So Zed, tell us your views on abortion?

And can people stop thinking in terms of Z (who?) Vs Stanhope.

If the Libs win government, we get a whole swag of conservative, money focussed, right leaning mo-fos.

A candidate’s views on all social matters are relevant, and should not be considered “private”. If the candidate is elected, they will be passing laws and amending old ones and taking all kinds of action which affect the daily lives of the people.

it is entirely reasonable for people to ask a candidate how they feel about a range of issues, and also to ask the candidate to declare how they will treat these issues if they get into office.

Lastly, if a candidate actively avoids commenting on these issues, it rraises legitimate questions about their beliefs andd agenda.

Loose Brown said :

Who is this ‘Z’ guy everyone is talking about?!?!?!?

Did you never watch Zorro?

*haha*

Whoops! Showing my age again ….

And who cares what he thinks about abortion!?!? Geez – the Riotact is becoming SO cliquey!

Who is this ‘Z’ guy everyone is talking about?!?!?!?

Well I’m sorry you feel that way.

Personally I think we’re doing Zed a favour with some free polling on the subject.

johnboy said :

if/when Zed votes on the motion he can be sure to get plenty of reportage from us on it.

As for candidate endorsement we’ll keep our powder dry on that until election eve.

Well I think falsely accusing someone of doing something, and then saying that if they then in the future don’t do something that they have already been accused of doing that you will retract your false accusation, is extremely unethical.

johnboy said :

Zed has every right to abstain.

But I have every right to not vote for him if he does.

That is true.

: )

mutley…again said :

peterh, it’s a little sad that you feel you have to keep referring to your own little jokes.

and now you know my world…

come on in, the water’s fine… oh, no, it isn’t.

peterh, it’s a little sad that you feel you have to keep referring to your own little jokes.

surprised no-one noticed the skynet reference, though.

perhaps the RA email interviews with candidates can include questions on whether the candidate supports:

Abortions
Civil Unions
Privacy re candidates
public office – what it means to them….

and can we have more community based events, like witch dunking?

if/when Zed votes on the motion he can be sure to get plenty of reportage from us on it.

As for candidate endorsement we’ll keep our powder dry on that until election eve.

vg said :

What do you mean ‘good old days’? Can’t you still do it?

what else floats?

um, little stones? wood? a duck!

so, if she weighs the same as a duck she must be….

a witch!

JB – RiotACT preferences ?

Lets either put our cards on the table, or influence ACT Government via 100k voters reading this site…

Hmmm… I smell money spinner potential…

Thumper,
The best bit about witch dunking was the sense of community of everyone standing around yelling “Burn her! She’s a witch!”
There’s not enough community get-togethers these days.

johnboy said :

All mine as far as I know.

HAHA, very cute.

tom-tom said :

jakez i’m sure some one who is obviuosly as smart as you can find plenty of examples of zed voting on these issues….. why dont you go and do that?

Sir, you have greatly overestimated my intelligence…..or maybe I’m lazy.

I just want a springboard. I know you have said that Zed has avoided voting on civil unions (although the RiotACT thread you pointed to was on a different topic). If that is correct I can try and find that.

However johnboy is accusing Zed of refusing to vote on abortion. What I want to know is if there is a precedent on this or if johnboy is going off half cocked on some imaginary conspiracy to avoid the vote that Gentleman is trying to put up. From there I can move forward.

And also, its a courtesy to source your arguments and I’m happy for people to hold me to the same standard.

jakez i’m sure some one who is obviuosly as smart as you can find plenty of examples of zed voting on these issues….. why dont you go and do that?

All mine as far as I know.

johnboy said :

Zed has every right to abstain.

But I have every right to not vote for him if he does.

I agree.

Source?

What do you mean ‘good old days’? Can’t you still do it?

And if they float then they’re either ducks ……..or……….A WITCH!!!

BURN THEM!!!

Zed has every right to abstain.

But I have every right to not vote for him if he does.

I believe that a right to silence is integral to freedom of speech and as such is a basic, fundamental human right.

It is so ironic that Mick Gentleman is championing ‘forced speech’ and ‘no choice’ in the name of ‘free speech’ and ‘choice’.

Here’s a thought … you could try holding them down in the fountain out the front of the assembly, and if they don’t drown you will know that they’re Catholics.

Granny said :

Hargreaves?

or carnell??

johnboy said :

Is he going to cast a vote on this motion?

If not, then the poll is completely accurate.

Do you guys really think this brain dead spinning you’re doing is productive to your cause in any way?

I have no idea if he is going to cast a vote in this motion and I’m not spinning anything. I’m merely asking for evidence for the claims you make that’s all.

The poll is incapable of being accurate by the way, because not only has he not flagged an intention to refuse to vote, as the vote hasn’t happened he couldn’t have possibly refused. After the fact, the poll would be accurate IF he refuses, but not before the fact.

jakez: 3 post nutbag….

Intelligent debate??

Here??

It appears that what we are seeing from the ALP is a tactic employed at the last election (federal). vote for us, you know how bad we are. but the other guy, untried, untested and what does he really think about civil unions / abortion / education etc, etc.

amazing.

the only thing the fed libs left out was civil unions & abortion.

jon has to realise that this kind of attack has very negative results. mick G should be brought to task – all the ALP members must give their personal opinion before asking the opposition to do the same.

Is he going to cast a vote on this motion?

If not, then the poll is completely accurate.

Do you guys really think this brain dead spinning you’re doing is productive to your cause in any way?

teepee said :

The poll titled “Zed’s refusal to vote on abortion” is pretty dishonest in itself.

I agree. I still haven’t seen any evidence on this. TomTom has pointed to the Where’s Zeddy thread…which was about him missing budget reply speeches not Civil Union laws. So far nothing has been put up as a source for johnboy’s constant bleating. I’m not in here to blindly defend ‘fearless leader Zed’ against all attacks, I just want some good old fashioned evidence.

I know it’s RiotACT but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to have an intelligent debate.

Wide Boy Jake said :

Thank you to JB and the other Rioters for bringing this issue to our attention. If a politician is anti-abortion and a member of Opus Dei it follows that they hate gays as well. I was thinking of voting Liberal to give Stanhope a kick in the pants but after reading this thread I’ll be putting the Liberals last.

…Or you could vote for a Liberal that isn’t a member of Opus Dei. You know, that whole Hare Clarke thing we have going.

tom-tom said :

jakes there’s a thread on here which makes reference to the civil unions instance ( where’s zeddy? Or something) and it’d be in hansard if anyone really has nothing better to do.

Wait that’s what we are talking about? Jesus christ if that is it then pull up stumps, this game is over.

@Granny:

Granny said :

You are using your personal belief right now to try and force others to disclose personal and private information, that you would rightly expect not to have to disclose yourself when applying in consideration of any other position.

Incorrect, I’ll highlight the important line in what I wrote for you as you seemed to have completely missed my point:

Decisions by elected officials should be made on the facts before them and what is ultimately the right decision for the electorate, not influenced and predetermined by religious dogma.

That so called “personal” and “private” information ceases to be exactly that when an individual offers themselves for public office and intends to make decisions based on on their predetermined “personal biases“. The voting public have a right to know that information, it is call disclosure.

If you’d like to debate whether so called personal and private information has any determination in private (and to a lesser extent public service) job employment opportunities and prospects, I hate to disappoint you but unfortunately discrimination is alive and well in Australia. I’d be more than happy to cite examples (we can start a separate thread and invite others to participate or as we know each other, discuss in person).

We are all influenced by our beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Yet many religious leaders are lamenting that the statistics for divorce, abortion, pornography consumption etc. are hardly any different within churches than without. I think it is something like one in three women will have an abortion at some stage in their life, regardless of whether they attend church or not.

The Stanhope government has demonstrably acted on many occasions against the will or good of the people because of the personal beliefs of their leader. This is why the people are annoyed with him.

You are using your personal belief right now to try and force others to disclose personal and private information, that you would rightly expect not to have to disclose yourself when applying in consideration of any other position.

So you would be happy to be forced to divulge details of your age, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, political and other personal information to somebody who had the power to appoint you to a position knowing that you might be discriminated against as a result of divulging that information?

What if your employer was only hiring “pro-life” people?

You might be a homosexual man standing for a seat in a traditionally conservative electorate. Why should you have to divulge that information unless you wanted to? Of course your homosexuality could influence how you voted in a bill to legalise homosexual marriage, for instance, but if that was going to go down like a lead balloon in your electorate then either 1) you wouldn’t do it, or 2) you would do it and get booted out at the earliest opportunity.

That is the Australian way. We hire somebody to do a job, and as long as they do it competently that’s all we judge them on. We don’t go, “Oh, he’s a Jew. We’re not hiring him.”

Or we could always just use force, comrades.

deezagood said :

Whilst I appreciate that on some issues, religion and politics can be inextricably linked, I would hate to see Australia go down the USA road where a candidate’s religious views form a crucial part of their electoral campaign and can be a vote-decider. Please – lets just not go there.

Yes, we need to go there… it is important.

If a candidates religious beliefs are going to greatly influence their decision making processes once elected then I’d much rather see that clearly articulated and declared up front.

I am a firm believer in the clear separation of “Church” and “State”. Decisions by elected officials should be made on the facts before them and what is ultimately the right decision for the electorate, not influenced and predetermined by religious dogma.

I don’t care so much about what guides his votes.

I want to see them.

Ghandi?

Is a person of strong religious beliefs capable of recognising what the community wants?

His personal opinion on abortion or religious views are of no relevance. He has clearly said that he will support what the community want, the majority accept that abortion is an option that women should have, it would be political suicide for him to come out and say he would overturn the abortion bill. Anyway I think that if the majority of the fools believing Labor’s attempt to create some sort of fear about this issue went and asked Krudd his views on abortion, you may get a similar answer.

Anyone stupid enough to let this rubbish influence their vote should go in live in NSW so we don’t have to put up with your poor judgements for the next 4 years.

As a Canberra girl growing up in a Labor town it never occurred to me not to vote Labor.

Paul Keating would have changed all that for me (with the infamous Canberra insult I never forgave him for) but fortunately or not along came that stupid Cheryl Hill woman who started sticking the knife into John Langmore’s pyjama clad back.

There he was, minding his own business bringing in the milk or the paper one morning, when she chucked this big paparazzi on his front doorstep. She then had the nerve to accuse him of doing nothing. Presumably the poor chap hadn’t even had breakfast!

Now he may or may not have been an effective Member for Fraser (I wouldn’t know because I never bothered to take an interest) but he always seemed to me to be a basically nice, decent guy.

I thought, “You bitch! It will be a cold day in hell before I ever vote for you.”

So even though I wanted to vote Liberal we felt so strongly about it that we voted 1 Langmore. So good on you, John, wherever you are, and sucked in Cheryl!

I heartily wish anyone who indulges in this kind of politics everything they deserve.

Whilst I appreciate that on some issues, religion and politics can be inextricably linked, I would hate to see Australia go down the USA road where a candidate’s religious views form a crucial part of their electoral campaign and can be a vote-decider. Please – lets just not go there.

Pretty sure Rudd never avoided a division to stop his beliefs going on record?

Wide Boy Jake. We’re not confirming or denying any speculation. Please don’t go jumping to conclusions on that.

So … suddenly a candidate’s religious persuasions/beliefs are important to forthcoming local election. I find this quite interesting, as I don’t recall Mr Rudd copping a grilling over his personal (note, personal … not those of his party) beliefs on abortion, euthanasia, IVF, same-sex marriage, contraception etc… in the recent federal election. I wonder why not (if a candidate’s personal views on these issues are so very important to the voting public).

Yep – this is going to be one dirty election.

Labor appears to be engaging in the FUD factor – Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

add to that a pretentious belief that the populace will buy into their scenario, where backbenchers ask the important questions and the chief minister is silent. why didn’t jon ask that particular question?

This is an easy town in which to get off with minimal sanction. 57 stab wounds can be contextualised and justified and excused.

This would be the place to go for nutters who plan to commit a mass act of terrorism. Fortunately most derranged types aren’t very canny about forum shopping before their crimes.

Hargreaves?

Vote in a lizard…

Granny said :

As long as it’s legless…

The last lizard that was voted in and got caught legless got was let off with no conviction recorded.

The poll titled “Zed’s refusal to vote on abortion” is pretty dishonest in itself. I think it’s call push polling when a poll is based on a fabrication. The Labor Party is getting desperate to avoid any real issues that matter to people and going out of their way to play the man by attributing false positions to their opponents.

Looks like Labor staffers have been busy on this one during the day alleging everything from Zed being in a Catholic sect to Zed having secret Vatican plans to change all the abortion laws. You could be honest about what Zed is quoted as saying in the media, but I do understand that lying your guts out is the easier option when there’s litte integrity or intellect.

Last time I heard Zed on TV he was focussing on a GP policy not abortion.

As long as it’s legless…

hehehe

Make that three: Cowardice.

cranky said :

I have far less of a problem with Zed’s views than I do with the underhand, purely political attempt by Mick Gentleman, a person I know and previously thought well of, to do down an opponent.

Not good form, Mick.

What cranky said.

It is simply hypocritical to spend so long in government hiding and covering up anything the slightest bit inconvenient, and then have the gall to turn around and start whingeing and whining about transparency.

Try leading by example.

Two words:
Fear.
Desperation.

ant said :

The thing is, if someone believes certain things, why hide it? It’s the hiding of these beliefs that sets the warning bells clanging. It makes one wonder, are they hiding them because they know they are politically unacceptable to many voters?

or that they believe that it is not something that should be raised in the LA, or is none of the opposition’s business, considering it was tabled by a back-bencher?

mick gentleman is trying to score cheap points. plain and simple. he is not in a position of power, he is a back bencher.

now, if the Chief minister had raised the query, and had his entire party state each of their personal opinions on the subject, I would be interested to see what was the view of the opposition. this is not an election issue, it is a stunt.

I have not seen a postcard or letter re the abortion stance from the labor party at all. why raise it?

The thing is, if someone believes certain things, why hide it? It’s the hiding of these beliefs that sets the warning bells clanging. It makes one wonder, are they hiding them because they know they are politically unacceptable to many voters?

Wide Boy Jake said :

Thank you to JB and the other Rioters for bringing this issue to our attention. If a politician is anti-abortion and a member of Opus Dei it follows that they hate gays as well. I was thinking of voting Liberal to give Stanhope a kick in the pants but after reading this thread I’ll be putting the Liberals last.

nooooo!

at least put jon second last….

Thank you to JB and the other Rioters for bringing this issue to our attention. If a politician is anti-abortion and a member of Opus Dei it follows that they hate gays as well. I was thinking of voting Liberal to give Stanhope a kick in the pants but after reading this thread I’ll be putting the Liberals last.

I have far less of a problem with Zed’s views than I do with the underhand, purely political attempt by Mick Gentleman, a person I know and previously thought well of, to do down an opponent.

Not good form, Mick.

johnboy said :

Fair point VG, but his opponents have put it on the agenda because he’s ducked other progressive policy debates.

And now, as a voter I want to see the answer myself.

He wants to be chief minister after all.

wouldn’t the best Chief minister be someone who can divorce their beliefs from the job?

making decisions based on best outcomes rather than their personal feelings?

lets vote in a lizard.

or a computer program could be set up to run our affairs – they could call it skynet.

Isn’t it wonderful to see such lively debate on local politics this far out from election day. Methinks the next few months in here will be most entertaining !!

jakes there’s a thread on here which makes reference to the civil unions instance ( where’s zeddy? Or something) and it’d be in hansard if anyone really has nothing better to do.

my 2 cents; if zed’s religious beliefs will influence how he votes, acts or governs on issues like this which are so important to so many people then the public have a right to know what these beliefs are and what effect they will have. Before the election.
I agree Mick g’s motion is ( more than) a bit the wrong way of going about this, but his point underneath it all is a fair one to make.

Oh and johnboy stop making sense; its hard to think of you as a facist when you keep agreeing with me.

areaman said :

I don’ think anyone has a problem with anti-choice MLAs, they should just be open about it.

Or else.

johnboy said :

Granny said :

Well then, while they still have the majority Mick should just rush through a bill preventing Christians and Muslims and anyone else they don’t like (or who might beat them) from standing at all. Problem solved.

It’s not his conscience that concerns me here, it’s his avoidance of voting it.

wouldn’t that preclude most of his party? I am sure they don’t like each other at all….

especially that wayne berry character…

Can I have a source on Zed refusing to vote on abortion, and also a source on Zed not voting on ‘socially progressive’ legislation (eg, civil unions)?

Granny said :

Well then, while they still have the majority Mick should just rush through a bill preventing Christians and Muslims and anyone else they don’t like (or who might beat them) from standing at all. Problem solved.

It’s not his conscience that concerns me here, it’s his avoidance of voting it.

I don’ think anyone has a problem with anti-choice MLAs, they should just be open about it.

Well then, while they still have the majority Mick should just rush through a bill preventing Christians and Muslims and anyone else they don’t like (or who might beat them) from standing at all. Problem solved.

Might be unkind to labour the point to that degree.

Interesting voting results though.

Hey JB can we get “It’s disturbing because the publicly elected leader of a major party shouldn’t hide what he believes about issues important to voters” added to the poll?

We’ll build a dragway!

Oh, sorry, it’s too loud and people don’t like it.

I’m pretty sure the ALP policy (and from what I remember official statements) was always that they would build it if it passed an EIS, which it didn’t.

Like vg said, the electorate didn’t stand for it. At the end of the day a politician is still a politician.

They were still on the books for a number of years, traumatising a lot of people.

Look Z could have come out and said something along the lines of “I don’t support abortion, but I believe it’s a personal choice and I wouldn’t do anything to limit a woman in the ACT’s right to choose”. Instead he went the very narrow legalistic point that he wouldn’t re-criminalise it.

Whether it is a crime or not doesn’t stop politicians removing funding from (making abortion a right only for the rich), redirecting women to anti-choice “counselling” groups or making them look at graphic photos.

The issue isn’t if the Libs would re-criminalise it; while it was only legalised recently, abortion has been de facto legal for a long time. The issue is what else Z would do to a woman’s right to choose if he was chief minister, and as he hides under his desk every time socially progressive legislation comes up in the assembly it a fair question to ask.

I distrust anyone with great power.

But someone vieing for great power who refuses to make a formal record of their views on important issues is, sadly, moving themselves further along the scale for mine.

Any politician is a collection of pluses and negatives that have to be weighed against the alternatives. But even as a supporter of a woman’s right to choose. this question ducking is a bigger negative to me than an anti-abortion position.

Under your reasoning anything said by a politician is therefore bullshit.

Even their bullshit is all bullshit. 😉

areaman said :

Look at the Osbourne laws from the 90s

Like vg said, the electorate didn’t stand for it. At the end of the day a politician is still a politician.

F*ck me

My dog is blacker than your dog

Don’t vote for him

“Mr Seselja says he supports the status quo and would not back any moves to overturn existing laws.”

Done and dusted

Bullshit, like I said there are plenty of things that they could do that would effect a woman’s right to choose that wouldn’t “overturn existing laws”. Look at the Osbourne laws from the 90s, or they could simply defund the providers, which wouldn’t require laws at all.

areaman said :

Then Z said he was happy with the status quo. At the end of the day its not his beliefs but what he does with them that’s the issue. In this instance, and according to his quote, he is happy to leave it as is so his beliefs seemingly haven’t influenced his thought process.

Actually what he said was that he wouldn’t re-criminalise it. There are plenty of other things he could do, both legislatively and with regulatorily that would greatly effect the ability of women to exercise there right to choose.

He says he wants to be the next chief minister, but he has a history of running of and hiding every time there’s a vote where his religious beliefs are counter to the ACT political mainstream. On those grounds I think it’s a fair question to ask.

Actually what he said is what I said, and I quote from the article

“Mr Seselja says he supports the status quo and would not back any moves to overturn existing laws.”

Done and dusted

Then Z said he was happy with the status quo. At the end of the day its not his beliefs but what he does with them that’s the issue. In this instance, and according to his quote, he is happy to leave it as is so his beliefs seemingly haven’t influenced his thought process.

Actually what he said was that he wouldn’t re-criminalise it. There are plenty of other things he could do, both legislatively and with regulatorily that would greatly effect the ability of women to exercise there right to choose.

He says he wants to be the next chief minister, but he has a history of running of and hiding every time there’s a vote where his religious beliefs are counter to the ACT political mainstream. On those grounds I think it’s a fair question to ask.

I think voters want to know how their rulers will be influenced by religious beliefs *before* they are voted in. Once they are in, it is too late.

Fair call, but all I see is a motion with Gentlemen forcing MLA’s to declare their views when it looks like nothing is on the table legislation wise.

Then Z said he was happy with the status quo. At the end of the day its not his beliefs but what he does with them that’s the issue. In this instance, and according to his quote, he is happy to leave it as is so his beliefs seemingly haven’t influenced his thought process. I’m pretty sure he won’t have a theological epiphany if/when he is elected CM and change his mind. I don’t think the electorate here would tolerate it.

It looked like the issue was asked and answered in the ABC article. He won’t change the abortion laws (well he says he won’t)

And as for a pollie sticking their necks out on this and wider issues (geo-political etc), they are community leaders and this may be something close to his heart. There are alot of people out there who will vote for someone if they belive they are a believer, in whatever. In manys peoples eyes it is all about choosing the one who will do the best for your interests.

Fair point VG, but his opponents have put it on the agenda because he’s ducked other progressive policy debates.

And now, as a voter I want to see the answer myself.

He wants to be chief minister after all.

Peterh,

State laws aside, I was lazily making an attempt to illustrate that Abortion is one of those things where the Church and State will meet each other head on like a train wreck. No matter how smart the individual is, morality will always drive them to point of rhectoric and nonsense.

ant said :

This issue is one where our rulers are often informed by their various religious beliefs, which influences their lawmaking. As such, it is relevant for the community to understand if candidates for election hold religious beliefs that will affect how they rule us.

A person whose religious beliefs oblige them to oppose abortion (and other proscribed medical interventions) might not come out and implement a law banning it, but they might cease funding clinics, or other similar sideways action.

That is fair to say when the issue is being debated, or legislation has been tabled. That’s not my understanding in this case. Its just a blanket ‘state your claim’ type thing.

As the issue is not up for debate at the moment its about as relevant as what football team Zed supports. Its all about petty point scoring by amateur politicians.

When the issue is up for debate THEN his beliefs are relevant. And if his beliefs don’t influence his decision making then his beliefs are irrelevant

ant said :

This issue is one where our rulers are often informed by their various religious beliefs, which influences their lawmaking. As such, it is relevant for the community to understand if candidates for election hold religious beliefs that will affect how they rule us.

A person whose religious beliefs oblige them to oppose abortion (and other proscribed medical interventions) might not come out and implement a law banning it, but they might cease funding clinics, or other similar sideways action.

considering that the woman who is denied access to safe, legal termination for a rape pregnancy may take the problem into her own hands quite literally, the pollies should butt out. The woman makes a decision re her body. as a man, i recognise that it is her body and ultimately her decision. I can put my 5 cents in, but i cannot force her into a decision that is not of her own making.

This issue is one where our rulers are often informed by their various religious beliefs, which influences their lawmaking. As such, it is relevant for the community to understand if candidates for election hold religious beliefs that will affect how they rule us.

A person whose religious beliefs oblige them to oppose abortion (and other proscribed medical interventions) might not come out and implement a law banning it, but they might cease funding clinics, or other similar sideways action.

Peter, read what I wrote ‘Catholics or those of that general ilk’. The general ilk I was inferring is those who believe in Jeebus etc. Catholics, Christians, Anglicans etc

vg said :

Where does this political irrelevance, Gentlemen, get off trying to force MLAs to voice their opinion on this issue? Its generally a matter of conscience votes in any case, and, as stated, I believe Z is on the record regaring his opinion.

It also seems that in this 21st century Catholics or those of that general ilk are the new Communists. Not so many Reds under the bed anymore, but apparently someone with a crucifix singing the latest and greatest from Hillsong.

You know a Government is in trouble when they start to play the man and not the ball. The last Federal govt did it and it didn’t help them

good point. however, hillsong, last time I was at a meeting is a christian church, not a catholic.

it is not relevant to expect the MLA’s to voice their own beliefs for the amusement of a backbencher.

Where does this political irrelevance, Gentlemen, get off trying to force MLAs to voice their opinion on this issue? Its generally a matter of conscience votes in any case, and, as stated, I believe Z is on the record regaring his opinion.

It also seems that in this 21st century Catholics or those of that general ilk are the new Communists. Not so many Reds under the bed anymore, but apparently someone with a crucifix singing the latest and greatest from Hillsong.

You know a Government is in trouble when they start to play the man and not the ball. The last Federal govt did it and it didn’t help them

S4anta said :

Peterh,

I think it has more to do with issues such as this that has this particular spectre raising its head, or part there of, depending on your views.

again, i maintain that if a decision needs to be made, it is the woman who will make it.

regardless of the VIC state laws, we are in the ACT…

Peterh,

I think it has more to do with issues such as this that has this particular spectre raising its head, or part there of, depending on your views.

Mælinar – *spoiler alert* I’ve seen S04E13 said :

How is this even a political issue ?

Other than providing a broad policy framework for medical practicioners, legal, and care workers etc to follow, the decision to support/quench life is not a political one.

Nor is it even a local political issue. Ensuring I don’t drive over potholes on my way to work is a local political issue, items which require wider Australian concurrence should be dealt with at a more appropriate forum.

hear, hear.

Another attempt by the ALP to try and sideline the bigger issues in canberra. mick gentleman is the minster for nothing, he is a back-bencher trying to score points with his leader.

I don’t give a tinker’s for the views of the politicians over this “issue”. I want to see some real direction from the parties so that I can decide who to vote for.

why doesn’t he try to get a few points by focusing on the real issues in canberra??

parking springs to mind, as does the number of action buses that have disability access.
what about services and amenities for the youth of canberra and how we can reduce the number of fatalities on our roads?

there are probably many more issues, as well.

Beware Zed’s Dark Materials!

Had to google ‘Disciples of Jesus Covenant Community’. The Archdiocese of Sydney website says:

‘A Covenant Community is a group of Christians who have been led by the Lord to bind themselves to Him and also one another in the form of public commitment…’

So Vicki Dunne need not fear for her future in the Assembly then?

‘We desire to live in deep unity and spirit with the Pope and Bishops, and to be loyal to the teachings of the Magisterium.’

The ‘Magisterium’? Aren’t they the baddies in Pullman’s Golden polar bear series?

How is this even a political issue ?

Other than providing a broad policy framework for medical practicioners, legal, and care workers etc to follow, the decision to support/quench life is not a political one.

Nor is it even a local political issue. Ensuring I don’t drive over potholes on my way to work is a local political issue, items which require wider Australian concurrence should be dealt with at a more appropriate forum.

Thumper, do you mean posters or candidates?!

I refer you to my earlier answer

Is it the Disciples of Jesus Covenant Community?

I’m more interested in his views on local issues, like bring peace to Cyprus or human rights in Iraq & Afghanistan.

johnboy said :

jakez said :

I don’t understand, he did answer the question. He said the status quo should not be changed.

Surely that’s all that matters when we are talking about politicians, what they think the law should be, not what they themselves believe about the issue.

I think most neutral observers would like to see more weight placed on voting records. It might bring about an end to the dead hand of caucus whereby five MLAs can impose their will on all 17.

If he’s willing to support it in front of a mic why not on the floor of the assembly?

@ tom-tom Wayne Sievers Sim City Challenge with us at All Bar Nun in O’Connor. 6pm start.

Oh I absolutely agree and I would absolutely support the Liberal Party’s return to the great liberal political tradition of individual conscience.

p1 said :

How does he feel about aborting the dragway?

too late, it already has.

had to mention the dragway, didn’t you??

Perhaps it’s naive of me, but I would like to see all candidates being honest about this and all other issues. (Yeah, I know, I’m asking for honest politicians, an oxymoron.) Catholic candidates like Zed, Vicki Dunne, and “Giulia with a G” can’t vote for abortion (etc.) without being excommunicated by the Church, so why don’t they just be honest about their views?! Any informed and rational voters can work this out for themselves. I’d respect them a lot more for it and might even vote for them….

How does he feel about aborting the dragway?

how about the government and opposition get the personal views of the candidates, not the position of their parties?

personally, I really don’t care what the candidates think, just as long as support is provided to allow the women who need to make a choice ensure that it is an informed choice.

at the end of the day, you cannot prevent a woman from making up her own mind.

Zed was endorsed by Right to Life at the last election – so we can be confident that he is opposed to it. The question then is whether, if he was in a position to be able to, he would change laws permitting abortion. His statement above says he wouldn’t, but that is just a politician’s word so not actually worth anything.

I’d be more concerned about what his views on IVF are, both the practice itself and public funding of.

I’m not confirming or denying anything.

Is the grouping Opus Dei?

jakez said :

I don’t understand, he did answer the question. He said the status quo should not be changed.

Surely that’s all that matters when we are talking about politicians, what they think the law should be, not what they themselves believe about the issue.

I think most neutral observers would like to see more weight placed on voting records. It might bring about an end to the dead hand of caucus whereby five MLAs can impose their will on all 17.

If he’s willing to support it in front of a mic why not on the floor of the assembly?

@ tom-tom Wayne Sievers Sim City Challenge with us at All Bar Nun in O’Connor. 6pm start.

I’d vote for Zed if he came out and said that he believed abortion was murder and that it should be illegal

I wouldn’t vote for him if he, or anyone said that. Give a woman the right to choose.

Monday?

I think it best if we just leave those rumours where they are.

But come along and support your fella on monday night and I might tell you for a pint.

I don’t understand, he did answer the question. He said the status quo should not be changed.

Surely that’s all that matters when we are talking about politicians, what they think the law should be, not what they themselves believe about the issue.

I’d hazard a guess this is more about zed’s habit of absenting himself from the chamber when ever something controversial comes up (think civil unions etc) than the specific issue. By the way can someone enlighten me to what these rumours are?

I think ALL candidates should clearly state their views on abortion. I’d vote for Zed if he came out and said that he believed abortion was murder and that it should be illegal, but his statement is very disappointing. I don’t think I’d bother voting for him or his party if they can’t be honest, upfront and firm. What’s the point of voting for them if they’re not going to do anything about it. Stanhope is right to demand some transparency, but not just from MLAs – from all candidates!

Well he better not think it won’t be held against him.

Well it sounds like he isn’t going to take the bait so I don’t think this is going to work.