The politics of racism are flourishing in Australia (?)

The little Leftist lady who wrote the article below is a Ph.D. student.  One hopes that her supervisors will make her up her game soon. She seems not to have noticed that Muslims are a religion, not a race.  The difference?   Muslims are of many races and you can change your religion but not your race.  Yet she bases her entire claim of racism on Australia on the fact that there are some Australians who are critical of Muslims.  Dim!

And why is criticism of Muslims in any way illegitimate?  Leftists can be searingly critical of Christians!  But "that's different", I guess.  Sheer hypocrisy more like it

She also joins the Leftist mob in claiming that the booing of Adam Goodes was racist but fails to mention that other AFL stars like Wayne Carey, James Hird, Jason Akermanis and Nick Riewoldt were also heavily booed in their day.  Was that racist too?  Or is booing just what AFL fans do?  It's just opinion that the booing of Goodes was racist. If the booing of Goodes shows Australia as  racist, how come he has twice won the Brownlow Medal, given to the “fairest and best” player in the game?  That's pretty strange racism isn't it?  But it's an article of deep faith to Leftists that Australians are racist so any "evidence" for that belief will do and no contrary evidence will be admitted. More on the Goodes affair here.

No doubt there are some racists in Australia but the only real issue is its prevalence.  Are we going to brand a whole nation with the deeds and ideas of a few?  It's a breach of natural justice to blame someone for the deeds of others. And if racism IS prevalent in Australia, how come so many people of all races have risked their lives to get here on rickety boats, with many drowning in the process?  It just seems to be impossible for a Leftist to look at ALL the evidence.  Their preconceptions are sacred.  Sad souls

By Susie Latham

It might be tempting to dismiss claims by new anti-Muslim political party Australian Liberty Alliance that it hopes to eventually poll "in the 20 per cent bracket" at election time as wishful thinking, but this would be a serious mistake.

Racism is flourishing in Australia. AFL legend Adam Goodes has been criticised by many public figures for drawing attention to it and there have already been many rallies against Muslims nationwide this year.

The Abbott government has fostered this atmosphere by declaring that people have the right to be bigots and attempting to repeal part of the Racial Discrimination Act. Banning the burqa in Parliament, declaring that a death cult is coming for us at every conceivable opportunity, Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi's instigation of an inquiry into halal food certification, and Queensland Nationals MP George Christensen addressing a Reclaim Australia rally suggest that an embattled government is belatedly acting on Scott Morrison's advice to exploit community concern about Muslims.

The Opposition's silence, seen by some as a clever way to avoid being wedged on national security, has also contributed.

Although right-wing racist groups have always existed on the fringes of Australian society, the danger posed by a lack of national political leadership on racism and the emergence of the ALA is that it will propel bigotry into the mainstream. Many Muslims feel that sentiment towards them has never been more negative, and having candidates stand for election gives anti-Muslim bigots a public platform and confers legitimacy on their views.

Numbers turning up to rallies against Muslims have been relatively small, but almost 30,000 people "liked" the Reclaim Australia Rally Facebook page. Results of a national study released in 2011 indicated as many as 49 per cent of Australians held negative sentiments towards Muslims. Expressing this on a ballot paper is safe, easy and private.

The ALA may denounce violence and the neo-Nazis associated with some anti-Muslim groups, but you can be sure members of these groups, and others carrying out physical and verbal attacks on Muslims, will be voting for ALA candidates.

In several forums Muslim women have said they are restricting their movements and clothing choices out of fear. Others, including a 90-year-old man, a couple in their 80s and a community activist have had offensive letters posted to their home addresses. Australian Muslims minding their own business have been verbally harangued at their workplaces, on public transport and in the supermarket.

Extremist Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has advised the ALA and will be the guest of honour at its launch in Perth in October, described a poll that claimed more than half the Muslims living in Holland feel less welcome and think more often about leaving as "good news". As the ALA recently reminded its members, anti-Muslim parties may initially struggle, but in "the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, France and Italy – they are supported by millions [and] already poll in the 20 per cent bracket".

The ALA's strong connections to successful anti-Muslim groups in Europe and the US set it apart from groups such as Reclaim Australia and One Nation. It is more sophisticated, well-financed and better organised. Debbie Robinson, a Perth-based director of ALA, is also a member of the group Stop Islamisation of Nations (SION). Other members of SION include US anti-Islam commentators Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

At a time when political leadership has been wanting but decent Australians have taken it upon themselves to speak out against the racism directed at AFL player Adam Goodes, the same unity and organisation is needed to stop the ALA from making headway here and leaving Australian Muslims feeling similarly devastated.

SOURCE







Carbon cuts to cost Australia $4 billion a year in lost growth

Political expediency can be expensive.  The government doesn't have the political capital that would be needed to ditch global warming.  Defying the scare would unleash huge rage against them from the Left

AUSTRALIA'S new carbon emission target of 26 per cent by 2030 will cost the economy up to $4 billion a year.

BUT Prime Minister Tony Abbott says it will mean Australia does its fair share in tackling climate change.
"This is fairly and squarely in the middle of comparable economies," he told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

The target - which could be scaled up to 28 per cent on 2005 levels - was not quite as high as the European countries at 34 per cent, but was "vastly better" than South Korea's four per cent target and China's 150 per cent rise.

"This is a good, solid result. It's a good, solid economically responsible, environmentally responsible target," he said.

The government's emissions reduction fund would cost about $200 million a year to operate, he said.

But modelling for the target would cost the economy between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent of GDP in 2030 - or between $3 billion and $4 billion in current terms.

"This is certainly not without costs but the costs are manageable," Mr Abbott said.

Australia will halve its emissions per person over 15 years - the best result in the developed world of those countries that had declared their targets ahead of the United Nations summit in Paris in December.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who will attend the summit, said the target meant Australia was "doing our bit".

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the target would be achieved without pushing up power prices.

"What we have done is crafted a position for Australia which shows that we ... do the right thing by the planet, we also do the right thing by families," he said.

While international emissions permits won't be used, Mr Hunt and Ms Bishop said their use in the future would remain "on the table" to be available to business as early as 2017.

However, Mr Abbott said any emissions cuts should be "domestic reductions in emissions rather than instantly rushing off to try to get them from other countries".

Climate action groups immediately criticised the announcement as failing key tests.

The target failed to be scientifically credible or economically responsible, Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said in a statement.

"This target is bad for the climate and bad for our international competitiveness," he said.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says the target is a reasonable one that balances the need for action to contain emissions with the need to minimise damage to jobs and economic growth.

SOURCE






Tony Abbott Has No Intention Of Reaching His Flimsy Emissions Target

The combination of policies being deployed by the government will not help them achieve even the weak target announced today, writes Ben Eltham in the Leftist "New Matilda".  I suspect Ben is right about that. 

And Ben spells out well that Abbott is acting only on political pressure.

Where Ben is a big laugh, however, is that he does not seem to know about the "pause", which even Warmist scientists acknowledge.  Ben speaks of the "terrifying momentum of climate change" when it has in fact no momentum at all.  The only terrestrial temperature changes of the last 18 years have been in hundredths of one degree Celsius, changes which are not even statistically significant, meaning that from a scientific viewpoint, they do not exist. 

I suspect that Ben is good at detecting crookedness in Abbott because he is such a big crook himself.  "Terrifying momentum of climate change" does not even do Warmist scientists justice. It is an outright lie. Ben is talking though his anus

The news that the Abbott government has settled on an emissions reduction target for Australia out to 2030 heralds a new turn in climate politics in this country.

The target, announced by Prime Minister Tony Abbott today, is a 26 per cent reduction on 2030 levels compared to 2005. It would put Australia at the back of the international pack – offering less than Canada, the United States or Europe. Only Japan is offering a smaller target.

On the one hand, of course, this target is manifestly inadequate. A modest decrease in carbon pollution is not nearly enough to arrest the terrifying momentum of climate change. As glaciers and ice-caps melt and bushfires intensify, the world is running out of time to stop global warming before it runs away with a liveable climate.

Rapid and deep cuts to emissions are the only practical and ethical policy. The non-political Climate Change Authority recommended a 40-60 per cent cut by 2030, based on the available science.

On the other hand, it’s amazing the Abbott government committed to an emissions target at all. This is the government that has loudly proclaimed its undying love of fossilised carbon, a government hell-bent on burning as many dead dinosaurs as it can dig from the soil. This is also the government that contains many avowed climate sceptics, and which campaigned so successfully against the Labor Party on climate at the last election.

The 26 per cent figure appears to have been massaged with a view to party unity. The government was today openly briefing press gallery journalists that climate sceptics in the party were consulted about it, and “could live” with the target. That in itself tells you quite a lot about the way this government conducts climate policy.

Say what you like about the snail’s pace of international action on climate, there is no doubt that Australia has been dragged to this position by international pressure.

Australia under the Coalition has stayed inside the Kyoto protocol, and that means we need to commit to a new emissions reductions target in the run up to this year’s climate talks in Paris.

In the media conference today, Prime Minister Abbott was at great pains to point out that Australia’s emissions reduction target was “smack bang in the middle” of rich world emissions targets. You’d have to say that, without this international pressure, Australia under the Coalition would not be formally committed to reducing emissions at all.

The government claims Australia will make the largest per capita reductions of the rich industrialised countries. That’s a fudge to begin with: it highlights just how pollution-prone our economy currently is. Countries in Europe and even in Asia start well ahead of us when it comes to their relative emissions intensity. Australia has so far to travel because we are already so dirty.

Never mind the target – can the government actually deliver? No.

The government plans to meet the 2030 target essentially on a wing and a prayer.

SOURCE







Former Leftist politician defrocked by Anglican Church

A former Queensland government minister who later became a registrar of the Anglican Church has been defrocked over his handling of child sex abuse claims.

Pat Comben, 65, served as an education and health minister in the Goss administration before he was ordained and relocated to NSW, where he was registrar of the Grafton diocese.

During that time, Mr Comben dealt with 42 people who claimed to have suffered abuse while at the North Coast Children's Home in Lismore between 1940s to 1984. Many claimed to have been beaten and raped.

Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse heard that as the number of claimants increased, the diocese disputed liability, pleaded poverty and cast doubt on the veracity of some of the claims.

He also conceded not telling police of serious allegations being made about some clergy.

Mr Comben admitted to have taken a hard line approach to victims, telling the commission in 2013 that he felt guilt over his actions.

Mr Comben also told reporters he was quitting the church.

"Some of us have some guilt and take some responsibility for this," Mr Comben said at the time.

"Fifty years in the church and I do not know if I can even say I am a Christian."

This week the Grafton Diocese said it removed Mr Comben's holy orders based on recommendations from an independent professional standards board.

The recommendation was adopted by Grafton diocesan bishop Reverend Dr Sarah Macneil who informed Mr Comben of his deposition.

"Under church law there is no avenue of appeal," the church said in a statement.

"The choice of recommendations available to the board varied from counselling to loss of all standing as an ordained person within the Anglican Church of Australia."

SOURCE






Man charged with drink-driving wins $125,000 payout because he made it home before cops could breath test him

A MAN who beat a drink-driving charge was awarded $125,000 -because police tried to force him to take a breath test at his home.

Real estate agent Bernard Nash was tailed by an officer as he left the Shelly Beach Golf Club, on the Central Coast, and drove 150m to his house at Bellevue St.

Highway patrol Senior Constable -Michael Hicks, who was driving in the opposite direction, did a U-turn and gave chase, suspecting the 53-year-old was over the drink-driving limit.

When he caught up, Mr Nash had already parked in his driveway.

Constable Hicks pulled into the driveway and said "Just here sir" and "You're under arrest".

Mr Nash was heading down the side of his property when the officer ran towards him, put him in a "bear hug" and told him he was under arrest.

The officer then wrestled Mr Nash to the ground and pinned him with his knees before threatening to use capsicum spray.

Mr Nash did not give a breath test but was charged with driving under the -influence and resisting arrest.

However, the law says police cannot force suspected drink-drivers to take a breath test at their home.

Mr Nash beat the charges in Wyong Local Court and then sued the state over the incident, which occurred on October 13, 2011.

In a judgment published last week, Judge Judith Gibson ruled in NSW District Court that the incident amounted to wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution and -ordered the state to pay Mr Nash $124,958 in damages.

Judge Gibson said the fact Mr Nash was on his own property meant he didn't have to take a breath test.

The other issue was that Constable Hicks had no evidence that Mr Nash was drunk or had committed an offence, Judge Gibson said. This left the officer with no legal reason to arrest Mr Nash.

The court heard that Mr Nash said he was not drunk and had three light beers while he was at the club.

The precise time the officer turned on his siren and lights was also "hotly contested".

This was because Mr Nash could not legally ignore the officer's order to pull over.

Mr Nash told the court he did not see the police lights nor hear the -sirens. Constable Hicks was "never sufficiently close to Mr Nash's car to -activate the sirens and lights".

The judge awarded Mr Nash $70,000 for malicious prosecution, $25,000 for wrongful arrest, $25,000 for assault and battery and $4958 for special damages.

A police spokesman said they were not looking to appeal. Constable Hicks is still working as an officer.

SOURCE