this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
71 points (91.8% liked)

Australia

3616 readers
69 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stifle867@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is a lot different actually having it explicitly in the constitution for all the same reasons you would argue for a yes vote in the upcoming referendum. You only have to look back a couple of years to find a time where your example wasn't legal due to lockdowns.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't live in a part of Australia that had those restrictions on movement. We never had lockdowns in Western Australia like they experienced in the Eastern States.

But even then, the restrictions those places had were temporary in response to a state of emergency and not a change in our wider freedoms.

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not arguing the validity of temporary lockdown restrictions due to public health emergencies. I largely agree with the measures. I'm just pointing out your example of "well our constitution doesn't explicitly protect this, yet we can all still do it" is really not the same thing as having explicit protections of a freedom.

It's more applicable with freedom of speech. Australia does not have explicit constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Which is never important until all of a sudden it is!

Look at what happened to the ABC a few years back when the AFP raided them after reporting on the activities of some members of our military.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Military activities are a completely different thing. Just ask Julian Assange what the US military thinks about exercising freedom of speech in the context of military actions.