The Weekly Cheek
The Weekly Cheek

Episode · 9 months ago

59. Would you fight for the rights of an antivaxxer?


In this episode, we're talking about the importance of upholding democracy even if it means supporting causes that go against everything you stand for. 

Find us online at and on socials @cheekmediaco

Hello, I'm Christ and Parison Otto and I'm hard of Ferguson and where, Co founders of Cheek Media Co. This is the weekly Cheek podcast. You know their advisors. They have to know their shit. I mean what we're seeing is that they don't. Yeah, they're like a WHO shelved. Who's the chicken brains? Who are the brains behind this operation? Yeah, true, who? I don't think they're the fucking people were electing. I don't think I'd fight to the death anything except like chips. Before we start the PODCAST, I'd like to acknowledge that we are on stolen and unseated lands of the Yaga and turable people. I'd also like to mention that cheek MEDIAC fully endorses the ULARY statement from the heart and an inshrined voice in the constitution for first nations. Welcome back to the weekly cheek welcome. So in this episode we're going to be talking all about the Moqui Se de Maquasy, and to begin I have some little questions for you. All right, iving it's on a quiz. It's just a Qui's just quite. It's my opinion. Okay, in your opinion, is it worse? I guess I would like. What do you object to the most? God, a, someone who votes lmp because their parents do. Be Someone who votes lmp because they know and like their policies. Or see someone who votes lmp he because they don't like any of the other candidates and they're the least bad in their opinion. That's really hard. Who what do I object to the most? Yeah, B really, I object to the person who stands by their policies because they believe in those values. Right, they understand, they comprehend and they choose. I think that a and see other people that you talk to interesting, very, very interesting. Actually. HMM. Okay, what what about? I'm going to ask you a follower. Okay, is it, and you might see these as the same thing, and that's okay. Is it worse to a vote a lmp because you know and like their policies, or be vote lmp because you like the values of the individuals within the party? I is worse policies were still because they don't match. So when we talk about liberal nationals, I feel like the values that they preach and not the values that are reflected in their policy. There's all about Christian values, right. They're not like. Okay, this is really gonna upset me. I am agnostic, but I grew up in a Christian house, sold that went to church. Right, the values that Christians preach, if lived out accurately, are quite lovely. Right. But I don't believe that the policies that the lmp create and filth and put through government and into legislation, I don't believe that those actually aligne accurately with my understanding of the values that they attempt to proclaim that they reflect. Right. So, like we talked about like, Oh, you know, will we have Christianizer's put it the religious discrimination bill, which allows, you know, like people to go and preach their beliefs to others that are not of that religion. So say, a a priest might be able to say to a woman that she has to submit to her husband or a priest or. You know, any religious member of the public who identifies of the faith could go and say, you know, and this is one of the examples, I remember using a guardian article, all that disability is God's way of testing you or something. They can go out and say these things and I just think that protecting people and in giving them their ability... say this and the protecting their fucking freedom of speech in inverted quotations that that is not the values that you proclaim to like, reflect and live out in your life. Like. I just don't think that they're accurate and that they are that they translate. So I think my issue is the policy is the evil. The values themselves, the way they what they say they represent and what they actually are, different from values themselves. On the problem is the way they think that they should act to reflect those values. So I'm saying the policies was because the policy is the thing that affects us in our everyday lives as well. Interesting. I think it's a hard one, but I have a different answer for both questions. Okay, mine is the worst person is the person who votes because their parents vote, because it means that you've put in no critical thought of your own. Yes, and then the second one. I am more opposed to people who are drawn to the LP because they're their values, because in my opinion, I don't give a fuck what they say. In my opinion their values are racism, sexism, Homophobia, and I think that is reflected in everything that they do. But but this is my point. I think was is that the things that the Liberal Party claims to represent are like the economy and and I get like conservatism itself and Blah Blah, blah, Blah Blah. And I can understand in theory why someone might like these ideas, but the actual values are different. Yeah, so, I but I think it's I think it's different because I think that the homophobia in the racism and the sexism comes out in the policy. Agree. So I think that's why I say policy agree, and I think we yeah, we can agree on that. It's because for me, like if someone says that they vote liberal because they got a really good tax break on their business in the last term, I just think that that, for me, it's like so, you know enough about it that you know you got a tax break because of the Liberals. Again, I might not have been true, but whatever. But I just think that it's really wrong to place that above the fact that they do espouse like sex as, homophobic, racist values. But it's much of a much iness, honestly, because it again, it does come out in the policy, like the religious discrimination bill. But I do disagree with you quite hard on the vote. Like parents think, I think it's more annoying that you vote like your parents and that you don't have critical thought. But I think that we aren't underestimate how many eighteen year olds might feel like that. Interesting. You say that because there's another question coming up. I might Oh, it is the next one. Okay, intro to the question. This is like. There have been suggestions of having optional in Australia, Optional Voting from eighteen to twenty one and then mandatory voting from twenty one and on woods. So that is where the question is based. In would you rather, Hey, eighteen to twenty one year olds vote having never researched nor having any interest in politics, or be maintain mandatory voting for everybody from eighteen mandatory? Interesting. I say that because I think that we then lean towards America, which is that your first job was to convince people to vote the first place. Right, but I think that the fact that you and and again this person, this perspective might lose elections. Right, me and but I then again. Actually don't think that our bracket is the reason we'd lose elections. But anyway, my view one. It is. I would prefer to just have the conversation about who you're voting for, that have the conversation about voting and then who you're voting for. Hmmm. I think that we should encourage people to be engaged from a young age and, while that's not necessarily happening, I think that mandatory voting from eighteen is like. I think that's the thing to do. I think that, you know, young people should feel included from the conversation and not like, oh well, just if you're interested and as much as most people. I mean I'm talking, I'm both probably a small minority of young people who really give a shit about politics. But I think that starting at at an early age and engaging at early age is the best thing and I think that we would I would like to maintain. What about the potential of starting mandatory... at twenty one? No, I thought you would say that. I just think you're a legal adult and you should be engaged in society. Also, you're a young person. You, as a young person, were engaged already, so that's where I aspected. But he's a thing. My brother turned eighteen on Sunday, HMM, and when I went home for Christmas, he didn't. He was like, what's Labor and liberal and I was like, I fucking run a media company that you can follow. Have I done nothing? Well, if you go back a few episodes to our feminist confessions, you'll know who. I've read it for when I was eighteen. But again, I think should have been a leagal. The most important thing was that you voted. Yeah, and my research. I wanted to vote and I couldn't because I was eighteen two weeks after the election, and then I waited till I was basically twenty one and I was stop set by it. So Sad. And again, whilst my brother might walk in there and vote for who knows. Now we've had the conversation. I was like lay and I will ring him on election day, and my mom actually text me to say so. We just enrolled him to vote other sex. Really Nice, right. And it's like, although I'm his sister, so I'm an insane person and will be ringing him about this and talking to him about this. It was like that's an easier conversation because I would find it really hard to get him to vote if he didn't have to. True, so, and that's a very specific, circumstantial anaget about my family, but like that's my perception of it is that we should engage people from the start and encourage it from the start. I also guess I wonder what are the chances that the stats of people who just don't enrolled to vote would go up? Yes, it was only optional from em eighteen to twenty one. I think it is like that's that's I agree. That would be a huge problem. Yeah, so once you got to twenty one you might be like yeah, haven't done it yet, who cares? But then it's like you had a fine. Yeah, but you'd have to be, have, to be enrolled for them to find you. Really just kidding? Every run enrolled a vote or you get a fun you go to jail. That's joke. Fully good reasons, all right. Would you rather a see genuine consultation within the community ahead of any legislative changes? When I say genuine, I mean like it's actually listen to or be have a panel of experts in the field making all the calls? I don't like it, because I think both are necessary. Expand please. Well, I think that no matter what level of government you're talking about, the communication with the community is vital. HMM. But also consulting with experts and ensuring that we're not just in a fucking facebook group war about what the speed limit on a road should be like. I think there's there's power to both and I think that it's it can be really hard to reach a conclusion when there's polarizing opinions in those different areas. But I think that it's elitist to only allow experts to have input on what should happen to a community that doesn't affect them. Spice. I don't think that spicy, though, I think, because who whood tend to be the experts? Yeah, white men. And how do I get there? Not necessarily because they are the expert, because they've had the privilege to get there. Right, and I'm not saying that that's the way it is for everything, but I think that it's who the experts are. Can Be really subjective and really the product of privilege and all these other things. I think that just consulting with experts as elitist and can be. Yeah, it's really just academic inflation in a sense, and that you can be like that was. I think they're just just consulting with the community. You may never reach a conclusion that benefits the whole if you're just consulting with a small group of people that give a fuck about whether a park goes in or not. It depends what the issue is. I think it depends on the issue, and I think this is probably most like obviously applicable for local government. Yeah, and they do hold consultation, but they don't consult very well. It's not two way. All right, how far would you go to defend the right to protest in a case where it's anti vaxes who are potentially being restricted a to the end? Be wouldn't try it all. See, would try for a while, but not the...

...hill I would die on. And See requires you to expand the right to protest is crucial. Hm, so you would do, but fight to the death? Here's the thing. Fight to the death is strong. I don't think I'd fight to the death anything except like ships. Would you say? Would you take it as far as it could could be taken? Here's the thing. This is really hard because, for example, I went to the black lives matter protest in June of two thousand and twenty when there were mandates, but we, I believe we weren't preaching any in know, in Brisbane and that's why I attended. Yeah, if there were health orders in place and I would be breaching the by attending, I probably would have reconsidered whether I went. Yep, I wasn't able to go to the invasion day rallies in the twenty six of January because I had covid yeah, that's just following health orders, saying nice and also protecting everyone who's other alley. Yep, Lee. I don't agree with protesting in it depends on like. I'm not like all you must follow every fucking rule, but when we're, you know, looking at Fiftyzero cases a day and you're protesting, fuck off right. But otherwise, like, as long as you if you can manage to protest by fault and follow health orders, go for your life. I understand that you have a right to protest and you want to protest the vaccine from the lockdowns. Go for your life. Don't fucking injure horses. Don't fucking injure other people. M and, yeah, this is what I mean. It's the way you protest. I probably wouldn't defend it's like if people are peacely protesting for their rights, whatever, go ahead, whether I agree with it or not. But the way they were protesting and the way that they were going against the specific health orders, I don't have respect for. Okay, is a really complicated question and I the right to protest is one of the hills I would die on. Technically, yes, follow up question. Imagine there's this is a good questions, but it hurts. This is in a non covid world. Yeah, they're people who were fighting for the right to protest. Are Anti Choices. Does your answer change? No, what about? I can't. Haven't got any other examples. And this is the thing is that, like, I hate these people. I hate them. Yeah, I fucking hate them. Go home. Literally, no one gives a fuck. Okay, and they think the exact same thing about me. Yeah, all right. Final question. Do you think any men should be involved in policy pertaining exclusively to women? Yeah, WHOO hoops. Well, I'm not, like. That's what why I'm years ago, I don't think that. What kind of people were kind of men, like, what roles should they play? I actually just don't think that, like I would if it okay, if we're talking about I guess it also depends on what policy were talking about to do with women. Right for talking about women's safety in the work. But I think it's crucial that men are involved. But I think it's crucial that in pushing forward the policy, in developing the policy right, because I think that, and I'm not so, I know this is really binary. Apologies, no, that's is about to be my point. I think that is very binary. I think that people who aren't non binary should also should be much more prominent voice than men. Yeah, I think that we should have, we should be those these sorts of policy should be represented by the entire gender spectrum. But my point would be that I think, and this is not necessarily what Ey, as a woman, want to hear myself say, but I think that including men in the conversation is crucial. Doing shown at the conversation spreads far and wide, M and I think that having a man at the table many less than women and people who are non binary. But I think that in order to implement it well, we need... have men across it and on board. And it's unfortunate, because I do, but it's also the kind of thing where, if we're developing policy about man, I don't know, to be excluded from the conversation really yeah, because I think our perspect it was really valuable. HMM. The thing is, I've never thought about that. Actually, this is what I'm saying, like if we we were yet a fool developing a policy about men's violence or something. H I think it's crew should have women have input on that. Yeah, right, if we want to protect our well, that's about women. Then if we're talking about women's reproductive rights, I don't think the men should have a say. That's what I was thinking in my head. I guess it depends on what it is, of course. Yeah, in terms of reproductive rights, I don't like and I think that SIS men should not be should be like outside of the room. Do you agree with that? You know, what I think is hard about that is that, like all my experiences the male doctors and surgeons and things has been pretty bad. Really. Yeah, I just don't have like I have much better experiences with women when it comes to my healthcare. Yeah, so I don't trust men. HMM. And I'm not saying every man who talks about reproductive rights has a bad it has ill intention. Yeah, I think that it's just my personal experience doesn't really lend itself to the conversation, then, does it like well, because for me, I had one of the best doctor I had when I was like getting on the Pill for the first time was a man. He was the one who listened to me the most. Yeah, like I had a female doctor, woman doctor, who was like, Oh, I know that you're like seriously bleeding and like your mood swings are out of control, but like just give it another little while. And then I went back again and I saw a man and I was like this is ampny and it's not fun, and he was like, Oh, like, get off it. Yeah. So, however, my opinion is that any kind of professional man that you could get in the room if you're talking about reproductive rights, it could be a woman. Yes, agreed, like women are doctors. Guess, two thousand and Twenty Chink. That's one of the exclusive conversations where it does really just let itself to people who were women or nonbinary. Right, but I think that when we talk about like workplace rides and women saved in the workplace, we're talking about women save in the workplace, but those that legislation, the policies are trying to implement affect men to yeah, so it's like, well, it's a man could be sexually rest in the workplace. It's not exclusively our conversation. I was thinking, like they're usually the perpetase. You also absolutely, but they can. What I'm be saying is they can't be like lock the door, keep them out, because it does affect them. Yeah, I mean not in the numbers. I'm not even trying to compare it or satain. It's you know, there's like one happens to men to one in third. But I think that like there's a difference. To talk about women's bodies, HMM, and those other sort of things like violence against women, and I obviously it's against women, but I think that when we talk about violence and perpetrators, men also perpetrator get a man. Yeah, well, I guess, and my question actually did have exclusively to women. So I guess, like what I'm talking about issues exclusively affecting women. I'm not talking about violence because that is not exclusive exactly. Yeah, I got you mean. I don't know. I don't know enough about legislating reproductive rights either. HMM, because WHO's the panel of experts? Yeah, and I get what you're saying. Any man on that panel could be replaced by a woman. But, like, is what I don't know. Other there, I don't think INS and out for the medical boards. Do you know? Another interesting thing that I've been that I have, I have a problem with, but I don't think it's able to be solved, is like when these MP's like, okay, you're like the the minister for education or the Minister for health, like I'm going to say they don't have a background in it. They don't, and I get it, like you can't have like. It doesn't work like that, because otherwise, because here I am, I'm arguing for for democracy, and like the people in charge should know what the fuck that they're doing. But then, like, in order to actually achieve a world where the health minister does have a background in health, like, you'd have to it wouldn't be a fair election. It would be it would have to be like some kind of like rigged set up... make sure that there was someone covering all of these aspects. It would you'd have to overturn the entire thing. Here's the thing. I actually think that you're giving too much weight to how much these ministers do yeah, and how much is just the product of advice they've been given by their team, I know, but then that annoys me too. It's like your team, I didn't elect your team. Generally, while there's not concrete rules, people are designated to areas they have expertise in. But what about every fucking cabinet shuffle we've seen? This is what I mean. It's not like it's not a hard and fast rule. But, for example, like the Attorney General is like, you know, the highest officer of the law in the country, right, but they have to be, don't they don't, but they generally only pick people with a legal background. Christian border was a crown prosecutor, you know the historically, they pick people who are strong legal figures, and most politicians do have a Lord agree. It's like it's I don't know if it used to be like forty percent, ounced twenty five, but it's a lot of people, right. Yeah, so it's like there's there's a lot to pick from, but then you get to like the resources minister, at things and you might be looking bit slim. Yeah, yeah, arts, there's some things. How many people who are in the arts on going to politics? Not Scott More Peter Garrett, but I think it's like they try. Oh, I mean I don't know. I don't think they do. I think it seems practical to hut like the Minister for youth, is usually not an old fuck. Yeah, I guess I. Yes, I just don't think. I don't know. If I was polished, I wouldn't mind trying my hand a different things. But I also get that that's really ridiculous thing to say. But because the problem for me is then all of the decisions are coming up through your team. Were who were not elected officials. We didn't elect them. Christian. That like, I know it's an unsolvable problem with not so onsolvable. I just think that that's a really interesting take on all of this. Like, I think these people are, you know, their advisors. They have to know their shit. I mean what we're seeing is that they don't hear. They're like the shelve to. Who's the chicken brains? Who are the brains behind this operation? Yeah, true, who? I don't think they're the fucking people were electing. It's the part like the parties, of the power in terms of a lot of the advisors have more power than the politicians. I don't I think the party has the most power, like the National Secretary of the Party in the two in for the parties, national secretary. Yeah, of the parties of the like of the Labor Party and the Oh, yeah, really, I mean I think that most of it comes through, like strategy, comes through the parties. Yeah, particularly around election time. Look, I just don't want to make a call on because I don't know enough about it. Well, I'm guessing. I mean it's hard. How do you measure power when you're not in there? Where a mole. They're going in as the little rapt imagine I have. I would love the cover boss, but wish that in the team. It's Prob a mustache. I'm walking through. That's my only disguys. We are actually looking for an informant in the Liberal Party. So if that, if you're interested, please email arm for it. I'm not kidding seriously, we will keep you anonymous and we will we will set up some type of Secret Code Messaging System. I think the point, at the point of all my questions was like how far do we go? Okay, so what I actually think? WHOA? I think that so different views. I think and not. Look, I know this is like a bit of a fucked thing to say in the wake of trump, but and he's like obstruction of democracy. But I think there are some progressive lefty people who occasionally get dangerously close to arguing against democracy. What do you mean? Well, I mean like the argument that's just like, Oh, all these people are so fucking dumb, I wish they didn't vote, or I wish they couldn't vote.

Oh, absolutely, like we can't, like, we can't have that mental and that we can't do that in like look, I fucking hate the government. Okay, I hate the Liberal Party. I hate the National Party just as much, or maybe more. I hate the LMP, I hate it all. But I think that it is really important to remember that they are a reflection of society. Like it is our fellow man, rally man, it's a fellow was strands who have voted for these people, and it is they're right, and I think that it's wrong to ever try and get in the way of that right. I actually think that when people say things like that, it's a cop out. It's the easy way out there, saying I'd rather people not vote if it's not going to be my way, and I think that that actually is a telltale sign of not believing in your argument. Enough or not having the strengthen your convictions to argue the point, because I think that saying, like, I wish they wouldn't vote, is you saying will like I can't convince them, so, like, let's fucking get rid of them, get rid of them. Yeah, and like to be honest, that and I think what we've talked about before a lot is some people go so far left at they end up on the right exactly, and I think that that's an example of that, because these are the people that want to limit our ability to vote. Yeah, they want to, you know, increase the voter ID laws and, you know, push people out so that their votes are the ones that are amplified and that people who are in vulnerable positions don't vote. Is often right, and I think that that argument is similar. Yeah, I think that saying, like all these people shouldn't be allowed to vote, although I might think it in my head every day, when I see, fuck, it's on the Internet, I think, Oh my God, who let you out? You know? HMM, that is me failing to argue my own point. That's what I think when I have no energy to thank other things. That's the thing I believe in. What our values are so much that I'm like, everyone'll get there. Yeah, I want to try and convince people as much as it can be exhausting. You're right, these people are elected for a reason. I don't believe they'll be elected to them. I believe that this country, over the past three years, has seen what has happened and I believe that more people are on side with our views. Right, let him vote, let him all vote, let's see what happens, and I'm all that. I will probably cry on election day just seeing the number of votes at the LMP still gets yeah, but and we're going to do an event. We're not sure yet, but we're going to do something. We're going to doing any something. will be out at the booths, we will be so the boods. So I can't wait. Honestly, I cannot wait. I'm so excited. I was also are scared. I'm know it can't be tomorrow. We're not prepared, queen, we're not prepared. No one is prepared. No, but I believe I'm going to win. Yes, and by we I mean not the LMP. Oh, fine, I both Dagon. It's might go over time. What's the what's the role in the value of an independent. Oh yes, so I've heard people talking about how, like independent, if you're going to vote independent, emails were to throw away your vote. That's mean, for starters, exactly like I've run as an independent. So fucking hard, by the way, like literally nobody is helping you. But anyways, moving on. The system is is against independence. But I think that that idea that if you're voting independent, you should throw away your vote first of all ignores the fact the preferential voting fucking exists. And there. We did an episode a few weeks to go called the power of the power of one vote. Listen to that one if you haven't already. We talked about pre frinchial voting and how it works. So first of all, like you can put an independent one and you can put a major party two, and then the vote more likely go to the major party. So the facts right, first of all. But I think the other thing is, like there is a serious product. I understand the argument, because independence in the House and in the Senate can throw a spanner in the works because it means...

...that like a party, politic party legislation of policies can't just get way through because they've got the majority, they actually have to fucking convince other people who are not like not on their payroll but like who are not already in the tent, that they have to agree with them, which, honestly, I don't think is the worst thing. Like, I get it. I understand that people who are more loyal to look to a major party would have a problem with that. Yeah, but again, like, I think that also is abstraction of democracy. Yeah, like, it's not. They're real. We have independence in the Senate, in the House and in every state parliament in this country, or territory parliament. What do you call it when it's territory, every every jurisdiction of parliament, every level, local as well. There are so many places in the nation and that have only independence at local accountil level. Yeah, obviously they have allegiances, but it's like not official. So I just I think that a lot of the time people will vote independent when they are tired of the major parties and feel let down by the major parties, which I think is really sad, a sad indictment on the major parties, but I also think it is legitimate and it also side not I'd much rather someone vote an independent than like conservative minor party like Palmer or hands terrible GB's exactly, and I just think that like because there. Yeah, the argument is like, if you get it, if an independent gets into a seat, then they are going to get in the way of major parties getting their way and I don't necessarily think that you can make a blanket statement that that's a bad thing. Yeah, so vote for whoever you want to vote for, Queens, but make sure you number all the boxes, because the likelihood of an independent getting up is very small and the senator is also very important. Exactly, exactly, exactly, and it's actually a time and I put yeah, if you didn't find us a completely insufferable come back next Wednesday for a new episode. Could also find this on instagram at cheek media co or online cheek Mediacom. Donate you, yes, but that's the one.

In-Stream Audio Search


Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (97)