Is this what the world has come to? Australian Government group pushes to ban the term 'pregnant women' and replace it with 'pregnant people'

A progressive organisation that is calling for Australians to be more inclusive by adopting non-gender specific terms has been slammed on social media.

The Equality Institute, a Melbourne-based 'feminist' organisation, is renowned for improving gender equality but their tweet about pregnancy on Tuesday caused a huge backlash.

In the tweet, the global research and creative agency suggested people should use the term pregnant 'pregnant people' instead of 'pregnant women'.

'People of all genders can fall pregnant, because people of all genders can have the reproductive organs to do so,' the tweet stated. 'Consider all people - including trans & non-binary folk - & ensure that your language is inclusive of everyone.'

The Equality Institute has previously been commissioned by the Victorian Government to do research and analysis on domestic violence, and has partnered up with various government agencies and non-profit companies.

Despite their attempts to be more inclusive, the tweet garnered plenty of negativity on social media with many people sharing their comments online.

'Wrong. Only women, one of only two genders, can become pregnant. My reference is science. Science doesn’t care about your feelings,' one person wrote.

'That's not how it works. It sounds like it may be time your mom & dad had the "Talk" with you,' another person said.

A third person added: 'After being a labor and delivery nurse for 25 years.....I’m pretty sure my wife would disagree with your opinion.'

Another organisation seeking to incite social change that has ruffled a few feathers with one of its tweets is the Wellcome Collection, a British museum and library.

The museum recently sent out a tweet promoting an event on October 6 using the word 'womxn' which led to a Twitter backlash from hundreds of women.

In the tweet, the organisation promoted a series of activities, discussions and workshops for 'womxn' to challenge existing archives of women in history.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison commented on the two proposed changes, when he spoke to 3AW's Neil Mitchell.

When the radio host asked the PM how he felt about political correctness in relation the term 'pregnant women' and 'womxn', he replied by saying: 'Well that's ridiculous'.

'I mean honestly, seriously... people should just honestly get over themselves.

'I mean we want gender equality, we don't want people discriminated on the basis of their sexuality. And we want all of that, but we don't have to carry on,' the PM said.

SOURCE 





'They're back again': Dozens of African youths are targeted by police just days after 100 teenagers wreaked havoc on the same street - as Tony Abbott blames  'pussy footing' around gang crime

Terrified residents have been forced to lock themselves in their own homes as police rounded up a swarm of youths wreaking havoc on their street.

For the second time in as many weeks, police were called to Banjo Paterson Park in Melbourne's south-eastern suburb of Lynbrook on Saturday night to usher dozens of rampaging youths, predominantly African-Australians, onto trains.

As locals hid, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was vocal in his criticism of Victoria Police's leniency, saying youths will continue to treat authorities with contempt unless arrests are made.

Police were called to the park on Saturday evening at around 7:30pm after reports of chanting and public intoxication.

One female resident told the Herald Sun she was expecting a fight to break out at any minute.

The youths were reportedly approached by police with their batons drawn and ushered to Lynbrook Railway Station, about a ten-minute walk away.

One man was seen being put in the back of a police van.

Frightened locals watched through their windows as the scene was returned to tranquility about four hours later.

One resident saying they had 'never had this issue here before'.

But fewer than two weeks ago, on October 3, police were called to the exact same park after a report of African youth gang violence.

On that night, at least 25 riot squad officers were seen near the railway station and the reserve where the youths were loitering.

They were called on reports of violence and assault, but later said no arrests were made and no victims had come forward.

'Looks the same group of people that were here a couple of weeks ago are back again,' one local wrote on Facebook Saturday night, leading to concerns for re-offenders.

Mr Abbott has led the criticism of Victoria Police, accusing them of 'pussy footing' around youth and gang crime in Melbourne.

'The problem is that there seems to be a few hundred youngsters in outer metropolitan Melbourne who treat the police with contempt,' Mr Abbott said.

Legislation was introduced earlier in the year, which restricts youths with no prior convictions from associating with known gang members.

SOURCE 





Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has said he does not necessarily agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report’s call to phase out coal power by 2050

He also said the government will need a whole of economy emissions reduction strategy in order to meet the set target of reducing emissions to 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.

The IPCC report was written by over 90 scientists and said global emissions of greenhouse gas pollution must reach zero by about 2050 in order to stop global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The scientists recommended that the use of coal for electricity generation would have to drop to between 0 and 2 per cent of current usage.

Dr Finkel said instead the focus should purely be on emissions, as if carbon capture and storage is possible coal power will not produce emissions.

“I actually don’t agree on two basics. I’m not sure the report specifically says that. It says that we need to look at things like coal fired power with carbon capture and storage associated with it,” Dr Finkel told Sky News. “But the main reason for my statement is I feel we’ve got to focus on outcomes. The outcome is atmospheric emissions.”

“We should us whatever underlying technology are suitable for that.” “People paint themselves into an anti-coal corner or a pro-coal corner but the only question of relevance is to look at the atmospheric emissions.”

 Dr Finkel said Australia should be looking to natural gas as a transition fuel. “In the Finkel review we devote a whole chapter and a lot of discussion to the importance of natural gas as a transition fuel. If we use natural gas for the next 20-30 years a lot of it will make it so much easier to use more wind and solar.”

“But we deny ourselves natural gas it makes it more difficult to use wind and solar, so the pursuit of perfection gets in the way of the very good.”

Pressed on his argument that Australia could become the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied hydrogen gas — which was combustible and therefore equivalent to natural gas — Dr Finkel said it was because we have “fabulous resources” here.

The Coalition has struggled with energy policy and has effectively abandoned the emissions reduction component of the national energy guarantee, which was the government’s policy.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said the country will be able to meet its Paris climate agreement targets of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 “in a canter”.

Dr Finkel said the government would need a whole new emissions reduction policy in order for that to happen.

“If you go back to the Finkel review where 49 out of the 50 recommendations were accepted, if all of that is done then I think there is a good chance,” he said.

“So one of the recommendations which was accepted by the government was that by the end of 2020 the government should develop a whole of economy emissions reduction strategy. So if you count that as part of the policy development then I think we can.”

Dr Finkel said small modular reactors might reinvigorate the debate about nuclear power in the future.

He also restated his interest in hydrogen as an alternative energy source - which can be produced with hardly any emissions.

SOURCE 






Freedom Charters may be needed to Protect Free Speech on University Campuses

The most concerning aspect of the current debate about free speech in Australian universities has been the complacent attitudes of Australian higher education leaders.

During Bettina Arndt’s recent speech at Sydney University on ‘rape culture’, riot police had to be called onto the campus to allow the event to proceed, after security guards were overwhelmed by demonstrators blocking audience members from attending the venue.

However, according to Sydney Vice-Chancellor, Michael Spence, the demonstration allegedly showed that “free speech is alive and well” in universities; the student demonstrators were supposedly exercising their legitimate right to protest and engage in counter-free speech.

In reality, the violent scenes of verbal and physical abuse witnessed were an example of the ‘no platforming’ phenomena prevalent in North America, which has seen numerous so-called controversial speakers banned and prevented from speaking on university and college campuses because their views are deemed ‘offensive’ or ‘hurtful’ to some students.

But according to Vicki Thomson, the Chief executive of the Group of Eight peak lobby ground representing Australia’s leading universities, there is no need for universities to take action on free speech on campus because she “couldn’t remember a particularly violent protest [on university campuses] in the past 10 years.”

Thomson was responding to the suggestion by Federal Education Minister, Dan Tehan, that Australian universities adopt the charter — the Statement on Principles of Free Expression — introduced by the University of Chicago in 2014 and subsequently adopted by 45 other American universities.

But if university administrators like Spence and Thomson are unwilling to even acknowledge free speech problems, it is difficult to trust them to self-regulate free speech solutions.

These attitudes suggest that stronger government regulation may be needed to actively spur universities to properly protect freedom of thought and expression on Australian campuses.

My new report, "University Freedom Charters: How best to protect free speech on Australian campuses", therefore proposes a new regulatory framework — based on the polices announced in the Canadian province of Ontario — which would hold universities accountable for implementing and complying with free speech policies, or have them risk financial penalties.

Tying funding to actively protecting free speech on campus would focus the minds of university administrators on free speech problems — especially the minds, once funding was directly at stake, of administrators who claim there is no problem and mistake legitimate protest with disruptive conduct interfering with the free speech of others.

As I told The Australian  this week, universities should consider the report a “shot across the bows.”

If university administrators don’t like the idea of government regulation, the power to forestall this is in their hands. They should take Minister Tehan’s advice, and put in place robust free speech policies to ensure universities remain true universities committed to free and open inquiry.

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here

Australia has never been more divided on social and political issues. Are we becoming the US?

Hmmm...  I am not sure that all that much has changed.  Any change would be only a matter of degree.

During the Australian federal election of 1966 (in the Vietnam war era) I myself led the disruption of the Queensland campaign launch speech in Brisbane by Labor leader Arthur Calwell.  I did so however because I had attended the Brisbane meeting of Prime Minister Harold Holt a week or so earlier and observed it being extensively disrupted by Leftist students whom I mostly knew.  So aggressive attempts to shut up the other side of politics are not new. I was there.

And the way conservatives tend to be silenced in the public sphere is not new either.  I once wrote a book reflecting on that called "Conservatism as heresy" -- and that was in 1974.  The predominance of Leftist talk in the media and elsewhere does not however always translate into electoral victory.  Harold Holt won his election in a landslide.  And the "deplorables" of America elected Donald Trump resoundingly and gave his party control of Congress as well.

I think a lot depends on the issues of the day. Some issues will produce more heat than others. The Holt/Calwell confrontation came at a time when a conservative Australian government was sending conscripts to the Vietnam  war, a very savage war that had no obvious relevance to Australia.  Most university students were of conscription age so ran the real risk of being shot at for no reason that made much sense to them. So what looked like (but wasn't) the whole body of the nation's university students turned out in big demonstrations against the war.  The issue of the day concerned them personally.

But I do think Leftist aggression in Australia has ratcheted up in the last few years. Even minor figures like sex counseller Bettina Arndt draw out the storm troopers doing their best to shut her up. So something similar to the American scene does seem to be happening in Australia, though we have seen nothing like the hysteria of the Kavanaugh confirmation.

So what burning issue can be at work in both the USA and Australia?  To ask the question is to see the answer:  Immigration.  It was the immigration issue that ushered Tony Abbott into office in Australia and it was the immigration issue that ushered Trump into office in America. 

In Australia, public support for stopping the flow of illegal immigration hovered around 66% so both major parties supported a halt -- and Australia has now done what seems to elude Britain and the USA:  It has stopped the practice of people arriving without prior government permission.

But even though the flow of illegals has stopped there remains a big issue with large legal inflows of Third world migrants, mostly as refugees.

The political divisions in Australia are not however on simple party lines.  In America, Trump is determined to build his wall and the Left will do anything to oppose that.  But in Australia the elites of both parties think they display their virtue by accepting large numbers of mostly fake refugees. 

But African and Muslim refugees have been doing their level best to wear out their welcome by repeated attacks on existing inhabitants of Australia -- so there is now a clear groundswell of support for a big cut to the refugee program.  Prime Minister Morrison just has to promise that to be asssured of re-election.  He is however a strong Christian so may not see his way clear to do that.

And Australia's far-Left party, misleadingly known as the Green party, has taken up the cudgels to promote even bigger refugee intakes.  So although the refugee issue in Australia is not as clearly politically polarized as it is in America, it is definitely bubbling along strongly just beneath the surface.  And it does promote passionate debate.

And it would be clear to the far Left that change of some kind must come soon so they are warming up for the fray, accusing immigration critics of racism in their usual way. They are just as pro-immigration as the American Left and are facing a Trumpian slap in the face in the not too distant future.  And they are spoiling for a fight

It's notable that the elite commentators below all speak in airy generalities with no reference to actual current political issues.  They don't even mention immigration.  And they certainly don't identify who is behind the upheavals of rage.  That just about all the disturbances and protests are coming from the Left they are clearly afraid to mention.

And something else they don't broach is how widespread the political divisions are.  To listen to them you would think Australians were split down the middle on important political issues.  They are not.  There is widespread agreement on immigration control, for instance.  All the upheavals going on are in fact the work of a small Leftist minority.  Most Australians retain their usual laid-back attitudes.  So it would be a mistake to take much notice of a small noisy minority grabbing every opportunity to promote themselves.  Australians are indeed divided but it is not a 50/50 divide -- more like a 90/10 divide, with almost all the shrillness coming from the 10%

So I have given a political explanation of what is going on in Australian politics whereas the commentators below retreat into vague psychological and sociological theories. And seeing that I have a doctorate in psychology and taught sociology at a major Australian university (Uni NSW) for many years, I am in an excellent position to point out that all that they say is mere speculation.  They were not game to get down to tintacks


FACEBOOK melts down after a telecommunications company changes its profile picture in support of same-sex marriage.

A speaking tour by a far-right figure from America sparks violent clashes between opposing groups, who far outnumber those who’ve bought tickets.

After a television appearance, a politician receives a specific and violent threat about her daughter, allegedly made by a policeman.

And a radio shock jock’s fiery interview with the boss of a public building leads to boycotts, protests and a week or fierce debate online and in the media.

Has Australia ever been more divided than it is now?

“I don’t think it has — it’s absolutely staggering,” Andrew Charlton said. Dr Charlton, an economist, author and former senior adviser to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, said the tone of discourse lately was troubling. A constant simmering anger and increasing polarisation in the community isn’t just unpleasant — it could have a damaging, long-term impact on democracy, Dr Charlton believes.

“The warning lights on the dashboard of our democracy are blinking red. It’s very hard to constructively govern in an electorate that is so divided,” he said.

In the United States, there is a chasm between Americans socially and politically, which has created a powder keg across the country.

There is a concern that Australia is going down a similar path.  “It’s not yet on the same scale of the United States but it’s heading in the same direction,” Dr Charlton said.

“It remains to be seen whether we’re on the same curve or whether we’re on a different trajectory. I fear we’re on the same curve as the US but a bit behind.”

POLES APART

Since 1996, the Australian Electoral Study has analysed voting trends and ideological positions among voters.

Over two decades, it shows political polarisation has increased significantly and the moderate middle — people who consider themselves either left or right of centre — has evaporated.

And the data indicates that the widening polarisation between the two major parties, Labor and the Liberals, kicked off between the 2001 and 2004 federal elections.

“There’s been a very significant rise of the minor party vote in Australia, which some might call a protest vote but I think is more a sign of disillusionment with the major parties,” Dr Charlton said.

“That minor party vote is higher than it has been in many, many decades. The combined major party vote at the last election in the House of Representatives was at its lowest point in decades.”

A range of measures show that faith in politics among many Australians has slumped to dangerous lows. In addition, people are switching off from messages out of Canberra in growing frustration.

Jill Sheppard from Australian National University’s School of Politics and International Relations said Aussies had never cared intensely about politics. “But the change we’ve seen is that they care less than ever,” Dr Sheppard said.

“Fewer Australians think about and talk about politics, which is a bad sign. There’s a real stalemate in terms of voters being angry, parties not caring and no one really knowing what to do. It’s not sustainable indefinitely.”

As people lose faith in major parties, they look for an alternative that looks and feels different to fill the void, Dr Charlton said.

Many of those alternative figures take a more emotive approach to selling their policy messages, which can fuel division — especially on contentious issues from climate change to migration.

Advertising and marketing expert Arvind Hickman wrote that fringe politics was often wrongly dismissed by the mainstream, but it was “savvy” at marketing their brand and views. Whether via the internet or breakfast television appearances, figures such as Pauline Hanson had been able to widely distribute their messages.

“It’s almost an ‘Aussie lite’ version of the sort of media attention that Donald Trump attracted,” Mr Hickman wrote in a feature for AdNews.

The potential to inflame divisions in the wider community grows as people turn away from the centre and towards the fringes — left or right.

Dr Charlton said political polarisation such as this typically occurred when economies suffered and inequality was growing.  “Australia has had 26 years of uninterrupted growth and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world,” he said. “By global standards, inequality is relatively low. Things aren’t perfect but the reason for our division is not economics — it’s much deeper than that.”

What is the cause of our worsening division?

A GROWING FEAR

Fear has long been an effective tool in political campaigning.   Whether during times of war, domestic terrorism or financial market uncertainty, parties have made use of unease countless times throughout history.

And it works. Whether here or in the US and United Kingdom, there has rarely been a change of government when a country has troops on foreign soil.

The difference now is that fear is being more effectively used by fringe parties, commentator Warwick McFayden wrote in an analysis piece for Fairfax Media earlier this year.

“Throw fear into a person’s mind and it takes root and spreads until it sublimates reason,” Mr McFayden said. “It clouds judgment. It can direct a person’s behaviour towards an outcome that promises the removal of that fear.”

Carol Johnson, a professor of politics at the University of Adelaide, said fear and anger had made it increasingly hard to have a rational and reasoned debate about issues.

“Politicians do have genuine, heartfelt, ideological differences over what is best for society,” Ms Johnson said.

“However, politicians can also encourage fear and discriminatory attitudes for party-political purposes without sufficient concern for the impact on broader Australian society or vulnerable minorities.

“At its best, adversarial party politics fosters crucial debates and expands the democratic choice for voters. At its worst, it mobilises prejudice and undermines the possibility of parties working together for the common good.”

Dr Sheppard believes those with megaphones are the main culprits for many recent outbreaks of fury.

“When we noticed a downward turn in the civility of discourse in Australia, it tends to be because certain voices are amplified, like when we talk for a week about Alan Jones and the Opera House,” she said.

LIVING IN A BUBBLE

The rapid rise of social media platforms has given people the ability to curate an information experience by choosing who to follow or friend.

“We’re not quite sure what platforms like Facebook and Twitter are having on discourse and political engagement generally, but I think it promotes a perception that things are getting worse,” Dr Sheppard said.

“Inside that social media bubble, there’s a sense that society is becoming crueller and less civil and we start looking for signs of that.”

Despite the volume and intensity of fury that social media is often associated with, Dr Sheppard isn’t convinced it reflects the “real world”.

“When you step outside, I think you’d tend to find that most people are going on with things as they always have,” she said.

“Too many of us get stuck in our capital city experiences, surrounded by like-minded people, in (digital) communities that we choose, and we get what’s called confirmation bias.

“Everyone feels the same way as us and they’re angry like us … when you get out into most parts of the country, you’ll find people have other and much bigger worries.”

The concern is that those in the “bubble” are isolated from opposing views and new or different ideas, she said.

That can have a real impact on the civility of discourse.

Observers of Australia’s so-called “culture wars” have noted a tendency for people, regardless of which side they take, to be increasingly uncompromising.

It’s a view that Dr Charlton shares — and he thinks the disperse media landscape is to blame. “We all used to sit down and watch the same six o’clock news at night, wake up in the morning and read the same newspapers or get our information from the same radio bulletins. It was a great centric little force,” he said.

“It didn’t mean everyone agreed with each other but we all kind of had the same set of facts from which to form an opinion or viewpoint. “Now, people can now live in their own little Facebook and Twitter bubbles.”

Broader social changes, including the “postcode divide” and cost of living pressures, coupled with a more narrow community involvement by many, has also contributed to dwindling harmony, he said.

WHO’S TO BLAME?

The mood in Australia when it comes to politics and politicians has become increasingly negative over the past decade.

“For a lot of Australians, and I can’t really disagree with them, the choices on offer are pretty unpalatable and it makes the idea of participating in democracy pretty disappointing,” Dr Sheppard said.

“Politicians have lost our trust and voters are starting to wonder that if their best choice at an election is what’s currently on offer, there might not be much point.

“People have stopped caring and that’s turning into anger directed towards the system.”

A revolving door of PMs — the last one to serve a full term was John Howard in 2007 — has had a profound impact.

“The leadership churn is unprecedented,” Dr Charlton said.  “The average tenure of an Australian prime minister, up until the final day of John Howard, was eight years. Since then, it’s been 22 months.”

Following the 2013 election, Professor Barry Jones from the University of Melbourne — who also served as a minister in the Hawke Government, said politics needed to be redefined.

“Political life in Canberra has become toxic,” he wrote. “With a breakdown in personal relationships, recourse to personal attacks, wild exaggeration and the endless repeating of slogans, the practice of debating with ideas and sentences with verbs having been abandoned.”

As a result, the importance of politics had been diminished among the public and attempts to engage the electorate was confined to the narrow window of an election campaign, he said.

However, Dr Charlton believes putting all of the blame on politicians for the decline in the “quality of debate and discourse” isn’t entirely fair. “I think we should look in the mirror,” he said.

“Politicians respond to the electorate. A lot of the partisanship we’re seeing in Canberra is a reflection of a growing partisanship in the electorate.”

Even the most virtuous politicians want to win — the goal of politics is to remain in office and, in the case of the government, in power. “I don’t think you can blame the increasing partisanship and division on politicians — they’re responding to an electoral opportunity.”

NOT AS BAD AS IT SEEMS?

We are witnessing a “worrying” polarisation of the electorate that shows no imminent signs of slowing down, Dr Charlton says.

Many of those disillusioned with the major parties hold out hope for a saviour — the kinds of figures from times past that had a lasting legacy, he said.

“A lot of Australians think the problem is the current crop of politicians and all we need is another Hawke or whoever to come in, fix all our problems and make politics OK again,” he said.

“I just don’t think that’s the dynamic. I think there’s a problem in the electorate and, until we find ways as a community to reduce the sense of anger and polarisation, I don’t see anything changing in Canberra.

“That is a deeply depressing thought.”

SOURCE 






The end of the dole bludger: Centrelink scroungers will have their welfare FROZEN if they refuse to take fruit picking jobs

Welfare recipients who turn down work available on Australian farms without a valid reason could have their Centrelink funds frozen for up to a month. The development comes as struggling rural farmers begin preparations for another crucial harvest season.

The federal government are making no apologies for their new employment focus, pledging to increase penalties if dole bludgers dodge potential work opportunities remotely.

'Our government has heard from farmers across the country about how tough it is right now to find workers, particularly at the height of harvest season for some crops,'' Prime Minister Scott Morrison said.

'We want to highlight exactly where the jobs are and make sure job-seekers know where to look.

'Tackling the labour shortage also ­ensures job-seekers on taxpayer support have no excuse to ­refuse (work) opportunities.'

If the required amount of workers cannot be recruited to work on the farms, visitors on a holiday visa are likely to fill the roles. 'We cannot allow the fruit to rot,' Mr Morrison told the Daily Telegraph.

'We will back our farmers and make arrangements through our Pacific Island worker and migration program to get the job done.'

The harvest season is rapidly approaching for farmers, starting in Leeton next month.

Young's stone fruit season commences in January, with pears, grapes and prunes available to be picked and bagged across regional NSW from February.

SOURCE 





Islamic extremism in our primary schools: Two students under ten years old revealed to have threatened to BEHEAD teachers

Diversity and inclusion at work

Two students younger than 10 have threatened to behead teaches in two frightening instances believed to be inspired by Islamist militant movements.

The two incidents were reported earlier this year and were believed to involve non-Muslim students attending public schools in New South Wales.

They follow reports 10 boys at an inner west Sydney primary school had been deemed 'at risk' of becoming radicalised, according to Daily Telegraph.  

Students as young as nine had reportedly started to show signs of extreme radicalisation, and some as young as five were also being monitored.

Up to 19 schools in Sydney's western and southwestern suburbs have reportedly been identified as potential targets for radical recruiters seeking vulnerable victims.

Sources inside the education field revealed the behaviour of children who had visited war zones in the Middle East were among those being closely watched.

Last year a female teacher claimed she was tormented by students aged between 10 and 13 who wore ISIS shirts to class and circled around her while reciting the Koran.

'I had students coming into class flying flags from overseas, be it the Syrian flag and possibly the ISIS flag. It looked to me like the ISIS flag,' she told the Mark Latham Outsiders program.

A former teacher said she chose to leave her job at a public school after primary school students said they would kill her family.    

'Some students would act out beheadings with their fingers across their necks,' she told the Daily Telegraph.

Earlier this year a jury was told a 12-year-old boy attended a Sydney protest holding a sign saying 'Behead all those who insult the prophet'.

He was one of two boys who pleaded not guilty to doing an act or acts between October 6 and October 12 in 2016 in Sydney in preparation for a terrorist act.

SOURCE 






There's no such thing as a happy Greenie

Bob Brown is Australia's best known Greenie.  Bob doesn't know the meaning of compromise or moderation when it comes to his causes.  One suspects that he has a genuinely paranoid belief in global warming

Today’s IPCC report is mealy mouthed and dangerous because it fails to tackle the world’s political delinquents like Australia, Bob Brown said today.

“Governments like Australia’s Morrison government will feel relieved that this stodgy panel of scientific conservatives has flagged that there may be more time than previously thought to take the drastic action required to turn around global heating. It is a mistake to give politicians subservient to the fossil fuel industry the message that things aren’t as bad as was thought, especially as the real impacts of global heating - coral death, cyclonic storms, bushfires, droughts, glacial melting, super-heated cities - is so obviously getting worse.”

As NATURE reports today: In the meantime, the newer and larger carbon budget could send the wrong message to policymakers, says Oliver Geden, a social scientist and visiting fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. He fears that the IPCC report undersells the difficulty of achieving the 1.5 °C goal. “It’s always five minutes to midnight, and that is highly problematic,” he says. “Policymakers get used to it, and they think there’s always a way out.”

“The global heating emergency is upon us and the IPCC is sending the wrong signal to assuage political fire. In the lifetimes of our children the blame for the massive cost of this failure, in terms of dollars and security, will be sheeted home not just to the fossil fuel industry but to powerful groups like the IPCC who hedged their bets,” Brown said.

Media release from Jenny Weber [jenny@bobbrown.org.au] of the Bob Brown organization

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here

An atheist manifesto

I put up here a great deal in support of Christians and Christian causes but since I am myself an extreme atheist in the manner of analytical philosophers like Rudolf Carnap, it seems only reasonable that I present an atheist POV occasionally.  None of the difficulties for theism presented below will disdturb committed Christians but they deserve to be presented.

It always amuses me that both Christians and atheists consider one another to be totally unreasonable.  They both have a point. Atheists consider it unreasonanble to believe in an undetectable object and Christians believe it unreasonable to believe the vast complexity around us happened by chance.  Partly for that reason I never argue for or against belief in God, Thor, Zeus or whoever he is

I do however believe in the Devil.  I think Islam is ample proof of his influence

The fact reported below that Australian young people are much more religious than their elders is certainly an interesting finding.  I suspect it reflects the uncertainties of the modern world -- where the Left have done a pretty good job of throwing all values into question.  The existence of God is much better argued for than most traditional beliefs are so young people cling on to the only firm anchor they can find.  And they find in Christianity a rich system of thinking and values that guides them well through life and its challenges.

I myself am profoundly grateful for my fundamentalist youth.  It was much more helpful to me than believing in the absurd Leftist gospel that "There is no such thing as Right and Wrong".  How can they expect anyone to draw philosophical nourishment from such an etiolated body of thought?

I am still mostly guided in my life by Christian principles.  They work for me.  I even "take a little wine for my stomach's sake" from time to time (1 Timothy 5:23)


The promise of an afterlife – to meet departed family and friends – appeals to many, but especially younger Australians. Are private religious schools playing a part? And why do they dismiss the evidence of physics, asks Brian Morris.

Against all odds, it seems the concept of going to heaven holds far greater significance for the young than for those who are closer – numerically – to death! We need to confront ‘the D word’ itself, but let’s first get a handle on why the idea of paradise has gripped contemporary youth – more so than pensioners.

A national Essential poll shows 40% of all Australians believe in heaven. But the crucial figure is that a staggering 51% of those aged 18-34 hold such a belief! This compares to just 29% of the public who are over 55 years old. The young are almost twice as fixated with an afterlife than those closer to pension age! Why is that?

Is it insecurity or religiosity? One suggestion points to the fact that 40% of secondary students now attend private religious schools – a rate far higher than all other Western nations. There has been an exponential growth in government funding for private Catholic and Anglican schools since the 1960s – from a base of almost zero.

Others suggest that a similar rise in Special Religious Instruction (SRI) and chaplains in public schools has led to the Christianisation of education across the nation. These government-funded programs are run by evangelical Christian organisations in each state – with Catholic and Anglican private schools proselytising their own religions. And do millennials then stay at home too long, with a childhood faith, instead of getting out into the real world?

Since colonisation, Christianity instilled belief in an afterlife. It’s reflected on a daily basis in mainstream media, in film and on television – and in our obsession with sport. No game passes without players pointing skyward when scoring a goal, or honouring a deceased team or family member with hands reaching towards heaven.

But the biggest problem is that we don’t talk about death!

Society needs to get over this end-of-life taboo – to discuss and challenge the sugar-coated religious myth that claims we will all meet up with our loved ones (and pets) when we die and go to heaven. Before confronting the concrete scientific evidence (below) – and how we can better handle the emotional aspects of death – just dwell on this thought for one moment.

Isn’t paradise already just a little crowded? Think about who those you would meet – not only the entire cohort of your departed relatives, your friends and ancestors – but all the people you have detested; and those who gave you so much grief during your lifetime.

Then there’s the rest – every human who died! Research shows that, by 2050, an estimated 113 billion people will have lived and died on planet Earth; so heaven is already a seething mass of ‘souls’. For eternity!

The average punter has great difficulty conceptualising ‘eternity’. Most can’t even grasp the fact of our universe being 13.8 billion years old – or Earth a mere 4.5 billion. The concept is starkly illustrated in a fascinating book, A History of the World in 10 1/2 chapters. While fictional, it focuses the mind on a serious problem with infinity.

Chapter 10 sees our hero arrive in heaven, choosing to spend all his time eating luxurious food, having endless sex, and playing golf. After several thousand years he’s sick of food and sex, and on each heavenly golf course he hits holes-in-one on every par 3. He pleads to be released from this endless “perfect existence” and asks if others finally yearn to be free; to actually “die”. With a short pause for effect, the answer was plain. “Everyone!”

Books on near-death experiences, and visits to heaven, are legion. A recent best seller was Proof of Heaven by Dr Eben Alexander – a neurosurgeon, no less. Alexander sold more than 2 million copies before his claims were debunked. Among those who contested his story was Professor Sean Carroll, a particle physicist and high-profile science communicator. Carroll said there could only be two possibilities for Alexander’s spiritual encounter:

(1) Either some ill-defined metaphysical substance, not subject to the known laws of physics, interacted with the atoms of his brain in ways that have eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science; or

(2) People hallucinate when they are nearly dead.

Professor Carroll’s detailed explanation of Physics and Immortality spells out precisely why an immaterial ‘soul’ does not exist.

Carroll worked with the team that discovered the Higgs Boson at Geneva’s Large Hadron Collider. He could not be more explicit;

“If there are other waves, particles or forces sufficient to externally influence the brain, then we would know about them … Within Quantum Field Theory, there can’t be a new collection of ‘spirit particles’ and ‘spirit forces’ that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments… You would have to demonstrate evidence of a completely new realm of reality, obeying very different rules than everything we know about physics.”

The 3 links above are needed to fully understand why there is no ‘soul’. But science does not devalue the need for compassion and empathy in the face of raw emotions that come with our personal experiences of death. It is necessary to face up to reality – but there are alternatives to religion in coping with end of life crises.

Discussing death openly and honestly – and publicly through the media – is a first step in helping to ease the extreme distress that many suffer with their own fear of death.

The ‘Golden Age of Athens’ pre-dates Christianity by four centuries – it led to a crucial period of new philosophical thought about life and death, about government and democracy, and how ordinary people could live a more fulfilled and contented life.

The philosophical principles of stoicism remain popular today. It’s based on three central themes. ‘Perception’, how we choose to view events; ‘Action’, how we deal with events we can control (and those we can’t); and then there’s ‘Will’ – training ourselves to deal honestly and ethically with events in our own lives. Following the full regime of stoicism may seem daunting; but after filtering the basic principles it becomes somewhat easier to apply.

The stoic approach to dealing with death – of family, friends, or oneself – is particularly relevant. Initially, it may appear morbid to periodically remind ourselves of one’s mortality. But if we consider this approach to death deeply enough, we soon come to realise the benefits of a greatly improved mental state.

The stark alternative for most people is to ignore the inevitable, and to be completely consumed by grief when family or friends die unexpectedly. Religion holds its privileged status based on fear – fear of not believing in God, fear of the unknown, and especially the fear of death. It’s a cruel deception that society needs to overcome.

By sugar-coating mortality with the myth of everlasting heaven, religion simply deprives us all of the ways and means to better cope with the end of life. While stoicism may not be the complete solution for all, it is clear that the basic principles of ‘philosophical ethics’ – honesty, reason, compassion, and love – would be a far better alternative than teaching schoolchildren obedience to God and religious ritual.

Future generations would avoid the trap of today’s millennials who continue to shun science and instead cling to religious concepts of an afterlife.

A ‘soul’ that miraculously ascends to heaven, only to re-unite with 113 billion other souls – for the whole of eternity! Just like our golfing hero, that sounds more like purgatory!

SOURCE






Labor mulls backing Morrison's business tax cuts

Labor is considering supporting the Morrison government's plan to fast track tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses, boosting hopes legislation could pass parliament next week.

Under the plan, companies with annual turnovers of less than $50 million will have their tax rate cut to 26 per cent in 2020/21, then 25 per cent the following year.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is confident of winning support for the plan, which would bring forward the cuts by five years at a cost of $3.2 billion.

"I'm going to legislate it next week, because small and family businesses deserve to have the support of this plan," he told the Seven Network on Thursday.

Labor leader Bill Shorten isn't ruling out supporting the proposal. "We will keep an open mind on this question as we examine the numbers, but the other criteria we have is that our first priority is to properly fund our schools, to properly fund our hospitals," he told reporters in Brisbane.

Businesses turning over up to $50 million had their tax cut from 30 to 27.5 per cent last year.

The government had initially planned to implement further rounds of tax cuts in 2024/25 and 2025/26, but now wants to fast-track the plan.

Mr Morrison believes key crossbench senators who rejected the coalition's plans to slash tax for big businesses in August will back the step. "Why would the Senate want to stand in the way of tax cuts for small, and medium-sized businesses? They voted for them before and they voted for them for the right reasons," he told the Nine Network.

The prime minister said the change won't affect the government's plan to return the budget to balance by 2019/20, followed by a more hefty the surplus the following year.

Mr Morrison is using the tax cut plan to highlight a policy difference with Labor ahead of the next election.  "It's a pretty clear contrast," he told ABC Radio.  "Labor's five point plan is tax, tax, tax, tax and tax."

The government claims the tax relief will benefit more than three million small and medium-sized businesses.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen is worried about the total cost to the budget. "They are so desperate to throw cash at issues, whether it be small business tax cuts or other issues for their political purposes that they have thrown out their own budget rules," he said.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson said the move would be a major boost for small businesses.

SOURCE 





Builders Welcome Fast Tracking of Small business Tax Relief

More than 370,000 building businesses will benefit from the Government’s decision to fast track tax relief for SMEs.

“This is great news for builders, including the many who are sole traders, and the economy,” Denita Wawn, CEO of Master Builders Australia said.

 “We have more small businesses in building and construction than any other sector of the economy and this is a heartland issue for Master Builders. We have been very direct in calling for greater tax relief for these businesses and the Government’s move is absolutely the right thing,” she said.

“Bringing forward small business tax relief for SME builders will motivate them to invest more in their businesses including plant and equipment and training, engage more tradies and train more apprentices,” Denita Wawn said.

“SME tax relief is a no-brainer which will be strongly supported by small builders and tradies around the country. We call on everyone in the Parliament to back the legislation when it’s introduced,” Denita Wawn said.

Media release





Morrison returns serve on energy 'anarchy'

Claims Australia's energy policy has descended into anarchy are rubbish, Prime Minister Scott Morrison says.

Scott Morrison has dismissed a stinging critique of Australia's energy policy, saying claims of "anarchy" by the architect of the government's dumped plan are rubbish.

Energy Security Board chair Kerry Schott on Wednesday mourned the death of the National Energy Guarantee, which was abandoned when Malcolm Turnbull was knifed as prime minister.

But the current prime minister gave the short shrift to her policy grief, bluntly rejecting the idea the government had lost its way on energy.

"I don't agree with that at all. I think that's rubbish," Mr Morrison told 3AW on Thursday.

Dr Schott told a conference she was still going through the stages of grief over the government's one-time signature energy plan, but was yet to leave anger.

"I characterise the general state of affairs right now as anarchy," she said.

Mr Morrison insists the government is still pursuing a reliability guarantee with state and territory governments, a feature of the NEG.

"What is necessary is that we need to get more reliability into the national energy market which covers the east coast of Australia," he said.

He dismissed suggestions there was uncertainty about the government's emission reduction commitments.

"Everybody knows what they are and we're meeting them."

SOURCE 






South Australian Education Department Told Primary School Not To Celebrate Christmas

This would have been under the previous Labor government.  The new conservative government has other ideas

An Australian primary school was told by its education department not to celebrate Christmas for the benefit of non-Christian students.

Dr Darryl Cross revealed details of a conversation he had with a teacher at the concerned school:

    “What they said was for me somewhat astounding,” Dr Cross said on Tuesday. “They weren’t looking forward to this term because they weren’t allowed to sing Christmas carols or get into the spirit of Christmas... because there were certain children in the class who weren’t of the Christian faith… therefore they weren’t allowed to celebrate Christmas at all through the school because it was regarded as a pagan festival…”

    “From what I can work out it was a departmental directive. I understood from the conversation that it didn’t come just from the school, that it was in fact a departmental directive…

    “We seem to be giving away the very nature of our culture, the very root of our society by not celebrating our traditional roots in this way. I think that’s a blight on our society…

    “I think we’re losing our culture, we’re losing our valuable traditions, and I think that’s a serious blight on our whole community and where it’s headed.”

Leon Byner said he knew the name of the school but would not reveal it out of consideration for the report’s source.

A statement regarding the claims from SA Education Minister John Gardner read:

    “I’ve always argued that it should be a decision for local school communities how they celebrate Christmas, but to remove all ambiguity our proposed Education Bill, which is currently in the parliament, explicitly states that Christmas can be celebrated, Christmas carols sung etc.

    “I believe Labor will support that aspect of the bill which means it will become part of the new Education Act.”

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here

More about the Sydney University Troublemakers

Bettina Arndt

Fascinating developments regarding the action I have taken against key organisers of the Sydney University protest who tried to stop me speaking on about the fake rape crisis last month. Here’s my new video:



Please help me circulate it. And don’t forget to like it and subscribe.

This one is mainly about Maddy Ward who proudly takes ownership of the event, along with fellow activist Jessica Syed.

The two of them have quite a history. We were amazed to discover that last year the University of Sydney investigated Maddy Ward for her role in a protest against an anti-abortion group which had a stall on campus. She abused and harassed them and showed them her tits! See the photo below of Ward and Syed, taken on the day.

Work Dynamic, the firm which investigates such matters for the University, suggested Ward be given a semester’s suspension for misconduct. Ward claimed in a Buzzfeed article that the investigation was so stressful it triggered her depression and she failed a semester of her studies as a result. Yet the University failed to act prompting a NSW Labor MP Greg Donnelly to speak about the delay in parliament. (Contrary to Ward’s claims, Donnelly did not orchestrate the Christian lobby against her.)

The outcome was extraordinary. The University dropped the charges against Ward and has refused to release details of  their decision even to the anti-abortion complainants who took action against Ward. The University claimed the matter was  confidential.      

The anti-abortion incident is only one example of endless troublemaking by Ward.  Maddy Ward and Jessica Syed, another of the women I named in my complaint, were in strife earlier this year for endorsing violence against Israeli soldiers in the form of a "martyred" female suicide bomber on the front page of the student magazine.

Here’s a quote from the article:

"Women’s officers Madeline Ward and Jessica Syed, who produced the al-Tahir cover, defended their actions in an online Honi Soi article. “We were aware that Hamida al-Taher car-bombed an Israeli military encampment … (but) her actions occurred in the context of the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon, i.e.: a war,” they wrote. “We believe in and support the right for people to resist occupation and oppression”

It will be interesting to see whether Sydney University continues to protect these young women who are clearly responsible for so many breaches to university regulations. We now have submitted five long videos providing evidence of the key protesters in action. There’s a particularly interesting sequence in this new video showing Ward encouraging the crowd to harass an older man who was trying to make his way through the protesters to reach my talk and then resisting being removed by the riot squad.

It's been exciting to see how many prominent people have spoken out in the last few weeks about the need for universities to protect free speech on campuses, including the Education Minister, the Attorney General, a number of Senators, a Chancellor and former Vice-Chancellor. The Australian has published two editorials and numerous media commentators have weighed in, using my case to argue that universities are failing to promote proper intellectual debate and challenging ideas.

Sydney University has refused to refund the security fee – Vice Chancellor Michael Spence claimed the security guards “acted within the protocols required of them.” How is it possible that the universities security guards are not required to ensure unruly students don’t breach universities regulations. We are following up this issue. 

Yet the university has commenced their investigation into my complaint and  have asked for a list of witnesses for their lawyers to interview. They say the whole process may take months, given that the university then presents my named group of key protesters with a notice of allegation and they are then given time to respond.

I’ve recently postponed talks in UWA and ANU. It proved too difficult to make these events happen in a hurry, with universities naturally putting students hosting my talks through a long form-filling process regarding security and so on. We are making big plans for my campus tour next year, giving plenty of time for the universities to provide venues. I have the impression that a number of universities are now keen to step up and use my talks as proof of their new credentials in supporting free speech. Now that’s quite a breakthrough.

But I still need student groups across Australia willing to host events. The Liberal Club students at La Trobe and Sydney really put themselves on the map by being brave enough to be the first to host my events and are receiving great kudos as a result. Please help me find other courageous souls to push this process along.

It’s marvellous that my campus tour has prompted such a lively discussion about free speech on campus but I still have a long way to go to persuade universities to be braver about the fake rape crisis.

By email from Bettina [bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au]





Minister backs science on weedkiller use

Agriculture Minister David Littleproud has backed the government's pesticide regulator over concerns the world's most popular weedkiller is unsafe.

The Cancer Council wants an independent review into glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, after it was linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

But Mr Littleproud said the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority had determined the chemical was safe.

"The science of the independent regulator says this chemical is safe if you follow the instructions," the minister told Sky News on Tuesday.

"I just say to everybody use some common sense, follow the instructions and you'll be OK."

Debate over glyphosate was reignited in August after a Californian jury ordered agribusiness giant Monsanto pay $US289 million ($A399 million) in damages to a former groundskeeper dying of cancer.

Mr Littleproud said that case and others aired by the ABC's Four Corners on Monday highlighted excessive exposure.

"Home gardeners shouldn't get too worried about this, You're not going to get exposed to levels so long as you follow the instructions," he said.

The minister said farmers were using the chemical in a sensible way, adding agriculture had come a long way in how pesticides were used.

"I just say to everyone calm down ... and have faith that we have the best science in the world," Mr Littleproud said.

APVMA's review came after a 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organisation body, found glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to humans".

Labor seized on the concerns, demanding a Senate inquiry into the independence and decision-making of the pesticides agency.

"This issue is too important to the agricultural community, to Australia's farmers, and to consumers to be left unresolved," opposition agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said on Tuesday.

Labor also wants to investigate the impact of moving the regulator from Canberra to Armidale in northern NSW.

"There is no doubt the government's decision to relocate the APVMA has impacted on its operations," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

But Mr Littleproud accused the opposition of playing politics, saying the agency's most recent assessment was conducted before the relocation started.

National Farmers' Federation president Fiona Simson said the scientific evidence overwhelmingly proved the chemical was safe.

"There is simply no alternative that is as safe and as effective as glyphosate, for these purposes," Ms Simson said.

SOURCE 





Right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos announces ANOTHER tour of Australia – and says it’s bad news for Waleed Aly, Clementine Ford and Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is ready to unleash on Australian public figures in his second tour Down Under.

The outspoken firebrand, who is infamous for criticising feminism, political correctness and Islam, will be joining forces with US conservative speaker Ann Coulter next month.

The outspoken duo have vowed to cause uproar, claiming the tour will guest star Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, Clementine Ford, Waleed Aly, Yassmin Abdel Magied and Jacinta Ardern, 'although they don't know it yet'.

The outspoken duo Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter are coming down under to speak against feminism, political correctness and the religion of Islam

Mr Yiannopoulos said his second tour was to 'save glorious Australians' from 'bonkers feminists of the American culture wars and the wacky social justice warriors who want to hand Western civilization over to Muslims and race-baiters'. 

The controversial star sparked violent protests at his sold out shows last year across Australia

During his Sydney show, Mr Yiannopoulos attracted 100 protesters who chanted 'F*** off Nazi' in violent scenes that led to seven arrests. Inside the venue, an audience member threw a shoe at him during his speech.

It is not clear whether Mr Yiannopoulos plans to pay back the bill he was ordered to pay by Victoria Police to cover the costs of manning the protests outside his talk in Melbourne.

Last year, Clementine Ford declined Mr Yiannopoulos' invitation to debate on controversial issues and said, 'I would never legitimise Milo's existence or Nazi links by appearing anywhere with him'.

Mr Yiannopoulos has labelled her 'vindictive, spiteful' and 'particularly unintelligent'.

He also said he watched The Project through 'gritted teeth', and found Waleed Aly to be an 'intellectual lightweight' and 'insubstantial'.  He has also labelled the panelist on Network Ten as a 'coward' for avoiding to interview him on live TV.

In an appearance on the Bolt Report, Mr Yiannopoulos announced his new book coming out called 'Australia, You're My Only Hope,' which he described as a last-ditch effort to save Australians from 'the cancers of public life'.

Ann Coulter, an American conservative commentator, has written a succession of high-selling books on U.S. politics and culture.

Ms Coulter is a regular guest on Fox News programs and has made provocative appearances on liberal shows such as Real Time and The View, where she commonly raises the hackles of hosts and audiences.

The tour is advertised as 'an evening of hysterical, irreverent comedy and incisive political commentary with two undisputed queens of American conservatism'.

General admission to the Milo and Anne: Live tour begins at $89 and go up to $499 for VIP Tickets.

The price for a VIP Cruise ticket has been set at $999, which includes a 1.5h private mingle with Ann & Milo in a private yacht cruise, food platter and drinks, photo with the speakers, and signed merchandise. 

SOURCE 






PM plays down changing gay student laws

A long-awaited review into religious freedoms in Australia does not recommend any changes to the basis on which faith-based schools can reject students or teachers, the attorney-general has confirmed.

Some states - but not all - already allow schools to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status.

Commonwealth laws also contain some provisions to permit faith-based schools to exercise this discretion.

A Fairfax Media report suggested a religious freedoms review recommended the right be enshrined in the federal Sex Discrimination Act to ensure a consistent national approach.

The review's panel, chaired by former Liberal minister Phillip Ruddock, said it accepted the right of schools to select or preference students who uphold their religious convictions.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison played down the proposal on Wednesday, saying such exemptions to anti-discrimination laws already exist.

"We're not proposing to change that law to take away that existing arrangement," he told reporters on the NSW Central Coast.

Attorney-General Christian Porter later clarified that no changes to the current arrangement, created by Labor in 2013, are proposed in the report. "The Ruddock report does not recommend any changes to this regime," Mr Porter said.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said he can't believe the prime minister hasn't ruled out the "silly" idea completely. "The fact is every child is entitled to human dignity. We shouldn't even be having this debate," Mr Shorten told reporters in Melbourne, demanding the government release the report.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Labor's concerns about discrimination against children were jumping the gun, insisting the government would "get the balance right" and leave existing laws untouched.

But Special Minister of State Alex Hawke strongly supports the proposal, saying it is up to individual Christian schools to negotiate their handling of gay students. "I don't think it's controversial in Australia that people expect religious schools to teach the practice of their faith and their religion," he told Sky News.

Fellow Liberal MP Tim Wilson said he wouldn't be supporting any new laws that would broaden grounds for discrimination, and does not think the coalition would either.

The Ruddock review was commissioned after the 2017 national same-sex marriage vote and handed to the government several months ago, but is yet to be released.

Gay rights activists have slammed the proposal as a shameful assault on equality. Alex Greenwich, who co-chaired the national campaign in support of same-sex marriage, is demanding the federal government rule it out.

The panel reportedly did not accept that businesses should be allowed to refuse services on religious grounds, such as denying a gay couple a wedding cake.

The review also found civil celebrants should not be entitled to refuse to conduct same-sex weddings if they became celebrants after it was was legalised, Fairfax Media reported.

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here

He’s reading a financial paper; she’s reading a fashion magazine: Why women are angry about Sofitel hotel ad



A correspodent writes:  "Women are complaining that the woman in the ad is reading a fashion magazine. They somehow interpret that as the ad saying that most women read fashion magazines.

But most women who read magazines do read fashion magazines. Look at any woman's magazine pile. Even the complaining women recognise that the magazine she is reading is a fashion magazine. I doubt many man would know it is a fashion magazine. I certainly didn't. So they demonstrate that their own argument is wrong.

That is what I term an innate falsity. Like when Lefties say there is no truth, and expect that silly statement to be accepted as truth.

They are also demonstrating the collective mindedness of women, especially feminist women. They are not individually minded, which is frequently shown by the fact that they collectively feel insults and perceived insults that directed to one of them.

The white male is not like that. He is individualistic. We do not feel insults directed to another white male. Even when all white men are insulted collectively -- which they often are -- individual white males do not feel it. White males tend to be each their own individual more than women are. We can each think for ourselves.

Feminists, though, are herd minded. They all think the same. That is one reason why they cannot be equal with us men.

   
AT FIRST glance this photo looks innocent enough — a young couple relaxing in a hotel bed, both reading over breakfast in their fluffy white robes.

He’s reading a copy of the Australian Financial Review newspaper and she’s flicking through a Chanel coffee table book.

Laid out on the bed in front of them are a selection of breakfast items. There are pastries and pancakes for him, a healthy fruit platter for her.

Many female readers of Fairfax’s Good Weekend magazine spotted the ad in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on the weekend and slammed its suggestion that women only read light, frivolous material about fashion.

“Yes, newsflash for @SofitelBrisbane — some women are in fact more interested in whether stocks and shares are going up and down than whether hemlines are,” one woman wrote on Twitter.

“Ah yes, those hotel mornings when you wake up, put your hair in a nice chignon and read a coffee-table book about Chanel,” joked one woman. Replied another: “Jesus, is that a Chanel coffee table book? This is … so disheartening.”

“No no, don’t be silly, you are a woman, you only read fashion books and cookbooks,” another said.

One woman commented, “I’m surprised she’s not in skimpy underwear while he’s holding a handful of spanners”, while another said, “Funnily enough I actually prefer reading @FinancialReview in the morning.”

A spokesman for the Sofitel Brisbane apologised for the ad and said it has now been pulled from any future publications.

“There was no intention of portraying a stereotype but we recognise it and apologise for any offence that it has caused,” the spokesman said. “The creative has since been pulled from any future communications activity.”

SOURCE 




What I want from men to help end gender wars

Angela Mollard (below) is a generally sensible lady not given to feminist extremes but she has been sucked in by some feminist claims. What she is not loading is that men CANNOT end the gender wars -- because we are not waging them. The war is a one-sided thing being waged on men by feminists. So only they can end it.

But they will not. They seem to need to trace all evils to men and show nil awareness that men can have problems too. Men are not a monolithic blob. They are infinitely different so treating them as all the same is just bigotry and huge ignorance. It is as stupid as racism. Some men will treat women well and some will treat women badly. And most will be somewhere in between

Now that women are a majority of university graduates, it is clear that systematic discrimination against women is at an end. All that is left are human relationships in their infinite variety



DEAR men,

I’m tired.

I suspect you’re tired. Indeed, we’re all tired of the insidious gender warfare that’s spilt into every sphere of society leaving festering pools of anger, uncertainty and resentment. It’s a year this week since The New York Times published sexual harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein, provoking a global reckoning and the emergence of the #MeToo campaign. Ergo it seems as good a time as any to reflect — not simply on what happens in the hallowed halls of Hollywood — but in our living rooms, bedrooms and workplaces.

The Brett Kavanaugh hearing has catapulted the movement from the silver screen to the Supreme Court but I’m less interested in one man’s alleged mistreatment of women in his ascent to power than I am in the everyday interactions and ideologies that guide who we are and how we relate.

Genuine, lasting societal change will be brought about less by grandstanding and more thorough understanding and so let’s try this: here’s what I want from and for men.
The Brett Kavanaugh hearings have once again highlighted the MeToo movement, but it’s how everyday men and women interact that’s important. Picture: AP

Foremost, I want the toxicity to end. Change and progress are painful but we don’t need to be so polarised. When the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke at the UN the line widely reported was her insistence #MeToo becomes #WeToo. But she said something a minute later that was arguably a more powerful call to arms. In trying to achieve peace, prosperity and fairness, New Zealand was pursuing one concept, she explained. “It is simple and it is this. Kindness.” Imagine what we might achieve if kindness — from both women and men — underpinned the way we operated in the world.

Critically, I want men involved in their children’s lives. Whether in intact or reconfigured families, men should be pivotal. The model of the workaholic dad is rightly dying and while many men need to create fuller identities beyond their job title, women need to stop seeing men as walking wallets who are singularly responsible for financially supporting the family. For every man who rather enjoys upholding the patriarchy as if it was a set of dumbbells representing status and money, I’d venture there’s three or four who’d happily hand over half the weight to a willing partner. We all have much to gain from a creative redrawing of our work and domestic spheres. Work offers purpose and a pay packet, home delivers connection. Sharing the responsibility of both is not only more equitable, it extends both partners’ capabilities and understanding of each other. As for women who deny their former husband access to their children simply because they are hurt or angry, shame on you. It happens too often and it’s a cruelty that benefits no one.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke during the General Debate of the 73rd session of the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York last month. Picture: AFP

Further, I want the powerful men and women at the top of our corporations and institutions to drive transformation. Leadership is not just managing people and making money, it’s leaving a legacy. For too long the decisions have been made by men in suits largely supported by a housewife at home. Yet when men like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian take paternity leave and encourage their employees to do likewise, they effect profound change. People at the top will change conditions at the bottom so that all can benefit from pay parity, flexible workplaces and healthy superannuation balances.

Equally, I want ordinary men to stop claiming women are mad. Emotions are simply another operating system and when combined with a firm grasp of facts bring a fuller and more nuanced comprehension to every realm of life. Too often women are dismissed as menstrual or menopausal. It’s more than 25 years since Anita Hill was smeared as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” but still such debasing presumptions persist. In return, women need to drop the “all men are bastards” schtick and the blasé view that it’s no big deal if a few innocent men are unfairly convicted or besmirched in the march for equality. We also need to stamp out the growing notion that women are inherently more “good” than men. All those years as Stepford wives didn’t turn us into saintly creatures waiting nobly in line until we’re passed the baton to do a better job. Most of us are as equally defective as the next bloke. Which means we’re equally as capable.

As for domestic violence, it is not just causing death and injury to women but a horrendous stain on the male gender. Good men are appalled but they need to do more. In her next book, the feminist author Caitlin Moran is including an invitation to men to join the fight. As she says there’s a huge void where good men feel it’s all a bit “icky” and that feminists don’t want them involved. Men need to ask themselves, “Okay, if not me, who?”

Finally, men and women have to rediscover what we like about each other. We need to cherish our differences and champion progress and approach all of it with humour, joy and a sense of expectation. Equality is not like landing on the moon. We won’t raise a flag when we’ve arrived. But along the way we’ll, all of us, feel in our bones, when we’re getting it right.

SOURCE 






IPCC push to dump coal-fired power not for us, says Morrison

Scott Morrison has rejected a rapid global phase-out of coal-fired power and declared his government will not be bound by a landmark climate study, amid concern its blueprint for curbing temperature rises would see the “lights go out on the east coast of Australia”.

A special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has championed a quick end to coal-fired power across the world and found that unprecedented changes in all aspects of society were needed to meet the lower Paris Agreement target limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

The Morrison government yesterday welcomed the report but stood by coal-fired power generation and defended Australia’s record in meeting its international emissions ­reduction targets.

“If we take coal out of our ­energy system, the lights will go out on the east coast of Australia — it’s as simple as that,” Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said.

The IPCC special report said rising temperatures were already affecting the weather in some ­places and there would be a big difference in the impacts on all ­aspects of the natural world from a 2C increase, compared with a 1.5C rise. Warm-water coral reefs would be more than 99 per cent gone with a rise of 2C, but some might survive at 1.5C.

The special report is set to ­become a central focus of a campaign to encourage countries to increase their ambition under the Paris Agreement, starting in ­Poland in December. At present, Paris Agreement pledges would lead to global temperature ­increases of more than 3C.

The Australian government said the report justified the controversial decision to spend $444 million protecting the Great Barrier Reef.

Environment Minister Melissa Price said the IPCC report was designed to inform policy makers but was not “policy ­prescriptive”.

The Prime Minister ­defended Australia remaining a signatory to the Paris Agreement, arguing it would not have any impact on electricity prices. But he said Australia would not be held to any of the IPCC ­report conclusions.

“We are not held to any of them at all, and nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund,” Mr Morrison told 2GB radio.

Bill Shorten said there was a need to ensure a greater proportion of renewable energy sources in Australia’s energy mix.

“But we are not saying that there won’t be fossil fuel as part of our energy mix going forward,” the Opposition Leader said.

According to the IPCC report, to meet a target of 1.5C warming compared with the 1851-1900 average, global net human carbon ­dioxide emissions would need to fall about 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050.

Renewables are projected to supply 70 to 85 per cent of electricity in 2050, under the 1.5C target. Nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS) were modelled to increase in most 1.5C pathways. The use of CCS would allow the electricity generation share of gas to be about 8 per cent of global electricity in 2050.


“The use of coal shows a steep reduction in all pathways and would be reduced to close to zero per cent of electricity (in 2050),” the report said.

CSIRO research scientist Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project, said the special report was probably the last reminder that there were no insoluble biophysical or technical impediments to meet the lowest temperature targets in the Paris Agreement.

But Dr Canadell said it would require the “almost immediate ­establishment of a global carbon market, carbon pricing across all sectors of the economy, massive energy efficiency gains, significant consumer changes in diets, actions to reduce peak global population, and the immediate and growing deployment of options for the ­direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including the pervasive need for carbon capture and storage in most cases”.

There would be drastic changes in land use, including reforestation and planting crops for energy to suck carbon dioxide from the ­atmosphere and burying emissions when they were burnt.

A shift in diet towards less meat was described in the summary for policymakers as the need for “healthy consumption patterns”, “responsible consumption” and “sustainable diets”.

The provision of billions of dollars in finance to help developing nations would be crucial.

The IPCC said limiting global warming to 1.5C compared with 2C could “go hand-in-hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society”.

The advantages of meeting a 1.5C target rather than 2C were ­detailed in the report. Global sea level rises would be 10cm lower by 2100, the report said.

The likelihood of the Arctic Ocean being free of sea ice in ­summer would be once a century compared with at least once a ­decade. An IPCC official said that while limiting warming to 1.5C was possible within the laws of chemistry and physics, doing so would ­require unprecedented changes.

Global CCS Institute chief executive Brad Page said the ­report had reinforced the point that a 1.5C increase could not be reached without deployment of all clean technologies, and carbon capture was most definitively one.

“CCS must remain at the forefront of national, regional and international policy discussions and, as the IPCC said today, governments must act on this evidence,” Mr Page said.

Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said: “The report makes clear that we need to get better at investing in storing carbon in the natural world and deploying technologies that can remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Our governments and industry should urgently investigate how they can better do this with the right incentives.”

SOURCE 






High Court to examine the rights of pro-life activists to be present outside abortion clinics

If the killers didn't have guilty consciences scrutiny would not bother them

Abortion clinic staff fear going back to the “dark ages” as anti-abortionists challenge in the High Court the Victorian and Tasmanian laws that banished religious protesters from outside their workplaces

Kathleen Clubb, a mother of thirteen who was the first person to be convicted under those laws, is asking the High Court to consider if the legislation infringes on political free speech.

For decades, self-described "sidewalk counsellors" were a fixture outside centres across the state, until they were finally exiled in 2016 with the introduction of “safe access zone” laws that obliged protesters to stay at least 150 metres away.

After Ms Clubb was arrested by police in 2016 when she was caught approaching a couple outside the East Melbourne Fertility Control Clinic, she reportedly said: “I don’t intend to leave. I believe I have the right to offer my help to women.”

Ms Clubb is challenging her conviction and $5000 fine in a case that will be heard on Tuesday by the full bench of the High Court. They will also consider the case of another anti-abortionist, John Graham Preston, who breached similar Tasmania laws.

The case has alarmed staff at abortion clinics, who say they used to be too afraid of the protesters to leave their office without a security guard.

“I shudder to think what it would be like if we returned to the dark ages and women were forced to walk the gauntlet simply to see their doctor,” said senior associate Katie Robertson from Maurice Blackburn, which is representing the Fertility Control Clinic pro-bono.

Susie Allanson worked at the East Melbourne clinic as a clinical psychologist for more than 25 years and often feared she would be hurt by one of the anti-abortionists, who would arrive by 7.45am each morning.

She was working at the clinic in 2001 when a radical recluse came to the centre armed with a modified high-powered rifle and other weapons, ready to massacre dozens of patients and staff. He murdered security guard Steven Rogers, before being disarmed by the boyfriend of a pregnant woman.

Dr Allanson said the safe access zones had been an overnight success. “Instantly, women were no longer being harassed and intimidated on the public footpath.”

This week’s case is likely to centre on the issue of whether preventing protesters approaching women within the safe zone is a breach of the implied freedom of political communication.

Ms Clubb and her legal team were contacted for comment and declined.

In her submission to the High Court, she argued that abortion was inherently political and that political communication about abortions was most effective at the place at which abortions are provided, where they can reach clinic users and their medical staff.

“Australian history is replete with examples of political communication which were effective because they were conducted in a place where the issue was present and viscerally felt,” it said.

The 1998 Australian waterfront dispute, Eureka Stockade and the Freedom Ride of 1965 are listed examples.

In an interview with NewsCorp in June, Ms Clubb denied distressing women with graphic images of abortions on signs, saying that she only prays and distributes pamphlets.

She said at the time she was fighting for the right to speak on her beliefs, even though they were unpopular. “But the point is, if parliament can ban this kind of protest, what other kind of protests can they ban?” she told NewsCorp. “I am fighting for all Australians.”

But Ms Clubb faces a formidable opposition, with the case attracting not only the attention of the Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula, but governments across the nation, who have made submissions through lawyers in defence of the Victorian and Tasmanian laws.

The Attorney-General will argue that if there is any impact on the implied freedom of political communication, it is insubstantial.

“While it may be accepted that some individuals might be engaging in political communication, in other cases the aim is to deter women from having an abortion, often through imposing guilt and shame,” the submission said.

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here

Kimberley Kitching is trying to cater for Labor’s conservative voters

Ms Kitching seems to have a strange idea of what constitutes “Judeo-Christian” values.  She claims to adhere to them but voted for homosexual marriage, despite homosexuality being repeatedly condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments. And how does "Thou shalt not covet" jibe with socialism?  No Leftist obeys that Commandment. She is right that many Labor voters have some conservative values but whether she can impress them with empty talk remains to be seen

Labor senator Kimberley Kitching — a close ally and friend of Bill Shorten — is moving to create a bipartisan parliamentary group that will defend “Judeo-Christian” and “Western-liberal democratic” values as she launches her credentials as a new style of social conservative within the Labor Party.

The Victorian, who was controversially hand-picked by the Opposition Leader to replace Stephen Conroy in the Senate, said she considered it part of her job to fight “smug elitism” and would seek to ensure the views of “inner-city elites” did not prevail over the “quiet wisdom of working people”.

“I think that sometimes Labor insiders tend to be more small-l liberal in their views than the ­people who vote for us,” Senator Kitching told The Australian.

She said the rise of the Greens had been good for the party as it helped create a “Corbyn-proof fence” that had protected Labor from the “more extreme and out of touch” parts of the Left. She also spoke against identity politics and virtue-signalling, saying it was intellectually “lazy” and had a negative impact on public debate.

Despite being a practising Catholic, Senator Kitching’s pitch as a Labor conservative is more cultural than religious and represents a shift from the traditional grouping of “LabCons” who have been guided by their faith in ­opposing same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia.

In interviews with The Australian, four LabCons — Don Farrell, Jacinta Collins, Helen Polley and Chris Ketter — denied claims their socially conservative views were maligned in the party as it became increasingly progressive.

The MPs — who voted No last year to same-sex marriage — said Labor needed to be a broad church to ensure it appealed to conser­vative working-class voters.

Senator Kitching — who voted Yes to same-sex marriage but is opposed to euthanasia — said “Judeo-Christian, Western-liberal democracy” was the “very best way” for people to “organise themselves” and its principles should be more staunchly defended.

She will attempt to launch a Defence of Democratic Institutions Parliamentary Friendship Group, inviting MPs from across the aisle as well as business leaders and academics.

Avoiding the politically loaded term “Western values”, Senator Kitching said the group would champion “liberal-democratic ­values”, discuss policy ideas and help shape the political agenda.

“The fact is we must remain vigilant in order to protect and safeguard our Judeo-Christian, Western-liberal democracy from both external and internal threats,” she said.

Senator Kitching — who has defended her record at the Health Services Union despite being ­accused of misconduct by the trade union royal commission — said she preferred the term “moderate” to social conservative, a sentiment shared by Senator Collins and Senator Ketter.

Senator Farrell, Labor’s Senate deputy leader and a leading figure in the conservative shoppies faction, said many working-class Labor voters had traditional values.

He said his Catholic views drove him towards the Labor Party because of the church’s teachings on social justice. “On the one hand you can be a social conservative but also support the concept of social justice,” he said, adding that he did not believe the party would eventually junk its conservative links.

Senator Collins said her views were accepted by her parliamentary colleagues, despite a Labor MP telling The Australian the LabCons were a “dying” force within the party and their views were increasingly marginalised.

“I have never felt lonely,” Senator Collins said. “I’m a collectivist. I don’t relate at all to the Liberal (Party) traditions of individualism, so I have found Labor fits much more neatly with my approach to achieving the common good.”

SOURCE 






A State government codifies ‘white privilege’ slur for its bureaucrats

Government departments in South Australia have been criticised for seemingly forcing ­bureaucrats to acknowledge “white privilege” in Aboriginal cultural awareness training.

Conservative crossbench senator Cory Bernardi told The Australian that public servants had contacted his office in fear of losing their jobs after refusing to participate in the training, which required them to acknowledge their “white privilege”.

“I’ve had public servants contacting my office, fearful for their jobs because in good conscience they cannot undergo this man­datory indoctrination,” Senator Bernardi said yesterday.

“They are being discriminated against because political correctness and bureaucracy have run out of control under the noses of the major parties.”

National debate over the use of the term “white privilege” erupted in January when it was revealed that new codes of conduct for nurses and midwives referenced “a decolonising model of ­practice based on dialogue, communication, power sharing and negotiation, and the acknowledgment of white privilege”.

The codes do not require ­nurses or midwives to declare or apologise for white privilege.

Two SA Health documents for “cultural” and “workplace” learning advise staff “there is an un­deniable relationship between the continuing impact of colonisation and racism on the current health status of Aboriginal people”.

“Aboriginal people have been negatively impacted by inequitable government policies and the consequential ongoing racism and discrimination,” the documents say, noting that the ­material will “improve the ­cultural competence of the SA Health workforce through a ­better understanding of the impact of colonisation on Aboriginal health outcomes”.

A “learning outcomes” section requires staff to define white ­privilege and the effect of white privilege on Aboriginal health.

Staff are required to “challenge and respond to ‘racist’ behaviour and racial stereotypes” and “recognise the impact of white privilege on access to ­services”.

The “learning frameworks” also require staff to explain cultural self-awareness and identify their own cultural values and practices, identify examples of “white privilege” and analyse how “white privilege” impacts on Aboriginal people’s experience of health care services.

Premier Steven Marshall, who formed the first Liberal government in South Australia in 16 years in March, also has responsibility for the state’s Aboriginal ­Affairs portfolio.

Mr Marshall’s own department “actively encourages public sector employees to participate in Aboriginal cultural awareness training”, according to its website.

The South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources has an online “reconciliation action plan” that states: “We seek to be able to better recognise the influence colonisation and white privilege has on the department’s internal and external interactions with Aboriginal people, their nations and communities.”

Mr Marshall insisted that cultural awareness training was not compulsory. “Cultural awareness training is an option made available to public sector employees,” he said.

“The use of the term ‘white privilege’ … (is) not a term that I would personally use.”

Senator Bernardi said: “This politically correct nonsense is offensive, if not racist, towards many Australians.”

SOURCE 






Schoolgirl, 6, pulled out of school after cruel bullies punch her in the face, pull her hair and expose themselves to her - as teachers say they can't do anything to stop them

The Left-influenced breakdown in school discipline again

A family has taken the drastic step of pulling their six-year-old girl out of school, amid claims she was relentlessly bullied for months.

Gold Coast youngster Summah Hillhouse says she is too scared to go to school after she was repeatedly punched in the face, called names and had her hair pulled.

Summah says she told teachers what was happening but nothing was done.

'She said 'Summah it is not called bullying, she doesn't do it to you every single day.'  It made me feel sad,' the little girl told A Current Affair.

Her grandmother Kim Den Hertog described the situation as 'absolutely ridiculous.' You can't send a six-year-old to school when she is frightened. It's like then we become the abusers,' she said. 'We are meant to send our children to school to learn and to be protected, but they're not being protected.'

Her family also claims two older boys flashed their private parts at Summah and a friend in the school playground last month.

The recent bullying has given Shaye Hillhouse no other choice but to try and find her youngest daughter another school before term four starts in the coming weeks.

'The teachers don’t seem to be able to do anything about it. It’s so frustrating,' she told The Gold Coast Bulletin last month.

'We had a meeting with a deputy principal, who was very good to us, and she promised there would be consequences for the offender but it’s too late. I've been to Southport police but I was told there is nothing they can do because a child under the age of 11 cannot be criminally responsible for his or her behaviour.'

A Queensland Department of Education spokeswoman told Daily Mail Australia it cannot comment on individual cases for student privacy reasons. 'Bullying is not tolerated in Queensland state schools. Any situation that threatens the safety and wellbeing of students is treated extremely seriously, and dealt with as a matter of urgent priority,' the spokeswoman said in a statement.

'All Queensland state schools are committed to providing a safe, respectful and disciplined learning environment for students and staff. 'All schools have a Responsible Behaviour Plan which sets out very clear standards and expectations for all students. [Translation:  Bullsh*t]

'The school involved continues to work closely with the students and their families to address their concerns.'

Meanwhile, Summah had this message for bullies. 'I would say stop bullying somebody because that's not nice,' she said.

SOURCE 






Does inequality matter?

This week we hosted an interesting discussion on inequality.

CIS Senior Fellow Robert Carling argued inequality is actually an integral part of a market economy, because the incentive of massive wealth drives and rewards innovation and risk taking. He noted that “if you accept that markets are the best way to organise economic activity … then you must accept some degree of inequality”.

Importantly, he raised the often ignored trade-off between equity and economic efficiency; and the fact that people mistakenly believe increasing taxes and redistributing income is essentially costless. This is not the case.

Another interesting point of view that both Melinda Cilento from CEDA and Jonathan Coppel from the Productivity Commission shared, was that the perception of inequality was also different from reality. When asked, people feel they are worse off and that the benefits of growth are only accruing to the rich.

Yet inequality in Australia has not increased substantially in recent years — in fact it may have decreased. Further, wages have increased across the spectrum in Australia.

In some ways, this is a case where Australia has imported arguments from the US and the UK assuming that they apply here. It’s also related to an increasing focus on, and anger towards, the rich.

Pointing out that the top 1% (or the top 1% of the top 1%) are doing really well and pretending that is the same as broad inequality is an effective way of stoking resentment.

It’s telling that the measures to combat inequality are largely on the revenue side. Focusing on how rich people are, rather than poverty, allows progressives to advocate for massive tax increases and more regulation on the productive sectors of the economy.

These are exactly the kind of things that will hammer economic growth, which — as Carling noted — may harm the disadvantaged more than the redistribution helps them. Tax increases on the rich are perennially popular, but they will not lead to greater prosperity

One big lesson to be drawn from the populist revolt that put Trump in the White House is that people don’t want more redistribution, they want more opportunities. Many in the working class are rejecting the perennial solution of the left (more money and fewer obligations) in favour of the opposite: re-establishing what they believe is the broken link between work and success.

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here