Mediaboss Marketing

Victorian opposition leader Matthew Guy and four of his colleagues have been fined for not wearing masks at an indoor event in the first week of parliament.

In photographs posted to social media, Mr Guy and other coalition MPs were pictured with former AFL coach Kevin Sheedy not wearing masks last Tuesday, the first sitting day of the year.

Hear more on the investigation in the video above

Mr Guy confirmed late on Monday that Victoria Police had issued fines to him and coalition MPs Peter Walsh, David Davis, Gary Blackwood and Melina Bath for failing to wear a face mask in an indoor setting.

On Tuesday, Victoria Police confirmed each fine issued was for $100.

Wearing a mask is required in all Victorian workplaces, including state parliament, unless rising to speak in either chamber or eating or drinking.

He claimed he had a coffee with him during the speech, as did several other MPs, while others took their mask off for the photos.

A Parliament of Victoria work health and safety memo sent on Tuesday reminded MPs and staff of the continuing requirement for masks to be worn in the workplace.

In a statement on Monday, Mr Guy said the Victorian Liberals and Nationals cooperated with Victoria Police in relation to this matter and accordingly the fines will be paid promptly.

The Victorian Liberals and Nationals will continue to advocate for the removal of face mask mandates in low-risk settings so we can begin to recover, rebuild and move forward, the statement said.

Premier Daniel Andrews, who was fined $400 in October last year after he was filmed arriving at parliament not wearing a mask on two occasions, denied the rules were confusing.

The premier also rejected the notion images of their unmasked political opponents were referred to Victoria Police by Labor after they were raised in the lower house during Tuesdays heated Question Time.

Read the rest here:
Victorian opposition leader Matthew Guy, Liberal MPs fined over maskless meeting with AFL legend Kevin Sheedy - 7NEWS

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the coinage Latinx, which violates the rules of Spanish grammar, and is rejected by 98 percent of Hispanic Americans polled. Our friend and former colleague Matt Yglesias, who is of both Latino and Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, has written a very astute essay suggesting that the imposition of Latinx by well-meaning white lefties doesnt explain most of the Democrats problems with the Hispanic vote, but it sure doesnt help.

Not to beat a dead caballo, but imagine if earnest progressive wannabe allies came up with must-use terms for Blacks, Jews, or Asian Americans rejected by those groups themselves. Id like to expand the discussion to other instances of liberal tin ears. Here are three more self-defeating terms that should be retired.

More from Robert Kuttner

Safety Net. This widely used synonym for social insurance is metaphorically and politically wrong. A safety net catches you when you fall off a high wire. It suggests something for losers and unfortunates rather than universal social income that binds us all together.

Everyone gets sick. Why is universal health insurance part of a safety net? Likewise universal child care or paid family leave. Nobody wants to get tangled in a net (which describes means-tested programs all too well).

The term social income is more widely used in Britain, but it captures the idea exactlya form of income that everyone gets as citizens. So lets retire safety net in favor of social income, a usage that also subtly makes the case for universalism and solidarity rather than means tests. If memory serves, we Americans have gotten other language from the English.

Entitlements. If any term is even more self-defeating than safety net, its entitlement. This is a case of a technical budget term passing into the general language. But entitlement is evocatively wrong.

The word entitled has come to describe an obnoxious person who claims privileges that are excessive or undeserved. Sheesh, does that describe Social Security and Medicare? No, but they are described in budget lingo and more broadly as entitlements.

This usage, suggesting unearned handouts, gives faithless Democrats like Joe Manchin language to say things like I dont believe we should turn our society into an entitlement society. But we surely do want to become a society with adequate social income.

Union Density. This clunker is a case of academic language being picked up by journalists and liberals who want to sound with-it. Union density refers to the proportion of workers who are members of unions, as in Union density has declined from 33 percent in 1958 to 13 percent in 2020.

But density evokes stodgy union bureaucracy rather than a spirited social movement. Who wants to be part of something dense? Whats wrong with the simple word membership?

Yes, the media are partly to blame, but progressives can at least model good usage. The right wing goes all the way to Orwellian in its use of language. We dont do that, but lets at least avoid linguistic missteps that make the rights job easier.

December 15, 2021

3:00 PM

Read this article:
Liberals With Tin Ears - The American Prospect

20 Jan 2022 | David Honey MLA, State News

Yesterday saw more power outages, with over six thousand homes across the Perth metro and regional areas left without power on an over 40-degree day. WA Liberal Leader and Shadow Minister for...

20 Jan 2022 | State News, Steve Thomas MLC

This opinion article appeared in The West Australian on 20 January 2022: There was an interesting article on page 19 of the business section of last Wednesdays West Australian, in which Perth...

20 Jan 2022 | Neil Thomson MLC, State News

Shadow Minister for Planning Neil Thomson and Shadow Minister for Commerce Vince Catania have called on the State Government to take a proactive and market-based approach to support the transition...

19 Jan 2022 | David Honey MLA, State News

Leader of the WA Liberals, Dr David Honey MLA, announced today that he is filing a number of Freedom of Information requests in an effort to force much-needed transparency from the increasingly...

18 Jan 2022 | David Honey MLA, State News

Yesterdays announcement by new Health Minister Sanderson of pop-up marquees outside WA hospitals to deal with the COVID surge is a stark example of WA Labors ad hoc preparation for rising COVID...

14 Jan 2022 | Libby Mettam MLA, State News

Health practitioners across a range of sectors are pleading with the government to provide a clear plan for re-opening now to allow them to prepare before the easing of border restrictions on...

Read this article:
Liberal Party of WA

OTTAWA - The lightning spread of the Omicron COVID-19 variant is prompting federal politicians to reconsider the wisdom of having several hundred MPs crammed together in the House of Commons.

Government House leader Mark Holland announced Tuesday that the Liberals will greatly reduce the number of their MPs in the chamber and intend to hold entirely virtual caucus meetings for the time being.

Liberals are following the advice of public health officials, who are warning Canadians that now is not the time for mass gatherings and that smaller is better, Holland said, noting that the experience in other countries suggests the Omicron variant is as much as eight times more contagious than the Delta variant.

Its particularly important to limit gatherings of MPs who are coming from all areas in the country and will be returning to all areas of the country, he added.

Holland met with his opposition counterparts to advise them of the Liberals decision but said its up to them to decide whether to follow suit.

A New Democrat official said thatpartys weekly caucus meeting Wednesday will be virtual and an update on the number of NDP MPs allowed in the House will come later in the day.

Bloc Quebecois spokesperson Julien Coulombe-Bonnafous said the Blocs caucus will meet in person Wednesday, respecting all the sanitary measures in force. He added that all MPs and staff who attend are fully vaccinated.

Beyond that, Coulombe-Bonnafous said the Bloc will remain cautious and will adjust, as we have done since the start of the pandemic, depending on developments and public health recommendations.

Conservative whip Blake Richards said his caucus will also meet in person on Wednesday. He made no commitment to take any other steps, other than to say As always, Conservatives will continue to abide by all current public health guidelines.

Both the Conservatives and the Bloc argued last month for a full return to normal, in-person operations of the House and its committees, complaining that the hybrid format used previously during the pandemic allowed cabinet ministers to escape opposition scrutiny.

Over Tory and Bloc objections, Liberals and New Democrats joined forces to approve a resumption of the hybrid format, giving MPs the option of participating virtually in proceedings.

Nevertheless, since the new parliamentary session opened three weeks ago, most of the countrys 338 MPs have been showing up in the Commons in person. They are required to wear masks which must be removed when an MP is voting but the close seating arrangements make it impossible to maintain two metres of physical distance between MPs when the chamber is crowded.

As of Tuesday evening, Holland said the Liberals will allow only 25 to 30 MPs at any given time to be sitting on their side of the chamber, including what he called a robust cabinet presence. The rest will participate remotely via video conference.

He argued that the emergence of the highly transmissible Omicron variant proves the wisdom of retaining the hybrid format.

What is clear as we continue the fight against COVID-19 is that nothing is predictable, Holland said.

One of the things that I said when we were pushing for the importance of hybrid provisions is that we have to remain flexible and adapt as the public health circumstance changes.

Holland said there may be more changes coming to adapt to the wildfire spread of the Omicron variant, including potentially requiring anyone entering the Commons precinct to have received a third booster shot, in addition to the current double vaccination requirement.

He did not rule out the possibility of extending Parliaments six-week holiday break if the Omicron wave of the pandemic gets much worse, as public health experts fear. The break is to begin Friday evening and is currently scheduled to continue until Jan. 31.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 14, 2021.

Note to readers: Corrects name of Bloc Quebecois spokesperson

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

View post:
Omicron rapid spread prompts Liberals to limit number of ...

Brent Stirton, Getty Images

A CBS poll released on New Years weekend shows that four in 10 Democrats consider Republicans to be the enemy rather than just political opposition, and one that threatens their entire way of life.

Even more Republicans feel that way about Democrats. And the numbers are higher still among ideological liberals and conservatives.

The CBS News/YouGov survey included questions on how people feel about the events of Jan. 6, 2021 a year later, including what word or phrase best describes what took place. One question, asked of each party about the other, could say a lot about just how divided Americans will remain in the weeks and months ahead.

The survey found that 43% of Democrats feel Republicans are not simply political rivals but genuine enemies who pose a real threat to their way of life. One year on from the Capitol breach, 57% of Democrats think of Republicans as simply political opposition.

When you look at the results by ideology it climbs, with 51% of self-identifying Democrats who are liberals saying they consider Republicans a threat and an enemy, versus 49% who selected political opposition to describe Republicans.

Republicans felt the same way about Democrats by 48% to 52%. That is, approximately half of Republicans consider Democrats a threat, and half think only that Democrats would prevent Republicans from achieving policy goals.

Looking at the right by ideology, 50% of self-identifying Republicans who are conservatives selected enemy to describe Democrats, and 50% went with simply political opposition.

Its not all bad news, said CBS in its own article about the poll, writing that, not all partisans think of the opposition as enemies threatening their way of life. Those who do tend to be more ideological, though. CBS also notes that few Americans favor the idea of a so-called national divorce.

So theres that.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Follow this link:
Almost Half of Adults See Other Party as Enemies, Threat