a nation to determine who enters its borders. They support the continuation of mandatory detention for anyone who does not enter in an approve manner until any claim for refugee status has been evaluated.
They say Australia should remain a world leader at being a haven for refugees, although I was under the impression that being locked in a facility in the desert for two years while claims are being processed was rather harsh treatment. Regardless, they especially draw attention to the plight of those being persecuted for their Christianity. It does happen.
ISLAM
They have specific policies on Islam? I suppose I ought not be surprised. After all, Target probably has policies on K-Mart.
They say a lot of scary things about Islam that would be equally true were I to replace references to Islam and Sharia with Christianity and Christian laws. They claim "that Islam then poses a considerable challenge to the maintenance of Australia as a free society with a Christian heritage."
Any shift in the population will do that, although I am of the opinion that this political party is a threat to keeping Australia free of just the same kind as any Islamic group aimed at gaining control of society.
Their proposed solution? Ban followers of Islam from immigrating for 10 years. Place those already in the country under close scrutiny to ensure they repudiate terrorism and oppressive religious laws. I look forward to CDP's condemnation of abortion clinic bombings and the aims of the Dominionism movement. Otherwise we had better not let any Christians into the country.
DEFENCE
They make some noise about the requirements for war to be just, the need for peaceful resolution and some scary words about China, North Korea and Muslims.
They think continuing as we are in Iraq is just fine.
They wish to promote recruitment in schools and universities (the former via the cadet program, already a popular choice among my peers).
They wish to make Australia more independently defensible and also to encourage closer alliances with democratic nations against the enemies of democracy.
I really do not like most of that, although I do approve of democracy and think it ought to be spread. Well, I do approve of being able to defend ourselves and being on good terms with other nations too.
ECONOMIC POLICY
This is interesting: "CDP supports a broader definition of the Gross National Product to include the value-added contribution of volunteerism and corporate philanthropy as well as unpaid household work"
I am afraid I do not know what to make of most of what they say here. Economics has never been my strong suit. I do know the following statement is absurd: "CDP opposes the full deregulation of retail trading hours and believes there should be no trading on Sundays, to allow time for worship and recreation."
Do they really want to not allow people to work or shop on Sundays? What about the non-Christians? As much as worship and recreation are important to people, it does not seem right to force everyone to follow the schedule of the 68% of the population who claim Christianity.
EDUCATION
Again noise about parents having primacy. They want a home-maker allowance for those who wish to stay home to raise their children through the early years of life. They want parenting centres in major shopping centres and online to provide support, free parenting classes and a national phone help-line.
Although those sound like good ideas, I am suspicious of what would be taught.
Like Family First, they support the right of parents to choose a school which will help inculcate the beliefs they favour in their children.
They say they want to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal Australians.
They make pleasant sounding noises about promoting holistic education and raising literacy and numeracy standards. They want to void disadvantaging boys or girls in education.
They want to fund chaplains for all schools because this "is required to help schools in their pastoral roles towards students and families, to serve as liaison between home, school and community and to help in the application of Australian core values in schools."
I did not have anything positive to say about chaplains in schools last time the idea came up and less now that I suspect these chaplains will be exclusively Christian.
These two paragraphs are particularly awful for occurring together:
Schools, families and the community have a role to play in the fostering of healthy lifestyles. This is an area where cooperation between home-school- and community is important. The teaching of skills in developing healthy and respectful relationships with others is an important life skill.You see? A threat to freedom no different in kind to the fundamentalist Islamic groups they complain about, but more immediate in danger for having more power in the community currently. Should they gain the power to do what they wish and have those powers enacted in law, would they really wish to see what an Islamic majority would do with them? The religion of those chaplains could easily be swapped once they have been established. Better not to have them at all and let people seek out religious guidance in their own time.
Schools should not be used for social engineering experiments such as the promotion of alternative lifestyles such as homosexuality.
And hear, they wish to stifle youth who are already victimised and treat them as if they are somehow defective, wrong when they are not. The Christian Democratic Party wishes to damage Australia's youth, though I doubt they realise it.
It is not only the bisexual, lesbian and gay youth they wish to stifle who will be harmed. They would damage further generations of Australians by teaching them there is something wrong with not being of heterosexual orientation, teaching them to see other human beings as being lesser, defective, abusers, unfamiliar and in their unfamiliarity something to be feared and lashed out at. All of Australia's youth deserve better than to be so twisted.
They wish to encourage more male teachers.
ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
They stress that although the environment is important, it exists for the benefit of humanity and humans have primacy.
My perspective, because I can: The environment just is and so are we.
On the matter of climate change, they stress uncertainty by prefacing those scientists who are convinced it is occurring and driven by human action with the word 'some'. Their following description is heavily phrased as a matter of opinion. The way CDP describes the counterpoint is, well, for a stretch I did not realise they were still describing the views of opposing scientists because it was phrased as plain fact.
They acknowledge the prevailing view of the scientific debate being over, with virtually all scientists in agreement, although they place those terms inside scare quotes. The CDP is either stupid or deceptive and asks when there was ever debate in the popular media.
They want media treatment to be more balanced (represent the balance of scientific views? people who ask for this seldom would like what they get), economic alternatives to fossil fuels, sustainable forestry practices and programs to deal with salt damage to agricultural land. Otherwise they wish to do nothing.
HEALTH
Intriguingly, their opening statement acknowledges that God can withdraw human rights. This is a reason I would hope not to be a Christian of such kind even if I were convinced of their God.
They wish public access to 'essential' (see? I can do scare quotes too) services but otherwise seem to wish people to fend for themselves.
Reiteration of zero tolerance for drug use.
Mandatory drug testing of professional sportspeople (all of them?) as role models. Also random testing of parliamentarians at State and federal levels.
Full smoking bans "in hotels, clubs, restaurants and bars and vehicles to protect patrons, employees and children." Seems reasonable, except for the vehicles. Someone might be in their on their own with no one to harm through second-hand smoke.
Promotion of abstinence and marriage fidelity, because why not throw away some money?
Only men are gay and they are to blame for AIDS. Children must be warned and gay male youth traumatised about the horrors of their invalid life. I think anyone who has read this far will know my opinion on that by now, but the short version is the Christian Democratic Party sickens me with its inhumane policies.
They want no Medicare rebate available for abortions and that "[m]edical staff, students and institutions who have a religious or conscientious objection to abortion must never be forced to participate in them or penalized for refusing to participate in abortion or training to perform abortions."
They wish to ban the manufacture and importation of RU486, which is already shamefully difficult to gain access to even a year after it was finally allowed. Because women need as many obstacles in the way to prevent them from making their own choices (said with heavy sarcasm, noted because this is politics, which seems to make many tone deaf).
They want euthanasia to remain illegal. I say it ought be up to the individual if they want to live or die.
"Disabled citizens should be encouraged to participate and contribute to society at their level of capacity."
How bloody patronising is that? Everyone ought to be encouraged to participate in and contribute to society at their level of capacity. To use this phrasing in mentioning the disabled sounds to me, yes, very patronising, as if the intention is to give people only token representation and not really listen to them but pat them on the head because, poor dears, they can't really contribute or be expected to have any say.
Once again in their proposals the mention their favouring of both immigrants from English speaking countries and of Christian organisations.
HOUSING
Again, economic issues I admit to not understanding.
PRO-LIFE ISSUES
Oh, this ought to be good.
CDP seeks to ban abortion. Women can go stick themselves with a coathanger or jump down flights of stairs instead.
CDP wants to end safe sex education and replace it with abstinence education. Since that doesn't work, they are just going to get generations of Australians with higher incidences of STIs and no knowledge of what to do or how to avoid them.
They oppose euthanasia but, somehow, not refusing care when death is inevitable.
I shall reiterate, you may be 'pro-life', Christian Democratic Party, but it is the patient's decision to make, not anyone else's.
At least they are consistent, for they oppose the use of IVF treatments on the grounds it results in the death of many embryos. They want reproductive treatments available only to married couples, which means only married heterosexual couples.
They oppose cloning, chimeras and any study involving embryonic stem cells.
Naturally, I disagree.
MEDIA INTERNET AND CENSORSHIP
The Christian Democratic party is in favour of censorship. They wish to abolish the X-rated category and ban pornography.
They are more explicit than Family First and wish for a mandatory nationwide filter to block pornographic material. Also allowing for a family friendly internet service providing no material rated higher than MA15+
They want increased police resources to detect people who sexually abuse children. Hard to argue with that, unless the situation were such that police were doing nearly the best job that could be done and increased resources would be of little use. Which I doubt, I just like answering questions.
They want the G rating to be somehow more reliable.
They want no depiction of actual sex in R rated material (for those in the U.S., R means restricted to people 18 years of age and older), and videogames to continue to be suitable for 15 year olds at most, or banned.
They want balanced reporting on all issues (and whenever someone says balanced reporting I always wonder if they are using that word to mean the same thing I do).
Some unspecified program to have greater powers of enforcement of unspecified issues in the media, except that it has something to do with 'standards'. I find this ominous and troubling.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM & CHRISTIAN HERITAGE
They wish Christian prayers to continue at the beginning of parliamentary sessions, daily.
They say the Church must be allowed to preach unhindered.
Although religion is sometimes misused to channel violence or hatred in our communities, CDP is opposed to laws that prevent or hinder anyone from living peaceably in accordance with his religious beliefs (for instance, antidiscrimination laws should not be used to force a Christian into renting accommodation to a homosexual couple).My beliefs often demand I let people die on the streets rather than take their money and house them.
They support the right of Christian schools to teach Creationism, because the Christian Democratic Party thinks Christians should grow up to be laughingstocks of the educated world.
They allow that parents have the right to opt out of their children receiving religious education in State schools.
They generously allow that 32% of Australia will be allowed to continue not being Christian, although in cases where there is conflict Christianity shall behaviour.
It is CDP's position that neither Sharia nor Aboriginal Tribal Law shall be recognised legally.
RURAL ISSUES
People who live in rural areas should have access to services. Definitely. I agree.
*sigh* Mostly things I am in no position to evaluate.
TAXATION POLICY
CDP supports a rise in the zero rate tax free threshold so that no one pays tax until they have at least earned their own subsistence.I can agree to that.
They wish to reduce and simplify taxation overall. No intelligent opinion on my part.
WATER
Nothing stands out as objectionable, although I am especially uncertain on some of the rural issues.
WORK & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
- • A one day period of business closure should apply to all non-essential services and businesses across Australia each week. As Australia is predominantly a Christian country, it follows that this day of rest should be Sunday.
Apparently sound statements on unions, though I am wary.
CDP supports an amendment to Unlawful Termination Laws making it unlawful to terminate an employee for refusing to perform an unsafe or unlawful instructionI definitely agree with the above.
And that is it. The rest details their positions for the 2004 campaign.
In summary, this is the party which means to establish Christian primacy in Australia by
- Disallowing Muslim immigration for a decade
- Placing chaplains in all schools
- Smearing the good name of gay men and lesbians by associating them with child abuse
- Continue to block same-gender marriage
- Encourage children to believe it is wrong and dangerous to be anything but heterosexual
- End safe sex education
- Ban abortion
- Enforce the Sabbath
- Ban pornography
- Filter the internet
- Repeal anti-discrimination laws
- I'm sure I missed something