Australian Politics
Muslim hate speech is ok
Under NSW hate speech law, Andrew Bolt was successfuly prosescuted for criticizing the claims of some people with white skin to be Aborigines. That was construed as "hate".
The speech below is virulent hate, not the simple comment that Bolt made. Yet it skates. How come? There appears to be special liberties for Muslims
NSW Police have dropped inquiries into a cleric who prayed to Allah to “kill them one by one” in reference to “Zionist Jews”, saying the comments did not breach state hate-speech protections.
On Tuesday, The Australian revealed that Sydney sheik Kamal Abu Mariam – who has ties with former All Black Sonny Bill Williams and former league star Anthony Mundine – gave a sermon at Roselands Mosque last year, in which he made the call during an Islamic prayer.
The Australian can also reveal, in that same sermon, the sheik described the virtues Allah would bestow on martyrs, and how those unable to fight in the Middle East could still “receive rewards”.
“Oh Allah … beat the (usurping) Zionist Jews,” the sheik said in Arabic, translated to English by The Australian.
“Oh Allah, we hope you count them and kill them one by one, and don’t keep any (one) of them … shake the ground under their feet … make an example of them.”
The sheik’s comments appeared to be referring to “Zionist Jews” in Israel, as opposed to those in Australia – although a well-placed legal source said that distinction “should be irrelevant”.
On Wednesday, a NSW Police spokeswoman said the force could not pursue the matter further. “As a part of the investigation, the content of the (sermon) video was reviewed and it was ascertained that it did not meet the threshold of any criminal offence,” she said.
Section 93Z of the NSW criminal code, which outlaws incitements of violence on the basis of race or religion, was recently strengthened by the government, which removed the requirement for police to seek approval before laying charges.
Williams and Mundine have said they helped donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to help fund a new mosque “spearheaded” by the sheik and, in 2018, the former All Black called the religious leader his “spiritual guider” in a post to Twitter, now called X.
During the sermon, in English, Sheik Abu Mariam also cited the Hadith and referenced what Allah bestowed upon martyrs.
“He (a martyr) will be forgiven with the first drop of blood that comes (from) him,” he said. “He will see his place in paradise … given a crown upon his head.”
The sheik warned the audience there were “consequences for those who laze around”. “He who does not fight for the cause of Allah, nor speaks within himself about fighting the cause … he dies on a branch of hypocrisy,” he said, acknowledging that those he was preaching to would struggle to fight to become a martyr.
“We might not be able to do the first (fight for Allah), due to the circumstances and where we live,” he said.
The sheik said Muslims who boycotted Israeli-linked products would still receive “rewards”.
Federal opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said if the state government failed to act “it was time the federal government did”.
“There are anti-incitement provisions in the Commonwealth Criminal Code for this purpose,” the senator said, citing section 80.2A, which outlaws urging violence against a group on the basis of religion or race.
“If they are not used now it makes a mockery of the law and will only lead to more hateful conduct with devastating consequences.”
Visiting Australian National University constitutional law professor Matt Qvortrup, when provided with Sheik Abu Mariam’s comments, said that the rhetoric would be prosecuted in the UK. “I don’t see how it wouldn’t (breach British legislation),” he said. “Naming a group and (saying Allah) should kill them – that would have fallen foul of UK laws.”
Premier Chris Minns said he would change existing laws if they proved inoperable.
“We are not averse to changing the laws around hate speech if we don’t believe that they are capturing the kind of inflammatory and racist rhetoric that’s designed to pull people apart,” he said.
*****************************************************
Google Strikes Solar Farm Deal to Accelerate Net Zero Transition in Australia
Internet giant Google has stepped up its net zero transition in Australia by investing in a new solar farm in New South Wales (NSW).
On Dec. 19, data centre firm AirTrunk, Swedish energy company OX2, and Google announced a partnership on renewable energy.
The three companies have agreed to enter into a long-term Power Purchase Agreement and will develop a 25-megawatt solar farm in Riverina, NSW.
OX2 will be responsible for constructing the solar farm, while AirTrunk will buy the renewable energy generated by the farm and associated energy attribute certificates with time-matching to Google’s consumption.
The move is Google’s latest effort to achieve the goal of operating its offices and data centres on 24/7 “carbon-free” energy in Australia by 2030.
“Industry collaboration and innovation are crucial to achieving our ambitious sustainability objectives, including our efforts to drive a substantial increase in carbon-free energy capacity across the Asia Pacific region,” said Mel Silva, the managing director at Google Australia.
“As part of our broader Digital Future Initiative, this project will see us support local infrastructure to tackle big challenges like climate change while also further solidifying the foundations of a growth-centric yet sustainable digital economy.”
AirTrunk chief customer and innovation officer Damien Spillane believed the partnership would play an important role in helping Australia achieve net zero emissions.
“Our collaboration with Google and OX2 will deliver new renewable energy capacity into the grid on the east coast of Australia,” he said in a statement.
“Developments like this are critical to accelerating progress towards a carbon-free future in Australia.”
The three companies expected the solar farm to commence operation in 2025.
However, they did not disclose the amount of investment needed to build the project.
Google is not the only tech company that is aggressively pursuing net zero emissions.
Other global tech giants such as Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple also have ambitious net zero goals.
In 2021, Facebook declared that it had achieved net zero after cutting 94 percent of emissions in three years, while Apple announced that it aimed to become carbon neutral with its entire supply chain by 2030.
Google Executive Admits Significant Mining Is Needed for Net Zero
Amid the race to net zero, Google is aware that the company needs a significant amount of key mineral resources from mining to secure a carbon-free future.
During a June conference in Seattle, Mike Werner, the head of circular economy at Google, outlined the need for new mining activities to keep up with product demand and the net zero transition.
“We’ve done some modelling, and it’s pretty clear that we are not going to reach net zero without significant mining,” he said, according to GreenBiz.
“I don’t know that the broad sustainability community has really understood that.”
While Google had tried to extract minerals from old appliances, it was not enough to meet the company’s consumption.
Mr. Werner also predicted that countries around the world would need to remove “trillions and trillions of tons” of soil to get the minerals required to build the technologies and infrastructures for net zero.
******************************************
Aborigines can make threats of violence with no consequences
The Aborigine concerned
When an Indigenous adviser to Transport for NSW threatened to kill senior executive Rochelle Hicks last year, government officials tried to have Ms Hicks removed from her high-level job instead of sacking the man who made the threat.
Internal department documents reveal that just days after a terrified Ms Hicks demanded that action be taken against cultural heritage manager Ian Brown, her boss sought to remove her from the Coffs Harbour Bypass project because the incident was placing the $2.2bn project “at significant risk”.
Last year, The Australian revealed Mr Brown was allowed to stay in his contracted role “because he is Aboriginal and a cultural knowledge holder”, with Transport for NSW officials fearing the massive project might be shut down if he was sacked.
Ms Hicks, the deputy project director for the Coffs Harbour Bypass, said she had been “used as a sacrificial lamb” by executives who baulked at taking action against an Aboriginal man over conduct that would never be accepted from a white man.
Mr Brown – who was the subject of apprehended violence orders in 2020 – made the death threat against Ms Hicks during a meeting at the Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council on 26 June, stating: “If I see Rochelle I will kill her.”
When another participant told Mr Brown he couldn’t make such threats, he responded: “It’s not a threat, it’s a fact.”
Ms Hicks was not present at the meeting but was left shaken when informed of the threat three weeks later – and was distraught when her bosses refused to immediately remove Mr Brown from the project. She says her boss, project director Greg Nash, told her that removing Mr Brown “wouldn’t be an option as it may go political, which would cause project issues”.
When she asked Mr Nash’s superior, Peter McNally, if they accepted Mr Brown’s violent behaviour because he was Aboriginal, Mr McNally allegedly replied: “Absolutely we do. They are treated differently and absolutely we put up with the behaviour because he’s Aboriginal.”
Newly released documents following a call for papers by Nationals MP Sam Farraway substantiate Ms Hicks’ account of the incident and its aftermath and also reveal the plan to remove her from her job after she complained.
On Friday July 21, Ms Hicks sent an email to Mr Nash, copied to Mr McNally, complaining about their inadequate response.
“Do you and Peter McNally accept this language towards women outside of Transport? I am distraught at your lack of support as a leader, and I’m even further upset by the phone conversation I had with Peter McNally … indicating I have to find a solution because Ian Brown is Aboriginal (and) I must accept these behaviours.”
The following day Mr McNally sought support to have Ms Hicks removed from the project.
In an email to TfNSW officials Martin Donaldson and Andrea Rooke, Mr McNally wrote: “We’ve been aware of challenges with Rochelle’s behaviour … of greatest concern has been her open criticism of the project director Greg Nash … which has had a divisive effect on the team.
“It’s critical that we maintain a focused and stable team on the project and retaining Rochelle on site at this point will only further undermine this and place further stress on her.
“As such I need your support to remove her from the project on Monday so that we can address what is a developing rift in our own team placing the project, as well as Greg and Rochelle personally, at significant risk.”
Ms Hicks has stated she was unaware of any issues with her behaviour at any point in the project. These issues appear to have only surfaced following the complaint being lodged.
On Monday July 24, another official advised: “I suggest we may need to seek approval under the EIR delegations 3.21 suspension of employee with or without pay.”
Mr Farraway, a former transport and roads minister who worked with Ms Hicks on the Coffs Harbour Bypass project, says she was “nothing short of professional” and was “a fantastic part of the team”, adding: “They tried to performance review her out of the job and it took months and months before they really started to deal with the issue of the Ian Brown incident. You can see from the documents that no one wants to deal with it.”
Many of the documents released under Mr Farraway’s call for papers have been marked confidential and heavily redacted. Others have not been not released on the grounds that they contain personal information or are subject to legal professional privilege.
In handwritten notes released, Mr Nash defends his “measured” response, claiming Ms Hicks is “acting unreasonably” and “punishing LALC” (the Local Aboriginal Land Council, for whom Mr Brown was working).
He says Ms Hicks is “unable to fully understand the gravity of a knee-jerk reaction” and is using the incident “as a vehicle to inflict damage on myself by taking a moral high ground”.
“Reckless behaviour from RH (Rochelle Hicks)”, he concludes.
Despite subsequent claims by the minister and department that Mr Brown was immediately removed from the project, the documents show this was not the case.
When a decision was finally made to ban Mr Brown from the site, emails reveal something close to panic engulfing the TfNSW team as they prevaricate on informing Coffs Local Aboriginal Land Council chief executive Chris Spencer of the decision.
Mr Spencer had “committed to disciplinary action” against Mr Brown but “he would not expand what this would include”, one official reported.
By late September – more than two months after Ms Hicks sought action over the death threat Mr Brown had made against her – the TfNSW team were still trying to draft a contractual letter to Mr Spencer confirming that Mr Brown was to be excluded from project sites.
A Transport for NSW spokesperson said any complaints made concerning alleged unacceptable workplace behaviour were examined by Transport for NSW and a decision made as to whether appropriate action is to be taken.
“In this case, the Head of Regional Project Delivery, who is responsible for the project and the team delivering the Coffs Harbour Bypass and the relevant decision maker for Transport for NSW, reviewed the complaint and decided no further action be taken against the employee. There was no suspension of the employee.”
************************************
TV trigger warnings are out of control
The warnings on what we now call ‘content’ (i.e. what we used to know as films and TV shows) are getting ever more ludicrous. Almost everything made before 2000 now carries a cigarette packet-style exhortation or exculpation about race, sex and offensive attitudes.
But it’s getting even crazier. A friend of mine was channel hopping over the festive period and caught a stern banner, on nostalgia channel That’s TV, reading, all in capitals:
CONTAINS ADULT HUMOUR AND REFLECTS THE STANDARDS, LANGUAGE AND ATTITUDES OF ITS TIME. SOME VIEWERS MAY FIND THIS CONTENT OFFENSIVE.
What was this antediluvian horror? Birth of a Nation? Song of the South? No, it was an episode of Birds of a Feather – from 2015. Cast your mind back, if you can, to the standards, language and attitudes of the unfathomably distant 2015. Politicians such as David Cameron and Nigel Farage were making headlines. Pop stars Ed Sheeran and Sam Smith were all the rage. And Prince Andrew was in hot water after he was named in documents concerning disgraced US financier Jeffrey Epstein. So much has changed!
These warnings seem to exist merely to stave off idiots on social media complaining to Ofcom
These warnings are definitionally stupid. They take their viewing audience for fools and treat adults like children. They seem to exist merely to stave off idiots on social media complaining to Ofcom – and often only a solitary idiot, like the one person who lodged an objection to the blacking up in the forgotten children’s sitcom Rogue’s Rock, broadcast on Talking Pictures TV in 2020. The idea that a channel is endorsing what happens in a work of fiction is bizarre – it’s like accusing Penguin Books of endorsing murder because it publishes Crime and Punishment.
Then we have the utter vapidity of stating ‘this programme reflects the attitudes of its time’. How could it not? Is there anybody out there who tunes in to On the Buses from 1971 and is surprised that it reflects the attitudes of Britain in 1971? What attitudes were they expecting it to reflect – those of the Thermidorian Reaction in France in 1794? The attitudes of the Khanate of the Golden Horde circa 1320?
There is also the arrogance of it – the confident pronouncement from a high plane of moral and political certainty. There are, of course, never any warnings for idiotic or hotly contested ‘progressive’ attitudes on screen today.
This silliness set me thinking. In future will there be content warnings on the TV and films made nowadays? If sanity prevails (and that’s a big if), what might such warnings look like? Perhaps something like this:
The ethnic origin of some historical figures may be incorrectly portrayed for DEI purposes, as was commonly done at the time this programme was made. This patronising practice was wrong then and it is wrong now.
This film was made at a time when characters were assigned virtue or villainy on the basis of their race or other identity characteristics. This is obviously deeply offensive and discriminatory and we do not support it.
This TV show contains heavy-handed ‘messaging’ that was intended to close down debate and normalise the crank belief that there are somehow more than two sexes, and that human beings can change sex. These outdated attitudes belong to the past.
This content is from a time when writers were constantly policed by social media and by other writers using the now-discredited theories of ‘lived experience’ and ‘positive representation’. Content creators were not allowed, or were afraid, to use their imagination and instincts to write characters and situations. Some viewers may find this offensive.
This content was made in the 2020s, when it was thought that good writing is showing that the Right People are Good, and the Wrong People are Bad. It also contains puerile attempts to shock and disorient the viewer. Viewer discretion is advised.
This content contains a warning about its content. It was made at a time when idiots presumed the morality of every piece of fictional behaviour depicted was endorsed by the channel that funded it and screened it.
And of course:
This film was made in the 2020s – and therefore it does not accurately reflect those times, or indeed any time in history.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/01/tv-trigger-warnings-are-out-of-control/
************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a 
Sahara Ray is undoubtedly a good-looking woman. Since she is Australian-born there is even a possibility that we may be distantly related
No comments:
Post a Comment