links.mimuki.net

A collection of website seizure banners created by government agencies.

Unless a margarine sold in aus (not NZ) is explicitly vegan, it likely isn't (as supplemental vitD that's vegan is more expensive).

...Good to know.

So, mandatory questioning with a gag clause, very lightly used but "needed" amendment, of course.

Started out as being a terrorism only thing, got expanded to foreign interference/espionage... now it's "politically motivated violence, sabotage, and promotion of communal violence".

"The youths are hooning around in their cars, copying what they see in action movies and getting killed. This is bad."

"We could work on educating vulnerable demographics so that they understand what's being shown is extremely high-risk and not a good representation of reality... or we could ban action movies for everyone."

"I do quite like the sound of that last one, Minister."

The controversial film Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, was banned for decades in Australia but is getting a rare festival screening. Why are some films banned and what does the public lose when media is censored?

For someone so determined to live and live well, there's SO MUCH PAPERWORK associated with dying. Jeeeeez.

After you have died:

a person named in the will
a person named in an earlier will as a beneficiary
your surviving spouse, partner, child or stepchild
any former spouse or partner
your parents or guardians
anyone who would be entitled to a share of your estate had you died without a will
a parent or guardian of a child who is named in the will or would be entitled to a share of your estate had you died without a will
a person managing your estate under a guardianship or administration order immediately before your death.

Siiiigh. This sure opens a can of worms. I can legally exclude relatives, but they will get the whole thing (and can presumably harass any beneficiaries named and otherwise try to make a mess of things).

A Power of Attorney is a legal document that gives a person or an organisation the power to manage your assets and financial affairs while you are alive.

I can preemptively appoint someone. This is a 'sleeping' enduring power of attorney, and kicks in when a medical advisor decides I'm no longer able to manage my financial affairs.

If I don't have one, SACAT will appoint one for me.

Beneficiaries of my will are expected to have access to these things. This appointment doesn't have to be done in person, which is nice.

Used if I am [temporarily or permanently] considered unable to make my own decisions. Health care refusals are almost universally respected, and "um, no, don't take me to thinly-veiled conversion therapy [etc]" would be wise of me.

In short, in the context of sex:

M:

• Not recommended for under 15s, no legal restrictions
• Sexual activity may be "discreetly implied, if justified by context"

MA:

• Considered unsuitable for under 15s, with legal restrictions
  • I definitely bought MA video games as a teen without issue (though sometimes I did need my dad there)
• Sexual activity may be implied
• Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context

R:

• Considered unsuitable for under 18s, with legal restrictions
• Sexual activity may be simulated (i.e. the actors are not actually having sex)
• Sexual violence may be implied

X:

• Exclusively used for consensual sexual material (but nonsexual, high impact films can be R or RC)
• Illegal to possess in some parts of the NT (maybe? I think that law automatically sunset a few years ago and wasn't replaced?)
• Illegal to sell, rent, or exhibit in all states (but not the territories)
  • Thanks to the constitution, an ACT/NT store can knowingly sell to someone in other states and that's OK
• Sexual activity may be depicted, unless...
  • depictions of violence, sexual violence, sexualized violence, coercion, or sexually assaultive language is present
  • that includes consensual depictions which "purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers"
  • body piercing, "application of substances such as candle wax", "golden showers", bondage, spanking, or fisting are depicted
    • Why is this list so specific?
  • the actors are 18+ but look like minors, or are being depicted as minors

RC: (Refused Classification)

• Anything that fails the above restrictions, but also:
  • "activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent"
  • "incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent"
    • Why pretend-incest is singled out here but not in the exclusions of X ratings is beyond me.
• Broadcasting or selling this, or anything that would be RC if they tried to get it classified, is illegal (for the person selling/broadcasting)
  • I am fairly sure consuming or possessing it is not inherently illegal, unless you're in a juristiction where X-rated content is illegal to possess

See also:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2005L01284/latest/text

I already knew our porn laws were not great, but this, if true, is a whole other level of bullshit.

Official response:

Article contains scantily clad women in provocative poses, and some closeups of vulvas.

So the minister "must have regard for the safety of participants" when kneecapping their funding arbitrarily and applying a percentage modifier to an entire group of people...

...but if that change means someone is being funded less than the cost of the supports they need (which are both reasonable and necessary), it's all above board and explicitly OK. So that first part only exists to save face. Categories effected by that are "assistance with social, economic, and community participation" and "improved daily living skills". Which are the majority of my funding, so when old mate decides he's cutting those by 50% on a whim, my entire plan shrinks as much.

Potential loophole: if the minister makes a carveout for "supports in employment" (which is a 'may' carveout), request a plan review because I'm working towards independent employment and forgot to mention it. Which is not untrue.

Note: 200 pages into the explanatory notes is a tidbit that they will reduce these from the getgo:

Under this option SCCP budgets in old framework plans would be reduced by 50 per cent and CBDA budgets would be reduced by 10 per cent

Seems in general "reasonable and necessary" has become "reasonable and necessary, so far is consistent with the current government's whims the financial sustainability of the scheme".

Also the whole "only support needs caused by a disability that in itself qualifies the participant for the NDIS" thing? (i.e. I can't get funding for anything that isn't related to autism)

Yeah, that's been quietly changed from "arising from an impairment [that qualifies for the NDIS]" to "arising directly from an impairment". This is going to suck for me in particular, because many of my needs are inherently intersectional with my other issues, and not intrinsic to autism alone (even when they often coexist in that neurotype).

And there's a section about how supports are evaluated as "effective and beneficial to the participant": peer reviewed generalizable studies hold more weight than my own lived experience with a support being effective and beneficial. So if there's no or inconsistent studies about it... sucks to suck, my own life can still be determined to be insufficient evidence.

Also, if it is geographically or financially impossible for me to prove I've tried all 'appropriate treatments' to no success (i.e. my disability is permanent)? Sucks to suck. And if "a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory provides for compensation or other benefits for or in respect of the impairment"? Excluded from the NDIS entirely even if it otherwise qualifies. So if Thriving Kids expands to young adults, or a similar scheme appears... bad news. I think this even includes interstate supports only for residents of that state, thanks to the geographical access to appropriate treatments bit.

My current plan "ends" [not "is reassessed"] on the plan reassessment date (TODO: when?), or the minister can decide to do so sooner. I think this means I'll get a new one entirely unrelated to my current supports (or get booted) then?

Whee.

The party game of "$ACTION whenever the ABC newswriter misunderstands naming taboos and sorry business" is alive and well. I mean, it's a good gesture to put the disclaimer, but so soon after Kumanjayi Little Baby I would've assumed they'd remember that's a substitution name, the whole point of which being that you can say it.

Anyway, I lost track of this case a while back. It's gone about as well as I expected.

tldr: no one I want it to unless I jump hoops

The careful framing of "we only had one false positive in the first week" and [since June, across the entire trial] "we had 33 alerts and 18 arrests" is gross and overtly misleading. For all we know it's got an almost 50% false positive rate. Whee.

Details the crime & legal process that set this precident. Read with caution.