Uni Student Loses Court Battle over Assignment on Dog Breeds

HighAndDry on 12/10/2018 - 15:39
Last edited 12/10/2018 - 16:55 by 1 other user

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/stud…

Can't make this up… all the way to the Vic Supreme Court too.

Monash University student Chinmay Naik failed a video assignment about negative stereotypes around certain dog breeds in 2017 and failed again when it was re-marked.

[…]

Mr Naik had also taken his case to the Victorian Equal Opportunities and Human Rights Commission and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Edit: More details here: https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5650998/vic-student-hope…

Interesting quotes:

"I've heard from other students who were subject to similar controversial practises," Mr Naik told reporters after representing himself in court on Monday.

"After hearing their stories I felt like I was not just fighting a case for myself. It was for all of them."

and

On top of the re-marking issue, he claims he didn't have time to complete the assignment as Monash was hesitant to grant special consideration on mental health grounds.

Education & Work

Comments

QW3RTY on 12/10/2018 - 15:43

+42

$8,000 in court fees in order to waste a whole array of people's time, make a bad name for yourself and to end up deservedly failing the uni subject.
What an absolute fail.
- Scrooge McDuck on 12/10/2018 - 16:06
  
  +7
  
  The first article states that the $8000 was only legal costs:
  
  Justice Melinda Richards dismissed the case and ordered the aspiring journalist pay the university’s legal costs, understood to be about $8000.
  
  He really should've had to pay court costs too!
  - josho9 on 16/10/2018 - 15:48
    
    He will have paid a filing fee of $1000+. "Court costs" are always paid by someone unless they have a healthcare/pensioners card etc.
- boomramada on 17/10/2018 - 13:28
  
  +1
  
  look like a cashed up spoiled rich kid or international student?
  - buckster on 17/10/2018 - 20:31
    
    +3
    
    Why not both??
Ace Ventura on 12/10/2018 - 15:55

+10

Really can't understand what he is expecting?
quotes such as
"I hope the media will accept me with open arms because I've shown the courage and tenacity to fight for my rights"
and
"I've heard from other students who were subject to similar controversial practises"

What rights? A passing mark is not a right.
Just as a failing grade is not a controversial practice.
- QW3RTY on 12/10/2018 - 16:11
  
  +16
  
  He has shown to virtue signal instead of applying basic common sense.
  
  He should get in touch with Vox.com.
  - [Deactivated] on 12/10/2018 - 17:46
    
    Lol. Vox. The only worthwhile thing that has come out of that is entertainment watching human garbage justify unilateral sharing.
- harrywwc on 14/10/2018 - 14:03
  
  +13
  
  as a former TAFE teacher and p/t Uni Tutor - I can see where he is coming from. I've seen lots of them come through my classes. It's basically "I paid my fees, now pass me (even though I did none of the work)."
  
  Far too many (not all, not even "most", but still "too many") assume that because they are paying fees, they 'deserve' a pass (or better).
  - bmerigan on 16/10/2018 - 21:10
    
    +3
    
    International students are a catch-22 for Universities, if they fail and go home, the Uni loses an income source.
    - buckster on 17/10/2018 - 20:32
      
      +2
      
      But if they fail and repeat, it's like the golden goose!
  - opt on 17/10/2018 - 13:52
    
    +3
    
    And there is already lot of unspoken pressure on lecturers not to fail students. When I was a uni tutor I was asked to be extremely lenient when marking, especially assignments. Some lecturers have told me to give 50% of the marks for any question a student has attempted, even if the answer made absolutely no sense at all. I guess just the fact of handing in the assignment guaranteed 50%.
    
    You could create an app for that ! All you need your app to do is create a well formatted document with the original questions and a bunch of random words in-between :P
shaybisc on 12/10/2018 - 15:55

+8

This must go to the High Court.
- Scrooge McDuck on 12/10/2018 - 16:03
  
  +7
  
  I've already notified ASIS, MI6, and the CIA.
- [Deactivated] on 12/10/2018 - 17:07
  
  +10
  
  Kangaroo court.
- altomic on 12/10/2018 - 17:12
  
  +26
  
  it's the vibe of the thing
  - battler on 12/10/2018 - 17:58
    
    +16
    
    it's Mabo.
    - Kangal on 14/10/2018 - 03:46
      
      What an eyesore!
  - rendo on 16/10/2018 - 21:28
    
    Tell him he’s dreamin’………
- SydStrand on 14/10/2018 - 13:33
  
  +29
  
  'That's a bloody outrage, it is! I want to take this all the way to the prime minister. Oi, Andy!'
  - bobs burgers on 14/10/2018 - 19:20
    
    Had to log in to up vote just for this comment
  - MementoMori on 16/10/2018 - 10:15
    
    +3
    
    If $8,000 was only legal costs, I wonder how many dollarydoos in total?
- cameldownunder on 16/10/2018 - 11:45
  
  European Court of Human Rights !
toniyellow on 12/10/2018 - 16:22

+21

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/12/supre…

Markers’ comments described it having “no narrative structure, one shot of overlay, no expert interviews, no clear beginning/middle/end”. “You have submitted a video of 3 vox pops … asking very general and unconnected questions surrounding dogs,” it said. “For what is supposed to be the major assignment of the unit, this fails to meet any of the minimum criteria.”

What an excellent decision to fight his failing assignment so far that a description of how bad it was became one of the top search results for his name.
- HighAndDry on 12/10/2018 - 16:27
  
  +12
  
  It originally got a 12/100, then re-marked to a 21/100.
  
  And he wanted a passing grade….
altomic on 12/10/2018 - 17:09

+13

lucky his dog didn't eat his homework…..
SBOB on 12/10/2018 - 17:31

+5

should have used more star wipes…..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72bUheqRE5o
- freakatronic on 17/10/2018 - 20:14
  
  and always remember to star-wipe thoroughly.
peterpeterpumpkin on 12/10/2018 - 17:39

+16

The judge's response after watching the video in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

'
"I award you no points, and may dog have mercy on your soul."
[Deactivated] on 12/10/2018 - 17:40

+3

I have been following his case.

The final verdict is the outcome I have been rooting for.
altomic on 12/10/2018 - 17:52

+15

Wow, the tenacity of the dude. Producing absolute crap and expecting it to be received well. And wasting everybody's time with this process. And having no sense of personal responsibility for his own actions.

He will make a great journalist.
- [Deactivated] on 12/10/2018 - 18:21 Comment score below threshold.
  - HighAndDry on 12/10/2018 - 19:03
    
    +5
    
    From the Guardian article linked above:
    
    You have submitted a video of 3 vox pops … asking very general and unconnected questions surrounding dogs,” it said. “For what is supposed to be the major assignment of the unit, this fails to meet any of the minimum criteria.”
    - Lockieasy on 16/10/2018 - 17:23
      
      +7
      
      That sounds like the assignment a hippie guy in one of my classes submitted back in uni. You were supposed to give a 20min presentation about the topic so what he did was film his stoner mates talking about the topic for 20min.
      
      The tutor told him to turn it off after the first 10min and failed him lol.
  - altomic on 12/10/2018 - 19:43
    
    +7
    
    His original mark was 12 out of 100. That easily falls under the grading for crap
    - [Deactivated] on 17/10/2018 - 21:21
      
      Yeh, I'd like to see the evidence and judge for myself. An exemplar in crapness
  - aussieolfaction on 16/10/2018 - 11:10
    
    Like, have you read any comments on this thread at all?
chumlee on 12/10/2018 - 17:56

+10

He's probably the same numnuts that posts here for help on car accidents with no insurance
- pformag on 16/10/2018 - 16:44
  
  +5
  
  or hip surgery for international visitors
vicosads on 12/10/2018 - 18:03

+5

"he claims he didn't have time to complete the assignment as Monash was hesitant to grant special consideration on mental health grounds"

sounds like the court did the right thing for once
madreece on 12/10/2018 - 18:08

+11

Try getting a job now when future employers Google your name. Fool.
- [Deactivated] on 12/10/2018 - 18:34 Comment score below threshold.
  - madreece on 12/10/2018 - 18:36
    
    +17
    
    Last time I checked it wasn't Google Australia.
    - [Deactivated] on 12/10/2018 - 18:38 Comment score below threshold.
      - johnno07 on 14/10/2018 - 11:43
        
        +11
        
        @[Deactivated]: I'm confused do you dislike Australia and Indians? Or is it a broader racism? And what are you doing on this website exactly?
        
        Or are you the guy in the article?
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 11:57
        
        -5
        
        @johnno07: Hang on a second. Last I checked many people think and pride themselves of freedom of speech in Australia (whether that is correct or not I will not comment on). Just because someone does have a different opinion or does not like Australia does not warrant an automatic accusation of racism or the like. Doing that would be as bad a real/actual racism.
        People should be able to criticise this country just like any other country without the fear of being ostracised with racism etc. - that freedom of speech and tolerance is one of the hallmarks of a free and civilised society. Even Trump, despite his various attempts, has not followed through with the abolishment of this right no matter how much he hates people reporting the truth about him.
        Isn't Australia as liberal, open, and tolerant as the US under Trump?
        Ever heard this or similar:
        
        "I might not like or dislike what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."
        
        2ndeffort on 14/10/2018 - 13:35
        
        +12
        
        @Lysander: But freedom of speech also makes you accountable and open to ridicule if you say something stupid. People are trying to understand why you think Australia is a hell hole. Many of us think it is the greatest country in the world.
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 13:49
        
        -5
        
        @2ndeffort: Maybe you care to elaborate why you think this? Because somebody coined it the "lucky country" and it has been taken out of context since then?
        The original meaning was not a compliment and positive, in fact it was the contrary.
        
        The fact that my comment gets negged without reason, without asking or engaging in a civil conversation, just because they dislike a different opinion speaks volumes about the state of freedom of speech and narrow-mindedness here.
        
        If the original settlers would have had this attitude of "leave if you do not like it" Australia would still be using horse-drawn carts etc. instead of cars and modern technology.
        Do you really think this would be an advantage?
        
        Scrooge McDuck on 14/10/2018 - 14:29
        
        +6
        
        @Lysander: There's a huge difference between appreciating a country and wanting to improve it, and calling it a "hell hole".
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 14:35
        
        -1
        
        @Scrooge McDuck: Some places and some countries are hell-holes and need improvement quickly.
        
        It depends on what you value. If you value privacy and individual rights, Australia does not rank very highly.
        If you do not care about it but instead of being able to go to the beach and having a barbie every weekend, then it will be different.
        If you care about civil activism, human rights etc., then again, Australia does not rank too highly.
        
        It really all depends. I have worked with people that would consider Australia a hell-hole as mainly the bureaucracy, the greed, and the ignorance of many has caused them to have a terrible experience.
        
        Scrooge McDuck on 14/10/2018 - 15:01
        
        +10
        
        @Lysander:
        
        Some places and some countries are hell-holes and need improvement quickly.
        
        Yes and Australia isn't one of them.
        
        I have worked with people that would consider Australia a hell-hole as mainly the bureaucracy, the greed, and the ignorance of many has caused them to have a terrible experience.
        
        Those people are very sheltered. I'll take bureaucracy, greed, and ignorance over war, disease and famine any day. Some countries do have the latter attributes and could be fairly described as hellish in comparison.
        
        If you truly believe that the country in which you reside is much worse than others it is logical to make plans to move to one which you think is better.
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 15:07
        
        +1
        
        @Scrooge McDuck: In case you have not noticed free global movement and settlement rights do not exist. Sometimes ones does not have a choice.
        You are assuming we are talking about refugees etc. and your comparison holds right if comparing a first world country to a third world country.
        
        It does not hold if you compare it to another first world country such as Sweden or Norway - that is when the discrepancies and fallacies of Australia come to light, for example, in relation to equal pay, equal opportunities to look after children (where father get the same rights), liberties, privacy etc.
        
        Even if I then followed your advice I could not simply move there (no matter how much I wanted) as I do not have the right to do so. So in that case I would be stuck here. Is it not then natural to try to improve the conditions of your home (whether you choose to be here or cannot move elsewhere) - without criticism problems do not come to light and nothing can change for the better.
        
        Scrooge McDuck on 14/10/2018 - 15:23
        
        +5
        
        @Lysander: If Australia is the best country you can reside in, you should appreciate that.
        
        If you believe it's a "hell hole", then you would believe that most other countries are better and it is likely that at least one of them would grant you residence.
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 15:42
        
        -1
        
        @Scrooge McDuck: That is a very strange conclusion. So if I believe Norway and Sweden are better it is likely one of them would grant me residence??! Why? On what basis? My belief?
        
        If you love Australia and want it to prosper you need to embrace constructive criticism, applaud efforts to get rid of discrimination, racism etc. and support all efforts to change for the better - that is my belief and my opinion.
        
        Scrooge McDuck on 14/10/2018 - 16:07
        
        +9
        
        @Lysander:
        
        So if I believe Norway and Sweden are better it is likely one of them would grant me residence??!
        
        No. Describing a country as a "hell hole" places it amongst the worst of all countries, ergo most other countries would be better.
        
        You've moved the goalposts a lot.
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 16:12
        
        -5
        
        @Scrooge McDuck: No, I did not.
        Let's compare apples with apples.
        So let's compare Australia to other first world countries and in that comparison, especially when it comes to privacy and data protection as well as human rights compliance the hell-hole comment has some validity.
        So for example, if privacy is important for me, then this is a hell-hole as compared to Sweden, Switzerland, Germany etc.
        It goes without saying that Afghanistan as a whole is worse and privacy protection is not even a problem there as other more pressing issues take priority.
        
        I do wonder though why (a) comparison are always made with "worse" countries instead of better ones thus enabling us to learn and get to the higher standard, and (b) I have never ever received a well-founded, unemotional explanation of why Australia is the best country in the world - people simply say it which unfortunately does not make it so.
        
        Scrooge McDuck on 14/10/2018 - 16:50
        
        +7
        
        @Lysander: The original argument which you were defending described Australia as a "hell hole" without any qualifications. That compares it generally to all others. This was explicitly confirmed by the second sentence comparing it to the "250+[sic] other countries in the world".
        
        How do you know he's looking for a job in this hell hole ? There are 250+ other countries in the world.
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/6461702/redir
        
        But you, on the other hand, are now comparing Australia to a few specific countries on specific issues. That's moving the goalposts.
        
        I am now not surprised that your comments have attracted downvotes. Downvoting should be used to show disapproval where a response isn't warranted. You seem to argue using logical fallacies and will continue ad nauseam. In these cases, downvoting is warranted.
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 17:02
        
        -1
        
        @Scrooge McDuck: I am not defending anything or anybody. I just said moderation is needed rather than negging people to oblivion for expressing a different opinion. Neither of us knows what happened in this case.
        I do believe that the guy is probably right about certain things, based on my own experience at uni (and I won a uni price for my research, had top grades, and was elected on the Academic Board) where a lot of cronyism, dodgy behaviour, sexism, favouritism etc. occurred and a lot of the complaint procedures merely existed as a smokescreen. My advantage was that I have a legal training and hence could effectively negotiate the anti-discrimination claim.
        
        Downvoting is not warranted. I could get twenty of my colleagues and they all downvote you - what does that achieve? Isn't a constructive discussion more meaningful and useful?
        
        The gross misuse of downvoting here is a constant source of discussion and is one main reason why a lot of people stopped posting. I really do not think this is how an open, tolerant, and meaningful discussion and conversation is to be held.
        
        All I am criticising is that you for example, exclusively compare to third-world countries. Yes, they are included in the 250+ countries but so are many other, first world countries where things are better.
        
        But anyway, thanks for the discussion. I accept that obviously there are many people who do not like constructive criticism and want to keep the status quo. That is fine with me. Fortunately, I can actually follow your advice and leave if I so choose, when Australia, in an era of global competition, falls further behind due to developmental standstill.
        
        p1 ama on 16/10/2018 - 01:23
        
        +6
        
        @Lysander: Okay, whether Australia is a great country or not aside, you're being hypocritical and I think you're being willfully ignorant about it.
        
        In one post, you defend the right to free speeech - "I might not like or dislike what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."
        
        In the next post, you are arguing that downvoting (which is a form of speech) is not warranted and does not achieve anything. You go on to discuss how downvoting means that one is not tolerant, open or having a meaningful discussion.
        
        You could say that about any form of speech, e.g. you talking is not warranted and does not achieve anything, I don't really think this is how an open, tolerant meaningful discussion is to be held…(because you disagree with me).
        
        Lysander on 16/10/2018 - 02:21
        
        -1
        
        @p1 ama: In a discussion, I at least expect a comment/engagement rather than merely downvoting.
        It is strange to me that every time sometime criticises Australia (often justifiedly) the downvotes (without engagement) pour in as if criticism is taken as a personal attack by those people downvoting - I still have not had any explanation why Australia is the "lucky country" (as opposed to other countries) in the way it is taken out of context or why Australia is the best country in the world (based on something objective, not merely pure emotion and national pride).
        Australia is not perfect - no country is and hence some criticism is justified and necessary in order to make Australia better place for everyone.
        
        p1 ama on 16/10/2018 - 11:41
        
        +3
        
        @Lysander:
        
        In a discussion, I at least expect a comment/engagement rather than merely downvoting.
        
        But people are free to downvote if they wish.
        
        It is strange to me that every time sometime criticises Australia (often justifiedly) the downvotes (without engagement) pour in as if criticism is taken as a personal attack by those people downvoting - I still have not had any explanation why Australia is the "lucky country" (as opposed to other countries) in the way it is taken out of context or why Australia is the best country in the world (based on something objective, not merely pure emotion and national pride).
        
        People are free to have those opinions, just as you are free to have yours. To be honest, there are lots of great things about Australia. There are also areas in which we can improve. The problem with what you're saying is that it is very difficult to rate how "good" a country is by objective standards. I think that once a country has surpassed certain baseline standards, it would be considered a fine place to live for almost everyone.
        
        You're probably fussier than most (which is not a bad thing), which is probably why you're seeing issues that are not there. For the majority of people, I'm sure that they would not go about their way any differently if they were living in Australia, the UK, Canada, the US, Germany, France, Norway, whatever the case. People go to work in the morning, they take their kids to school, they come home and spend time with their family…etc. Most people do not have the time (or effort) to really care about the minute things like whether a certain country gives you a little bit more privacy than another country.
        
        On top of that, I think what you fail to realise (as perhaps someone who has grown up in Australia) is that Australia is quite literally heaven to many people. There are people who risk their lives to come to Australia, just ask the people who are on dinky boats trying to get here with a less than 50% chance of survival. You have to understand that for some people who have grown up in some really terrible areas, they are fine with Australia's problems because, to them, it's so many eons better than wherever they came from.
        
        TLDR; it's about perspective.
        
        [Deactivated] on 17/10/2018 - 19:31
        
        @Lysander: Lysander, you are so accurate in your comments. i learnt all of this the hard way, but the people here on ozbargain really don't know how bad it is in academia.
        
        Flanders on 17/10/2018 - 19:55
        
        +1
        
        @Lysander:
        
        I just said moderation is needed rather than negging people to oblivion for expressing a different opinion.
        
        I agree, often people are negged immensely just for expressing a differing opinion. Which leads to comments not being displayed due to neg threshold.
        Ignoring other people's point of view and suppressing it can only lead to ignorance and lack of empathetic insight. Not a good thing at all.
        Happens all the time on ozbargain though. People have an attitude 'You don't agree with my opinion, so I shall neg you'
        
        Watch this comment get negged now by the trolls :) lol
        
        SydStrand on 14/10/2018 - 14:39
        
        +3
        
        @Lysander: Freedom of speech is not unconditional, nor does it protect you from its repercussions. Also irrelevant, because no one's right to comment is being infringed.
        
        Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 14:41
        
        +1
        
        @SydStrand: Not irrelevant as the negging of different opinions here amounts to bullying and oppression in some cases.
        Do you know how many people do not post deals anymore for fear of such aggression and bullying? There have been plenty of discussions and threads on here regarding this. Have a look.
        
        SydStrand on 15/10/2018 - 03:30
        
        +2
        
        @Lysander:
        
        the negging of different opinions here amounts to bullying and oppression in some cases.
        
        No? It means you disagree with the comment. That's why the feature exists. To jump from that to 'waahh! Freedom of speech being infringed!' is a hell of a stretch.
        
        MementoMori on 16/10/2018 - 10:20
        
        @Lysander: Australia is awesome. That's why everyone wants to move here. Yes I agree with you around data privacy and governmetn overreach although I wouldn't trash a whole country because of that one aspect. You haven't traveled enough if you don't think Australia is unreal on the whole, and that this perfect country you have in your mind doesn't exist.
        
        If you don't like it, go to Norway or Sweden (and enjoy paying $15 for a coffee & muffin 'deal').
        
        If they won't take you, then that means you have little to offer them, which probably also means you have little to offer Australia as well and should consider yourself very lucky to live here.
        
        I'm sure many people would love to go and bludge off the generous welfare systems of the insanely taxed Scandinavian people with you as well.
        
        Lysander on 16/10/2018 - 13:22
        
        +3
        
        @MementoMori: I have lived and worked in four other countries and I have to say Australia does not compare as well as the people who think Australia is the best would like it to. There are many other aspects ranging from liberties, human rights, to mentality and high cost of living (especially for accommodation) which are too numerous to discuss here in detail (well, I do not have time or energy for it). While Norway and Sweden have high living costs their social system is better and accommodation, especially for families, is available and affordable - unlike Australia.
        
        Your argument of those countries not taking me because I have little to offer is wrong. Australia is indeed lucky in the sense that it offers very unqualified people who would not stand a chance elsewhere due to lack of skills the possibility to make more money than someone really educated ($30/hr traffic management comes to mind here). So, in that sense you are right but I am not sure if that is something to be proud of as that does not bode well for the country's future.
        Plus remember the many 457 visas for hundreds of thousands of chefs - do you think that Australia gets the highly qualified people that start the next BMW or Google here that way?
        
        Being proud of your country is one thing but being unrealistic and dreamy is another and can be detrimental to a country as it risks a standstill if any criticism is suppressed and "beaten down."
        
        And on a side note - I can actually go and live in Sweden or Norway any time I like - it is the kids we do not want to leave here at this stage.
        
        ""I'm sure many people would love to go and bludge off the generous welfare systems of the insanely taxed Scandinavian people with you as well."
        
        Well, I feel that really that bludging off the welfare system happens here more than anywhere else I have lived. Do you know how many people I have seen who are on disability benefit and who are much fitter than many working people and yet they cheat the system? How come alcoholism is a disability here? It is a disease which can be treated and cured. The abuse of the welfare system here is ridiculous, taking much needed money away from the people who really need it and are in fact in a bad situation through no fault or doing of their own.
        
        p1 ama on 17/10/2018 - 23:07
        
        @Lysander:
        
        I have lived and worked in four other countries and I have to say Australia does not compare as well as the people who think Australia is the best would like it to.
        
        The issue here is that this doesn't say anything about whether Australia is a good place to live. It'd be like you saying that you're a pretty fast sprinter and me saying, "but you're still slower than Bolt". Regardless of whether Australia is the objective "best" (if you can even measure that), it has all of the basic necessities that most people would need and want in a place they call home.
        
        Can it be improved? Of course, any place can. Is it objectively bad? Of course not, that's insane to say that.
        
        There are many other aspects ranging from liberties, human rights, to mentality and high cost of living (especially for accommodation) which are too numerous to discuss here in detail (well, I do not have time or energy for it).
        
        Perspective. What liberties do you mean? What human rights to you mean? Mentality is a personal thing, different people have a different mentality. I think you're missing the point and you're too disconnected from reality. For most people, liberty means not being locked up because you disagree with a political ideology or not being shot at because you're walking down the street. Again, for most people, human rights means that they don't get imprisoned without a trial.
        
        Australia is indeed lucky in the sense that it offers very unqualified people who would not stand a chance elsewhere due to lack of skills the possibility to make more money than someone really educated ($30/hr traffic management comes to mind here). So, in that sense you are right but I am not sure if that is something to be proud of as that does not bode well for the country's future.
        
        So you're in favour of paying people less? You're setting your own goalposts here. In one comment you're saying that certain countries have better welfare systems, then you turn around and say Australia pays people too much. You can't be for both.
        
        Are you for a more meritocratic society, where unskilled people should be paid less and we should have less welfare, or are you for a more egalitarian society where unskilled people should be paid more and we should have more welfare? You can't be for both depending on what's convenient.
        
        Being proud of your country is one thing but being unrealistic and dreamy is another and can be detrimental to a country as it risks a standstill if any criticism is suppressed and "beaten down."
        
        I would hazard a guess and say that if you live in Australia, you're well within the top 10% of luckiest people in the world, if not even 5%. Either way, I think you're kidding yourself, "progress" has hardly anything to do with views on an internet bargain forum. Why not call up your local MP?
        
        Well, I feel that really that bludging off the welfare system happens here more than anywhere else I have lived. Do you know how many people I have seen who are on disability benefit and who are much fitter than many working people and yet they cheat the system?
        
        You're really clutching at straws if you're saying that a certain place is worse than another place because there are more welfare bludgers. I do agree that we should crack down on this issue, but in the bigger picture of where good places are, it's a very tangential topic.
        
        Lysander on 17/10/2018 - 23:57
        
        @p1 ama: Unfortunately I do not have the time to reply in detail.
        
        Just this much: better welfare systems do not necessarily mean systems that pay more - in this case it is systems that pay the right people, are fairer, and maybe pay the right people more while not paying the bludgers.
        
        Plus, while you are right that progress per se has nothing to do with an internet forum, I do believe that given the relatively large number of people registered here from all over Australia could be considered fairly representative.
        
        Just to be clear, I am for a society where people are paid fairly according to their qualifications. In Australia's case this means that people whose only qualification is a weekend course in traffic management should not be paid $30 an hour because that would mean that a medical doctor who specialises in something would have to be paid $5000 an hour if the effort involved in this qualifications and the responsibility and risk in that job is taken into account. Of course, this is not feasible as no-one can afford that. But if unqualified jobs are paid too well, there is no incentive to become a doctor etc. (yes, I know they do earn a lot once they have been in business for a while but when they open a practice they have an enormous outlay and a lot of debt (plus have foregone income for like 10 years to complete the studies).
        
        Human rights and liberties:
        
        freedom of speech
        
        no police harassment, in other word police that understand they are public servants and to serve the public rather than the public being there to "serve" the police and be exposed to often arbitrary actions (I work in the legal field and yet that is my experience with them, both personally and professionally)
        
        systems that are fair, open, and transparent (example: in Australia, if you complain about say Police, it is common in many or all states that the complaint is put back to the police to then decide about the complaint - can you really tell me that this is fair, just, and even common sense? How would you decide on a complaint against yourself?)
        
        more accountability of government institutions, including the police when the attack vulnerable people (google police brutality)
        
        no stigma and restrictions if people seek help for illnesses - talk about double-facedness. Example: if you happen to have a mental breakdown, say due to your partner dying, seek help and counselling, get better and over it, then you cannot work in certain jobs ever again such as being a paramedic as having sought mental help and counselling disqualifies you from that
        
        the right to die and decide about your own life rather than this being made a crime and the police putting you in a closed institution
        
        openness and transparency with one's data
        
        the right to forget
        
        accountability with use of your data
        
        the right to have incorrect data held by the government corrected
        
        restrictions on government departments to access individual's data and prohibition on cross-department access
        
        These are just a few examples.
        
        Dole bludgers and problems can be found in every country. The difference is whether people see them, accept them and work to improve the situation and if they suppress criticism, close their eyes, and in blind patriotism say their country is the best.
        
        Finally, the fact that the "lucky country" remark is totally taken out of context (and it seems everybody here seems to know it too as nobody has even attempted to explain it away because everybody knows it is not a compliment) and the fact that the origin "if you don't like it then leave" phrase has also not been explained as nobody wants to identify with the originators (and I understand why as the context is or was not exactly something to be proud of) shows that those two phrases should finally be retired instead of continued to being misused.
        It is time to work for a better Australia where everybody is treated fairly, where there is minimal government intervention, where people can enjoy civil liberties and rights and where human rights are respected and encouraged - otherwise in 10 years this will be a police state in my opinion.
        
        p1 ama on 18/10/2018 - 12:19
        
        @Lysander:
        
        Just to be clear, I am for a society where people are paid fairly according to their qualifications.
        
        I find this a little strange, I would have thought that people are paid according to the demand and supply for their respective jobs.
        
        In Australia's case this means that people whose only qualification is a weekend course in traffic management should not be paid $30 an hour because that would mean that a medical doctor who specialises in something would have to be paid $5000 an hour if the effort involved in this qualifications and the responsibility and risk in that job is taken into account.
        
        Why does the wage of the guy in traffic management have anything to do with the wage of a doctor?
        
        But if unqualified jobs are paid too well, there is no incentive to become a doctor etc. (yes, I know they do earn a lot once they have been in business for a while but when they open a practice they have an enormous outlay and a lot of debt (plus have foregone income for like 10 years to complete the studies).
        
        I was a medical student at university (though I ended up doing a PhD in economics), I don't think there is any issue with people not having an incentive to be a doctor. Competition for entry into medical school is the highest amongst any university course and more people want to be doctors than we have spaces to train. You're talking in hypotheticals that don't represent the real world.
        
        If we have people who could have gotten into medical school who are instead choosing to be traffic controllers, then yes, perhaps we could have this discussion, but I can't think of a single person who's actually at the margin having to make this decision. Do you really think a kid out of high school who can get into medical school is thinking "nah, I'll be a traffic controller instead"?
        
        Obviously I don't know your political views, but I'd say that the things you're saying are far too libertarian. People in the real world don't make employment decisions on how much they are paid. We hear this story all the time, "tradies are better paid than engineers, soon nobody will be an engineer", last time I checked, engineering is still highly competitive at major Australian universities. I'm an economist, I should believe in free markets and rational decision makers, but the evidence is on the wall.
        
        Human rights and liberties:
        
        I agree with most of the things you write here, though, to be honest, I've never encountered any of the issues you have in my entire life. I don't know to what extent restrictions on what government departments have access to your data really impacts on your every day life. Don't you think things like "not being shot", "no mandatory military service", "right to a trial", "freedom from inhuman punishments"…etc. all rank above the things you mention?
        
        smartazz104 on 16/10/2018 - 07:24
        
        +4
        
        @Lysander: You're getting negged because you've strayed off topic.
        
        johnno07 on 14/10/2018 - 16:06
        
        +4
        
        @Lysander: Hey mate. I didn't actually say he wasn't allowed to say anything. I feel like this got a little out of hand. I simply asked a question which basically amounted to "what the heck are you talking about?". Which, I'm lead to believe, is pretty valid in a country that prides itself on free speech, right? sidewinder made a couple of weird comments, and I was requesting an explanation.
        
        Atazoth616 on 16/10/2018 - 12:59
        
        +1
        
        @Lysander: Freedom of speech does not exist in Australia.
        
        Hell, most legislation in Australia which references speech restricts the freedom of speech.
        
        Example:
        
        Australia's Racial Discrimination Act 1975 18C.
        
        The section restricts racist speech in Australia.
        
        Case:
        https://goo.gl/CDdRST
        
        So please do not claim that it does exist.
        
        Lysander on 16/10/2018 - 13:18
        
        +1
        
        @Atazoth616: Well, I guess that is confirmation that Australia is not so great after all if one of the fundamental human rights are missing.
        
        Atazoth616 on 16/10/2018 - 14:22
        
        +3
        
        @Lysander: Do you realise Australia is ranked third on the human index scale?
        
        If so how could you class Australia as anything but a great country?
        
        Regardless, would you rather live in a country where the cost of free speech is someone being abused?
        
        Because personally, I would rather live in a country where groups like the KKK are illegal.
        
        Lysander on 16/10/2018 - 15:51
        
        +1
        
        @Atazoth616: I would not because maybe someone in power does not like what you say (for example, your post), and then make that illegal and even put you in jail. I am sure that this is something you would not like.
        Plus, those indices are meaningless - if Australia ranked 60th you would not put any importance to it. They are all weighted unequally one way or another.
        I have lived and worked in four countries and Australia is the fifth, so I have a bit more than mere travel experience and Australia ranks last for various reasons for me personally - it is only my partner and the kids that keep me here until they are all grown up.
        
        2ndeffort on 16/10/2018 - 16:04
        
        @Lysander: None of us posting on here are in official power we are all just like you, regular citizens out on the internet. As far as I know none of us can put you in jail. Because we dont agree with you and are willing to say you are wrong does not make us tyrannical or evil or bullies, we just dont agree with you. We also dont understand why you would come to our country, stay here and criticise us. Would you like it if you invited me to your house and I spent all evening telling you your hospitality and food was poor, you would tell me to leave. This is what is happening here.
        
        Lysander on 16/10/2018 - 17:38
        
        @2ndeffort: I actually would ask you to show me how I can improve as that is the only way to make things better. If you then could not, that is a different matter. But if you could I would be very grateful to you.
        And see, that is where the difference is.
        In all these comments, some of which are just attempting to be insulting and really show the running out of proper arguments, I am still waiting for someone to (a) finally tell in which context the "Australia is a lucky country" remark was made and how it was meant, and (b) where the "If you do not like it then leave" attitude comes from and whether your really want to identify with the source of such statement.
        
        "Regardless, would you rather live in a country where the cost of free speech is someone being abused?"
        
        Did I introduce this aspect?
        
        I think you misunderstood - disagreement is good as you are then exactly doing what you seem to try to suppress, namely criticise. Have you heard from me that I tell you to leave just because I might not like your criticism?
        
        And I hate to say it: unless you are Aboriginal too, your ancestors and indirectly you came to this country to. Did those ancestors leave everything as is or did they not like certain things (the original people for example) and then changed it by force regardless of whether or not the people who were there first liked it?
        
        Scrooge McDuck on 16/10/2018 - 16:21
        
        +1
        
        @Lysander: I was a proponent of free speech, until I read your comments.
        
        Atazoth616 on 19/10/2018 - 09:05
        
        @Lysander: What?
        
        This is Australia not North Korea.
        
        So:
        
        Freedom of political speech exists.
        
        but
        
        The right to abuse others does not.
        
        Besides in Australia, people are unlikely to be charged for Ex Post Facto.
        
        Even if I was charged it would be a civil charge not a criminal.
        
        Because a jury is unlikely to find me guilty.
        
        Atazoth616 on 19/10/2018 - 09:10
        
        @Atazoth616: There is also the fact that most free speech countries restrict speech to some extent.
        
        If you do not believe me yell "I am going to blow up the white house" in Washington, DC.
        
        Let's see if your so called free speech is protected.
        
        Note:
        I take no responsibility for any stupid actions undertaken as a result of this comment.
        
        Lysander on 19/10/2018 - 09:52
        
        @Atazoth616: Well, I have been going to court for the last 12 years and I can definitely confirm that your trust is very misplaced.
        
        Plus, if you want a taster, have a look into the legislation the government snuck through in relation to what media can report and the severe punishments involved.
        
        https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/media-companies-o…
        
        https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/national-s…
        
        Not exactly a glowing example of free speech in relation to government transparency and accountability.
        
        Atazoth616 on 19/10/2018 - 11:52
        
        @Lysander: Most, if not all countries, react the same when Government documents are leaked.
        
        As leaking Government documents is a major security concern.
        
        Here:
        https://goo.gl/RDLxN4
        
        Hence, you failed to prove your point.
        
        Lysander on 19/10/2018 - 13:29
        
        @Atazoth616: Just compare data protection and privacy laws and right to access laws say in Germany or the Netherlands and Australia - huge gap!
        Even Facebook had to rewrite their privacy clauses and T&Cs for Germany as otherwise they would not have been allowed to operate.
        
        The US puts whistleblowers in jail whereas other countries such as Germany and Sweden etc. are a lot more liberal.
        
        Linking to what the US does is really bad to do as the US is the worst perpetrator of all - and unfortunately that is the path Australia is following.
        
        That does prove the point.
        
        Atazoth616 on 19/10/2018 - 16:16
        
        @Lysander: x
        
        Germany's policies to protect whistleblowers is poor:
        
        https://goo.gl/KsB116
        
        Whistleblowers in Netherlands are suffering mental health issues:
        
        https://goo.gl/gDG1gE
        
        Lysander on 19/10/2018 - 16:38
        
        @Atazoth616: The first one looks as credible as Trump News.
        The second one is one isolated study - hardly evidence.
        Plus, there are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium etc.
        
        It is about individual rights. Look at how many American "whistleblowers" ex-NSA people etc. live happily in Berlin and can freely speak and reveal the secrets of the NSA etc.
        Could you do that in the US? Or in Australia? I think not.
        
        Atazoth616 on 19/10/2018 - 18:53
        
        @Lysander: The first link is webpage that is reviewing a Griffith University paper.
        
        Despite not having the reputation of a nature paper the reference is still adequate.
        
        Although, if you prefer these two papers also mention the lack of protection laws regarding whistleblowers in Germany:
        
        https://goo.gl/FtfpHf
        or
        https://goo.gl/X7NLgL
        
        "Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium"
        
        So you favour countries with inquisitorial systems?
        
        That is strange considering you care about individual rights and that a major problem with inquisitorial systems is corruption.
        
        C. Italy.
        
        Lysander on 19/10/2018 - 19:39
        
        @Atazoth616: I did not mention Italy.
        
        Look, your papers prove nothing.
        
        Compare the Australian Constitution and the German Constitution. See which one list individual rights, human rights, and liberties and how many.
        
        While in Germany the laws for whistleblowers might not be good the de facto live is as those laws are not enforced.
        In Australia, even when there are no laws, the government acts as if there are, is oppressive, does not respect human rights etc.
        
        I know which system I prefer.
        
        Case proved.
        
        P.S.: I can find links too. https://theconversation.com/un-slams-australias-human-rights…
        
        Try to make your own arguments. My experience is based on many years of personal and professional experience in five different countries (including Australia) - if yours is simply based on finding links via Google, we should end any conversation here as it is totally futile as without actual living and working experience in the countries concerned you have no actual basis to compare.
        
        Atazoth616 on 19/10/2018 - 21:17
        
        @Lysander: Seriously?
        
        First, Italy was mentioned to illustrate the corruption of the inquisitorial system.
        
        This is relevant, as the countries you "listed" implement the inquisitorial systems.
        
        Second, Germany's constitution includes human rights since Germany became a federation in 1949.
        
        1949, was the height of the human rights movement… mmm I wonder why.
        
        If Australia became a federation in 1949, instead of 1900, human rights would be more predominant in the Australian constitution.
        
        Despite becoming a federation in 1900s, Australia did introduce the Nationality and Citizenship act in 1948, which was an act that improved human rights.
        
        "Try to make your own arguments"?
        
        That is an ad hominem and shows an inability to argue on your part.
        
        As a result, this is my last reply to this conversation.
        
        cheers.
        
        Lysander on 19/10/2018 - 22:11
        
        @Atazoth616: Italy is not a model for the inquisitorial system and you know it. It is like using India for a week working democracy.
        And don't give me that Nazi crap - do you really intend to say you need to have something terrible like that happen here or otherwise Australia cannot respect human rights?
        You cannot learn from world history?
        Plus, remind me what happened to the Aboriginals? Human rights development as a result of it? Sadly, to this day many people do not acknowledge and recognise the atrocities.
        I think you went into very bad and dangerous territory desperate to win an unwinnable argument. Really better stop here before it gets even worse.
      - smartazz104 on 16/10/2018 - 07:24
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: I hear he's looking for an assistant; you don't seem to have much going on.
      - aussieolfaction on 16/10/2018 - 11:13
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Relax..google is run by a smart Indian guy, UNLIKE like Chinmay Naik .
      - manbearpig on 16/10/2018 - 17:23
        
        +4
        
        @[Deactivated]: Way to go for bringing race into this. This article had nothing to do with race, nor did the comment. The only racist here is you playing the victim card. You're delusional.
    - Tuftsdude on 16/10/2018 - 15:58
      
      +2
      
      Sorry guys, ran out of downvotes.
  - parisienne on 13/10/2018 - 10:09
    
    +5
    
    Well then sidewinder1…if it's such a "hell hole",you know what to do.
  - SlickMick on 13/10/2018 - 13:31
    
    +4
    
    You know what we Aussies say to those who live here but don't like it?
    - Lysander on 14/10/2018 - 12:03
      
      Have you ever checked where that stupid saying/reaction originates? Do you agree with the views of the originators and the underlying reasons for saying that?
      
      Would you agree with the statement you have in mind if said in the context of say Turkey/Libya/Iraq etc.?
      
      I guess if you believe in such statement you do not want Australia to be a better place, with more individual rights, more liberties for the people, and less government control, right?
      
      Because if people protest against government measures, the government could also argue to just leave if you do not like us snooping on you, right? Regardless of whether this is your home.
      - SlickMick on 15/10/2018 - 09:52
        
        +1
        
        @Lysander: I think it originated when the first visitor had a whinge, and has been used ever since. If I didn't agree, I wouldn't have said it. I don't know whether they have a similar saying elsewhere, but we do here.
        Have a whinge in your new home how the nasty Aussies told you to pack your bags.
        
        I DO want Australia to be a better place. The first step is to get rid of those that come here and whinge about it.
        
        Miss B on 15/10/2018 - 22:50
        
        -2
        
        @SlickMick: If you don't like that people come here and whinge, just leave instead of whinging about it.

Uni Student Loses Court Battle over Assignment on Dog Breeds

Comments

New Forum Topics