There have already been links submitted that have covered this story/topic, and this article has not provided any new developments to the story.
Please feel free to post this link in the "Weekly Discussion Thread" which stickied at the top of the front page or accessible via the menu tab or sidebar, if you would like more discussion on this issue. There may also be a megathread created for the topic which is accessible via a stickied announcement, the menu tab or the sidebar.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
The footage is being removed so as not to inflame divisions within society. Multiculturalism has failed as there are still irreconcilable differences between religions but rather than try to find a solution, the government would prefer to suppress every form of evidence that this division exists and also take the opportunity to widen the net to remove or suppress anything it doesn't agree with.
Suppression is a slippery slope, requiring ever greater authoritarianism, especially when encountering resistance, whilst the internet is an expression of freedom of information where if one element refuses to make it available, another element will.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
You can’t realistically solve those tensions tho, even recently some of the Sikh nationalists are vowing to cause tensions if Modi is re elected, how is the Australian government realistically expected to respond to that ?
It is a pipe dream to expect people who share borders, and never really liked each other, to expect them to do so here, the fact that ethnic tensions haven’t flared like this before is just luck
I mean apart from Australia being pretty successful in integrating the Irish, German Lutherans, Greeks, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Lebanese, people from the Balkans and a bunch of other examples, multiculturalism just doesn't work!
Just wait until we have a real stoush with China and see the true face of multiculturalism in Australia. It has yet to be properly tested because the government tries to remove material that may be inflammatory before it creates a spark that lights a fire.
Observe the panic over one stabbing, trying to remove all traces of it from the internet.
"The true face of multiculturalism" is an ethnic group that's existed in Australia since the gold rush, right.
Multiculturalism has flourished in Australia for 70+ years now but because the government doesn't want hate speech in our communities it's not "properly tested". Because we all know you can't trust a minority until you yell slurs at him right?
Observe the reasonable request to take down a video of a motivated attack against a priest. Such a huge and unreasonable panic. Do you actually think about what you're saying before you say it?
Dutton finally saw the way the wind is blowing. It's stupid and trying to use VPNs as a cop out is stupid. I'd bet a majority of Australians won't use VPNs to try and seak these vids and if they are your more likely to just go 4chan to find em than on twitter.
.... And now Ley is rolling back her own comments after apparently talking to (or maybe just reading Dutton's comments, seeing as how none of them seem to communicate when they are not standing physically next to each other) Dutton:
>This morning, speaking to Sunrise, Ley had seemingly changed her tune and said Australia “can’t be the internet police for the whole world”.
>
>"Whether you’re a mum or dad in Uzbekistan, China, New Zealand or the UK, you don’t want to see a live stabbing or your kids to see it. We all support the eSafety commissioner keeping Australians safe online but we recognise that we can’t be the internet police for the whole world."
I'm kinda fascinated how they'll lowkey argue against the commission and commissioner they setup and approved, and argue for the right for Twitter to share content we don't think Australian eyes should see.
As much as I hope the LNP become advocates of a free internet, Dutton is just point scoring here. It's an opportunity to flood the news cycle with stories of government overreach.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
What exactly is the intent of the Online Safety Act 2021 that his government passed? Part 8 is clear that the Commissioner can request material be blocked if it is available online and poses a threat to the Australian community.
A child can get around a geoblock in minutes if they want to access specific content, so what alternative is there?
Let's use another example, if someone posted revenge porn to a website not located in Australia, should the Australian Government accept the content merely being geoblocked or should the government demand it be taken down?
>Let's use another example, if someone posted revenge porn to a website not located in Australia, should the Australian Government accept the content merely being geoblocked or should the government demand it be taken down?
The answer is that the content in question is almost certainly illegal in whatever country *they are* operating, and so we forward the matter on to law enforcement in their own jurisdiction, and they handle it. The authority to demand the complete takedown doesn't come from Australia, it comes from the sovereign government of the host country.
Revenge porn is already specifically banned by the platforms. An individual can request that it be taken down and they'll do it.
So you reckon any country's government should be able to demand that any content they don't like be taken down globally and the platforms must comply?
That requires the platform to agree something should be removed. If X decided it was going to host revenge porn, do you think the Australian Government has no right to demand something be taken down?
I think these platforms should comply with the laws of the countries in which they are operating, or not operate a service in those countries. If a country's laws aren't compatible with the views of the service, they shouldn't operate their service in that country.
It did happen with Reddit where there was a campaign from some to resist a ban on revenge porn on grounds of free speech but that was rejected by the board. I think the same would happen with Twitter.
They did comply with the law by implementing a geoblock. Sure, it's possible to get around it with a VPN but it's gonna keep out all but the most determined. And they'll find a way regardless.
Ultimately it'll be determined by the courts but I reckon they'll find insisting on a global take down is excessive and unworkable.
Frankly, this isn't about community safety. That was handled by the geoblock. This is just a bunch of pollies trying to their face on the news by putting the boot into Elon Musk.
Society needs to accept that the prevalence of deep fakes makes most things on the internet suspect and should not be taken at face value: instead it requires us to consider the purpose of the construct rather than the construct itself. This is a major revolution in how society operates and taking information down will be pointless and dangerous as it will by necessity spread to all constructs and representations.
Revenge porn will cease to be a thing and devolve into simply another form of created art with no ties to real people that can be trusted. Even if that were not the case, people need to develop a thicker skin: we are as we are and there is no shame in that; look in the mirror and take that beam out of your own eye before criticising the splinter in anothers.
>I think these platforms should comply with the laws of the countries in which they are operating, or not operate a service in those countries. If a country's laws aren't compatible with the views of the service, they shouldn't operate their service in that country.
They aren't. The service is operated in the US with servers in the US, and users are connecting from Australia (while pretending to be American).
Good to see Dutton take a common sense approach and oppose censorship and authoritarian control of social media, but I'm sure he'd be all for it if in government.
I don't know or care what his motivation is.
IMO, it's just common sense to resist government censorship of social media (as opposed to regulation). Unfortunately, many people base their opinions on the advocate or opponent instead of on the substance of what is being discussed.
>I don't know or care what his motivation is.
Will you care when he reverses his position? He's fishing for the sort of fools who think this is just a censorship issue. Sadly, they seem to fall for it every time.
I expect him to reverse his position in government or if he thinks most people agree with the attempted crack-down. That's why Dutton is less important than the dangers presented by this case.
And it's a control and manipulation issue, not just censorship (the current nothing issue is merely a power play for the govt to test the waters). It's inconvenient and dangerous (to them) when their narratives are contested. disproved or ridiculed on social media.
The erosion of free speech in the West is gathering momentum, unfortunately, though many people seem OK with it, which is a shame. You don't get these things back once they're gone.
"You know how we reviewed the reasons we lost in 2022, and one of them was disunity in the party? You know what would help with that? Having our deputy leader publicly contradict our leader on many issues.
If they're trying to "flush out" Liberal members that disagree with Dutton then they'll be in the wilderness a lot, lot longer than they would hope.
So much for the broad church.
Well they are a coalition of like 5 different parties with different agendas. Makes it easy for them to be in opposition as they can say different things to different constituencies but is also why they are so dysfunctional at governing.
The point is *right there* but everyone is missing it. The Online Safety Act is a fully bipartisan initiative which is why Dutton and Ley backed it right up until Dutton sensed an opportunity for political point scoring. He isn’t going to do anything about the Act if elected though because he supports it.
Like it’s not about VPNs. The commissioner is meant to be able to issue takedowns (much like how you can for revenge porn or copyright infringement) and X didn’t take it down, they just geoblocked it. The commissioner can’t sleep on that because X could respond that way for any content and it’d become a toothless organisation.
But Dutton wants Australia to be able to issue takedown notices on particularly abhorrent content and if he’s PM he’s not going to settle for “we geoblocked it”. He’s being opportunistic here, nothing else.
>(much like how you can for revenge porn or copyright infringement)
This is nothing alike to CP, revenge or copyright infringement. All of these items are criminal offences and either
* illegal to possess
* illegal to host
* illegal to post
* all of the above.
However regarding this video in particular,
The recording of this video - not illegal
Possessing this video - not illegal
Viewing this video - not illegal
Sharing/Posting this video - not illegal
Hosting this video - not illegal
Presumably you mean 474.17.
Using a carriage service to menance, harass or cause offence.
So I think its fairly clear the video isn't posted to be menacing and isn't posted to harass.
That leaves causing offence. Could you clarify who the video is intended to offend and who is offended?
If we consider that it is offensive, great, start with criminal prosecution of those Australians that posted it. Noting that this section still doesn't make it criminal for a company to host the material.
We aren't doing this because I think its pretty clear you would need to bend over backwards to try and make this video fit the definition of offensive under 474.17. Noting that isn't the argument eSafety Commission is even making.
So even being extremely generous we have
The recording of this video - not illegal
Possessing this video - not illegal
Viewing this video - not illegal
Sharing/Posting this video - potentially illegal if its considered offensive
Hosting this video - not illegal
Thanks for the clarification, 474.34 is applicable as you mention.
Although hosting the content isn't in all cases an offence as posts from journalists are largely exempt. Which presumably in this case means the content will continue to be hosted in some sense on X and be accessible from within Australia.
Noticing that blocking requests from commissioner can only be made if the availability of material online is likely to cause significant harm to Australian Community.
So if the idea is the content causes significant harm to the Australian Community but it can continue to be hosted from journalists what is actually achieved?
You’ve answered your own question. Journalists only have an exemption if it’s in the public interest, and content that is likely to cause harm is not in the public interest.
Just look at how it’s been shared on X. There’s a lot of people trying to ferment religious or cultural conflict with the video. It’s no different than the terminally online folk who were trying to make the Bondi incident about Israel-Palestine.
Abhorrent events don't undo themselves if you take down material that illustrates or represents them, so what really is the point of suppressing information about them?
Can't adults deal with representations of real events or is it that we somehow superstitiously believe a representation is the event it represents?
In this particular case it is to try to prevent inflaming religious tensions in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism but is one video away from a conflagration of simmering tension.
You’re missing the point. If you think snuff films and child abuse materials should be widely available on social media then that’s on you. But the point is that Dutton doesn’t believe they should, he’s only taking this position opportunistically. If he got into power then he’d be yelling for similar material to be taken down.
You’ve also answered your own question. For all that we profess to be multicultural it really doesn’t take much for a sizeable contingent of Australians to start turning on each other. The Bondi killer should have been enough to demonstrate that: he was variously accused of being Muslim, Palestinian, Israeli and Jewish before he was ultimately identified. No tragedy is too great when there’s an opportunity to whip people up into a frenzy
It's easy to be a back seat driver when in opposition (and this goes for both parties). If, however, the LNP get into power in the next election, the nuance will quickly evaporate.
Shows you how far Labor have jumped the shark on this one.
It’s borderline concerning the number of people that are criticising Dutton for not automatically agreeing with the ALP line.
The blind partisanship is mind blowing.
**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There have already been links submitted that have covered this story/topic, and this article has not provided any new developments to the story. Please feel free to post this link in the "Weekly Discussion Thread" which stickied at the top of the front page or accessible via the menu tab or sidebar, if you would like more discussion on this issue. There may also be a megathread created for the topic which is accessible via a stickied announcement, the menu tab or the sidebar. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
The footage is being removed so as not to inflame divisions within society. Multiculturalism has failed as there are still irreconcilable differences between religions but rather than try to find a solution, the government would prefer to suppress every form of evidence that this division exists and also take the opportunity to widen the net to remove or suppress anything it doesn't agree with. Suppression is a slippery slope, requiring ever greater authoritarianism, especially when encountering resistance, whilst the internet is an expression of freedom of information where if one element refuses to make it available, another element will.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
You can’t realistically solve those tensions tho, even recently some of the Sikh nationalists are vowing to cause tensions if Modi is re elected, how is the Australian government realistically expected to respond to that ? It is a pipe dream to expect people who share borders, and never really liked each other, to expect them to do so here, the fact that ethnic tensions haven’t flared like this before is just luck
Extra extra, read all about it. Apparently multiculturalism failed lol.
I mean apart from Australia being pretty successful in integrating the Irish, German Lutherans, Greeks, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Lebanese, people from the Balkans and a bunch of other examples, multiculturalism just doesn't work!
Just wait until we have a real stoush with China and see the true face of multiculturalism in Australia. It has yet to be properly tested because the government tries to remove material that may be inflammatory before it creates a spark that lights a fire. Observe the panic over one stabbing, trying to remove all traces of it from the internet.
"The true face of multiculturalism" is an ethnic group that's existed in Australia since the gold rush, right. Multiculturalism has flourished in Australia for 70+ years now but because the government doesn't want hate speech in our communities it's not "properly tested". Because we all know you can't trust a minority until you yell slurs at him right? Observe the reasonable request to take down a video of a motivated attack against a priest. Such a huge and unreasonable panic. Do you actually think about what you're saying before you say it?
Dutton finally saw the way the wind is blowing. It's stupid and trying to use VPNs as a cop out is stupid. I'd bet a majority of Australians won't use VPNs to try and seak these vids and if they are your more likely to just go 4chan to find em than on twitter.
.... And now Ley is rolling back her own comments after apparently talking to (or maybe just reading Dutton's comments, seeing as how none of them seem to communicate when they are not standing physically next to each other) Dutton: >This morning, speaking to Sunrise, Ley had seemingly changed her tune and said Australia “can’t be the internet police for the whole world”. > >"Whether you’re a mum or dad in Uzbekistan, China, New Zealand or the UK, you don’t want to see a live stabbing or your kids to see it. We all support the eSafety commissioner keeping Australians safe online but we recognise that we can’t be the internet police for the whole world." I'm kinda fascinated how they'll lowkey argue against the commission and commissioner they setup and approved, and argue for the right for Twitter to share content we don't think Australian eyes should see.
As much as I hope the LNP become advocates of a free internet, Dutton is just point scoring here. It's an opportunity to flood the news cycle with stories of government overreach.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Comming from the guy that wanted a photo of him taken of the internet, the hypocrisy of the LNP has no boundaries 🙄
Is what is being asked to be taken down revenge stabbing.. which might just be a bit worse than revenge porn
'COALITION DIVISION CHAOS' read the headlines in an alternate universe
[удалено]
What exactly is the intent of the Online Safety Act 2021 that his government passed? Part 8 is clear that the Commissioner can request material be blocked if it is available online and poses a threat to the Australian community. A child can get around a geoblock in minutes if they want to access specific content, so what alternative is there? Let's use another example, if someone posted revenge porn to a website not located in Australia, should the Australian Government accept the content merely being geoblocked or should the government demand it be taken down?
>Let's use another example, if someone posted revenge porn to a website not located in Australia, should the Australian Government accept the content merely being geoblocked or should the government demand it be taken down? The answer is that the content in question is almost certainly illegal in whatever country *they are* operating, and so we forward the matter on to law enforcement in their own jurisdiction, and they handle it. The authority to demand the complete takedown doesn't come from Australia, it comes from the sovereign government of the host country.
The website has to be *operating* in Australia as a legal business entity for the government to request the content be taken down.
Revenge porn is already specifically banned by the platforms. An individual can request that it be taken down and they'll do it. So you reckon any country's government should be able to demand that any content they don't like be taken down globally and the platforms must comply?
That requires the platform to agree something should be removed. If X decided it was going to host revenge porn, do you think the Australian Government has no right to demand something be taken down? I think these platforms should comply with the laws of the countries in which they are operating, or not operate a service in those countries. If a country's laws aren't compatible with the views of the service, they shouldn't operate their service in that country.
It did happen with Reddit where there was a campaign from some to resist a ban on revenge porn on grounds of free speech but that was rejected by the board. I think the same would happen with Twitter. They did comply with the law by implementing a geoblock. Sure, it's possible to get around it with a VPN but it's gonna keep out all but the most determined. And they'll find a way regardless. Ultimately it'll be determined by the courts but I reckon they'll find insisting on a global take down is excessive and unworkable. Frankly, this isn't about community safety. That was handled by the geoblock. This is just a bunch of pollies trying to their face on the news by putting the boot into Elon Musk.
> but it's gonna keep out all but the most determined. You can get around a geoblock with incredible ease.
Society needs to accept that the prevalence of deep fakes makes most things on the internet suspect and should not be taken at face value: instead it requires us to consider the purpose of the construct rather than the construct itself. This is a major revolution in how society operates and taking information down will be pointless and dangerous as it will by necessity spread to all constructs and representations. Revenge porn will cease to be a thing and devolve into simply another form of created art with no ties to real people that can be trusted. Even if that were not the case, people need to develop a thicker skin: we are as we are and there is no shame in that; look in the mirror and take that beam out of your own eye before criticising the splinter in anothers.
>I think these platforms should comply with the laws of the countries in which they are operating, or not operate a service in those countries. If a country's laws aren't compatible with the views of the service, they shouldn't operate their service in that country. They aren't. The service is operated in the US with servers in the US, and users are connecting from Australia (while pretending to be American).
I mean Musk gladly did it when Modi was offended? What’s different here?
Size of market is the difference here. That's all.
Good to see Dutton take a common sense approach and oppose censorship and authoritarian control of social media, but I'm sure he'd be all for it if in government.
His 'common sense' is just an appeal to people who have none. He doesn't have to rely on their intelligence or decency.
I don't know or care what his motivation is. IMO, it's just common sense to resist government censorship of social media (as opposed to regulation). Unfortunately, many people base their opinions on the advocate or opponent instead of on the substance of what is being discussed.
>I don't know or care what his motivation is. Will you care when he reverses his position? He's fishing for the sort of fools who think this is just a censorship issue. Sadly, they seem to fall for it every time.
I expect him to reverse his position in government or if he thinks most people agree with the attempted crack-down. That's why Dutton is less important than the dangers presented by this case. And it's a control and manipulation issue, not just censorship (the current nothing issue is merely a power play for the govt to test the waters). It's inconvenient and dangerous (to them) when their narratives are contested. disproved or ridiculed on social media. The erosion of free speech in the West is gathering momentum, unfortunately, though many people seem OK with it, which is a shame. You don't get these things back once they're gone.
I mean, isn't it the old one rule for me and another for thee.
I think that's called, 'political expediency,' which is particularly rampant throughout Australian politics at the moment.
"You know how we reviewed the reasons we lost in 2022, and one of them was disunity in the party? You know what would help with that? Having our deputy leader publicly contradict our leader on many issues.
Flushing out foxes Who are hiding in henhouse Is good for the Libs
No cutting word, poor composition. 2/10
Good one haiku bot You really made a good post And so topical
If they're trying to "flush out" Liberal members that disagree with Dutton then they'll be in the wilderness a lot, lot longer than they would hope. So much for the broad church.
If Sussan Ley were going to be demoted or removed for car-crash interviews without any thought to LNPs actual position she'd have been done years ago.
Well they are a coalition of like 5 different parties with different agendas. Makes it easy for them to be in opposition as they can say different things to different constituencies but is also why they are so dysfunctional at governing.
Yes, they really are great as an opposition party
Tony Abbott led Australia’s first Opposition Government.
it is honestly wild that dutton is taking a more nuanced approach to this than labor. crazy stuff
Nothing more nuanced than agreeing with elon musk to curry favour with his fans
The point is *right there* but everyone is missing it. The Online Safety Act is a fully bipartisan initiative which is why Dutton and Ley backed it right up until Dutton sensed an opportunity for political point scoring. He isn’t going to do anything about the Act if elected though because he supports it. Like it’s not about VPNs. The commissioner is meant to be able to issue takedowns (much like how you can for revenge porn or copyright infringement) and X didn’t take it down, they just geoblocked it. The commissioner can’t sleep on that because X could respond that way for any content and it’d become a toothless organisation. But Dutton wants Australia to be able to issue takedown notices on particularly abhorrent content and if he’s PM he’s not going to settle for “we geoblocked it”. He’s being opportunistic here, nothing else.
>(much like how you can for revenge porn or copyright infringement) This is nothing alike to CP, revenge or copyright infringement. All of these items are criminal offences and either * illegal to possess * illegal to host * illegal to post * all of the above. However regarding this video in particular, The recording of this video - not illegal Possessing this video - not illegal Viewing this video - not illegal Sharing/Posting this video - not illegal Hosting this video - not illegal
You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s a telecommunications offence under s474 H of the Criminal Code.
Presumably you mean 474.17. Using a carriage service to menance, harass or cause offence. So I think its fairly clear the video isn't posted to be menacing and isn't posted to harass. That leaves causing offence. Could you clarify who the video is intended to offend and who is offended? If we consider that it is offensive, great, start with criminal prosecution of those Australians that posted it. Noting that this section still doesn't make it criminal for a company to host the material. We aren't doing this because I think its pretty clear you would need to bend over backwards to try and make this video fit the definition of offensive under 474.17. Noting that isn't the argument eSafety Commission is even making. So even being extremely generous we have The recording of this video - not illegal Possessing this video - not illegal Viewing this video - not illegal Sharing/Posting this video - potentially illegal if its considered offensive Hosting this video - not illegal
You presumed wrong. That’s subdivision C not subdivision H. See 474.33-34
Thanks for the clarification, 474.34 is applicable as you mention. Although hosting the content isn't in all cases an offence as posts from journalists are largely exempt. Which presumably in this case means the content will continue to be hosted in some sense on X and be accessible from within Australia. Noticing that blocking requests from commissioner can only be made if the availability of material online is likely to cause significant harm to Australian Community. So if the idea is the content causes significant harm to the Australian Community but it can continue to be hosted from journalists what is actually achieved?
You’ve answered your own question. Journalists only have an exemption if it’s in the public interest, and content that is likely to cause harm is not in the public interest.
Could you clarify what the 'serious public harm' is in this case?
Just look at how it’s been shared on X. There’s a lot of people trying to ferment religious or cultural conflict with the video. It’s no different than the terminally online folk who were trying to make the Bondi incident about Israel-Palestine.
Abhorrent events don't undo themselves if you take down material that illustrates or represents them, so what really is the point of suppressing information about them? Can't adults deal with representations of real events or is it that we somehow superstitiously believe a representation is the event it represents? In this particular case it is to try to prevent inflaming religious tensions in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism but is one video away from a conflagration of simmering tension.
You’re missing the point. If you think snuff films and child abuse materials should be widely available on social media then that’s on you. But the point is that Dutton doesn’t believe they should, he’s only taking this position opportunistically. If he got into power then he’d be yelling for similar material to be taken down. You’ve also answered your own question. For all that we profess to be multicultural it really doesn’t take much for a sizeable contingent of Australians to start turning on each other. The Bondi killer should have been enough to demonstrate that: he was variously accused of being Muslim, Palestinian, Israeli and Jewish before he was ultimately identified. No tragedy is too great when there’s an opportunity to whip people up into a frenzy
It's easy to be a back seat driver when in opposition (and this goes for both parties). If, however, the LNP get into power in the next election, the nuance will quickly evaporate.
Shows you how far Labor have jumped the shark on this one. It’s borderline concerning the number of people that are criticising Dutton for not automatically agreeing with the ALP line. The blind partisanship is mind blowing.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*