Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

Discussion in 'Senator Xenophon And Scientology' started by Sponge, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    I'd like to know who was the one abstention.
  2. Belladonna Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    Here is US coverage.

    NY Times
    World Briefing - Australia - Lawmakers Reject Inquiry on Scientology -

    So my question is, if there were 33 votes against, 6 votes for, and one abstention, what about the other 36 seats not accounted for?
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    1st vote
    Xenophon pushes for Scientology inquiry
    2nd vote
    No inquiry into Chruch of Scientology | Herald Sun
    I think he finds it difficult to vote for condoning coerced abortions. But he isn't brave enough to go against the party line. So he abstains.
  4. Belladonna Member

  5. EyeOnSci Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    Well said.

    The media is doing an excellent job of pointing out the double standard for the people to consider- the popular vote is becoming informed .
  6. mnql1 Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    • Radio interview - Posted by Sponge on OCMB:
    Senator Nick Xenophon, whose motion was defeated in the Senate, speaks to 3AW Drive. 3AW 963 NewsTalk 18th March 2010
    Blog: Your views on Scientology
    • Television interview - Posted by Happy Days on ESMB:
    Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd takes questions from the public (Sunrise program, March 19, 2010)
    Question about Janette Lang and Scientology inquiry at offset 6:56 - 9:29
    Sunrise Videos Channel 7 ? Yahoo!7 TV - Yahoo!7 TV
  7. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    I'd love to see a conscience vote called for a Co$ related issue. I won't pretend to understand the mechanism behind the calling of such a vote, but it'd be interesting to see which pollies have a conscience and who doesn't, who is yet to buy a clue, who are the feeble fence sitters, and who might dissappear up their own arse with an anal argument about the separation of the executive / legislative / judicial etc etc
  8. TinyDancer Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    I think there are a lot of issues to work through - so I don't think it's fair to suggest that those opposing the inquiry are doing so because they lack a conscience. Rather, they've got multiple concerns pulling them in different directions and they need to take the time to think them through in an educated way. One of the challenges has been getting enough of the attention of the leaders to get them to work through the issues. eg. Saying - these are criminal matters and should be referred to the police - makes sense, until you learn about the CoS and how it manages to play the system.
  9. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

  10. PodPeople Member

  11. Sponge Member

  12. RightOn Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    Do not know if this was posted already, if it has sorry.

    The Inernational Freezoners were busy writing Rudd, and the Senate back in Nov 2009 about how they do not support an inquiry into Scientology saying it would be a witch hunt. The same term we hear over and over.
    There are posted letters from FZer Michael Moore and the answers he received from the Senate on their website listed under NEWS.

    If the Freezoners are against COS abuses, then why are the against the inquiry when the inquiry is only about the abuses?

    Zenophon clearly called for a reform of COS so they can comply with the laws. Xenophon has said time and time again that the inquiry does not have to do with people's beleifs but with the abuses.

    I know Zoners must be afraid that it will get outlawed, but the Senator has stated it is only about the abuses, so why are they trying to squash the inquiry when it's the very reason why they left COS the first place?
  13. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    Because the Freezone is a Scientology front group.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    Nick's not stupid. He wouldn't say this publicly and subject himself to the implications of being wrokng if he didn't know something was already being hashed out and agreed to behind closed doors.

    Also, doesn't Rudd need his vote for the telecom bill? Haven't kept up on that but if that is still the case, Xenophon holds a XBOX HUEG card to play.

    And I watched the Rudd question and response in the link and Rudd is changing tactics too. He doesn't go on that show without knowing that question is coming. Gives him a chance to look like he's listening and responding to the people.

    Yep, I think a deal's been made. Pure speculation here, but all signs point to yes.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March


    deal = anonymous b& for h8 crimes against Scientology and Abbos
  17. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    The Freezoners still follow LRH's "tech" which means they will resist any investigation into Scientology. They think the media, governments etc are merchants of chaos. They have their own agenda which is to spread their own brand of Scientology.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    I liek my hat better. I said it was pure speculation.

  19. Anonymous Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    The thing is - the title of the article isn't backed up by the content. Nick did not say that the Senate would back the inquiry at the next vote.
  20. Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March

    As time goes on I am more and more adamant that scientology will be defeated by its own rules of engagement more than any other.
  21. Lorelei Member

    Re: Aus Senate 2nd vote on inquiry - Thurs 18 March


    I think the Americanski version would be to shrug it off or brush it off, with the implication that you are relieving yourself of something unpleasant by dumping it onto someone else so they have to take care of it, not you.

    Like, "ducking your responsibilities and forcing someone else to take up your slack because you didn't want to address something touchy yourself and then stand by what you would say".

    I always get a mental image of people tossing around a hot potato, with no one wanting to be the last guy who gets stuck with it.


    Also, Nick Xenophon may well become one of my Imaginary Boyfriends if he keeps this stuff up. I'm developing a SRS crush. BE MINE, VALENTINE.


    (No, he won't need dog curtains. It's a platonic kind of "you RULE!" crush. If I start writing passionate sonnets about glistening perspiration on his angry, furrowed brow, THEN you can worry.)


    I liked the article / thread about the topics the Aus Senate has deigned to address that are far more frivolous than this. I think it would be seriously shaming if someone diligently collected a list of those topics and then compared them to the abuses in Scientology (and other cult groups) that Xenophon is trying to just urge them to LOOK IN TO.

    FFS, an "inquiry" doesn't even promise any actual ACTION on the part of anyone. It just proposes to EXAMINE the claims and issues by asking questions and examining the answers given for veracity, amirite? It's a systematic investigation of a matter of public interest and seeking information by asking questions, yes? Or do I need to "word clear" the term "inquiry" as it pertains to the Aus Senate?

    IF you have nothing to hide, then questions may be irritating and time-consuming, but you know that nothing bad is going to be revealed. Any reputable group would be eager to clear the air and prove the allegations wrong. Any non-abusive system could stand up to a bunch of direct questions. Any honest and above-board system is going to be proven honest an above-board.

    There is NO WAY that an inquiry is going to cause any harm to any organization that does not do the abusive things it is accused of doing. That is the bottom line. Xenophon said it himself: what's the big deal, if you are not guilty of these behaviors? Why not take the opportunity to have your reputation cleared up?

    The more the cult resists even being ASKED QUESTIONS about these allegations, the worse they smell. The more SOME Senators resist asking these questions in any official capacity, while supporting less important bullshit crap (see other thread), the worse THEY smell.

    It's very simple.

    1. It has fuck-all to do with any belief system.

    It has nothing to do about anyone's BELIEFS. How can you even TELL what someone BELIEVES? At best, you can only know what they CLAIM to believe; you can't know if they are being truthful or not, and it shouldn't even matter.

    2. Human rights abuses are never, ever "OK" or excusable.

    NO ONE, for ANY reason, "religious" or not, has the right to break the law and abuse another person. NO ONE is exempt from the laws that everyone else is obliged to follow. Human rights abuses cannot be excused because you claim "that's part of our religion."

    3. An INQUIRY into allegations only threatens those who suspect that inquiry will find truth to those allegations.

    Again, it sucks to be investigated, but most people and groups don't deal with that because their actions do not garner enough negative attention that an inquiry would be called for. (This is a "where there is smoke, there is often fire" logic test. Did someone simply burn their lunch, or is there really a three-alarm fire raging away that needs to be addressed?)

    4. Be willing to share the ball with your colleagues, instead of being scared that they might score a goal. It's not rugby, it is law-making. Try cooperating when the stakes involve abused human beings and fraud and misuse of government tax money.

    If you play partisan political games too obviously, many people are not stupid, and you will be punished by being voted out for not representing the will of the people properly. It may be very, very important to each Senator which party they endorse, but it is more important to clued-in voters and citizens what each Senator supports and does. That's my opinion, anyway.

    Dear Pigheaded Senators: Do any of you WANT to be known as "That Senator who doesn't have a problem with coerced abortions, fraud, human trafficking, totalitarian cults, misuse of tax money, front group recruitment of the vulnerable, etc."? Because when someone is just asking that you INQUIRE into the subject, and you block that with excuses that ignore what you have been told and which have shit-all to do with the problem, you look like a raging amoral, insensitive, games-playing, partisan, ill-informed asshole who doesn't give a crap about looking into these kinds of serious allegations, and who wants to pass the buck to someone--anyone--else rather than standing up for the people who may have voted for you, and you DO NOT just look like a major jackass to your fellow Australians, believe you me.

    Some politicians forget that they are there to serve the people, and that part of that job is protecting those who are powerless to protect themselves. if not you, then WHO, Senators? Certainly not the over-worked police, who can't enforce anti-human rights abuse laws you don't even have the balls to consider, much less make.

    As Anon summarized:
    - these matters are for the police

    WHO makes the laws that the police enforce?

    - this is not a matter for the senate

    But other bullshit things apparently have been.

    - no one particular organization should be investigated by the senate else this would mean going down a dangerous route, possibly to abusing the Senate process for particular interests of Senate members

    Checks and balances! Do they really think such a biased connection wouldn't be rooted out and exposed? If an organization has not abused anyone, then it can withstand scrutiny.

    - if this is investigated, then the wilderness organization should be investigated as well or political parties when fromer Senators leave them and are being "harassed" (well, this is a pretty ridiculous comparison if you know about "fair game" and I think Senator Abetz in particular doesn't really have an idea of the magnitude of the problem at hand)

    You said it all, there, IMHO.

    - an inquiry would amount to listening to "he said, she said"

    SO? What if he said / she said involves documentation / DOX, and a hell of a lot of corroborative testimony world-wide dating back 50 years? Not good enough for you?

    - an inquiry could not be held fairly and might easily turn into a witch hunt

    Have you held other inquiries? Were they unfair? If not, then why do you assume this one WOULD be? If so, what are you going to do about changing how inquiries are done, and correcting the effects of past inquiries that were, according to your logic, unfair?

    - there are other avenues to go to such as ombudspeople

    Which "ombudsman" addresses government-wide issues of misuse of tax exempt status and human trafficking? Why, that would be YOU, Senators.

    - "this is not the way forward"

    O RLY? What do you suggest would be the way forward? To ignore the smoking gun and testimonials? That's playing ostrich. That is not serving your constituents.


    (Of course, many of our Americanski Senators can be equally retarded and pigheaded and partisan and obstructive, I am not implying that these labels are restricted to only Aussie ones.)
  22. Belladonna Member

  23. anonhuff Member

    Re: Senate inquiry blocked - Today Tonight March 11th 2010

    A bit of an ambiguous choice of phrasing

    Does he mean rally against those that bully/racketeer scientology(?) or rally against cults such as scientology which bully and engage in racketeering?

    I think I know which one he intended, but it's hard to parse. The word 'of' is what's making it read strange to me.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Re: Senate inquiry blocked - Today Tonight March 11th 2010

    Who racketeers against Scientology?
  25. anonhuff Member

    Re: Senate inquiry blocked - Today Tonight March 11th 2010

    I got a little too specific I guess.

    Just stating that sentence could be read as sympathetic due to bad phrasing I am assuming.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins