Tradesman insurance brokers qld tutc
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is Australia's largest political donor, according to new disclosures published on Thursday. The disclosures, from the period covering the last federal election, have finally been published — more than a year and a half after voters filled out their ballots. Malcolm Turnbull's Coalition won the election by securing a slim, one-seat majority in Parliament.
Both payments were not formally made until after the election. Experts have called for a system of real-time disclosure to improve transparency, however the timing of Mr Turnbull's donations highlights potential flaws within such a scheme. Even real-time disclosures would not have revealed the campaign funding from the Liberal leader until after the election. Dr Charles Livingstone from Monash University said any donations disclosure reform must cover "promises" of funding.
The scheme does not require multiple donations to different entities of the same party to be disclosed, meaning the source of millions in political funding remains unknown. Figures for the major parties were up compared to values, despite the period covering only the final two days of the election campaign. First posted February 01, If you have inside knowledge of a topic in the news, contact the ABC. ABC teams share the story behind the story and insights into the making of digital, TV and radio content.
Read about our editorial guiding principles and the enforceable standard our journalists follow. This week Splendour in the Grass released its massive line-up, athletes went missing from the Commonwealth Games and Nick Xenophon's party got a new name. See how much you remember in our quiz. It's warmer than average and we'll have to wait at least another month until service returns to normal for much of the country, according to the weather bureau.
By political reporter Jackson Gothe-Snape. Malcolm Turnbull explained his donation in saying, "I put my money into ensuring that we didn't have a Labor government". The POV tag is dated July The matter may have been satisfactorily addressed by interval modifications. As far as I can tell the major themes addressed on the talk page have reached resolution. Your further thoughts are accordingly solicited.
After having read this article it strikes me as odd that there can be so much emphasis on the slavery aspects and no mention whatsoever of the fact that many of the "servants" sent here by Britain were actually convicted criminals and until the revolution North America was being used as British penal colony and indentured servitude was a large part of that program.
Since the article on penal colonies links here for more information one would think that it would be addressed in some manner on this page. The article currently claims that indentured servitude is illegal within the USA, which is generally but not completely true.
I did a bit of research last year and found a document containing language that demonstrates the indentured nature of military service which I feel I should point out is significantly different from slavery. Yet when I post these facts, they are deleted as irrelevant. I would like some advice on how we can work together to improve this article.
Thanks, Mwenechanga talk I re-added the Wikipedia requisite bolded title to the lede. Somebody seems to have deleted it, as well as the reference to unfree labor , which is precisely what indentured servitude is. It is not slavery, but not free labor either; the term defines unfree labor as specifically including contractually-mandated labor designed to "work off" a debt, in this case the debt of travel costs from Europe to the colonies.
Again by contract, the laborers were considered as the same status as children or "indigent workers", both of which were subject to the whims of their employer, including free application of corporal punishment and other punishments no free man would stand for. Please don't delete it again. The term was created with indentured servitude specifically in mind. Vintovka Dragunova talk Should this article discuss the "indentures" on legal documents that gave the term its name?
Now, that may have been the case in the United States. Because Indentured servants were considered property, indentured labor is also an output of property. How is this different from slavery? This should just become a lease on slaves--thus taking away the risk of loss of property the death of slaves and allows for better production value.
Cromwell's Irish who were "Barbadosed", in time we have forgotten that yes some were indentured yet some were sold as outright slaves until death. Furthermore, some of those that were indentured by Cromwell were never given a time period and labored until the end of their lives.
To Hell or Barbados. Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl. There are document instances. Documented instances can be counted, I can't cite this. Why does white slavery historical redirect to indentured servitude? It was not indentured servitude, it was slavery, pure and simple. Until the s the majority of slaves in the Americas were Irish or Scottish, not Africans. These historical facts deserve to have an article, not to be swept under the rug.
How is slavery "pure and simple? You can't rewrite history. My professor is correct. I cannot use this as a source. This statement is factually untrue. However, the redlegs are an example of white slavery as caused by Cromwell.
White slavery is not indentured servitude, and it is often ignored. Which leads to misunderstandings like those expressed in the preceding statement. The link should be changed. The white slavery article should not forward to indentured servitude. It is well known that Rome, Greece, England etc, used White slaves. They were not "servants. Although the majority of slaves in the Americas were not Scottish or Irish, they did exist.
Ok, please cite it. I too agree that to forward the 'White slavery' page automatically to the indentured servitude one is highly irresponsible and historically inaccurate.
White slaves did exist and they were in no way indentured servants, they were whole property unto death. There are a lot of factually incorrect statements in this article, particularly under the heading "America. They were typically aged between 6 and 11 years old when they were shipped from England to the US under the belief that they would have a better life in the US.
A HUGE majoraty didn't survive the crossing and even fewer lived to see their days as a free person. I cannot link to this because it is all the archives in Virgina The records are there in their orignal form in Virgina and this article is grossly midleading. It suggests that being an indentured servant was favourable and most servants benefitted from it. It wasn't wasn't and they didn't and as such you are doing a disservice to those that were part of it and those that wish to understand it by getting your facts wrong.
Think about the opportunity cost of having one more body aboard the ship. There was very little difference in cost for the captain to have 15 or 20 boys, so in hopes that he could sell more contracts they would usually overload. Huge majority does sound like an overstatement to me though. Well to just blow this thing wide open, "White slavery" is not only largely a fallacy, its a pretty meaningless term.
What "White Slavery" enthusiasts call slavery was in fact, in almost all cases, 16th to 19th century indentured servitude, convict labor, or serfdom--all of which are different forms of 'unfree labor' but they were not slavery. Yes all kinds of people have been enslaved and discriminated against throughout world history, going way, way back, and they have been of all races, nationalities and religions, etc.
But the term "White slavery" is so unspecific that it serves no purpose. For instance, the people the Romans enslaved--were they all "white"? Did they all share a common culture? They were very distinct peoples--language, ethnicity, etc. Were they all the same because they were "White"? Obviously, not all slavery at all times has been based on race, although the most recent, largest, and most advanced slave system ever in the world African slavery in the Americas from circa to s clearly was.
And we are still living with the aftereffects of this system--lingering racism and inequality in numerous countries. Russians don't think of themselves as "white," nor do Hungarians, or Greeks, or Cyprians, or Italians, or Finns, etc.
They don't all share the same language, religion, culture or identity as, say, people from Colorado or New Hampshire. The only people hung up on "White slavery" are usually Americans who feel Blacks in their country are getting preferential treatment because of their supposed 'victim' status--that they underwent slavery and Jim Crow segregation and therefore their rights require legal protection. And these proponents are actually upset about the loss of 'white entitlement'--they think it's a raw deal that they are not getting some kind of imagined 'perques' they feel African Americans get.
They feel cheated so they comb through history to find examples of "whites" being oppressed and use it as a justification for repealing civil liberties extended to African Americans.
My ID is Breeze These indentured servants were criminals, political dissidents and people who couldn't afford the trip to the new world. This is what is taught, because it can be proven. Moreover, it is still going on. July 14 , The concept of creating special benefits to persons of any race due to genealogical heritage is promotion of racism, nepotism, and aristocracy.
I would have to disagree with Breeze's argument, the argument made is weak seeing as Africa through out history is a content that contained many races and languages long before slavery ever took hold.
There is great arrogance to believe that one race being abducted and enslaved is not equal to the plight of another race that was abducted and enslaved is further evidence of racism. White slavery, Caucasian slavery, political prisoner slavery, indentured servant.
These are all forms of slavery, where rights have been taken or stolen with fraudulent documentation when needed or no documentation at all. While even today there is the legal precept that one can enter into contract and give up their rights, if said rights are natural and unalienable, no person could ever sign their rights away, as such no court could ever order a person to labor or be subject to a debt that cannot be repaid.
As such credit systems would fail along with mortgages and auto loans,forcing real market prices based upon manufacturing costs not what the market can bear due to credit inflation. Debt slavery is the nuanced adaptation of slavery practices used globally against all races of people by those with the power and resources to enforce it. While the conditions are pleasurable by comparison to the torture and outright murder those experienced in earlier eras, the precept of mans unalienable right to the listed "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" would outlaw credit systems, it's important to pay attention to the declaration of independence as it also has the line "among them" meaning that there are likely more rights that could be listed.
It does not naturally relate that a free market or capitalist market would charge more because someone else is paying, debt as such is a socialized form of governance that has lead to insurance.
The origins of America were entrepreneurship, by means of work, save, buy, expand, very quickly after it's independence England conspired to corrupt the American nation subsidizing a slave industry that guaranteed inequality and undermined human rights. This information can be found by researching the commissioning of slave vessels, and the use of the Caribbean islands mainly owned by England as import locations. However, convicts were not the only indentured servants, and to say that they are the "only" ones is ignorant.
In our history, many labor movements proved that the greatest population of indentured servants came from the Chinese and Indians. Looking at the global scale, the British were the developers of this system, which became implemented in America after slavery was abolished. There is a concrete evidence in history of Chinese immigrants moving to California and being bound to contracts indentured servitude. These immigrants were usually bound for a limitless amount of time. They worked on rail roads and jobs that required very hard physical labor.
In our society today, I do not believe it is relevant to say that taking away someones rights means they partake in the term indentured servant. A prisoner in America still has rights. What you have described is more of a terrorist who has no rights because he is declared a "terrorist.
They do not work for "free" because they work for food and to pay off their debt to society for the actions they committed. Indentured servitude is not slavery because, in slavery, one race is oppressing the other in every aspect of life. The oppressed race are not granted rights and are seen as aliens. You have included some lines of the Declaration of Independence in an attempt to prove your case, but you are not clearly stating the connection between indentured servitude in connection to slavery and race.
The forms of servitude correlate with one another, but are different in nature as seen in history. Was it legal in any Western country to treat indentured servants as slaves? Could they be forced to work so hard that they were completely worn out before the end of their contracts? Could they be sexually abused, locked up, battered, possibly even killed, without running any risk of being put on trial for it? I just wondered if there was any real difference between being an indentured servant and being a slave?
The word "treat" should not be overinterpreted. I have ssen a lot of people complaining about treatment which is not actually comparabale to what they call it. What I really wondered was if indentured servants were in practice as lacking in legal rights as slaves.