An odd way to fight for equality

Leftists have strange minds.  They all seem to think that you fight racial discrimination by being racially discriminatory ("affirmative action") now one lot  seem to think you fight for equality between the sexes  by treating men and women unequally.  Their devotion to equality is clearly nothing more than insincere propaganda.  It is a convenient pose, not a conviction

A MELBOURNE cafe that caused a social media storm after charging men a tax and seating women first insists it has had a stack of support. And not just from the girls.

Handsome Her, a vegan cafe in Brunswick, said it was charging men 18 per cent more in a bid to address the gender pay gap. The cafe, which clearly advertises its rules on a chalk board, explained men will be charged the premium — and the gap donated to women’s services.

However co-owner Alex O’Brien told Seven News the surcharge, which is in place one week out of every month, wasn’t compulsory. She also said none had so far refused to pay it and in a Facebook post overnight said the idea has been well supported overall.

"If people aren’t comfortable paying it or if men don’t want to pay it, we’re not going to kick them out the door," she said.
"It’s just a good opportunity to do some good."

The idea has caused a mixed reaction on social media, with some supporting the concept.

Others branded it hypocritical and said it would only further widen the gender divide.

Discrimination is illegal, regardless of the spurious intent. Do they hire male staff or do they discriminate there too?

Writing on its Facebook page overnight, the cafe insisted it was jam-packed with customers over the past few days who have supported the cause.

It also insisted it wasn’t just women who were backing the idea.
"We’ve had men travel across town to visit us and pay ‘the man tax’ and throw some extra in the donation jar — guys, you’re pretty neat," the post read.

SOURCE






Australian federal government warns public servants over social media attacks

This is fairly dubious from a free speech point of view but it is true that an employer is entitled to put conditions on the employment he offers

The Turnbull government will today seek to impose restrictions on public servants criticising the Coalition on social media, warning that employees risk disciplinary action for "liking" anti-government posts or privately emailing negative mat­erial to a friend from home.

Documents obtained by The Australian show public servants would also be warned they could be in breach of the public service code of conduct if they do not ­remove "nasty comments" about the government posted by others on the ­employee’s Facebook page.

Under the new policy, liking or sharing anti-government material on a social media platform will generally be taken as an endorsement and as though the public servant had created the material.

Even if a public servant shares a post they do not agree with, and puts an angry face emoji with the post, the employee could still be in breach if their opposition to the post is not made sufficiently clear.

Declaring the code operates "in effect" to limit an individual’s right to freedom of expression, the ­government also warned public ­servants against posting criticism anonymously or under a pseudonym.

Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd said last night that "objectionable material was not miraculously sanitised" by a public servant posting anonymously or using a pseudonym.

"That argument is similar to a burglar arguing that charges should be dismissed because he wore a balaclava," he said.

The Community and Public Sector Union last night accused the government of "overreach".

"It’s completely unreasonable for a worker to face disciplinary ­action over a private email or something as benign as ‘liking’ a social media post," union national secretary Nadine Flood said.

"Of course there needs to be limits but this policy goes too far. The notion that the mum of a gay son who happens to work in Centrelink can’t like a Facebook post on marriage equality without endangering her job is patently ­absurd.

"It is one thing to say that public servants working on a particular government policy shouldn’t be publicly criticising that policy, quite another to say they have no right to engage on social media on anything that could be a community issue."

The policy, which applies across the federal public sector from today, says a public servant could be in breach of the code through material contained in a private email sent to a friend.

"There’s nothing to stop your friend taking a screenshot of that email, including your personal ­details, and sending it to other ­people or posting it all over the ­internet," the policy says.

"Again, the breach of the code is not in their subsequent ­publication of your material, but in your emailing that material in the first place."

The government suggests a public servant could be held ­responsible for "nasty comments" made on the employee’s social media pages by another person.

"Doing nothing about objectionable material that someone else has posted on your page can reasonably be seen in some circumstances as your endorsement of that material," it says. "If someone does post material of this kind, it may be sensible to delete it or make it plain that you don’t agree with it or support it.

"Any breach of the code would not come from the person making the post. It would come from how you reacted to it."

Even if social media pages were locked to a public servant’s friends, the employee would be in breach of the code if the anti-government material was reposted by a friend.

"The breach of the code occurs at the time you made your post," the policy says. It says public comment "includes anything that you say in public or which ends up in public".

"This can include something you’ve said or written to one person,’’ it says. "If your comment has an audience, or a recipient, it’s a public comment."

In relation to posts made after hours, the government says a public servant’s capacity to affect the reputation of their agency and the public service "does not stop when you leave the office". "The comments you make after hours can make people question your ability to be impartial, ­respectful and professional when you are at work," the policy says. "APS employees are required by law to uphold the APS values at all times."

The policy says the common law recognises an individual right to freedom of expression. "This right is subject to limitations such as those imposed by the Public Service Act," it says. "In effect, the code of conduct operates to limit this right."

Mr Lloyd said the government had "not sought to ban ­employees from making public comments, or to limit their access to social media".

"Rather, the guidance sets out the risks public servants need to take into account when they consider what they say and how they say it," he said

Mr Lloyd said public servants needed to think carefully about what they posted and take into ­account whether their comment criticises their agency or their minister, the prime minister or the shadow minister. "The principle that an ­employee should not publicly criticise their employer is a well-established one in both the private and public sectors," he said.

"Public servants should not make comments that could make members of the community doubt either the capacity of the government to deliver services properly or the personal commitment of that employee to their work."

SOURCE






Bill Shorten’s same-sex marriage stance is hypocrisy writ large

Tony Abbott

The real villain in the same-sex marriage imbroglio is Bill Shorten. He is the one who’s playing politics with this issue and stopping it from being resolved in this term of parliament via the plebiscite that people want. It’s Shorten who told church leaders before the 2013 election that a plebiscite would be a good way to resolve this issue and it is Shorten who last week backed a plebiscite to resolve the republican issue, but it is Shorten whose cynical hypocrisy has been ignored because Coalition MPs insist on having public second thoughts about our own policy.

If there is one lesson that MPs and political parties should surely have learnt over the past few years it is that you don’t break promises.

"Say what you mean and do what you say" has to be the cardinal rule and is the only way to keep faith with the electorate. Before last year’s election, the Liberal-National coalition was absolutely crystal clear: there would be no change to marriage laws without asking the people their view at a plebiscite.

This issue, the Coalition said, was too important to be decided just by MPs; all of us would have our say. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull never liked the plebiscite policy but fully grasps the importance of keeping commitments and, to his credit, is now resolute that nothing can change without a plebiscite first.

That’s why the determination of a handful of Liberal MPs to substitute a free vote in the parliament for the promised plebiscite is so fraught. Instead of pointing out to the gay community that it’s Shorten who’s blocking the possibility of change, they want the government to break its solemn pledge to ask the people before changing the law. It’s bad enough that the opposition-controlled senate has stopped the plebiscite from happening. But it would be even worse if government backbenchers used the senate’s intransigence as an excuse to drop the plebiscite altogether. It would dramatically deepen the trust deficit that plagues our public life.

Of course, some Liberals sincerely support same-sex marriage and want it to be available as soon as possible. That’s a respectable minority view inside the Coalition party room.

To accommodate it, after a marathon debate in August 2015, the joint party room decided that MPs would no longer be bound to oppose same-sex marriage — but were certainly bound not to make change without putting it to the people first, preferably through a compulsory attendance ballot that would authoritatively settle the matter.

The careers of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister demonstrate that Coalition MPs do not and should not face punishment for crossing the floor when they honestly and deeply disagree with the party position. On this matter, though, the cohesion of the government and keeping faith with the electorate should weigh just as heavily as deeply-held personal belief. I respectfully suggest that the commitment that all Liberal MPs made to their electorates should tip the balance in favour of a position that they might not personally support but took to the election as part of a team.

At least for this term of parliament, Coalition MPs must remain committed to the position that they collectively and individually took to the election last year.

I don’t underestimate how torn some of my colleagues are, but ask them to consider how unconvincing it sounds to say that you supported a plebiscite before an election but not afterwards because of circumstances beyond your control. Even worse is the proposition that it would be OK to support a suspension of standing orders moved by a dissident Liberal because that, somehow, wouldn’t constitute losing control of the parliament. Like it or not, Coalition MPs are honour-bound to oppose same-sex marriage in the absence of a plebiscite that’s supported it; and we’re equally bound to oppose any move to bring the matter into the parliament without a plebiscite first. That’s what this week’s party meetings should confirm.

What we might do about same- sex marriage beyond this term of parliament is the outstanding question. But it would be odd, when you think about it, to go to one election saying that this is too personal and too deeply felt to be left to the politicians — and to go to the next election saying it should henceforth be a matter for the parliament only. That would make our current position look mere expedience rather than a principled way to treat a concept of marriage that’s stood from time immemorial and long predates the legislation that gives it expression.

The last thing Australia needs is government by opinion poll. But neither do we need political parties that believe one thing one minute and the opposite the next. No one would be shocked should a government hold a plebiscite on compulsory military service. That, after all, is what we did during the Great War. And I don’t recall same-sex marriage advocates objecting to a plebiscite in Ireland in 2015 that went their way.

The Australian people should be heard and respected on this. If nothing else, a plebiscite would force the advocates of change to lobby the public as whole rather than focus on just 226 MPs. If that means any change is further delayed, people know who to blame. It’s Shorten and the Labor-Green left for obstructing a fair decision.

SOURCE




Support Palestine: Stop the Synagogue! (?)

Julius O’Malley left an informative comment on last night’s post about the synagogue that will not be built in a suburb of Sydney. The planning request for a new synagogue in Bondi was turned down, ostensibly because it would cause an increased risk of terrorism in the area.

Mr. O’Malley’s detailed explanation of the local political currents in Bondi and adjacent suburbs provides some welcome nuance on the situation. It seems the purported fear of terrorism is actually just a cover for the time-honored lefty cause of supporting "Palestine" and keeping the Jews down.

The text below has been edited for punctuation:

Here is the judgment of the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales upholding Waverley Council’s refusal of planning permission for a new synagogue at Bondi.

The sad reality is that Jewish institutions are targets of Muslim hostility. Everybody knows it; they don’t want to acknowledge it and don’t want to assume the personal risk of being collateral damage when a synagogue is firebombed, shot up, etc. Islam wins.

While everything Gavin Boby states in the interview is correct, it has little direct bearing on this case as there was no Muslim opposition to the proposed synagogue — which was a Chabad, ultra-Orthodox, synagogue. What makes this case very interesting is the subtext to the refusal of planning permission by the local council — the Court was merely persuaded by the Council’s security concerns argument, as reading the case will make obvious.

To understand the subtext here, one has to understand the demographics of Waverley, the local government area in which Bondi sits. While there are at least five synagogues, several Jewish primary, secondary and pre-schools in Waverley Municipality and several more just beyond its borders, and there is one street in Bondi where the street name is a local byword for the ultra-orthodox Jewish community and another street nearby is simply nicknamed "Kosher Boulevarde", Bondi is not a Jewish neighbourhood per se. Waverley LGA [local government area], less so again, although another of its suburbs to the north of Bondi, Dover Heights, is nicknamed "Jehovah Heights" and its neighbor, Rose Bay, is nicknamed "Nose Bay". Another suburb adjoining Bondi and Waverley, the very affluent Bellevue Hill, has the highest density of Jews (by postcode) in Australia and is nicknamed "Bellejew Hill". It is the other, non-Jewish, demographic of Bondi and of Waverley that is in play here.

Waverley is home to the iconic Bondi Beach and several other beautiful ocean beaches such as Bronte and Tamarama ("Glamarama"). It attracts "Bo-Bo’s" (Bourgeois-Bohemians) and affluent hipsters and has been gentrified since the 1970’s. Such people vote to give the left wing faction of the Labor Party and the Green Party a very substantial, often dominant presence, in the local council and in state parliamentary representation. The left wing of the Labor Party and the Green Party are both deeply, ahem, "pro-Palestine". They are never "anti-Israel", of course, although they are increasingly willing to go on the record as "anti-Zionist".

A recent representative for the seat of Waverley in the NSW state parliament was the former mayor of Waverley, Paul Pearce, who is a member of the left wing faction of the Labor Party (and inherited the seat from another Left Laborite, Ernie Page). The balding Pearce, now cruising through life on a generous parliamentary pension, sports a ponytail and ear-ring and used to wear Che Guevara cufflinks to state parliament. Pearce bequeathed the mayoralty of Waverley to his left-faction Labor Party girlfriend (they are both in their late 50s-early 60s and have lived in Pearce’s father’s impressive multi-million dollar home overlooking Bronte beach for several decades) Ingrid Strewe, who used to speak glowingly of her years living in East Berlin before 1990 where "there was free childcare so women could have careers" — never mind the Stasi.

Getting the picture of Waverley? The Bo-Bo’s, hipsters and others who vote for the likes of Pearce, Strewe and the former Labor Party (left faction) federal candidate for the area, David Patch, or for the Green Party, would never, ever, come out in the open and state "We don’t like Jews and don’t want them or their schools or places of worship around" but … .

I recently obtained a surprising insight into how some people in the Waverley area feel about the armed security guards stationed outside synagogues and Jewish schools. I accept such a presence as a natural and normal response to danger. The wife of an artist from the area, however, whined to me at a dinner about how offensive it was to her that security guards outside a Waverley synagogue would stare at her as she drove past. When I made the point that they had to be wary of who was passing by their synagogue for security reasons, especially on a Saturday, she responded: "They wouldn’t need security guards if they weren’t doing what they’re doing in Palestine"! It is that type of sentiment and viewpoint amongst (presumably many) of the non-Jews of Waverley that drives the refusal of planning permission for a new synagogue at Bondi.

Interestingly, the group that proposed the Bondi synagogue formally called themselves "Friends of Refugees of Eastern Europe"; no doubt in an attempt to garner some of the extraordinary sympathy extended to "refugees" in our era.

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