End of the ‘Green Dream’ for Victoria?

Posted on November 15, 2010 by SockPuppet

Dead men (& women) walking? What a shame they won't control our State Government.

Some days the news  just takes you from chocolates to boiled lollies … or from chardonnay to flat beer as the case may be:

The ABC’s election analyst, Antony Green, says the Coalition’s decision to preference the Greens last in the Victorian election will virtually destroy the minor party’s chances of winning seats in the Lower House and seizing the balance of power.

“The Liberal decision to preference against the Greens in all electorates is an in-principle decision which will deliver Labor the four inner-city seats where they are under challenge from the Greens,” he said. “Even if the Liberals don’t campaign strongly there will be little flow of preferences to the Greens and certainly not enough to defeat Labor in those inner-city seats.”

Gee, and we really needed the likes of multi-millionaire barrister Brian Walters and his brand of honest, ethical and unhypocritical representation on climate change. Walters is running for the very most inner of the inner-city seats being the seat of Melbourne itself and was tipped to head up the Vic Greens in State Parliament. Now it looks like he will just have to be satisfied with earning millions from the brown coal industry as their legal representative. 

Or Kathleen Maltzahn who wants to close the legal sex industry and make prostitution an unsafe, on-the-street, no-age-control, no health-check free-for-all. What a great idea. (Kate is on the far left … in the above photo too. Yes thats a woman).

How unfair of the Libs to block these fine people out of government. I have to agree with the Greens leading online advocate who thinks this is unfair & undemocratic:

What I do want is an electoral system in which a party getting 16% of the vote gets about 16% of the lower house seats, not 0%. What I want is an actual representative democracy. The Greens are getting plenty of support in the electorate – the problem is a system that takes our votes and distributes them to the big parties instead.

That’s what outrages me about the outcome that the Libs’ decision makes very likely. That the Greens are left begging for a single seat where, based on recent polls, they should have at least a dozen. Once again, a significant proportion of the Victorian electorate will be completely disenfranchised.

The electoral system needs to be changed, and replaced with an actual democracy.

Thats right, lets have a senate style system of voting in the lower house too that ensures minor parties like the Greens will hold the balance of power in both houses giving them a much better opportunity to force there minority policies onto the vast majority.

This two party system is just not fair. The Greens are right. They are always right. And they know better than the rest of us.

And if you dont agree then YOU ARE WRONG.

Just ask Jeremy. Hes always right too. …and you know it!

Posted in Australian Politics, Green Hypocrites, Guest post, Victorian State Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Hair-shirts to be mandatory for all, unless you want to “broaden your mind”

Posted on November 15, 2010 by Iain Hall

Kevin Andrews has written a most accurate analysis of the Australian Greens on the ABC’s “Drum unleashed” which goes straight to their own pronouncements to find the basis for their loopy policies. He correctly points out just why they are such a bad prospect for the future of this country. If you were wondering just where all of the crazy Marxists had gone over the last few years then wonder no more because they have reinvented themselves as the Greens.

The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.

Ecological Marxism

There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”. This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter:

“We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” [vi]

Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement.  By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.

Let me expand.

According to the Greens ideology, human dignity is neither inherent, nor absolute, but relevant. [vii] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now, leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not of our generation.” [viii]

Elsewhere, they equate humans with animals: “The revolutionary element in Green ethics is its challenge to us to see ourselves in universal terms… I must take into account the interests of others, on the same footing as my own. This is true, whether these others are Victorians or Queenslanders, Australians or Rwandans, or even the non-human animals whose habitat is destroyed when a forest is destroyed.” [ix]

What is revolutionary about this statement is not that the interests of another should be considered in an ethical judgment. Judeo-Christian belief extols consideration of others, as does Kant’s Golden Rule. Burke wrote of society being a compact across generations. What is revolutionary is the equation of humans and animals.

Peter Singer expands these notions in his other works on animal liberation. He charges that humans are guilty of ‘speciesism’, that is, preferring their own species over all others. It leads him to argue in favour of infanticide and doctor-assisted suicide on one hand; and bestiality on the other, provided there is mutual consent! [x]

Peter Singer’s influence is evident in the Greens’ ideology. The author of a series of books, including Animal Liberation, Singer not only co-authored the Greens’ manifesto with Bob Brown, but stood as a candidate for the party in the Kooyong in 1994, and subsequently as a Senate candidate. [xi]

Kevin Andrews

 

The sadly amusing thing about the Greens and their supporters is just how hypocritical and morally inconsistent they are when it comes to living the philosophy that they espouse. While being very keen on government provided hair-shirts to be mandatory they take great delight in enjoying the very things that they insist are “bad for the planet” like being a tourist who jets about the globe:
When challenged this Greenie cited the desire to see minds broadened as his reason for racking up frequent-flyer points:

 

 

You espouse the Greens party philosophy pretty much without any reservations and a central plank of that philosophy is the commitment to the notion of man made climate change and the suggestion that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of the problem.”#

That’s not what I’ve said, but anyway.

I’ve actually repeatedly noted that I’m a supporter of the Greens for their progressive social and economic policies, and that I’m with them on a push towards more action on the possibility of climate change more because ignoring it is a risk that is simply not worth taking – we’ve only got one planet.

“So you don’t have to have argued for restricting transport options for flying yourself to be an act of hypocrisy. Especially if that flight is for a rather trivial reason.”#

I don’t consider travel “a rather trivial reason”. I consider travel a very positive thing that broadens minds and should be encouraged. Governments should be encouraging the development of technologies that make such activities less impactful on the environment, certainly, but I’d never argue that they should be abandoned or discouraged.

“a dedicated Greenie such as yourself should be striving to be morally consistent in both their lives and their advocacy.”#

Yeah, how convenient for you to argue that. Because all you have to do to be consistent with your political philosophy is be a self-righteous, self-interested, selfish, intolerant, nasty git. Which you were planning on doing anyway.

(# these quotes within the quote are from my own comment that this particular Greenie is responding too  the link  is within the “hash”)

Now I ask you dear readers have you ever seen a worse case of  Sear sheer hypocrisy than the very obvious one in evidence here? When called on his ethical inconsistency all our learned friend can say is this:

“To do otherwise when you believe in the Greens philosophy is just outright hypocrisy no matter which way you try to spin it.”

No, it isn’t.

But he is just one poor sad inconsistent Greenie and his moral inconsistency would not matter a damn if it were not the case that so many of his fellow Greens party supporters did not think in precisely the same way and demonstrate precisely the same dedication to racking up the frequent flyer points.

Some one once said that “the truth shall set you free” well I hope that the truth of the evil underpinnings to the aims of the Greens party  becomes well enough known that we are set free from their influence on our political process. So look at what Kevin Andrews  tells us about their philosophy and be worried about just who wants to hand out the hair shirts for the rest of society, but take heart that there are Green supporters out there who are utter hypocrites like our learned friend because  their example will help to shatter the veneer of moral superiority that the Greens use to try to convince the electorate that they are warm and fuzzy “eco-angels” who only care about the future of the  planet when they are actually something that is toxic to our society and to our political process .

Cheers Comrades

 

 

Posted in AGW and climate change, Air travel and safety, Australian Politics, Carbon Trading, Ethical questions, Federal politics, Global Warming, Green Hypocrites, Leftism, Living with Nature, Marxism, Political Correctness, Scams, The Green religion, international politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Planning controls would require all religious bodies to adhere to strict planning guidelines in residential areas.

Posted on November 14, 2010 by Iain Hall

As an atheist I have the good fortune not to spend any of my days supplicating myself to the deity, well maybe you could argue that there is a spiritual aspect to my Yoga classes but I reckon that it would have to be a line ball call on that because its the health of my body I do yoga for rather than for the well being of my soul. None the less there are a lot of people out there who spend a big slice of their lives participating in the rituals of their God bothering brand of choice. and for some of them they want a place for the like minded to gather and pray. Now this has largely been well received by the public and local government But there are times when the construction of a place of worship worries the people who live adjacent to the proposed building.

Planning hurdles ... Ahmad Kamaledine at the mosque site. Pic: Tomasz Machnik Source: The Sunday Telegraph

The controversial regulations have been proposed by Canterbury Council – which includes the Islamic community strongholds of Belmore, Campsie, Canterbury and Lakemba.

The move is being backed by the Labor mayor Robert Furolo, who is also the state MP for the seat of Lakemba, and residents opposed to a mosque on the site of an ex-Roselands church.

The new planning controls would require all religious bodies to adhere to strict planning guidelines in residential areas.

Planning laws in most NSW local government areas do not require religious organisations to make a new application to council if they buy a site zoned as a place of worship for use by another faith.

But Canterbury’s planning order would require a new approval for each purchase and restrict service times. Muslims pray five times a day.

Sunday Telegraph

I have never “got” the reason that various faiths demand that their adherents perform prayers or rituals but in a diverse world its live and let live in my book. However if religious observance is going to impact upon the lives of those who happen to live near the proposed church or mosque  then those residents  have a right to object to the development just as much as they have the right to object to any other development in their locality.  So I am endorsing the requirement that the construction of any new place of worship  has to go through the same sort of planning process as any other development.

Cheers Comrades

 

 

 

Posted in Australian Politics, Christainity, Ethical questions, God bothering, Islam, Law, Local government, Multiculturalism, New South Wales, Political Correctness, the Law | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Who is your daddy???

Posted on November 13, 2010 by Iain Hall

A.C. Grayling, the philosopher, has written with feeling on this question this week, in an article for the Evening Standard. Noting that 4 per cent of men are, all unknowing, raising children who are not genetically theirs, according to a report in the Journal of Epidemiology and Human Health, he ponders the impact a DNA paternity test can have: ‘The result can be shattering, leading to divorce, marital violence, mental health difficulties for all parties including the children.’ Well, yes. Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt.

Our generation sets a good deal of store by certain knowledge. And DNA tests have obvious advantages when it comes to identifying less happy elements of our heredity: congenital disease, for instance. But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it.

: Melanie McDonagh |

Is it any wonder that some of us have  problems with feminism when their advocates seem so opposed to gender relationships based upon honesty and equality?

Cheers Comrades

Posted in Ethical questions, Feminst faith, Femnazi Follies, Justice, Law, Leftism, Men and Women, Misandry, Scams, human rights, the Law | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

GetUp! found out and denounced for hypocricy

Posted on November 13, 2010 by Iain Hall

Call me perverse, but rather than subscribe the right wing newsletters I subscribe to organisations like GetUp!, because I am more interested in understanding the other side than I am in having my own beliefs reinforced by reading the rhetoric of those who have similar values to my own. I have a grudging respect for the people who thought of the notion of GetUp! and the way that they manage to mobilise well meaning lefties to dig deep into their own pockets to finance their campaigns. Its a very slick organisation. they very cleverly send their subscribers like yours truly endless emails that are personally addressed and written as if they are just a one to one missive rather than a bulk mail out. They even run some campaigns that have worthy aims (like their one about mental health) On the other hand their dedication to the Warminista faith would put even “JM”*to shame for being a back slider . All in all I look forward to the GetUp! missive in my mailbox because it is often just comedy gold.

 

GetUp! getting down and dirty for the far left

ADVOCACY group GetUp! accepted a record $1.12 million donation from a big union just before the federal election while urging its members to support a ban on political donations from unions and business.

It used the donation from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to fund a TV advertisement attacking Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s ”archaic” views on women and social issues in the days before the August election.

It went to air as a GetUp! advertisement, with no reference to it largely being funded by a Labor-affiliated union.

GetUp!, which says it has more than 300,000 members, has become a campaigner on issues such as climate change and refugees. Its High Court challenge before the federal election allowed tens of thousands of extra young people to vote.

But its willingness to take such a large donation, the type of which it wants banned, has led to claims of hypocrisy.

The opposition leader in the Senate, Eric Abetz, said the donation showed GetUp! was nothing more than a Labor front.

”It’s clear there is a strong relationship between the unions and GetUp! and the Labor Party campaign,” he said.

Who would have thought that they were dancing to the tune of the union movement?

To be fair to all sides of politics we have to ensure that  no front organisations like GetUp!  are allowed to run political advertising during our election campaigns without the same level of scrutiny as all of the actual political parties do. This story certainly shows that GetUp! is a front and hypocrites to boot’ well who would have thought that????

 

Cheers Comrades

*well at least they don’t pretend a science gongs like she does :roll:
Posted in AGW and climate change, Abortion, Australian Politics, Carbon Trading, Comedy, Ethical questions, Federal Election, Federal politics, Feminst faith, Femnazi Follies, Global Warming, God bothering, Green Hypocrites, Humour, Indigenous Issues, Justice, Law, Leftism, Media Matters, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racism, The Green religion, human rights, the Law | Tagged , , , , , , | 24 Comments

Why they say “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”

Posted on November 12, 2010 by Iain Hall

The case decided in the high court yesterday may well be a pyrrhic victory for the idiots who want open borders for this country and it may well mean that Gillard will have to do a deal with the opposition to fix the mess that has been made by Brother Number One’s decision to fix something that was very far from broken, in fact the result of Labor party meddling is a perfect example of just why they say “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”

The decision creates a political headache for the Gillard government, which will be beholden to the Coalition should fresh legislation be required as a result of the ruling.

The Greens have long opposed offshore processing and independent Andrew Wilkie yesterday hinted strongly he was unlikely to support moves by the government to use legislation to get around the court decision and restrict asylum-seekers’ access to courts.

“I have been an outspoken critic of offshore processing for some time. I oppose offshore processing and the excision of islands,” Mr Wilkie said.

The Coalition’s immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, refused to say if the opposition would support new legislation, describing yesterday’s decision as a “policy failure”.

“This government has been caught out changing the rules, doing it badly and now the taxpayers and the Australian people are paying the consequences of that,” Mr Morrison said.

Mr Bowen said the government was still digesting the decision, but he would recommend a course of action to cabinet in coming weeks.

“It’s important that we recognise that this is a significant judgment; it has significant ramifications,” Mr Bowen said.

With one in two asylum-seekers failing, Mr Bowen said the court’s ruling could “elongate” the refugee-determination process. “It certainly has the potential implication that people would be in detention for longer as those appeals are worked through,” he said.

[...]

Sub-dean of migration law at the Australian National University Marianne Dickie said the judgment was aimed at the system set up by the Rudd government for deciding refugee cases in 2008. “The procedures and policies they put in place left them open to this judgment,” she told The Australian. “They deliberately put a process in that was outside the law.“

However, the Howard government’s decision to excise areas of Australian territory from the Migration Act formed the basis of the Rudd government’s administrative architecture.

Ms Dickie said every failed asylum-seeker could now potentially contest their case in court. “All those cases decided in this way should be reconsidered to avoid them all going to court,” she said.

David Manne, the executive director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, the organisation that co-ordinated the challenge, hailed the decision as a win for his client, and for Australia.

“The government’s attempts to keep these people outside Australian law and outside the Australian courts have failed,” he told The Australian.

 

Of course the minions of the open door left would have been cheering this decision yesterday it means more fat cheques for the latte sipping lawyers who have been bemoaning the fact that they have been excluded from the game.It may not be currently fashionable for those latte-sipping lawyers to buy an Enzo these days but you can bet that there will be more than a few who will be checking out brochures for the Tesla or thinking that the extra work that this decision will bring may just pay for their brats to got the very best private schools where they can learn to be good lefties..

None the less the fundamental question remains and that is if half of the claimants are being found not to have a legitimate claim for asylum then why are they not being taken form the tribunals that find against them straight to the airport and deported at the earliest opportunity?
Labor are reaping what they have sown here and I can only hope that they see sense and enter into discussions with the opposition to “fix” this problem with changes to the legislation at the earliest opportunity. Because there is one thing that they can be sure of and that is the Australian people will not stand for the kind of open door policy that the loopy Greens dream of. and a Labor government who sit on their hands and let the Greens dictate policy on this issue will be slaughtered at any subsequent election.

Cheers Comrades

 

Posted in Australian Politics, Ethical questions, Federal politics, Justice, Law, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, human rights, the Law | Tagged , , , , , , | 19 Comments

Revolting students

Posted on November 11, 2010 by Iain Hall

Listening to the radio this morning I could not help but notice the reports of rioting in England over the government’s decision to significantly increase the fees that students will have to pay for tertiary education courses. This raises a number of significant questions to me, not the least of which is just how many people in our society actually need a university education and just how much of that education should the government subsidise and how much of it should be reimbursed by the student themselves when they are in a well paying job after graduating.

 

Going wild: Young students trashing the entrance to Millbank Tower

Demonstrators clash with police as they clamber through a smashed window at 30 Millbank

The Deputy PM was forced to admit it was ‘an extraordinarily difficult issue’ and hinted for the first time that Tory pressure might have also played a part in the shift.

‘I have been entirely open about the fact that we have not been able to deliver the policy that we held in Opposition,’ he said.

‘Because of the financial situation, because of the compromises of the coalition government we have had to put forward a different policy.’

He insisted that the Lib Dems had stuck to their ‘wider ambition’ of making sure going to university was handled in a ‘progressive’ way and did not deter poorer students.

Miss Harman was scathing about his claim that public finances were to blame, pointing out that the changes only start in 2012/13 whereas the deficit should be addressed by 2014.

‘This is about him going along with a Tory plan to shove the cost of He onto students and their families,’ she said.

‘We all know what it’s like, you’re at Freshers Week, you meet up with a dodgy bloke and do things you regret. Isn’t it true he’s been led astray by the Tories?’

Mr Clegg reminded that Labour had also attacked tuition fees but introduced them when they came to power and how the previous government had initiated the Browne Review.

‘I know she thinks she can re-position the Labour Party as the champion of students but let’s remember the Labour Party’s record,’ he said.

Miss Harman accused the coalition of hiking up fees while they are ‘pulling the plug on funding and dumping the cost on students’.

The idea that everyone should go to university is much beloved by the minions of the left but when this idea is writ large all they succeed in doing is to devalue the degrees that they create and to generate a huge industry that does nothing much for society in general.
I was very taken by this piece from Helen Dale (Scepticlawyer) when she said this:

1. There are too many universities, and too many people going to university. Many universities are very mediocre, and many of the students who attend them are very mediocre. We seem to have forgotten how to tell people ‘no, you aren’t very clever, you shouldn’t go to university. You are, however, good with your hands. You should get an apprenticeship instead.’ There is, as Stanley Fish points out, nothing wrong with a trade school. Upgrading what were essentially trade schools and turning them into universities was always going to be a bad idea, and now we can’t afford them to boot. And let’s not forget that plumbers make a very good living.

To my mind the issue, even for the poor, should not be that students will eventually have to pay for their own education but that there should be a way that talented students of limited means  can gain access to learning that they would other wise  be unable to afford.

As for those who are out there destroying other people’s property there is a very simple solution and that is to prosecute them, ensure that they feel the full weight of the law, and expel them from whatever institution they are enrolled at on the basis that they bring those institutions into disrepute.

Cheers Comrades

 

 

Posted in England, Ethical questions, Justice, Law, Leftism, Marxism, the Law | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Vexed question of young lesos

Posted on November 10, 2010 by SockPuppet

Lesos denied justice? Well one of them is under the age of consent.

Today I look at the disturbing social trend for young girls to become lesos while they are still at school and have sex with underage girls at the same school.

What has prompted this is the Ivanhoe Girls Grammar controversy  which is really a storm in an A cup but which all the media thinks is a real big deal and have stuck it on there front pages.

The story is about how 16 yearold student Hannah Williams is bitching over not being allowed to take her 15 yearold lesbian girlfriend Savannah Supski to the Year 11 school dinner dance. Hannah’s Dad Peter even lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission saying the school was “homophobic” and had “discriminated against his daughter because of her sexual orientation”. He did not get very far with that and has now pulled his daughter out of the expensive school and stuck her in a free government one to finish her Year 12 next year. I guess hes saving a lot of money by doing that too. 

Now I will make a brief comment about the dinner dance ban and move on to the real issue here of underage lesos: I think Hannah might have been pushing the envelope with her school by wanting to bring a Year 10 student at the same school to the Year 11 ball. But the school was dumb to say they must bring boys because what about the girls who cant get a male date because they are not attractive, what do they do? I reckon the school was right to ban Savannah from attending a function for the next year up but wrong to say girls cant bring girl dates if they cant get a bloke. They could have made a ‘no-signs-of-leso-affection’ rule if they wanted to, like ‘no kissing and no feeling each other up’. Then they could have avoided this controversy and our media would not be filled with this stupid non-story.

So onto the real issue. One of these girls is only 15 and in Victoria that is under the age of sexual consent which is 16 here in Victoria in case you were sizing up your next door neighbours daughter – dont do it if shes under 16 or you will go to jail.

Which raises (not begs) the VEXED QUESTION:

Should lesos over the legal age be allowed by law to have sex with lesos under the legal age? You know should older lesos be exempted from the law that says you cannot have sex with a minor? It seems they are.

If a 16 year old boy was humping a 15 yearold girl is that legal? I dont think so. The 15 year old is under the age of consent so it should be hands off and dick kept in pants should it not?

You are welcome to stand me corrected if so but it seems to me that lesos are getting around the law here.

This also raises the issue of how the hell do girls know at 14 or 15 or even younger that they are really lesbian? Could it be they are just following social trends of ‘gay is okay and its cool to be one’ and are getting led astray and laid by older lesos at there schools? Especially maybe at all girls schools – no other choice eh? Yous can debate that one in the comments but I think I have raised another important issue here.

Posted in Education, Ethical questions, Gay issues, Gender Issues, Guest post, Law, Popular Culture | Tagged , , , , , | 50 Comments

Send those who fail in their claim home

Posted on November 10, 2010 by Iain Hall

 

An asylum-seeker gives the thumbs down after his group was put on a bus to be taken to the airport on Christmas Island yesterday. Picture: Colin Murty Source: The Australian

There are so many boats arriving that they barely rate a mention on the news these days but the swelling numbers in immigration detention surely does. With demonstrations from a distressed public in South and Western Australia showing that the public are clearly concerned that our government has both lost the plot and lack any idea where to go on this issue. Gillard and Labor have well and truly snookered herself on this issue because no matter how many claimants are rejected as asylum seekers they still require those claimants to agree to leave after their claims are rejected. Hence we have an ever increasing number of people in indefinite detention all of whom no doubt think that if they hold out long enough will eventually be allowed to stay. Thus we have Gillard trying to offer bribes to these failed claimants so that they will agree to leave without a fuss.

The Government hopes the payment, worth up to $4000 a person, will also reduce the chance of a failed asylum seeker returning to Australia by sea if they could return to their country in a sustainable and dignified way.

Britain and other European countries offer similar assistance through the International Organisation for Migration.

It is the first time the Rudd or Gillard governments have offered to pay for failed asylum seekers to return home.

The Howard government offered a three-year “reintegration assistance” package worth $5.8 million in 2002, but Labor’s then immigration spokeswoman Julia Gillard said it was not a real solution.

While the scheme will cost $5 million, the Government believes it will save if it can persuade people to leave expensive detention centres and it is cheaper than the cost of a forced return.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Government had no clear strategy to stop arrivals and was struggling to deal with the “major gridlock” in crowded detention centres.

“This appears to me to be very much an afterthought. It does not amount to a serious returns policy or repatriation strategy,” Mr Morrison said.

Its kind of pathetic that Labor is so lacking in intestinal fortitude on this issue because it seems to me that if there should be no problem deporting failed claimants the day after their last appeal has been rejected and if their lack of consent to being removed from the country is an impediment to that actually happening then Gillard could surely get support from the opposition to change the law so that their consent to removal upon failure of their final appeal was deemed to have been implicit in their appeal.

Its all well and good to claim that we have an obligation to provide protection to those who meet the criteria of the UN convention but such claims have clear (and incredibly broad) criteria so when those criteria have not been met by claimants even the most compassionate lefties have to accept that our obligation to accept the   rejected claimants is non existent. However its clear to me that the  true agenda of the bleeding heart left is that this country should have entirely open borders but that is a recipe for social suicide.

Cheers Comrades

 

Posted in Australian Politics, Ethical questions, Federal politics, Justice, Law, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, human rights, the Law | Tagged , , , , | 36 Comments

PP adds major injury to a minor insult

Posted on November 9, 2010 by SockPuppet

Today I essay and opinionate another ‘fair review & criticism’ of nearly mainstream online new media and bring you a piece of truly amazing wrongheadedness from the so-called keepers of intellectual honesty.

This post from Pure Petulance has to go down as the most petulant post of the year if not of all time.

Well maybe petulant isn’t the right word to describe the way Jeremy Sear has turned a rather innocuous comment made by a fellow Crikey author – that would otherwise have hardly made a ripple on cyberspace - into a tsunami of insult and humiliation of some young kid who works at McDonald’s in Geelong. But the words pedantic, stupid & nasty sure come to mind.

The story: Obscure Crikey author Leigh Josey writes a brief and obscure post about the closure of KFC in Geelong. He posts a cutout from the Geelong Advertiser featuring photos of some kids and the comments they have made and then makes a not-funny and not-really-hurtful (and certainly indirect) comment about one of them as follows:

And what do the people think? By people, we mean 12 year old McDonald’s employees…

 

And that’s all he said about it. But Jeremy thinks Josey has been “cruel” by wrongly estimating the kid’s age and is so worried that the kid might get depressed (or even suicide) he bursts into print to bizarrely attack one of his own writers … while being oblivious to the fact he’s doing a lot more damage to the kid himself: 

This might just be an ex-young-looking-teenager speaking, but it seems to me that Daniel Gooley, the McDonald’s employee (who is therefore at least 14), might already be struggling with issues relating to his not particularly mature physical appearance. (Also his surname.) Having a prominent thing on the internet like Crikey mocking him around the nation on the basis of something over which he has no control and over which he is possibly quite sensitive, seems to me to be unnecessarily cruel – and, given the current discussion of teen depression and suicide, it might be something that adult writers should consider when the butt of their joke is just a kid. Even if he wasn’t the intended target, and even if it was funny.

If the kid wasn’t already embarrassed by this (and I seriously doubt he would have been) he would be now after Sear’s further posting and identification of him. Worse still, the totally unnecessary references to Daniel’s appearance and surname add injury to what was hardly even an insult in the first place.

And it keeps going in the comments. While some of the commenters are clearly miffed by this bizarre post (and good on them for realising its out of line), some have taken Sear’s lead to heap more insults on not just Daniel but other kids in the photo too. Well done Jeremy.

Josey’s piece was hardly ”mocking (Daniel) around the nation” but that didn’t stop Sear from jumping in to correct him and speak up on the kid’s behalf … without being invited. Who needs that kind of advocacy or defence?

It’s just like when Jeremy goes in to bat for gays and lesbians over gay marriage without being invited - he does more harm than good.

Posted in Bizzare stuff, Blog of the month, Blogging, ERR???, Ethical questions, Gay issues, Guest post, Journalism, Media Matters, internet, wankers | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Josh Maday’s walk home and scare mongering from the Fairfax press

Posted on November 9, 2010 by Iain Hall

I have some serious reservations about the compulsion to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle but that is by the by, This story concerns a couple pf police constables who decided  Josh Maday, who was riding with out a helmet should have to walk his bike home rather than re-offend by riding home. To make sure that he did this they made him let the air out of  his tyres. This was done to avoid them issuing the boy with a $100 fine. Frankly this seems like quite a reasonable action akin to taking a driver’s car keys if they are not entitled to drive especially as they had caught the boy only 3 km from his home.

Yet if you read the report of this story in the Brisbane Times you would think that they had locked  the boy in the same room with a paedophile. The story is reported differently in the Courier Mail where the emphasis is on public opinion supporting the actions of the police. It is the responsibility of every road user  to ensure that they obey the traffic act and it is the duty of our police officers not to ignore clear breaches like failing to wear a helmet.  There is nothing darkly magical about the place where Daniel Morecambe was last seen and it is no more  likely that another child will be abducted form the same area after all this time. Personally I think the officers did precisely the right thing when they made the boy  walk a measly 3km home which is enough for him to learn the error of his ways but not enough for it to put him in harms way (as the Brisbane Times wants to suggest) a $100 fine would have been a serious burden to his family so all in all a good piece of community policing, unless you think like a Fairfax journalist, or a Latte Sipper™…

Cheers Comrades

Posted in Bizzare stuff, Ethical questions, Justice, Law, Leftism, Queensland, the Law | Tagged , , | 24 Comments

Climate Creative Accounting “Climate Change” Style

Posted on November 8, 2010 by Iain Hall

There is honest accounting and then there is what is euphemistically called “creative accounting” and to my mind when it comes to to “creative accounting” there is none so spurious as the the sort that is demonstrated in Guy Pearse’s piece at the Drum unleashed:

As for the Government offsetting its official travel for a year – that CO2 saving is erased by just over one trainload of coal – it’s roughly equivalent to pausing the state’s coal exports for 37 minutes; giving out a million energy-efficient light-bulbs – erased by three trainloads of coal. Just imagine the effort in distributing a million light bulbs; it’s the equivalent of pausing our coal exports for 90 minutes. As for what it took 74,000 Queenslanders a year to achieve by signing up to the Bligh Government’s low carbon diet – the CO2 saved is packed back by increasing coal exports in about two weeks. The CO2 saved by 260,000 Queenslanders using the ClimateSmart Home Service erased in seven-and-a-half weeks by increasing coal exports.

If the Government succeeds in cutting the carbon footprint of Queensland households by one-third by 2020 – it will save 10.1 million tonnes of CO2 a year, but keep this in mind: Queensland currently exports that much CO2 in its coal every eight-and-a-half days. And, at the rate those exports are growing, it takes less than 100 days for new coal exports to erase what will take Queenslanders over a decade to cut their carbon footprint by a third. Put another way, one new 12-million-tonne-a-year coal mine in central Queensland will on its own produce three times as much CO2 as all the ClimateSmart householder emissions savings by 2020 put together.

Guy Pearse

If I sell you some booze and you drink it, do I become drunk or liable to be prosecuted if I subsequently drive my car? Of course not! It is the person who uses the grog who will feel the effects has to be held responsible for its consumption. Yet when it comes to our export of coal the creative accountants of the climate change industry want to count the emission of CO2 from burning our coal exports on our page in their ledger. Its the utterly spurious basis for the claims that the citizens of this country are are “per-capita the biggest emitters in the world”. The country that burns the coal owns the resulting emissions, its as simple as that. Now I just wonder if under the rules of Climate Alarmism  Accounting that the CO2 emissions  are counted twice anyway…

Cheers Comrades

 

 

Posted in Blogging, ERR???, Leftism, Living with Nature | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Sending Kiwis back home beggars belief

Posted on November 8, 2010 by SockPuppet

Free plane travel but only if you are a Kiwi beggar? It beggars belief.

I would like to comment opinion on the case of Australian charities paying to fly homeless Kiwi beggars back to New Zealand. First of all I dunno if this is really doing much good at all to clean up the beggars on Melbourne’s streets like the article says it is:

Twelve New Zealanders have been flown home with the help of Travellers Aid in the past three months at a cost of almost $3900.

Twelve? Wow.

Second of all I think this is like sweeping the problem under the carpet because these Kiwis will just go and beg on the streets in say Wellington and as soon as they have made a few hundred bucks will fly back here to the more lucrative begging jobs on offer in Melbourne.

They might not get the prime begging spots like in the Burke Street mall but they are sneaky buggers and will work out how to pinch  the best positions from our own Aussie beggars.

And then we will have to pay to fly them back home again. Its a merry-go-round.

Third I would like to say I think our charities would be better off to round up ALL the beggars and stick them on a flight to the Gold Coast when Virgin are offering like there $1 flights or something cheap like that.

Once they take over Cavill Avenue they will not want to come back.

This would be a better tactic but fourth and final I want to say that I think they should give priority to Aussie beggars first and only send them to Queensland where at least they will be begging from Japanese tourists not from us.

And they should send the New Zealand beggars to somewhere like New Guinea (Try begging up there Kiwis!).

Then they’ll never come back.

Posted in Guest post, New Zealand | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Exit fees to be axed nearly three years after I suggested as such

Posted on November 7, 2010 by Leon Bertrand

So the Gillard Government in response to the political pressure building over the interest rates banks charge will now look at cracking down on exit fees. A good question is why this hasn’t already been done, given that the Rudd Government talked about doing the same thing.  Hopefully the Gillard Government isn’t as bad as the Rudd Government in terms of being all talk and no action on nearly every issue, including climate change, tax reform, economic conservativism, budget surpluses, ending the blame game,  spending cuts, effective action on petrol and grocery prices, making tough decisions etc etc.

In February 2008, I in fact suggested that the exit fees should be cut, and gave my reasons. Below is the entire post, as it appeared on my personal blog back then:

 

Swan threatens, we say do much more

Time for Labor to walk the walk

Wayne Swan has threatened the banks with minor regulation for raising interest rates above the Reserve Bank’s increase. Under the plan, banks will be required to produce lists of credits and debits on request.

Once again, we can see that this is more spin and process which is not guaranteed to help the average mortgagor in any way. Lots of spin, little substance.

We only wish Swan stopped threatening and started to act with much more severe measures. Readers well versed in the history of economic reform in Australia may recall that it was actually Labor who introduced competition for the banks by opening up the industry 25 years ago. This was under the Hawke/Keating government of 1983 – 1996, a period of glorious and bold economic reform which on most occasions had the full backing of the Opposition, who started to realise just how much the Fraser government had been guilty of inaction in this area.

Unfortunately, there seems no such boldness by Swan, just a timid little threat that ultimately amounts to nothing. It’s not as though Swan owed the banks any favours: firstly, many have failed to consult with him before rising their interest rates above the Reserve Bank rise. Secondly, they can always be expected to donate more to the Liberal Party’s campaign chest.

Under the Hawke and Keating Governments, Labor felt free to upset as many businesses as it pleased, because before then business had always strongly backed the Coalition. Ironically, it was with the Hawke government that many businesses were sufficiently impressed with Labor that they started to donate to the Labor cause. You see, for every few businesses you upset by deregulating and increasing competition, you benefit many more who are then able to enter the industry, as well as those who greatly appreciate getting better prices for capital. Finally, there are also the consumers, who always stand to benefit the most. Competition keeps prices in check, and that’s a great thing for every household and government.

As a result, we would like to see Swan become bolder by asserting his authority. What we would propose is the abolition of bank exit fees. This would immediately dismantle one of the strongest barriers to competition between banks in the mortgage market. Banks could always try and recoup their expenses through raising their interest rates, if they dare. For if there are no exit fees, consumers will be as free as possible to shop around every time there is an interest rate hike. With this, banks would be well and truly put on notice by their own customers. And, Swan would be able to achieve his professed aim:

“What we’ve got to get is the power of competition, the power of competition out there so people who are unhappy with what their bank is doing have the option of changing their account. “

We couldn’t agree more. That’s why we would like Swan to walk the talk.

Posted in Federal politics | 23 Comments

Is Good

Posted on November 7, 2010 by Iain Hall

Cheers Comrades

Posted in AGW and climate change, Cute, Green Hypocrites | Tagged , , , , , , | 27 Comments