<< Back to article
I can tell you one thing about this mob (or their relations) from experience in Sydney, they don’t mind making the coin, find mobile phones a big problem, but faxes are ok, love khaki clothing and aren’t real flash on unbelievers.
Gave me a bit of a giggle that’s for sure.
So I don’t reckon it’s them who keep calling and hanging up when the phone is answered.
DG...same place, same number....no covered wagon out front.
Posted by on 28/03/06 at 01:04 PMHaving been absent from the state throughout the entire election campaign I find myself in a perfect position to speculate in near total ignorance.
Firstly, thou shalt not take the Lord God’s name in vain. Most people fear cussing after hitting their thumb with a hammer lest God’s wrath falls upon their heads. Personally, I would question a religious group that campaigns in God’s name to intervene in a mere human election. However, this is between those individuals and their god.
Giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s is another matter. In Australia, the values of which the Exclusive Brethren aim to uphold, it is a legal requirement to vote. I would expect the AEC to quickly to stop this unpatriotic behaviour through the courts unless such extreme views become the norm.
Secondly, can anyone tell me whether or not the TCA and FIAT groups conducted advertising during the election? I suspect Terry Edwards and Barry Chipman were unusually quiet. People should be cautious as animal masks were probably not the only masks being used.
Thirdly, I will describe a scenario. A political party in government gives a grant of taxpayers’ money to a corporate citizen who deposits it into Account A. The corporate citizen transfers a proportion from Account B through a series of various associations’ trust accounts. These associations then spend it directly on advertising. This scenario raises numerous audit and governance questions for many government departments including AEC, Auditors-General, Industry & Development and Taxation.
Finally, there has been a significant fracturing and reduction in support for minor parties. The Democrats and Greens are losing relevance with the community. Keeping the bastards honest or policies on sex, drugs and nuclear energy belong to another era. In the same manner as Labor has become stale so have the minor parties. I would recommend a review of their constitutions and policy positions with an amalgamation also on the agenda. Minor parties do have a role but it needs to be conservative in a progressive sense. Positions on political accountability, process and social principles (eg health, environment, taxation, welfare) should lead the debate. Whether or not the dreamers truly believe minor parties will ever implement policy, the reality is minor parties can only ever influence policy by leading debate in the community.
Posted by on 29/03/06 at 01:11 AMThe Forest Industries Association of Tasmania ran TV ads, newspaper ads and distributed a leaflet. I don’t think I would regard that as quiet. I won’t go into the comment on minor parties and their relevance here, other than that obviously a minor party can only ever do so much. The question is that will it ever go from being a minor party to a major party.
The Greens are closer to this in Tasmania than anywhere else, yet of course this does not look likely very soon.
As for the Exclusive Brethren, in today’s Mercury there is a letter from H.Graham criticising the Greens response to the Brethrens’ campaign against them.
He says that;
‘Criticisms by Greens politicians, such as accusations of this religious group causing suicide and family break-up are extreme.’
and;‘The Greens backlash is astonishing considering that they advocate individual involvement in democracy, as well as kindness and adversity’
Astonishing?
A group whose conscience does not allow them to vote yet these members of the group want to influence how everyone else votes?
I absolutely agree with Mr Graham that every individual and group in society has the right to participate in political debate.
But I question the ethics of individuals who do not argue for what they believe in but instead through misleading and misquoting information of party x ask people to vote against them.
Why not be honest and say we believe this and that party is the best party to vote for?
OK yes, I know why they didn’t, but for them to claim the Greens are dishonest is a joke.
Sadly, I guess they won’t see this website because apparently they don’t use the internet.
Posted by on 29/03/06 at 03:06 PMIt is one thing for devious elements to misrepresent a political movement and it is another for the electorate to believe it.
For Green members to blame the Brethren for their loss in votes is nothing but buck pushing IMO.
The Greens got sucked into arguing about hypotheticals and made themselves an easy target.
The winner (Lennon) stuck to the simple message, answered few questions directly and did not enter into discussions. Brilliantly perceived by his campaign staff, the Tasmanian electorate is on the whole simple minded, can’t follow an argument beyond 2 sentences and likes ‘strong’ rule.
Tasmanians got what they deserve.
Posted by on 30/03/06 at 01:51 AMI for one can attest to how the pamphlet distributed by the Exclusive Bretheren ALMOST influenced a ‘swinging’ Greens voter to not vote Green.
An elderly lady of my acquaintance, who insisted she was voting Green this time, confronted me with the offending brochure (delivered via mail), saying she disagreed with ‘these Greens policies’.
I asked her whether she had been keeping up with the news on this, the Exclusive Bretheren, etc. Unfortunately, same said elderly lady wasn’t reading the papers, listening to the radio, or following the story on tv, and was totally unaware of the whole smear campaign being conducted against the Greens.
Now, multiply this scenario by a few thousand more and there goes your swing against the Greens. The smear not affecting Greens votes? Poppycock!
Posted by on 30/03/06 at 04:24 AMI’m really doubtful as to the effect of the Exclusive Bretheren leaflets.
Don’t get me wrong - that brochure was obscene, it aimed squarely at the red-neck, conservative, christian fundamentalist, crazy vote, with all its talk of pro-homosexual greens policies. This is the very worst kind of crap, appealing to people’s darkest predjudices.
The Exclusive Bretheren members responsible will probably go to hell for it ;)
However, the leaflet would have swayed no one. I think the EB wasted their cold hard cash having it printed. Influencing a handful of fellow crazies is all they would have achieved.
Speaking of crazies, loved post #4 by Jim Vonkas.
And I quote: “the Tasmanian electorate is on the whole simple minded, can’t follow an argument beyond 2 sentences and likes ‘strong’ rule. Tasmanians got what they deserve.”Um…
Tasmanians got what they deserve?
Gee, Jim, that sounds a little “simple minded”
;)Posted by on 31/03/06 at 03:53 PM
