Thursday, August 27, 2015

Homosexual propaganda  should be kept out of schools

Burwood Girls High School sent a flyer to parents last week saying all students would attend a special screening of the documentary Gayby Baby this week

BURWOOD Girls High principal Mia Kumar has failed the parents of her pupils by embracing political propagandists who have seized her school’s agenda. And Education Minister Adrian Piccoli has failed the people of NSW with his lily-livered approach to a serial offender.

Last Saturday, Miss Kumar, who, with her deputy, Karyn O’Brien, would not speak to The Daily Telegraph, not only cancelled two school periods to facilitate the screening of an overtly political documentary on homosexual parenting to all students this Friday but urged all pupils to wear purple in support of LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer).

The planned school screening of the PG-documentary Gayby Baby and the purple dress code are in clear breach of NSW Education Department guidelines as they advance the interests of a particular political group, don’t serve a curriculum objective and fail to take into account the ages of all of the students.

Instead of suspending or reprimanding Ms Kumar yesterday, Mr Piccoli told The Daily Telegraph he had “spoken to the secretary of my department and reminded her that the government expects schools to remain apolitical places and that schools must comply with all departmental policies.”

If this is the best he can do in the face of a deliberate flouting of the rules by a principal who has institutionalised a political campaign in her school’s agenda, he should be sacked.

Documentary director Maya Newell, an old girl of Burwood Girls High is a “gayby” in as much as she says she has lesbian “mums”.

Ms Kumar should tell her that she actually has only one biological mum and any other mother is adoptive.

After numerous complaints, the school belatedly told parents that their daughters may opt-out of the screening but “purple tops, pants, jackets, scarfs, shoes, jewellery and/or hair colour” was still rig of the day and the school will give a prize to the “most purple” student.

The Right Rev Mark Powell, who until July was the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in NSW and the ACT, was contacted by a number of parents concerned that their daughters would be ostracised within the school community and subjected to bullying and discrimination from fellow students and some teachers if they refused to go along with the directives from Ms Kumar and Ms O’Brien

A review highlighted on the Gayby Baby website describes it as an “intrinsically political” documentary and says children of “queer” parents are being used to counter opponents of so-called marriage equality.

In the trailer, one prepubescent boy is shown applying lipstick as he says: “I don’t really know when you’re manly.” He is later shown bare-chested and pumping his fist in the mardi gras parade.

Twelve-year-old Ebony is quoted saying: “ ‘It’s not normal. You’re not normal.’ They’re the kind of things that go through my head.”

Well, Ebony, normality is the state of being usual, typical, or expected according to the Oxford Dictionary and according to the 2011 Census, there were only around 33,700 same-sex couples in Australia, with 17,600 male same-sex couples and 16,100 female same-sex couples. Same-sex couples represented about 1 per cent of all couples in Australia — which would indicate they do not meet the definition “normal”.

Children in same-sex couple families are one in a thousand of all children in couple families (0.1 per cent). Statistically, you are not in a “normal” family, no matter how many LGBTIQ-friendly docos you may be forced to watch by politically-driven school principals.

The drive to create the fantasy that homosexual families are the norm has come from the politically left-leaning Teachers Federation which is also pushing the Safe Schools Coalition, another political front group, which claims that anyone not involved in promoting safety for the “same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse young people, staff, families and communities” are bigots.

Mr Piccoli has permitted Ms Kumar to install this agenda into her curriculum. A government intent on ensuring an apolitical school system would get rid of them both.


An incompetent bureaucracy covers up with lies

AN unofficial survey by an East Timor and Iraq War veteran flatly contradicts an official $174,500 taxpayer-funded survey by the Department of Veterans Affairs that sings its praises and claims a 90 per cent satisfaction rate.

Angus Sim was on leave due to his war caused illness and fighting for his veterans payments when the DVA insisted on contacting his employer to verify that he was not being paid and was eligible for incapacity payments.

He had signed a statutory declaration swearing that he was not working so that he would be eligible for the payments months after he had ceased working and did not want DVA to inform his boss, but Canberra-based bureaucrats insisted on contacting the employer.

The employer no longer returns his calls and he fears the exposure has cost him future work.

Mr Sim suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and was so outraged by his experience that he formulated his own survey of DVA clients to find out what veterans really thought about the department that allocates about $13 billion of taxpayer dollars each year.

The results from 730 respondents bear no resemblance to the official DVA 2014 client service survey of 3000 people that showed satisfaction rates of above 90 per cent and included comments such as: “Excellent service and good communications.

“They really look after people. Overwhelming — they listen so well. It’s like a family.”

Mr Sim’s survey included 41 questions and found that between 58 per cent and 73 per cent of clients under the three Veterans Acts had spent more than six months fighting for their claims.

Between 28 per cent and 54 per cent said they were “extremely unsatisfied” with DVA’s service and just three to 10 per cent said they were “extremely satisfied”.

In one of the most disturbing findings it found that between 63 per cent and 84 per cent of clients had been given conflicting information by DVA staff.

One of the worst areas was incapacity payments where between 77 per cent and 80 per cent said DVA had caused them hardship by delaying the payments.

Between 81 per cent and 94 per cent of those surveyed supported a fresh inquiry into the DVA’s treatment of veterans.

By contrast the official survey reported that 89 per cent of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with the service DVA provided and 90 per cent agreed that DVA was committed to providing a high quality service.

When News Corp questioned the credibility of publishing only positive comments from the survey DVA insisted that the, “comments published were demonstrative of resoundingly positive feedback received in the client survey.”

The Department refused to provide a detailed breakdown for “commercial” reasons of the age of respondents or a list of the questions asked by the survey company ORIMA Research.

In stark contrast with the taxpayer-funded official survey comments from Mr Sim’s respondents were far more damning.

Here is a sample; “They treat you like you are trying to get something for nothing and that you should be grateful for their ‘assistance’. 

“Woeful at best, criminally negligent if they’re honest.

“It was demeaning and enhanced my PTSD symptoms causing my family and I huge distress.”


Turnbull tells ABC to extract digit, fix ‘out of control’ Q&A programme

To appropriate an adage, many a finger is pointed in jest.  Yesterday, Malcolm Turnbull may have hammed it up with Mark Scott but there was no doubt about the sincerity of the Communications Minister’s disquiet with the nat­ional broadcaster’s boss over yet another Q&A controversy.

Photo-ops aside, the minister and the ABC’s managing director may well have found the time for an exchange of views about a crude tweet shown on Monday night’s show, from a user dubbed @Abbottlovesanal.

The word from the government is “disappointment” — a sentiment that should be echoing around Mr Scott’s head too.

Yesterday’s lunch in Sydney featured a stellar corporate, media and political cast, who had gathered to promote workplace gender equality under the banner Male Champions of Change, but clearly the ABC’s workplace is not changing fast enough for the government, or the broadcaster’s boss.

The pair had first spoken about 7am when Mr Turnbull suggested Mr Scott apologise to Tony ­Abbott for a crude tweet that was broadcast on national television during Q&A. Mr Scott then texted the Prime Minister, and sent an accompanying letter, apologising for the tweet. The apology, coming so soon after the lifting of the Zaky Mallah-inspired ministerial ban on the show, was insufficient.

The Prime Minister said the ABC needed to rein in an “out of control” Q&A. “I just hope that the ABC management get on and do what they said they were going to do with that program,” he said.

“I think it is a bit out of control and I think it’s important for the ABC not just to talk about tighter management structures, tighter management control on that particular program, but actually do it.”

It is not the first time the program has had problems with live tweets. Last year, it broadcast a tweet that referred to transgender military officer Cate McGregor as “he/she”. It has also broadcast users with crude names.

Yet the show has only one ­social media manager, Ainslee Hunter, responsible for on-air tweets, video inserts and promotional materials. Senior producer Amanda Collinge has spoken in the past about her role as final ­approval moderator, supervising the twitter-feed that is broadcast.

The ABC said neither were moderating the tweets on Monday evening. Tens of thousands of #QandA tweets are sent each episode, yet there are only between two to five people who comb through the twitter feed to moderate them. The team has been told to get the tweets on air less than a minute after they are posted by the user.

The ABC has used software called TweeVee TV, which combs tweets for profanities but not the user’s handle or name.

The episode on Monday night is unlikely to be included in a review of Q&A being conducted by journalist Ray Martin and former SBS managing director Shaun Brown, but the review will examine Q&A’s live tweet function and the risks associated with it.

The Australian asked the ABC how the tweet got past social media managers, how much scrutiny there was of tweets shown on Q&A, whether there would be any improved supervision of the program, and whether the ABC was considering removing live tweets from Q&A.

“Thanks but we aren’t commenting further,” media adviser Nick Leys said.


Kevvy's back

But you can bet he won't be asking any hard questions

Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has secured a return to our TV screens in place of CNN host Christiane Amanpour.

​The 57 year old Rudd, who has been head of the Asia Society's Policy Institute in New York since last October, will fill in for the eponymous host on Amanpour while the regular anchor is on leave.

He'll do just one episode, Saturday August 29 and, according to CNN, will look forward to the COP 21 Climate Change Conference in Paris in November.

On the show Rudd will interview prominent Costa Rican climate change negotiator Christiana Figueres and will also talk with indigenous TV anchor Stan Grant "about the struggles Australia is still having coming to terms with its past", according to a CNN statement.

Rudd tweeted that he also would be interviewing a guest about the "Chinese economy". Rudd's Amanpour screens on CNN at 1pm on Saturday and will be repeated at 8pm and midnight on August 29.

He has previously been a commentator on the program which is hosted by one of television's most respected journalists.



Anonymous said...

Why publicise it?. I am sure most occasional ABC viewers would not bother.

Paul said...

I'm Gay. You know that. "Gayby" is repellant in the extreme. Something is seriously wrong here, and I don't wish to be associated with it.

It should not be easy to proclaim yourself as Gay. It needs to be kept a bit difficult. It is not the norm, and for a coherent society it shouldn't be the norm. I say this because tolerance gives our society strength, but tolerance should not mean the surrender of what, let's face it, is normalcy. Whether I'm mentally diseased or a genetic variant, or just a perv, I don't really know for certain, and I don't pretend to know and I don't think anyone else does, but I'd rather live in a coherent, strong society, not a morally ambivalent one. I can find my own pride and well-being within the society we have (had?) as it is, and so far I have.